Replies

EXEPT THIS:
Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare. (see photo below). The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Since Lt. Kerry engaged in insurrection, rebellion and gave aid and comfort to the enemy while a member of the U.S. Armed Forces in violation of his oath, John Kerry should discontinue his campaign for the presidency and resign his seat in the U.S. Senate. Kerry disgraced his citizenship, and dishonored the USA. He is not fit for any public office, much less the highest office in the land.

John Forbes Kerry should also be tried for treason on behalf of the thousands of GIs who were killed and maimed while Kerry was aiding their enemy, and held to account for his part in the slaughter of millions of Asians by communists after the US abandoned SE Asia.

MOST AMERICANS ARE NOT AWARE OF THIS. WITH ALL THE STUFF COMING OUT (SBVFT) PLUS THIS, IT WILL CREATE MORE CONTROVERSY AND MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT KERRY'S FIT TO BE BE PRESIDENT. I DON'T WANT KERRY AS PRESIDENT FOR THE NEXT 4-8 YEARS, DO YOU?

This document certainly does not appear "normal"

1. It was "compiled" by a JAG officer in the Ofc of Legal Counsel......have you ever seen such a thing before? It contains only a few dates and a very minimal description of and NO DETAILS from the routine documents it purportedly represents.

2. Strangely, this "document" was typed on a plain sheet of paper, not a DOD form.

3. It was created on Jan 21, 1985, yet it contains no information newer than 1973! (be sure to scroll all the way down to see this 1985 notice)

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Service_Record.pdf

I would love to hear a plausible and reasonable explanation for so mush as even the existence of this "writing".