Ann Coulter fans

Coulter Column (8/20)

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:05:35 GMT

August 20, 2008

This week, Barack Obama's challenge is to select a running mate who's young, hip, and whose accomplishments in life don't overshadow Obama's. Allow me to suggest Kevin Federline.

The only thing we can be sure of is that Obama will choose someone who is the polar opposite of all his advisers until now. In other words, it will be a very, very white male who was probably proud of his country even before being chosen as Obama's running mate.

Obama's got a lot of ground to make up following that performance last weekend at the Saddleback presidential forum with pastor Rick Warren.

After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his "pay-grade," Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he's known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator's viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider.

Network heads responded by dashing off an urgent memo: During the main presidential debates this fall, ask NO questions about abortion, ethics or evil! Morality isn't the Democrats' forte.

Obama's defenders spin his abominable performance in the Saddleback forum by saying he's just too smart to give a straight answer. As Rick Warren charitably described Obama's debate performance: "He likes to nuance things ... He's a constitutional attorney." The constitutional lawyer "does nuance," as Bill Maher said on "Larry King Live," "and you saw how well that goes over with the Rick Warren people."

If that's Obama's excuse, he ought to know a few basics about the Constitution.

Did the big constitutional lawyer whose "nuance" is too sophisticated for Rick Warren's audience see the letter his wife sent out on his behalf in 2004? Michelle Obama denounced a federal law banning partial-birth abortion, writing that "this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional." Clearly!

The Supreme Court later found the law not "unconstitutional," but "constitutional" -- which I believe may have been the precise moment when Michelle Obama realized just how ashamed she had always been of her country.

But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution."

I don't care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn't need an amendment, no?

Say, you know what else was "historically" not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words "slavery" and "slave" do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)

But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention "slavery": "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

On Obama's "historical" argument, they shouldn't have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution "historically" had not mentioned slavery.

Do we know for a fact Barack Obama has read the Constitution? Obama's Facebook profile: "I'm pro-infanticide, I love sunsets, and I don't get the 13th Amendment!"

This is the guy who thinks he can condescend to Clarence Thomas? Asked at the Saddleback forum which Supreme Court justice Obama would not have nominated, Obama said ... the black one!

In Obama's defense, he said he thought Thomas wasn't experienced enough "at the time." So I guess Obama thinks Thomas should have to "wait his turn."

By contrast, Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his. Asked last year by Robin Roberts on ABC's "Good Morning America" about his lack of experience in foreign policy, Obama took umbrage.

Swelling up his puny little chest, Obama said: "Well, actually, my experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I'm somebody who has actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. I majored in international relations."

He actually cited his undergraduate major as a qualification to be president.

But on Saturday night, Obama said he didn't think Clarence Thomas was a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker" to be put on the Supreme Court.

I bet Thomas has heard of the 13th Amendment!

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Coulter Column (8/13)

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:04:25 GMT

August 13, 2008

The good news: DNA testing has confirmed that John Edwards is not the father of Rielle Hunter's baby.

The bad news: The father is Bill Clinton.

Ha ha -- just kidding! It's almost impossible to get pregnant by having the type of sex Bill Clinton prefers.

Also, by now, everyone has heard the news that Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, has refused to grant a paternity test.

I wonder if Edwards knew that when he was making his chesty offer to take a paternity test? Edwards gushed to ABC's Bob Woodruff: "I would welcome participating in a paternity test, be happy to participate in one ... happy to take a paternity test and would love to see it happen."

As Edwards knows, our paternity laws were written by Gloria Steinem, so if the mother doesn't want a paternity test, it can't happen. So when Woodruff asked if he was going to actually take the paternity test soon, Edwards quickly noted, "I'm only one side of the test."

With Rielle in on the scam, Edwards could boldly demand a paternity test and then self-righteously defend his mistress's decision to refuse a paternity test. How dare you gainsay this woman's right to her privacy! Because if there's one person who's gone the extra mile to keep Hunter from becoming a public figure, it's John Edwards.

Edwards is closely following the Kennedy model of responding to charges of misconduct. First, admit only as much as can be currently proved. Second, get the other party to block any further investigation. I guess he really is "Kennedy-esque"!

For example, when the cops found DNA on the murdered body of Martha Moxley in Greenwich, Conn., the Kennedy suspect, Michael Skakel, suddenly remembered he had been up in a tree that night masturbating! (Talk about a tree-hugger.) You can see how something like that could slip your mind.

After Teddy Kennedy plunged his car off the Chappaquiddick Bridge with Mary Jo Kopechne in it and then failed to report the accident for nine hours, Kennedy admitted he had driven off the bridge -- but said he was in a state of shock for the next nine hours, preventing him from reporting the submerged car with a woman trapped in it.

Indeed, Kennedy was so disoriented he was barely able to dream up a highly unlikely alibi.

The historical parallel to Edwards' pincer move with Rielle Hunter is that Kennedy ostentatiously demanded a full investigation –- while the Kopechne family stoutly objected to an autopsy of their daughter.

According to Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-up by Leo Damore, the evidence suggested that Kopechne died gasping for breath in the car while Teddy Kennedy was busy trying to convince various people to say that they were driving his car.

There were lots of houses nearby with lights on, but Kennedy avoided them after he escaped from the car, so he could sneak back to his hotel undetected and begin establishing an alibi. Evidently, Kennedy is better than Edwards at sneaking into and out of hotels.

If Mary Jo had suffocated, then she had been alive for hours after the car plunged into the water. But an autopsy was required to determine whether Kopechne had drowned or suffocated.

Both the coroner and the diver who retrieved Mary Jo's body from the car believed Mary Jo had suffocated, not drowned. The diver found her body contorted in the back of the submerged car as if she had been trying to press her face into the last air pocket in the car. The coroner concluded there wasn't enough water in Mary Jo's body to indicate a drowning.

But for the first time in Massachusetts history, no autopsy was performed in a possible manslaughter case. Mary Jo was buried within about an hour of her body being pulled out of the channel under the Chappaquiddick Bridge.

Naturally, Kennedy wanted a thorough investigation -- to clear his name! -- but the Kopechnes absolutely refused to consent to an autopsy of their daughter. What more could he do? The Kopechnes' lawyer, Joseph Flanagan, refused to say who was paying him to fight the autopsy.

Similarly, Edwards aggressively offered to take a paternity test, knowing that the New Age hippie chick who still thinks she's going to marry him would not hurt him by allowing a paternity test. Edwards certainly is adept at reading stupid women, or as his campaign called them, "the base."

Democrats are always claiming to have the Kennedy magic, but, once again, another Kennedy-wannabe falls short. To be a real Kennedy, John, you have to kill her.

Gag on 2nd Amendment is City's Aim in Guns Suit

Wed, 14 May 2008 01:02:47 GMT

What the f***?! You can’t just "forget" about an amendment! Gee, why am I not surprised...the second amendment is the one amendment that liberals and anti-gun people would like to see gone. Where the hell is the ACLU when you need them? Oh wait...they only support every other right, but the right to own a gun is always brushed aside, with people saying that it’s "old-fashioned" and "there’s no reason that people should have gun nowadays." I actually heard someone say that to me.

The next time that liberals have a protest or say something stupid (which is all the time) and go on trial, the jury should be told to forget the first amendment.

Ugh! This frusturates me so much!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Gag on 2nd Amendment Is City’s Aim in Guns Suit

Lawyers for Mayor Bloomberg are asking a judge to ban any reference to the Second Amendment during the upcoming trial of a gun shop owner who was sued by the city. While trials are often tightly choreographed, with lawyers routinely instructed to not tell certain facts to a jury, a gag order on a section of the Constitution would be an oddity.

The rest: http://www.nysun.com/news/new-york/gag-2nd-amendment-city-s-aim-guns-suit

Barr Reacts To Bloomberg Gun Lawsuit Ruling

Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, along with Jasper, GA lawyer Ed Marger who represent Smyrna, GA firearms retailer Adventure Outdoors, today issued the following statement in reaction to yesterday’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Jack Weinstein, in the lawsuit pending against Adventure Outdoors by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg:

“The ruling by the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, NY finding that the court in that city has jurisdiction over Adventure Outdoors, was not at all unexpected. In fact, Adventure Outdoors has contemplated all along that the court would decide to maintain jurisdiction over the lawsuit brought by New York City.

Adventure Outdoors intends to continue to aggressively defend itself against what it considers an outrageous effort by Mayor Bloomberg to dictate how a lawful business in Smyrna, GA should carry out the business of providing a constitutionally-guaranteed product to the citizens of Georgia. While Mayor Bloomberg obviously believes the citizens of New York City should be denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, he has no business telling the citizens of Georgia they should be denied those rights as well.

The rest: http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=875

Code Pink Protestors Try Witchcraft at Anti-Marine Rallies

Thu, 08 May 2008 20:40:02 GMT

This is beyond stupid...casting spells while protesting? What will they do next?

Code Pink Protesters Try Witchcraft at Anti-Marine Rallies

Code Pink is now resorting to witchcraft to beef up the number of its supporters protesting Berkeley's controversial Marine Corps Recruiting Center.

The women's anti-war group has told ralliers to come equipped with spells and pointy hats Friday for "Witches, clowns and sirens day," the last of the group's weeklong homage to Mother's Day.

"Women are coming to cast spells and do rituals and to impart wisdom to figure out how we're going to end war," Zanne Sam Joi of Bay Area Code Pink told FOXNews.com.

Read the rest here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354400,00.html

How To Keep Reagan Out of Office

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:55:51 GMT

Inasmuch as the current presidential election has come down to a choice among hemlock, self-immolation or the traditional gun in the mouth, now is the time for patriotic Americans to review what went wrong and to start planning for 2012.

How did we end up with the mainstream media picking the Republican candidate for president?

It isn't the early primaries, it isn't that we allow Democrats to vote in many of our primaries, and it isn't that the voters are stupid. All of that was true or partially true in 1980 -- and we still got Ronald Reagan.

We didn't get Ronald Reagan this year not just because there's never going to be another Reagan. We will never again get another Reagan because Reagan wouldn't run for office under the current campaign-finance regime.

Three months ago, I was sitting with a half-dozen smart, successful conservatives whose names you know, all griping about this year's cast of presidential candidates. I asked them, one by one: Why don't you run for office?

Of course, none of them would. They are happy, well-adjusted individuals.

Reagan, too, had a happy life and, having had no trouble getting girls in high school, had no burning desire for power. So when the great California businessman Holmes Tuttle and two other principled conservatives approached Reagan about running for office, Reagan said no.

But Tuttle kept after Reagan, asking him not to reject the idea out of hand. He formed "Friends of Reagan" to raise money in case Reagan changed his mind.

He asked Reagan to give his famous "Rendezvous With History" speech at a $1,000-a-plate Republican fundraiser in Los Angeles and then bought airtime for the speech to be broadcast on TV days before the 1964 presidential election.

The epochal broadcast didn't change the election results, but it changed history. That single broadcast brought in nearly $1 million to the Republican Party -- not to mention millions of votes for Goldwater.

After the astonishing response to Reagan's speech and Tuttle's continued entreaties, Reagan finally relented and ran for governor. In 1966, with the help, financial and otherwise, of a handful of self-made conservative businessmen, Reagan walloped incumbent Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, winning 57 percent of the vote in a state with two Democrats for every Republican.

The rest is history -- among the brightest spots in all of world history.

None of that could happen today. (The following analysis uses federal campaign-finance laws rather than California campaign-finance laws because the laws are basically the same, and I am not going to hire a campaign-finance lawyer in order to write this column.)

If Tuttle found Ronald Reagan today, he couldn't form "Friends of Reagan" to raise money for a possible run -- at least not without hiring a battery of campaign-finance lawyers and guaranteeing himself a lawsuit by government bureaucrats. He'd also have to abandon his friendship with Reagan to avoid the perception of "coordination."

Tuttle couldn't hold a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for Reagan -- at least in today's dollars. That would be a $6,496.94-a-plate dinner (using the consumer price index) or a $19,883.51-a-plate dinner (using the relative share of GDP). The limit on individual contributions to a candidate is $2,300.

Reagan's "Rendezvous With History" speech would never have been broadcast on TV -- unless Tuttle owned the TV station. Independent groups are prohibited from broadcasting electioneering ads 60 days before an election.

A handful of conservative businessmen would not be allowed to make large contributions to Reagan's campaign -- they would be restricted to donating only $2,300 per person.

Under today's laws, Tuttle would have had to go to Reagan and say: "We would like you to run for governor. You are limited to raising money $300 at a time (roughly the current limits in 1965 dollars), so you will have to do nothing but hold fundraisers every day of your life for the next five years in order to run in the 1970 gubernatorial election, since there clearly isn't enough time to raise money for the 1966 election."

Also, Tuttle would have to tell Reagan: "We are not allowed to coordinate with you, so you're on your own. But wait -- it gets worse! After five years of attending rubber chicken dinners every single day in order to raise money in tiny increments, you will probably lose the election anyway because campaign-finance laws make it virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent.

"Oh, and one more thing: Did you ever kiss a girl in high school? Not even once? If not, then this plan might appeal to you!"

Obviously, Reagan would have returned to his original answer: No thanks.

Reagan loved giving speeches and taking questions from voters. The one part of campaigning Reagan loathed was raising money. Thanks to our campaign-finance laws, fundraising is the single most important job of a political candidate today.

This is why you will cast your eyes about the nation in vain for another Reagan sitting in any governor's mansion or U.S. Senate seat. Pro-lifers like to ask, "How many Einsteins have we lost to abortion?" I ask: How many Reagans have we lost to campaign-finance reform?

The campaign-finance laws basically restrict choice political jobs, like senator and governor -- and thus president -- to:

(1) Men who were fatties in high school and consequently are willing to submit to the hell of running for office to compensate for their unhappy adolescences -- like Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich. (Somewhere in this great land of ours, even as we speak, the next Bill Clinton is waddling back to the cafeteria service line asking for seconds.)

(2) Billionaires and near-billionaires -- like Jon Corzine, Steve Forbes, Michael Bloomberg and Mitt Romney -- who can fund their own campaigns (these aren't necessarily sociopaths, but it certainly limits the pool of candidates).

(3) Celebrities and name-brand candidates -- like Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Bush, Giuliani and Hillary Clinton (which explains the nation's apparent adoration for Bushes and Clintons -- they've got name recognition, a valuable commodity amidst totalitarian restrictions on free speech).

(4) Mainstream media-anointed candidates, like John McCain and B. Hussein Obama.

What a bizarre coincidence that a few years after the most draconian campaign-finance laws were imposed via McCain-Feingold, our two front-runners happen to be the media's picks! It's uncanny -- almost as if by design! (Can I stop now, or do you people get sarcasm?)

By prohibiting speech by anyone else, the campaign-finance laws have vastly magnified the power of the media -- which, by the way, are wholly exempt from speech restrictions under campaign-finance laws. The New York Times doesn't have to buy ad time to promote a politician; it just has to call McCain a "maverick" 1 billion times a year.

It is because of campaign-finance laws like McCain-Feingold that big men don't run for office anymore. Little men do. And John McCain is the head homunculus.

You want Reagan back? Restore the right to free speech, and you will have created the conditions that allowed Reagan to run.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

First post!

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:13:06 GMT

Hi everyone. I'm Rachel, an ultra-conservative junior in a CALIFORNIAN high school (yes, I know. I feel sorry for me too), and this is my first post here. (God, I have a huge rant about how the public schools are basically indoctrinating all the students and basically brainwashing them into thinking that liberals=good and conservatives=the most unedumakated red necks in the whole freakin' country... but I'll save that for another post.)

I was just watching this video:

I honestly don’t understand why people say Ann Coulter is an “Anti-Semitic”. She’s not advocating the wiping out of millions of Jews, she simply spoke on behalf of her religion. I must agree that it was a pretty radical and extreme statement but–come on! Ann = Hitler? Don’t they think they’re taking it a bit too far? I also understand that "Anti-Semitic" doesn't always mean "KILL ALL THEM JEWS" but, that's how the public is going to interpret this man's comment.

Coulter: Hillary over McCain

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:43:12 GMT

New Column

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:37:39 GMT

by Ann Coulter
January 30, 2008

The Democrats are trying to give away an election they should win in a walk by nominating someone with real problems -- like, for example, a first-term senator with a 100 percent rating from Americans for Democratic Action and whose middle name is "Hussein."

But we won't let them.

The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility.

Also, McCain lies a lot, which is really more a specialty of the Democrats.

Recently, McCain responded to Mitt Romney's statement that he understood the economy based on his many years in the private sector by claiming Romney had said a military career is not a "real job."

McCain's neurotic boast that he is the only Republican who supported the surge is beginning to sound as insane as Bill Clinton's claim to being the "first black president" -- although less insulting to blacks. As with the Clintons, you find yourself looking up such tedious facts as this, which ran a week after Bush announced the surge:

"On the morning of Bush's address, Romney endorsed a troop surge." -- The National Journal, Jan. 13, 2007

And yet for the 4 billionth time, at the Jan. 5, 2008, Republican debate, McCain bragged about his own raw courage in supporting the surge despite (apocryphal) Republican attacks, saying: "I said at the time that Gen. Petraeus and his strategy must be employed, and I was criticized by Republicans at that time. And that was a low point, but I stuck to it. I didn't change."

A review of contemporaneous news stories about the surge clearly demonstrates that the only Republicans who were so much as "skeptical" of the surge consisted of a few oddball liberal Republicans such as Sens. Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman and Olympia Snowe.

They certainly weren't attacking McCain, their standard-bearer in liberal Republicanism. But even if they were, it was a "low point" for McCain being "criticized" by the likes of Olympia Snowe?

In point of fact, McCain didn't even stand up to the milquetoasts. In April 2007, when Democrats in the Senate passed a bill funding the troops but also requiring a rapid withdrawal, "moderate" Republicans Smith and Chuck Hagel voted with the Democrats. McCain and Lindsey Graham skipped the vote.

But like the Democrats, McCain thinks if he simply says something over and over again, he can make people believe it's true. Thus again at the South Carolina debate on Jan. 10, McCain was proclaiming that he was "the only one on this stage" who supported the surge.

Since he would deny it about two minutes later, here is exactly what Mr. Straight Talk said about the surge: "I supported that; I argued for it. I'm the only one on this stage that did. And I condemn the Rumsfeld strategy before that."

The next question went to Giuliani and -- amid great flattery -- Giuliani noted that he also supported Bush's surge "the night of the president's speech."

Mr. Straight Talk contradicted Giuliani, saying: "Not at the time."

Again, Giuliani said: "The night of the president's speech, I was on television. I supported the surge. I've supported it throughout."

To which McCain finally said he didn't mean that he was "the only one on this stage" who supported the surge. So by "the only one on this stage," McCain really meant, "one of several people on this stage." OK, great. Now tell us your definition of the word "is," Senator.

I know Republicans have been trained not to go prostrate at Ivy League degrees, but do we have to admire stupidity?

Mr. Straight Talk also announced at that same debate: "One of the reasons why I won in New Hampshire is because I went there and told them the truth." That and the fact that Democrats were allowed to vote in the Republican primary.

Even in the Florida primary, allegedly limited to Republicans, McCain lost among Republicans. (Seventeen percent of the Republican primary voters in Florida called themselves "Independents.")

That helps, but why would any Republican vote for McCain?

At least under President Hillary, Republicans in Congress would know that they're supposed to fight back. When President McCain proposes the same ideas -- tax hikes, liberal judges and Social Security for illegals -- Republicans in Congress will support "our" president -- just as they supported, if only briefly, Bush's great ideas on amnesty and Harriet Miers.

You need little flags like that for Republicans since, as we know from the recent unpleasantness in Florida, Republicans are unalterably stupid.

Republicans who vote for McCain are trying to be cute, like the Democrats were four years ago by voting for the "pragmatic" candidate, Vietnam vet John Kerry. This will turn out to be precisely as clever a gambit as nominating Kerry was, the brilliance of which was revealed on Election Day 2004.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

The mother of all polls

Wed, 09 Jan 2008 05:02:58 GMT

http://darthbeckman.livejournal.com/833287.html

It's straightforward. Pick your pony. Seriously. I'm as interested in finding the results as the author is.

Baby Killers!

Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:24:54 GMT

Yeah...here's another story of those evil American baby-killers over in Iraq. How dare this man bring a disabled Iraqi boy here for fantastic medical care and then adopt him?! Ugh - those terrible American troops. They make me sick. (/end sarcasm)

GI Saves Iraqi Boy in Long-Shot Adoption

Capt. Scott Southworth knew he'd face violence, political strife and blistering heat when he was deployed to one of Baghdad's most dangerous areas. But he didn't expect Ala'a Eddeen.

Ala'a was 9 years old, strong of will but weak of body - he suffered from cerebral palsy and weighed just 55 pounds. He lived among about 20 kids with physical or mental disabilities at the Mother Teresa orphanage, under the care of nuns who preserved this small oasis in a dangerous place.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20071223/D8TNAC4G0.html

x-posted

Why Mommy & Daddy are close-minded morons...er...Democrats...

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:43:37 GMT

http://littledemocrats.net/

Teaching the next wave of close-minded, hypocritical freaks.

x-posted a few times

Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:42:52 GMT

From the NY Post...

ANN COULTER'S IMPERFECT MOMENT

October 25, 2007 -- ANN Coulter - who might be more despised than Dick Cheney in some neighborhoods - riled up some enemies even more with her recent remarks on "The Big Idea With Donny Deutsch" over how Jews could "perfect" themselves by becoming Christians. While the leggy blonde was dining with Andrew Stein at Centolire on Madison Avenue the other night, a wild-eyed man came up to their table and shouted at Coulter for her right-wing views and at Stein for dating her. Stein told the heckler, "Listen pal, get lost and learn some manners!" The lifelong Democrat, who was City Council president before he quit politics, told Page Six, "On the issue of her supposedly anti-Semitic remarks, I'm a Jew, and Joe Lieberman is her favorite Democrat. While I disagree with her on a lot of issues, she is a strong supporter of Israel and doesn't have an anti-Semitic bone in her body."

Mean ol ANN! This time she's gone TOO FAR! T_T

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:04:08 GMT

XD

Latest deranged leftists outrage
http://digg.com/politics/Ann_Coulter_Take_Away_Women_s_Right_To_Vote

:D:D:D:D

Come on, everyone KNOWS Ann does it for the lulz

:)

And they CAN'T figure out why this always ends up in her books selling like hotcakes. :D

Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:28:58 GMT

RJC Action Alert!

Unite For Victory!

September 10, 2007

Dear Friends,

As we speak, Gen. David Petraeus is addressing the U.S. Congress with a long-anticipated report about the progress of our mission in Iraq.

The news is encouraging: the surge is working, the Iraqis are beginning to take back their country and our troops are defeating al-Qaeda!

Unfortunately, the pro-defeat groups - MoveOn.org and their allies in Congress - have decided that any good news regarding Iraq is bad news for them politically.

MoveOn.org is viciously attacking the character and integrity of Gen. Petraeus with a full-page advertisement in today's New York Times calling him "General Betray Us!"

Let's be clear: the anti-war crowd is calling our top commander in Iraq a traitor!

Who do you trust to fight the war in Iraq: Gen. Petraeus or Congress?

I think the answer is clear, but we need YOU to act today!

Please, call 1-877-222-8001 today. An operator will connect you to your Member of Congress. Tell them what the anti-war crowd is saying about our brave American commander and our soldiers! Tell them victory is America's only option in Iraq.

Without your voice, our message will go unheard, so please call today!

Sincerely,
Matthew Brooks

P.S. Want to show more support for our troops? Sign the Victory Caucus petition

Republican Jewish Coalition

50 F Street, NW

Washington, District of Columbia 20001

202-638-6688

When Frank sez "Nuke the Moon," he means it.

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:15:53 GMT

Ganked from over at IMAO (which I have as an RSS feed):

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/imao/NTM/~3/143795932/008419.html

In a terribly off-topic comment to a John Edwards post, anonymous commenter with no contact information Yak asks:

Exactly why is the U.S. deployed in Iraq, according to you?

Fine.

Let's stop mincing words.

We're in Iraq because Muslims have stated over and over and over that their only goal is to kill all non-Muslims.

After 9/11, we started taking them at their word, and since we
didn't want to be killed, our only choice was to start killing Muslims
before they killed us.

Iraq had Muslims in it, so it was as good a place to start as any.
In fact, better than most, because it was in the heart of Muslim
country, and having troops there gives us a credible force-projection
threat throughout the entire putrid, corrupt, murderous Muslim region.
It's easier to kill Muslims in other countries from Iraq than it is
from Kuwait.

And now Muslims have two choices:

They can reform their vicious, degenerate religion so that it allows
for peaceful co-existence with other religions and - after embracing
this enlightened, live-and-let-live philosophy whole-heartedly - they
can become productive members of the civilized world, much like
post-WWII Germany and Japan.

They can be exterminated like vermin.

All the rest of this crap about WMD's, and mass graves, and
liberation, and oil fields, and insurgents is just so much political
window-dressing. America is fighting for its life against an insidious,
deadly ideology. The people who cling to that sick, 7th-century belief
system must either change their minds or be killed.

I wish with all my heart that we had enough manpower to conquer
every damn last Muslim nation on earth and root this virus out once and
for all, but we don't. So we'll start in Iraq, dragging these
barbarians kicking and screaming into the 21st century. After that,
hopefully the rest of the Muslim world will get the point. If not,
there will be further examples, nation by nation, until they do.

Then, when the Muslim world is either civilized or dead, the war will be over.

I hope that answers your question.

I think you have to be incredibly brave to voice that non-PC view when CAIR is running rampant and the John Doe amendment just went down in flames.

Not that I necessarily agree with that summary wholeheartedly, but I admire the ability to put it in such succinct terms that a LOGICAL person would find it hard to argue with.

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:38:59 GMT

pre-order GODLESS: THE CHURCH OF LIBERALISM (Paperback)

QUOTATIONS FROM CHAIRMAN ANN

June 28, 2007, 10:56 PM

The Fantastic Column That Elizabeth Edwards Considers Indecent -

The Party of Ideas

Though She Just Adores References to "the Lord" filling Mary with "his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit"

June 28, 2007, 6:59 PM

COULTER ON O'REILLY TONIGHT! -

June 25, 2007, 10:01 AM

GODLESS IN PAPERBACK! OUT THIS WEEK - ALL NEW AFTERWARD!

Item Archives

June 28, 2007

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. (This delicate flower is very sensitive to rough words, having hired the Edwards' campaign staffer who wrote this: "What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit"?)

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 Dick 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."

(The full column is available at www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter112003.asp, www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=2428&keywords=the+party+of+ideas and www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2003/11/20/the_party_of_ideas.)

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.

Edwards Raising More Money on Coulter!

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:05:38 GMT

Coulter Exchange Lends Itself to New Fundraising Drive By Elizabeth Edwards

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

RALEIGH, N.C. —
Elizabeth Edwards launched a new fundraising effort Wednesday, one day after pleading with conservative commentator Ann Coulter to "stop the personal attacks" on Edwards' husband, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

"John's campaign is about the issues — but pundits like Ann Coulter are trying to shout him down. If they will not stop, it is up to us cut through the noise. Help us fight back — please give what you can today," Elizabeth Edwards wrote in an e-mail letter that also appears on the campaign's Web site.
Edwards and Coulter got into it on Tuesday evening when Coulter was appearing as a guest on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews." Edwards called into the show to scold Coulter for the best-selling author's saying that she wished John Edwards had been killed by terrorists, a take on a comment by comedian Bill Maher about Vice President Cheney.
"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 in the phone call exchange.
Mrs. 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 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.
Appearing Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Coulter was asked about a March speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., in which she used a gay slur to refer to Edwards. She was roundly picked apart for the comment.
She then suggested the indignation is a one-way street.
"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 responded, riffing on Maher's comment during his HBO show in which he said "people wouldn't be dying needlessly" if Cheney had been killed during an insurgent attack that happened while he was in Afghanistan.
With the close of the second-quarter fundraising period approaching Saturday, the Edwards campaign quickly turned Coulter's comments into fundraising fodder. Edwards adviser Joe Trippi sent an e-mail to supporters Tuesday, saying critics "will stop at nothing to tear John down."
"We are fighting back, but we need your help," Trippi wrote. "Give what you can today."
During the brief exchange on "Hardball," Coulter noted how she was being used by the Edwards campaign in their fundraising drive.
"I'm raising money on him," Coulter cracked. "And from what I've read, I'm raising more money than he is."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

No Wonder They're Afraid of Brit Hume

Thu, 03 May 2007 23:28:57 GMT

by Ann Coulter
May 2, 2007

I just woke up from watching the Democrats' debate last Thursday, and I am rested and ready to report!

Someone needs to tell the Democrats to stop talking about their families. I know they're trying to demonstrate their "family values," but using actual, live human beings to illustrate the freakish ideas of the Democratic base just makes normal people uncomfortable.

When Chris Dodd was asked about gay marriage, he said he always thinks of his little daughters — aged 2 and 5 — and imagines them turning out to be lesbians, saying he would want them treated equally.

To prove his bona fides to the environmentalist nuts, Obama said: "We've also been working to install lightbulbs that last longer and save energy. And that's something that I'm trying to teach my daughters, 8-year-old Malia and 5-year-old Sasha."

So we finally have an answer to the question: What do Democrats teach their daughters? Is it:

(a) integrity
(b) character
(c) the importance of always telling the truth

No! The answer is: (d) They teach their daughters to use low-energy lightbulbs. This is so important that it apparently bears mentioning during a debate under high-intensity TV studio lights.

(How many kids does it take to screw in a lightbulb? In the Barack household, evidently, it takes two.)

"Best in Show" for cringe-inducing mentions of family members went to John Edwards. In the single most appalling moment of the debate, John Edwards reminisced about the time his father, who was sitting in the audience, totally humiliated him as a child.

"I can remember vividly my dad after church once Sunday, when I was about 10 years old, taking us — it's our whole family — into a restaurant. I was dressed up. I was very proud to be there, and we sat, got our menus, looked at the menus, and the waitress came over and my father said, 'I'm sorry. We have to leave.' I didn't understand. 'Why? Why do we have to leave?' And I was embarrassed. I found out when we got outside the reason we had to leave is he couldn't pay the prices that were on the menu."

Thanks for the memories, Pop!

The not-visibly-insane Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even face Brit Hume.

In case you missed this profile in Democrat machismo, the Democratic presidential candidates are refusing to participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because the hosts are "biased." But they'll face down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

At this, even Hillary Clinton was thinking, "Come on, guys — let's grow a pair."

Obama was asked to name "America's three most important allies around the world" — a question rejected as "too easy" on Fox's new game show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" Any politically savvy 11-year-old could have named Britain, Australia and Israel.

B. Hussein Obama answered: "the European Union." Which is (a) not a country, and (b) not an ally.

What was his next guess? Epcot Center?

In addition to not being a country, the "European Union" happens to be composed of people who hate our guts. It is the continent where Moveon.org-style lunatics are the friendly, pro-American types and the rest are crazy Muslims.

Obama did eventually mention Japan as an ally — along with China and Afghanistan — which would have been a better answer to the question: "Who are America's four or five most important allies?" But at least he named a country that could conceivably be called "an ally."

Of course, it took Obama less time to remember an American ally than it took John Edwards to remember Jesus. Edwards was asked who his "moral leader" was — and he was stuck for an answer.

I had time to shout "Jesus" at the TV 20 times, exhaust myself, and have a sandwich before Edwards finally coughed up "mah lowrd." Even then it appeared that Edwards was not actually naming the Savior but exclaiming, "Mah lowrd, that's a tough question!"

Edwards then put "mah lowrd" (assuming that was his answer) on a par with other moral leaders such as his father — who had embarrassed him so as a child — and his wife. (When he mentioned his spouse as a "moral leader," Hillary visibly tensed for fear that she might be asked the same question.)

In fairness to Edwards, asking a trial lawyer to name his favorite moral leader is like asking the president of Iran to name his favorite Jew. (Answer: George Soros.)

If you're keeping score, that's two major religions the Democrats lack a working knowledge of — Christianity and Islam.

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Coulter on O'Reilly

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:31:55 GMT

Did any of you catch Ann on The Factor tonight?

She was very acerbic, as per usual. She even insulted Bill for comparing her to Rosie O'Donnell. Ha! Gotta love her. I'll try to find it up on YouTube but I'm not sure if I can stomach sifting through all the liberal garbage on it in order to find this video.

NUTS IN THE CROSSHAIRS

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:06:51 GMT

by Ann Coulter
April 25, 2007

For cranky right-wingers who think politicians don't listen to them, this week I give you elected Democrats running like scared schoolgirls from the media's demand that they enact new gun control laws in response to the Virginia Tech shooting.

Instead, Democrats are promoting a mental health exception to the right to bear arms. We've banned mass murder and that hasn't seemed to work. So now we're going to ban mass murderers. Yes, that will do the trick!

This is a feel-good measure that is both wildly under-inclusive (the vast majority of nutcases receive no formal court adjudication of their nuttiness) and wildly over-inclusive (the vast majority of nuts don't kill people). The worst thing most nuts do is irritate everybody else by driving their electric cars on the highway.

As lovely as it would be, we cannot identify mass murderers before they have broken any law, and mass murder is often the first serious crime they commit. No one can be locked up permanently for being potentially dangerous.

Even stalking laws can put away a person known to be dangerous for only a few years — at best — which is generally not worth spending a day sitting in court, facing your stalker, and then waiting a month for the court order.

So on one hand, the mental health exception is a feel-good measure that would be largely pointless. But on the other hand, it's no skin off my back. Liberals go to therapy. Conservatives go to church. And I think we'd all sleep better knowing that David Brock could not buy a gun.

In fact, I think we should expand the mental illness exception to cover First Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights.

I note that before mass murder, the only harassment the Virginia Tech killer was guilty of involved speech: creepy e-mails, creepy short stories, creepy phone calls. Stalkers, too, engage in frightening speech — but that is protected. Revealing a stalking victim's address is "speech" but is little different from being the one to pull the trigger.

This small measure would have taken Dan "What's the Frequency, Kenneth" Rather off the airwaves years ago, preventing him from presenting doctored National Guard documents to the American people to try to throw a presidential election. A mental illness bar would deal a quick blow to Air America and both its remaining listeners. It would also free up about 90 percent of the Internet.

And it would end the public lunacy of Jim Wallis, the Democrats' Christian. Wallis' first remark on the massacre at Virginia Tech last week was to hail the remarkable "diversity" of the victims. True, Cho murdered 32 people in cold blood. But at least he achieved diversity!

Anyone who thinks a single-minded fixation on diversity must be the ultimate goal of every human endeavor, including mass murder, is not the sort of person who should be able to buy a gun or to publish his daft ruminations in public forums.

But just to get this straight: Democrats are saying we should be able to jail "strange" or "angry" people, but we can't deplane imams who demand extra-length seatbelts after boarding?

Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed the public expressions of shame and contrition from the Korean-American community after the Virginia Tech shooting? Of course, no one blames this exemplary community for the actions of one nut. The Koreans are manifestly law-abiding and decent — nipping at the heels of Italians as the greatest Americans and tied for second with the Cubans.

Indeed, I believe this marks the first time a Korean has killed anyone in the United States, not involving an automobile. Nonetheless, Korean congregations, community groups and the family members themselves are issuing statements of sorrow. Not "pleas for tolerance." But sorrow. Remorse. Remember those? They were big back in the day.

If the Koreans can do it, why can't the Muslims? What explains the lack of a Muslim guilt impulse — so normal, as seen in the case of the saddened Koreans — after dozens of terrorist attacks on Americans?

How about a Muslim exception to the Second Amendment? That would have prevented the Virginia snipers from killing 10 people within three weeks in 2002. But most important: It would help us achieve "diversity" in our gun law prohibitions.

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Yup

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:37:15 GMT

Not specifically about Ann, but I wrote a bit about the recent hub-bub with Don Imus over at my LJ.

Stop in and take a gander if you want.

Ho Ho Ho! Merry Imus!

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:32:14 GMT

by Ann Coulter
April 11, 2007

The only person happier than Larry Birkhead about the big announcement that he is the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby is Don Imus. By the way, what's the word for a woman who gives birth to a child of uncertain paternity?

English speakers in America need a rule book to tell us what people can say what words when, and under which set of circumstances. The rule book will be longer than the Patriot Act and will require weekly updates as new words and circumstances are added. Perhaps a Nasdaq-style ticker would be more efficient.

Depending on which TV show you tune into, what Imus said was wrong because: (1) His show goes out on FCC-regulated airwaves; (2) he regularly interviews people like Sens. John Kerry, John McCain and Joe Biden; (3) he spoke at the White House Correspondents' Dinner a few years ago; or (4) he's not black.

Perhaps sensing that such constantly scrolling rules have a whiff of fascism about them, the scowling Miss Grundys of the world think they have hit on the perfect omnibus rule. They instruct us to "be nice." (There's a word for the grim Miss Grundys, but apparently I'm not allowed to use it. Sarah Silverman is. This will be all in the rule book.)

The requirement to always "be nice" would be the end of Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle, two of the funniest comedians in America. Let me rephrase that: It would be the end of all humor. Even Bob Hope cruelly implied that Democrats didn't support the troops when he joked to the troops in Vietnam: "The country is behind you 50 percent."

At least we'll still be able to watch the "Charlie Rose" show! Actually, for all anyone knows, Rose is calling women "nappy-headed hos" on TV every night since no one has ever seen his show.

In addition to ending all humor, we'll lose all political debate. For Americans over 4 years old, people in the public sphere are engaged in serious arguments — over abortion, illegal immigration, how much money the government takes from you, and the pre-eminent battle of our time against Islamic fascists. The "be nice" admonition is the sort of thing stupid girls say when they can't think of anything substantive to say.

I, for one, promise to implement the "be nice" policy just as soon as the other side surrenders.

Say, does anyone remember if Winston Churchill was "nice" in his public pronouncements about Hitler? Was he even nice to his fellow countrymen with whom he disagreed?

No, I don't think he was! This is what Winston Churchill said about the Labor Party's Ramsay MacDonald:

"I remember when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum's Circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit on the program which I most desired to see was the one described as 'The Boneless Wonder.' My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralizing and revolting for my youthful eye, and I have waited 50 years to see The Boneless Wonder sitting on the Treasury Bench."

And guess what public figure was constantly accused of making "outrageous" remarks, trading in "insults, trashings and character assassinations"? Of what public figure was it asked: "Who can examine this record of insults and say that here is a man of class?"

That's right: Ronald Reagan. Those particular quotes are from Washington Post columnists Richard Cohen and Colman McCarthy.

Was Reagan "nice" to the Soviets? They certainly didn't think so. The Soviets constantly denounced Reagan as "rude," and our dear friends at the BBC upbraided Reagan for his "rude attacks" on Fidel Castro, Nicaragua and the Soviet Union. Post columnist McCarthy indignantly charged that Reagan had "put down an entire nation — the Soviet Union — by calling it 'the focus of evil in the nuclear world.'"

Oh dear! Reagan wasn't "nice." No wonder he never accomplished anything.

One more item for the delusional Miss Grundys still obtusely citing Reagan as their model of "niceness": As governor of California, Reagan gave student protesters at Berkeley the finger. Remember that next time you ask yourself: "What would Reagan do?"

People who are afraid of ideas whitewash Reagan like they whitewash Jesus. Sorry to break it to you, but the Reagan era did not consist of eight years of Reagan joking about his naps.

The reason people don't like what Imus said was because the women on the Rutgers basketball team aren't engaged in public discourse. They're not public figures, they don't have a forum, they aren't trying to influence public policy.

They play basketball — quite well, apparently — and did nothing to bring on an attack on their looks or character. It's not the words Imus used: It would be just as bad if he had simply said the Rutgers women were ugly and loose.

People claim to object to the words alone, but that's because everyone is trying to fit this incident into a PC worldview. It's like girls who say, "It's not that you cheated on me; it's that you lied about it." No — it's that you cheated.

If Imus had called me a "towheaded ho" or Al Sharpton a "nappy-headed ho," it would be what's known as "funny." (And if he called Anna Nicole Smith a "flaxen-headed ho," it would be "absolutely accurate.") But he attacked the looks and morals of utterly innocent women, who had done nothing to inject themselves into public debate.

Imus should apologize to the Rutgers women — and those women alone — send them flowers, and stop kissing Al Sharpton's ring.

This wasn't an insult to all mankind, and certainly not an insult to Al Sharpton. Now, if Imus had called the basketball players "fat, race-baiting black men with clownish hairstyles," well, then perhaps Sharpton would be owed an apology.

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

New Column!

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 06:24:08 GMT

by Ann Coulter
April 4, 2007

In light of the increasing noise from the fifth column in America, it is a serious question whether President Bush would have the will to deploy military force even to stop a deadly serious threat to the United States.

I'm speaking, of course, of Darfur.

Saddam's barbaric rape rooms, chemical attacks and torture — those, liberals could live with. But now they want us to send troops to Darfur, a country from which no one anticipates terrorism anytime in the next millennium. If you're looking for a good definition of "no imminent threat," Darfur is it. The climate change "emergency," set to start taking effect sometime during the next century, is a more imminent threat to the United States than Darfur.

These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?

This is truly a war in which we have absolutely no interest. But liberals want our boys to go fight scimitar-wielding dervishes. While the Democrats hold pointless hearings into what George Bush had for breakfast, Republicans should pass a law prohibiting liberals from mentioning Darfur until Horace Mann and Dalton are prepared to put up a battalion.

So no, Darfur is not the threat I was imagining.

I haven't even told you what that threat is — though a hostage-taking, Holocaust-denying lunatic who doesn't own a necktie but is within two years of having a nuclear bomb comes to mind. You can already hear Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi saying, "If the Democrats were in charge, the use of military force wouldn't be necessary because we'd constructively engage them and appease their stated desire to kill us."

Damn that Bush! He's made people who hate our guts not like us.

In uplifting thought No. 57 about the war, liberals keep telling us that Iraqis are genetically indisposed to freedom, which I would characterize as the hard bigotry of low expectations. On this week, let us remember the message of Passover is that freedom doesn't come easy.

Moses had to grab Jews by the scruff of their necks and drag them to the desert for 40 years to get a generation capable of living in freedom — and even then the Jews were complaining about it being too drafty. The first "stiff-necked" generation didn't even want to leave Egyptian captivity.

Once free, they complained about the food, which apparently compared unfavorably to the food back in Egypt. Kind of reminds you of liberals talking about Saddam's rape rooms.

Even in the desert, the Jews would not stop with the golden calves. God nearly let the whole lot of them perish in the desert, he was so angry about their idolatrous ways. Only when he had a new generation, born in freedom, that didn't complain about the food, did he lead them to the promised land. For you liberals still reading, this is all extensively covered in a book known as the "Bible."

(Also this week, we celebrate a fast-track to freedom that doesn't require 40 years in the desert, but as I recall, the suggestion that we convert Muslims to Christianity was shot down early on in this war.)

If you want a shorter rebuilding process, then we're going to have to wage less humane wars. The enemy — as well as innocent civilians — must be bombed into quivering terror. Otherwise, we displace aggression but don't destroy it.

Americans are weaker for having seen that kind of carnage in World War II. Recall that the Worst Generation was raised by the Greatest Generation. That tells you how awful war is. The Greatest Generation was so exhausted by the war, it didn't have the spine to stand up to pot-smoking, draft-dodging hippies occupying administration buildings. But enough about Bill Clinton. If we're going to have humane wars, they are going to take a little bit longer.

That wouldn't be so bad, except that it gives fifth columnists more time to demoralize Americans and convince them that we are losing a war in the paramount struggle of our time.

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Sorry

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:28:28 GMT

by Ann Coulter
March 28, 2007

When will Republicans learn to stop apologizing?

The Bush administration is embroiled in the most ridiculous non-scandal scandal in human history — set off when the administration stupidly apologized for firing its own employees.

U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. The president may fire them for any reason at all. That includes not implementing the president's policy about criminal prosecutions. It also includes being in the way of someone else whom the president wants to appoint for patronage reasons.

Why wasn't a fuss made when Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld? He is every bit as much a political appointee as the U.S. attorneys are.

Democrats have the breathtaking audacity to claim that Bush's replacing his own political appointees is "politicizing prosecutions."

They say this as Sandy Berger walks free after stealing and destroying top-secret national security documents — but Lewis "Scooter" Libby faces decades in prison for )not outing a covert agent. (Let's hope he's learned his lesson!)

They say this as Rep. William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson sits on the Homeland Security Committee while waiting for the $100,000 found in his freezer to thaw — but Tom DeLay remains under an indictment by some hick prosecutor in Texas for an alleged accounting violation.

They say this as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid draws interest on the sale of a property he sold in a complicated land swindle — but American hero Randy "Duke" Cunningham rots in prison.

They say this while Sen. Chuck Schumer pays no price whatsoever for his Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee having illegally obtained a copy of Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's credit report, for which one employee, Lauren Weiner, pleaded guilty, but served no prison time.

They say this while Sen. Teddy Kennedy is still at large (and getting larger).

Democrats have created a world in which a DNC card is a "get out of jail free" card, and "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" means "no doubt the defendant is Republican." (If Democrats keep this up, they'll have to rethink their push to give inmates the right to vote.)

Then they turn around and say Republicans are "politicizing prosecutions" by firing their own employees. And all Republicans can do is apologize.

I refuse to parse the inane allegations the Democrats are making, to point out that Clinton's wholesale firing of Republican U.S. attorneys was worse, or to mention that some of these U.S. attorneys should have been fired a long time ago (Carol Lam).

Bush should say: "We did it, it was political, and there's nothing you can do about it."

Then he should start holding hearings on Congress' obstruction of the war effort. Members of Congress should be asked to come before the administration's hearings and testify under oath about their commitment to victory. If they are not traitors, what do they have to hide? Surely they will be willing to state under oath that they are not undermining the war effort for partisan political gain.
The hearings could be televised in prime time: "Traitor or No Traitor?"

The president's investigatory power is better grounded than is Congress'. There is no "hearings and investigations" clause in Article I, describing Congress' powers, but the Recommendation Clause of Article II, Section 3 obligates the president to "from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union."

If the State of the Union is that we have a treasonous majority in Congress that is affirmatively undermining American national security, the president is constitutionally obliged to give Congress information to that effect. How can he make that judgment without gathering the necessary data?

While he's at it, the Bush hearings should look into the Democrats' hiring and firing practices. Were the dedicated staffers who worked on various committees while the Republicans were in control retained by the incoming Democrats? Or were some of those staffers fired because of their (gasp!) partisan affiliation?

Finally, just for the Democrats' mentioning Randy "Duke" Cunningham's name, Bush should pardon him immediately.

Admittedly, in this one case, the Republican was actually guilty of something. Cunningham took bribes — he didn't kill a girl at Chappaquiddick. To put it another way, the only thing Duke Cunningham ever sank was his own career.

And in one glorious afternoon over North Vietnam, Duke Cunningham did more for his county than the entire Democratic caucus will do in a lifetime.

The president has absolute authority to fire U.S. attorneys, hold investigative hearings and grant pardons. What's he worried about? That the media will be hysterical and Democrats will call him names? Constantly apologizing doesn't seem to have worked out too well for him either. How about doing something for the Americans who elected him?

Ah, but I see he has! As we go to press, news comes across the transom that Bush has withdrawn the nomination of Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium because Democrats are upset that Fox gave a donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

There's no hope.

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

"If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans"

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 02:09:38 GMT

New Ann Coulter Book Coming in October
Mar 12, 01:29 PM EST
By HILLEL ITALIE - AP National Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- While conservative pundit Ann Coulter has been dropped by several newspapers for using an anti-gay epithet regarding Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, she remains in good standing with her book publisher.

The Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House Inc., plans an October release for her next book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."

"We have a book with her on our fall list and have no plans on altering our current publication plans," Crown publisher and senior vice president Steve Ross told The Associated Press in a recent e-mail. "Every book we have published with Ann has been a major best seller and we expect the same with the upcoming title."

Coulter's books include "Treason," "Slander" and "Godless," in which she harshly criticized a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," she wrote.

According to Editor & Publisher, at least eight newspapers have dropped Coulter's syndicated column since her comments about Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina.

On March 2, speaking to GOP activists attending the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, Coulter said, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I - so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

Coulter has declined to apologize, telling The New York Times, "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean."