Is Ann Coulter good for Conservatism?

I remember growing up in the 80's and watching the news with my father. It always hurt so bad when he'd turn on a show featuring 4 people: 3 libs (one being the host) and 1 soft spoken conservative. And they'd spend the whole show belitting, making fun of and telling the conservative how wrong he/she is about everything.

If that wasn't stinging enough, the you'd get the lecture from the host about how "I'm unbiased". Yeah, said host just selected the guest list, the topic of discussion, the questions presented, etc - which were all from a left wing perspective. I suppose at a certain level (retarded people, the comatose, the dead) that argument would fly, but not for most thinking people.

Even worse were the news reports which always gave detailed and in depth analysis of events from the lib point of view and then would give two lines about the conservative view. Then there were all the movies/television shows that featured aging one dimensional conservative characters who encounter a sardonic, wise cracking lib who teaches them (and us) how liberalism solves every problem if only we're brave enough to enact it in real life (don't we all feel all gushy now?)  
Then came the 90's, the end of the fairness doctrine and Fox News. Suddenly a conservative viewpoint was being presented in detail. The one dimensional archtypes of the 80's transformed into three dimensional creations. And the left howled. Moreover, the viewing public *liked* the new format.

Then came the new conservatives: people like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. These people wouldn't take the BS anymore. These are people who crack jokes and won't take s**t from hostile left wing show hosts. This took many big libs by surprise and suddenly it's not funny anymore.

Leftists are nasty and always have been. They're still doing it today: people who question global warming are compared to holocaust deniers. (How vicious is that?) But somehow the non partisan in the news rooms and hallowed halls of the elite never hammer the lefties the same way they go after people like Coulter and O'Reilly. Conservatives are supposed to just stand there and take it.

So new is this, that even ten years later it's still refreshing to see someone (anyone) sticking it to the left.

And I know exactly where Ann is coming from as well. I used to try to explain myself to lefties too. And you learn real fast, that these people are so open minded and tolerant that they're not even interested in what you have to say. All they know is that you disagree which makes you a racist, sexist, homophobe who (in the name of free speech) shouldn't be allowed to say such things.

So I, like Ann and O'Reilly have given up. Why should I explain myself, when it's obvious the other side just flat doesn't care? Why should I explain myself when it's obvious you just want to try to embarrass me? Or talk down to me?

Thus we come out swinging. Since you're going to hammer me with questions designed to put me on the spot, I'm going to talk about things you think should be left unsaid.

Is Ann Coulter good for Conservatism? Someone who doesn't act ashamed of their ideology? Someone who stands up for what they believe in even when faced with hostile peer pressure? Absolutely. We need more people like her.

So the esteemed speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who doesn't want us to look at her and note her gender, but has told us that her being a mother is her greatest qualification for that position is demanding a new plane paid for by the taxpayer to cart her around. The previous speaker Danny Hastert flew around in a C-20 plane to fly home.

A C-20 isn't good enough for Pelosi though. Ostensibly she claims that a C-20 can't make the trip from Washington DC to San Francisco (roughly 2800 miles) without refueling. Of course, by some estimates the C-20 can go 4000+ miles without having to gas up.

Thus Pelosi has argued that she needs a bigger plane to carry her around. One can't help but wonder if the speaker has forgotten that planes are noted to be a major cause of green house gases by environmental minded people from Pelosi's political side of aisle.

So while us peasants have to stand in longer lines for crappier service at airports, Pelosi can be moved around in her personal limo in the sky (and I bet she doesn't get the airline anal probe in the name of security the rest of us get manhandled by.) I'll be sure to think of where my money is going when I'm filling out my income tax return this spring and smile to think that a woman who is worth an estimated 52 million dollars needs my money so badly to do her job. In my opinion, one of the problems with airports is that the government has attempted to fix them, leading to all the wonderful problems we have now. Nice to know that Congress excludes themself from what is a nightmare. (How can they call for airline/airport reform when most of them have never used the airline/airport in years?)

The Queen Bee's response to all of the above? Well I wouldn't have a problem with it if she was a man. Wow - how narrow and closed minded is that? Of course I'm an oppressor: I'm male. And she's been held back all her life cause she's a woman (that's why she's Speaker of the House today.)

Report on the Drudge Report today claims that Air America is up for sale. Funny since a few weeks ago Drudge claimed Air America had a buyer. Are we to conclude that the potential buyer backed out at the last minute?

My theory is that whoever was going to buy up the worthless network actually made the mistake of listening to it. I myself tuned in for the first time today. What did I think?

Well in the 1940's during the Second World War in the Pacific theater there was Tokyo Rose a progandist of the airwaves that tried to demoralize the troops. In the 2000's we have Tehran Tina on Air America.

To be fair though outside of beaming out anti Americanism and depressing political garbage, the two stations are very different. Tokyo Rose broadcast some of the best quality programming of the time and entwined it with "news stories" that featured the Japanese winning the war. Air America broadcasts boring commentary carefully woven together with bitter, shrill "PSAs" stating that the end is near.

Poor Air America, no one is listening to you because the audience has other choices. Maybe this is why they favor "the fairness doctrine" and "internet blog reform." Of course it's not the talent's fault. People should have been conditioned a long time ago by our nonpartisan public school systems to listen to boring, know it all lectures from holier than thou elitists. Why on earth would anyone want to listen to a host who engages the audience when you can listen to some clown talk down to them?

This is part of why Air America is failing. When I turn on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or even Howard Stern I feel like I'm talking to a friend over beers and football at my favorite bar. (Or in Stern's case, a strip club.) When I listened to Randi Rhodes a few minutes ago, I felt like I was sitting in a lecture hall listening to speech on why I (just because I'm an American) suck.

But if that's not the only problem against Air America, you have to take in to account that it's run by socialists and communists - in other words, people who hate the free market. No wonder they can't find sponsors. They hate everything about free enterprise. This is why they had to take up stealing from underprivileged inner city kids. Who wants to advertise on a network that insults you and your customers on a daily basis? This is why Air America is over run with Public Service Announcements - those government commercials that just assume you're too stupid to do things like wipe your a$$ after using the bathroom. But it fits right in on Air America - cause they really do think you're to stupid.

So good bye Tehran Tina. I'm sure radical Islamists world wide will mourn your passing.

 

The University of California at Los Angeles has cancelled a debate on immigration sponsored by a group known as L.O.G.I.C. (http://www.clublogic.org/events/immigration.cancellation.html). The bone of contention in the debate is the appearance of Carl Braun of the Minutemen on the opposed to illegal immigration side.

The reason cited is that L.O.G.I.C is responsible for the security at the event - both inside the meeting hall and outside amongst the protesters.

This is completely insane on a lot of levels starting with the fact that leftists often reassure me that illegal immigrants are some of the most law abiding amongst us. The fact that now UCLA seems worried that the crowd will get out of hand makes me wonder how much liberals believe their own rhetoric. Immigrants aside, I've been told many, many times that college students are peaceful. Often lefty college kids are amongst the peaceniks. Seems hypocritical now that campus authorities are afraid that these people are going to get out of hand.

Naturally there is also a free speech/expression element here. Making groups responsible for protests is a cop out. When I point out that peace activists often spit on our vets, libs often tell me they're not responsible for the actions of people in their ranks - much less the people outside. I think this argument would wash at UCLA as well (of course, they agree with peace activists not that I'm accusing them of partisanship.)

But probably the most disturbing thing about this is the fact that UCLA is basically telling everyone that they'll give in to terrorism. If there is an event at their school that you don't like, all you have to do is threaten to get violent and rowdy to get the event dropped. This is the key to terrorism. So I guess on a certain level, the libs are being true to themselves since they never stand up to people who would do them wrong. They just stand up to the people trying to do right...

 

Lisa Marie Nowak, married mother of three recently attacked her fellow astronaut in a fit of jealous rage. This is shocking to a lot of people who grew up watching humans fly in to space and wanting to become astronauts themselves.

Naturally the usual crop of suspects has come up to offer defenses of this woman. One of the best excuses they've come up with is hormones which can run rampant in a 43 year old. The favorite excuse is PMS.

But this excuse is sexist. If a woman can get off for being hormonal, why not a man? We know that testosterone makes men aggressive and violent. Why can't a criminal simply walk in to court and say "I'm sorry, but I can't control myself." the way some women have? If a female can get off, so should a man.

It's the Politically Correct thing to do...

 

Okay lefties, I'm confused. You're all coming out in support of Lt. Ehren Watada - that military officer who refused to deploy to Iraq on the grounds that it's illegal. Usually you freaks "support the troops" by spitting on soldiers, banning them from college campi, refusing them service at Starbucks, writing them hate mail and trying to charge them with war crimes in world courts. But in Watada's case, you're supporting him by having million dollar lawyers come to his aid and sponsoring student protests.

So how do you reconcile that equivocation? Does "support the troops" mean belittling and humilating them? Or demonstrating on their behalf? One of those ways has to be false - so which one is it?

In an interesting twist of fate, Sean Penn showed up. Not for the photo op, but because of the principle of the thing. Penn of course has a history of punching out journalists who dare take his picture so his sedate demeanor is rather surprising. (Far be it from me to be suspicious, but does he have any movies nominated for an Oscar?) If there is anything Hollywood loves it some weirdo willing to prostitute themself for strange left wing causes.

Watada claims that he is going to defend himself on the legality of the war. He's going to show how the war in Iraq goes against the Constitution and international law. To bad his trial is going to focus on his insubordination and refusal to follow orders - which he's clearly guilty of doing. He's even admitted it. So his case is going to slide into the crapper pretty quick.

But none of this changes the hypocritical stance of the lunatic libs.

So there is a book out featuring pictures of idiot, long faced libs holding up signs saying "I'm sorry" that Bush got re-elected. (The book is actually called "Sorry Everybody".) The basic premise of the book and it's accompanying website is so incredibly ignorant and arrogant I can't even begin to describe it. The idea that the entire world sits around caring who runs our government is insane. Most people walking down the sidewalk in the lefty capitol of New York can't name the President of the US with any accuracy.

This couples with another lunatic claim: Bush is the worst president ever. How on earth could he get that rating from lefties? I would expect most open minded liberals to tell me that the man who brought us the Trail of Tears, Andrew Jackson was the worst. He's the one who brought us one of the biggest human rights travesties in American history. Almost as bad as the slave owners Washington and Jefferson.

Couple this with Jackson and Washington's war records and you get something patriotic libs really hate. Or how about Franklin Pierce? He's the guy who tried to buy Cuba so as to keep an equal number of slave states in the Union. Yes, he actually tried to spread slavery. But somehow Pierce gets overlooked as well. How about President Grant? He was a notorious drunk who had one of the most scandal ridden administrations in history, rivaling even that of Richard Nixon, someone else overlooked by liberal morons.
Sorry lefties - personally I think you're letting your hatred of Bush blind you.

But this is not to say that Bush has been a great president. He's done lots of things that have pissed me off. Starting with his signature of Campaign Finance Reform. Apparently he thinks that we all have too much freedom of speech. Don't get me wrong though, CFR had overwhelming support of the Democrat left (and John McCain.) Bush also created a new, powerful group of Democratic voters in baggage screeners at airports. Thank god we can't discriminate against applicants based on things like criminal records or we'd have to think of ourselves as discriminating against someone. Bush has also swelled the Federal budget to a level that is unseen by anyone. The latest budget is almost 3 trillion dollars. We could buy several third world nations for what we're going to blow in pork and corruption alone. Bush is also in favor of amnesty for illegals. You'd never think it when you watch pro illegal rallies though featuring signs saying "F*ck Bush, I want citizenship".

But it hasn't all been bad. The Bush tax cuts have lead us to one of the best economies ever known. More Americans own houses in 2007 than ever before. Bush has also helped keep us out of the Kyoto Accords - thank god, since it's recently been revealed that even if we do sign on to Kyoto it won't help.

Basically from a historic perspective, Bush isn't the worst president on record. He's certainly not as bad as his political rivals would have you believe. But he's not the best either.

 

Hawaii is dipping in to the 50's this week. Since 70 degree weather on the east coast in Dec is evidence of global warming, I guess a cold snap in Hawaii must be evidence that the globe is cooling in some places.

Oh wait, somehow I don't think that below average temperatures in the aloha state is evidence of anything except freak weather changes. When I was living in Nebraska I remember 60-70 degree weather in December and 50's in July, so I wonder what that means.

Moreover I wonder if the unbiased, non partisan politicians editing the IPCC global warming report in Paris are taking any notice. What a joke.

So now that it's official the debate is over: Kyoto is a waste of time. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has declared that we're all going to die of global warming. The earth is going to overheat and there is nothing we can do about it. Thus we no longer need any environmental regulations/laws. Why waste the time? The end is already here.

Especially the empty Kyoto treaty. But then again, what did Kyoto really do anyway? The nation of China is so polluted that you can actually see clouds of smog from space. The capital city of Peking is notorious for it's acid rain and thick brown smoke. Fortunately, there is a loop hole in Kyoto that defines China as "developing", meaning that China can continue to pollute to its heart content.

Going about a thousand miles south you encounter another loop hole nation, India. Known for it's overpopulation and wasteful industry it won't be cleaning up its act any time soon either.

Let's all hear it for the third world. Yeah, they're killing us all but since they're depressed economically we'll let them get away with it. Since they're minorities and "victims" of Western expansion, the environment can take the hit for the team. How nice that environmentalists believe in Affirmative Action.

Fortunately there are also loopholes in Kyoto for the first world. Kyoto contains lots of nice "pay as you go" type of devices for the nations that can afford it. So places like Canada and the Netherlands can pay money rather than clean up their acts - which is what they've decided to do. True they might be dumping millions of pollutants in to the air, but at least the right people are getting rich on it. (Too bad the poor who always get screwed on these deals will never see a dime.) But then again, when did the poor ever matter to liberal philosophy?

So while we're experiencing record cold temperatures all over the nation, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is in France telling us that global warming is happening and won't stop no matter what we do. Naturally they have a laundry list of things we can do to stop global warming. Like most good libs, they don't see a contradiction with any of the above.

Make no mistake, the final report won't be out for some months yet. This is to give unbiased, non partisan politicians a chance to "edit" the final report. Don't worry though, the UN is completely trustworthy. Just look at the "Oil for Food" scandal - a bunch of guys at the UN were corrupt and it went to the top. In response the UN did nothing and the bad guys learned their lesson. Everybody won (except poor Iraqi civilians who starved.) But they were being killed off by a brown skinned Muslim, so it's all okay.

The French have a similar reaction with PM Chirac blaming the US. He must have missed a recent report revealing that none of the ten most polluted places on earth are in the United States. Almost at the same time, Chirac said he wouldn't have a problem with Iran gaining nukes. Interesting coming from a bunch of people who are worried about the US nuclear arsenal. But more confusing is that France ignored the Iran holocaust denial conference. I do believe disputing the holocaust is illegal in France, but since most Iranians are dark skinned and Islamic, we can overlook this too.

At any rate I guess that if we could tie global warming to Iran, the French would be all in favor of taking strong action (in French estimation anyway) against a rogue states. This strong action entails protective tariffs. Which brings us back to the action against the US. Chirac has demanded we bow to international will of the global warming mythologists or they're going to tax us. Wow - a lefty talking about raising taxes. Stupid idiot doesn't seem to realize that tax raisers are heroes to our wacko element.

Thus the moral of the story is that one way or another, Americans are going to see their taxes go up - be it through lefties here at home or freaks at the international level. How any of this is going to help or slow the inevitable globe overheating is anyone's guess...

According to the book of Revelation of the Bible, a false Christ will appear and lead the world in to darkness. Modern American lexicon has taken the word "anti" to mean "opposite". But in truth, the word "anti" means "false." Thus to use a very simple analogy, blue is a false kelly green, but so is forest green.

What does all this mean? Most people envision the anti Christ as a monster driven by blood lust who will use depraved rituals as his staple. But in reality, it's just as possible that the anti Christ will be an individual who will teach love and peace. He'll be an individual who will heal the sick and feed the poor. But he's not from God.

What I find so shocking about all of this is that in the year 2007 the anti Christ is rising from a small, off to the side religion (Scientology) and is someone I've actually heard of (Tom Cruise.)

Yes I'm serious. Leader of the Scientologists David Miscavige has declared that Tom Cruise is the new Christ. The evidence that he uses is that Cruise has been "criticised for his views." (I guess this guy has never written an online blog.)

Cruise seems like an okay guy. He married Nicole Kidman and that's something I can envy him for. He's made it in Hollywood and that's admirable. Some of his movies were okay: 'Top Gun' heck I even liked 'Vanilla Sky'. He seems friendly - like the type of guy I could sit down and have a beer with, except I don't think Scientologists are allowed to drink. But accepting him as my spiritual savior? That's a bit presumptuous.

About a month ago, the eastern seaboard had record high temperatures for Dec. It was so warm that people in New York were strolling through the parks comfortably and the cherry trees in Washington DC started to bloom. Naturally the mainstream media everywhere was telling us all how this was evidence that global warming is happening, right now, faster than expected.

Nevermind the fact that at the same time, California went in to a deep freeze. The cold destroyed a good chunk of orange crop out there. It snowed in LA. As the cold front moved east, it dropped snow across Arizona and New Mexico. The media explanation? You can't predict the weather.

So today I'm reading that the eastern seaboard is under record COLD. I can't help but wonder what this means to the theory of Global Warming. If a week of record highs in the winter proves Global Warming is real, then surely record lows would disprove the theory.

No I'm afraid not. There are too many scientists living on grants for them to drop their pet theory so easily. But isn't it interesting to note how one headline is greeted over the other?

Did anyone else notice the tough talk on the day after the President's State of the Union speech? Tough talk should have been the substance of the President's speech - not the response from the enemy. But could you imagine the response if Bush had said "You are facing the (American) rage"? Harry Reed and Queen Bee Pelosi would be all over the news announcing that Congress wouldn't go along. The New York Times front page would feature an article "Bush Insane?"

I honestly can't believe what I'm witnessing. When did we become such a nation of pussywimps? Once upon a time, when the United States was being founded there was a noble notion of "dying for your country". Today the noble notion is "don't fight for any reason at all, even if the cause is justified". We're so consumed with "white guilt" we can't even stand up to a group of violent tan skinned people who practice a different religion and have funny accents. If we're not supposed to judge people by their skin color then why are we?

Wars (like sports events) are won by those who want it. The Americans in the Revolution were outgunned, undermanned and undertrained. The British enemy had superior numbers, better training and plenty of supplies. Records of British commanders reflected their frustrations as Americans didn't "play by the rules". Americans fought from places of cover. They wouldn't just go meet them in a field to be gunned down. Al Queda is not going to come out and fight us either for the exact same reason. During the early years of the Revolution, the Americans suffered terrible losses and defeats. They turned to their patriotism and the belief in their cause to keep them going. Same thing with al Queda - they're turning to their religion for their solace.

And well they should, THEY'RE LOSING EVERYWHERE. Terrorist cells are being destroyed in Iraq. Afghanistan is pacifying so much, it isn't even in the news anymore. Somalia (the place that originally inspired Osama bin Laden) has been over run by the Ethiopian army: the Islamic Courts are all but gone.

But these things are all meanlingless. All you hear about is the bad. All you hear is cut and run. How to surrender the quickest. The War on Terror is (pathetically) going to be the first American war that produces a future President who proudly announces "I wanted out first".  

Bottom line: These terrorists are going to hit us again. I don't care who's the President, who's in charge of Congress, who's the front runner on "American Idol", etc. We're going to get hit again because WE'RE NOT TAKING THEM SERIOUSLY. Don't you understand, they have no respect for us at all. They sent 20 people over here to hijack planes and fly them in to buildings. These plants lived with us and worked with us and were friends with some of us. These plants might have been someone you talked to every morning when you were buying coffee at Starbucks. And then one morning, they got up and did it. That is the reality that we're facing right now.

The shadow of the cold war has so indoctrinated the left they can't see anything outside of the workers vs. the owners. The hero of their fable is always whomever they perceive to be poor. They see these terror tapes, with people sitting in the sand, flies swirling around their heads and think they've found their hero. They never once stop and consider all the money spent on the machine guns, the RPGs, the vehicles, the training, etc.

Most nerve wracking of all is that lefties keep comparing this to Vietnam: a conflict that (for the US) was 20 years long, against a Communist (the heroes of that story) regime fighting for control of a geographic area. The war on Terror is five years old, against an Islamic force, fighting for control of most of the world. In Marxist philosophy, the only thing that motivates anyone is economics. That's why the liberal mind locks up like an old computer faced with new hardware when dealing with Islamofascists. In Vietnam our military learned how to deal with terrorists. Terrorists learned how to play Liberal politicians like fiddles.

Sadly it's gotten so outrageous, you can't even tell it like it is without "being insensitive" (wow, what a crime). Remember those Mohammed pictures a while back? Those pictures came out at the same time Madonna was performing a concert where she put herself on a cross a la Jesus Christ. Two incidents, two religions. Which one inspired riots? Which one prompted European nations to forward non-denigration laws? Which one was dubbed "free speech" and which one was dubbed "the responsibilities of speech"? And between Bush's State of the Union and al-Zawahri "You will all pay" is garnering the greater criticism? Which is considered the more out of control?

The funniest part of all is that this piece will generate TONS of hate mail from pathetic, whining little lefties who'd never dare say anything like that to the radical Islamists who would kill them without a second thought. Lefties who (despite all their patriotism) would never dare to publish a column like this about anyone other than the United States.

It's really pathetic. We're the most powerful nation on Earth and thanks to a bunch of pathetic weaklings in our government are looking at getting our asses kicked by a ragtag group of homeless thugs. No wonder they've got the balls to make threats.

I've heard Hillary Clinton has a "test!cle lock box". I just had no idea how big it was and how many pairs of testes she had.

Did you know that our government set up 9-11 in an elaborate scheme to drum up support for the Bush administration? Yeah, I've heard it too. You know who's going to be most pissed off to hear this? Al Quada.

They're going to be really mad to hear that their leader, Osama bin Laden isn't nearly as cool as they think he is. I guess they'll have to stop selling tee shirts, throwing parties and looking to him for comfort. The left can easily destroy the armies of terror if they just go and tell these people the truth: some white Christian guy did it.

Terrorists should feel even more stupid for spending all that time and money back in 1994 in their first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center the first time. Maybe the only one of the masterminds who ended up fleeing to Iraq (despite the lack of connection between al Quada and Saddam) should have instead ran to Crawford Texas to hide in Bush's closet. On second thought, Bush would have just thrown him in jail somewhere after using him as a scapegoat for something. So maybe it's best he did leave the country.

In 2001, maybe the Islamofascists wouldn't have worked themselves up in to a lather if they knew that it was all some white guy pulling the string from the shadows. (As you all know, if you trace evil back to the source you'll find a white guy driven by racist, sexist, homophobia.)

Maybe Islamists wouldn't have sacrificed their kids. (Makes me wonder where the Islamic Cindy Sheehan is.) These people are the victims: first of a plot to make them look bad and now a plot to destroy them when they're simply trying to protect themselves. Nine eleven was the simplest, most diabolically evil plot in all of history on more levels than one.