Ann Coulter, it's so good to have you back. Smoove B has missed your near-skeletal frame, baby.

Ann Coulter, fuckwit extraordinare, has crossed yet another line of decorum. Oh noes! Never! you shout Never! Not Ann "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" Coulter?

Yes, the same, dear friends:

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….

She's taken my "beyond the pale" to a whole new level.

-pb

Some of you may already know that I abhor Ted Nugent and everything he embodies. The rest of you know now. Given the choice between sitting in a room for an hour with Ted Nugent or Ann Coulter I'd take Coulter in a heartbeat, because at least I could amuse myself seeing if I could cleary see all of her bones.

So here's Ted Nugent's latest antics: He's even managed to offend Texas Republicans with his confederate-flag waving, machine-gun toting, racist remark-spouting claptrap.

Ted Nugent is many things. He's a chicken hawk, a draft dodger, and apparently now a bigot. The fact that he's even given a stage to play on is a shame. The Nuge needs to be a relegated to a sad chapter in our history, held up as an icon of everything that was wrong with people like him.

-pb

I don't mean to gloat or anything, but it's been a while since our favorite Partei Sprecherin Frau Coulter came over for some lovin' from Smoove B:

"we've decided that syndicated columnist Ann Coulter has worn out her welcome. Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives."

~ David Stoeffler, Editor and Publisher of the Arizona Daily Star

"Maybe it's my law background, but I think it's time we changed a few judges."
Ann Coulter, on Roe V. Wade in this week's slobber-fest.

Aww, what's the matter, Ann? They're activist when they interpret the law in a way that you don't like, but when they uphold 32-year-old laws, they need to go?

News flash, Ann. You, who will never likely get close enough to sperm to be in a position where you might actually *need* an abortion, HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHT TO AN OPINION ABOUT IT.

Abortion was not terribly popular when Roe v. Wade was first concocted in 1973 –- by seven male justices and their mostly male law clerks. Abortion — like other liberal priorities over the years including forced busing, gay marriage and removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance — is an issue liberals believe is best voted on by groups of nine or fewer.

Fuck yeah I do, crackwhore. Know why? Because a bunch of hillbilly moonshine-swilling inbred Evangelical Christians shouldn't be the ones interpreting the Constitution. Constitutional Scholars, otherwise known as SUPREME COURT JUSTICES should.

-pb

More gems from Ann "Can't Even Get Alan Colmes To Kiss Me" Coulter.

Since the attack of 9-11, we've won two wars

Really? Which two were they? The war on civil liberties and the war on positive world opinion?

HAVE YOURSELF A MERRY LITTLE VERNAL EQUINOX!

I'm touched!

-pb

I'm definately in that 26%.

-pb

Earlier this year, the flamboyant Richard Clarke claimed that when he briefed Rice in early 2001 about al-Qaida, her 'facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before.' It's good to know that Clinton's chief terrorism 'expert' believes himself to possess paranormal abilities such as ESP.

-Ann Coulter, from her 'website'.

Look, Ann, we understand that you're an image-obsessed, malnourished spinster who has no social skills whatsoever, but most of the rest of the world has this neat little ability to pick up on the facial expressions of others.

I know that you really didn't find that 'Far Side' comic funny, you know, the one with the 9 panels of the Labrador Retriever with the same vapid expression, and different emotional states underneath. I understand that you simply didn't get the joke because that's how you view the world. Perhaps it's because you stopped wearing glasses when all the kids teased you about looking like a bleach-white Ethiopian owl, all twigs and lenses. Maybe contacts just don't work for you, but you're too stubborn to wear those glasses, because then Alan Colmes won't let you give him a handjob backstage after your many appearances on Hannity and Colmes.

Look, I understand. But please, for your own sake, let an editor look at your work before you make a statement that reveales your lack of social ability. And eat something, dear. You're looking a bit dead these days.

-pb

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041022/ap_on_re_us/columnist_speech_pies

I swear, I was in the Pennsylvania the whole day.

>=)

-pb

When asked to comment on the Israel-Palestinian conflict during the debate Tuesday night, Edwards had another personal story:

Now, if I can, just for a moment, tell you a personal story. I was in Jerusalem a couple of years ago, actually three years ago, in August of 2001, staying at the King David Hotel. We left in the morning, headed to the airport to leave, and later in the day I found out that that same day, not far from where we were staying, the Sbarro Pizzeria was hit by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem. Fifteen people were killed. Six children were killed.

A strange psychological compulsion compels some people to inject themselves into all historic events. On cross examination, it generally turns out they were not actually in New York City on 9-11, but had visited New York a week earlier. They did not march in Selma, but knew someone who knew someone who did. They were not near the Sbarro Pizzeria, but in the same country where it happened.

John Edwards managed to turn the deadly bombing of the pizzeria into another story about himself. On the basis of his brush with death, Edwards concluded: 'What are the Israeli people supposed to do? ... They have not only the right but the obligation to defend themselves.' (The scariest part of the story was that Edwards just had his nails done at the manicure place next door to the pizzeria that very day!)

So are we to surmise that if Edwards had not been at the King David Hotel the day the Sbarro Pizzeria was blown up, he would not think Israel has a right to defend itself?"

You know what? Dick Cheney never met John Edwards. It's obvious, even despite all the damned liberal proof to the contrary. Know why? Ann never ONCE mentioned it. Must be true. Because when Dick Cheney says

Twenty years ago we had a similar situation in El Salvador. We had -- guerrilla insurgency controlled roughly a third of the country, 75,000 people dead, and we held free elections. I was there as an observer on behalf of the Congress.

The human drive for freedom, the determination of these people to vote, was unbelievable. And the terrorists would come in and shoot up polling places; as soon as they left, the voters would come back and get in line and would not be denied the right to vote.

And today El Salvador is a whale of a lot better because we held free elections.

it's not the same as John Edward's strange psychological compulsion that compels him to inject himself into all historic events.

The world according to Ann Coulter: Dick Cheney: Messenger from God that speaks naught but the truth. John Edwards: Never met Dick Cheney. Liar. Thief. Baby-raper. Al-Qaida sympathizer. Chainsaw Murderer (where do you think he got those perfect teeth!?)

-pb

"the affable Eva Braun of morning television."
-Ann Coulter, accusing Katie Couric of liberal bias in her book Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right

Now, we all know that Ann Coulter is a moron that manages to get by on the fact that she's blonde and has never eaten anything larger than a pea pod in one sitting, but this line really demonstrates her stupidity.

Eva Braun was kept out of the public eye. Hitler married her about 30 minutes before they choked down cyanide pills and ventilated their brains. She certainly wasn't jawing in the media every morning. The comparison is even completely wrong. Hitler was a fascist. Facists are extreme right-wingers. Liberals are left-wingers. Accusing someone of having a liberal bias by way of comparing her to the mistress of a fascist dictator is not only stupid, it completely shows that Ann Coulter a) does no research and b) doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. The fact that her books continue to sell is just further proof that there are a lot of stupid people out there breeding.

Cheers!

-pb

My blanket response to Ann Coulter's tabloid journalism for this week:

Dan Rather was a moron, this much we know. He and his staff screwed the pooch. It's unfortunate, but it's not the first time a journalist has been duped by fakes, jumped the gun, or rushed to scoop a story and forgot to cross his i's and dot his t's. It won't be the last.

Whoop-tee-doo. I don't hear the 'liberal media' screaming about how Bush isn't really the president (real liberals haven't forgotten the 2000 coup). I don't hear the 'liberal media' howling about how the Bush junta manipulated documents, the press, unwitting Secretaries of State, their own parents, etc... to bomb the crap out of the nation that just so happens to be squatting overtop of the second largest oil reserve in the world. I don't hear the 'liberal media' blasting Dick Cheney for telling Senator Leahy to "GO FUCK YOURSELF" (Although I do remember a two-week circus over Theresa Heinz Kerry saying "Shove it"). I don't hear the 'liberal media' going for the jugular over the prison abuse scandal. I don't hear very much about the fact that our government has been holding an American citizen in Gitmo in solitary confinement for THREE YEARS, even though evidence shows that HE'S INNOCENT. I don't remember there being more than a few seconds devoted to continuing talk from high-ranking Republicans stating that if you vote for John Kerry, you're actually personally flying a plane into the Sears Tower at 10:00am (for maximum casualties, mind you). I didn't hear rabid outrage over the assult weapon ban expiring, except for maybe the two days AFTER IT EXPIRED. But it's all good now!

So Dan Rather and CBS screwed up. When the rest of the media starts clinging to a non-biased, ethical standard, you can come to me and say "Look! This man is obviously biased!" Perhaps then I'll be more critical of him.

Until then, when a journalist lies for the Left, I'll consider that fair and balanced, Because the media's been lying for the Right for way too long. If journalism is all about lying, it's time we got a piece of the pie.

-pb

There's been a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth among the Democrats since Vice President Cheney said if the country makes the wrong choice on Election Day, "then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." (I mean there is weeping among Democrats who aren't actually rooting for us to get hit again because "we deserve it!")

She couldn’t resist the sweet sweet words of Smoove B. Ann has come back. And she starts off with a hint that Democrats everywhere are simply wetting themselves in anticipation of another attack, because “we deserve it”. Right. That’s what I’m looking forward to, I’ll tell you what.

I believe this is one of those "issues" Democrats claim to be champing at the bit to discuss – in lieu of discussing the charges of the Swift Boat veterans. In fact, there is no more important issue in this election: Which candidate will best protect America from terrorist attack? Hint: It's not the guy whose running mate (sounding so much like Sean Hayes from "Will and Grace" it was eerie) said their message to the terrorists was: "We will destroy youuuuuuu!"

Ok, John Edwards says to the terrorists “We will destroy you.” Let me get this straight. When John Edwards says it, it’s not true, right? Because way back on November 8, 2001, George W. Bush said “Where terrorist group exist of global reach, the United States and our friends and allies will seek it out and we will destroy it.”

And wow, hasn’t he done a great job? At least seven people in the Australian Embassy in Jakarta are so overjoyed with his destruction of terrorism, that they’re dead. Of course, it could be because of the bomb that went off there this morning. Who knows? Certainly, when John Edwards didn’t immediately follow up his statement by killing five terrorists with his bare hands, he was basically saying “I lied, I didn’t mean it, I want extremists to fly planes into buildings.”

Of course, it gets complicated trying to do a side-by-side comparison of the candidates' positions on terrorism since we don't know which John Kerry is running for president. The one who opposes war with Iraq or the one who supports it? The one who opposes the Patriot Act or the one who voted for it? The one who wants to work with the allies, or the one who ridicules them when they support America?

Well I don’t know. Do I vote for the George Bush who was against the formation of the 9/11 commission, or the one who was behind it? The guy who wasn’t going to accept their findings, or the one who’s working to put them in place? So I cast my ballot for the Bush that was going to be single-minded in his determination to find, capture and/or kill Osama bin Laden, or to I give the not to the guy who can’t remember bin Laden’s name? The list goes on. Apparently, we’ve got four candidates. Oh, and there’s Cobb, Nader and Badnarik, too. Wonder how much flip-flopping they’ve done.

The only way Kerry's constantly changing positions on little matters like war would seem rational is if we found out he was using a Ouija board to determine his positions – much as he's using a crystal ball to predict when we should start removing U.S. troops from Iraq. Six months – whoops, no, four years. Stupid crystal balls – they never work!

Republicans have been having raucous fun trying to predict what Kerry's next policy shift will be. Education? AIDS? Pollution? Dang! He picked women's rights! OK, here's another dollar. Give me three more balls, please.

An elephant with three balls… Ok, I’m not even going to go there. Plain and simple, Kerry has a plan to get troops out. Even if that plan takes four years, it’s still better than no plan. Kerry supports women’s rights. Bush signs bills that quash them while he’s surrounded by aging, impotent men who golf-clap. Bush thinks that AIDS are the people who run around making his presidency work. Education, well heck. We don’t have none of those fancy words in Texas.
Incidentally, of the massive funding for No Child Left Behind, a great deal of it is going to textbook manufacturers in Texas. Interesting, that.

While waiting for the Ouija board to give us Kerry's final answer on the Iraq war, perhaps we could get an answer on something simpler – like whether or not Kerry owns an SUV.
During the Democratic primaries, Kerry went to Michigan and bragged to the Detroit News: "We have some SUVs. We have a Jeep. We have a couple of Chrysler minivans. We have a PT Cruiser up in Boston. I have an old Dodge 600 that I keep in the Senate. ... We also have a Chevy, a big Suburban." He was starting to sound like a used-car dealer in a giant cowboy hat peddling his wares in a cheesy, low-budget late-night TV commercial: "We got Jeeps, we got PT Cruisers, we got minivans, and they're priced to move, folks ..."

But a few months after Kerry won the Michigan primary in February, the feckless opportunist told a bunch of environmentalists: "I don't own an SUV." When pressed on the apparent contradiction, Kerry explained: "The family has it. I don't have it." We're still waiting for reaction from some group calling themselves "SUV Owners for the Truth."

Ok, so Kerry owns a few world-killing vehicles. So do a lot of Americans. Now, if it were Dennis Kucinich offering that speech, it’d be hypocritical. But it’s not. It’s John Kerry being a bit of a moron and trying to play both sides of a very small coin. Compare and contrast George Bush and his cocaine use. Did he? Didn’t he? Apparently, it was vitally important to know just how much marijuana passed into Bill Clinton’s esophagus, but don’t even begin to question how much nose candy George has sucked up his snout.

As I recall, when it came to funding his campaign last January with a $6 million mortgage on the "family" home in Boston – owned by Kerry's billionaire wife – he was not so picky about what he owns and what she owns. Back then, Kerry had somewhat more liberal views on the notion of "community property" – or maybe that was just the pre-nup talking.

Hrm. If it were Theresa Heinz Kerry’s house, then how, exactly, could he have mortgaged it to fund his campaign? He couldn’t accept more than $2000 in pre-marital assets from her. I’m sure that the FEC would have been on that like flies on dung.

While Kerry works out his positions, apparently the voters have decided that their legitimate act of self-defense is to vote for Bush.

Here we go again with the divisiveness. When Ann refers to the voters, she’s doing a Florida Modified Count, because the last time I checked, it was a dead heat between Bush and Kerry. So, Ann’s just ditching the half she doesn’t agree with, and claiming that the voters are going to vote Bush. Perhaps she works with Diebold? Welcome back, Ann.

Of course, I am a bit miffed that she didn’t even broach the Clinton subject. I mean, come on. The guy’s laying there on the table, sedated. I guess maybe it was too close to the way she has to get dates for her to go after him.

-pb

So, having been left out in the cold by Ann Coulter this week (baby, please, come back to Smoove B.), I had to go looking for her and look what I found!

The week is saved!

-pb

My favorite bugbear, Partei Sprecherin Frau Coulter, has dissapointed me. I eagerly look forward to her rabid slobberings on Thursdays. I expected this week to be an impotent but vitrolic slam at Michael Moore for not pissing off USA Today as she did during the RNC. Perhaps, a slam against fellow conservative John McCain for flip-flopping on Bush? Mayhaps even a stab at "liberals" by touting Zell Miller!

But no, just more defense of Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Why, Frau Coulter? Why do you not rile my blood by making pointed attacks at people who share my political ideology? Why do you not spew your racist hatred forth from your vile word-hole? I beg you, Ann, come back. I miss you.

-pb

Slander - Liberal Lies About Christianity - By Bruce Walker

Found this article on the internet via WitchVox. It starts with the words "Ann Coulter". Such mentions of the Partei Sprecherin are sure to peak my interest, but the article just mentions her "magnificent" book, Slander. The article, however, tells of how we Liberals defame, destroy and otherwise try to annihilate Christianity wherever we find it. It's a load of horsecrap.

Leftism is hostile to any serious ethical monotheism.

There we go again with the black and white distinctions of the Radical Right. "Leftism". So, there are two political distinctions: Right and Left. You're either a Commie or a God-Lovin' American. Right. What about all those 'Liberal' politicians who are devout Christians?

Christianity is to Leftists what America was to the Soviet Union: the "Main Enemy." Why? Because Christianity teaches us that though we are born with murder in our hearts, God can replace that murder with love.

This argument goes from bad to worse right away. He comes right out and states that his god tells him that he's an imperfect, flawed creation that only his god can fix. Incidentally, his god claims to have created him in his god's own image. Christians who take this tack give other Christians a bad name, but that's an essay that I'm brewing up for later.

The good news of Christianity contradicts all the bad news of class exploitation theories, racial hatred, sexism, and any other social pathology which poisons people against other people. Christianity says that material accomplishments will never change the world, conquering armies will never change the world, and only divine love can change the world.

Wait, hold on. The Bible is full of class exploitation, racial hatred and sexism. It talks about material accomplishments (in fact, it contradicts itself on how to get to heaven: good deeds or good thoughts). It features conquering armies ordered by their god to rape, pillage, commit genocide, and carve out their own nation at the expense of anyone who might be there. This guy shows some huge brass balls calling Liberals liars and then making such wildly false claims about the Bible.

This threatens everyone who craves power, prestige and popularity - those tokens of value which Leftists crave like addicts crave drugs.

The Left doesn’t crave power, prestige or popularity any more than the Right does. It’s a basic human failing that affects all people at some point, regardless of political ideology.

Leftism led Hitler to Marxism, then to National Socialism and always away from a loving God.

Actually, Hitler was staunchly anti-Marxist from the time he entered politics to his death. And National Socialism was a violently Right-wing manifestation. Sure, they weren’t very Christian, but they adapted religion to their own uses. They played upon an ingrained prejudice against Jews that had been fostered by 1700 years of anti-Semetic Christian teachings to further their agendas. You can accuse Hitler of a lot of things. Being a Leftie isn’t one of them.

Leftism says above all else that the end justifies the means and that the proper ends are no more than what men who with truncheons say that those ends should be. Recoiling at Jesus is the instinct of all Leftism. Redwood forests may be holy to Leftists. Academia may be infallible truth to Leftists. Savagery in the vindication of old, presumed wrongs may be the sacrament of Leftism. But Jesus is the negation of these and every phantom of meaning in the ultimate nihilism that is Leftism.

The end justifies the means? You mean, like invading Iraq on the basis of an outright lie is justified because we dug a well and paved a road and brought medicine to a few Iraqis that we didn’t kill? The hypocrisy of this statement is appalling. As for Jesus and his anti-leftitude, we’re talking about a fictional character here. There is no proof beyond faith and conjecture that Jesus existed. And even assuming that he did, religious scholars cannot agree on when he actually lived or what he actually said. Most of the texts relating his words were written 50-150 years after his death, in Greek, a language he did not speak (and didn’t translate well into). So, to say that Jesus is anything is a bit of a long shot, when you consider that wars have been fought and genocide committed over what Jesus may or may not have said.

Christianity is an unparalleled force for good in human history - whatever one believes about the metaphysical validity of Christian doctrine - and this very success in transforming the world for the better makes vicious slander of true Christianity is indispensable to Leftism.

We are talking about the same Christianity that killed millions in the 600+ year Inquisition, right? The Christianity that launched four Crusades against anyone unfortunate enough to be living in Jerusalem (Or Constantinople), Christian, Moslem or Jew? The Christianity that followed (or even led) explorers around the globe, converting natives by force, destroying their religious artifacts and knowledge. The Christianity that our President uses as justification for launching illegal wars and committing atrocities? If that’s our unparalleled force for good, then we are so far beyond screwed as a people that it’s a miracle that we’ve survived this long. That’s not even slander, either. It’s recorded, irrefutable fact.

The defamation of Christianity is not important to other faiths.

Yes, it is. Islam may consider Jesus a prophet, but they also claim that Allah had no son. Therefore, the primary tenet of Christian faith (Jesus was the son of their god), is denied in the very basis of Islam. Incidentally, hard-line conservative Moslems consider Christians to be infidels.

Leftists, however, fancy themselves gods. They will always be the worst and most emphatic slanderers of Christianity. How is this ancient slander manifested? Not by some different version of the absurd anti-Judaic fraud, like the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, but rather by repeating factual inaccuracies about Christians which over time become accepted as fact.

Agreed, there are a number of widely held misconceptions about Christian history. However, even if you excise them from argument (Like the notion that Christians believed that the world was flat, which the author spends the next 10 paragraphs debunking), there still exists volumes upon volumes of agreed-upon fact that shows Christianity to be a hateful, murderous religion. The idea that medieval theologists claimed that the world was flat came about in 1830. Four years later, the last heretic was burned at the stake.

The author goes on to preach about the 20 executions at the Salem witch trials, and compare them millions of Christians that were slaughtered by the Ottoman Empire and Communist Russia, as if those 20 people were the only people ever killed by Christians. He continues that secularism and Leftism were again to blame for the holocaust, completely ignoring that Christian doctrine was the actual basis for anti-Semitism in Europe.

He ends with:

Leftists lie about Christianity. Leftists slander Christians because as look as people worship a loving God in a gentle theology, they will never worship the secular gods of a hateful misology.

Now, that’s not really English, but I think I get the gist: God is gentle, kind, loving and whatnot, and the Left can’t stand it.

The Left doesn’t begrudge a Christian his religion. The Left does, however, begrudge a Christian (or any religious person) their actions, taken in the name of religion, that harm others. Christianity has shown countless times over the millennia that regardless of its core message, it is in fact a religion of hate, lies, and death. And when Christianity is forced down your throat, you’ve got two choices (to quote Bono): “You can swallow or you can spit, you can throw it up, or choke on it”.

-pb

Even I, someone who has not exactly had her eyes closed to Clinton-era buffoonery, did not imagine that the most corrupt administration in the history of the country would find a way to keep having scandals while out of office.

“Most Corrupt Administration in the History of the Country” That’s a pretty big assessment, when you consider that Richard Nixon resigned before impeachment proceedings that would most certainly have removed him from office, and he was preceded by Vice President Spiro Agnew, who resigned over allegations of corruption. Agnew was replaced by Gerald Ford, who tripped over himself pardoning Nixon for stuff he ‘might have done’. And let’s not forget Reagan’s treasonous arm-selling deals. That’s right, I took a shot at Ronald Reagan, again. If Clinton is still fair game, then Ronnie is, too.

The undisputed facts are these: Clinton's national security adviser removed documents with the highest possible security classification from the National Archives, took them home with him, and disposed of some of the documents.

Yes, but what is not positive is whether he had authorization to do so, and why. He also didn’t take the only copies, either. If Reagan era politics are any indicator, Sandy Berger will have a talk show soon.

The New York Times' response was to hysterically accuse the Bush administration of corruption. In a front-page story the week the story broke, the Times accused the Bush administration of leaking the news of the Berger investigation for cynical political reasons – based on the Times' careful accretion of no facts whatsoever.

Facts? How about the wag-the-dog timing of every damn thing this administration has ‘leaked’ to the press over the past four years? Howard Dean is about the only political figure willing to call it like it is. Democratic National Convention coming? Trot out John Ashcroft to tell the world that the Terrorists are coming (When? I dunno. Where? I dunno. How? I dunno.) Kerry made a good speech? Have Tom Ridge scream about three year old intel on Al-Qaeda plans. Polls slipping? Tell Pakistan to catch a terrorist or two. Things getting hot in the kitchen? Pull out an advisor and burn him at the stake (and it’s not the first time!) The Times is just reporting the plainly obvious.

[Democrats] think if Dick Cheney uses a word with the letter "H," it's a secret code from the pope proving a conspiracy with Halliburton.

No, but we’re pretty sure that Dick Cheney using a word with an “F” is more hypocritical than Theresa Heinz Kerry telling an annoying reporter to “shove it”.

the Bush administration's interests were not served by the leak of the Berger investigation this early in the campaign.

Oh, so this early on, making one of Kerry’s advisors out to be a traitor of epic proportions has no positive impact for Bush. Right. So, conversely, Kerry should just talk about how interesting Indonesian economics are until, say, September. Yeah, right. We Americans may not have the longest attention span, but we’re not that bad.

As the Democrats have taught us, the best time to release damaging information about your opponent – say, a 30-year-old DUI – is about 72 hours before the election.

Yeah, but they missed the Coke-Nose days, although they wasted no time attacking Bush’s lack-of-service record. Incidentally, as soon as those records were found, they were destroyed. Media backlash? Far, far less than the press given to Sandy Berger. Gotta love that liberal media!

Tending to support the theory that the Kerry campaign leaked the story is the fact that the Bush White House has known about Berger for months; Kerry was told of the investigation only the week the story was leaked.

This makes so little sense, I think I’ve lost a few brain cells just reading it. Why would Kerry hang his own advisor? Why not scoot him off to the side? Kerry had an edge in the polls when this came out. Watch that dog wag!

The people who should be on their knees thanking God that W is president are the National Archives employees who caught Sandy Burglar. If Clinton were still president, instead of a serious criminal investigation, we'd get six months of attacks on the poor National Archives employees as trailer trash, sluts, gold-diggers, etc., etc.

Are these National Archives employees government workers? Because, Ann thinks they’re useless anyway. So, perhaps it’s not their fault they didn’t do their jobs? Or maybe they did, and Berger had authorization.

Given the Democratic scandals, their presidential candidates might consider the following litmus-test question before hiring their campaign staff: ‘Have you ever put anything into your shorts, or taken anything out of your shorts, that could negatively affect this campaign?’

That’s funny. I love the part about “Democratic scandals”. What about Coke-Nose and his crooked family? What about Strom Thurmond’s closet skeleton? What about Newt Gingrich banging his secretary on his desk? What about Rush Limbaugh’s little pill problem? Jack Ryan, anyone? The list goes on and on. Democrats are the party of the people, and people are admittedly fallible. Republicans claim to be from the ‘moral’ end of the spectrum, and they screw up even worse. Which is more hypocritical?

-pb

So, it's been a while since I've felt the need to analyze Frau Coulter's fascist ranting, but she's got a doozy out now that deserves my attention. USA Today hired her to provide a conservative counterpoint to the Democratic National Convention (and did the same with Michael Moore and the RNC), but after she turned this in as her first piece, they told her to take a long walk off a very short pier. It's no surprise that WorldNetDaily picked it right up. So, here we go:

Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston…

Great start! She's managed to let even people who have never before read her work know that she is completely biased, and nothing that comes after this statement can be accepted as anything less than wild exaggeration or outright lies. Powerful start. I love it!

There's a few paragraphs about how the hated Liberal hates the police and all the police stand for, and a rare dig at Al Sharpton. I say rare, because Sharpton is a Democrat not named Bill Clinton, so I'm surprised she knows his name.

My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call ‘women' at the Democratic National Convention.

Ann Coulter must be taking a cocktail of anti-suicidal medication every day just to keep from killing herself every time she notices that she's a woman. She gives new meaning to the term misogyny. I'm quite shocked that she hasn't found a devout fundamentalist alcoholic to marry and beat her, just so she can point to her bruises and say ‘See! Women are truly weak!' Of course, she wouldn't be able to say that to us, because she'd be too busy being subservient to her new husband. Either that, or he'd just kill her the first time she talked for more than five minutes. I'm neither a fundie or a drunk, and I'm sure my non-violence would end shortly after she opened her piehole.

I refuse to believe that women need makeup, bras or razors to be beautiful. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, believes that the feminine form is to be restrained, devoid of hair, and slathered in layers of makeup to be considered tasteful. To that, I have three words: Tammy Faye Bakker.

Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

Dennis Kucinich, man who received my vote in the primary, you have ARRIVED. Ann Coulter not only knows your name, but has seen fit to mock you. Of course, this paragraph is particularly funny to me. Frau Coulter offers her 7-11 challenge, but what do you bet she'd fail miserably herself? Let's see how this plays out:

Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and she'll be curled up in the freezer after fleeing from the first non-white person to ask her where the restroom is. She'll spend most of that time lamenting the fact that, as a woman, she's completely helpless and defenseless. Either that, or she would have outsourced the entire store to Pakistan, and collected a huge tax incentive. No matter how you look at it, the shelves are bare. Something tells me that Dennis Kucinich would do a much better job.

For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. We've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting 'Allah Akbar!' Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.

Jimmy Carter was no prize when it came to foreign policy. However, someone needs to remind Ann that no one's head got lopped off for being American under Carter's watch. If you want to point to one man and say ‘Him! He made me a Jihadi!', it's Dubya. We've had a piss-poor image in the Middle East since we made friends with Colonial England, but the past three years have seen more damage done to our reputation than the past 100 combined. Sure, Carter coddled the Shah and botched our relationship with Iran, but Ronnie built Saddam, funded the muhajedin in Afghanistan, sold weapons to Iraq and Iran at the same time, and countless other things. And then Dubya and Friends launched two illegal wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, and now they're eyeing up Iran.

As for the ‘millions of fanatical Muslims' part, well, there we go with the racism again. I've got millions of fanatical Christians out there trying to burn me at the stake for being a Witch. Every single Christian in America would like nothing more than to see the flesh melt off my bones. Just like every single Muslim wants to kill me. Just like every single European hates me because I'm American. Just like every single black man is lusting after my wife. Just like every single Jew is controlling the media and working towards bringing about the NWO. Just like… you get the picture.

With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying "digital Brown Shirts" to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush – in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.

More gibberish about the ‘Liberal Media'. You know, the same liberal media that doesn't give even a blurb to a missing black man who disappeared on his way home from planning his best friend's bachelor party and hasn't been heard from since, but will give you 24 hour coverage of a blonde, white, pregnant jogger that goes missing for two days. The same liberal media that declared Bush the winner before the polls closed on the west coast. The same liberal media that ISN'T VERY LIBERAL. But the Republicans are starting to look a lot like brown shirts, so Gore wouldn't have been too far off base had he chosen that route.

On the basis of their placards, I gather the [protester's] position is that they love the troops so much, they don't want them to get hurt defending America from terrorist attack. 'Support the troops,' the signs say, 'bring them home.'

More of the party rhetoric that somehow equates pissing the entire world off with increased security. You know, because we've seen how well that works.

That's my new position on all government workers, except the 5 percent who aren't useless, which is to say cops, prosecutors, firemen and U.S. servicemen. I love bureaucrats at the National Endowment of the Arts funding crucifixes submerged in urine so much – I think they should go home. I love public school teachers punishing any mention of God and banning Christmas songs so much – I think they should go home.

This part is wonderful. She shows her fascist lack of art appreciation (it's either worth something, or it's kindling), and she demonstrates her lack of support for the government and its employees, including postal workers, health inspectors, public defenders, etc, etc…, and she manages to get in a pro-Christian stance. God bless the woman.

Walking back from the convention site, I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks.

He was mostly bemused by the Democrats' primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the 'American.'

So, Republicans, which represent less than 50% of the population, are ‘American', and the rest of us are not? Welcome to Apartheid!

By the way, "normal" is defined as "conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern". As most Bostonians vote Democrat, the one she was talking to was not "normal". Considering she chatted with him for "several blocks" means that he was either brain dead or deaf, as well.

I'd say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don't.

That's ok, Ann, we hate you too. But, we do want you to go home. Of course, we are working to make your meds cheaper!

-pb

Democrats have never had to face the sound chamber of an all-conservative media. (They will in my gulag.)

Ann Coulter - 21 July 2004

There's a few pretty big points to note here:
1) No amount of convincing will make me believe that the media is liberal.
2) If Ann Coulter is ever in a poisition to throw liberals in a gulag, it simply will never happen. She'll have started a nuclear holocaust and eradicated the world's population within two hours. She'll won't be able to pace herself long enough to throw a single liberal into a gulag.
3) She would never rise to power. Simply put, any system that would be favorable to her brand of fascism would not allow women to leave the kitchen - and if it did, she'd be against it. Of course, they'd have stoned her for wantonness long before she got the chance to denounce it.

So, no matter which way you cut it, her statement is a laugh-fest.

-pb

Ann Coulter, unable to control herself, has offered her fact-void opinion of "My Life" by Bill Clinton. Most of it is just rabid slobbering, but there were two points of interest:

As far as I know, conservatives have produced one book touching on Bill Clinton's impeachment in this time: In 2003, National Review's Rich Lowry decided it was finally safe to attack Clinton and thereupon produced the only Regnery book with Bill Clinton's mug on the cover that did not make The New York Times' best-sellers list. That's how obsessed the Clinton-haters are.

Let's think about this. Could it be that Conservatives are too busy burning books to write them? The Clinton impeachment has had more radio play since it happened than books written about it. Guess what? There's not a lot of radio that's pro-Clinton. You do the math. Besides, Ms. Coulter, just because you wrote a few books that didn't claim to be about Bill Clinton, doesn't mean you could refrain from going two pages without slamming him.

Through sheer force of will I shall resist the urge to refer to this book as a 'blow by blow' account of Clinton's entire miserable existence.

Through sheer force of will I shall resist the urge to call Ann Coulter a lying, inelegant hack.

Oops!

-pb

It's THURSDAY, and if y'all don't know what that means, you need to go back a week.

Now, we all know that Ann Coulter is a hate-spewing Nazi who hates the Constitution and everything it stands for, and she's stark raving mad. This week, however, I really have no critique of her column, because quite frankly, I've already summed it up:

She's stark raving mad. Her column makes no sense. She was apparently trying to write a witty, thought-provoking piece, but failed miserably. Of course, even if it had been witty and thought-provoking, her target market (ultra-right wingers) is neither witty nor prone to thought. So, she gets a DOUBLE F MINUS on this week's report card.

What's really interesting is that she appears to be defending Resident Bush by pointing out that Reagan was just as god-looney and fiscally insane. She's wrong here, too. Sure, Georgie is as bat-shit insane for GAWD as Ronnie ever was, but the primary difference is that REAGAN COULD FORM COHERENT SENTENCES for at least the first 6 or so years, and he had ALZHEIMERS DISEASE. Bush managed to steal an election because we MISUNDERESTIMATED HIM.

To sum up: Ann Coulter didn't write anything this week worth quoting, because she's stark raving mad. A sign that the right is falling apart? We can only hope.

=)

-pb

It's Thursday, and that means it's time for my weekly dissection of the Party Propaganda spewed forth from the narrow mind of Ann Coulter. With Ronald Reagan’s passing this week, I knew we were in for a treat of epic proportions. So here goes!

More enraging than their revisionist history of Reagan, is liberals' revisionist history about themselves. Now liberals claim they liked Reagan at the time. This is extremely believable -- aren't we all fond of someone who regularly exposes us as liars, cowards and hypocrites? It's just human nature.

Now, I'll admit that I'm more than sick of even NPR going on and on about Reagan, but I’ve heard enough vitriol from the left to assure Ms. Coulter that no, we didn’t like him all this time, and no, we're not fond of him. As for the 'revisionist history' claim, well, you never hear NeoCons talking about eight years of steady economic growth under Clinton, now do you? Nope, you only hear about Oval Office fellatio, cigars, and Osama slipping away. So, isn't it only fair that the left talk about Iran-Contra, Nicaraguan death squads, the rape of the Department of Education, and "We begin bombing in five minutes"?

As for winning the Cold War, well, tell that to the 118 sailors aboard the Kursk. I’m sure they'd love to hear how the Russian War Machine was so far past the Berlin Wall that they begged on hands and feet for Western help retrieving a downed nuclear sub. Oh, yeah. That didn't happen, because the Cold War is, essentially, still going on. The faces are different, we can visit all of Germany, and no one calls anyone 'Comrade', but it’s still the same attitude.

The rest of the article is basically 'revisionist history' through Conservative blinders that I, for the most part, already dispelled in my second paragraph. So I won't bore you with details. I will sum up with my analysis of Ms. Coulter's last quote:

Because Reagan lived, the world is a better place.

Tell that to anyone and everyone who has been, is being, or ever will be tortured by the Bush Junta. It's because of Reagan's influence and his shifting the Republicans into the fascist far right that Bush has basically been able to seize unconstitutional power for himself. Reagan's administration handed out death to innocents for eight years. That is, and will be, his continuing legacy.

It's certainly not morning in America.

-pb

I think I'm becoming addicted. But, it's just so much fun!

Here we go!

The invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well, exceeding everyone's expectations – certainly exceeding the doomsday scenarios of liberals. The Bush-haters' pre-war predictions – hundreds of thousands dead, chemical attacks on our troops, retaliatory terrorist attacks in the United States, an invasion by Turkey, oil facilities in flames and apocalyptic environmental consequences – have proven to be about as accurate as Bill Clinton's "legally accurate" statements about Monica Lewinsky.

Wait, wait... Last time I checked, liberals weren't forecasting chemical attacks on troops, because we weren't convinced that WMDs EXISTED! As for the hundreds of thousands dead, well, we're a year in, and we've already killed *at least* 10,000 civilians, and there were those battlefield deaths, etc, etc...
We were wrong about the oil, but on a scale of 'One' to' Lying about a Blowjob', that ranks about a... One. Meanwhile, lying about evidence that got us into two wars, I'm pretty sure, far exceeds lying about a blowjob.

Inasmuch as they can't cite any actual failures in Iraq, liberals busy themselves by claiming the administration somehow "misled" them about the war.

Wait, wait... Can't cite failures? How about 'Didn't find any WMDs'? Perhaps 'Slaughtered innocent civilians'? Maybe some 'Raped inmates with flashlights'? 'Made the world safer'? (Just ask the Spanish how they feel about that.) And that's just off the top of my head.

As I understand it, there would be no lunatics shouting "Bush lied, kids died!" if Paul Wolfowitz had admitted before the war that Saddam "probably hadn't rebuilt his nuclear program" – the one that was unilaterally blown up by the Israelis in 1981, thank God.

Doesn’t matter what Wolfowitz had admitted. If Bush hadn’t manipulated and fabricated evidence, there wouldn’t have been a war. That’s called *lying*, and last time I checked, we impeached Presidents for that.

Liberals would be all sugar and sweetness if only – instead of blathering about nukes, nukes, nukes – Wolfowitz had forthrightly conceded back in 2002 that "there's an awful lot we don't know, an awful lot that we may never know, and we've got to think differently about standards of proof here.

No we wouldn't. We'd still have Bush's ANWR crusade, Cheney’s Halliburton kickbacks, Enron, SUVs, deforestation, etc... etc... to bitch about. Just like the Conservatives wail about how we're MAKING BABY JESUS CRY when we stand up for someone's right to not say 'under God', or we tell Bush, 'No, we're not willing to fund any charity that's in any way associated with Jerry Falwell', or we push for national healthcare or better emissions or a woman's domain over her own body.

No torture has yet been devised that could get a liberal to mention the poor, beleaguered Kurds dancing in the streets because Saddam is gone.

You know, I'm glad that Kurds aren't being gassed. However, they're just one group of people that celebrates while another group dies. 8 million Jews got gassed, too, and that apparently gives them the right to oppress, displace and murder Palestinians, who had nothing to do with that. Gypsies were slaughtered by the thousands in Nazi Germany, but they didn't get a country of their own. They got sent right back to the streets, eking out miserable existences as sub-humans in unwelcoming countries.

Don't lecture me about happy Kurds. Great, they're not dead. Tell that to the Sunnis and Shiites with ‘American-Made’ bullet wounds.

To refresh everyone's recollection, before the war began, the Democrats' argument was that Iraq was not an "imminent" threat to the United States. The Republicans' argument was: By the time the threat is imminent, Chicago will be gone. Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address specifically responded to the Democrats' demand that we wait for nuclear and biological threats to be "imminent" before we act. But now, liberals want to have their Nigerian yellow cake and eat it, too.

Chicago’s still there, and Iraq wasn’t an imminent threat. Iraq wasn’t buying nuclear material from Nigeria. There were no WMDs. There was no threat. Remind me again who was right here? Oh, yeah, the Democrats. Liberals.

Because by the time Saddam had nuclear weapons, we wouldn't be able to do anything. That's why it's known as the "Cuban missile crisis," not the "Cuban missile triumph."

Yeah, because we lost that battle back in ’63 when we invaded Cuba and they vaporized Florida and parts of Georgia. That sucked. Oh, wait, I forgot. We restrained ourselves in the face of NUCLEAR WEAPONS 90 MILES OFF OUR COASTLINE POINTED RIGHT AT US, and managed a mutual backdown from the brink of nuclear disaster. But, we had to launch a full-scale war into an unstable region on a baseless suspicion of nuclear weapons. Right, we wouldn’t have been able to do a DAMN THING had Saddam acquired nuclear weapons.

Before the war, Democrats were carping about the Bush administration's inability to predict the future and tell us everything that would happen in Iraq after the war. On MSNBC in September 2002, for example, Robert Menendez, D-N.J., was complaining that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld "didn't have an answer for what happens in a post-Saddam Iraq." But now liberals are acting as if the Bush administration said they knew exactly what would happen after liberating a country from a 30-year barbaric dictatorship – and got it wrong.

Actually, we knew that the administration had no plan for post-war Iraq. What we say they’re wrong about is ‘during-war’ Iraq. You know, the part about being greeted with flowers and parades and whatnot. Nice to see that our administration had a firm grasp of the Iraqi mentality.

So, another week goes by, and like clockwork, we get yet another lovely piece of fiction from Ms. Congeniality. Enjoy!

-pb

"Whenever great matters are at stake, you can always count on liberals to have some pointless, womanly complaint."

"Before the war, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof warned that war with Iraq would be a nightmare: "[W]e won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces." (Unless, he weaseled his way out, "we're incredibly lucky.")

We've done all that! How incredibly lucky."

She's apparently living in some alternate reality where Saddam isn't still alive, a coup never happened, and the Republican Guard didn't go underground to start a counter-offensive against invading forces.

But, we already knew she was off in some alternate reality.

"Now we're fighting directly with Islamic loonies crawling out of their rat holes from around the entire region – which liberals also said wouldn't happen. Remember how liberals said the Islamic loonies hated Saddam Hussein – hated him! – because he was a "secularist"?"

Uhm, yeah. The 'loonies' are there because, now that Saddam is gone, they've got a veritable Terrorist Disneyland to play with.


That is all. Widerspruch mit der Partei Sprecherin ist VERBOTEN.
-pb

The most famous PIPA poll claims to demonstrate that "the Fox News audience showed the highest average rate of misperceptions" about the war with Iraq -- by which they mean "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids about the war with Iraq." You say the average American can't regurgitate liberal talking points on command? Well, I'll be darned! And the public schools are trying so hard!

"misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids about the war with Iraq." Uhm, you mean like "We haven't found WMDs or even evidence of WMDs, which was the sole reason we illegally invaded them" and "10,000 Iraqi civilians have been slaughtered by US forces, in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions" or "We're still fighting in Afghanistan"? Because, I didn't think that stuff was very important, either.

She goes on to suggest that not finding WMDs, the sole justification for our imperialistic foray into Iraq, is a "pointless liberal factoid".

Thus another question in the PIPA poll was this: "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" Thirty-three percent of Fox News viewers said they believed the U.S. had found WMDs, compared to only 11 percent of those smart NPR listeners. (How about asking NPR listeners which kills more children -- handguns or buckets?)

And, in perfect Ann Coulter fashion, uses schoolyard "Gotcha!" speak to cover up the fact that she has no defense against the facts, but still needs to write to collect a paycheck.

-pb

There. I said it. She's got no right to speak on matters of American policy, because she is inherently un-American, anti-democracy, and pro-everything that has made us the target of world terrorism today. In essence, she is the voice of madness, and if the Right manages to restrict free speech, she should be the first to be silenced.

But she won't be, because she's the swinging leathery teat at which the Rush-loving, Hannity-hoarding dittoheads suckle. And contrary to what anyone says, she's not beautiful. Granted, she is the model of Aryan perfection (which, I'm sure, she reminds herself of every morning), and that typically does it for me (hey, I like blondes. I married a blonde.), but she's sickly thin and her face is just... ugly.

So, now that we've gotten past those vicious attacks on both her ideology and her face, let me explain:

In today's vomit-heap of a column, she spews forth this line in the midsts of her usual violently anti-Arab vitriol, a decomposing horse she has been beating since... September 12th 2001.

The ACLU had zeroed in on the true meaning of 9/11: Americans needed to be more tolerant of and sensitive toward ethnic minorities.

Now, you've got to pry open a slimy oyster to get at a pearl, which is essentially hardened oyster-spit, but you get a pretty little rock. And so we have this statement.

Frau Coulter would have us believe that every person of Arabian descent or Moslem religion should be detained, gassed, and incinerated. She doesn't really bother to hide this. If this were 1943, she wouldn't have been limited to 6 million Jews. She would have ordered the forcible extermination of Arabs and then gone after the 'liberals' (A word she uses to describe anyone that does not agree with her 100%). Lucky for us it's 2004.

I digress. Again.

She spouts off this hate-filled line, never in a million years realizing just how right she is. Because We The People need to be tolerant and sensitive towards ethnic minorities. We need to be a hell of a lot more tolerant and sensitive towards those people in THEIR OWN COUNTRIES. Are we? No, we bomb them with no justification. We prop up dictatorial regimes and rubber stamp the wholesale slaughter of millions, then decry it when it suits us. We use our political clout to support a terrorist, expansionistic nation (Israel), and then do it again (Iraq). The difference between the two? No Arab expects us to invade Israel when they become 'inconvenient'.

If you've never heard of Ann Coulter, consider yourself lucky. She's a mouthpiece of hatred and lies. She makes the KKK look like a quilting club.

Want proof? From the same article:

Like many of you, I carefully reviewed the lawsuits against the airlines in order to determine which airlines had engaged in the most egregious discrimination, so I could fly only that airline. But oddly, rather than bragging about the charges, the airlines heatedly denied discriminating against Middle Eastern passengers. What a wasted marketing opportunity! Imagine the great slogans the airlines could use:

'Now Frisking All Arabs -- Twice!'

'More Civil Rights Lawsuits Brought by Arabs Than Any Other Airline!'

'The Friendly Skies -- Unless You're an Arab'

'You Are Now Free to Move About the Cabin -- Not So Fast, Mohammed!'

Yeah, she's a Nazi, she's a hatemonger, and she should be forcibly deported to recently liberated Afghanistan. You know, where women no longer have to wear burqas. They still do anyway, because all the American soldiers are too busy in Iraq to stop rape gangs from attacking them.

Incidentally, The Taliban didn't have this problem. Why? Because at least they had the rule of law. All Afghanistan has now is a few soldiers scouting for a pipeline in Kabul. But that's ok. According to Ann Coulter, they deserve no better simply because they're Arabs.

If you want to read the article I'm quoting, click here, but please, wear some protection.

-pb