WHY I'M AFRAID OF JOHN KERRY (Neal Boortz)

There's plenty of time in the weeks to come to expand on this, but here are just a few of the reasons, presented in Cliff Notes form, of why John Kerry scares me:

Sovereignty I'll make this number one. We all know that John Kerry changes positions to make the maximum appeal to voters at any particular point in time. When Kerry was NOT trying to appeal to voters he said that U.S. troops should not be deployed overseas without the "permission" of the United Nations. Just how much power would Kerry give the UN over our decisions on national defense? How much would Kerry give up to the European Union in order to gain the "popularity" he so desires over there.

Terrorism: You may believe differently, but I believe that the Islamic terrorists would prefer Kerry in office. I think that they see him as weaker than George Bush. Well, so do I.

Consistency: John Kerry hammers home the fact that he would have formed an international coalition to dispose of Saddam. Well, when George Bush 41 formed just such a coalition to get Saddam out of Kuwait, Kerry voted "no." When George Bush 43 formed a somewhat smaller coalition to get Saddam out of Iraq, Kerry voted "yes." Someone make sense out of this for me please.

Social Security: Face it, the system is a disaster. Kerry wants to continue the present course. Bush has this wild-eyed idea that your money should be placed into an account with your name on it ... and account that you can exercise some control over. 'Nuff said.

Socialized Medicine: OK, it's probably inevitable, given the cowardice of the American people ... but I want to stall it off as long as possible. Kerry's medical care spending plans total over one trillion dollars over the next ten years. We can't afford it without even more confiscatory taxes.

Higher taxes: Kerry has pledged to raise taxes on "the rich." The problem here is that the rich folks that Kerry is talking about, families with incomes higher than $200,000 a year, are the very people who own Americas small business jobs machine. Increased taxes on these people are jobs killers.

More government: Kerry is a typical Democrat. He believes America is great because of government, and the way to make America even greater is to expand that government. OK, so Bush isn't much better in this regard, but I would rather give Bush a second term to correct the error of his ways than to give Kerry a fresh start for eight years to make the burden of big-government even greater.

His record: Kerry's entire presidential campaign is based on four short months in Vietnam. Four months in Vietnam, 20 years in the United States Senate. What did he accomplish in those 20 years? Answer? Nothing. And that's the record he's running on?

Vice presidential Democratic candidate John Edwards was at AFL-CIO conference yesterday. At that conference we saw a banner which read "Working Families for Kerry-Edwards." Be aware, dear listeners, that this whole "working families" nonsense is all part of the left's class warfare agenda. This "working families" phrase is designed to instill in the American subconscious the idea that lower and middle income "union" type people actually work for their money, while the upper income American's don't. Carry this one step further. Since the rich don't actually "work" for their money, there's really nothing all that wrong with seizing even more of it to spread out amongst those who do work.

Yesterday while campaigning at the Grand Canyon (no doubt stumping for the foreign tourist vote,) The Poodle said that he would have voted for the use-of-force resolution against Iraq even if he had know there would be no weapons of mass destruction found. Say what?

You've got to be kidding me. This is pretty rich. So let's get this straight: sKerry goes to the Fleet Center a couple of weeks ago, makes his speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination and in his acceptance speech accuses the president of misleading the country into a war to remove Saddam Hussein. Then, a few weeks later, he tells us he would have done the same thing. Welcome to Splitting Hairs 101. Unbelievable.

This latest flip-flop (and it's a big one) underscores the Kerry campaign strategy of being both for and against every major issue. With Iraq, he is now saying that he would have still voted for the presidential authority to invade Iraq but had he been president (In the Poodle's world, he would have been both voting in the Senate and president at the same time,) he would have used the authority effectively. In other words, I agree with what the president did, I just would have done it differently. How convenient.

Since the devil is in the details, just what would he have done differently? Well .. .his plan is a "secret" one, much like Nixon's plan to get us out of Vietnam. Kerry will say that he would appeal to the foreign leaders. He would use his incredible charisma and statesmanship abilities to get the rest of the world to get them to commit more troops to Iraq. And just what part of American sovereignty would he give away to do this? He isn't saying. Why doesn't somebody go ask Russia, France and Germany if The Poodle could have persuaded them to send troops to Iraq? The answer would still be the same. Kerry also says he would pull troops out of Iraq, but doesn't say how many, or when, or if that could be done.

Even Democrats are starting to realize that this guy is a fraud ... and they're squirming.

Militant Muslim Cleric and Islamic terrorist Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Shiite militia that has been battling U.S. forces across Iraq made an appearance yesterday. He said that he would fight "until the last drop of my blood has been spilled." Don't you think it's about time we gave him his wish?

So why hasn't the insurgency been crushed anyway? Why isn't al-Sadr pushing up daisies? Because we have been too nice. We're not unleashing the full fury of the United States military to ensure maximum victory. We're too worried about appearances, and how this or that will look, instead of getting the bad guys and whacking as many terrorists as possible.

Do you think the Islamic terrorists are worried about civilian casualties and world opinion? Not a chance. On the contrary, they are counting on our weakness. So instead of going all-out to bring these Islamic jihadists to their knees, we're nibbling around the edges. It's time to get off the fence, take no prisoners and end this "insurgency" once and for all.

There's never a day that goes by that you can't find numerous examples of liberal bias in the media (especially since it's a presidential election year.) But this one is so bad and so blatant, it bears reviewing.

Easily one of the least political first ladies ever, and one of the most well-liked is Laura Bush. She tends to speak about issues with which probably no one can disagree with, and she even went to visit Jacques Chirac in France. But yesterday, while campaigning in Pennsylvania, Mrs. Bush decided to defend her husband's policy on not federally funding certain lines of stem cell research. By the way, President Bush has not banned any stem cell research, ever. Just so you know.

Anyway, she correctly called "ridiculous" the idea that her husband was banning stem cell research "one of the myths that start during a campaign." She also pointed out that embryonic stem cell research was very preliminary, and is nowhere near yielding any cures. Then she said The Poodle was was trying to make a political issue out of it without saying what's right, and she said "I imagine he knows better."

Well, you would have thought that Laura Bush had joined the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, because the media came unglued, and in headlines accused Laura Bush of bashing John Kerry. That's right, simply stating the facts about an issue with which the liberal candidate disagrees is bashing.

But where was the media when everybody was criticizing George Bush for his national guard service? Was that not bashing? Where were the headlines? Nowhere to be found, because the left-wing journalists in this country would never allow it.

The mainstream media sticks to their template even in the face of commons sense.

You need to know that the nationwide movement to bring non-citizens, even illegal aliens, to the polls in local elections is growing. The latest hotbed of this movement is the District of Columbia (the "DC" in Washington DC for those of you who went to government schools.) There are already several cities in the US where aliens, illegal and legal, can vote in local elections. This movement exists in Democratic party circles. They know that aliens, legal and illegal, generally vote Democratic .. and it's all part of a plan to expand the Democrat voting base.

Allowing non-citizens to vote cheapens the value of American citizenship. It tells immigrants that they can become a part of our political system without investing any effort into actually learning of our history, or form of government and our heritage.

We need a federal law which denies federal funds to any state or local jurisdiction which allows non-citizens to vote in local elections. That would put a stop to this nonsense.

The Democratic National Committee is running television ads which state that President Bush policies favor corporations that move their headquarters overseas. Now on the surface this charge seems pretty serious ... but it's a charge that only works with the uninformed. That's no surprise. Democrats know that the less a voter actually knows about the issues, the more likely that voter is to vote Democratic. The Democratic Party is the party of ignorance.

To my knowledge, the United States is the ONLY industrialized nation in the world that taxes corporations headquartered within its borders on earnings realized from overseas operations. If you move your headquarters, but not your manufacturing facilities and workforce, out of the country that extra tax burden disappears. A European auto maker with a plant in the US does not pay taxes in their home country on earnings realized from sales in the US. An American auto maker with a manufacturing and sales operation in Europe pays US federal income taxes on earnings realized in Europe. Even a Democratic voter can figure out that this puts the US automaker at a competitive disadvantage.

Arguments like this "moving corporate headquarters overseas" nonsense only appeals to the ignorant and uninformed ... which means it appeals to voters likely to vote for Democrats.

Do you notice that since the 9/11 Commission came out with their report you don't hear Democrats and Poodle supporters yelling "he lied" any more? You would think that if Bush were such a liar that sometime in the past year just one of my caller would have risen to the challenge to disclose just one of those lies to my listeners.

Did you see left-wing talk show host Nancy Skinner on CNN this morning? She was ranting and raving about the Swiftees and their anti-Kerry ad. She said that they are tied to a "mysterious" right-wing donor, and, of course, to Carl Rove. "Mysterious?" The man she's referring to is a Houston, Texas homebuilder. How mysterious is that? You want mysterious? Try the Hungarian-born international financier named George Soros who is funding the Media Fund and Moveon.org ads against George Bush.

A Georgia judge has finally ordered former NFL star Andre Rison to jail. Shooting up a Kroger wasn't enough, but not paying child support is. Finally.

Do you want to waste some money? Donate it to Alan Keyes' senatorial campaign in Illinois. Comparing Barack Obama to a slaveholder is going nowhere.

Never has the left-wing bias of the media been more blatant. Make a charge about George Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard and the media immediately demands details and investigations. Make a charge about John Kerry's service in Vietnam and the media reacts with horror and demands investigations ... of the people who asked the questions about Kerry's service.

Just how much power would Kerry give the UN over our decisions on national defense?

Well he would do what France tells him to do, and that ain`t no joke. Let`s not forget the true homeland of Jacques Kerry.

Kerry has pledged to raise taxes on "the rich."

And everyone else with it.

Do you want to waste some money? Donate it to Alan Keyes' senatorial campaign in Illinois. Comparing Barack Obama to a slaveholder is going nowhere.

Alan Keyes has this "legend in his own mind" quality I never liked.

That comparison was dumb. It was really, really dumb.

To his credit, perhaps, John Kerry does not inspire. No one has EVER said that "I am voting for John Kerry because...." unless the "because" was followed by "he's not George Bush."

Does anyone remember Robert Dole in 1996? Now there was a decorated war hero who had been under fire in a most intense way, and even he inspired people vastly more than John F. Kerry ever could. And still he lost against an incumbent.

----That comparison was dumb. It was really, really dumb.----

I disagree -- I'm thrilled Keyes made it. I have always seen in the national struggle over abortion, eerie and stark parallels with the 19th Century abolition movement.

And given Boortz's pro-abortion stance, I don't really care what he thinks about the slaveholder comparison.

Of course, Keyes doesn't have a chance in hell of winning an Illinois Senate seat -- that being the case, why not go for broke and oratorically unleash the fire that is in the hearts of millions of Americans who almost never hear this kind of thing from a candidate for national office? Keyes is going to go down, so it might as well be in a blaze of glory. Give Obama all you've got, Alan.

-Dan

This "working families" phrase is designed to instill in the American subconscious the idea that lower and middle income "union" type people actually work for their money, while the upper income American's don't. Carry this one step further. Since the rich don't actually "work" for their money, there's really nothing all that wrong with seizing even more of it to spread out amongst those who do work.

Actually, the filthy rich such as Teresa Heinz never worked for their money.

However, since only income by earners and not unearned wealth is taxed, we have the situation where John Kerry has the benefit of living a $600 million lifestyle but, in his first 2003 IRS filing, was paying less income taxes than I was.

The Democrats want to "Tax The Rich"?

I am all for it.

Lets have a 5% tax per annum on any unearned wealth over $10 million.

Under that system, the Heinz-Kerry's would have paid at least $30 million in taxes last year and still had $570 million left over to play with.

John Kerry and Teresa Heinz: PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE IN TAXES!

----That comparison was dumb. It was really, really dumb.----

I disagree -- I'm thrilled Keyes made it. I have always seen in the national struggle over abortion, eerie and stark parallels with the 19th Century abolition movement.

And given Boortz's pro-abortion stance, I don't really care what he thinks about the slaveholder comparison.

Thank you! The only reason why the comparison is dumb to Neal is because it impales HIM and every other pro-abort! But everything else Neal said is right on. He cracks me up when he calls Kerry "The Poodle"!

Socialized medicine is a disaster in Vermont. Everything that you hear about the Canadian system is already exhibiting itself in Vermont, the long waits, the substitution of narcotic drugs for treatment of pain in lieu of surgery. It might work for well check-ups, but just let something go wrong and you may as well be uninsured.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.