A Closer Look at John Kerry's Supporters
by Christopher Adamo
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Among the most amazing and ominous of John Kerry’s statements during last week’s presidential debate was his assertion that America should sell nuclear fuel to Iran, in hopes that by so doing, that nation’s despotic leadership might decide not to develop nuclear weaponry. Even more amazing is the fact that nearly a full week has passed since the debate, but Kerry has yet to backpedal or claim that his remark was ''taken out of context.''
It is reasonable to conclude that Kerry truly believes such insanity to be good policy, despite the harsh lessons that should have been learned from Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter’s nearly identical agreement with North Korea in 1994. To Clinton and Carter’s apparent astonishment, North Korea now brandishes its nuclear capability as a threat against not only its neighbors, but also the United States.
So, it should come as no surprise that the militant Islamists who control Iran prefer John Kerry to George Bush as president. Though seemingly less ominous in the minds of most Americans these days, culturally and politically, this is the same Iran where twenty-five years ago the U.S. Embassy was overtaken, and its staff held hostage for over a year.
This is the same Iran that supports Hezbollah and other murderous Islamic terrorist organizations throughout the world. And this is the same Iran from which a steady flow of militant insurgents is streaming into Iraq, with the ultimate goal of defeating American efforts to subdue al Qaeda and its terrorist associates.
Having made so much political hay over the fact that U.S. forces have not happened across any cache of nuclear bombs in Iraq, Kerry apparently intends to ensure that someday soon, they will be readily available next door in Iran.
Clearly, Kerry’s supporters among the Iranians do not have America’s best interests in mind. But what of the other ''constituencies,'' both inside and outside of this nation’s borders, that lend their loyalty to him?
The leadership of the United Nations, to whom Kerry would readily ''outsource'' America’s security interests, clearly prefers his meandering ways to the decisiveness and resolve of George W. Bush. The corrupt, under-the-table dealings of the ''Oil for Food'' program, by which Secretary General Kofi Annan and others padded their pockets while enriching and enabling Saddam Hussein, serve as an inarguable harbinger of what the world can expect if a ''President Kerry'' assumes ultimate control of America’s dealings with the United Nations.
Surely, such a scenario presents a far more rosy future for that organization, though not so for the oppressed peoples of the world whom it was ostensibly instituted to protect.
Islamic constituency groups in this country, having frequently displayed divided loyalties when addressing the subject of terrorist attacks on the American homeland, are predictably gravitating towards the Kerry camp. All the while, they assert that Kerry is more sympathetic to their ''plight'' than a president who wants to seriously confront the threat of terrorism on American soil and abroad.
Foreign governments, resentful of American hegemony on the world scene and seeking to undermine it, have indicated their hopes for a Kerry victory in November. North Korea has already endorsed his candidacy in a highly publicized statement last spring.
Closer to home, Hollywood’s leftists are unrestrained in their enthusiasm and support for Kerry. Invariably, they concur with the Massachusetts senator’s moral bankruptcy, as demonstrated by his opposition to even the mildest protections for the unborn, and his willingness to abominate the very concept of traditional marriage. Clearly, his twisted ideology proves to be far more palatable to them than the moral clarity of President Bush.
Sadly, within the cloistered walls of academia and throughout America’s counterculture, that same perverse version of the world predominates, with its advocates totally unwilling to be dissuaded by the realities of cause and effect.
Of course, this list wouldn’t be complete without a mention of the ''mainstream media,'' which despite its nearly complete loss of credibility in the wake of the CBS forged-document controversy, continues as a virtual ''mouthpiece'' for the Kerry campaign.
Some Bush supporters were disappointed last week that the president didn’t engage in the flamboyance and showmanship of so-called modern ''debate.'' Instead, he chose to remain quietly firm and steadfast in his convictions. But any who might then consider a Kerry presidency should also ponder how the nation and world would fare if these groups could remake it to their liking. No less of a possibility is at stake. |
