Lurching Toward Treason

[Flanders]

John Kerry is going to be the secretary of state. Instead of wasting time contacting senators trying to stop him from being confirmed in a Senate controlled by Harry Reid —— concentrate on nailing Kerry for treason after he is confirmed. That’s not a far-fetched defense strategy for dealing with Kerry and his New World Order pals.

After all of Kerry’s years in Washington everybody in the media should know what he is. Hussein’s media lackeys will protect Kerry in order to protect their messiah. The MSM are already pumping up his “heroism” in Vietnam. The Swift Boat Vets for Truth continue to hold a different view:

When Hannity asked if Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would come back to oppose Kerry’s nomination, O’Neill’s qualified response was in the affirmative: “We will do the best we can, Sean. I was contacted today, I spoke with three people that won the Congressional Medal of Honor, who will do the very best we can. We’ve got kids – heck, I mean, we have hundreds of thousands of kids who have been engaged in combat or in the armed forces. Can you imagine them counting on John Kerry to protect their back?”

To coincide with Kerry’s confirmation hearings, I plan to author a series of articles to be published in WND, reminding readers of the radical roots of Kerry’s political career, beginning with his opposition to the Vietnam War, despite advancing exaggerated claims about his three Purple Hearts supposedly earned as a military hero in that same conflict.

Why I oppose John Kerry
Exclusive: Jerome Corsi reiterates Swift Boat concerns made in 2004
by JEROME R. CORSI
Published: 13 hours ago

Why I oppose John Kerry

The media’s interpretation of Kerry’s “service to his country” is in addition to their ballooning his foreign policy credentials. Once again, the facts say otherwise. Kerry not only opposed a missile defense shield for this country Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison remind us that he was a Freezenik:

In the 1980s, Kerry campaigned for the Nuclear Freeze. The Soviet KGB, we now know, was a major funder and promoter of this disastrous idea. The Freezeniks believed that President Carter's promise to send Pershing and Cruise missiles to our NATO allies in Western Europe should be dishonored.

Freezeniks thought that the only thing we should do in response to aggressive Soviet placement of SS-19 and SS-20 Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) in Eastern Europe was to freeze the West into no response. By freezing in terror, we could morally pressure the Soviets into withdrawing their missiles, the naive Freezeniks argued. Harvard's Polish-born Adam Ulam famously punctured this pink balloon: "An' wot will you doo iff they dun't?"

I harbor no illusions about getting a conviction for treason. Blackwell and Morrison are correct about “. . . a very high bar . . . ”:

Worse, Kerry went to Paris in 1971. There, he met with North Vietnamese Communists. We need to see all his notes from those meetings. Any negotiation between a private U.S. citizen and a foreign power is illegal. It violates the Logan Act of 1798. Did Kerry demand of the North Vietnamese Communists that they abide by the Geneva Convention? Or is that only a demand he made of his fellow Americans?

We do not charge Kerry with treason in the statements and actions he engaged in then. Treason consists of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. But this country has set a very high bar for conviction for treason -- ever since the Burr Treason Trial of 1807. Nonetheless, we do say Kerry's actions and statements then were not those to which America's top diplomat should be linked. What was he thinking?

December 22, 2012
Question John Kerry Long and Hard!
By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison

Articles: Question John Kerry Long and Hard!

Whatever Secretary of State Kerry does he will do it with foreign governments behind closed doors. There is a slight chance he, or a foreign diplomat, will slip up. If NOBODY in the media is watching Kerry with an eye toward exposing him there is not a chance he will get caught.

Based solely on public records there must be plenty of journalists willing to approach Kerry’s tenure as secretary of state the same way they would watch a known embezzler hired by a large corporation; they know he’s going to steal, it’s only a matter of catching him when he does. Make no mistake about it. Kerry will betray this country again and again just as he has been doing all of political life.

I’ll settle for the media catching Kerry and hounding him the same way they hounded President Nixon over a political dirty trick. Catching him is the hard part.

Also, let me reiterate something about treason that was made to order for guys like John Kerry:

In addition to the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945, the sneaks who got this country into the UN knew what they were doing when they designed a foundation that was a masterpiece of betrayal. A foundation that would withstand every challenge when their descendants carried on. Treason became legal the minute the US became a member of an underhanded organization that was, and is, determined to tear down America. Membership in the UN meant that no American official betraying this country on the UN’s behalf could be prosecuted for treason. Only lawyers could design something like that.

Bottom line: If a journalist(s) should catch Kerry his betrayal will quickly be defined as working for the United Nations; hence he is protected. Like I said —— hounding him out of government is the best the public can hope for.

There is one more thing to consider. Hussein enjoys media immunity no matter what Kerry does. That’s even better than diplomatic immunity. Every Democrat is pretty much the same as Kerry on foreign policy; so they don’t count. However, should Kerry get caught he will bring down every Republican senator who voted to confirm him. Harry Reid has the 51 votes he needs; so I can’t see why any Republican should vote to confirm a man with Kerry’s history.

Parenthetically, Secretary Clinton was different than Kerry in that she is a hardcore Lefty to be sure, but there is no evidence she ever actively betrayed this country as did Kerry when he worked to save communism in Vietnam under the guise of opposing an unjust war. After he helped bring defeat to his own country he continued working for policies that favored the Soviet Union over his own country as the record shows.

I’ll close with a 3 second video showing Kerry expressing his view of loyalty:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCc-RWIp7XU&feature=player_embedded]Lurch - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Mr. H.]

There's a black man in the White House. Take a 4 year nap. It'll be over soon.

 

[Flanders]

There's a black man in the White House. Take a 4 year nap. It'll be over soon.

To Mr. H.: At my age I can’t count on four days never mind four years.

 

[Flanders]

To jasonnfree: I received e-mail notification that you responded but your response is not listed. Here’s the e-mail:

Dear Flanders,

jasonnfree has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Lurching Toward Treason - in the Congress forum of US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.

This thread is located at:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/269032-lurching-toward-treason-new-post.html

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
I'd like to know how Kerry committed treason. Some say he gave aid and comfort to the enemy by opposing the war. So free speech is only free when you don't offend the powerful? North Vietnam was never our enemy. What was the possibility of them ever doing us any harm? Zero. This should be the determining factor of whether or not a country is our enemy.
USA was interfering in the business of a foreign country thousands of miles away, (we do this all the time by the way, we being the world's foremost aggressor nation). This doesn't take away from the bravery or dedication of the American fighting men back then. In the end, over 50,000 Americans were dead, many more Vietnamese soldiers and civilians also, and certain large corporations made lots of money. War is a business and business is very good for America's defense industy and the politicians that do their bidding.
***************

Kerry and his kind did more than oppose the war. The only thing they opposed was the US military stopping Communist expansion. Kerry & Company not only gave the North Vietnam hope for a political victory they helped bring defeat to their own country by prolonging the war; thereby, costing the lives of thousands of our guys. The only controversy is exactly how many lives were lost in the prolonged war. More importantly, Vietnam provided a template for America’s enemies —— just hang in there and the American Left will win it for us. Kerry & his kind tried it again in Iraq. Remember what they were doing until the Surge finally won the war on the battlefield.

As to interfering in foreign governments. America has every Right to interfere in the affairs of enemies who have sworn to destroy this country. Kerry & Friends rely on most Americans thinking in terms of nations rather than worldwide ideologies. In short, make the war about fighting the poor innocent women and children in one country —— never about fighting an ideology. Fighting communism in Vietnam and Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq and Afghanistan are examples. Every act of treason Secretary of State Kerry is going to commit will be wrapped in that kind of thinking. His record shows it.

Similarly, retired General George S. Patton III charged that Kerry’s actions had given “aid and comfort to the enemy.” And the organization Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry stated:

“As a national leader of VVAW, Kerry campaigned against the effort of the United States to contain the spread of Communism. He used the blood of servicemen still in the field for his own political advancement by claiming that their blood was being shed unnecessarily or in vain…. Under Kerry’s leadership, VVAW members mocked the uniform of United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues marked with pro-communist graffiti. They dishonored America by marching in demonstrations under the flag of the Viet Cong enemy.”

In this next excerpt you can see Kerry in Iraq was more concerned with the International community than he was in defending America:

Kerry’s next opportunity to distinguish himself as a man of exceedingly poor character was furnished by the conflict in Iraq. Initially, Kerry voted to authorize the use of military force against Saddam Hussein, a position the Senator based on his firm conviction—which he publicly articulated on numerous occasions—that Saddam was aggressively seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction. During the weeks and months leading up to the March 2003 U.S. invasion, for example, Kerry made the following statements:

∙ “It would be naive to the point of great danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will misjudge, provoke and stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it.”
∙ “If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community’s already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement …”
∙ “Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal and murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. And we all know the litany of his offenses.”
∙. “People have forgotten that for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq]. We were destroying weapons of mass destruction.”​

But as the political winds shifted, Kerry and his fellow congressional Democrats began to portray, with ever-growing frequency, the Iraq War as a foreign-policy debacle that had been launched hastily and without justifiable cause.

Snakes shed their skin many times but they remain snakes:

Not content to smear only the Commander-in-Chief, Senator Kerry also accused U.S. servicemen of “terrorizing” the Iraqi people. On December 4, 2005, he told Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation: “And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women …”

For John Kerry, it was 1971 all over again.

Finally, to hear Hussein tell it John Kerry won’t need a lot of on the job training to be secretary of state. Hussein is right if you ask who Kerry will be serving. He certainly does not need any training to serve the UNIC (United Nations/International Community). Serving the country and the American people is another matter altogether:

The historical record informs us that not only has John Kerry been on the wrong side of every major foreign policy issue for most of his adult life, including Iraq, Nicaragua and most recently in Syria, but he has routinely engaged in deception to conceal his folly. What’s worse, Kerry has a clear record of giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies, all the while never missing an opportunity to viciously trash our brave forces fighting against them.

John Kerry: Obama’s “Perfect Choice” For Secretary of State
December 22, 2012 By John Perazzo

John Kerry: Obama’s