Archive for October, 2004

An interesting comparison…

October 31, 2004

from Jessica’s Well, Hollywood women and Afghan Women.

Kerry’s Religion

October 31, 2004

Orson Scott Card has a damn good article on Kerry’s science and religious beliefs.

democrats plan to disenfranchise the Military in Pennsylvania is defeated

October 31, 2004

Junkyard Blog has the story:

Gov. Ed Rendell tried to use the last minute confusion in Pennsylvania over Ralph Nader’s ballot status as a way to “legally” deny military absentee voters the right to vote for the remaining candidates. Now he has chad on his face for his shameless attempt to deny absentee voters a deadline extension. It took PA’s other politicians, local radio talk shows and eventually national talk radio/TV to force him to rethink committing political suicide for John Kerry. But it was only after he was sued by military members that he finally caved in.

Jane Galt announces her call for President

October 31, 2004

You should read the whole thing. She breaks it down issue by issue and says which one wins in each topic. I’ll just post the last two paragraphs as a summary, but do read the whole thing:

Ultimately, I’ve decided to take the advice of a friend’s grandmother, who told me, on her wedding day, that I should never, ever marry a man thinking he’d change. “If you can’t live with him exactly the way he is,” she told me, “then don’t marry him, because he’ll say he’s going to change, and he might even try to change, but it’s one in a million that he actually will.”

Kerry’s record for the first fifteen years in the senate, before he knew what he needed to say in order to get elected, is not the record of anyone I want within spitting distance of the White House war room. Combine that with his deficits on domestic policy — Kerry’s health care plan would, in my opinon, kill far more people, and cost more, than the Iraq war ever will — and it’s finally clear. For all the administration’s screw -ups — and there have been many — I’m sticking with the devil I know. George Bush in 2004.

Good Question

October 31, 2004

The folks at Alarming News ask “Is it still ‘disenfranchisement’ when they vote 3-1 Republican?”
As Mr. Card noted, the liberal democrats think it’s “OK” to deny someone their civil rights if the person in question isn’t going to vote for them.

Orson Scott Card on the behavior of the left…

October 31, 2004

Here are some highlights of his column, The Death of Shame:

Then in the campaign of 2000, I became increasingly angry over the truly vicious lies that were being told to African-American groups about George W. Bush. The solemn warnings of a return to Jim Crow if Bush were elected made it sound as if Bush were Strom Thurmond of 1948, when they knew perfectly well that Bush was one of the few Republicans who actually deserved — and, in Texas, got — a higher than normal percentage of the black vote.

And the Leftist-dominated media, instead of exposing the racially charged language being used by Gore’s supporters — as they would certainly have done if a Republican had used identical, but racially reversed, language to all-white audiences — let it go on and on virtually unmentioned.

Of course, after nearly four years of Bush’s presidency, it should be obvious to black voters that the terrible warnings they were given in 2000 were completely false. But the race-baiting is already under way, albeit on a smaller scale, as the Democrats piously warn of “voter intimidation.”

Then in Florida, during the so-called “recount,” the Left shamelessly sprayed out accusations of how the Republicans had “disenfranchised” poor voters, though in fact all they ever showed was the normal error rate that had been accepted for many years in elections throughout America — an error rate that was always assumed to apply equally to both sides.

In fact, that was the obvious basis of Richard Daley’s selective recount effort on behalf of Gore in Florida. If you only recount the most Democrat-dominated voting precincts, then, by finding the normal number of errors, the resulting increase in correctly counted ballots will be tilted strongly for the Democratic candidate.

It was a scam — which was exposed by Gore’s attempt to block the counting of the absentee ballots of American servicemen from Florida, since it is well known that the people who volunteer for the military tend to vote two-to-one in favor of the Republican presidential candidate.

And yet the Democrats piously continue to this day to treat the whole vote-count affair, not as an obvious attempt to steal an election by manipulating selected groups of ballots, but as some noble attempt to block the evil Republicans from depriving poor helpless minorities from having their ballots fairly counted.

Meanwhile, the Democrats engage in wholesale, flat-out lying, ranging from Kerry’s false charges against America’s soldiers in Vietnam, his phony claims about Christmas in Cambodia and what it was he threw over the fence when he said they were his medals, to present charges that Bush has blocked stem-cell research and that if Kerry were president, paralytics would rise up and walk.

If a Republican had said these things, the media would throw him into the flames, never letting us forget these ridiculous and contemptible lies for a second. Instead, we get the ABC News memo that makes it clear that Republican distortions are to be trumpeted, while Democratic ones are “not central” and therefore can be ignored.

The Left fancies that it has a monopoly on intellectuals. When an online magazine invites published authors to tell whom they’re voting for and why, out of dozens only four (including me) are voting for Bush. The most interesting thing is that the four pro-Bush authors offer clear reasons for their vote, but the pro-Kerry authors spew out invective against Bush or give cute or clever “reasons” that simply treat the question as being beneath serious discussion.

I get letters that are endless variations on the same theme: Mr. Card, I like your books and you seem so wise, but yet you’re supporting Bush. Why don’t you look at the evidence and realize that Bush is the devil and Kerry will save us from the disaster that Bush is leading us toward?

Yet when I choose to answer these letters and ask them to get specific, it becomes obvious that none — no, not one — of these people has actually examined the evidence at all.

So when the Left acts hypocritically, one can assume that they do feel shame, and for years I have made that mistake.

But I no longer believe it. Because the double standards of the Left today are not prompted by any sense that the lies and misbehavior they are concealing are wrong, but rather by the fact that the exposure of those lies and misbehavior would be politically inconvenient.

Indeed, the whole question of right or wrong is irrelevant to the thinking of the Left.

They speak the language of morality, declaring Bush to be evil (or variations on that theme), but in fact the Left lives in a moral universe in which there is only one moral virtue, and here it is:

It is good and right for power to be in the hands of the Left.

So when the Democrats lost Congress, they began to behave like big babies. When Republicans did to them what they had done to Republicans in Congress for forty years, suddenly it was unfair. The world had gone mad. The ruled-over were suddenly ruling. The Helots were in charge and the Spartans could not bear it.

Democrats had come to think of themselves as the ruling class.

That is the mindset that explains all the behavior of the Left since 1994. If they are not in power, then clearly something is deeply, disturbingly wrong with the world, and any means to restore the proper order of things is perfectly acceptable.

That’s why it’s OK to do selective recounts in Florida and try to disenfranchise American soldiers and sailors — all the while claiming that it’s the Republicans who are disenfranchising people.

That’s why it’s OK to filibuster in the Senate in order to block the president from appointing perfectly qualified judges — and why it’s OK to make ridiculously false attacks on those judicial appointees.

That’s why it’s fine for John Kerry to pretend that he’ll be tough on defense even though everybody on the Left is counting on him doing just the opposite in office — because any lie that restores the proper order of things is a good lie.

That’s why Kerry and Edwards can lie about Bush’s record on stem cell research and make hilarious and offensive claims that if they are elected, the crippled will rise up and walk. A Republican making such a claim would become a complete laughingstock in the media; but if it might sway a single voter to restore the proper order of things, then the Leftist media dare not to discredit the claim.

That’s why CBS throws journalistic ethics to the wind and runs with a story about Bush’s National Guard service that is based on obviously fabricated documents. That’s why ABC News has no problem with exposing only “distortions” by Bush and ignoring outright lies by Kerry

That’s why lawyers and politicians are already gearing up to attempt to steal the election after the fact by making false claims about intimidation of minority voters by evil Republicans — when they know perfectly well that it’s the Left that is openly using tactics of intimidation.

Like when they sent mobs of union workers to “demonstrate” inside the small local offices of the Bush campaign in Florida, terrifying a handful of Bush campaign workers with a Brown-shirt tactic that, if it had been carried out by, say, NRA members against Kerry headquarters, would now be the biggest story of the campaign season.

That’s why the intellectual Left feels perfectly justified in vilifying, slandering, scare-mongering, hating, intimidating, and cheating, all the while claiming a moral superiority.

The Left is firmly convinced that good is only possible in the world when they are in power; therefore they can do any number of unfair, indecent, or dishonest things in pursuit of that goal.

Without shame. Without guilt.

Because they don’t believe there is such a thing as “sin.” Only power. And whoever gets the power, makes the rules. To the Left, the only shameful act in 2004 is voting Republican.

And if we vote for candidates who show themselves to have no shame, then we deserve the government that they will give us.

There is more and it’s worth your time to read the whole thing.

That tears it…

October 31, 2004


As the folks over at Occam’s Toothbrush put it back in March:

We should get this guy, I mean September 11 was bad, but violating campaign-finance laws? that’s just wrong

He nailed that one! The recent Osama tape script reads like it was written by Terry McAuliffe.

Translating leftie code words

October 31, 2004

Charles Krauthammer supplies the translation:

“Outsourcing” is a demagogue’s way of saying “using allies.” (Isn’t Kerry’s Iraq solution to “outsource” the problem to the “allies” and the United Nations?) And in Afghanistan it meant the very best allies: locals who had a far better chance of knowing what cave to storm without getting blown up. As Kerry himself said on national television at the time of Tora Bora (Dec. 14, 2001): “What we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will” — i.e., not throwing American lives away in tunnels and caves in alien territory. “I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.”

They he nails the “secret” of the Kerry’s so-called “secret plans”:

Now, as always, the retroactive military genius says he would have done it differently. Yet in the same interview, asked about how things were going overall in Afghanistan, he said “I think we have been smart, I think the administration leadership has done it well and we are on the right track.”

Once again, the senator’s position has evolved, to borrow The New York Times’ delicate term for Kerry’s many about-faces.

The intolerance of the left

October 31, 2004

A leftie college teacher kicks a student for wearing a GOP sweatshirt.
Now image the situation was reversed. If a conservative teacher had even had harsh words for a student’s liberal shirt, CBS would have covered it on their nightly news.

Sent to me by a Vietnam Veteran…

October 31, 2004

The Vietnam Veteran who sent it to me is my father.

All across America, Viet Nam vets are smiling. At last, perhaps they can bury their demons. These angry vets are demanding that this man who sentenced them to being shunned as criminals, tell the world that he was wrong and that he is sorry for what he did to them. Kerry must admit that he lied about them.

For many, it would still not be enough. Satisfaction and hopefully peace will come when Viet Nam vets see and hear John F. Kerry give his concession speech the night of November 2, 2004 with the knowledge that it was their votes that helped defeat him. There are approximately 2.5 million Viet Nam veterans in America and they have not forgotten.

Kerry denied them their rightful place as heroes and they will deny him his dream of the presidency. Angry Viet Nam veterans, silent for so long, will finally have their say. Payment in full will be delivered to John Kerry on November 2, 2004. Revenge is indeed a dish best served cold.