Just for amusement, let’s review some liberal-left media liberalspeak today. I’d call this a perfect example of intelligence Lite and moralizing about, well, you fools who have morals. Whole lot of redundancy there, I know, but they’re liberals.
The liberal newspaper Vancouver Sun (which when you compare the words Vancouver and Sun is as ironic as the word liberals with the phrase the foggiest knowledge of science or family values), wrote-up this example of intelligence-Lite moralizing (Nov. 8 2004), in its ever-so-educational editorial page. The editorialist this time was Peter McKnight, who sits on the editorial board of the liberal paper. It’s a bit of a coming out of sorts for the writer.
The editorial section of the Vancouver Sun is what they use to endorse, train, and recruit liberals to the liberal fold, and to indoctrinate Canadians to the great liberal-left way. Or to put it another way, propaganda with a twist of a complete and utter disdain for anything like tradition, family values, or Judeo-Christian values (because the conservative right affirms these things) as well as a complete and utter lack of an understanding of their own readership—Canada—which in the last census declared themselves to be (by a 70 percent margin) Christians. The rest of the paper is just for ad revenue.
Here’s some selected text:
…The exit polls confirm that the majority of people who supported [George W.] Bush did so not out of concern that Osama [bin Laden] would turn Americans into bearded and burka’d Stepford wives (husbands), but because they supported “moral values.”
So, to be clear, that actually happened — they voted that way, and won — the BS air quotes around moral values aside.
As nebulous as the term “moral values” is, the [VP Carl] Rove glossary provides a convenient definition: Those who support moral values are against abortion, against stem cell research, and, most of all, against gay marriage.
Bullshit cubed. Abortion is by far the “most of all.” Stem cell research is perfectly fine as long as it doesn’t involve aborted babies (embryos), which hardly any useful research use anyway. And American liberals (including Bush’s opponent John Kerry who is also against gay marriage) are just as apt to be against gay marriage as conservatives.
After all, gay marriage hurts the family, which is the primary building block of society. (No Republican ever dares to mention that this anti-gay philosophy is profoundly anti-family—that it divides families—as is evidenced by the fact that Mary Cheney, the openly lesbian daughter of the vice-president, was forced to attend the Republican National Convention without her partner, while her sister and father stood proudly on the podium with their spouses.)
[…]
But Rove chose to write Mary Cheney out of the script because the Bush philosophy is not about dividing, but conquering…
First suggestion to Peter McKnight: Look at the big picture when it comes to gay marriage before you profess to us — especially those of us on the right who constantly go on about protecting and enabling and strengthening families, and about building a better nation as a result. Also, note that in fact, being against gay marriage isn’t “anti-gay philosophy.” It’s anti gay-marriage. Note where to place the hyphen, otherwise you acknowledge not understanding their actual position, and coming off as a doofus, and as a bonus you risk insulting people.
Next, perhaps, you should also look in your pants (and this might be the small picture, hahaha) —for strictly scientific reasons. Nothing to do with “morals,” just look down there. To avoid prosecution, ask a woman to look down her own pants or up her dress, and confer with her. Then please try to explain to us one more time how what’s in your pants (dress) is “profoundly anti-family”. I find that statement to be profoundly stupid and hilarious, but to then re-hash the Cheney daughter thing (despite it being literal proof that Dick Cheney loves his daughter profoundly and vice-versa and their family is as tight as can be) —well it’s as if you want to prove how dumb liberals are after taking such a thrashing for raising a strictly personal family issue during the campaign. It’s rather repugnant. On what issue did most (winning) Bush voters vote again?
End of suggestions for Peter McKnight vis-a-vis genitals.
One wonders why McKnight doesn’t just come right out and say that he doesn’t acquiesce to the standard definition of “moral values”—a phrase he writes in quotes (imagine him saying it using finger air quotes around moral values). It’s as if moral values are an airy-fairy concept that isn’t yet fully validated and hasn’t yet been fully vetted by the liberals over at the CRTC, or the CBC division of the Liberal Party. I wonder why he doesn’t just come right out and simply say, ‘I believe in abortion’; ‘I believe in embryonic stem cell research’ (nobody disagrees with adult stem-cell research); and “most of all” (to use his own emphatic words), ‘I am in favor of gay marriage,’ for his editorial column.
I think it’s because saying all that would mean that he doesn’t believe what he saw down his pants means anything other than (air quotes) a thing that does something with that other thing that women have. And rather than come out and say all that, it’s easier for cowards like him to just obfuscate and ridicule the Cheney family, and George Bush and the people who voted for him, and Republicans and conservatives, and the tens of millions of Americans and millions of Canadians who have these (dare I say it) Godly, and very real, moral values. It’s really about politics in the end, isn’t it? Morals was just a head-fake.
And by the way, I’ve never heard Carl Rove define anything, much less moral values, and I know nothing of his campaign around the moral values issue (I actually didn’t follow the old mainstream media version of the election campaign like a sheep, but rather mocked it repeatedly, as tens of millions of others also did, much to the chagrin of the mysteriously falling liberal mainstream media). Like others, I managed to figure things out all by myself with the help of science and history and my principles and adherence to logic and traditions and Judeo-Christian and family values which founded both our nations, and this makes all my quandaries a snap to sort out.
Liberals and the media will continue — as we saw today — to try to re-write history and make this an election purely about what is to them hilarious (or even nefarious) morals, and values, and families, and Christians, and traditional marriage. Let them. That’s how they lost.
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- Canadian Liberals and other leftists hated America 20 years ago too - Wednesday July 23, 2025 at 3:25 pm
- “PROUD?” —PROJECT SUSPENDED - Monday July 21, 2025 at 11:35 am
- Proud To Be Canadian? Maybe Not. - Tuesday December 17, 2024 at 2:07 pm
