Ben Johnson writing in Front Page Magazine offers this quote:

You shall judge of a man by his foes as well as by his friends.
     – Joseph Conrad in the novel Lord Jim.

So let’s take a look:

Kerry Countries

France: Ah, the French. Once a proud center of progressive philosophic thought, a bright nexus of literature and the arts, and the seat of international power and diplomacy. Now reduced to a society of appeasers desperately trying preserve a facade of relevance in a world that has passed them by.

In World War II the French officially folded and set up the Vichy puppet government to give the Nazis takeover credibility. Two years later U.S. and British forces tried to land in Northern Africa during Operation Torch, and French forces fired on us. French ground forces resisted for three days, causing about 3000 casualties on each side and the French navy stubbornly fought on behalf of their Nazi master for several days.

In modern history, the French were involved in bilking the U.N. Oil for Palaces program and acted to protect Saddam because of it. The only way that the French have managed to make themselves relevant are to (1) try to create a European super-state that they control by joining forces with their former conquerers (Germany) and a tiny country that wishes they could be France (Belgium, aka the “French Poodle”).

Yes, the French public overwhelmingly back Kerry over Bush by a margin of 4½ to 1.

Germany: Once a nation grateful for our efforts in defending them from the communist menace, Germany now stagnates as it is gripped by internal socialist forces of its own. Unions and the welfare state (the U.S. versions of which also back Kerry, BTW) are ruining the current economy and destroying any hope of reviving it in the near-future.

In the pre-9/11 world, Gerhard Schroeder took the chancellorship from Helmut Kohl by spouting rabid anti-American rhetoric. After 9/11, Schroeder stood with Chirac to protect business interests rather than put an end to the murderous regime in Iraq. Is it any wonder that the U.S. is repositioning troops outside of Germany? Can you hear the howls?

Pictured is Gert Weisskirchen, the foreign policy expert for Schroeder’s Social Democratic Party, who praised Kerry’s commitment to multilateralism. Not surprising, as 69% of Germans want Kerry to win.

North Korea: Although no official word or endorsement has been given, it is reported that North Korean media is giving “glowing” reports of Kerry’s movements and has even aired some of his anti-Bush speeches. (This must seem like old times to Kerry, what with people who are dying under brutal repression being forced to listen to his official hate speeches.)

Of course North Korea would want Kerry: he gives effusive praise for and wants to return to the days of diplomacy that gave us the Clinton Agreed Framework in 1994 that allowed Kim Il Sung to pursue nuclear arms and missile delivery systems with the additional bonus of getting 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil every year from America. This also diverted attention from the fact that Kim was engaged in a starvation campaign that led to cannabilism among his own people (shades of 1932 Ukraine!).

Three years later (1997) it became apparent that North Korea was testing nuclear weapons devices, so the Clinton appeasement squad negotiating team went down on their knees again back to the table. Negotiating at breakneck speed, by 1999 an agreement was reached.
In exchange for 500,000 tons of food (which North Korea obviously needed) we got to send in weapons inspectors (whoopee!). In all, the Clinton administration raised the amount of food and economic assistance for North Korea from zero to a total of almost a billion dollars over his two terms.

And what have we gotten with a negotiation through appeasement policy? In 1998 North Korea tested a multistage rocket over Japan. In 1999 Clinton eased
economic sanctions. In 2000 North Korea again threatens to restart its nuclear program and in 2001 it begins work on creating missiles capable of reaching the United States with nuclear-sized payloads (and we think they already have two nukes).

With a history of smashingly successful conciliatory negotiations as these, is it any wonder that Kerry wants to return to these U.N.-esque tactics? They achieve nothing but they sure make us popular with those Euroweenies! Perhaps Kerry will be able to practice his French as they pat him on the back and give him a Nobel Pussy Prize.

Communist China: Staying in the Pacific Rim, we turn our attention to a brutal regime that persecutes Christians, has factories full of slave labor, harvests organs from criminals, and runs over protesting students with tanks in the town square. Yep, that’s quite a friend ya got there, Johnny boy!

The state run “People’s Daily” formally endorsed Kerry for president of the United States back in August.

Why, you ask? Because Kerry’s internationally-known proclivity for the pursuit of “multilateralism” at any cost. Oh yeah, also because he opposes policies for the “containment of China”.

Kerry voters, don’t blame me when he’s over there negotiating away our technology because there are nuclear missiles pointed at LA. Oh yea, and LA’ers, don’t blame me when I vote for a president to replace Kerry that won’t buckle under the threat of international blackmail even if it means you go up in a big mushroom-shaped cloud. I’ll just hope the jet-stream takes the radiation over Canada (which is, after all, half French), bypassing Tennessee.

Iran: Returning to the Axis of Evil, Iran’s state-run newspaper, the Tehran Times, said, “Kerry is exactly what the U.S. needs right now.”

No doubt what they really mean is that Kerry is exactly what Iran needs right now to ensure that they will continue the brutal repression of democratic reform and the continued pursuit of nuclear WMD. After all, with Kerry promising to return to the wildly successful negotiation policies of the Clinton administration and the promises of nuclear fuel that Kerry has made. In fact, Iran is delaying any response to European proposals about their nuclear program until after the election. They know that their world will be vastly different depending on who wins.

Hint: click on the map for a closer look at the current state of Iran’s nuclear program. Then reconsider whether you want Kerry to help them with the program (like we did with North Korea) or if you want Bush to get tough with them.

Just a hunch, but I think there are a lot of students over there fighting and dying in an effort to give democracy a foothold that would rather have Bush getting tough.

Palestinian Authority: Who can forget those gushing editorials with pictures of Bill Clinton and Yasir Arafat? Who can forget those weeping columns with pictures of Hillary Clinton kissing Suha Arafat on the cheek? Who can forget that it was a Democrat that allowed invited a known terrorist to sleep in the White House?

Yasir Arafat sure hasn’t forgotten who his friends are.

After almost four years of marginalization by the Bush administration, Arafat wants to get back in the game – evidently embezzlement of aid funds just isn’t fullfilling enough. After four years of Bush allowing Israel to successfully defend itself, Arafat wants to return to the good-n-bloody days of yore.

The PA is promising a more successful negotiation future if Kerry should win. One should remember that Clinton’s negotiation with Arafat resulted in little more than a giant photo op, and yielded about the same results as his appeasement of North Korea.

Spain: New to the appeasement community is Spain and newly-elected socialist Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapater. After fighting internal terrorism for over three decades in the form of Basque Separatists, the proud Spanish buckled after a single (albeit horrible) terrorist attack on a passenger train. This attack is widely credited to be the reason that Zapater was carried to victory in an eleventh-hour swing in the polls, giving hope to murderous terrorists throughout the world.

The subsequent withdrawal of all Spanish troops from Iraq showed terrorists that they can not only influence the political environment of other nations, but can do it so successfully as to directly affect their involvement in fighting terrorism.

Whether from shame or a profound misunderstanding of the world, Zapater clearly and emphatically endorsed Kerry.

Malaysia: What Michael Jackson is to the Hollywood crowd, Mahathir Mohamad is to world leaders — really strange and washed up (he stepped down last year).

Every time this man opens his mouth, another bit of Jew-hating filth spills out. When he isn’t spreading anti-Semitic hatred, he’s bashing Americans.

Bush is the best friend that Israel has had in quite some time, so it is no wonder that Mohamad backs Kerry.

Muslims: Though India’s Hindu population supports Bush, the Muslim minority supports Kerry. This trend holds true throughout the Muslim world.

Bush stood up to terrorism and the invasion of secular Iraq is seen as an attack on Islam, as is Bush’s refusal to deal with Arafat and strong support of Israel. Apart from Saudi Arabia, Arab officials oppose Bush because he wants to bring democracy to thier countries.

The citizens of Arab countries don’t really like Kerry, but they hate Bush and so they take the “lesser of two evils” approach in lending thier support to Kerry.

Other Organizations

Al-Jazeera: Also known as “the network for terrorists and people who love them”, al-Jazeera surpasses even the BBC in spreading anti-American sentiment around the globe.

Al-Jazeera does not specifically endorse a candidate. However, it praises Kerry while airing tapes urging terrorist attacks on U.S. troops and thier allies.

CMPUSA: The Communist Party of the United States also stops short of endorsing a candadate. However, their website clearly states that “CPUSA is doing our utmost to help defeat Bush”. In fact, there are three objectives for the 2004 election and all three are just different ways of saying that Bush must be defeated.

Kerry must be getting that warm, tingly feeling of being loved by communists, just as he was 35 years ago.

Billionaires for Kerry: Liberal 527s are the talk of this campaign season and for good reason. As of August 25^th the top 25 contributors to 527s were giving to liberal causes by a factor of 31 to 1. Republicans and conservatives were slow to respond, but according to IRS reports as of 17 October the gap had closed to the point that the top 25 were donating to liberal 527s by nearly 3 to 1.

A great deal of the liberal money comes as a result of the efforts of three extremely wealthy men — the top three donors to 527s that account for 47% of the monies donated by the top 25.

Peter Benjamin Lewis, who has given an astounding $19 million, is shown here posing in front of an Andy Warhol painting of Mao Tse-tung that he purchased in 1974. That should tell you what kind of person he is.

Lewis was arrested in New Zealand for possession of marijuana but released the next day after making a $53,000 donation to drug rehabilitation center (isn’t it wonderful what money will do for you?).

These days, Lewis is a major player in the legalization of marijuana effort. In the 2000 election, he joined with two other billionaires (Soros and Sperling) to sponsor Proposition 36, a California “treatment not jail” initiative and that up with a slew of initiatives across America’s heartland in 2002. In 2004, the same trio have teamed up to push California’s Proposition 66, an initiative designed to soften up the tough “three-strikes” law so that small-time drug possession wouldn’t count.

George Soros is the most infamous of the world’s partisan billionaires. He fears neoconservatives and hates Bush and has backed up his hatred with over $18 million in 527 contributions and $20 million to Democrat think tank Center for American Progress.

George Soros is the stereotypical liberal:

• The consummate example of a self-hating Jew (even though he is an atheist), Soros says that Jews are responsible for anti-Semiticism because the secretly control the world. (I keep looking for this guy’s white hood, robe, and fire-starting kit.)
• Soros is a Frenchman’s idol: he believes that America should exercise soveriegnty in concert with international will.
• Soros is a liberal’s liberal: he proposes market regulation while acknowledging that it won’t work.
• Soros is the perfect hypocritical anti-American American: even though he professes hatred of neocons for their arogance in intervening in other countries affairs and promoting democracy, he wrote a letter to President Clinton in 1998 calling for a ‘comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime’ and spent $100 million to bring down Slobodan Milosevic.
• Speaking of hypocracy, between 1997 and 2001 Soros spent $4.7 million of his own money to further campaign finance reform so that rich people wouldn’t be able to influence elections.

With all this working for him, is it any wonder that he is working to get Kerry elected?

Steven Bing has reportedly given $13.4 million to oust Bush.

Nicknamed “the Sperminator“, he is also known as a bounder and a cad in England and was dubbed “Bing Laden” by British tabloids. He is a college dropout whose only accomplishments to date seem to be inheriting over half a billion dollars and getting Elizibeth Hurley knocked up.

Oh wait, he’s also known to have successfully become best friends with known Mafia figure Dominic Montemarano, aka “Donnie Shacks”.

Bush Countries

Russia: Vladimir Putin is an ex-KGB and even though Bush said he looked into Vlad’s soul and liked what he saw, I remain very wary of the man.

But Russia is confronting terrorism at home and knows the tragedy that it can bring to her children, and thus knows that it must be confronted head on and dealt with — not appeased or negotiated away.

Thus it came as no surprise when Putin said that a Bush defeat would embolden terrorists, effectively endorsing Bush.

Israel: The nation most intamately familiar with the consequences of terror is, of course, Israel. Having fought and nearly defeated the Infatada, Israelis have a unique view of the world.

Ariel Sharon recognized long ago that Bush was Israel’s friend. In October of 2002 he said, “I think that we never had such relations with any president of the United States … We never had such cooperation in everything as we have with the current administration.”

And Israeli citizens prefer Bush 2 to 1. No wonder, for even though Kerry’s voting record has earned him a 100% rating from pro-Israel lobbyists one must question what he will be willing to do to keep his foreign policy promises. As Charles Krauthammeer asks, does Kerry’s plan include sacrificing Israel? Israli’s wonder the same thing.

In order to achieve the culmination of the Bush vision for a democratic Middle East, Israel must be preserved.

Besides, it’s the right thing to do and I am certain that I cannot depend on Kerry to do the right thing (unless, of course, it happens to be the politically expedient thing to do). I am equally certain that Dubya will do exactly what he said he’ll do.

Japan: Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi slipped and said that he wanted his friend, George Bush, to win, but official spokesmen hurried to say that his remark was “inappropriate” and that Japan would work with whichever candidate won in November.

But the next day the number two man in the party, Secretary General Tsutomu Takebe, said, “I think there would be trouble if it’s not President Bush.” This was in reference to Kerry’s support for bilateral talks with North Korea. Japan has a vested interest in disarming North Korea because it is known that North Korea has missiles capable of reaching Japan. It is also important to note that Japan has experienced domestic terrorist attacks, the most infamous is the release of Sarin gas in a subway, killing 12 and sending 5,000 to the hospital.

The Philippines: President Bush enjoys strong support among the general Filipino population as well as Filipino-Americans. This due in a large part to the fact that the Phillipines is fighting Islamofascist terrorism on its own soil and that the United States, as part of the Bush Doctrine, is an invaluable ally in that fight.

Besides, some people (unlike the French leaders) don’t forget the aid that was given during WWII.

South Korea: South Korean citizens remain evenly split on which candidate to back. Those that think that “peaceful engagement” with North Korea is possible (i.e., liberals) back Kerry. Anti-communist conservatives back Bush.

United Kingdom: Prime Minister Tony Blair is politically tethered to Bush yet most political observers agree that a Kerry win would be best for Blair’s political future. Tony Blair, however, is more concerned with the state of the world:

When George W Bush’s poll ratings recently dipped, every Labour MP cheered. Correction: every Labour MP except one. The Prime Minister fretted to one close friend: ‘Whenever Bush weakens in the polls, they start mucking about.’

Who are these ‘they’ whose ‘mucking about’ makes Tony Blair so anxious? They are Iran with its sponsorship of terrorism and its ambitions to go nuclear. They are Syria. They are the psychotic regime in North Korea along with the rest of the planet’s rogue and risk states.

The mind of Mr Blair was summarized for me in vivid terms by someone who has an extremely good claim to know what is going on inside it: ‘Tony thinks the world is a very dangerous and precarious place. Bush is the tough guy who keeps the bad guys under their rocks.’

Though Blair has not formally endorsed a candidate (and can’t afford the political capital to do so), it can be convincingly argued that Tony Blair is the original neocon.

Italy: One of our most stalwart allies in the liberation of Iraq, Italy remains committed to success. And Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, the most conservative PM in quite some time, remains committed to Bush.

While campaigning for local elections, Berlusconi told reporters, “We hope and believe that the next president will again be Bush.”

Summary

It is quite frustrating for Europeans to sit on the sidelines as this election unfolds:

“Never before have people in Europe followed a foreign election with such interest,” said Laurent Joffrin, editor of Le Nouvel Observateur, a French weekly magazine. “Just look at our new vocabulary: We are talking about swing states; we know what it means to activate the base.”

Or as Oxford historian Timothy Garton Ash recently put it, Nov. 2 will be “a world election in which the world has no vote.”

“The American election will have far more consequences for Europe than the last European election. It’s probably more important to Britain than the next British election,” Garton Ash wrote in The Guardian, a British newspaper.

“Yet there seems so little we can do to affect the outcome. We feel like a punter (gambler) whose life savings have been invested in a bet on a single boxer in a single bout. All we can do is cheer … from ringside. Except that if we cheer too loudly for Kerry, we may actually help the other man – especially if we shout in French,” he wrote.

But the bottom line is this: AWAT nations (“Axis of Weasels, Appeasers and Terrorists”) cozy up to Kerry. Nations fighting terrorism and those with recent experience with oppressive regimes (like Poland and Vietnamese-Americans) back Bush.

And that is precisely why Dubya must win eight days from now.

Update:

Say Anything reports that Kerry has received the highly-sought-after Stoner endorsement.

Not really surprising given the antics of Lewis-Soros-Sperling coalition (see “Peter Benjamin Lewis” above).

I wonder how many stoners will head out for the polling booth but end up at Taco Bell?

Update 2:

The UK Times Online finally discovers this thinking and agrees:

If you think for a moment about those who would really be upset by a second Bush term, it becomes a lot easier to stomach.

The hordes of the bien-pensant Left in the universities and the media, the sort of liberals who tolerate everything except those who disagree with them. Secularist elites who disdain religiosity except when it comes from Muslim fanatics. Europhile Brits who drip contempt for everything their country has ever done and long for its disappearance into a Greater Europe.Absurd, isolationist conservatives in America and Britain who think the struggles for freedom are always someone else’s fight. Hollywood sybarites and narcissists, self-appointed arbiters of a nation’s morals.

Soft-headed Europeans who think engagement and dialogue with mass murderers is the way to achieve lasting peace. French intellectuals for whom nothing has gone right in the world since 1789.

The United Nations, which, if it had its multilateral way, would still be faithfully minding a world in which half the population lived under or in fear of Soviet aggression. Most of Belgium.

Above all, of course, Middle Eastern militants. If your bitterest enemies are the sort of people who hack the heads off unarmed, innocent civilians, then I would say you are probably doing something right.

This may sound petty. It is not. This constellation of individuals, parties and institutions has very little in common other than the fact that it has contrived to be wrong on just about every important issue of my adult lifetime.

Update: Beautiful Atrocities has some endorsements from celebrities and pundits that is a must read.