President Kerry? (Joseph Farah Responds To Readers Comments On His Editorial)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 04/23/04 | Joseph Farah

[goldstategop]

President Kerry?

Joseph Farah

Well, now that I have your attention ...

Let's see, I would estimate that I have received at least 1,000 e-mails on my last column, predicting John Kerry will win the presidential election in November.

Some people have mistaken my prediction as an endorsement. Obviously, these folks have not read the volumes I have written previously on the junior senator from Massachusetts.

I think he's a disgrace. As I mentioned in my last column, I believe his election would be a national disaster. I think he's a traitor to his country. I wouldn't be surprised if he is a sleeper agent for some totalitarian foreign country. My opinion of John Kerry could not be lower.

His election will no doubt be personally and professionally devastating to me, just as eight years of Bill Clinton was. Need I remind you that I was targeted for harassment and intimidation throughout the Clinton years. The full story is told for the first time in the new book by Richard Poe, "Hillary's Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists."

I think Kerry is a fraud, as well as a self-serving political hack.

In other words, I do not want to see Kerry enter the White House – not even as a visitor.

Yet, many people interpreted my prediction that he will win the election as tacit support. Some believe because I will not vote for President Bush, that I am ensuring Kerry's victory.

Let me make this clear: If anyone is ensuring Kerry's victory, it is President Bush. I do not intend to reward him for that tragedy with my support.

I have a minimal standard for politicians to get my support: They must uphold the Constitution of the United States. George Bush fails that test. I wish it wasn't so. I wish I could support him, because I think he will do less damage to the country than Kerry.

But it's time to stop taking this nation to hell on the slow road. It's time to start turning it around. It's time, to coin a phrase, to start "Taking America Back."

That's what I'm talking about.

Why do I say George Bush doesn't support the Constitution?

prescription drug program

farm bill

other outrageous spending federal programs nowhere authorized by the founding documents

amnesty for illegal aliens

I could go on and on. But I knew this was coming in 2000 and told you then. I have met George Bush exactly once. In my presence, he was asked point blank what he would do if confronted with unconstitutional legislation on his desk. His response?

"How would I know if it were unconstitutional?"

Anyone asking such a stupid question is unworthy and unfit for the highest office in the land.

If he doesn't know what the Constitution says, why does he take an oath to uphold it? Why does he seek a position where he is sworn to uphold it? Why does he seek to hold on to such an office?

I don't dislike President Bush. In fact, he seems like an engaging guy. But he is not upholding that minimal standard that every American should require.

That's not unusual. I can't think of a recent president who has cared about the Constitution. The last was probably Ronald Reagan.

We won't ever get a Reagan again – and we certainly won't get better – by settling for the lesser of two evils every four years.

The pressure on presidents to get along and compromise with the out-of-control federal establishment is enormous. Even Reagan didn't always live up to the test. But Bush doesn't even understand that there is a test – that there are standards.

That is unacceptable. I won't go there. I didn't make the mistake in 2000 and I'm not about to make it now.

[goldstategop]

Joseph Farah again is asked why he won't support President Bush for re-election. His response is he doesn't live up to the test. Which is upholding the Constitution and getting the federal government out of our lives. You may think its too high a hurdle for those who want to be President to meet. Its still a legitimate question. Bring on the debate!

[squidly]

No biggie to me. If you and Farah want Kerry, you can have him.

[Choose Ye This Day]

But it's time to stop taking this nation to hell on the slow road.

Yep. It's time to elect Kerry and go to hell at full speed. Good thinking, Mr. Farah.

[Democratshavenobrains]

If spending wasteful amounts of money was the basis all people used not to vote, there would be no one in the House or Senate.

[Texasforever]

Its still a legitimate question. Bring on the debate!

There can be no debate. Why? Because he is using his personal "constitutional interpretation" to set the terms of debate. Now, which constitution is he using? There are 20+ versions of that document to consider.

[jeremiah]

I can feel the pain in his heart as he contemplates voting for someone other than Bush or Kerry. Obviously, it gives an edge to Kerry by doing so. He has to live with his choice, as do I. If there were another Democrat nominee, I would vote for them out of spite, but no way should Kerry get close to the Presidency....

[Texasforever]

Is anyone else having trouble with getting the "latest" post page? All I get is the thread listings.

[LdSentinal]

His previous article wasn't concerned about why he wouldn't be supporting Bush; it concerned why he thought he John Kerry would become president.

His entire thesis was based on the Democratic convention catapulting Kerry to the lead in July and keeping the lead. It was such a silly article. Farah is distorting his previous article to conform to his reasons for not supporting Bush.

[truth_seeker]

The next President will come from the Republican or Democrat party.

Discussing other ways to vote is intellectual masterbation in public. Some "get off" that way.

National Security trumps all. The prospect of turning security over to a democrat of Kerry's stripes is all any rational voter needs to weigh.

Next. Supreme Court appointments. Again, a Kerry win would be a disaster, of long range implications.

Either Or. Binary reasoning.

Now a more rational course of action would be: How to put Bush on notice that in exchange for all the votes of conservatives, constitutionalists, he will be expected to veer their way in his 2nd term.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Why I've written Joe Farah off as a good guy who turned into a self-righteous whacko.

Nowadays Farah Fawcett has more brains...

[Diddle E. Squat]

He's like the psycho gals who always threaten suicide for attention or to get 100% their way.

[nopardons]

Joe is out of what little mind he ever had.

He's a dog in the manger purist,who would rather have John F'in Kerry as president, which he says would be a disaster,than Bush,because W doesn't live up to what Joe imagines to be upholding the Constitution.

What this article blatantly fails to state,is that Joe has been anti-Bush longer than Bush has been president.Joe has been nothing but a Bushbasher, from the time of the 2000 primary season.

It's enablers like Joe, who gave us the Clintons and who would happily give us a presidentkerry.

[Choose Ye This Day]

I'm not sure. I see what the threads are, and it does have a link for the NUMBER of the most recent post. But I can't read the text of the most recent posts. Is that unusual? I don't usually look at the Latest Posts page.

[Texasforever]

Good points. The last refuge of a "conservative scorned" is to wrap his pet peeve in the guise of "constitutional betrayal". Joe has been on a rampage ever since he encountered tax problems years ago and the GOP didn't come to his aid. I will never forget his published plea to the democrats to help him since the "evil GOP" had ignored him.

[Texasforever]

Yes. Usually you can see individual posts listed by thread title as it is bumped. It shows the user name of each user that has posted to the thread.

[risk]

Just because we want to reelect President Bush doesn't mean we don't have opinions about what he should do differently. I hope he's listening to FR.

[MEG33]

I believe he has every right to vote in a way that helps Kerry.I believe he can stand on his principles and tut tut against Bush's lack of proper constitutional action.

I pray he and his fans don't leave America with a Kerry Presidency.That would be a sad day for our country...but at least Farah could feel good about his principles.

[Young Rhino]

Some hold their noses and vote for Bush as the lesser of two evils (including me).

Others, like Farah, hold their breath, hoping that if they can convince others to turn blue in the face too that the 100% conservative purity test will somehow be met by a viable candidate who gives in to their personal interpretations of conservative holy writ. Isn't going to happen.

Farah is following the road of Pat Buchanan...and doing it rather poorly.

[LibLieSlayer]

kerry= We lose to the terrorist. How do you look in a sheet, and turban?

President Bush= We continue killing terrorists, continue pressure on terror states, and continue to live in the most prosperous and free nation to grace the earth.

In the War on Terror, we are locked in a battle of good vs. evil. President Bush's deep faith in GOD will stand us in good stead. On the other hand, kerry uses religion as a "soundbite".

What stinkin' debate?

LLS

[america-rules]

"The last was probably Ronald Reagan. "

What a two faced idiot !

Look at Reagan's long list of "issues" he signed off on and you would be very depressed. But, look at the rest he did and you get the entire picture and he wasn't bad at all.

Take Bush's long list of good things and put them up against the bad and it's not even close!

To say you won't vote for Bush is just a ploy to get more traffic to his site.