I am not a republican. I have never voted
republican. You say you want to focus on the real
issues.
I was watching the GOP convention with a friend who
asked me to explain the difference between the two
candidate's positions. This was actually a moment of
illumination for me.
I've been closely watching this race from the
beginning. I've listened to the speeches and the
counter-speeches until my head hurt. I've read the
Kerry campaign literature and Kerry's proposed
platform.
Here's the part that jarred my preserves. Only two
months from Election Day, and after studying the
various campaigns since Kerry became the presumptive
nominee, I realized that I don't have the faintest
idea what Kerry's platform actually is.
Try and explain it to yourself. What exactly is Kerry
FOR? I ran down the list:
Economy: Kerry says the economy is in shambles. Hmmm.
The Dow is up. The economy is still growing.
Unemployment is at 5.5% Interest rates are low,
personal income is up. The average American pays $2000
less in taxes.
How does Kerry propose to 'fix' the 'broken' economy?
By repealing tax cuts 'for the rich'. I've tried to
figure out how that would work, and still can't. The
'rich' are the ones who most of us work for. Nobody
has explained to my satisfaction how impoverishing
employers will boost job creation.
Kerry rails against the deficit, hoping nobody will
point out that America has operated as a deficit
economy since 1913.
Our entire economic system is based on it and would
collapse without it.
Kerry also hopes that nobody will point out that when
we DID balance the budget, it started a recession that
was stopped in its tracks by the tax cuts Kerry now
wants to roll back.
So, as I see it, Kerry's platform calls for 'fixing' a
vibrant economy by raising taxes from employers and
using that money to pay down the deficit until it
forces the economy into recession. Confusing.
Defense: John Kerry's platform includes revoking the
current "Bush Doctrine of unilateral preemption" and
ensuring the approval of our 'allies' like France and
Germany before taking military action abroad.
A cornerstone of the Kerry platform is that America
was wrong to invade Iraq without UN approval. But
another cornerstone of the Kerry platform, according
to John Kerry's speeches, is that, "we will never wait
for a green light from abroad when our safety is at
stake.''
So, if unilateral preemption is wrong, would that not
REQUIRE a 'green light from abroad'? The more I tried
to explain it to my friend, the more confused we both
got.
John Kerry says the price of gas is too high and that
he would take 'strong action' against the Saudis and
other oil-producing states to bring it down. I read
through Kerry's campaign literature extensively to see
how he intends to accomplish this miracle.
If he has a way, he is keeping it to himself.
In the Senate, he voted in favor of every fuel tax
that was placed before him, and even proposed an
additional fifty-cent a gallon federal tax on gas.
It didn't pass, but Kerry argued it should have
passed, because the "price of gas, as measured in
inflation-adjusted dollars, is lower than it was in
1980."
This isn't a political screed to slam Kerry or boost
Bush. Or, it isn't so intended. I was trying to
explain to my friend why half of America wants to
elect John Kerry to the White House. It was so
illuminating to me that I thought I should put it
before you for your consideration.
I devote a significant part of each working day to
studying the political scene. I SHOULD be able to
articulate what the Kerry campaign's proposed policies
are, especially now that the Democratic Convention is
behind us.
But I can't because I can't figure out what they are.
And the only explanation I can offer for why half of
America would elect him anyway is because he isn't
George Bush.
Kerry came out in favor of reducing US troop
deployments in Germany, South Korea and Japan three
weeks ago. So, we know something he is FOR.
Back then, he told ABC's "This Week":
"If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place
can work, I think we can significantly change the
deployment of troops, not just there, but elsewhere in
the world; in the Korean peninsula, perhaps; in
Europe, perhaps."
When Bush announced a massive troop withdrawal from
the 'Korean peninsula and Europe' seventeen days
later, Kerry called it a "hastily announced plan" and
asked:
"[W]hy are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops
from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are
negotiating with North Korea � a country that really
has nuclear weapons?"
Just when I thought I had found something Kerry was
FOR, he announces he is AGAINST it.
Remember, I was sincerely trying to explain to my
friend why half of Americans polled think John Kerry
is better qualified to be Commander-in-Chief than the
guy who's been doing it for four years.
I was doing a miserable job.
Kerry's Senate record is one of favoring reducing
intelligence capabilities, reducing military
capabilities, curtailing defense spending, etc. John
Kerry's voting record establishes him as the most
liberal member of the Senate.
But America is at war. Both halves of America know
that already. In addition to the three thousand
Americans murdered on September 11, America has lost
more than 1,000 soldiers in action. More than 7,000 of
our troops have been wounded in combat. Why would
anyone vote for John Kerry as a wartime president?
Until last month, Kerry supporters would answer that
question by pointing to Kerry's Vietnam record, and
comparing it to George Bush's stateside National Guard
service.
Now, if Vietnam comes up, Kerry's people either change
the subject, or they find themselves forced to defend
it against a mounting pool of evidence to the
contrary.
Despite that, the latest presidential tracking polls
have Kerry and Bush in a dead heat.
The Amazing Race of 2004 is a study in mass deception.
Although virtually nobody, including John Kerry, can
explain why he should be considered for president, he
still has the support of half the country.
When pressed, the best his supporters can come up with
is that he isn't George Bush. But that seems to be
enough for them.
Now frame the election in spiritual terms. The most
offensive thing about George Bush to the Left is his
professed faith.
The Islamic world has framed the war in terms of
Christianity vs. Islam. al-Jazeera endorses John
Kerry, as does the majority of the Arab world.
This is no secret to potential voters. Shouldn't the
fact that our enemy prefers John Kerry set off a few
alarm bells?
But Kerry and Bush remain in a statistical tie at the
polls.
The Bible says that when the antichrist comes on the
scene, he will be accompanied by a 'strong delusion'
that will cause people to believe what they want to
believe, because they 'received not the love of the
truth'.
The Amazing Race of 2004 is a study in people
believing what they want to believe, despite clear
evidences to the contrary.
My friend asked me what I think it all means, in terms
of Bible prophecy. That was my moment of epiphany:
John Kerry's propaganda machine has already convinced
almost half of America that he belongs in the Oval
Office.
By itself, that one fact along proves that, to this
generation, truth is already not what IS true, but
people WANT to be true, even when they know in their
heart of hearts that it CAN'T be.
It took a generation to accomplish, but the
conditioning process is complete.
