John Kerry

An exclusive interview with the two presidential candidates on gun rights, conservation and other issues that affect your hunting and fishing.

In many respects it is difficult to imagine two candidates less alike than President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. Even geographically, the contrast between their respective hometowns?the hardscrabble environs of Midland, Tex., and the historical elegance of Boston, Mass.?is extreme. Politically as well, the two candidates have different views on a host of issues. But when it comes to the sportsmen?s vote, these two men want your support and they want it badly. Here, in their own words, Bush and Kerry, both self-described sportsmen, answer key questions on gun rights, conservation, public-land access and other issues that will affect your ability to fish and hunt and enjoy the outdoor traditions you hold so dear.

Just remember that when Kerry talks about support for "gun rights" or the second amendment, he doesn't seem that as contradicting his many votes in favor of gun control laws. The man hasn't seen a gvun control law he doesn't like.

Candidate Kerry's choice for Homeland Security Advisor is a seasoned drug warrior who has already shown his loyalty to the well being of the drug war, no matter how many lives it destroys.

For those who oppose the federal government's disastrous war on drugs, there are many things to dislike about the Bush Administration, not the least of which is its shameless ? and dangerous ? use of the war on terror to prop up the failed drug war and the accompanying $18 billion dollar bureaucracy. And there is no indication that four more years of a Bush presidency will offer anything but more of the same.

But anyone who thinks a vote for John Kerry means a vote for a more liberalized approach to drug policy should think again. Candidate Kerry's choice for Homeland Security Advisor, Rand Beers, is a seasoned drug warrior who has already shown his loyalty to the well being of the drug war, no matter how many lives it destroys, or how many narco- terrorists are enriched along the way.

Anyone under the delusion that Kerry is actually serious about civil liberties should recall that, prior to 9-11, our most pressing civil liberties issues were being spawned by the Drug War. Kerry is all in favor of the Drug War. And that means he's lying through his teeth on civil liberties.

In the early years of his Senate career, Edwards voted to "commend" the Million Mom March, to end private sales at gun shows, and to maintain long-term federal registration of gun buyer records. He voted for national registration of all gun show vendors, and voted to ban importation of ammunition magazines. There wasn`t much in the way of gun control legislation that Edwards didn`t support.

In all, Edwards voted against gun owners--or didn`t show up to vote at all--83% of the time. This is an anti-gun record by any estimation, but let`s see if Edwards` Southern charade continued on hunting issues.

Senator John Kerry has made his 4-month combat tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his bid for the Presidency. His campaign jets a handful of veterans around the country, and trots them out at public appearances to sing his praises. John Kerry wants us to believe that these men represent all those he calls his "band of brothers."

But most combat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam see him in a very different light.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter the false "war crimes" charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere, and to accurately portray Kerry's brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant. We speak from personal experience -- our group includes men who served beside Kerry in combat as well as his commanders. Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead.

We regret the need to do this. Most Swift boat veterans would like nothing better than to support one of our own for America's highest office, regardless of whether he was running as a Democrat or a Republican. However, Kerry's phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compels us to step forward.

For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, addicts, and baby killers. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence.

This is a new website launched by people who served with John Kerry in Vietnam.

UPDATE: Since this is getting a lot of attention I figured I would provide some more substantive commentary. First, it seems that Kerry has been sending lawyer-letters to television stations reminding them that they don't have to accept the ad. I'm sure they knew that anyway, but having your lawyers write it is what I would describe as a threat by implication. But nevermind that.

Via Clayton Cramer we learn that one of the veterans retracted his claim, except that we also learn that he didn't. Confusing. At any rate, this tempest appears to have been truly stirred from a teacup; the dispute is about one man's testimony, among many other sources. To get an idea of just how confusing it can be to analyze this incident in depth, the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller has the scoop. The organization behind the ad are also publishing Unfit for Command detailing the accusations (sample chapter).

And the whole thing is only marginally relevant to the 2004 Presidential Election: much more relevant would be, frankly, Kerry's Senate career. Which, for some reason, the Kerry campaign seems reluctant to mention. Gee, I wonder why. It might be that Kerry has voted 100% for gun control, even though he claims to support the 2nd Amendment and loves to pose with firearms. Ya think that has something to do with it?

UPDATE: There was a contradiction between Kerry's claims in Senate testimony to have spent Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia while the President told the American people the troops were not in Cambodia. This was one of the claims challenged by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, since the military records say that Kerry was stationed some distance from the Cambodian border. Turns out that the Swift Boaters scored at least one hit with their first broadside. Kerry has admitted to a "mistaken recollection" about his earlier claim.

That's a claim he made under oath before Congress, folks. We call that perjury and we impeached President Clinton for doing it in a pathetically-minor sexual harassment lawsuit. Kerry's perjury concerned the lawful behavior of US troops in wartime. How much more weighty can the issue become?

While Kerry was not a sitting President when he was testifying, and I think the Republican party is too smart to try to pull another impeachment, I also think the public is not at all interested in a President vulnerable to that sort of charge. Just as important, the admission from Kerry lends credibility to the other charges of the Swift Boat Vets. It's one thing if they are nothing more than a pack of partisan liars, but they've already forced Kerry to change his story on one issue; they may well be right about more than that.

There was a contradiction between Kerry's claims in Senate testimony to have spent Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia while the President told the American people the troops were not in Cambodia. This was one of the claims challenged by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, since the military records say that Kerry was stationed some distance from the Cambodian border. Turns out that the Swift Boaters scored at least one hit with their first broadside. Kerry has admitted to a "mistaken recollection" about his earlier claim.

That's a claim he made under oath before Congress, folks. We call that perjury and we impeached President Clinton for doing it in a pathetically-minor sexual harassment lawsuit. Kerry's perjury concerned the lawful behavior of US troops in wartime. How much more weighty can the issue become?

While Kerry was not a sitting President when he was testifying, and I think the Republican party is too smart to try to pull another impeachment, I also think the public is not at all interested in a President vulnerable to that sort of charge. Just as important, the admission from Kerry lends credibility to the other charges of the Swift Boat Vets. It's one thing if they are nothing more than a pack of partisan liars, but they've already forced Kerry to change his story on one issue; they may well be right about more than that.

Now, Kerry leads Democrats in championing gun rights in a bid to reach swing-voting hunters. Worried that a weak foothold with the so-called hook-and-bullet crowd could cost them the election, Democrats have locked and loaded and changed their tune, their image, even their party platform.

As Kerry toured battleground states in recent days, time and again he told audiences that he's an outdoorsman who embraces the Second Amendment, the constitutional right to bear arms.

John Kerry has never met a gun control bill he wouldn't vote for. This is how he respects the right to bear arms? Let's not be fooled.

Just after JOHN KERRY came back from Vietnam, he wrote the book THE NEW SOLDIER. The book is out of print. John Kerry does not allow the publisher to reprint it. To make a rational decision on November 2, you need to have all available facts. You can now read John Kerry's THE NEW SOLDIER online for FREE.

I don't know about the legality of posting the full book online, but I figure if it's not legal to do so, well, Kerry's got a lawyer for his running mate and isn't exactly shy about making legal threats; a simple DMCA request to blogspot (who are hosting the site) should resolve it if in fact the posting is not legal. If they do that, the link will go away. But for as long as it lasts, here you go.

Wondered what sort of cases John Edwards (the VP candidate associated with John Kerry) has been litigating? FindLaw has the link. I've included summaries and commentary below.

Beyond representing clients in routine personal injury cases, Edwards developed a specialty in swimming pool injury cases. In one case involving a 5-year-old girl who was disemboweled by suction from a pool drain, the jury awarded her $25M, the highest personal injury award in North Carolina history at the time.

Aside from the one bizarre case (children disemboweled by pool drains?), the personal injury and product liability cases look less than wonderful. Most of them appear to involve stupid behavior by clients, such as diving into the shallow end ("improper supervision"), dying during a rescue attempt after a head-on collision ("wrongful death"), falling from a scaffold, or being crushed by a delivery box.

Another specialty Edwards developed was in medical malpractice cases involving problems during births of babies. According to the New York Times, after Edwards won a $6.5M verdict for a baby born with cerbral-palsy, he filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60M.

Lots of babies with cerebal palsy being blamed on doctors improper care that I don't have the medical knowledge to evaluate. One adult woman who committed suicide after being removed from suicide watch, which frankly offends me -- I believe in the right to commit suicide. Unless there was some medical reason why the woman could not be considered to be in her right mind, she should be able to make her own choices.

The non-baby, non-suicide cases (all two of them) look valid.

Another specialty Edwards developed was in motor vehicle accident and injury cases involving tractor-trailers.

And these are just classic ambulance-chasing, as far as I can see.

The National Review has a great list of questions for Kerry. Somehow, though, I doubt many of them will get answered. One of Kerry's goals with the whole Vietnam thing is to distract attention from his career in the Senate, during which he accomplished little and accumulated a voting record that is far, far left of moderate -- and which contradicts most of the things he's trying to run on this year.

This is a well-researched, in-depth article discussing Kerry's legal experience. It's worth a read.

As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service.

Now, there's certainly a difference between "community service" and "military service", but in both cases we are talking about a draft; that is, involuntary servitude. At least a military draft is only imposed in dire necessity during wartime; Kerry's version would apply to everyone.

And frankly, that's beyond the pale. Volunteering to help your country is one thing; being compelled to do so on pain of men with guns is a different thing entirely. (And yes, men with guns will come to get you if you don't go to school).

"Time and time again, President George W. Bush has caved in to the gun lobby and failed in his responsibility to keep Americans safe. He has chosen the extreme ideological policies of the National Rifle Association over the need to protect American citizens from gun violence every single time. Not once has the President opposed anything on the NRA's legislative agenda. This is truly tragic, and it will lead to Americans, including police officers, losing their lives.

"On the other hand, Senator John Kerry has consistently supported sensible gun laws throughout his career in public service. As a prosecutor and as a legislator he has been a leader, working with law enforcement officials on efforts to reduce gun violence. As a hunter and a war hero, Senator Kerry knows that sportsmen do not need military-style assault weapons, and that measures to keep guns away from criminals, terrorists and children are just common sense.

"We urge Americans who care deeply about reducing gun violence in our nation to vote for Senator John Kerry."

Endorsements like these cut both ways. Kerry is the candidate of gun control.

The New York Times has published a Kerry puff piece, but my hunch is that their piece will actually turn voters off of the candidate. There are a number of quotes in the piece that are really, really off-putting for any voter who cares about security. The extended entry has a few examples.

I remember feeling a rage, a huge anger, and I remember turning to somebody and saying, 'This is war.' I said, 'This is an act of war.'''

In the immediacy of the moment, Kerry actually gets it. He understands that this is not a law-enforcement problem, but rather a new form of assymetric warfare. And yet, 3 years later, he says:

When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

Clearly, whatever power 9-11 had to penetrate the fog surrounding Kerry's mind, it has dissipated, and he's back to a pre-9-11 state now. War and terrorism are very different things from prostitution and illegal gambling, and they demand very different responses. The interviewer manages to spin this response as a positive (Kerry is "optimistic" compared to Bush's "dark vision of unending war"). But that's missing the point. Whatever transformative moment Kerry had on the capital steps on 9-11 is gone.

So how exactly are prostitution and illegal gambling different from terrorism? Well, the first and most glaring difference is probably what any Libertarian reading this has already realized: prostitution and illegal gambling are victimless crimes. Like the drug war, they criminalize consensual and basically harmless activities performed in private and without coercion. Yet no one consents to become a terrorist victim, and they are most certainly harmed.

One of the things that makes prostitution and gambling so difficult to eradicate is the fact that most people don't see anything fundamentally wrong with either. "Illegal" gambling is basically just gambling without taxes or regulations, and people do it around a Sunday football game all the time. Prostitution is fundamentally little different from taking out a date to an expensive restaurant and buying her gifts before expecting to spend the night; it's just making explicit what the implicit social understanding is.

And this is why Kerry's vision is so completely, absolutely wrong. Terrorism is not, and cannot be, an acceptable, grey-market means of advancing national policy. We may not be able to eliminate terrorism, just as we cannot eliminate other serious crimes, but we should be treating terrorism at a minimum on the same scale as murder -- and ideally, much higher. We do not permit "nuisance levels" of murder; we hunt down murderers and put them in jail, and in many states execute them.

Terrorism is at least that important, and when we are dealing with an elaborate terrorist network such as Al Qaeda, it becomes a national security issue. Events on the scale of 9-11 are acts of war and must be responded to as such.

The New York Sun has an article about Kerry's discharge from the Naval Reserve in 1972, and some evidence that may explain Kerry's refusal to sign the standard form 180 to release his military records. It seems the discharge was reviewed by a "board of officers", which is an unusual procedure entirely unnecessary for a normal honorable discharge.

The alternatives to an honorable discharge aren't pretty, and Kerry's anti-war activities would certainly have provided grounds if anyone chose to make an issue of them. One scenario that seems to fit the facts would be Kerry being dishonorably discharged in 1972 (at the end of his first 6 year committment), and then gaining the benefit of Carter's executive order in 1978 to review his discharge and return it to honorable status.

And when you are dishonorably discharged, your medals (if any) are canceled. Which would explain why Kerry had them all reissued in 1985, shortly after joining the Senate.

So why is Kerry, the self-proclaimed war hero, refusing to release his records?

Hat Tip: GeekWithA.45.

UPDATE: PowerLine has some less unpleasant explanations, and BeldarBlog has an in-depth analysis.

Howard Nemerov explains John Kerry's record on firearms and hunting.

There's a FrontPage Magazine article that talks about Kerry's position on the war in Kosovo, and how we were misled into military intervention under Clinton by false claims of genocide. Combine that with this account from House of Wheels reporting on a Dutch documentary that has film of KLA terrrorists, allegedly associated with Al-Qaeda, donating to the Kerry campaign. The primary name associated with this is Florin Krasniqi, who is reported as having donated to the Kerry campaign by independent sources. There are some concerns to be had. First, I find it hard to believe that either Clinton or Kerry would knowingly associate with a terrorist organization. So I would like to find more evidence to evaluate the nature of the KLA. Perhaps they could be mistaken in the short term, during the Kosovo intervention, but if the heart of these allegations are true, then surely their association would have been terminated? And if the KLA truly has Al-Qaeda ties, no one trying to run for President could possibly be stupid enough to remain associated with them? I'll be doing some investigation of my own and posting the results in the extended entry. So far, it looks valid. And that will probably sink Kerry's chances. The book on the right details Krasniqi's role in the Kosovo intervention (more information about the book here).

From Google's cache of a Rivera Live transcript page:
July 30, 1999

Professor Alan Dershowitz and trial attorney Daniel Petrocelli discuss the O.J. Simpson trials, with footage shown from Simpson's deposition in his civil trial; Florin Krasniqi, KLA fund-raiser, discusses how he feels about the peace plan for Kosovo and what the will of the people will be in the land

It doesn't seem disputed that Florin Krasniqi has donated to the Kerry campaign and that he is associated with the KLA. The question rests on whether the KLA are actually terrorists. From what I can dig up, the KLA appear to have attacked Milosevic's police forces and provoked a brutal response against civilians, which in turn provoked the US intervention. (In other words, neither side here seems immediately able to claim the moral high ground).

So far, I haven't found the KLA listed on any of the lists of terrorist organizations that are available on the net. Doesn't mean they aren't (and others have claimed they are on the Homeland Security list at least), but I haven't been able to find them yet if so.

For John Kerry, the specter of Attorney General John Ashcroft trashing Americans' civil liberties has been a useful campaign prop. In campaign stops, Kerry has promised to "end the era of John Ashcroft and renew our faith in the Constitution." In a Kerry administration, he promised the liberal group MoveOn in June 2003, "there will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights." In his 2004 campaign book, A Call to Service, Kerry accuses Ashcroft and the Bush administration of "relying far too much on extraordinary police powers."

This isn't the first time Kerry and Ashcroft have been at odds over civil liberties. In the 1990s, government proposals to restrict encryption inspired a national debate. Then as now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and electronic privacy groups locked horns with the DOJ and law enforcement agencies. Then as now, Kerry and Ashcroft were on opposite sides.

But there was noteworthy difference in those days. Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual's right to encrypt messages and export encryption software. Ashcroft "was kind of the go-to guy for all of us on the Republican side of the Senate," recalls David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

And in what now seems like a bizarre parallel universe, it was John Kerry who was on the side of the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the DOJ.

More and more I am convinced that the position a particular politician takes is determined, not by anything intrinsic to the issue itself, but by who initiated it. Democrats defend a Democratic administration, and seize on anything they can find to attack a Republican one; Republicans do the same in reverse. Where are the men of principles, rather than the men of the moment?

The Libertarian Party has principles you can count on, and Michael Badnarik has put his money where his mouth is. I may not agree with him on everything, but at least he means what he says!

For all the firepower the Democratic candidates directed at President Bush for the war in Iraq during the primary campaign, you would think that the Kerry-Edwards presidential campaign would be just brimming with foreign-policy prescriptions. You would especially think so at a time when the United States is engaged militarily in two theaters, Afghanistan and Iraq. And of course in a war against terror that reaches into the American homeland.

But if you expected a lot of specifics from "the two Johns," you would be wrong. The foreign-policy recommendations that have come out of the campaigns of the two senators have been skimpy and sometimes in contrast to the candidates' well-documented voting records in the Senate.

The Kerry/Edwards foreign policy position appears to be little more than following the prevailing wind of their party at the time. They voted for the Iraq war and against supplemental funding to help rebuild Iraq afterwards. In fact, Kerry appears to vote consistently against funding the military, even while he cites his controversial experience in Vietnam as a reason to trust him on foreign policy. The fact is, war experience at low rank does not necessarily indicate leadership capability or policy experience, and expecting Kerry to have either of those qualities solely on the basis of his military career is a bad idea. His voting record is a much better predictor of his likely behavior in office.

This one's short and sweet -- Kerry attacks Dean's position on the assault weapons ban. Now, Kerry seems to get Dean's position wrong, but that's beside the point. Anyone who accuses his opponents of "pandering to the gun lobby" is showing his own colors more than those of his opponent.

Fox News just ran a home video of John Kerry singing along to Puff the Magic Dragon at a private party, during which he fakes puffing on a joint. Fox ran it three times in about 5 minutes and then ran a fairly long story on it. Why? Seems sort of silly. Yet, perhaps it does raise a serious question. John Kerry's website says:

In order to deal with the problem of illegal drugs in this country, efforts must be focused on keeping drugs out of the country and our communities, as well as reducing demand for illegal drugs. John Kerry supports aggressively targeting traffickers and dealers, as well as making a commitment to sufficiently fund drug prevention and treatment programs.

If Kerry thinks smoking pot is no big deal, he ought to come out for legalization. If Kerry thinks it is a big deal, as his website claims, he shouldn't be joking about it. More generally, we keep electing politicians (on both sides of the aisle) who once used - or, for all we know, still use - recreational drugs. Once they get into office they perpetuate the so-called war on drugs, with all of its racism, unfairness, and failures. Why do we put up with it? It is time to have a serious debate about legalization without all the posturing.

I agree with all of the above commentary. I think the Drug War is silly. I think politicians are using it as an excuse to attack our Constitutional rights and that most of them are complete hypocrits when it comes to their personal drug use or even just attitudes about drug use. Drugs should be legalized, and regulated to the extent necessary to provide reasonable standards of safety.

Should Kerry by some chance get the nomination, I think this one is going to come back with a vengeance. Kerry can stand up for legalization or he can take the punishment for his hypocrisy.

U.S. Sen. John Kerry's decision to participate in Tuesday's Senate gun control vote means he will celebrate Super Tuesday in Washington.

The Democratic presidential front-runner plans to attend a party at the Old Post Office Pavilion in Washington so he can participate in a Senate vote on a gun bill Tuesday, campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter told UPI.

The vote will decide whether to renew the ban on assault-type weapons and extend background checks to gun shows. Also scheduled to attend the vote is Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., who is fighting Kerry for the nomination.

Now, this one's a doozy. It seems Kerry was a member of and leader within an organization called VVAW during the Vietnam War (after his military service). At one of the meetings, they discussed -- seriously discussed -- a plan to assassinate elected political leaders in favor of the war. The FBI had that meeting under surveilance, so there is a record of Kerry's presence and participation.

Now, to his credit, Kerry argued against the plan, voted against it, and apparantly resigned in protest over it. Of course, they had to move the meeting at least twice because they kept finding FBI bugs, so they might well have suspected a bit of surveilance and been speaking "for the cameras" as it were. But apparantly no one reported it as a threat to the police, which raises the question of how serious their opposition to the plan was.

But the interesting thing about this... is that apparantly the guy who proposed the plan was not only a Vietnam vet (no big deal; it was a group of vets), but one who had participated during the war in what could easily be described as political assassination (of enemy leadership), and that his plan was extremely detailed; not only did he have a target list with a desired order but also plans on how to accomplish at least some of the assassinations.

I'd like to remind everyone reading this that this plan was proposed by Democratic anti-war protesters in wartime. As such, had the plan been agreed to, it would probably constitute conspiracy to commit treason; and actual treason had it been implemented.

But that's not the part that bugs me. After all, the group did vote down the plan, and apparantly nothing came of it, so not reporting the possible threat to the police isn't necessarily a serious matter.

So what bugs me, you ask? The guy who proposed this plan, apparantly serious enough about it to relocate the meeting twice to avoid surveillance, is still on Kerry's campaign staff.

It's worth noting that the surveillance is not a civil rights issue because, clearly, that sort of meeting was exactly the sort of meeting that deserves a bit of government surveillance; the rest is just getting the paperwork right.

At this writing, it looks like John Kerry is well on his way to earning the Democratic nod to run against President Bush. But if Kerry wins, gun owners lose. A review of the votes he has cast since becoming a Senator in 1984 should make all law-abiding gun owners want to scream.

Kerry told the party faithful that Democrats "cannot afford to be a party that reads the wrong lessons from the last elections. . . . I come here to tell you, we can`t go out and win elections by throwing out our principles. I won`t do it. I`m a hunter, I`m a gun owner, but I have never, ever thought of shooting with an AK-47 when I go hunting. And I will tell you, I don`t want to be the candidate of the NRA, I don`t want our party to be the party of the NRA. I reject that notion. We can stand up for safety in America and keep guns out of the hands of children and felons and still respect the Second Amendment of our nation." So what does Kerry mean by professing his "respect" for the Second Amendment? Let`s take an quick overview of his voting record. His earliest votes came during the mid-1980s battle to enact the Firearms Owners` Protection Act. Kerry voted against all of the NRA-backed amendments during debate over the bill, and then was one of only 15 Senators to oppose final passage of the critical package of pro-gun reforms. If Kerry had his way, gun owners would still have to register to purchase .22 rimfire ammunition, and we`d all be subject to a 10-year prison sentence for selling a gun to a friend or family member.

It doesn`t get any better from there. The Senate spent several years in the 1990s debating different versions of legislation to ban semi-automatic firearms, as well as several versions of the "Brady bill" to mandate a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. Kerry voted repeatedly in favor of waiting periods, and even voted to keep state waiting periods intact when the federal law switched to an instant check. Kerry also voted in favor of every proposal to ban semi-automatic firearms, always supporting the most sweeping restrictions under debate. Kerry was there to help Bill Clinton in 1994, voting several times to put the Clinton gun ban on the books.

If that`s not enough for you, let`s look at the other ways Kerry showed his "respect" for the Second Amendment. Kerry voted to eliminate the Department of Civilian Marksmanship, and also voted to hold gun owners responsible if their firearms were stolen and misused. He voted repeatedly to ban gun shows, and also voted to strip federal bankruptcy protections away from the gun industry. He voted to "commend" the so-called Million Mom March--where anti-gun impresario Rosie O`Donnell led the crowd in a chant demanding gun registration--and voted to let the FBI charge an unlimited gun tax on firearm purchasers.

Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners?perhaps hundreds?were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.

The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried out this subterfuge a little over a decade ago? shredding documents, suppressing testimony, and sanitizing the committee's final report?when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs.

Over the years, an abundance of evidence had come to light that the North Vietnamese, while returning 591 U.S. prisoners of war after the treaty signing, had held back many others as future bargaining chips for the $4 billion or more in war reparations that the Nixon administration had pledged. Hanoi didn't trust Washington to fulfill its pro-mise without pressure. Similarly, Washington didn't trust Hanoi to return all the prisoners and carry out all the treaty provisions. The mistrust on both sides was merited. Hanoi held back prisoners and the U.S. provided no reconstruction funds.

This issue is mostly before my time. But it is, nonetheless, a fairly serious one, if true. I'm including it here for those who are interested in these things have a bit of perspective on the whole "Kerry was a war hero" meme.

The most profound impact the next president will have on the direction of the country, aside from prosecuting the war on terror, pertains to the nomination of judges. Absent retirements before the November election, the next president will likely nominate between two and four justices to the Supreme Court, as well as scores of judges to the federal district and appeals courts.

The question accordingly arises: How would a President Kerry select nominees for the judiciary?

Frankly, this is pretty much the thing about a Kerry presidency that scares me the most. The United States can survive even terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11; I am relatively skeptical as to the ability of a single man, even as President, to prevent or encourage such attacks.

But if there are a large number of openings on the Supreme Court, and Kerry gets to fill them -- well, we're talking about a guy who voted for the Patriot Act, and left his campaigning for President specifically to vote on the Assault Weapons Ban renewal. If Kerry can put 2-4 judges on the Supreme Court, you can kiss the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments goodbye.

On the other hand, with Bush naming the nominees, the 2nd is probably safe. The other two are still toast.