Archive for October 2004

bin Laden: If your state votes for Kerry we won’t consider you an enemy

From the good folks at MEMRI:

The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera(1) on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to “each U.S. state,” designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words “ay wilaya” (which means “each U.S. state”)(2) to mean a “country” or “nation” other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: “Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security.”
The Islamist website Al-Qal’a explained what this sentence meant: “This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, ‘Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,’ it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn’t treat all American people as if they’re the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections.”
MEMRI

Someone care to explain how that can be interpreted as Osama fearing that Kerry will be tougher on al Qaeda?

Happy 2nd Bloggiversary to me

Yep, RobBernard.com came into existence at 3:03PM on October 31, 2002 with no idea what I was going to do with it. It started as the answer to

Let me get this straight

In Florida in 2000 simply seeing a police officer on the way to the polling place was considered voter intimidation. This year Michael Moore sees no problem with sticking 1,200 cameras in front of polling places in 2 states.

Liberal voter fraud uncovered in PA

We have every reason to believe that there has been gross abuse of the absentee ballot process in the prison system,” said U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon, R-7, of Thornbury.
While waiting to begin a press conference outside Philadelphia

Attacked by the Left (Part 8)

Fort Lewis College student Mark O’Donnell experienced an unwanted lesson in hardball politics when he was kicked for wearing a cheeky FLC College Republicans sweatshirt.
The GOP shirt, emblazoned across the back with: “Join us now

Stats on Ohio’s Bush-Cheney ’04 grassroots campaign

Grassroots Statistic of the Day- Number of phone calls made to Ohio voters by Bush-Cheney

From tonight’s SNL

Osama bin Laden:

For a time I feared that I would not be eligible to vote in this election. But recently, praise Allah, I was tracked down by two volunteers from the Kerry campaign. They signed me up, and apparently, I am now registered in Cincinnati.

This is of course ridiculous. Our al Qaeda terrorists are illegally registered to vote in Franklin County.

Among supposedly eligible voters in Franklin County are suspected terrorists arrested for alleged plots to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and a local shopping mall.
The Columbus Dispatch

Perhaps it was simply a mistake on SNL-Osama

Happy Halloween


     
     

Good stuff from Orson Scott Card

The falsehoods are thick on the ground, and contrary to the impression some might try to give you, they are not conducted equally by both sides.
When they trumpet examples of Republican “lies,” they usually turn out to be in the following categories:
1. Statements that turn out to be wrong, though they were believed to be right at the time they were spoken. (In the rational world, we call these “mistakes.”)
2. Statements that interpret legitimate data in ways that support the Republican view. (In the rational world, we call these “differences of opinion.”)
3. Statements that point out obvious contradictions between what the Democratic candidates say and what they have said and done in the past. These are called “negative campaigning” and “mudslinging” and “distortions” and, of course, “lies,” but these countercharges are offered instead of coherent explanations.
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 Ornery American – Orson Scott Card

In another column:

From the second debate between Bush and Kerry, when Kerry was asked about abortion:
“KERRY: I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.
“But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that.”
Let’s see. Religion leads John Kerry today. Who knew?
But apparently his religion doesn’t cause him to support laws that would stop people from killing even perfectly viable, full-term babies in the midst of being born. Because murder isn’t murder if the victim’s beating heart has not yet pumped blood charged with oxygen drawn through the victim’s own lungs.
What I want to know is how you can possibly legislate anything at all that does not involve taking your personal belief about what is right and wrong and punishing those who don’t go along.
Did John Kerry not vote for the notorious “hate speech” laws? Didn’t he decide that certain words and ideas were so evil and loathsome that people who say them while committed a crime should receive extra punishment?
Didn’t John Kerry support the ban on peaceful demonstrations anywhere near abortion clinics? Didn’t he impose his beliefs on those who hope to save innocent lives by kneeling and silently praying in front of abortion clinics, when he voted for the law that allows them to be arrested for that?
Perhaps he abstained from forcing his beliefs on others because those laws are in direct violation of the actual written words of the Constitution, as opposed to the fantasy clause that protects “abortion rights.” I’d have to check the record on that.
When Kerry really believes something is wrong, he does not hesitate to call for laws to ban it. What he’s really saying is that it’s illegitimate to ban something you believe is wrong if — and only if — your belief in its wrongness comes from your religion.
So in his worldview, only religious people are forbidden to impose their beliefs about right and wrong on others. As long as you have no religion behind you, you can force your beliefs about right and wrong on anybody you want.
The Ornery American – Orson Scott Card

Though here I think Kerry’s position is less clear than Card thinks. In that debate he also said that his legislation in other areas like the environment were based his religious beliefs. I think Kerry’s actual position is actually more along the lines of “I won’t legislate articles of faith unless I can get people to vote for me by doing so.”
In another column Card deals with Iraq quite well:

Of course, the stupid answer to what I just said is, “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Therefore footage of 9/11 has nothing to do with this war.”
But this war is not about punishing Al-Qaeda — that’s what the anti-war people claim.
This war — including the large campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq and the dozens of smaller campaigns that we don’t hear about — is about preventing international terrorist attacks against anyone, anywhere.
Since the war is not yet over, of course our enemies are still mounting terror attacks wherever they can.
Again, the stupid response to this is, “See? The war is provoking more terrorism, not preventing it!”
But we endured repeated attacks against soldiers and civilians until 9/11 finally made us say when. Is there anyone who seriously proposes that if we had not launched our war on terrorism, the 9/11 attacks would have been the last terrorist attacks anywhere in the world?
Terrorism was happening anyway. But now, instead of freely going where they want to kill whomever they want, the terrorists are now desperate to show the Muslim world that they’re still effective. In fact, however, they are severely limited in what they can do outside the Muslim world.
That’s why they’re reduced to murdering Iraqi soldiers now — fellow Muslims whose only “sin” was to volunteer to defend their country against Syrian and Iranian murderers and homegrown revolutionaries.
Dead Iraqi soldiers. That’s going to play so well in the streets of Iraq.
But they’re not trying to win Iraqi hearts and minds anymore. Now they’re trying to terrify Iraqis into not supporting the interim government. That’s a very different project, and it is a clear sign that the terrorists know that the Iraqi people have turned against them.
Instead of “defenders” of Iraq against “American aggressors,” they are now revealed as the would-be oppressors of Iraq, showing the Iraqi people how brutally they intend to rule over them if they get the chance.

What a strange world Kerry lives in. He has a plan for everything, but can never tell us what it is — probably because it’s so complicated that we stupid people simply couldn’t understand the subtleties of his unfathomable wisdom. We just have to take it on faith that his plan will be wonderful and makes us all happy and thin. (But not rich — or not for long, anyway.)
And since Kerry has so many secret plans, he is convinced that Bush must have secret plans, too. Plans for a draft. Plans to wreck Social Security. Evil, terrible plans that will destroy the world. He has no evidence for this — but then, we have no evidence for Kerry’s plans, either, yet he believes in them.
Here’s the gist of Kerry’s secret plans: Whatever Bush did, Kerry would have done differently.
But what I don’t get is: If Bush is out of office and Kerry is in, how will Kerry know what Bush would have done so that he can do the opposite?
The Ornery American – Orson Scott Card

All three columns are worth a read. The third in particular has a good section on how the Left assumes their voters are too stupid or lazy to be able to vote in the correct fashion.

Stolen Honor

If you’re interested, Stolen Honor, the doc Sinclair ended up not showing, is available for free viewing here.