Eros Colored Glasses
The premier site for understanding the motivation of the "Democratic Wing," "Media Wing" and "Death Wing" of the Democratic Party
Friday, October 29, 2004
Thursday, October 28, 2004
TeresaCare: Department of Wellness
by Sherry Eros, MD and Steven Eros
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s health care plan, representing a vast 1.5 trillion dollar increase in costs billable to the American taxpayer over the next ten years, depends for many of its bold new health-related policy initiatives on the advice and counsel of the candidate’s sharp-tongued philanthropist and food fortune heiress wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.
Does America know what it’s getting itself in for?
With the death of her first senator husband, John Heinz III, Teresa Heinz Kerry found herself a billionairess in control of the Heinz Family Endowments one of the nation's largest philanthropic organizations dispensing charitable millions to fund radical environmental causes, New Age Medicine, gay rights advocacy and a wide variety of education projects.
Teresa assumes the role of an expert in operating these vast charities even though she had no formal education, training or experience in any related field prior to assuming the mantle of leadership after her first husband’s death. Prior to that she was a housewife and, by her own account, for all practical purposes took no significant role in managing the family business interests or the foundations.
With her marriage to Sen. John Kerry in 1995, after having re-invented herself as a major philanthropist designing scientific, medical and social programs, Teresa parlayed her philanthropic credentials into becoming the presidential aspirant’s principal advisor on medical, environmental and education matters.
Writes Gail Sheehy in the pages of Mother Jones magazine:
John Kerry has not yet defined how he intends to include a prescription drug benefit in his health care plan, but his wife has seen her foundation's plan, HOPE, adopted by the state of Massachusetts, and she is developing similar plans for several other states.
"All that stuff is way ahead of my husband," [Teresa] says.
On September 8, 2004 in Greensboro, N.C., presidential candidate John Kerry formally unveiled his wife Teresa’s ultimate solution to America’s health care crisis: once elected president, the Kerry Administration will supersize the current Department of Health & Human Services bureaucracy by merging it with, or subsuming it under, a new Teresa-designed Department of Wellness. Bowing to his wife’s assertion of superior wisdom on matters medical, Kerry dutifully announced to the nation, "I intend to have not just a Department of Health and Human Services, but a Department of Wellness."
Teresianity: The Religion of Biological Determinism.
According to Heinz Kerry, we Americans are ignorant of the fact that, in order to be productive, we must all practice the rituals of wellness and prevention. Her notion of these goes far beyond what Americans usually think of in terms of eating healthful foods, keeping our weight down, exercising, not smoking and the like. As with so many of her views on life and science, Teresa Heinz Kerry's notion of wellness and prevention derive from what she describes as her time as a youngster spent roaming the jungles and savannas of Africa.
The Atlantic Monthly's Michelle Cottle offers Teresa recounting how she "spent her childhood climbing guava trees, swimming in crocodile-infested rivers, and accompanying her father, a successful oncologist, on visits to impoverished villages in the bush."
In reality this cosseted and coddled daughter of Portuguese parents was living the proverbial colonial good life in pre-revolutionary Mozambique where the black oppressed were routinely and rigorously exploited as servants, often as near-slaves.
Here in America, Teresa has invented for herself a life story in which she depicts herself as liberator of the oppressed African masses, vanquisher of apartheid and reigning authority in world health and disease. Karen Tumulty of Time describes an alternative reality in which a young Teresa was to be seen in the Mozambican capital "playing tennis on the grass lawns of private clubs and spending her days sipping tea and coffee with her friends." Dennis B. Roddy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette paints a portrait of a life with" servants, boarding schools and a big, rambling house near the water in the capital." We can only speculate about the education of this child of colonial Africa during the pre-Nazi and Nazi period. What we do know is that Teresa’s sense of the dependence of human life upon the occult life-enhancing powers of the pseudo-religion of wellness is not just some off-the-cuff incoherent noodling on her part, but appears to be a concentrated expression of Teresa’s fundamental philosophy of life, her mantra on all things health-related. This is a function of her apparent adherence to an even more deeply-rooted proto-fascist theory of biological determinism in fundamental conflict with the American belief in free will and individual moral responsibility. In Teresa's worldview, biological mechanisms determine who we are in the most fundamental sense: what we think and how we act and what we believe.
In line with this, she regularly castigates American health care providers and even openly humiliates her own physicians (as she did on a recently-aired C-span broadcast) for expressing insufficient interest in her pet theories of biological determinism such as putatively harmful estrogenic effects. Heinz Kerry regularly adopts medical fads, hunting and gathering pieces of utterly spurious medical data to support her patchwork notions frequently forgetting that what she said just moments earlier contradicts what she is saying now. This combination of intellectual lassitude and unwavering indifference to facts accounts for her recent embarrassment over accusing First Lady Laura Bush of never having held a job, and then just hours later having to apologize after being informed that, as is universally known, the present First Lady was a school teacher and librarian. It might also account for her criticizing the auto, home and plane industries while operating multiple SUVs, five stately homes and a private jet.
As often happens when Teresa recites her health care mantra during campaign stops and health forums open to the public, at a recent health care event reported-on by the AP, "She elicited chuckles from the crowd and her husband when she described the differences between women, who are driven by estrogen to ‘tend and mend,’ and men, who she said are driven by testosterone to 'fight or flight'."
Heinz Kerry’s biological determinism—her concept of the priority of the body, the physical, the biological—involves a thoroughgoing denial of those fundamental concepts of free will and individual responsibility utterly fundamental to Judeo-Christian America.
If you have a child who eats the wrong things, is denied adequate health care and is deprived of a stimulating environment, it follows of necessity that he will turn out to be a criminal or other form of psychopath, sociopath or mental defective, Teresa teaches. From this she believes it follows naturally that if society seriously intends to prevent criminality and all other forms of social pathology, then all we have to do is provide our children with the right nourishment and sunlight and stimulation—and, poof!, instantly you have healthy and well-adjusted children who grow into intelligent, law-abiding and well-adjusted adults.
For instance, in New Mexico last month, she promoted the Kerry health care plan explaining, according to an AP report, that "keeping children healthy will keep them off the streets and out of jails, 'Every child should have that great send off so they can blossom and become great Americans'." In Kolona, Iowa Teresa dilated on "John’s plan" explaining it will make all children "blossom" by assuring that:
the children put through school will have the same healthcare access, no matter who they are or where they come from, will have the same quality program from zero to 8; whether it’s means tested for someone who can pay all or part, or free for those who can’t. So that at the end of a school trajectory certainly by 8 years old, every American child has had the best that we collectively can give…to children, which is good health, good habits, strong brain development, strong social skills … we will have given them good beginnings. And let me just say that paying $10,000 or $12,000 full time for a kid who has nothing, is a lot cheaper, a lot kinder, and a lot smarter--also good economic policy-- instead of having them at $50,000 to $60,000 for life, as a young criminal, which is what’s happening in this country.
Teresa Heinz Kerry has thoroughly convinced herself that she has made a truly important and original discovery, completely oblivious to the fact that for hundreds of years innumerable snake oil salesman have been trying to pawn-off such panaceas and easy fixes in place of genuine, scientifically-based health and education practices and rigorous theories of criminal and moral responsibility both religious and philosophical.
She defines the choice Americans must make in the starkest possible terms: "If you don't focus on prevention and wellness, you die," she told a group at a health-related campaign event in Las Vegas on August 12, 2004. Heinz Kerry added without a touch of irony, "Wellness and prevention has to be No. 1 in my book. It's kinder to people. It's cheaper. It's affordable--and it's just a lot more fun."
Optimistic message: TeresaCare's a lot more fun; you follow its dictates, or you die.
Just the day before her Las Vegas appearance, live on CNN’s morning show, Heinz Kerry had beamed optimistically, "But coming from a third world country and a country that did not have either the resources or access to the kinds of things we have, and which is representative of most the world really, if you don't focus on prevention and wellness, you die, right?"
This is what Teresa Heinz Kerry has in mind when she promulgates her "holistic" health plans and practices. Not merely that they allegedly help this or that person, or might assist in preventing this or that disease. Rather that holistic healing has transcending, even transcendent value. TeresaCare has the transforming power of religion, the religion of Teresianity. New Age Medicine conceived as a low calorie religion substitute is the basis for her notion that our deficiencies in health care are responsible for preventing Americans from being "smart, well and happy." The health care plan designed by Teresa Heinz Kerry for a prospective Kerry Administration, she tells us, will immediately make "investments in our well-being" and prevent the many social and personal pathologies that restrain the individual and engulf the nations of the world. It is this global, holistic, New Age vision that portentously leads her to formulate for Kerry a health care plan in which a Department of Wellness will insure that no matter the cost, "from day one, every child will have access to healthcare;" or, more precisely, TeresaCare.
Even die-hard Kerry supporters such as Mickey Kaus were nonplused by candidate Kerry’s bow to his wife's New Age Medicine, decrying it as "Spirit-crushing foolishness from my candidate, John Kerry." Exclaimed an exasperated Kaus, "The nation is trying to figure out how to fight global terrorism and he's talking about … a Department of Wellness."
Kaus finally exploded, "How about a Department of F***ing Perspective?"
Since candidate John Kerry formally announced the plan to incorporate his wife’s idea to transform the Department of Health and Human Services into a Department of Wellness devoted to New Age Medicine, commentators on both sides of the aisle have reacted with a mixture of derision and consternation.
George Will sniffed at the would-be first couple's most important and most costly policy proposal, "While the nation was reeling from the horrors of Beslan and Baghdad, [Kerry] promised a North Carolina audience that as president he would create a ‘Department of Wellness’ to deal with problems such as house mold."
Slate's Chris Suellentrop traced back Kerry's Department of Wellness policy proposal to a January 2003 Heinz Kerry interview in the Boston Herald in which the candidate’s wife announced her intention to exert "strong advocacy" in a Kerry Administration particularly in the spheres of health, education, women’s issues, and environmental policy. Suellentrop muses,
The other head-scratcher uttered by Kerry in the past two days came Wednesday in Greensboro, N.C. There, in response to a question from a woman about the health problems caused by mold and indoor air contamination—and her complaint, "There's not one agency in this government that has come forward" to deal with the problem—Kerry endorsed the creation of a new federal department. "What I want to do, what I'm determined to do, and it's in my health-care plan, is refocus America on something that can reduce the cost of health care significantly for all Americans, which is wellness and prevention," Kerry said. So far, so good. But then, "And I intend to have not just a Department of Health and Human Services, but a Department of Wellness." Again, what? Apparently this idea comes from Teresa Heinz Kerry....
About Teresa's far-reaching influence on her husband, Kerry biographer and historian Douglas Brinkley said earlier this month in a profile of the presidential candidate on MSNBC, "it is without an exaggeration to say that [Teresa] is his closest advisor. He consults with her constantly."
According to Newsweek’s Melinda Henneberger, when a reporter asked Heinz Kerry to project what "causes" she might focus on as First Lady, such as health care and the environment, Teresa Heinz Kerry bristled, leaving no doubt that the conventional role was not at all what she has in mind, and snapping back, "My work isn't 'causes.' I have work. I don't mean to insult anyone, but mayors don't have causes, they have work." -- Teresa is being downright self-effacing here: in truth, she does not see her status being limited to that of a mere mayor.
In Mother Jones, Gail Sheehy offers an echo of these remarks with Teresa remonstrating, "They're not causes--they're serious matters in the world. It takes full time. I work six days a week."
Already back in 2003, Heinz Kerry’s words left no doubt in the mind of Boston Herald’s Andrew Miga that she would be the true power behind the health care policy throne if her senator husband is elected president. Reported Miga, "She predicted she would be an activist first lady, lobbying for a Department of Wellness that would stress preventive health."
At a town hall "Conversation on Healthcare" in Las Cruces, NM, Teresa explained that she has been spending nearly 80% of her time on the campaign trail conducting healthcare forums with voters week after week, as we learn from attending admirer Gloria R. LaLumia writing for BuzzFlash.com. LaLumia adds that Teresa always carries with her to each such forum a red three-ring binder, "which, when opened, revealed tabbed sections. The appearance of the red notebook was a signal that we were now going to get involved in some serious business."
LaLumia certifies that Teresa will insure that a president Kerry stays true to his stated priorities, "She is the driving force behind John Kerry’s promises and I believe she and the Kerry team know exactly how to get this program up and running from day one."
How important is health care policy to Teresa Heinz Kerry? How convinced is she of the transforming power of her vision, her New Age religion of biological determinism?
It is important enough, and she is certain enough, to raise the spectre of legislators nationwide being thrown out on their ears if they dare oppose it. Writes Susan Lindt, of the Intelligencer Journal, "Heinz Kerry said her husband's health care plan would be endorsed by legislators-- even naysayers whom she said will find themselves voted out of office if they oppose the plan."
She continues this tactic by raising it to the level of wholesale intimidation, with "Only an idiot wouldn't" like the Kerry health care plan. Ominously, she directly proceeds from such intimidation tactics to her strategy of mass indoctrination of the boorish American masses. Susan Lindt’s recounting of Heinz Kerry’s approach has the First Lady in prospect anticipating the need during a Kerry Administration for mass re-education programs and "retraining Americans to think of health care as wellness and disease-prevention rather than the treatment of illness."
If Teresa has her way, a postmodern Kerry Administration will be predicated on the principle beloved of all tyrannies that reality must be changed to reflect language rather than the reverse. Such linguistic idolatry and manipulation of language is intrinsic to all totalitarian systems and all relativistic schools of thought, from the tyrants of ancient Greece to the socialists to the deconstructionists. The starting point and the common denominator is the denial of human freedom, objective reality and absolute truth. In each case, the worship as well as the perversion of language are inseparable from the denial of objective reality, the annihilation of religion, and the devaluing of human life. Consequently we should expect that under Kerry, re-naming Cabinet departments will not be limited to converting the Department of Health and Human Services into a Department of Wellness. We should anticipate that, Soviet-style, the Justice Department's name will be switched to the Department of Human Restoration and Self-Reinvention; the Education Department will be recast as the Department of Human Potential, Personal Growth and Self-esteem; and in honor of Rep. Dennis Kucinich the Defense Department will be known as the Department of Peace and Reconciliation.
In her Boston Herald interview Heinz Kerry diagnosed the core problem of our poor, benighted America, declaring, "This country is just waiting to have the light switch turned on."
Kerry’s vice-presidential running mate John Edwards mirrored Teresa’s lament with, "Here's the truth. I have grown up in the bright light of America. But that light is flickering today."
John Kerry, Teresa Heinz Kerry and John Edwards want to convince Americans that we live in a state of moral darkness, and all we have to do is grant them control of the switch of state. They tell us that with such power in hand they will enlighten our nation in a way that fits their utopian model of nanny-state liberalism, in which government assumes increasing control over our health and our lives. Yet their utopian model based on biological and psychological determinism directly contradicts the core values of freedom and responsibility that have illumined America's virtuous path to success for more than two hundred years.
Kerry's Genealogy of Immorals
by Sherry Eros, MD and Steven Eros
Faith, here’s an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God’s sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven. - Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act 2, Scene 3
Tidings to the contrary Are brought your eyes. - Shakespeare, Pericles, Act 2. Prologue.Sen. John Kerry’s paternal grandfather, Fred Kerry, was born Fritz Kohn, a European Jew. Kohn changed his name to Kerry and his religion to Catholic before immigrating to the United States, an auspicious choice for a family setting-up shop in America’s most Irish Catholic state, Massachusetts. In the new world Fred Kerry was successful in business and finance, later lost his fortune, started over again, failed once more and prospered all over again. Far-sightedness, perseverance and ambition, we begin to see, are prominent family traits.
Living in the Boston suburb of Brookline under the Kerry name, a name happened-upon by inspecting a map of Ireland before leaving for America, it was presumed by all that grandfather Fred was Irish, and even a newspaper account took his Irishness for granted. Grandfather Fred apparently never left a hint of his Jewish origins, even to his closest friends and associates. Failing to correct false impressions, as we will see, is another of a series of less attractive but no less prominent family traits.
Sen. John Kerry, grandson of Fred, claims to have learned he was one-half Jewish only in 2003 when, as a candidate for the presidency, a great deal of genealogical research was being conducted by Boston Globe reporters in preparation for a major biography. Presidential candidate Kerry's response to the Globe's unsealing his Jewish rather than presumed Irish heritage appeared to be wildly enthusiastic: "incredible stuff," "more than interesting," "a revelation," the senator exclaimed. For a generation accustomed to the postmodern nuances of ClintonSpeak, however, equivocal terms of this ilk are always subject to being deconstructed as less than unequivocally enthusiastic. What we do know is that none of John Kerry's closest family and friends had the least suspicion of his Jewish heritage prior to the Globe disclosure.
Grandfather Fred appears to have lost his fortune one last time after which he committed suicide under somewhat cloudy circumstances not yet thoroughly investigated by the intrepid Globe team; somewhat surprising given his Bostonian grandson's presidential proximity. Using one of the unlicensed handguns to which his gun control advocating grandson Sen. John Kerry is so opposed today, Kerry's formerly prosperous businessman grandfather, having made and then lost his fortune one too many times, shot himself in the head and died in the restroom of Boston’s Copley Plaza Hotel. As indicated below, psychiatric disturbance may be one of the prominent Kerry family traits to which Fred Kerry was subject.
On John Kerry's maternal side, there is some interesting data tending to establish a pattern of aberrant character trait transmission across the generations, helping explain at least in part such disparate traits as Sen. Kerry’s proclivity for marrying heiresses of unimaginable wealth, his inclination to leave false impressions, his propensity to betray his country in time of war, his inclination to treasonously flee into the arms of enemy nations after siding with them against America and certain tendencies toward mental instability.
Sen. Kerry, Sen. Edwards, their wives and their campaign team relentlessly castigate President Bush for his being agnostic during the last presidential debate concerning the putative genetic basis of homosexuality. When asked by the debate moderator whether homosexuality is a matter of choice, President Bush committed the unpardonable sin of professing abject ignorance on the question. Under the New Dogmatism of the Kerry-Edwards team, doubt as to the heritability of personality and character traits is impermissible (even though the left almost universally condemns as racist research into the genetics of intelligence). Consequently, we harbor no doubt that Sen. Kerry, Sen. Edwards and their wives, so outraged over George Bush’s wavering on the question, will concur in the notion that traits such as treachery, imposture, pathological lying, unscrupulousness, overweening ambition, not to mention the propensity to marry wealthy women, all occupy specific loci on the bad character gene. Perhaps hypocrisy as well.
One very prominent ancestor of Sen. John Forbes Kerry on the maternal side, his namesake the Rev. John Forbes, the senator’s maternal great-great-great-great grandfather, served as the first magistrate to the governor of Florida in the latter part of the eighteenth century, covering the period of the American revolution. Sen. John Kerry apparently shared more than the first part of his name with the illustrious reverend.
According to the authorized Boston Globe biography of John Kerry, with whose authors the senator accordingly cooperated, there are the following parallels between Sen. John Forbes Kerry and his forebears:
(1) “Marrying-up”. Just as the socially, financially and politically ambitious Sen. John Kerry married the billionaire heiress Teresa Heinz (his second such marriage to an extremely wealthy woman), so did his ancestor the Rev. John Forbes marry himself an extremely wealthy wife, a Massachusetts heiress, back in the eighteenth century.
(2) Sen. Kerry betrays his country and secretly meets with the enemy in Paris. Kerry and the other members of his family all opposed the Vietnam War before he joined the military. Kerry wrote of his own opposition in an article published in the Harvard Crimson. He entered the military having already formed what fellow Swift Boat commander Larry Thurlow termed a carefully crafted "master plan" for his political career. According to Thurlow, “it became apparent early on that John Kerry had a master plan that went far beyond the service in the Swift Boats, and because of the fact that he was trying to engineer a record.”
(a) In 1968 Kerry would enter active military service in Vietnam, thereby obtaining the political credentials necessary to credibly subvert the American effort to win the war from the inside. As the transcript of the 1971 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing demonstrates, the Kerry plan was highly effective. One of the most influential senators on the Committee, Jacob Javits of New York, remarked, “I wish to associate myself with the statement Senator Symington made when I was here as to your credentials. That is what we always think about with a witness and your credentials couldn't be higher…. It is not as effective unless you have those credentials. The kind you have. I couldn’t think of anybody whose testimony I would rather have and act on from the point of view of what this is doing to our young men we are sending over there.”
(b) While in Vietnam as a Swift Boat commander, Kerry fraudulently obtained, under highly questionable circumstances, three Purple Hearts within just four months for what are now known to have been (unintentionally) self-inflicted and no-bleed band-aid quality injuries. These medals provided him on technical grounds the opportunity to request and obtain an expedited ticket out of Vietnam. As former Republican presidential nominee and severely injured WW II war hero Bob Dole observed, “three Purple Hearts and [Kerry] never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out [of Vietnam].” Kerry turned against his own country, lied about witnessing systemic atrocities, and denounced his fellow soldiers and veterans as drug-addicted baby-killers, sociopaths, war criminals, misfits, torturers and "monsters."
(c) While still in the service of his country as a member of the Naval Reserve, and without authorization from his superiors, Kerry left his own country to secretly meet with enemy leaders overseas in time of war.
(d) Kerry likened the communist leader of North Vietnam to American Revolutionary War leader, and first president, George Washington.
Ancestor Rev. John Forbes flees to England. From the Boston Globe biography we learn that, just as Sen. Kerry betrayed his country during the Vietnam War, so did his maternal great-great-great-great grandfather oppose the American Revolutionary War, granting his loyalty not to his fellow Americans but to the British and, in the words of Kerry's Globe biographers, the esteemed reverend "fled Florida in 1783 and returned to England where he died within months. Such was the inauspicious beginning of the Kerry family in America."
(3) Psychiatric illness and treatment: Grandfather Fred Kerry and John Kerry . As we have seen, paternal grandfather Fred Kerry committed suicide. Since his time in Vietnam, John Kerry appears to have also suffered from psychiatric symptoms of an unspecified nature, severity and chronicity as reported in The Washington Post. According to his second wife, Teresa, John Kerry may have undergone psychiatric treatment with medication or other forms of therapy for symptoms she has personally witnessed since their marriage in 1995, putatively related to Vietnam War “trauma.” Wife Teresa describes John’s violent nightmares, “I haven't gotten slapped yet . . . but there were times when I thought I might get throttled.” Sen. Kerry was instrumental in propagating the false notion that Vietnam vets are disproportionally suicidal and suffer from increased liability to a variety of mental and social pathologies, (and seems to have contributed to establishing the questionable diagnostic category known as PTSD) but when pressed on whether he has undergone psychiatric treatment himself he is strikingly evasive. According to the Washington Post, “Asked if he has been in therapy himself, he non-answers, ‘It doesn't bother me anymore, I just go back to sleep’.” To Dr. Sydney Smith, physician-publisher of MedPundit, this “is the most disturbing aspect of the Teresa Heinz Kerry anecdote. It suggests he has yet to come to terms with the question himself.” To the contrary, this impresses us as a legitimate concern and a serious potential threat to his political viability. The mainstream news media has not pressed him on the matter of his psychiatric history. In spite of this failure, the Kerry campaign felt no inhibition in releasing the psychiatric records of a leader of the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth active in opposing his candidacy, as reported in the New York Daily News. It is interesting to note that one of Kerry’s favored weapons against his political opposition, beginning in the days of his protests against the Vietnam War, has been to smear his opponents in general, and Vietnam veterans in particular, as suicidally crazed or criminally inclined, vagrants and derelicts, drug addicts and maniacs. He used this slander technique in 1971 as part of the process of vilifying all Vietnam veterans in order to gain himself a national political platform, and he applies the same technique today to distract from his refusing to answer the charges of the rest of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that he is an impostor who fraudulently obtained his medals and his early release from combat duty inVietnam, and then proceeded to defame his fellow soldiers and POWs. Speaking to the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, on September 10, 2004 and holding in his hand a copy of his best-selling book "Unfit for Command," Swift Boat Veterans for Truth leader John O'Neill explained, “I'm going to suggest to you that the reason [Kerry] hasn't answered a single thing about this book, is that there is no answer to what's in this book--this book is absolutely the truth…. That's why he hasn't answered the book.--How has he reacted? He has reacted with a series of vicious attacks on the messenger. [The Kerry campaign] leaked information to the New York Daily News about a fifteen year ago suicide, attempted suicide, by one of the signers of our letter.”
Whether Sen. John Kerry inherited any of his paternal grandfather's self-destructive tendencies is unknown--apart from the senator’s consistent and relentless suicidal compulsion to dismantle every facet of America’s military, intelligence and nuclear capability in the face of the gravest imaginable threats from tyrannies and terrorist organizations spanning the decades from the Cold War through the current War on Terrorism. We do know, however, that he has suffered from highly disturbing symptoms, though documentation on the precise nature of these symptoms and any treatment for them has been scrupulously hidden from an indifferent press corps.
There are any number of other negative character traits that might be traceable either to the mental instability of Sen. Kerry's grandfather Fred, or the disloyalty of his namesake the Rev. John Forbes. These reportedly include qualities as seemingly innocent as a remote and aloof manner and a group of more serious character flaws including a tendency to various forms of fraud and imposture, pathological lying. The following is a list of a few such character traits:
(1) At the time of his Vietnam War protests, Kerry affected a transparently fake and affected high Boston accent, shibboleth of any aspiring JFK-monogrammed wannabe from Boston. The accent is accompanied by pronunciation anomalies precipitously adopted by the ambitious presidential aspirant from Massachusetts while at Yale and subsequently preserved throughout his anti-Vietnam War days. These anomalies are exemplified by his substitution of the soft Yale-inspired Jen-jis Khan for the familiar Genghis Khan. According to Kerry's childhood schoolmate Brit Hume of Fox News this accent did not exist at all before the would-be president's Yale days and his anti-Vietnam War testimony. Of course, there remains not the slightest trace of it today. Hume suggests, “Kerry speaks with an accent which he didn't have when I knew him when we were little boys together--and he doesn't have now, but he had then--it's quite striking. And I'm not sure it helps him.” This Vietnam era pronunciation affectation has been described by his Boston Globe biographers as a "deep Boston accent, even though Kerry had spent most of his life outside the state," as a result of which, the biographers continue, Kerry sometimes "sounded eerily like [John F.] Kennedy" (p. 31), with whom he shared the initials JFK. Robert F. Worth of The New York Times dryly comments that, these days, Kerry has shed “the upper-class drawl of his youth,” but Worth blurs the dramatic transformation, adding “but his soft vowels and formal diction still hint at a privileged lineage.”
Only The New York Times would feel the need for a cover-up to conceal Kerry’s voice change operation in much the same way an embarrassed mother might conceal her son’s sex change operation.
Peggy Noonan acutely observes, “Mr. Kerry has a problem with rhetoric. He doesn't have his own sound. You may hate Mr. Bush's sound but it's his, and a lot of people like it. He sounds normal, which for all its pluses and minuses as a style does tend to underscore the idea that he is normal…. JFK himself came forward as JFK. He didn't present himself to the world with a cigarette-holder, a jut-jawed chin and rimless eyeglasses. That is to say, he did not make believe he was FDR, the party's giant who'd died just 15 years before. JFK knew to be JFK. Kerry should be Kerry. This is assuming there is a Kerry. For argument's sake, let's.”
"Without reprieve, adjudged to death, For want of well-pronouncing
shibboleth." - Judg. 12:1-6.
Kerry channeled his old idol, John F. Kennedy, too, his well-modulated radio announcer's voice abruptly morphing into JFK's high-Boston accent, turning "ideas" into "idears." - Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2004.
(2) Kerry's unconvincing present-day attempts at everyday folksiness and hipness: (a) dropped g's such as nothin' for nothing; (b) a surplus of antiquated hipster expressions such as "Hey, man," and 60's gestures such as recently taking a drag on an "air joint." as well as (c) the presidential candidate’s incessant use of sportsy "gut-checking" variants, especially his insufferably repetitious real-man references to feeling what's in his "gut;" (d) simulations of Kennedy family sports, except that in Kerry's case this takes the form not of playing on the lawn, but of ostentatious athletic posing on every airport tarmac campaign stop. Typically, Kerry and an aide can be seen incongruously playing catch in the plane's shadow while dressed in business attire. Noonan’s revealing observations are again apposite, "Mr. Kerry is one of those rare public men who never get over self-consciousness in public. He's also that rare athlete who seems to lack physical grace. . . . He seems affected because he's self-conscious, and this is compounded by an air of premeditation.... He seems to be enacting sports more than enjoying them. He always seems to be enacting rather than enjoying."
(3) Kerry has been attempting to convince the electorate that he is pro-gun (witness the recent goose hunt in Ohio), tough on defense (“I will never let those troops down and will hunt and kill the terrorists wherever they are,” and in favor of middle-class tax cuts (at the second presidential debate St. Louis, Missouri, October 8, 2004, when asked by an audience member at the townhall-style debate if he would agree to “look directly into the camera and using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term,” the Senator gamely adopted a choir boy countenance and swore to the folks at home, “Absolutely, yes. Right into the camera, yes. I am not going to raise taxes…. I mean, you got to stand up and fight somewhere, folks. I'm pledging I will not raise taxes.” This, from the senator from Massachusetts who is rated by the non-partisan National Journal as the most extremely liberal in the entire U. S. Senate, and by any measure has devoted his decades-long tax-hiking, gun-controlling, government-expanding, nuclear-freezing political career to advancing the liberal side of the liberal side on every issue of consequence to the polity.
(4) Sen. Kerry has done more than any living human being to besmirch the reputations of Vietnam veterans as deviants, drug addicts, misfits, vagrants and homicidal or suicidal maniacs when the truth is rather that, in the medical and scientific literature, the rates of homelessness, joblessness, psychiatric disorder, crime, suicide and homicide among Vietnam veterans have been conclusively demonstrated--in exhaustive studies conducted, for instance, by the U. S. Centers for Disease Control to be statistically equal to or lower than the rates for the rest of the American population; or, as retired U.S. Navy Seal captain and Vietnam veteran John Bailey put it, “more than any other person, John Kerry is responsible for the false image of Vietnam veterans as dysfunctional misfits. Kerry betrayed all of us when he returned from Vietnam.”
(5) The ever-gallant Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have demonstrated that on several key issues John F. Kerry has fraudulently obtained medals for purported injuries and acts of bravery to which he was not entitled, and has used those medals to obtain an early out from active duty in Vietnam after hardly four months—according to John O’Neill, the only Swift Boat crew member or officer to have served a small fraction of the required tour of duty during the entire Vietnam conflict, apart from those who suffered disabling injuries. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth make an extremely strong case that John Kerry was an impostor and faked the injuries that were the basis of the medals he received. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth also question why Kerry refuses to sign Form 180, to release all of his service records to explain the many discrepancies and also to explain why his discharge was delayed as a result of which he received it many years after it would normally have been granted.
(6) John Kerry repeatedly claimed that he had illegally penetrated Cambodian waters on Christmas eve of 1968, as part of then-President Nixon's secret extension of the Vietnam War, explaining that this memory was “seared in” his brain. This claim has been proven utterly false, as recently acknowledged even by Kerry’s most vehement defenders--not to mention the fact that Nixon was not even president at the time. It is Kerry’s oft-repeated explanation that the memory of an event that never occurred is burned into his memory that makes one wonder whether the senator is delusional or just a fraud.
(7) in 1971, Kerry provided overwhelmingly false and misleading, and in many instances fraudulent, testimony to the U. S. Senate as to widespread, systematic and officially sanctioned atrocities committed in Vietnam by virtually all Americans serving there in combat throughout the war. Kerry and his fellow protest organizers in the VVAW contrived this slanderous testimony during the 1971 Winter Soldier hearings that he supervised, even though a large proportion of those who provided accounts of supposed atrocities were not combat Vietnam veterans, in some cases not veterans at all, refused to prepare legal affidavits or in a variety of other ways demonstrably dissembled. When finally pressed on the matter, however, Kerry acknowledged on television that he had himself repeatedly committed genuine war crimes in Vietnam. As with his Cambodia recollections, such testimony raises questions about whether Swift Boat commander John Kerry simply lied about alleged war crimes or fell victim to delusional forms of thinking and remembering.
They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. - Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971.(8) In an interview with Charlie Gibson, host of ABC’s Good Morning America program, Kerry was confronted with lies and imposture regarding his throwing away his medals during 1971 anti-war protests in Washington organized by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Interviewed at the time of the protests, he confirmed that he had thrown his own medals. Years later, Kerry claimed that he pitched only his ribbons and that “medals” stands for ribbons and medals equally. Later, when confronted with eyewitness testimony that he had flung medals and not only ribbons, he first denied it vociferously and finally admitted that he did throw medals but that they belonged to one or more other soldiers and only the ribbons were his. In so doing he at least implicitly acknowledged that when it fit his own political interests he intentionally and misleadingly led onlookers and the media representatives who interviewed him to falsely conclude that he tossed his own medals, and then later, equally misleadingly, denied he jettisoned any medals when denial seemed to better suit those same political interests. Only Kerry himself knew the secret distinction between his own medals, and those of others, a distinction that enabled him to both affirm and deny throwing away medals. Once again, he displayed his ancestral trait of intentionally leaving false impressions. Ever since the 1971 incident, Kerry displayed that precocious and pre-Clintonian gift for postmodern ambiguities, nuances and equivocal interpretations of words such as medals and ribbons for which he has recently gained so much renown in the matter of the $87 billion Supplemental appropriation for the Iraq War. In a statement reminiscent of Bill Clinton's claim that he smoked but did not actually inhale marijuana, Kerry also explained to Gibson that originally he was only in favor of placing the medals gently on a table before he relented later and reluctantly agreed to heave them over the fence.
Here it is quite difficult to separate simple dissimulation and quibbling from psychiatrically significant delusional thinking and remembering. Did Kerry “remember” throwing medals even though he later changed his story to ribbons? When forced to admit he actually threw medals, did he really remember other soldiers who asked him to toss their medals? When he first asserted that he threw away the medals and later claimed the term “medals” covers ‘ribbons,’ did he genuinely believe this to be the case? When he later claimed that he wanted to gently deposit medals on a table but was rebuffed by his fellow organizers, did this debate really occur and can it be corroborated by others? When he told the story of other soldiers who asked him to fling their medals during the protest, we may not only ask why they would not want to toss their medals themselves, but whether these soldiers actually exist--can they be produced for purposes of corroboration?
(9) Obtaining an annulment of his first marriage to the mother of his children that involved a claim before God that his marriage of nearly two decades never occurred and his children are not the legitimate offspring of that marriage.--Is this not another form of fraud for expediency’s sake?
Finally, Sen. Kerry inadvertently disclosed his own dying mother's revelatory concerns for his lapsed integrity during his third and final debate of the 2004 presidential campaign with President Bush:
And she looked at me from her hospital bed and she just looked at me and she said, "Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity. "Those are the three words that she left me with." - John F. Kerry, Third Presidential Debate, 2004This encounter with his mother occurred just a couple of years ago. Why would a dying mother administer an intense, penetrating stare, and why would she triple-repeat-for-emphasis the word "integrity" to a son who was embarking on a presidential campaign.--And why the admonitory, "Remember" so meaningfully imparted?
What explanation could there possibly be other than a concerned mother's intent to convey most searingly the fact that she harbored the gravest doubts as to her son’s "integrity;" mustn't she have fretted that this was John Kerry's Achilles heel, the one thing her son's character defects would compel him to abjure, whether in his antecedent 1971 testimony or in an anticipated presidential contest in which his integrity would be put to the test?
In the end John Kerry leaves us only with questions.
Is the image we see of John Kerry a reflection of what his mother wanted, a man of integrity? Is he the reflection of paternal grandfather Fred Kerry, the suicidally unstable man of unbridled but failed ambition? Or is he the descendant of the Benedict Arnold-like anti-American Rev. John Forbes, the great-great-great-great grandfather who so ambitiously married up but sold-out his country and whose ignominious end marks the true starting point of John Kerry’s quest for the presidency?
BACK TO KERRY ARTICLES HOMEPAGE
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Private Pleading: CNN's Wolf Blitzer Neuters Nader
by Sherry Eros, MD and Steven Eros
RatherGate appears to have been a joint venture of a fevered Bush hater, the Kerry campaign and CBS’s 60 Minutes featuring Dan Rather.
The end was to assist challenger Sen. John Kerry in unseating the incumbent President Bush by proving Bush to be unfit for office.
The means to that end involved utilizing forged Kinko-generated documents purporting to show that George Bush shirked his military obligations and failed to obey direct orders during his Vietnam War-era stateside military service.
RatherGate is just the tip of a bias iceberg globally positioned at the extreme tip of the southernmost pole of the mainstream media. What every TV viewer of Judge Judy’s show grasps effortlessly escaped the comprehension of the most high media lords and ladies, namely, that once a witness is caught telling one lie, he is thereby permanently impeached as a liar and nothing else in his testimony should be considered credible.
RatherGate demonstrated why Dan Rather has for so long retained the heavyweight belt for journalistic low blows.
If Rather holds the heavyweight title, then the middleweight crown surely belongs to Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Week after week, the celebrated CNN anchor pleads the case for electing Sen. John Kerry president of the United States while posing as objective.
Even when his Sunday "news" show, CNN’s "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer," occasionally makes the pretense of impartiality by inviting guests representing both political parties, Blitzer is seen lobbing political softballs at the Democrat while launching precision-guided nuclear-tipped missiles at the Republican. When the Democratic Party representative falters or even hesitates, Blitzer jumps-in suggesting rationalizations and excuses for Kerry’s flubs and contradictions, and cueing favored liberal guests when they momentarily stray from their otherwise well-honed Democratic talking points. By contrast, CNN’s journalistic weisse Engel applies an electron microscope to the task of dissecting every last word of his Republican guests.
Blitzer’s most outrageous strategem during the current election season was on display on the Sunday, October 17, 2004 edition of CNN’s "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer," in which Blitzer renounced any pretense of politically neutral news interviewing, and instead unremittingly encouraged third party candidate Ralph Nader to withdraw from the presidential contest because he is hurting the chances of the media’s chosen candidate Sen. John Kerry.
The excerpted portions of the interview below show Blitzer first encouraging Terry McAuliffe, Chairman of the Democratic Party, to make an appeal to Ralph Nader to withdraw from the race, and then minutes later aggressively confronting and pressuring Nader himself; alternately needling, demanding and imploring the consumer advocate to abandon his vain quest for the presidency.
The transcript shows Blitzer first prompting TERRY MCAULIFFE, CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY:
BLITZER [prompting Terry McAuliffe Chairman of the Democratic Party, to make an appeal to RALPH NADER, THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT]: Terry McAuliffe, we're about to speak to Ralph Nader, the independent party presidential candidate. Are you going to appeal to him one more time, "Drop out?"
MCAULIFFE: Yes, I would appeal to Ralph Nader, you have fought your whole life for corporate governance and you have fought your whole life on the issues, the environment and so many things that you have cared about....Ralph, I'm appealing to you: please help us. We have got to beat George Bush….
After a commercial break, WOLF BLITZER INTERVIEWS RALPH NADER:
BLITZER: Independent in party label as well as in spirit, presidential candidate Ralph Nader is in the race, although way behind. But he's tough-skinned enough, some would say stubborn enough, to stay in this race where a percentage point or two could very well determine the outcome in several key battleground states.
RALPH NADER (I), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. [Kerry's] basically telling the truth, that you're not going to be the president of the United States. Why stay in this race?... you just heard Terry McAuliffe say on this program that on so many of the issues that are so close to your heart, John Kerry and the Democrats are so much closer to you than George W. Bush.... Now, [on the matter of collaborating with the Democrats,] have you switched?
NADER: No, they repudiated offers to collaborate, even offers to collaborate in the spillover vote for my candidacy to help the Democrats win the House and Senate.
BLITZER: But do you still want to collaborate with him to dislodge George W. Bush?
NADER: Absolutely. I'll make this -- on your program -- I'll make this offer, after listening to Terry McAuliffe.
If any of the Democratic fat cats want to finance a one-minute national television ad, I will go on and take Bush and Cheney apart on their record without even mentioning my candidacy or asking anybody to vote for me....
BLITZER: But basically you're acknowledging, from your perspective, the country would be better off with Kerry in the White House as opposed to Bush?
NADER: Least worse off, that's right.
BLITZER: Well, can you say it, it would be better off?...You saw what Winona LaDuke said this past week. She was your running-mate on the Green Party in 2000. She said, "I'm voting my conscience on November 2nd. I'm voting for John Kerry."... [displaying a chart showing Nader drawing votes away from Kerry] I want to put these numbers up on the screen. We've looked at some of the more recent battleground state polls. Florida, you've got 3 percent. Iowa, 4 percent. Maine, 3 percent. Minnesota, 2.7 percent. New Hampshire, 1 percent. New Mexico, 1.7 percent. Look at this. In Wisconsin, you're getting 4 percent in a recent battleground poll up there as well. What -- how...
NADER: You make it sound like it's terrible. It's healthy to have more voices and choices.
BLITZER: But if you're a Democrat, and you're going to win this presidency -- it is terrible if you're a Democrat. You understand why the Democrats are so nervous about the potential 1 or 2 or 3 percent you could get and the fact that that could tilt the scales in favor of Bush? ... But given how close it could be in Pennsylvania, and how critical that is to John Kerry, who you acknowledge yourself is the least bad of the options right now, why not just forget about Pennsylvania and not get on the ballot?
NADER: Because we're pushing for a major political reform movement long after November 2. We will never turn our back on the millions of Americans who are coming into our Web site, voteNader.org, for real, important reasons about why the country needs an independent political movement and more voices and choices.
BLITZER: All right. Final question, is there any chance at all between now and November 2nd you'll drop out?
NADER: Of course not....
BLITZER: All right. Ralph Nader, we'll leave it there. Thank you very much.
BACK TO KERRY ARTICLES HOMEPAGE
The Real "Iraq-al Qaeda Connection"
by Sherry Eros , Steven Eros
Foreign and domestic opponents of the war in Iraq claimed (and continue to claim) that it merely distracted America from what should have been an exclusive concentration on the War on Terrorism, arguing that there was no compelling proof of Saddam Hussein’s complicity in the September 11 attacks or involvement with Osama bin Laden.
In response to the latter claim, Walter Russell Mead, senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, asserted a direct causal link between Saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks, in the March 12, 2003, issue of the Washington Post. Mead correctly observed that Saddam Hussein’s noncompliance compelled U.S. forces to stay in Saudi Arabia ever since the 1991 Gulf War in order to maintain the sanctions regime and related restrictions imposed by the United Nations (UN). Saddam Hussein’s persistent cheating and mistreatment of his own people, coupled with his unrelenting threat to his highly vulnerable oil-rich neighbors, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, made it impossible for America to extricate itself from its military bases in Saudi Arabia.
Mead noted further that it was principally in order to expel the U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia that Osama bin Laden created the al Qaeda terrorist network. Saudi Arabia is the home of the two most important Islamic holy sites in the world and is the birthplace of the Prophet Mohammed. As such, bin Laden considered it unacceptable for military forces of an “infidel” nation to be stationed there.
Hence, Mead argues, “The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of September 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.” He concludes, “This is the link between Saddam Hussein’s defiance of international law and the events of September 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi violations, no September 11.”
By this logic, however, one could also lay blame for September 11 directly on the United States, for if the American presence had anything to do with bringing on the attack, the United States certainly had ultimate control over the decision to deploy its forces in Saudi Arabia. (“No American interventionism, no September 11.”) One could equally blame Kuwait’s political and military weakness for its needing American intervention against Iraq in the first place. (“No Kuwaiti weakness, no September 11.”) The UN itself might be indicted for instituting unworkable sanctions, the violation of which by Saddam Hussein led to the U.S. intervention. (“No UN sanctions, no September 11.”) Or one could hold Britain accountable, for failing to draw effective borders in fashioning the Iraqi state decades ago. (“No Iraq, no September 11.”) This won’t do. Basic logic teaches that such “counterfactual conditionals” are insufficient to establish either causality or criminal responsibility.
In spite of this, it is possible to establish positively that Saddam Hussein is legally and morally responsible for the September 11 attacks. The key is to combine two tools of criminology: forensic timeline analysis, and basic principles of legal criminal responsibility.
One longstanding legal principle applies the felony murder statute to criminal behavior that causes “accidental” death or harm. If I commit a serious crime and in doing so accidentally cause an innocent person to die, then I may be held guilty of murder—even if his death was not my direct intention. For instance, if I set an arson fire in a building I believe vacant, and an unseen occupant dies, then I am responsible for his murder even if his death was “unintentional.”
This is where forensic timeline analysis proves Saddam Hussein’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks. In the case at hand, we know that, in violation of international law, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened to attack Saudi Arabia. Having been expelled by coalition forces during the Gulf War, as Mead notes, Saddam knew that his continuous flouting of the Gulf War cease-fire agreements, UN-imposed sanctions, and the continuing threat of conquest he posed to his Kuwaiti and Saudi neighbors were compelling American forces to remain in Saudi Arabia.
To establish Saddam’s complicity in the September 11 attacks requires demonstrating the additional proposition that Saddam could not plausibly claim ignorance concerning Osama bin Laden’s terrorist response to our Saudi presence—in the form of al Qaeda attacks over the course of the succeeding years. This is easily done. Every national leader in the region, including Saddam, was well aware of bin Laden’s rage over America’s status in Saudi Arabia. It cannot have escaped Saddam’s attention that in the decade after the Gulf War the United States was subjected to a series of terrorist attacks for this very reason. Accordingly, if we add to the timeline the series of al Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States, what this in effect amounts to is a continuous state of war or threat of war, in which Saddam Hussein and bin Laden are equally complicit, with Saddam’s recurrent sanctions violations and threats to world oil supplies all the while obligating America to keep troops in Saudi Arabia, thereby provoking bin Laden to attack the United States repeatedly for the perceived outrage against his religion.
Given that his behavior both during the Gulf War and after was a criminal violation of international law, the legal principle regarding felony murder applies. This felony murder analysis, of course, requires that Saddam Hussein be held responsible for all the reasonably anticipated results of his criminal behavior, not just those he directly intended. Those consequences included every one of al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks on the United States and its interests throughout the world, ranging from the first bombing of the World Trade Center to the suicide hijacking attacks of September 11, and from the bombing of the Khobar Towers military complex and the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania to the USS Cole attack in the port of Aden, Yemen.
Saddam Hussein had the ability and the opportunity to prevent all of these atrocities, but instead he continuously, knowingly, and criminally placed the United States in a position of vulnerability to al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks. For this reason, he is legally and morally responsible for all of them, including September 11. This, in turn, demonstrates that the recent Iraq war was an inseparable part of the War on Terrorism.
This article appeared in the Spring 2003 issue of American Outlook.
BACK TO KERRY ARTICLES HOMEPAGE