Conflicted Kerry Can't Carry Electorate

I think the presidential election will ultimately turn on which of the candidates the public trusts more, particularly because we are at war. For any number of reasons, that does not bode well for Sen. Kerry.

It's not just that President Bush is more of a people person and down to earth, or that John Kerry is an out-of-touch elitist. President Bush is also far more comfortable in his own skin than Kerry, which was most obvious in their respective answers to the spiritual question in the third debate.

President Bush fully embraced the loaded question "What part does your faith play on your policy decisions?" (The mainstream media, indeed the entire secular culture, has been on Bush's case over his faith since before he was elected.) The question was designed to make him squirm for having made his guiding faith a matter of public record. Instead, he admitted that "faith plays a big part in [his] life," that he "prays a lot" for strength, wisdom, comfort and calm, and that he loves that others pray for him and his family. But he said he never wants to impose his religion on anyone else.

This is hardly the testimony of an arrogant man, but a God-fearing, humble servant. I guarantee you that many people can relate to his touching answer and will appreciate his candor. They'll find reassurance in his reliance on God for strength in these difficult times.

But non-Christians should not feel threatened. Not once did he say or imply that he has a mainline to God or that God put him where he is. He pledged to protect the right of people of all faiths to worship as they please. And as a Christian, he means every word of that.

John Kerry, on the other hand, flinched nervously at the question and then offered an answer that seemed more calculated than heartfelt. After a forced, token response, he shifted into a John Edwardsesque two-Americas rant.

But it's not just the faith issue that unveils Kerry's counterfeit character. His whole persona reeks of stiffness and a choreographed artificiality. And his positions on most other issues reveal him as a bundle of contradictions, a walking paradox, a human oxymoron, a square peg trying to fit into a round hole.

Whereas George Bush is steady and consistent on almost every issue, consider the agony John Kerry must experience trying to reconcile his positions.

He claims to be a fiscal hawk, but he lacks the courage to tackle entitlements, and his spending proposals on health care and education alone would send the deficit into the stratosphere. He says life begins at conception but opposes restrictions on abortion. He pretends to be a friend to gays, but opposes gay marriage - sort of - and rudely invokes Mary Cheney's homosexuality.

Kerry decries dirty campaigning while fraudulently calling President Bush a liar daily. He says he would cut taxes, but his record shows he's a consistent tax raiser. He says he favors tort reform, while his running mate and many of his biggest supporters are trial lawyers. He says he'll be tough on terror when he's been anti-war all his life. He swears he'll be tough in Iraq, while insisting it's the wrong war. He complains that Iraq is an unworthy cause and slanders our existing coalition partners, yet wants us to believe - mystifyingly - that he can build a bigger coalition.

He's a proud liberal, but acts ashamed of it, even denies it. He panders to gun owners while championing gun control. He extols multilateralism but rejects it for North Korea. He boasts sophistication but has a myopically simplistic perspective on the War on Terror, thinking it's about Osama only.

He holds himself out as a strong leader, but his Senate record exposes him as a cipher. He's a champion of the poor, but as rich as Croesus. All of a sudden he denounces judicial activism, though he's been applying a disqualifying litmus test to all constitutionalist judicial nominees. He promises a brighter future, while painting a picture of irreparable doom and gloom. He says he cares about race relations, yet manufactures vicious, despicable stories that Republicans plan to suppress black votes. He is a proud military hero, but won't release his records.

Unlike President Bush, John Kerry is conflicted about who he is and on the scores of issues on which he is campaigning. The public, I trust, will finally pick up on this (because "he can run, but he can't hide") and send him back to Massachusetts.

Actually hJohn Kerry can run, but he will only die tired cause he can't run or hide from the truth.

John F. Kerry did not become a military officer by enlisting; he became an officer by a commission in the Navy. He held a reserve commission from December 16, 1966 to February 16, 1978.

Although John Kerry’s January 2, 1970 release from active duty was under honorable conditions, speculation is misconduct while he was in the Naval Reserves resulted in a less than honorable dismissal that required a “board of officers convened under authority of Title 10 U.S. Code Section 1163” that determined his discharge was honorable. The approved recommendations of a convened board of officers are unusual and this is part of the cause for speculation a dismissal was upgraded to an honorable discharge.

It is unclear from the records if all his commitment and obligation in the Naval Reserve was inactive duty status. However, U.S. Navy correspondence pertinent to his release from active duty states: “You are advised that your release from active duty does not terminate your status as a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve. On the day following the effective date of your release from active duty as specified in paragraph 3 of this endorsement, you will assume the status of a member of the Naval Reserve on inactive duty. While on inactive duty you are subject to involuntary recall to active duty to the extent authorized by Federal statute.”

If John F. Kerry completed his entire military obligation on inactive duty status, he would only be subject to trial by court martial under Articles 83, 104, or 106. The authority for this is found in Rule 202 Persons Subject to Jurisdictions to Courts-Martial, which expands upon Article 2 that defines classes of persons subject to the code. Only Article 104-Aiding the enemy has any connection to the conduct and behavior of John Kerry if his reserve time was nothing but inactive duty status. However, it is enough to give a second cause to speculate he some how influenced a dismissal into an honorable discharge.

It is public record John F. Kerry met with both delegation of Vietnamese Communists in Paris France in 1970 and it is allegedly in FBI files that he met with representatives from the North Vietnamese government in Paris France in 1971. Considering also his very active and visible leadership role in the antiwar movement, it is clear he was in direct violation of the UCMJ and Constitutional Codes and articles. “The scope of article 104 is it denounces offences by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court martial or military by military commission.” “The nature of the offense is no unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible.” It is clear John F. Kerry knowingly and purposely aided the enemy. Consequently, the majority of Vietnam Veterans do consider him a traitor, betrayer, and a liar.

The dismissal is the commissioned officer version of a dishonorable discharge. Any dismissal subsequent to an honorable discharge null and voids any previous honorable discharge and any awards and decorations. Consequently, there are administrative peculiarities in the documents and certificates of some of John Kerry’s decorations that provide cause for some to believe the medal were revoked and then awarded back to him.

Even if John Kerry was not subject to jurisdictions to military court martial, he violated U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, which declares it is illegal for a U.S. citizen to go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power. Violating the United States Constitution is something he believes he can do whenever he decides. His first foreign policy action as a freshman senator in 1985 was to visit with Sandinista officials to include three hours of direct and personal negation with Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. This was also a direct violation of federal code and sections of the U.S. Constitution.

Senator John F. Kerry’s voting record as an elected official of government doesn't demonstrate a commitment to ensuring American fighting forces, intelligence gathering agencies, and law enforcement agencies are equipped and trained to do what is needed to keep our homelands safe. Senator Kerry has an inability to work effectively with Presidents who does not share his views. His mischief as senator to participate in unauthorized and secret negotiations with leaders and officials of other governments and the United Nations that are putting the lives of our armed forced in jeopardy in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is his sense of duty and sense of the good life can easily result in more harm than safety, more taxes than advertised in campaign promises, and other consequences. What kind of deals is he cutting to get the support of foreign countries and peoples? Why is the left wing Guardian newspaper of London identifying American voters and encouraging its readers to write letters to American voter’s encouraging them to vote for John F. Kerry?

The lack of inquiry and interest by the news media undermines the purpose for having a free press. Freedom of the press is an essential essence of liberty and the better time for vigilance is before misinformed voters make choices.

I added this to the first paragraph after posting. It makes clearer the significance of a commission and why John F. Kerry needs to be truthful to the voters.

Commissioned officers are direct representatives of the president of the United States. Commissions are legal instruments the president uses to appoint and exercise direct control over qualified people to act as his legal agents and help him carry out his duties. The appointment to a commission has three requirements: The President or Service secretary must make the appointment; the military service must offer the appointment to the person, usually by giving the person a letter of appointment and an oath of office; and, the person must accept the appointment. Taking the oath of office is the most common method of accepting the appointment. Unlike draft that involuntarily inducts individuals into enlisted service, the military cannot force anyone to accept an appointment. If you have a service obligation and refuse an appointment, you must serve your obligated period as an enlisted person. John F. Kerry enlisted prior to accepting his appointment because he had incurred a service obligation perhaps because he was a military scholarship recipient or perhaps his number came up in the draft and he used an education option available to become an officer.

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.