Author Topic: KERRY NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT?  (Read 579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GhostHunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
KERRY NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT?
« on: October 27, 2004, 02:54:15 AM »
I FOUND THIS ARTICLE TO BE QUITE INTERESTING!
IF JFK (JOHN FORBES KERRY) WINS THE PRESIDENCY. I
THINK THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD INSTANTLY BRING HIS
ELIGABILITY BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT HE IS EVEN ELIGABLE!!

*******************************************************

Kerry Is Constitutionally Ineligible to Be President?
The Federalist ^ | June 25, 2004 | The Federalist


Posted on 06/26/2004 4:38:59 PM PDT by SpyderTim


Top of the fold -- Aid and comfort to the enemy: The Kerry record...

It's no surprise that John Kerry has devoted so much time and energy questioning George W. Bush's record as commander-in-chief. Nor is it any surprise that he recently launched a campaign calling on Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld to resign after a handful of military personnel humiliated al-Qa'ida terrorists in Abu Ghraib prison while attempting to obtain actionable intelligence about their plans to kill more of our troops.

These political attacks are just the latest round on Kerry's long list of black-bag antics designed to undermine America's military strength and resolve.

Kerry, who fancies himself a war hero, has spent much of his political career denigrating American military personnel and the nation they defend. But his anti-American actions preceded his first campaign for Congress -- indeed, they were the platform from which he launched his political career.

Like his comrade "Hanoi Jane" Fonda and so many other Leftist protagonists from the Age of Aquarius, Kerry was a child of wealth and privilege. Today, he is the wealthiest member of Congress (the "F" stands for "Forbes," after all) but don't expect that to be a central theme of his "man of the people" campaign. (In fact, the top five wealthiest Senators are all Democrats.)

Kerry grew up hobnobbing with the Massachusetts Cape glitterati, a life of leisure including all the accoutrements -- the best schools, the best vacation homes, the best yachts, etc. He socialized with the rich and famous, especially the Kennedy clan elites, where he was taken under the wing of his future patron saint, Teddy. He attempted to emulate John Kennedy's PT-109 heroics by joining the Navy and using his connections to obtain an assignment for a short tour on a swiftboat in Vietnam. Kerry then went on to collect three Purple Hearts in just two months -- all of dubious merit, but requisite for a ticket home to pursue his political aspirations.

Unlike John F. Kennedy, however, when John F. Kerry got home, there was no hero's welcome. The nation was in turmoil over our continued role in Vietnam, the result of limited but well-publicized Leftist protests against the war. So Kerry, ever the opportunist, endeavored to become the Left's most "useful idiot" (as Lenin called Western apologists for Soviet propaganda), collaborating with Fonda, et al., and leading protests accusing his "brethren" in Vietnam of all manner of atrocities.

Kerry was (and remains) an effective spokesperson for his Leftist cadre. His anti-war protest period culminated with his 1971 congressional testimony, after which he told the press, "There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions...."

Regarding the substance -- and source -- of Kerry's claims, Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, says "KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. ... As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements. KGB chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. He often bragged about having damaged the U.S. foreign-policy consensus, poisoned domestic debate in the U.S., and built a credibility gap between America and European public opinion through our disinformation operations. Vietnam was, he once told me, 'our most significant success'."

As for the success of Kerry's anti-democracy protests and his leadership of the VVAW and association with Fonda's Winter Soldier Investigation, General Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnam's most decorated military leader, wrote in retrospect that if not for the disunity created by such stateside protesters, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered.

But the consequences of Kerry's actions should not stop with the fall of Saigon.

Kerry, by his own account, violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer, and he further stands in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution.

Upon entering the Navy in 1966, John Kerry signed a six-year contract (plus a six-month extension during wartime) and an Officer Candidate contract for five years of active duty and active Naval Reserve. This indicates that Kerry was clearly a commissioned officer at the time of his 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris -- 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 coddling of Communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article three, Section three, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare. (As General Vo Nguyen Giap is his witness....)

Thus, we refer our readers to the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which 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."

It is for this reason -- for his record of giving aid and comfort to the enemy while a member of the U.S. Armed Forces in violation of his oath -- that we insist John Kerry resign his seat in the U.S. Senate. He has dishonored his family, dishonored his state and dishonored our nation. He is not fit for public office at any level of government, much less, the highest office in the land. John Kerry should resign.

Offline huntsman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
KERRY NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT?
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2004, 04:33:34 AM »
Amen.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, honor is way down on the list of values that many of our political "representatives" can acclaim. Kerry leads the pack in this regard. I for one would fervently join any campaign to have him ousted from either the senate, should he not be elected, or the presidency, should he be elected. At this late date, it is unlikely that any such attempt will bear much on the election outcome. If he is indeed elected, his exit will leave us with Senator Edwards, a democrat in much the same mold and with issues of integrity and honor of his own.

The results of Tuesday's election will either deliver us from an unimaginable period of political failure, upheaval, and disfunction, or it will usher in that period. The echoes of this election will be heard for decades to come. Awfully scary when you look at the media take on this election.
There is no more humbling experience for man than to be fully immersed in nature's artistry.

Offline rockbilly

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3367
KERRY NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT?
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2004, 04:57:51 PM »
I agree, but is Gworge W. BUSHit any better?  A real American hero, while he sit on a bar stool in Houston Tx in his Texas Air National Guard Unifom, I was crawling around the jungles of SEA trying to keep my butt in one piece.

According to the information I've read/heard, did didn't even meet his commitment to the Guard.  And this is the Commander-In-Chief of America's Military?

At least Kerry served.  As such, I think he earned the right to voice his opinion of the Vietnam war.  Maybe he went about it the wrong way, but he was a little smarter than some of us other grunts.  If I had know we would turn tail and run like a bunch of rats, I might have joined him.  

Bottom line though, ain't either one of the worth a damn

Offline kevin.303

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Gender: Male
KERRY NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT?
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2004, 05:09:30 PM »
Ummmmm.... ithink ya got the wrong forum there guys. this is " military surplus rifles" not "politics & 2nd amendment" :?
" oh we didn't sink the bismarck, and we didn't fight at all, we spent our time in Norfolk and we really had a ball. chasing after women while our ship was overhauled, living it up on grapefruit juice and sick bay alcohol"

Offline huntsman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
KERRY NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT?
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2004, 04:14:38 AM »
One of the chief reasons that the USA ultimately decided to "turn tail and run like like a bunch of rats" is because of people like Kerry who gave no thought to the sacrifices made by those who were serving in Nam. He came home (early on pretext of being "wounded in action") and proceeded to do everything in his power to undermine the war effort and provoke a popular uprising of war antagonists, which he surely wanted and knew would bring dishonor and tragedy to those serving overseas and the country as a whole.

That you expressed a notion to join Kerry had you known the US would not win the war speaks volumes of your own level of commitment and loyalty. Just because you went to Nam and, in your own words, crawled around the jungle trying to save your own a** does not make you a hero. The measure of a hero is what one is willing to sacrifice for what they believe. Saving your own hide is not exactly a heroic endeavor in that sense. I will credit you with a measure of honor on the assumption that you served your full term of service and were willing to go in harm's way for our cause, which clearly rises above the actions of either Kerry or Bush.

There is a huge difference in my book between a medal-mongering turncoat rife with political ambition, willing to trash his fellow servicemen and his country's honor to gain a name for himself, and a spoiled rich kid who serves in the ANG in order to stay stateside in a time of war.

Is either one a hero? No way. One was guilty of premeditated treason, while the other was obviously self-serving and possibly less than honorable. Deciding which I would prefer is not a perfect choice, but a clear one.
There is no more humbling experience for man than to be fully immersed in nature's artistry.

Offline Jack Crevalle

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 834
KERRY NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT?
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2004, 07:12:29 AM »
The communists used to have a phrase to describe people of Kerry and Hanoi Janes ilk: "Useful Idiots".

As to there being no difference between Kerry and the president, I suggest that if you own a firearm of any kind at all that you are sorely mistaken. If that were the only difference, and it isn't, that should be enough for anyone coming to GBO.

Offline FrankCommes

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
KERRY NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT?
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2004, 05:39:18 PM »
Well if Kerry is not eligible why even have an election?
I can't believe that a Republican even pulled our military out of Vietnam.
I sure hope Bush wins so that maybe the government we install does better than the South Vietnamese government did.
Then we can take all that 3% of the federal budget that we waste on public education and help them Arabs set up a good private school system in that wonderful land.