http://www.newsmax.com

Quoted Text

Edwards' Wife Asks Coulter to Stop Attacks

Elizabeth Edwards pleaded Tuesday with Ann Coulter to "stop the personal attacks," a day after the conservative commentator said she wished Edwards' husband, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, had been killed by terrorists.

"The things she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates, lowers the political dialogue at precisely the time we need to raise it," Edwards said by phone on MSNBC's "Hardball" program, where Coulter was a guest.

Elizabeth Edwards said she did not consult her husband before confronting Coulter on the air, adding that she felt the pundit's remarks were "a dialogue on hatefulness and ugliness."

  "It debases political dialogue," Edwards said. "It drives people away from the process. We can't have a debate about issues if you're using this kind of language."

Coulter responded with a laugh and charged that Edwards was calling on her to stop speaking altogether. She questioned why Elizabeth Edwards was making a phone call on behalf of her husband, and she criticized John Edwards for "stealing doctors' money" during his successful career as a trial lawyer.

"I don't think I need to be told to stop writing by Elizabeth Edwards, thank you," Coulter said.

On ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday, Coulter was asked about a March speech in which she used a gay slur to refer to Edwards.

"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot," Coulter said Monday, picking up on remarks made by HBO's Bill Maher. Maher suggested in March that "people wouldn't be dying needlessly" if Vice President private Cheney had been killed in an insurgent attack in Afghanistan

Quoted Text

"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot," Coulter said Monday, picking up on remarks made by HBO's Bill Maher. Maher suggested in March that "people wouldn't be dying needlessly" if Vice President private Cheney had been killed in an insurgent attack in Afghanistan

AAHhh the baseness of both sides......parties parties parties.....powers and principalities......

Interesting, the left asking the right to shut up before people realize they're right.  Same old, Same old.

I like Ann Coulter and always have. People have to realize that it is an 'opinion' and not a 'threat'. Bill Mahar stated simaliar about Channey. Again - 'opinion' only here folks! Mrs. Edwards should not be in a position to 'defend' her husband over an 'opinion'.

Some may not approve Ms. Coulter's opinion, but it is 'just that'!

She is a big mouth broad if ya ask me....and that---is just my opinion :P

She is Rosie O'Donnells alter (coulter) ego...... ;D

If you join the political arena you better be thick skinned. It just comes with the territory! And the more you make of these 'opinions', the more 'life' you breathe into them and they then take on a life of their own. So Coulter and Edwards are making money off of this 'opinion', so there are no losers!

http://www.newsmax.com

Quoted Text

Furious Ann Coulter Strikes Back

An obviously angry Ann Coulter this morning ripped into critics who deliberately distorted her comments about former senator and presidential hopeful John Edwards.

After a relentless 24-hour firestorm during which much of the mainstream media used selective quotes to mangle the meaning of several of Ann’s comments about Edwards, Coulter set the record straight while talking with Joe Scarborough host of MSNBC’s "Morning Joe” program.

Coulter told Scarborough: "I’ve never seen people avoid ideas so much in such an obvious way and try to alert Americans not to read anything, not to listen to something someone said — not because of what someone is saying, but to try to portray her as a Nazi. This happens every time I put a book out and I’m getting a little bored with it . . .”


She further explained that she never wished John Edwards would die. She simply said on "Good Morning America" on June 25 that Bill Maher had wished the death of Vice President Cheney by terrorist attack and got away with it, so perhaps if she wanted to avoid criticism in the future while mentioning Edwards, she should say the same thing.

"Oh yeah, I wouldn’t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards,” Coulter said on "Good Morning America." "That would be mean. But about the same time — you know — Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished private Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

The controversy over Coulter's comments heated up when she appeared on Chris Matthews’ "Hardball” show the next day, and was blindsided by a phone call from Edward’s wife Elizabeth. Apparently, the call was pre-arranged by Matthews without Coulter’s knowledge.

Edwards’ wife told Matthews that she was very offended by Coulter’s interview on "Good Morning America" because Coulter said Edwards’ husband John should be killed by a terrorist attack.

Scarborough asked Coulter on his program, "Why would you say such an awful, awful thing about John Edwards?”

Coulter replied, "That is how it is being reported by the Associated Press, apparently all over NBC, except on your show . . . because liberals lie. I’ve written lots of books about it and this happens to be a good example of it.”

Explaining that the terrorist attack comment was in reference to a comment by Bill Maher about wishing private Cheney had been killed by terrorists Coulter said, "I described the entire Bill Maher scenario in one sentence. The 'Good Morning America' audience, which is pretty large and pretty broad, [got] the joke, and no one figured out a way to truncate that sentence until 36 hours later.

"It’s not like the liberal blogs weren’t, as they always do, watching my appearance and instantly posting, from the moment I walked off 'Good Morning America,' all of their indignation, which apparently centered on my comparing George Bush to FDR because he is great on foreign policy, lousy on domestic policy.

"Nobody even thought of how to lie about what I said for 36 hours, so don’t tell me I was giving them ammunition.”
About her comment regarding John Edwards and the word "f*g**t,” Coulter told Joe, "If you want to go back to CPAC, I was speaking to a group of 7,000 college Republicans and, no, I will not be rearranging my words so the stupidest person in the liberal blogosphere understands what I’m saying.”


Following that "Good Morning America" appearance the Washington Post’s "Reliable Source” gossip column by Roxanne Roberts and Amy Argetsinger, omitted the full context of Coulter’s complaint that Bill Maher can get away with saying private Cheney should be killed by terrorists.

Wrote the Post, "The conservative shock-pundit, who sniped on ‘Good Morning America’ Monday that she hoped the Democratic candidate would be ‘killed in a terrorist assassination plot,’ was a guest on MSNBC's ‘Hardball’ Tuesday night, prompting a live call-in by Elizabeth, who demanded that Coulter ‘stop the personal attacks.’" According to NewsBusters.


After noting that "If you are going to hate Ann Coulter, hate her for the right reasons,” Scarborough ran the "Good Morning America" clip that started the firestorm. "Some of these wire reports and some of these news shows are deliberately taking this quote out of context,” he said.


Replied Coulter "Yeah, I don’t even know why, or how I have the capacity to be surprised anymore. You can take someone’s words and chop them up and put them together to say ‘Heil Hitler.’ [This is] the media — the mass mainstream media. This isn’t just a few nuts. This isn’t just John Edwards campaign. This is AP, The Hill and TV . . . I can count the exceptions more quickly than I can count the ones telling the truth.”


Scarborough pointed out that, "You are talking about the Bill Maher incident . . . The part of the Elizabeth Edwards interview that jarred the most people, and jarred me . . . Was the part where she brought up that you had written some column where you had made light of John Edwards’ dead son. What’s the story behind that?”


Coulter explained "Needless to say, that is not true, and coming from people who have done what we have just seen them do in the earlier segment, I don’t think they deserve a lot of credibility on this. You can look it up, it’s all over the Web. It’s a fabulous column entitled ‘The Party of Ideas’ written in 2003. I had to go back to get the full gist of the column. It was about all of the Democratic primary opponents.

"And, by the way, listing a quote out of context from a short five minute TV interview is a little quicker to correct than an entire column written four years ago. There is a point to a column . . . Let’s see, I’m the only person in America that has to go back and constantly explain an entire column when it is lied about like this and describe why I chose this adverb, rather than that adverb, and was this a joke, was that a joke . . .


"I am getting a little fed up with being described as the aggressor in these matters . . . it was about the Democratic presidential nominees back then — Gephart, Dean, this guy, the trial lawyer [Edwards] — and how they were not talking about the war, they were not talking about the economy . . .

"They were talking about either they were running for president because they had a dead relative — Vote for me! — or had suddenly discovered a Jewish heritage. In the various dead relative category, that included of course one who wasn’t running but was the one who started it all, Al Gore in two speeches at the Democratic National Convention.

"Once it was his sister, once it was the near fatal accident of his son, so that it got to the point that all of his family members had to start fearing more runs for higher office. You had Dean’s brother, you had Gephart’s sister or the close death of a child, and then I went through the trial lawyer, a fact that is now memorialized in Bob Shrum’s book who describes John Edwards . . . John Kerry felt queasy about him and almost didn’t put Edwards on the ticket because Edwards kept telling him this tear-jerking story about [how he dedicated his public life to his son]."


Coulter said, "I’m a little sick of being browbeaten by a bunch of harridans about why I chose this word or about why I told that joke . . . and then people turn around and say "you’re so mean, you’re so mean.”

Political analyst Craig Crawford thinks that the Edwards’ attacks on Coulter are part of the Democrats’ efforts to fight back against conservative domination of the talk radio airwaves. He writes on CQPolitics.com that there is a concerted effort by the left to fight back "on several fronts — from challenging their foes on air to endorsing the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, the abandoned federal regulation that once obligated broadcasters to balance the political opinion they air. Behind the scenes, prominent Democratic lawmakers are exploring the idea of more regulation.”

As Rush Limbaugh said on his Web site, "Ann Coulter was clearly ambushed” by the Edwards phone call. And if Craig Crawford is correct, we can expect to see more of the same in the future.

Quoted Text

That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband
by Ann Coulter  (More by this author)


  
The Edwards campaign is apparently still running low on donations, so this week they went back to their top fundraiser: me.

I doubled the ratings of the lowest-rated cable news show on Tuesday by agreeing to go on for a full hour to promote my new paperback version of "Godless" -- a mistake I won't make again. As I was walking to the set, minutes before airtime, it was casually mentioned to me that Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, might call in.

For the first time in recorded history, the show's host did not interrupt a guest, but let Elizabeth Edwards ramble on and on, allowing her to browbeat me for being mean to her husband.

Say, did any TV host ever surprise Al Franken, Bill Maher or Arianna Huffington with a call by the wife of someone they've made nasty remarks about? How about a call to John Edwards from the wife of a doctor he bankrupted with his junk-science lawsuits?

I think I may have tuned out at some point, so I can only speak to the first 45 minutes of Elizabeth Edwards' harangue, but it mostly consisted of utterly dishonest renditions of things I had said on my "Good Morning America" interview this week and a column I wrote four years ago. (You can't rush Edwards' "rapid response team"!) She claimed I had launched unprovoked attacks on the Edwards' dead son and called for a terrorist attack on her husband.

These are bald-faced lies, and the mainstream media knows they are lies. Yet they were repeated ad nauseam on Wednesday by The Associated Press, the AOL pop-up window, CNN, NBC and -- stunningly -- the host of the lowest-rated cable show himself, who personally told me he knew the truth.

So for those of you who haven't read any of my five best-selling books: Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly.

Here is my full sentence on "Good Morning America," which the media deceptively truncated, referring to a joke I told about Edwards six months ago that made liberals cry: "But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished private Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack -- so I've learned my lesson: If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

The usual nut Web sites posted a zillion denunciations of my appearance on "Good Morning America" immediately after I appeared Monday morning. But it didn't occur to any of them to simply lie about what I had said. No, it took them nearly 36 hours to concoct a version of that quote that included the Edwards part, but not the Maher part, or what English language speakers call: "the point."

By tomorrow it will be: "Ann Coulter tried to kill John Edwards on 'Good Morning America'!"

Judging by his fundraising efforts so far, I gather most of you don't know who John Edwards is -- unless you're an overpriced hair dresser. He's the trial lawyer who pretended in court to channel the spirit of a handicapped fetus in front of illiterate jurors to scam tens of millions of dollars off of innocent doctors. According to The New York Times, Edwards told one jury: "She speaks to you through me ... And I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

Let me also quote from campaign consultant Bob Shrum's book "No Excuses":

"(Kerry) was even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else -- that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before -- and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again."

Apparently every time Edwards began a story about his dead son with "I've never told anyone this before," everyone on the campaign could lip-sync the story with him.

As a commentator, I bring facts like these to the attention of the American people in a lively way. Thus, for example, in a column about the Democratic candidates for president written in 2003, I pointed out that the Democrats refused to discuss the economy or the war, but had recently "discovered a surprise campaign issue: It turns out that several of them have had a death in the family."

Among several examples of Democrats talking about a death in the family on the campaign trail was this one:

John Edwards injects his son's fatal car accident into his campaign by demanding that everyone notice how he refuses to inject his son's fatal car accident into his campaign.

Edwards has talked about his son's death in a 1996 car accident on "Good Morning America," in dozens of profiles and in his new book. ("It was and is the most important fact of my life.") His 1998 Senate campaign ads featured film footage of Edwards at a learning lab he founded in honor of his son, titled "The Wade Edwards Learning Lab." He wears his son's Outward Bound pin on his suit lapel. He was going to wear it on his sleeve, until someone suggested that might be a little too "on the nose."

If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent's criminal record for partisan political advantage.

Manifestly, I was not making fun of their son's death; I was making fun of John Edwards' incredibly creepy habit of invoking his son's tragic death to advance his political career -- a practice so repellant, it even made John Kerry queasy.

I'm a little tired of losers trying to raise campaign cash or TV ratings off of my coattails, particularly when they use their afflictions or bereavement schedules to try to silence the opposition. From now on, I'm attacking only serious presidential candidates, like Dennis Kucinich.

Boy, I'll tell ya...this broad don't back down from nothing!

Quoted from bumblethru

Boy, I'll tell ya...this broad don't back down from nothing!

She has no reason to.

This is almost as good as Rosie and Donald.....

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21590

Quoted Text

The 'Bumper Sticker' That Blows Up
by Ann Coulter

Posted: 07/18/2007

For six years, the Bush administration has kept America safe from another terrorist attack, allowing the Democrats to claim that the war on terrorism is a fraud, a "bumper sticker," a sneaky ploy by a power-mad president to create an apocryphal enemy so he could spy on innocent librarians in Wisconsin. And that's the view of the moderate Democrats. The rest of them think Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

But now with the U.S. government -- as well as the British and German governments -- warning of major terrorist attacks this summer, the Treason Lobby is facing the possibility that the "bumper sticker" could blow up in their faces.

The Democrats' entire national security calculus is based on the premise that "we have no important enemies," as stated by former senator Mike Gravel. He's one of the Democratic presidential candidates who doesn't know he's supposed to lie when speaking to the American people.

Ironically, the Democrats' ability to sneer at President Bush hinges on Bush's successful prosecution of the war on terrorism, despite the Democrats. It's going to be harder to persuade Americans that the "war on terrorism" is George Bush's imaginary enemy -- the Reichstag fire, to quote our first openly Muslim congressman Keith Ellison -- if there is another terrorist attack.

So naturally, they are blaming any future terrorist attacks on the war in Iraq.

The Democrats blame everything on Iraq, but their insane argument that we are merely annoying the enemy by fighting back has been neurotically repeated since the failed terrorist bombing in London a few weeks ago. The venue of the terrorists' latest attempt, a hot London nightclub, might even shake up the young progressive crowd. Apparently their soirees are not off-limits, notwithstanding their dutiful anti-imperialism.

In anticipation of their surrender strategy becoming substantially less popular in the wake of another terrorist attack, the Democrats are all claiming that the threat of terrorism was nonexistent -- notwithstanding 9/11, the Cole bombing, the bombing of our embassies, the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Achille Lauro, etc. etc. -- until George Bush invaded Iraq.

In the past week, B. Hussein Obama said the war in Iraq has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Americans are "more at risk," he said, "and less safe than we should have been at this point." We would be safer with "better polices" -- such as, presumably, Bill Clinton's policy of pretending Islamic terrorists don't exist and leaving the problem for the next president.

Hillary Clinton said we need to start "reversing our priorities. Let's stop sending troops to Iraq and let's start insuring every single child." Yes, that should put a good healthy scare into the insurgents. "Run for your life, Ahmed! All American children are getting regular checkups!"

Sen. Chris Dodd miraculously straddled both arguments -- that the threat of terrorism is a fraud and that the Iraq war had increased its danger. He said "al-Qaida is insurgent again" because we've "turned Iraq into an incubator" for jihadists. But simultaneously with warning of a terrorist attack, Dodd also said he was "more skeptical than I'd like to be" of the Bush administration's warning of a terrorist attack. Damn that Bush! He's inflamed an imaginary enemy!

As with the Democrats' claim that the greatest military in the world is "losing" a war with camel-riding nomads, the claim that the war in Iraq is what created our terrorist problem -- a terrorist problem that began about 30 years ago -- has entered the media and is now stated as fact by the entire Treason Lobby.

CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux matter-of-factly reported this week: "President Bush says the central front in the war on terror is Iraq. But when the U.S. first invaded the country almost five years ago, al-Qaida had very little presence. But the intelligence report says that has changed. Al-Qaida not only has become a dangerous threat, the intelligence community expects the terrorist group will use its contacts and capabilities there to mount an attack on U.S. soil."

Say, wasn't the attack of 9/11 an "attack on U.S. soil"? How could that have happened since we hadn't invaded Iraq yet? What a weird aberration. How about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? The taking of our embassy in Tehran?

Another CNN correspondent, Ed Henry, followed up Malveaux's report with the somber news that "the president was warned before the war in Iraq that if you go in and invade Iraq, you're going to give al-Qaida more opportunities to expand its influence."

Similarly, Hitler and Goebbels never had much to say about the United States -- not, that is, until we started fighting them!

But as soon as we entered the war -- taking the bait of Hitler's declaration of war against us, which Democrats are urging us to avoid falling for in the case of al-Qaida -- Hitler began portraying FDR as a pawn of the Jews. Soon posters started appearing in Germany showing the United States as a country run by Jews and Negroes. Fake dollar bills with the Star of David were air-dropped over Paris.

According to the Democrats' logic, FDR's policies made the United States less safe. Had Germany attacked us at Pearl Harbor? No. Was Hitler able to use America entering the war as a recruiting tool? Yes. Fighting the enemy always seems to make them mad. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

Democrats think they have concocted a brilliant argument by saying that jihadists have been able to recruit based on the war in Iraq. Yes, I assume so. Everything the United States has done since 9/11 has galvanized the evil people of the world to fight the U.S. In World War II, some Frenchmen joined the Waffen SS, too. And the good people of the world have been galvanized to fight on the side of the U.S. The question is: Which side are the Democrats on?

Quoted Text

Hillary Clinton said we need to start "reversing our priorities. Let's stop sending troops to Iraq and let's start insuring every single child." Yes, that should put a good healthy scare into the insurgents. "Run for your life, Ahmed! All American children are getting regular checkups!"

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha............ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....................ha ha ha ha ha ha ha :D :D :D :D :D

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21691

Quoted Text

Obama Hails a Unicorn
by Ann Coulter
Posted: 07/25/2007  

Fox News ought to buy a copy of Monday's Democrat debate on CNN to play over and over during the general election campaign. For now, the Democratic candidates need to appeal only to their nut-base. So on Monday night, the candidates casually spouted liberal conspiracy theories that would frighten normal Americans, but are guaranteed to warm the hearts of losers blogging from their mother's basements.

B. Hussein Obama got the party started by claiming he couldn't get a cab in New York because he's black. This line was a big hit with white liberals in the audience who have never been to New York.

Even writers for The New York Times don't drag this canard out anymore. Last year, a black writer in the Times pointed out how things had changed in New York in the 10 years since he had been out of the country. Not only did he have no trouble getting a cab, but he cited statistics from taxi sting operations that showed a 96 percent compliance rate among cabbies in picking up blacks. (Remarkable, considering that New York cabbies' compliance rate on daily bathing is less than half that.)

As the Times writer noted, even 10 years ago, "most of the drivers who refused to pick me up or take me to my destination during that time were of African descent." When he asked one cabbie -- 10 years ago -- why he avoided picking up black customers, the driver displayed a scar across his neck, a souvenir from a black customer who had robbed him. "I have to choose which is worse," the driver said, "a fine or death."

Thanks to Rudy Giuliani, cab drivers in New York no longer have to make that choice. Under his mayoralty, New York City became a lot safer for cab drivers -- and everyone else. The murder rate went from about 2,000 murders a year under Mayor David Dinkins to about 700 by the end of Giuliani's term. The last time a cab driver was killed in New York was in 1997.

In addition to making it safer for (mostly African-American and Muslim) cabbies to pick up African-Americans, Giuliani made it costly for them not to. He started "Operation Refusal" in 1999, sending out teams of black undercover cops and taxi commissioners to hail cabs and give fines to those who refused to pick up blacks.

Even back in 1999, in the first 12 hours of "Operation Refusal," out of more than 800 cabs hailed, only five cab drivers refused to pick up a customer -- one of whom was a white woman with children. And by the way, I've had dozens of cabs refuse to stop for me on Fifth Avenue. Sometimes they forget to turn on the "off duty" light, or they're daydreaming or maybe they've read my columns on Muslims.

Next time, B. Hussein Obama ought to tell us the one about Kool cigarettes being owned by the KKK and causing impotence in black men. There may not be overwhelming evidence disproving that one as there is for the yarn about blacks not being able to get a cab in New York.

Overall, Hillary appeared to be the only Democrat even dimly aware that there will eventually be a general election. But she too played to her audience with wacky conspiracy theories. Oops, I mean she "discussed the Democratic platform in detail." No need for me to get judgmental.

Hillary raised the Bush-stole-the-2000-election fairy tale, saying: "I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000. I actually thought somebody else was elected in that election, but ..." (Applause.)

On Nov. 12, 2001, The New York Times ran a front page article that began: "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward."

Another Times article that day by Richard L. Berke said that the "comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots solidifies George W. Bush's legal claim on the White House because it concludes that he would have won under the ground rules prescribed by the Democrats."

On Nov. 18, 2001, notorious pro-abortion zealot Linda Greenhouse wrote in the Times that the media consortium's count of all the disputed Florida ballots -- in which the Times participated -- concluded "that George W. Bush would have won the 2000 presidential election even had the court not cut the final recount short."

If three prominent articles in the Treason Times isn't enough to convince Hillary that Bush won the 2000 election, forget the White House: ABC ought to hire her to replace Rosie O'Donnell on "The View." I know that's a big seat to fill, but maybe she can finally convince Elizabeth Hasselbeck that 9/11 was an inside job.

There should be more like her.
She's a tough broad.
It may not be the politically correct word.
But it is a compliment.

I love the way she doesn't take anyones crap no matter who it is.

I agree! And whether you agree with her or not, the woman knows her stuff and just spits it out! And she truly does NOT back down from anyone! Talk about thick skinned. But that's what ya need if you're gonna be 'out there'!

If you're going to get involved in politics on the radio, TV or news paper you'd better have thick skin because the Dems will go after you. I just read on the Drudge report that the Dems right hand organization Move On. Org is trying to get Fox News sponsors to drop their support to Fox. They just approached Home Depot to drop their adds on the show. That's real nice if you don't like what's being said on a program you create a small army of members to call all the sponsors and threaten to not buy their products. Move On really doesn't like Bill O'Reilly as he investigated one of their left wing programs and said that the program was just a hate filled propaganda show.

http://www.humanevents.com

Quoted Text

Did I Miss The ‘Hip’ Part?
by Ann Coulter

CNN commentators keep telling us how young and hip the audience was for last week's YouTube Democratic debate, apparently unaware that the camera occasionally panned across the audience, which was the same oddball collection of teachers' union shills and welfare recipients you see at all Democratic gatherings.

Noticeably, Gov. Bill Richardson got the first "woo" of the debate -- the mating call of rotund liberal women -- for demanding a federal mandate that would guarantee public schoolteachers a minimum salary of $40,000.

So much for the "younger, hipper" audience. Maybe CNN meant "hippier," as in, "My, she's looking a bit hippy these days."

Not counting talking snowmen, the main difference in the YouTube debate audience and the audience for the earlier CNN Democratic debate is that the YouTube debate had 173,000 fewer viewers in the 18-49 demographic. So it was provably not young and, on the basis of casual observation, definitely not hip.

As usual, the audience consisted mostly of public schoolteachers. According to CNN, the highest reading achieved on the CNN feelings-knob was for Richardson talking about public schoolteachers. (Some in the audience said they hadn't been that excited since the last time they had sex with an underage student.)

B. Hussein Obama said he was for slavery reparations in many forms, but the only one that got applause was for more "investment" in schools. In Obama's defense, the precise question was: "But is African-Americans ever going to get reparations for slavery?" So a switch to the subject of education was only natural.

Moreover, a question on reparations has got to be confusing when you're half-white and half-black. What do you do? Demand an apology for slavery and money from yourself? I guess biracial reparations would involve sending yourself money, then sending back a portion of that money to yourself, minus 50 percent in processing fees -- which is the same way federal aid works.

It was fun to hear the Democratic candidates give heart-rending reasons for not sending their own kids to public schools. Except John Edwards. He got a "woo" for sending his kids to public schools from all those "young, hip" Democrats whose greatest concern is how to transfer more money to public schoolteachers while reducing their workload.

The candidates all managed to come up with good reasons for sending their kids to private schools -- with extra points for reasons that involved a family tragedy or emergency -- but it didn't seem to occur to any of them that ordinary families might have good reasons, too.

In her first risible lie of the debate, Hillary said Chelsea went to public schools in Arkansas. But when they moved to Washington, they were advised that "if she were to go to a public school, the press would never leave her alone, because it's a public school. So I had to make a very difficult decision."

"Unfortunately," she said, it was "good advice."

Was it really that difficult a decision not to send Chelsea to public schools in Washington, D.C.?

This is how The New York Times recently described the schools in Washington, which it called "arguably the nation's most dysfunctional school system."

"Though it is one of the country's highest-spending districts, most of the money goes to central administration, not to classrooms, according to a recent series of articles in The Washington Post. Its 55,000 mostly poor students score far worse than comparable children anywhere else in reading and math, with nearly 74 percent of the district's low-income eighth-graders lacking basic math skills, compared with the national average of 49 percent."

So Hillary was dying to send Chelsea to the D.C. public schools, but "unfortunately" did not do so only because of the press? Did she also agonize over whether to allow Chelsea to play in traffic?

She was not dying to send Chelsea to D.C. public schools. And no Democrat cares about "education" or "the poor."

Democrats care about social service bureaucrats who make their living allegedly working on behalf of the poor -- the famed "public service" the Democrats always drone on about -- jobs that would disappear if we ever eliminated poverty. That's why Democrats keep coming up with policies designed to create millions and millions more poor people.

Democrats fight tooth and nail against any measures that would actually help the poor, such as allowing schools to fire bad teachers. They refuse to allow parents with children in the rotten D.C. public schools to take money out of the public school system so their kids could go to Sidwell Friends like Chelsea.

Most important, Democrats resolutely refuse to tell the poor the secret to not being poor: Keep your knees together until marriage.

That's it. Not class size, not preschool, not even vouchers, though vouchers would obviously improve the education of all students. You could have lunatics running the schools -- and often do -- and if the kids live with married parents, they will end up at good colleges and will lead happy, productive lives 99 percent of the time.

But Democrats don't care about the poor. They don't care about the children. They care about government teachers and other government bureaucrats -- grimy, dowdy women who "woo" at political debates. Or as CNN calls them, the "young," "hip" crowd.

You have to love her for her willingness to tell it like it is. She won't have many teachers in her corner but a lot of what she said was true. Get an education,  the teachers have got to start teaching again instead of just putting in their time and collecting a big paycheck for doing nothing.

Quoted Text

Most important, Democrats resolutely refuse to tell the poor the secret to not being poor: Keep your knees together until marriage.

She is just too hysterical....but the best!!! The entire article was excellent. Thank God for people like Ann Coulter who has the courage and the thick skin and if she was a man, the ba**s, to tell it like it is!!!

And we cant live by testing our kids to death.....that leads to narrow minded mind control.....memorize it memorize it memorize it.......it is very very easy to 'slip in' ideologies under the guise of----"it's just for testing purposes"......

teachers need to teach and parents need to teach......

What are we teaching is the big question........where is the foundation??

Quoted Text

Democrats care about social service bureaucrats who make their living allegedly working on behalf of the poor -- the famed "public service" the Democrats always drone on about -- jobs that would disappear if we ever eliminated poverty. That's why Democrats keep coming up with policies designed to create millions and millions more poor people.

WOW!! :o   Did she ever say a mouthfull here. She hit it right on the head!!!!! And she is talking Washington DC here. I would love her to take a close look at NYS!!!

http://www.humanevents.com

Quoted Text

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Lie, Lie Again
by Ann Coulter

Suspiciously, Daniel Pearl's widow is suddenly being lavishly praised by the Treason Lobby. Jane Mayer, co-author of the discredited hit-book on Clarence Thomas, "Strange Justice," published an article in The New Yorker last week recounting that Mariane Pearl was called by Alberto Gonzales in March with the news that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had admitted to American interrogators that he had personally beheaded her husband and they were going to release the transcript to the press. Mayer wrote: "Gonzales' announcement seemed like a publicity stunt."

Frank Rich followed up with an article in The New York Times saying of Gonzales' call: "Ms. Pearl recognized a publicity ploy when she saw it."

Inasmuch as these are journalists who adjudge George Bush more evil than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, their perception of reality is to be treated gingerly. But if Ms. Pearl is toying with the idea of becoming the latest liberal cause celebre, she might want to consider the trajectories of the rest of them.

All the Democrats' most dearly beloved anti-war/anti-Bush heroes invariably end up in the Teresa Heinz Kerry wing of the nut-house. Scott Ritter went from being a trusted U.N. weapons inspector valiantly defending poor, misunderstood Saddam Hussein from George Bush's imperialistic war to being just another creep trying to have sex with underage girls.

Cindy Sheehan once had "absolute moral authority." Now she's just a madwoman writing mash notes to Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.

Max Cleland was a war hero who lost his limbs as a result of Viet Cong grenades, giving him the stature to gleefully taunt George Bush and private Cheney. "Where the hell were you in the Vietnam War?" Cleland responded to Cheney. "If you had gone to Vietnam like the rest of us, maybe you would have learned something about war."

Then we learned Cleland was a victim only of his own clumsiness and had dropped the grenade on himself in Vietnam after stopping for a beer.

Bill Burkett was the left's most admired military veteran since Benedict Arnold. He claimed Bush had shirked his National Guard duty and said he had the documents to prove it. According to Dan Rather and CBS News, Burkett was a "solid" and "unimpeachable" source who was being attacked by "partisan political operatives."

And then Burkett turned out to be a foaming-at-the-mouth loon. He was eventually forced to admit on air that he had "misled" CBS on the phony National Guard documents, which is a little like Hugo Chavez "misleading" Sean Penn. Burkett's current medical diagnosis: too crazy to be a homeless person.

The congressional campaign of anti-war Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett was treated in the media as if it were the Second Coming. The New York Times described Hackett adoringly as a "lean 6-foot-4, he is garrulous, profane and quick with a barbed retort or a mischievous joke." The Times even produced the obligatory quote-ready Republican who said that "Mr. Hackett's service had caused him to consider voting Democratic."

Then we found out with a little more specificity what some of those quick-witted barbs were. Hackett called the president a "chickenhawk," referred to Bush's "Bring it on" statement as "the most incredibly stupid comment," and called Bush "the biggest threat in America." Yes, he was a veritable Noel Coward, that Hackett.

Soon, even Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Chuck Schumer were trying to get Hackett to drop his next political campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Gen. Wesley Clark was once compared to Eisenhower, which, in mediaspeak, means: "He is virulently anti-Bush." Democrats were so tickled to have found an anti-war Southerner and retired general, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert asked, is he "just a mirage?"

Then it turned out the only war Clark wanted to lead was America's War on Fetuses, declaring that abortion should be legal for any reason until the moment of birth. Soon Clark was buddying around with Michael Moore and Madonna. Also, he claimed he had received calls from "the White House" by which he meant "a think tank in Canada."

Last we heard, Gen. Clark was on the alternate list for "Dancing With the Stars."

Joe Wilson went from being billed in the media as a trusted adviser to Vice President private Cheney and billed (by himself) as an eyewitness to the president's "lies," to being an apron-wearing househusband who had been sent on an errand by his wife.

Not only did he fail to debunk the Niger yellowcake story, he also forgot to bring home the quart of milk his wife had requested. (Wilson is now demanding a congressional investigation into who leaked the classified information that his wife wears the pants in the family.)

The Joe Wilson celebrity tour officially ended when The Washington Post editorialized: "It's unfortunate that so many people took (Wilson) seriously" -- not the least of whom were reporters at The Washington Post itself.

Most recently, The New Republic's "Baghdad Diarist" has been unveiled as a liar, another illustrious chapter in that magazine's storied history of publishing con men and frauds.

If conservatives are the ones driven by ideological passions, then why are liberals the ones always falling for laughable hoaxes in support of their anti-war ideological agenda? And if liberal beliefs are true, why do they need all the phony stunts to prove them? How about liberals keep hoaxes out of politics and return them to their rightful place: "proving" Darwinian evolution.

Wow...I guess the dems will dig up and use just about anyone for promoting their agenda. The dems should clearly do background checks on these people if they are going to use them for their poitical ploys. The people they use to worship, they end up crucifying anyways.

It just goes to show that you can tell a far left wing nut anything and they'll believe it.

'FAR LEFT WING-NUT'....I just love it!!! ;D

Unfortunatly there are plenty of them around! The dems truly do embrace the nuts! And some are actually in a political office!

http://www.newsmax.com

Quoted Text

Ann Coulter Targeted by Left-Wing Group

The left-wing organization People For the American Way has sent out a mass
e-mail to its supporters targeting Ann Coulter at an upcoming speech she will deliver at Xavier University in Cincinnati on Sept. 6.

The e-mail sent this past week says it is seeking to turn the conservative commentator’s “hatemongering against her” at an Ohio rally.

Noting that Coulter will receive a speaking fee of around $20,000, or about $5 per Xavier student, the mailing says People For the American Way (PAW) is “asking 'progressives' to chip in $5 to support groups like Xavier’s Gay-Straight Alliance, Amnesty International, Habitat for Humanity, and Earthcare.

“Can you spare just $5 to support the same communities Coulter regularly bashes for pay?”

While Coulter is speaking, PAW and other left-wing students and activists “will participate in a rally on Xavier’s campus, where we will counter Coulter’s divisive message and present a check to Xavier’s progressive student groups for the total amount raised.”

The mailing touts the effort as “a way for progressives to turn radical right-wingers’ vitriol, bigotry, and intolerance against them, while at the same time bolstering our movement.”

It’s signed “Your Allies (Against the Radical Right) at People for the American Way.”

Coulter’s next book, “If Democrats Had Brains, They’d Be Republicans,” is due out in October.

http://www.newsmax.com

Quoted Text

John Edwards: Coulter is a 'She-Devil'

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards escalated his feud with author Ann Coulter by calling her a "she-devil" on a visit to Iowa.

According to Editor & Publisher, Coulter had hurled a gay slur at Edwards earlier this year, and after more back and forth, his wife called her during a national TV appearance to ask some hard questions.

Edwards had reminded the crowd today in Burlington, Iowa, that his wife had challenged Coulter to stop "personal attacks." He continued: "We know these people. We know their game plan. They're going to attack us personally," Edwards said, according to an ABC report. "They attacked Elizabeth personally, because she stood up to that she-devil Ann Coulter."

Catching himself, he added: "I should not have name-called. But the truth is -- forget the names -- people like Ann Coulter, they engage in hateful language."

Just a loud mouth broad..... ;D

Quoted from senders

Just a loud mouth broad..... ;D

And if she was a man?

Quoted Text

Coulter’s next book, “If Democrats Had Brains, They’d Be Republicans,” is due out in October.

A "Tell it like it is" loud mouth broad.

A loud mouth chauvinist..... ;D

Quoted from senders

A loud mouth chauvinist..... ;D

she just is a Republican chauvinist.

I still like her.

I dont think chauvinist is the proper word....if women are broads/dames what would the equivalent of a man be?

You'll have to ask the men what the name would be for themselves since the men are probably the ones that came up with the name 'BROAD'! Clearly a woman wouldn't have come up with that one.

Quoted Text

dame
One entry found for dame.


Entry Word: dame
Function: noun
Text: 1 a dignified usually elderly woman of some rank or authority -- see MATRIARCH
2 a woman of high birth or social position -- see GENTLEWOMAN

Mickey Kaus has raised the intriguing possibility that, since Bush's amnesty plan went down to humiliating defeat once Americans got wind of what the elites had planned for us, the Bush administration might respond by intentionally targeting highly sympathetic illegal aliens for deportation "in as clumsy, heartless and lawsuit-inspiring a fashion as possible, in order to create the maximum number of negative headlines."

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff described anti-amnesty Americans as being satisfied with nothing less than "the death penalty" for illegal aliens and recently warned of "some unhappy consequences" unless illegal aliens were granted amnesty. Yes, that Michael Chertoff -- the guy in charge of keeping us safe from foreign invasions.

So it was curious when we were treated this week to a weeping Mexican woman on TV, claiming the U.S. government was tearing her from her infant son and saying she knew the American people would be outraged if she were deported. (I note that her message might have been more effective in English.)

Admittedly, I'd just as soon have Homeland Security focusing on illegal immigrants like the one who shot four promising college kids execution style in Newark, killing three of them, possibly after sexually molesting two of them. Heck, I wouldn't have minded if they had deported Jose Carranza even before his girlfriend accused him of raping her 5-year-old daughter.

Or Ruben Hernandez-Juarez, an illegal alien charged with sexually molesting a 6-year-old boy in Martin County, Fla.

Or Alejandro Bautista, an illegal alien in Cook County, Ill., who was convicted for sexually molesting two teenaged boys.

Or Alejandro Xuya-Sian, the illegal alien who hit a pedestrian with his car in New York and dragged him for nearly a mile before dislodging the victim from his car, throwing him aside and driving off again. (Even more disturbing: Xuya-Sian may not have been wearing his seat belt at the time.)

Or illegal alien Alberto Barajas-Enriquez, who is charged with beating his Michigan neighbor to death with a golf club because the neighbor complained about the constant barking of Enriquez's dog. Asked by police how many times he struck his victim with the golf club, Enriquez said, "Let's see ... five, six ... uh, put me down for a seven."

Or Lucio Sanchez-Martinez, the illegal alien in Ohio charged with sexually molesting a sleeping 8-year-old girl.

For simplicity, I have limited my enumeration of illegal aliens I would like deported to those who were charged or convicted of heinous crimes last week. For illegal aliens charged with child molestation, I had to limit it to two days last week.

Still, if Elvira Arellano is the best they've got to change public opinion on deporting illegal aliens, don't expect public opinion to change anytime soon.

Arellano has already snuck into the country illegally twice (that we know of). After being deported in 1999 -- under an administration that, astonishingly, was more serious about enforcing immigration law than the current one -- she illegally ran across the border again a few days later.

Only after 9/11 was she arrested again and convicted for using a stolen Social Security number to get a job as a cleaning woman at an airport. In lieu of jail time, Arellano was to be deported. Instead she took refuge in a left-wing "church" and began to bellyache about being thrown out again.

Despite living in this country illegally for a decade, Arellano hasn't mastered the most rudimentary English. She doesn't want to assimilate and become a "Mexican-American." She wants to be a Mexican-Mexican living in and off America.

So far, the only thing Arellano has contributed to America is one illegitimate child.

Arellano is part of the advance wave of left-wing, Third World colonization of America. Democrats claim there are "two Americas." If they have their way, there will be two Latin Americas.

Liberals know they're losing the demographic war. Christians have lots of children and adopt lots of children; liberals abort children and encourage the gay lifestyle in anyone with a flair for color.

They can't keep up.

Population expert Nick Eberstadt recently speculated in The Washington Post that a principal reason for America's high fertility rate compared to Europe's is its religiosity. Well, that leaves liberals out.

The Democratic Party is in the fight of its life against a conservative demographic trend. Its only hope is to gerrymander America to make the poorest half of Mexico a state. Only a massive influx of criminals, wards of the state and rioters can save them.

This is why Democrats are obsessed with giving two groups the right to vote: illegal aliens and felons. With Arellano, they get two for the price of one. To liberals, building a wall across the Mexican border is a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Democrats are counting on illegal immigrants to be the future of their party, their border guards for the new socialist state. At least liberals have a clear mission and know what they're fighting for. Their plan is to destroy America.

Karl Rove's only response is: "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."

Arellano can go, and take her kid with her.

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER

Amazing article!!!! I swear that every sentence I read I thought was so insightful that I wanted to quote it into this post. She really has the dems pegged!!!!!!! But you will never hear this stuff through the liberal media. NEVER!

People...read the above post that shadow posted. Read it a couple of times and remember it. Cause that is the democratic platform as it stand now!!!

Quoted Text

Main Entry: 2media
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural me·di·as
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: plural of medium
1 : a medium of cultivation, conveyance, or expression; especially : MEDIUM 2b
2 a singular or plural in construction : MASS MEDIA b plural : members of the mass media
usage The singular media and its plural medias seem to have originated in the field of advertising over 70 years ago; they are apparently still so used without stigma in that specialized field. In most other applications media is used as a plural of medium. The great popularity of the word in references to the agencies of mass communication is leading to the formation of a mass noun, construed as a singular . This use is not as well established as the mass-noun use of data and is likely to incur criticism especially in writing.

They make their own spin......

RENO 911
August 29, 2007


This week, congressional Democrats vowed to investigate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of himself. Gonzales has said he was not involved in the discussions about his firing and that it was "performance-based," but he couldn't recall the specifics.

Right-wingers like me never trusted Gonzales. But watching Hillary Rodham Clinton literally applaud the announcement of Gonzales' resignation on Monday was more than any human being should have to bear. Liberals' hysteria about Gonzales was surpassed only by their hysteria about his predecessor, John Ashcroft. (Also their hysteria about Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Libby, Rice, Barney and so on. They're very excitable, these Democrats.)

Liberals want to return the office to the glory years of Attorney General Janet Reno!

There is reason to believe Reno is precisely the sort of attorney general that Hillary would nominate, since Reno was widely assumed to be Hillary's pick at the time. As ABC News' Chris Bury reported the day Reno was confirmed: "The search for an attorney general exemplifies Hillary Clinton's circle of influence and its clout. ... The attorney general-designate, Janet Reno, came to the president's attention through Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham."

Let's compare attorneys general:

-- Civilians killed by Ashcroft: 0
-- Civilians killed by Gonzales: 0
-- Civilians killed by Reno: 80

Reno's military attack on a religious sect in Waco, Texas, led to the greatest number of citizens ever killed by the government in the history of the United States. More Americans were killed at Waco than were killed at any of the various markers on the left's via dolorosa -- more than Kent State (4 killed), more than the Haymarket Square rebellion (4 killed), more than Three Mile Island (0 killed).

-- Innocent people put in prison by Ashcroft: 0
-- Innocent people put in prison by Gonzales: 0
-- Innocent people put in prison by Reno: at least 1 that I know of

As Dade County (Fla.) state attorney, Janet Reno made a name for herself as one of the leading witch-hunters in the notorious "child molestation" cases from the '80s, when convictions of innocent Americans were won on the basis of heavily coached testimony from small children.

Charged by Reno's office in 1984 with child molestation, Grant Snowden was convicted on the manufactured testimony of one such child, who was 4 years old when the abuse allegedly occurred.

Snowden, the most decorated police officer in the history of the South Miami Police Department, was sentenced to five life terms -- and was imprisoned with people he had put there. Snowden served 11 years before his conviction was finally overturned by a federal court in an opinion that ridiculed the evidence against him and called his trial "fundamentally unfair."

In a massive criminal justice system, mistakes will be made from time to time. But Janet Reno put people like Snowden in prison not only for crimes that they didn't commit -- but also for crimes that never happened. Such was the soccer-mom-induced hysteria of the '80s, when innocent people were prosecuted for fantastical crimes concocted in therapists' offices.

-- Number of obvious civil rights violations ignored by Ashcroft: 0
-- Number of obvious civil rights violations ignored by Gonzales: 0
-- Number of obvious civil rights violations ignored by Reno: at least 1

On Aug. 19, 1991, rabbinical student Yankel Rosenbaum was stabbed to death in Crown Heights by a black racist mob shouting "Kill the Jew!" as retaliation for another Hasidic man killing a black child in a car accident hours earlier.

In a far clearer case of jury nullification than the first Rodney King verdict, a jury composed of nine blacks and three Puerto Ricans acquitted Lemrick Nelson Jr. of the murder -- despite the fact that the police found the bloody murder weapon in his pocket and Rosenbaum's blood on his clothes, and that Rosenbaum, as he lay dying, had identified Nelson as his assailant.

The Hasidic community immediately appealed to the attorney general for a federal civil rights prosecution of Nelson. Reno responded with utter mystification at the idea that anyone's civil rights had been violated.

Civil rights? Where do you get that?

Because they were chanting "Kill the Jew," Rosenbaum is a Jew, and they killed him.

Huh. That's a weird interpretation of "civil rights." It sounds a little harebrained to me, but I guess I could have someone look into it.

It took two years from Nelson's acquittal to get Reno to bring a civil rights case against him.

-- Number of innocent civilians accused of committing heinous crimes by Ashcroft: 0
-- Number of innocent civilians accused of committing heinous crimes by Gonzales: 0
-- Number of innocent civilians accused of committing heinous crimes by Reno: at least 1

Janet Reno presided over the leak of Richard Jewell's name to the media, implicating him in the Atlanta Olympic park bombing in 1996, for which she later apologized. I believe Reno also falsely accused the Miami relatives of Elian Gonzalez of violating the law, which I am not including in her record of false accusations, but reminds me of another comparison.

Number of 6-year-old boys deported to totalitarian dictatorships by Ashcroft: 0
Number of 6-year-old boys deported to totalitarian dictatorships by Gonzales: 0
Number of 6-year-old boys deported to totalitarian dictatorships by Reno: 1

Not until Bush became president was the media interested in discussing the shortcomings of the attorney general. Whatever flaws Alberto Gonzales has (John Ashcroft has none), we don't have to go back to the Harding administration to find a worse attorney general.

From the phony child abuse cases of the '80s to the military assault on Americans at Waco, Janet Reno presided over the most egregious attacks on Americans' basic liberties since the Salem witch trials. These outrageous deprivations of life and liberty were not the work of fanatical right-wing prosecutors, but liberals like Janet Reno.

Reno is the sort of wild-eyed zealot trampling on real civil rights that Hillary views as an ideal attorney general, unlike that brute Alberto Gonzales. At least Reno didn't fire any U.S. attorneys!

Oh wait --

Number of U.S. attorneys fired by Ashcroft: 0
Number of U.S. attorneys fired by Gonzales: 8
Number of U.S. attorneys fired by Reno: 93

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER

I just love this Ann Coulter. She by far out weighs every other right winger out there for inside information!!

And I always thought WACO was a tragedy. A government blunder. A bad call. Poor judgment, if any at all. It was a stupid knee jerk reaction to a bunch of wackos at WACO. I guess the then administration felt that the cult was a danger to this country, huh? NO..the government was a danger to this country.

I remember watching that on TV and my stomach just turned. You just knew IT WAS WRONG!!

Anything to blow smoke----everything gets obscured.....look at Mr.Craig and his foot tapping.......that is nice thick smoke to cover alot and take the prying eyes off of what is important......just like Clinton.....that is probably a reason we are in Iraq now.....


Let's see----bluedress incident or Osama????

http://www.humanevents.com

Quoted Text

Comments Cruising While Republican
by Ann Coulter

Posted: 09/05/2007 Print This
  
If you've just returned from your Labor Day vacation and are scanning the headlines from last week's newspapers -- don't panic! America is not threatened by a category 5 hurricane named "Larry Craig."

Despite the 9/11-level coverage, Larry Craig is merely accused of "cruising while Republican." There is nothing liberals love more than gay-baiting, which they disguise as an attack on "hypocrisy."

Chris Matthews opened his "Hardball" program on Aug. 28 by saying Larry Craig had been "exposed as both a sexual deviant and a world-class hypocrite."

Normally, using the word "deviant" in reference to any form of sodomy would be a linguistic crime worse than calling someone a "nappy headed ho." Luckily, Craig is a Republican.

As a backup precaution, Matthews has worked to ensure that there is virtually no audience for "Hardball." I shudder to think of the damage such a remark might have done if uttered about a non-Republican on a TV show with actual viewers.

The New York Times ran 15 articles on Craig's guilty plea to "disorderly conduct" in a bathroom. The Washington Post ran 20 articles on Craig. MSNBC covered it like it was the first moon landing -- Three small taps for a man, one giant leap for public gay sex!

In other news last week, two Egyptian engineering students, Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed and Youssef Samir Megahed, were indicted in Tampa on charges of carrying pipe bombs across states lines. They were caught with the bombs in their car near a Navy base.

But back to the real news of the week: CNN's Dana Bash reported that the Larry Craig story was "everywhere and it is not going to let up."

If liberals were any happier, they'd be gay.

Just as liberals were reaching a fever-pitch of pretend shock and dismay at Larry Craig, it was announced that Craig was resigning. And there went MSNBC's fall program schedule.

Indignant that Craig had short-circuited their gleeful gay-baiting, liberals quickly switched to a new set of talking points. In the blink of an eye, they went from calling Craig a "deviant" to attacking Republicans for not insisting that Craig stay.

Liberals said the only reason Republicans were not blanketing the airwaves defending Craig -- maybe running him for president -- was because of Republican "homophobia."
After howling with rage all week about gay Republicans, to turn around and call Republicans homophobes on Friday was nothing if not audacious.

But last Friday -- or, for short, "the day the two bomb-carrying Egyptian students were indicted and the mainstream media was too busy jeering at Larry Craig to notice" -- The New York Times editorialized:

"Underlying the (Republicans') hurry to disown the senator, of course, is the party's brutal agenda of trumpeting the gay-marriage issue. To the extent Sen. Craig, a stalwart in the family values caucus, might morph into a blatant hypocrite before the voters' eyes, he reflects on the party's record in demonizing homosexuality. The rush to cast him out betrays the party's intolerance, which is on display for the public in all of its ugliness."

Liberals don't even know what they mean by "hypocrite" anymore. It's just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like "extremist" -- or, come to think of it, "gay." How is Craig a "hypocrite," much less a "blatant hypocrite"?

Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he's in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk! Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."

And why is it "homophobic" for Senate Republicans to look askance at sex in public bathrooms? Is the Times claiming that sodomy in public bathrooms is the essence of being gay? I thought gays just wanted to get married to one another and settle down in the suburbs so they could visit each other in the hospital.

Liberals have no idea what they think about homosexuality, which is why their arguments are completely contradictory. They gay-bait Republicans with abandon -- and then turn around and complain about homophobia.

They call Larry Craig a "deviant" based on accusations that he attempted to solicit sex in a public bathroom -- and then ferociously attack efforts to prevent people from having sex in public bathrooms.

They say people are born gay -- and then they say it's the celibacy requirement that turns Catholic priests gay.

They tell us gays want nothing more than to get married -- and then say it's homophobic to oppose homosexual sex in public bathrooms.

Unlike liberals, the "family values caucus" that the Times loathes has only one position on homosexuality: Whatever your impulses are, don't engage in homosexual sex. In fact, don't have any sex at all unless it is between a husband and wife.

The Idaho Statesman spent eight months investigating a rumor that Craig was gay. They interviewed 300 people, going back to his college days. They walked around Union Station in Washington, D.C., with a picture of Craig, asking people if they had seen him loitering around the men's bathrooms.

And they produced nothing.

All they had was the original anonymous charge of sodomy in a bathroom at Union Station that started the eight-month investigation in the first place -- and his plea to "disorderly conduct" after an ambiguous encounter in a bathroom in Minneapolis. Even his enemies said they had never seen any inappropriate conduct by Craig.

If the charges against Craig are true -- and that is certainly in doubt -- he's a sinner (and barely that, according to The Idaho Statesman), but he is among the least hypocritical people in America.

http://www.humanevents.com

Quoted Text

Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't.

Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military -- except when they can find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war and call for a humiliating retreat.

It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even invaded Iraq -- despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.

Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq -- comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United States."

On Sept. 14, 2002, The New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."

This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.

Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, the Times' Nicholas Kristof warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul." He said: "The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again." He announced that "the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya."

The day after we invaded, Kristof cited a Muslim scholar for the proposition that if Iraqis felt defeated, they would embrace Islamic fundamentalism.

We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.

But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.)

Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.

The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.

They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."

Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.

At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."

About the same time, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now" -- although he may have been referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.

In October 2004, Nicholas Lemann wrote in The New Yorker that "it may not be safe enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January."

Days before the first election in Iraq in January 2005, The New York Times began an article on the election this way:

"Hejaz Hazim, a computer engineer who could not find a job in computers and now cleans clothes, slammed his iron into a dress shirt the other day and let off a burst of steam about the coming election.

"'This election is bogus,' Mr. Hazim said. 'There is no drinking water in this city. There is no security. Why should I vote?'"

If there's a more artful articulation of the time-honored linkage between drinking water and voting, I have yet to hear it.

And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They've voted twice more since then.

Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.

OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.

if those guys come back would they be part of the 'unemployment' claims????? if there are folks over there from the reserves---what happens to their jobs here???

Quoted Text

If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.

Ya just gotta love her!!!!

http://www.humanevents.com

Quoted Text

Is There a Trial Lawyer in the House?
by Ann Coulter
Posted: 09/19/2007

The only "crisis" in health care in this country is that doctors are paid too little. (Also they've come up with nothing to help that poor Dennis Kucinich.)

But the Democratic Party treats doctors like they're Klan members. They wail about how much doctors are paid and celebrate the trial lawyers who do absolutely nothing to make society better, but swoop in and steal from the most valuable members of society.

Maybe doctors could get the Democrats to like them if they started suing their patients.

It's only a matter of time before the best and brightest students forget about medical school and go to law school instead. How long can a society based on suing the productive last?

You can make 30 times as much money as doctors by becoming a trial lawyer suing doctors. You need no skills, no superior board scores, no decade of training and no sleepless residency. But you must have the morals of a drug dealer. (And the bank wire transfer number to the Democratic National Committee.)

The editors of The New York Times have been engaging in a spirited debate with their readers over whether doctors are wildly overpaid or just hugely overpaid. The results of this debate are available on TimeSelect, for just $49.95.

"Many health care economists," the Times editorialized, say the partisan wrangling over health care masks a bigger problem: "the relatively high salaries paid to American doctors."

Citing the Rand Corp., the Times noted that doctors in the U.S. "earn two to three times as much as they do in other industrialized countries." American doctors earn about $200,000 to $300,000 a year, while European doctors make $60,000 to $120,000. Why, that's barely enough for Muslim doctors in Britain to buy plastic explosives to blow up airplanes!

How much does Pinch Sulzberger make for driving The New York Times stock to an all-time low? Probably a lot more than your podiatrist.

In college, my roommate was in the chemistry lab Friday and Saturday nights while I was dancing on tables at the Chapter House. A few years later, she was working 20-hour days as a resident at Mount Sinai doing liver transplants while I was frequenting popular Upper East Side drinking establishments. She was going to Johns Hopkins for yet more medical training while I was skiing and following the Grateful Dead. Now she vacations in places like Rwanda and Darfur with Doctors Without Borders while I'm going to Paris.

Has anyone else noticed the nonexistence of a charitable organization known as "Lawyers Without Borders"?

She makes $380 for an emergency appendectomy, or one-ten-thousandth of what John Edwards made suing doctors like her, and one-fourth of what John Edwards' hairdresser makes for a single shag cut.

Edwards made $30 million bringing nonsense lawsuits based on junk science against doctors. To defend themselves from parasites like Edwards, doctors now pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical malpractice insurance every year.

But as the Times would note, doctors in Burkina Faso only get $25 and one goat per year.
As long as we're studying the health care systems of various socialist countries, are we allowed to notice that doctors in these other countries aren't constantly being sued by bottom-feeding trial lawyers stealing one-third of the income of people performing useful work like saving lives?

But the Democrats (and Fred Thompson) refuse to enact tort reform legislation to rein in these charlatans. After teachers and welfare recipients, the Democrats' most prized constituency is trial lawyers. The ultimate Democrat constituent would be a public schoolteacher on welfare who needed an abortion and was suing her doctor.

Doctors graduate at the top of their classes at college and then spend nearly a decade in grueling work at medical schools. Most doctors don't make a dime until they're in their early 30s, just in time to start paying off their six-figure student loans by saving people's lives. They have 10 times the IQ of trial lawyers and 1,000 times the character.

Yeah, let's go after those guys. On to nuns next!

But Times' readers responded to the editorial about doctors being overpaid with a slew of indignant letters -- not at the Times for making such an idiotic argument, but at doctors who earn an average of $200,000 per year. Letter writers praised the free medical care in places like Spain. ("Nightmare" in the Ann Coulter dictionary is defined as "having a medical emergency in Spain.")

One letter-writer proposed helping doctors by having the government take over another aspect of the economy -- the cost of medical education:

"If we are to restructure the system by which we pay doctors to match Europe, which seems prudent as well as inevitable, we must also finance education as Europeans do, by using state dollars to finance the full or majority cost of higher education, including professional school."

And then to reduce the cost of medical school, the government could finance "the full or majority cost" of construction costs of medical schools, and "the full or majority cost" of the trucks that bring the cement to the construction site and the "the full or majority cost" of coffee that the truck drivers drink while hauling the cement and ... it makes my head hurt.

I may have to see a doctor about this. I should probably get on the waiting list now in case Hillary gets elected.

That's how liberals think: To fix an industry bedeviled by government controls, we'll spread the coercion to yet more industries!

The only sane letter on the matter, I'm happy to report, came from the charming town of New Canaan, Conn., which means that I am not the only normal person who still reads the Times. Ray Groves wrote:

"Last week, I had the annual checkup for my 2000 Taurus. I paid $95 per hour for much needed body work. Next month, when I have my own annual physical, I expect and hope to pay a much higher rate to my primary care internist, who has spent a significant portion of his life training to achieve his position of responsibility."

There is nothing more to say.

Quoted Text

It's only a matter of time before the best and brightest students forget about medical school and go to law school instead. How long can a society based on suing the productive last?

Ask New York State---everytime someone farts or burps, someone near them complains and there is some silly law....the laws for nursing homes are rediculous--the feds and the state dont even agree and the facility gets fined from one or the other depending on who's new recommendation is out ::)
laws are for punishment.....the rest in between is what??

SEE MY SIGNATURE

Quoted Text

The ultimate Democrat constituent would be a public schoolteacher on welfare who needed an abortion and was suing her doctor.

My God, if this ain't the truth.

http://www.humanevents.com

Quoted Text

Tase Him Bro!
by Ann Coulter

Democrats should run Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for president. He's more coherent than Dennis Kucinich, he dresses like their base, he's more macho than John Edwards, and he's willing to show up at a forum where he might get one hostile question -- unlike the current Democratic candidates for president who won't debate on Fox News Channel. He's not married to an impeached president, and the name "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" is surely no more frightening than "B. Hussein Obama."

And liberals agree with Ahmadinejad on the issues! We know that because he was invited by an American university to speak on campus.

Contrary to all the blather about "free speech" surrounding Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia, universities in America do not invite speakers who do not perfectly mirror the political views of their America-hating faculties. Rather, they aggressively censor differing viewpoints and permit only a narrow category of speech on their campuses. Ask Larry Summers.Continued

If a university invites someone to speak, you know the faculty agrees with the speaker. Maybe not the entire faculty. Some Columbia professors probably consider Ahmadinejad too moderate on Israel.

Columbia president Lee Bollinger claimed the Ahmadinejad invitation is in keeping with "Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate."

Except Columbia doesn't have that tradition. This is worse than saying "the dog ate my homework." It's like saying "the dog ate my homework" when you're Michael Vick and everyone knows you've killed your dog.

Columbia's "tradition" is to shut down any speakers who fall outside the teeny, tiny seditious perspective of its professors.

When Minutemen leader Jim Gilchrist and his black colleague Marvin Stewart were invited by the College Republicans to speak at Columbia last year, the tolerant, free-speech-loving Columbia students violently attacked them, shutting down the speech.

Imbued with Bollinger's commitment to free speech, Columbia junior Ryan Fukumori said of the Minutemen: "They have no right to be able to speak here."

Needless to say -- unlike Ahmadinejad -- the university had not invited the Minutemen. Most colleges and universities wouldn't buy a cup of coffee for a conservative speaker.

Fees for speakers who do not hate America are raised from College Republican fundraisers and contributions from patriotic alumni and locals who think students ought to hear at least one alternative viewpoint in four years of college.

And then college administrators turn a blind eye when liberal apple-polishers and suck-ups shut down the speech or physically attack the speaker.

Bollinger refused to punish the students who stormed the stage and violently ended the Minutemen's speech.

So the one thing we know absolutely is that Bollinger did not allow Ahmadinejad to speak out of respect for "free speech" because Bollinger does not respect free speech.

Only because normal, patriotic Americans were appalled by Columbia's invitation of Ahmadinejad to speak was Bollinger forced into the ridiculous position of denouncing Ahmadinejad when introducing him.

Then why did you invite him?

And by the way, I'll take a denunciation if college presidents would show up at my speeches and drone on for 10 minutes about "free speech" before I begin.

At Syracuse University last year, when liberal hecklers tried to shut down a speech by a popular conservative author of (almost!) six books, College Republicans began to remove the hecklers. But Dean of Students Roy Baker blocked them from removing students disrupting the speech on the grounds that removing students screaming during a speech would violate the hecklers' "free speech." They had a "free speech" right to prevent anyone from hearing a conservative's free speech.

That's what colleges mean by "free speech." (And by the way, my fingers are getting exhausted from making air quotes every time I use the expression "free speech" in relation to a college campus.)

"Tolerance of opposing views" means we have to listen to their anti-American views, but they don't have to hear our pro-American views. (In Washington, they call this "the Fairness Doctrine.")

Liberals are never called upon to tolerate anything they don't already adore, such as treason, pornography and heresy. In fact, those will often get you course credit.

At Ahmadinejad's speech, every vicious anti-Western civilization remark was cheered wildly. It was like watching an episode of HBO'S "Real Time With Bill Maher."

Ahmadinejad complained that the U.S. and a few other "monopolistic powers, selfish powers" were trying to deny Iranians their "right" to develop nukes.

Wild applause.

Ahmadinejad repeatedly refused to answer whether he seeks the destruction of the state of Israel.

Wild applause.

He accused the U.S. of supporting terrorism.

Wild applause.

Only when Ahmadinejad failed to endorse sodomy did he receive the single incident of booing throughout his speech.

Responding to a question about Iran's execution of homosexuals, Ahmadinejad said there are no homosexuals in Iran: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals, like in your country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it."

I already knew that from looking at his outfit. If liberals want to run this guy for president, they better get him to "Queer Eye for the Islamofascist Guy."

I wish I had a taser...... :X

Oh come on now....she's the best!!!

I didn't mean just for her...... ;D

She tells it like it is.

http://www.humanevents.com

Quoted Text

Pretend to Be All That You Can Be
by Ann Coulter

Not content to wait for my book to come out, Senate Democrats are demanding a censure resolution against Rush Limbaugh. Ah, the memories ...

In my experience, having prominent Democrats censure you on the Senate floor is the equivalent of 50 book signings. Or being put on the cover of The New York Times magazine 20 years ago when people still read The New York Times magazine. They should rename Senate censure resolutions "Harry Reid's Book Club."

Liberals are hopping mad because Rush Limbaugh referred to phony soldiers as "phony soldiers." They claim he was accusing all Democrats in the military of being "phony.

True, all Democrats in the military are not phony soldiers, but all phony soldiers seem to be Democrats.

If we are to believe the self-descriptions of callers to talk radio and the typical soldier interviewed on MSNBC, the military is fairly bristling with Moveon.org types.

The reality is quite the opposite. While liberals have managed to worm themselves into every important institution in America, from the public schools to the CIA to charitable foundations, they are shamefully absent from the military.

As noted in that great book that came out this week, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans":

"According to a Military Times survey taken in September 2004, active-duty military personnel preferred President Bush to Kerry by about 73 percent to 18 percent. Sixty percent describe themselves as Republican and less than 10 percent call themselves Democrat (the same 10 percent that MSNBC has on its speed-dial). Even among the veterans, Republicans outnumber Democrats 46 percent to 22 percent."

So there aren't a lot of anti-war military types for the media to turn into this month's "It Girl." (If conservatives ran the media, there would be a constant stream of government employees admitting to sloth and incompetence, welfare recipients admitting to being welfare cheats and public schoolteachers who support school vouchers.) Sometimes liberals get desperate and have to concoct Tawana Brawley veterans.

In addition to famous fake soldiers promoted by the anti-war crowd, like Jesse MacBeth and "Winter Soldier" Al Hubbard, even liberals with actual military experience are constantly being caught in the middle of some liberal hoax.

Al Gore endlessly bragged to the media about his service in Vietnam. "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later," he told Vanity Fair. And then we found out Gore had a personal bodyguard in Vietnam, the most dangerous weapon he carried was a typewriter, and he left after three months. Although to his credit, Gore did not put in for a Purple Heart for the carpal tunnel syndrome he got from all that typing.

Speaking of which, John Kerry claimed to be a valiant, Purple Heart-deserving Vietnam veteran, who spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia -- until he ran for president and more than 280 Swift Boat Veterans called him a liar. We've been waiting more than 20 months for Kerry to make good on his "Meet the Press" pledge to sign form 180, which would allow the military to release his records.

Then there was Bill Burkett, who gave CBS the phony National Guard documents; Scott Thomas Beauchamp, The New Republic's fantasist anti-war "Baghdad Diarist"; and Max Cleland, whose injuries were repeatedly and falsely described as a result of enemy fire.

Liberals will even turn a war hero like Pat Tillman into an anti-war cause celebre posthumously -- so he can't disagree. Tillman died in a friendly fire incident that occurred -- unlike Max Cleland's accident -- during actual combat with the enemy.

Because they are screaming, hysterical women, liberals treat friendly fire like a drunk driving accident. But friendly fire has been a part of war from time immemorial.

Liberals have an insane, litigious view of the military: There's been an accident in warfare, let's sue!  It's as mad as the line from "Dr. Strangelove": "Gentlemen! No fighting in the War Room!" Golly jeepers, accidents can't happen in a war!

Contrary to the insinuations of his family, we don't know what Pat Tillman would say about the war he volunteered for, but we do know that he was a patriot until death. And we know what other patriots have said about friendly fire during a war.

In his book Faith of My Fathers, John McCain describes how demoralized American prisoners of war in Vietnam were when they didn't hear any bombing for years. Finally, after a long bombing halt, Nixon renewed aerial bombing of North Vietnam in December 1972.

Our bombers couldn't know with precision where the enemy was holding (and torturing) our troops. McCain and the rest of those POWs could easily have been hit and killed by an American bomb.

But the POWs weren't denouncing the U.S. military for risking their lives with "friendly fire." They weren't crying Mommy, investigate this! Get me a trial lawyer! If their camp had been hit by American bombs, it would have been as the POWs were shouting: "God bless President Nixon!"

That's from their own mouths; that's what's in their hearts. Friendly fire -- to a nation that hasn't lost its wits -- is part of waging war.

If Democrats don't want to hear about "phony soldiers," maybe they should stop trying to edify us with these bathos-laden hoaxes.

Quoted Text

Al Gore endlessly bragged to the media about his service in Vietnam. "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later," he told Vanity Fair. And then we found out Gore had a personal bodyguard in Vietnam, the most dangerous weapon he carried was a typewriter, and he left after three months. Although to his credit, Gore did not put in for a Purple Heart for the carpal tunnel syndrome he got from all that typing.

Gee, I forgot about this fiasco with Gore! I think that one must take a test to prove you can be a good liar before a political party will endorse you. Cause they clearly are the best at it.

http://www.humanevents.com

Quoted Text

Fred Sawyer and Huckabee Finn
by Ann Coulter
  
Conservatives unhappy with our Republican presidential candidates seem to be drifting aimlessly toward Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee in the misguided belief that these candidates are more conservative than Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. This is like breaking up with Bobby Brown so you can date Phil Spector.

On illegal immigration, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Tom Tancredo. He has compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying, "I think frankly the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before."

Toward that end, when an Arkansas legislator introduced a bill that would prevent illegal aliens from voting and receiving state benefits, Huckabee denounced the bill, saying it would rile up "those who are racist and bigots."

He also made the insane point that companies like Toyota would not invest in Arkansas if the state didn't allow non-citizens to vote because it would "send the message that, essentially, 'If you don't look like us, talk like us and speak like us, we don't want you.'"

Like all the (other) Democratic candidates for president, he supports a federal law to ban smoking -- unless you're an illegal alien smoking at a Toyota plant. (I just realized why Mike Huckabee can't run for president as a Democrat -- they've already got Mike Gravel.)

Huckabee also joined with impeached president Bill Clinton in a campaign against childhood obesity. What, O.J. wasn't available?

Bill and Mike's excellent adventure lasted about one week in May 2005 -- or just long enough to burnish the image of the president who committed perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil rights suit against him, molested the help and was credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick.

Huckabee teamed up with that guy to talk to children about healthy eating habits. Ironically, the obesity campaign kicked off almost exactly nine years from the very Palm Sunday on which President Clinton used a cigar as a sexual aid on Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office.

What is with Republicans? Clinton isn't your average ex-president, like Jerry Ford. This isn't even Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale.

Decent people shun Clinton, but elected Republicans keep trying to rehabilitate him. President Bush sends his own father on a feel-good "tsunami-relief campaign" with this guy, and Huckabee visits schoolchildren with him.

In 1999, Sen. Fred Thompson joined legal giants like Sens. Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to vote against removing Bill Clinton from office for perjury.

Thompson, whom President Nixon once called "dumb as hell," claimed to have carefully studied the Constitution and determined that perjury by the president of the United States did not constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors." He must have been looking at one of those living, breathing Constitutions we've heard so much about.

When the framers chose the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" for the Constitution, they were using a term taken from British parliamentary impeachments. There's a 600-year history of what this phrase means -- and Clinton met it about a dozen times before he gave a single statement under oath or suborned a single witness's testimony.

It has been used in this country and in Britain to remove one government official for making "uncivil addresses to a women," another for "notorious excesses and debaucheries" and another for "frequenting bawdy houses and consorting with harlots." Or, as Bill Clinton used to call it, "a three-day weekend."

The House didn't even impeach Clinton for his legion of "notorious excesses and debaucheries." He was impeached for excesses that also happen to be felonies. For a nation of laws, there are no more serious offenses than perjury and obstruction of justice.

The entire Supreme Court -- including the justices Clinton appointed -- boycotted Clinton's State of the Union address after his impeachment trial. That's what they thought of crimes that attack the legal system.

Rep. James Rogan lost his congressional seat because he stuck by his principles as a manager of Clinton's impeachment. Lifelong Democrat David Schippers abandoned his party's lockstep defense of Clinton to pursue Clinton's impeachment as the House Judiciary Committee's chief counsel. Rep. Henry Hyde saw an affair he had in 1965 become front-page news because he wouldn't waver from doing his job under the Constitution.

But, as The New York Times recently said, Thompson "agonized over what he saw as two 'bad choices.'"

What bad choices? Punishing a multiple felon or not punishing him? This wasn't exactly a job for King Solomon, pal.
If you're bored with our top candidates, go see a slasher movie. Don't take it out on a presidential election.

The Times reported that calls from Thompson's Tennessee constituents showed that they "overwhelmingly favored removing President Bill Clinton from office."

So Thompson could either: (1) Follow the Constitution and make his constituents happy or, (2) disregard the Constitution and make his Hollywood friends happy.

Only a handful of Republicans voted against all law and reason to keep Clinton in office, and only one of them was from Tennessee.

This isn't the time to be toying with any Republican who had a Clinton in his sights and ended up shooting himself in the foot.

http://www.newsmax.com

Quoted Text

Ann Coulter Strikes Back on Jewish Issue
Wednesday, October 17, 2007 12:28 PM
By: Phil Brennan and Jim Meyers  Article Font Size  

An angry Ann Coulter has responded to critics who lambasted her for remarking that Jews would be “perfected” if they would embrace Christianity, telling Newsmax she has been misquoted, and pointing (though she is not Catholic) to established Catholic doctrine.


Last week the conservative pundit told CNBC’s Donnie Deutsch: “We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say … Christians believe the Old Testament (Jews) don’t believe our testament.”


Asked by Deutsch if she believed everyone should be Christian, Coulter twice replied “Yes.”


Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, was quick to condemn her comments, calling them “hate speech” and saying:


“How does someone who says that Judaism should be thrown out, that Jews should be ‘perfected’ and that America would be better off were everyone Christian continue to receive a megaphone and platform from the news networks? When will the media say ‘enough is enough’?”


Coulter – author of the new book “If Democrats Had Any Brain, They’d Be Republicans” – responded by telling Newsmax:


"Let's rewrite the NJDC statement to refer to what I actually said: 'How does someone who says it would be better if everyone were a Christian or practicing Jew continue to receive a megaphone and platform from the news networks? When will the media say ‘enough is enough’?


"Who's engaging in hate speech now?" she asked.


Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, also criticized Coulter, saying he was "dumbfounded" by her remarks.


He charged: "For her to suggest somehow we'd all be better off if we were all Christian is not only insulting to millions of people who aren't Christian, its completely un-American."


Ann told Newsmax: "That's interesting. Korzen shills for the pro-abortion Democrats and the anti-war left. He used the Catholic label to oppose the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. He sneered at this year's National Catholic Prayer Breakfast at which President Bush spoke, saying: 'Let's be honest, this event would be more accurately labeled the 'Republican Catholic Strategy Breakfast.'


“He was quoted in the Christian Science Monitor of August 27, 2007, defending pro-abortion Democrat politicians: 'There are those who say that Catholics should be robots. There's a formula, and if we don't follow that formula, we shouldn't present ourselves for communion on Sunday morning. That's an absolute misuse of Catholic teaching,' he said, referring to the call of several Catholic bishops in the 2004 campaign to deny communion to Senator Kerry and other Catholic politicians who did not vote in line with Vatican teachings on abortion.


“So Korzen believes Catholics should not be 'robots' when it comes to opposing abortion. He believes Catholics should be robots in opposing the teachings of the New Testament - as clearly stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia.


“The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the New Testament says this: 'Specifically Christian Doctrines: Other doctrines, specifically Christian, are not added on to Judaism to develop, but rather to supersede it.


"In reality, between the New and Old Testaments there is a direct but not revolutionary succession as a superficial observer might be inclined to believe; just as in living beings, the imperfect state of yesterday must give way before the perfection of today although the one has normally prepared the other.


“‘If the mystery of the Trinity and the spiritual character of the Messianic Kingdom are ranked among the peculiarly Christian dogmas, it is because the Old Testament was of itself insufficient to establish the doctrine of the New Testament on this subject; and still more because, at the time of Jesus, the opinions current among the Jews went decidedly in the opposite direction.'


“I think most Catholics would more interested in the words of the famous Catholic priest, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus.”


Coulter quotes him as saying: “Monday, July 9, 2007 … The Roman Missal modified by Pope Paul VI in 1969, and put into effect in 1970, has this formulation: ‘Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of His name and in faithfulness to his covenant.’


“The following prayer is this: ‘Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption.’


“Of course some Jews may be offended at the suggestion that the fullness of redemption is found in Jesus Christ, but their problem is with Christianity as such.”


Said Ann: "Korzen speaks for Catholics like Barry Lynn speaks for Christians or Gloria Steinem speaks for women - or I speak for Muslims."

http://www.newsmax.com

Quoted Text

Another Liberal Noose-ance
by Ann Coulter

Posted: 10/17/2007
  
Liberals are so invigorated by the story about a noose being found on an obscure Columbia University professor's door that now nooses are popping up all over New York City. Liberals love to make believe the Night Riders are constantly at their doors.

I'll be shocked by a noose appearing on a college campus the day an actual racist does it.

Could Columbia at least produce one student or professor who supports racism before holding another "rally against racism"? Every concrete example of the racism allegedly sweeping the nation's campuses keeps turning out to be a fraud. Far from "institutional racism," there is "institutional racial hoaxism" run amok in this country. Will anyone rally against that?

Out of legions, here are just a few hoax hate crimes on college campuses.

-- In 1997, at Duke University, a black doll was found hanging by a noose from a tree at the precise spot where the Black Student Alliance was to be holding a rally against racism. Two black students later admitted they were the culprits and were immediately praised for bringing attention to the problem of racism on campus. Indeed, four years later the president of Duke gave a baccalaureate address nostalgically describing the hoax as a "protest" against racism. Next stop: the Nobel Peace Prize.

-- In 2003, vile racial epithets were scrawled on the dorm room doors at Ole Miss, producing mass protests and a "Say No to Racism" march. And then it turned out the graffiti had been written by black students, against whom no charges were brought. A "Say Yes to Racism" rally at Ole Miss was later canceled due to lack of interest.

-- In 2005, obscenity-laced racist and anti-Semitic messages appeared on dormitory walls at the College of Wooster in Ohio. The fliers were instantly blamed on "typical white males," even though all the letter I's in the epithets were dotted with little hearts. Breadcrumbs left by the culprits included the message "Vote Goldwater" among the obscenities. The matter was dropped and flushed down the memory hole when the perpetrators turned out to be a group of leftist students led by a black studies major.

-- Just this year, anti-Muslim fliers were put out on the George Washington University campus -- by leftists, including a member of "Iraq Veterans Against War." When it was thought the leaflets were from the conservative group Young Americans For Freedom, the dean called for the expulsion of the culprits and the university demanded that YAF officers sign a statement disavowing "hate speech." But when it turned out leftists had distributed the fliers, the matter was dropped faster than Larry Craig was dropped from Mitt Romney's campaign.

The one real example of racism on a college campus in recent memory was perpetrated against white men of the Duke lacrosse team. As that injustice was being perpetrated, gender and ethnic professors at Duke kept droning on about the "racism and sexism" students "live with every day" -- as the professors put it in an open letter that falsely presumed the players were guilty of rape. We don't expect a rally against the prejudiced professors, but an apology might be nice.

Playing the game of He Who Is Offended First Wins, Americans seek status not by claiming to be rich or of royal lineage, but by portraying themselves as victims. In one recent hoax hate crime, a white woman professor at Claremont McKenna College said her car had been vandalized with racist and anti-Semitic graffiti, with the words "Shut Up!" spray-painted on the hood of her car.

She was not black or Jewish, but had recently converted to Judaism and spoke out against racism. So she was a victim! After the vandalism of her car, she promptly became Queen for a Day. Far from "silenced," this anonymous mountebank was given a national microphone to bore us with her race-gender-culture theories. The campus was shut down for a day for anti-racism rallies in the charlatan's honor. Then eyewitnesses identified her as the one who had spray-painted her own car, and the pity party was over.

These liberal racism-hunters are like dirty old men who spend their days poring through pornography in order to better denounce it -- but enough about the Warren court.

Assuming against all reason and experience that the Columbia noose is not another hoax by a high-status victim, how is it that a pimply adolescent can cause such tumult in liberal New York City?

Liberals claim to believe the Klan has established a beachhead at Columbia University, Bill O'Reilly is head of the Manhattan branch, Rush Limbaugh despises the troops, I'm planning a pogrom from the heart of Manhattan, and George Bush is establishing fascism in America.

Some anonymous liberal hag on Air America Radio, which no one knew was still on the air, fell down outside her Park Avenue apartment this week, and her liberal colleagues were claiming it was Kristallnacht.

If it rains after a liberal washes his car, they say it's a right-wing dirty trick.

Liberals love nothing more than these constant self-righteous-athons -- as if they would ever have the courage to stand up for any cause not universally supported by everyone around them.