Kerry Stepson: Jewish Lobby Too Powerful (THEY ARE SMELLING THEIR DEFEAT)

The story keeps getting clearer and clearer with these people. I hope this word spreads, and I believe it will in the Jewish community. So what if they all have Jews in their lineage, Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man and hates big fat stupid white men, right?

Attacking the Jewish vote AND throwing drug accusations ?

Sounds like he's pissed that Mommys money was not able to buy the White House...

You're talking to the wrong person.

Ads relaying this should be prepped for Florida as we speak.

perhaps that's a bit too nuanced for the boy

Clearly he needs to spend more quality time under the wing of his step-pere.

I hope for both their sakes (and for the sake of the Republic) that Senator Kerry will have a lot of time on his hands for such tutelage...

Just goes to show that money doesn't mean manners, honor, or decency, but we already knew that about TerAYsa and her offspring. Botoxboy, however, is in a class all by himself.

The Bush Reelection Imperative
Posted 10/27/2004
By EDITORIAL BOARD
Last week we endorsed George W. Bush for reelection. It is impossible to overstate just how important it is that readers who agree that President Bush deserves our support — particularly readers in such swing states as Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio — go to the polls next Tuesday.

As we noted last week, the central task of the winner of this election will be to lead our country at a time when most Third World nations — individually and, in the United Nations, collectively — view the U.S. as the fount of evil, and when most of our World War II allies are part of a growing effort to challenge the hegemony the U.S. has enjoyed since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It will be a time when well-financed fanatic fundamentalists from across the Muslim world, harbored and facilitated by Arab states, will continue their hit-and-run terrrorist attacks against the U.S., taking full advantage of the advances of technology and capitalizing on the unavoidably porous defenses of a democracy.

All in all, we said, Mr. Bush seems eminently better suited than Mr. Kerry for the job ahead. Although we believe the case for Mr. Bush is compelling from a comparative point of view, the very special negatives of Mr. Kerry make it imperative that our community come out and vote for the incumbent.

It was not too long ago when even the hint of personal failing was the kiss of death for a presidential candidate. Immediately coming to mind are the failed candidacies of George Romney, who noted in passing that he’d been “brainwashed” by governmental briefings about Vietnam; Edmund Muskie, who appeared to shed tears when a newpaper editorial criticized his wife; Gary Hart, who was caught in a dalliance with a young woman not his wife after he’d invited reporters to keep an eye on him; and Joe Biden, who all but invented a family history for himself by plagiarizing a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.

Yet here we have in John Kerry a candidate for president who, upon returning from Vietnam, joined with virulently anti-war elements bent on forcing the U.S. out of Vietnam — Jane Fonda was perhaps the most prominent — and testified before Congress as their point man that American forces systematically committed horrible war crimes as a matter of official U.S. policy.

In fact, the efforts of Kerry and his colleagues resulted in the broad deligitimization of the war effort and led to a Congressional cut-off of funds and the collapse of our military position in Vietnam — all this while our troops and diplomatic personnel were in harm`s way.

If momentary lapses were once viewed — probably with good reason — as windows on the character and capacity of candidates, how then should one take the enormous perfidy of Mr. Kerry? Indeed, Mr. Kerry remains as perfidious today as he was thirty years ago. How else to explain his labeling of Operation Iraqi Freedom "the wrong war at the wrong time" based on the alleged lack of sufficient evidence against Saddam Hussein and the failure of President Bush to fashion an ample coalition in prosecuting the war — when, in 1991, Mr. Kerry voted against the use of military force after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and the first President Bush had almost the entire world as allies in Operation Desert Storm?

While presidential campaigns have always been marked by hyperbole and promises soon forgotten, outright misstatements have not been tolerated. President Ford`s bizarre comment in a debate with Jimmy Carter in the 1976 campaign that Eastern European countries were not under Soviet domination caused his credibility to crumble and surely led to his defeat that November.

Yet, as has been widely reported, Mr. Kerry has notoriously "flip-flopped" on several major issues during this campaign. In recent weeks Mr. Kerry has also shamlessly exploited the stem cell research, social security and flu shot issues by palpable distortion and has created an impending draft issue out of whole cloth.

(It is truly incredible to behold Mr. Kerry as he attempts to raise fears that a Bush victory would result in a renewal of the military draft when a Republican-led Congress just voted down the only current draft bill — one that was introduced by a Democratic congressman.)

Can anyone recall a previous presidential campaign even remotely resembling Mr. Kerry’s, with its constantly shifting policy terrain and painfully transparent pandering? Perhaps the most striking example of Mr. Kerry`s transparency was the recent photo-op that had him dressed in fatigues and toting a rifle, with accompanying aides carrying four geese supposedly shot by the Massachusetts senator.

And then there are the vacuous summary declarations of the sort favored by Mr. Kerry: "Help is on the way," "I have a plan," "we will do a better job," "I will be able to persuade world leaders,” etc.

Yes, one is tempted to shout in frustration, but what, at long last, is it that you specifically have in mind, sir?

Mr. Kerry began his campaign by touting his Vietnam War experience, and he typically began his speeches with a salute and the words "reporting for duty." Putting aside the questions that have been raised about his war record — and bear in mind that he has yet to release his complete military file — does anyone really think that success at making split-second unilateral decisions commends one for a job requiring complex decision making based upon arduous consultation and policy choices drawn from often conflicting expert advice?

Mr. Kerry has assumed for himself the campaign persona of an unflinching warrior, and as such he rarely misses an opportunity to invoke the name of Ronald Reagan. This is the stuff of make-believe. In real life, he fought Mr. Reagan at almost every turn, championing a nuclear freeze that would have left Europe vulnerable to a Soviet attack and voting against the very weapons systems proposed by the late president that for years now have served as the backbone of our defenses.

Surely it is not happenstance that Mr. Kerry runs on empty proclamations and rarely invokes his twenty-year Congressional record — a record that led the non-partisan National Journal to label him the most liberal member of the United States Senate.

When it comes to Israel, Mr. Kerry`s negatives are of even greater concern. As we have noted in past edtorials, he has spoken of wanting to be an "honest broker" in the Middle East — as if President Bush`s insistence on an end to terror and Israel`s right to defend itself is somehow too one-sided. Mr. Kerry’s incredible comment that he would appoint Jimmy Carter and James Baker as his representatives in the Middle East still rankles. Indeed, Mr. Kerry`s principal advisers on the Middle East are senior Clinton administration retreads of the "moral equivalency," "cycle of violence" variety.

To be sure, Mr. Kerry now seems to parrot the Bush approach to the Middle East. But there is strong reason to believe that this is merely expedient — and temporary — political catch-up. Washington Post syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer is far from alone in fearing that Kerry will, in fact, reverse the Bush Middle East policy.

In sum, there is a strong case to be made for coming out to vote as a show of appreciation to George W. Bush. But there is also much on the record to convince us of the importance of voting strictly to ensure that John Kerry does not become our next president.

THE JEWISH PRESS

John Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz complained at a recent campaign stop that Jews have too much influence on the U.S. presidential election.

.... and yet the great majority will vote for Kerry ........

Not to mention an ENVIRO-WACKO!What ENVIRO-WACKO doesn't own NUMEROUS SUVs,Mansions,Yachts,and A Gulfstream 5 Jet?????????

Kerry's stepson had a Jewish grandfather? Was Senator Heinz Jewish?

The step-son DOES have a Jewish step-uncle...John Kerry's brother, Cameron.

It will make him a hero to the far left.

I have Jewish friends. I HATE anti-Semitics. God, how I hate anti-Semitics. One more reason to hate the Kerry-Heinz family. What a bunch of bigoted hateful people.

I have been reading David Horowitz' (www.frontpagemag.com) dark autobiography Radical Son. In it he explains that for jews the ancient feeling of tribal otherness even in America gained new currency after the revelations of the Holocaust and kept the liberal postwar generation still nervous about their place in society even as the last irritating ivy league quotas and country club barriers came down. Marxism/socialism/leftist politics in general offered a sense of belonging where ideally after the imagined "revolution" all men would be brothers just as Marx had said and racial, ethnic and tribal distinctions would cease to have meaning.

He paints a gloomy schizophrenic picture of jewish leftists and how they clung/cling to their illusions even as the "movement" turned on them in the wake of events like the Six-day war, etc. and how they endlessly indulged dangerous thugs like the Black Panthers and the Weathermen (self-hating, spoiled rich kids being the other radical recruiting pool) in order to cling to their illusions even after the blacks turned on them, Vietnam and Cambodia became hellholes, the Nicaraguan revolution turned sour, and so forth. The ruthless, mindless way the author shows the leftys enforcing conformity and censuring their own thoughts is alternately chilling and pathetic.

If I understand correctly, liberal jewish democrats are basically a lighter version of this. Most were attracted by dem politicians such as FDR thru JFK who, while flawed, could genuinely inspire and spoke to their higher aspirations. From what I have gleaned, it has since become a brainless tribal stimulus-response; combined with the white liberal guilt complex. Like blacks, jews are supposed to vote democrat "because." Which is of course, ironic as one has to play the Three Monkeys not to notice what is going on all around one and around the world.

So many still persist in thinking christian middle america keeps a cossack saber in it's collective closet. Doubly ironc because as cultural critic Michael Medved has pointed out: Religious jews and Evangelical christians get along just fine, thank you very much. It is the secular ACLU jews who stomp on tablets and crush creches and fell threatened by the words "under God" even as (figuratively speaking) the islamists are herding them into the cattle cars and the leftists call Israel a "sh***y little country and indulge muslims and let them run riot on campuses. As best I can tell "neoconservative" has no meaningful definition unless it's being used as a conspiratorial code word for jewish conservative.

Master Heinz' Freudian little slip will undoubtedly be forgiven by the true believers (priviliges of nobility, don't you know) but I like to think that more and more will simply see the facts as they are and just maybe vote accordingly.

Smelling their feet? Why are they smelling their feet? That is wrong.

Thanks for the synopsis on "Radical Son" by David Horowitz. For some time I've been asking why Jewish people vote Democrat. The book seems to cover this question very well.

I've been planning on buying the book and your write up has inspired me to do so as soon as possible. Another question I've raised is why some Jews are anti-Semetic themselves. Maybe the book will answer that question, too.

Aren't the Heinz German

>>Aren't the Heinz German<<

The name Heinz is German but I wouldn't say without checking that the family is German. Many German names are also Jewish names because Jews lived in Germany and married Germans for many years prior to Hitler's reign of terror.

For example, my maiden name is German as is my family back at least 200 years but a prominent Rabbi in the city I live in has that same last name.

Maybe some Jews hate Israel as much as some Americans hate America. We don't own the patent on traitors to ones country.

To be accurate, according to the article, Heinz didn't say exactly that.

Accuracy is our friend.

I have Horowitz's Radical Son on my shelf and plan to get to it soon. Thanks for the synopsis.

I have long maintained that the liberal Jews who go for Democrats are JINOs (Jews In Name Only), that they are more cultural Jews than they are religious. Because they have fallen away from their faith (partly as a result of several pogroms and the Holocaust) they naturally turn to the State for protection (instinctively, of course, they wouldn't acknowledge this as being their motivation). Socialism, then, becomes the preferred socio-economic system for their sense of protection. If you combine this instinctive motivation with a proclivity toward higher education where people exist in the world of theory and who have seldom felt the sharp sting of reality (and who are comfortably removed from the brutality of genocide) you have the intellectual inclination toward the 'Utopia' that Socialism promises, even though it has never delivered anywhere and anywhere it has been tried resulted in either greater and greater loss of civil liberties (also known as tyranny) or a turn toward privatization as Socialism fails, as we see in Great Britain. Academe in their ivory towers are free from the uncleanness of such facts and so they continue to propagate their theories.

The best proof of the JINO tendency toward Statism is, as you alluded to, that Orthodox Jews tend to vote Republican and tend toward self reliance and mistrust the state, knowing that it has been various forms of Statism that have led to the worse massacres of the Jews, and that their greatest protection is in self defense and in their alliance with others who mistrust Statism.

Medved also has a good line about liberal Jews who vote for Democrat-Socialists is proof enough to debunk the myth of the superior intelligence of the Jewish people.