Court says "no" to cheating

Democrats have been trying to get provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct declared legitimate, but the stinkin' courts keep telling them that cheating is not allowed. First in Florida and now in Michigan.

Allowing votes from the wrong precinct to be counted would help Democrats in two ways, since the vast majority of people who cast their vote in the wrong place fall into one of two categories:

1. Morons. Really, how hard is this? Once every four years you have to figure out where to vote. And you're given the location in writing. Disallowing votes cast in the wrong place will mean throwing out the votes of large numbers of morons.
2. Criminals. All those people who have registered to vote two or more times have to find a place to vote. And they might just be clever enough to realized they'd better vote in two different places in order to reduce their chances of getting caught. (This is a crime, by the way.)
   

So by upholding the law, the court is going to "disenfranchise" a good many morons and criminals. So why are the Democrats fighting the law? Because they need as many morons and criminals to vote as possible, since both groups tilt heavily Democrat. (More or less by definition.)

The only thing I'm surprised by is that the Democrats haven't campaigned to have voting stations set up in beer stores and welfare offices.

It's not just ...

... Barbara Streisand and Michael Moore who endorse Kerry. Their pal Yasser does, too.

It's clear that terrorists are more afraid of Bush than they are of Kerry. Probably because if Kerry gets elected the only time he'll be tough on terrorists is from June 2008 through November 4 of 2008.

Can we at least agree that it's not clever to vote for the guy the terrorists endorse?

John Kerry War Criminal Quiz

Take this short quiz to see what you know about Michael Moore's favourite war criminal:

1. List the war crimes that John Kerry has admitted to committing.
2. Given that he admitted to these crimes in order to accuse his fellow servicemen (in time of war) of the same things, and given that his testimony was used by the enemy during the torture of POW's, this means that John Kerry is either a traitorous liar, or a war criminal. Which do you think he is?
3. List all the major media outlets that have investigated John Kerry's war crimes. (Caution: this is a trick question.)
4. List all the questions about John Kerry's self-confessed war crimes posed to John Kerry by the "impartial" moderators at the three presidential debates. (Caution: this is a trick question.)
5. If President Bush were a self-confessed war criminal, do you think the media would be ignoring this issue?
   

Things worse than lying II

Am I mistaken or is John Kerry the first self-confessed war criminal to run for President?

JK insists that he was telling the truth in his anti-war Senate testimony, even though everyone else except for Jane Fonda and Michael Moore say he's lying. (Although, to her credit, at least Jane Fonda apologized.) Again, there's no doubt Kerry is lying.

But what if he isn't?

That means that by his own confession he's a war criminal. Here's what he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971:

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

So, there you have it in his own words.

"Bush will eat your babies!"

At the time of this writing, the above hasn't been a headline in the New York Times yet, but we've still got a couple weeks to go.

Has anyone else noticed the fundamental difference between Bush & Kerry's attacks on each other?

Bush attacks the real Kerry, but Kerry attacks a completely imaginary Bush. Bush spends his time (in his speeches, in his ads, in the debates, etc.) attacking the genuine John Kerry, as revealed by his 20 years in the Senate, his anti-Vietnam activities, his actual speeches, etc. Bush isn't saying, "Here's what I think John Kerry is ... take my word for it." Everything is carefully backed up by facts and reality.

When Bush says that Kerry is pro-taxes, it isn't because Bush hopes he is or wants to paint him as a tax-and-spend liberal; it's because over 20 years in the Sentate Kerry has consistently voted for raising taxes and against lowering them. When Bush says that Kerry keeps changing his mind on Iraq, it isn't because Bush is making it up; it's because, well, Kerry keeps changing his mind on Iraq. When Bush says that Kerry is weak on defense, it isn't because he's trying to misrepresent him; it's because Kerry has voted against almost every new weapons system and every increase in military spending that has ever crossed his path. There are so many attrocious things in Kerry's record that Bush doesn't have time to deal with many of them (for instance, everything related to Vietnam).

Those are the facts. The reality. The truth.

But when Kerry attacks Bush we leave the land of facts, reality, and truth, and fly away to Neverland. Kerry's attacks on Bush ... especially in recent weeks ... are not on anything Bush has done. They're all attacks on what Kerry says Bush will do. Honest. Take his word for it!

Note some of the most prominent of Kerry's recent attacks on Bush:

"Bush will reinstate the draft." And the evidence is ... ? Well, nothing. Has Bush ever said he would? Hinted at it? In fact, Bush has explicitly stated he wouldn't. There are bills before the Senate to reinstate the draft. But those bills are from and supported by Democrats.

"Bush will privatize social security." This time Kerry has "evidence": a hearsay report in the ... get ready for it ... New York Times Magazine. Again, nothing Bush has actually said. Just something some pro-Kerry hack claims and that's good enough for Kerry.

It's all imaginary. Nothing real.

And the reason for all of this is clear: John Kerry has to make stuff up because the real George Bush gives him very little to attack. But George Bush doesn't have to make anything up because the real John Kerry provides Bush with more than enough attack fodder for any number of elections.

Things worse than lying

John Kerry claims he personally believes life begins at conception, but that he doesn't want to impose his views on the American public. He is almost certainly lying, of course. On two counts: first of all it's incredibly unlikely that anyone as unprincipled as Kerry has a definite view on when life begins. But secondly, Kerry has no qualms at all about imposing his views on the American public.

The fact is that "life ption" isn't his view: it's a standard claim for any pro-choicer who doesn't want to lose the votes of pro-lifers. Pro-choicers know that this is code for "I completely support abortion, but I can't say that because the &#*@$ pro-lifers will revolt if I do and I'll lose the election, but you know what I mean". Once again Kerry's spinelessness is revealed. He doesn't have the guts to say what he actually believes. Instead he hides behind obvious lies and smugly expects the American people to either be his accomplices in this or to be stupid enough to fall for it.

However, let's give Kerry the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that he is (for once) telling the truth. That only makes him more contemptible. In that case John Kerry is telling us that he personally believes that millions of American babies are being slaughtered - the vast majority of them on a whim. But he can't muster enough integrity to stand against what he believes is infanticide on a level never before seen. In fact, not only will he himself refuse to oppose mass infanticide, but he will stridently oppose anyone who does. His 20 years of voting in the Senate have shown that he has opposed any attempt to limit or regulate abortion in any way whatsoever, and he's publicly stated that should he be elected, he would refuse to nominate any judges who might overturn Roe v. Wade.

Please note that you don't have to believe that life begins at conception in order to be appalled at Kerry on this issue. The point is that he says he believes life begins at conception. So his subsequent support for abortion at every turn amounts to eager and willing complicity in what he believes to be the mass slaughter of babies.

Kerry's bio ... 'nuff said

Rich Lowry at the Corner posted the perfect Kerry bio today:

Edwards obviously was eager to highlight Kerry's debate performance from last week. So now Kerry's bio has basically come down to this--he served as a young man in Vietnam, then had a strong performance in the presidential debate on September 30, 2004.

Bush's speech

Bush gave a speech at the Kirby Center For The Performing Arts in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania today. If only the debate had been more like this. Brilliant stuff. Like this:

My opponent was against all of our middle class tax relief. He voted instead to squeeze another $2,000 per year from the average middle class family. Now the Senator is proposing higher taxes on more than 900,000 small business owners. My opponent is one of the few candidates in history to campaign on a pledge to raise taxes. And that's the kind of promise a politician from Massachusetts usually keeps.

And this:

The nonpartisan National Journal analyzed his record and named John Kerry the most liberal member of the United States Senate. And when the competition includes Ted Kennedy, that's really saying something. I'm telling you, I know that bunch. It wasn't easy for my opponent to become the single most liberal member of the Senate. You might even say, it was hard work.

And especially this:

This nation is determined: we will stay in the fight until the fight is won. My opponent agrees with all this — except when he doesn't. Last week in our debate, he once again came down firmly on every side of the Iraq war. He stated that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that America had no business removing that threat. Senator Kerry said our soldiers and Marines are not fighting for a mistake — but also called the liberation of Iraq a "colossal error." He said we need to do more to train Iraqis, but he also said we shouldn't be spending so much money over there. He said he wants to hold a summit meeting, so he can invite other countries to join what he calls "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." He said terrorists are pouring across the Iraqi border, but also said that fighting those terrorists is a diversion from the war on terror. You hear all that and you can understand why somebody would make a face.

CBS: part of the vast right-wing conspiracy

As we all (except that colossus of integrity Michael Moore) know, WMD's and possible links to al Qaeda were only two of the twenty or so justifications for invading Iraq. (Although apparently to Moorites, the liberation of millions of people from torture and murder is unimportant.) Therefore even if Iraq never possessed WMD's and had never had any involvement with al Qaeda, the war was/is still justified on 18 out of 20 counts. Nonetheless, it turns out that it is justified on 20 out of 20 counts.

No doubt at this point Mikey Mouse Club will accuse CBS of being Bush shills. It's just one vast conspiracy involving everyone in the world and the only people smart enough to see through it are Mikey, Barbara Streisand, and Madonna.