A letter by Richard Larson in the Minneapolis StarTribune pointed out an important fact about Senator Kerry that many of us had forgotten.  During his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April, 1971, Kerry was obviously critical of individual soldiers and veterans.  He was even more accusatory in statements made five days earlier on “Meet the Press”.  During that interview, he stated:

 

“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 committed 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 and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.  And I believe the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.”

 

This statement is rarely seen, with Kerry supporters most frequently referring only to his Senate testimony to try to minimize the extent of his accusations.  In his “Meet the Press” interview, Kerry clearly stated that thousands had committed atrocities and that those issuing orders were war criminals.

 

So what is the point in bringing this up over 30 years after the fact?  Everything about Mr. Kerry during those thirty years has shown an opportunistic man. 

 

He is a man who sought opportunities to gain medals and who presented himself as an anti-war candidate for Congress. 

 

He is a man who “admitted” to atrocities but did not take responsibility.  (In contrast see statements by 1970’s anti-war protestor, David Horowitz, who has accepted his mistakes and who has acknowledged publicly that his acts should have led to trial for treason.)

 

He is a man who condemned his fellow veterans but denies having done so. 

 

He is a man who acted in the Senate only once he knew where the wind was blowing and yet claims to be a strong leader. 

 

He is a man whose name is not on one piece of important legislation after twenty years in the Senate yet criticizes President Bush for lack of leadership. 

 

He is a man who in his acceptance speech last month cried about parents of soldiers having to have a bake sale to buy their sons body armor yet he is one of the few who voted against funding to support those soldiers. 

 

And he is a man who continues to state that our nation must partner more fully with the countries of the United Nations before taking action to preserve our safety, yet ignores the fact that President Bush tried to press the United Nations to uphold its own resolutions and acted only after they refused.  (By the way, the inability or unwillingness of the United Nations to take action in support of its own resolutions is being replayed today regarding Sudan.  And this it the body in which Mr. Kerry wishes to entrust our safety?)

 

Despite all of these facts, Mr. Kerry continues to be close to President Bush in the polls.  He calls himself a “uniter” despite having contributed to the divisiveness of this country during the Vietnam era and despite continuing to do so as our nation tries to fight a war on terrorists.  Apparently, in modern day America, when a political leader (like President Bush) believes in something and stands for what he believes, he is merely divisive in the minds of many.  Yet, a man takes both sides of every issue is described as a “uniter”.  If this is true I fear for the future of this country.

The far left is alive and well in Minneapolis and, for that matter, across America.  The socialist-leaning Minneapolis StarTribune noted in a recent editorial that a “great divide” exists between those who choose to live in cities and those who choose to live in the suburbs.  According to the newspaper, those living in the cities are pro-Democrat.  The paper notes that the future lies not in the “agrarian past or its narrow religiosity but in the dynamic, multi-ethnic, scientific, artistic and socially tolerant urbanized areas of…America”.  Meanwhile, while those in the suburbs are described by the newspaper as pro-Republican and “retro”.  They are described as demonstrating a “powerful voice urging disinvestment, intolerance and retreat”. 

 

As noted by Tom Dahlberg and Erick Kaardal in the August 27 StarTribune, this is yet another “pathetic attempt to extend the last dying gasp of Enlightenment Elitism”.  Once again it is made clear that the left views those with traditional American values…those values upon which this country was built…as unenlightened and intolerant.  They wish for all Americans to live cramped together in over-populated cities so that automobiles become unnecessary, so that all can be “equal”, and so that all can be controlled.  Most definitely, they want America to move closer and closer to secularism because only then can the laws of man (temporarily) outpace the values that stem from spirituality.  And they want the country to move closer and closer to socialism because then no one will have to work to accomplish something in their lives and everyone can become happily unmotivated.

 

What is most telling about all of this is that the most liberal of Minnesotans have run from the cities like fleeing rats.  They live in mansions in the suburbs and condemn the rest of their neighbors for doing the same.  They label the rest of us as intolerant while most would no sooner stop and talk to a person of color as wash his windshield.

 

The left demonstrates its own intolerance when it berates the “retro’s” as being intolerant.  Hypocrisy rules in Minnesota.  Hypocrisy rules in much of our nation.  And it is this hypocrisy that will be the undoing of this great nation if we do not stand up against it.

I will be logging my thoughts about political and current events (and about anything else that comes to mind) on a weekly basis.  I look forward to serious and humorous dialogue with all of you during the coming months.  Until I write again, I offer one thought from Reed Saunders as quoted from the Minneapolis StarTribune: 

"Peace is not the highest moral value of society.  Justice is; because justice is the precondition to true and lasting peace."

I hope that you will offer your thoughts on any of the topics discussed on RightOnAmerica.

Well, this is my first entry.  I look forward to being able to share ideas with you all over the coming months.