Gay Patriot Header Image

Kerry Continues to Destroy America

Whether he is calling members of the US military “terrorists” or undermining the Commander In Chief in a time of war, John Kerry has a history of trying to destroy our nation.  Now he is undermining our electoral process….

An e-mail from Kerry will be sent to 100,000 Democratic donors Tuesday asking them to support U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland for governor of Ohio. The bulk of the e-mail criticizes Strickland’s opponent, GOP Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, for his dual role in 2004 as President Bush’s honorary Ohio campaign co-chairman and the state’s top election official.

“He used the power of his state office to try to intimidate Ohioans and suppress the Democratic vote,” Kerry says in the e-mail, according to a copy provided in advance.

Kerry, D-Massachusetts, conceded the election when he lost Ohio and its 20 electoral votes. A recount requested by minor-party candidates showed Bush won by about 118,000 votes out of 5.5 million cast. But Kerry’s e-mail says Blackwell “used his office to abuse our democracy and threaten basic voting rights.”

Kerry has absolutely no facts (something many GP commenters can relate to) to back up his 35-year history of bashing America.  Unfortunately, he is one of the leaders of the modern Democratic Party.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

59 Comments

  1. Its hate filled, idiotic and an obvious attempt to deride a man who has fought for this country.

    LOL….Benedict Arnold also “fought for this country”, but casually turned around and tried to betray it when a) he didn’t get the promotions he wanted and b) when he didn’t get the public adulation he wanted.

    In revenge, he offered the enemy the key strongpoint on the Hudson River — which, had they succeeded in taking it, would have effectively split the colonies in two and quite possibly broken the back of the Revolution.

    In a similar fashion, we see Kerry’s practice.

    Kerry didn’t care that the Vietnamese Communists were planning to murder, torture, and “re-educate” millions of people when he bargained with them in an attempt to increase his political standing in the US.

    Kerry didn’t care that his lies in front of Congress would lead to more undeserved hate and chants of “baby killer” against his fellow Vietnam vets — because his doing so would get him the support of antiwar and anti-military Democrats like Jane Fonda.

    Kerry has demonstrated throughout his political history that John Kerry comes first and that he will sacrifice any group if he thinks it will advance him politically — including the portion of the American public that doesn’t believe in appeasing terrorists and blaming the United States for terrorist attacks against it.

    In short, Kerry will give away West Point to Osama bin Laden if it will help him get elected.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 5, 2006 @ 11:56 am - September 5, 2006

  2. “In short, Kerry will give away West Point to Osama bin Laden if it will help him get elected.”
    That along with your comparison to Kerry and Arnold is laughably ridiculous
    You are so blinded by ideology that you have poisoned yourself with your own venom and have become irrelevant.
    But it shows what rightists do when someone who has seen war tells the truth and suggests new tactics…you SLANDER him/her

    Comment by keogh — September 5, 2006 @ 12:32 pm - September 5, 2006

  3. But it shows what rightists do when someone who has seen war tells the truth and suggests new tactics…you SLANDER him/her

    But you see, Keogh, Kerry repeatedly demonstrated that he did NOT tell the truth.

    He admitted that he had lied about several details of his missions in Vietnam, including his “Christmas in Cambodia” claim.

    He admitted that he had lied to Congress and deliberately exaggerated events in Vietnam to make the situation look worse.

    He slandered numerous Republican AND Democratic veterans by his support of Democratic leftists like Jane Fonda, who said that these people were “baby killers” and deserved to be tortured.

    Furthermore, Keogh, the reason you are dodging and spinning rather than confronting the fact that the Vietnamese Communists who Kerry “engaged” ended up killing, murdering, and torturing millions of people is because it undermines your own argument — that appeasing genocidal and hate-filled terror groups will lead to peace.

    What it leads to is the US turning its back while people are systematically eradicated based on their skin color, religious beliefs, or national origin — but I suppose with groups that you and Kerry find undesirable, like the Vietnamese or Jews, that isn’t a problem.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 5, 2006 @ 1:44 pm - September 5, 2006

  4. Good comments NDT, except that saying Kerry “admitted” his own lies may be too strong a word.

    Kerry has backed away from his “Christmas in Cambodia” story, true. But to my knowledge, he has never “admitted” it was an outright fabrication – as, of course, it was. (For details, here is one place to start from: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002203.php)

    Likewise, Kerry may have backed away from his sensational and false 1971 Congressional testimony that launched the “Vietnam baby killer” myth and Kerry’s own fame. But, to my knowledge, he has never apologized for it, i.e., never “admitted” his falsehoods.

    Finally – keogh would do well to recall the meaning of the word “slander”. It isn’t a slander, if it’s true. Truth is an absolute defense against charges of slander. Any point the right wing makes about Kerry that happens to be true, is, by definition, no slander.

    Comment by Calarato — September 5, 2006 @ 2:03 pm - September 5, 2006

  5. The problem with rightists is that if you allege something enough it becoems true.
    Not whether or not it actually is fact.
    When the facts are not clear, you rightists assert that you are the holders of the truth.
    And you assert your ideas as truth again and again and again until you foolishly actually believe in your own version of the truth.
    Fact:
    Did Kerry pull that republican out of the water under enemy fire?
    Yes he did.
    So he is a war veteran and the person who he pulled out of the water has called him a HERO.
    Is suggesting different tactics “continuing to destroy” America?
    No it is not, and he shouldn’t be slandered by the likes of Bruce and NDT.
    That’s the point.
    Calarato, it maybe good for you to distance yourself from Slanderers such as NDT.
    They lead you down the path of intellectual ridiculousism.
    But it maybe to late for you.

    Comment by keogh — September 5, 2006 @ 2:41 pm - September 5, 2006

  6. LOL….again, Keogh, Benedict Arnold won several battles for the American cause during the Revolution and could quite rightly be called a hero for his valor under fire.

    But given his actions, that heroism really means very little, doesn’t it?

    Perhaps Kerry can explain why he pulled that person out of the water — and then went on to lie and slander them before the US Congress to enhance his political career.

    Perhaps Kerry can explain why he claimed that the welfare of the Vietnamese people was his concern in lying about the war — especially when he did everything in his power to facilitate their being handed over to murderous thugs who killed and tortured millions of them.

    The true war hero type is someone like John McCain — who not only showed bravery under fire, but can also stand next to someone like Kerry who supported torturing and brutally imprisoning McCain because he was a “baby killer” without decking him.

    Kerry is like Benedict Arnold — to enhance his own prestige and power, he would willingly hand the US over to terrorists and their supporters. Kerry’s “new tactics” involve systematically blinding our intelligence services, withdrawing our armed forces to places they can’t act, gutting our defense capabilities, and giving genocidal maniacs like Hizbollah the “open season” that they want on Jews without fear of reprisal.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 5, 2006 @ 2:57 pm - September 5, 2006

  7. “Kerry is like Benedict Arnold — to enhance his own prestige and power, he would willingly hand the US over to terrorists and their supporters.”

    Another laughably ridiculous Slander by NDT.
    You have become a parody or yourself.

    Comment by keogh — September 5, 2006 @ 3:08 pm - September 5, 2006

  8. NDXXX, I hadn’t contemplated the comparison of Kerry to Gen Benedict Arnold –but it works on a number of levels as you point out.

    Just because keogh-of-the-lower-case-clan doesn’t tolerate the truth, doesn’t make it any less credible a comparison. I’ve been toying with a similar comparsion: Gore and Aaron Burr –both egotists supreme who have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 6, 2006 @ 2:08 pm - September 6, 2006

  9. I always thought John Murtha was a good comparison to Benedict Arnold, but Kerry actually is the better comparison.

    It’s interesting that the Greatest Democrat War Hero is a guy who spent four months in Vietnam and got purple hearts for, basically, cuts and scratches that didn’t even require hospitalization.

    Comment by V the K — September 6, 2006 @ 3:18 pm - September 6, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.