Tag Archives: Ann Coulter
Hannity’s television audience has fallen to half since President’s re-election?
The New York Daily News has reported Nielsen – the company responsible for gathering and releasing data regarding television-viewers’ viewing habits – is showing, in its figures for the fourth-quarter of 2012, that FOX News’ little leprechaun Sean Hannity’s television program has lost almost half of its audience since President Obama pummeled Mitt Romney in the general election in November.
Why have so many viewers stopped watching Hannity? Because he’s a schmuck who spent the entire summer and fall predicting – unsuccessfully – how the President was going to lose to Romney and lose big. When things didn’t quite work out that way, Hannity and his usual gang of political misfits (Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, and Sarah Palin to name a few) looked obtuse and incredibly out of touch with the smallest shred of political reality. Anyone willing to look objectively at the polling data knew Romney was going to lose, anyone, except for Hannity and crew.
But wait, there’s more, Nielsen’s also reporting Hannity’s lost more than half of his 25-to-54-year-old audience members of angry white Christian gun loving tin foil hat wearing couch potato crunching men, a demographic crucial in relation to advertising dollars for his program and thence FOX News.
Hannity isn’t losing his audience simply because he blew political chunks where the election was concerned, he’s losing it because of his incessant whining, moaning and complaining about everything the President does. He’s losing it because of the company he keeps agreeing with Ann Coulter’s one thing (as bad as that is), but setting up house with the likes of Ted Nugent? Hannity’s become a hateful little man, with an annoying little whiny voice and if his ratings continue to slide at the current rate the nation will soon be blessed without his program. Perhaps FOX News will continue chopping heads, and Sean’s will be next; first Palin, then Morris and next Hannity? One can only hope.
Our blacks are so much better than their blacks?
Conservative thought courtesan Ann “Banshee” Coulter has been making the cable talk show rounds attempting to defend Herman “Pizza Man” Cain against sexual harassment allegations. Earlier this week she appeared on FOX PAC, telling Sean Hannity black conservatives are better than black liberals. “Our blacks are so much better than their blacks,” she said.
Appearing on the “Joy Behar” show, the banshee was given a chance to clarify the remark, but of course being who she is, she chose not to.
“I’m saying Google Maxine Waters, Cynthia McKinney and John Conyers, or Google Allen West, Michael Steele or Herman Cain,” Coulter said. “Ours are more impressive. There is no question about that.”
“When Michael Steele was running for Senate, liberals showed up and rolled Oreos down the aisle at him,” Coulter added. “The only racism you hear is against conservative blacks–and it is vicious.”
The problem with her little story about Michael Steele being assaulted with Oreos is that isn’t true (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=&sid=622881) or at best is greatly exaggerated by the likes of Coulter and Hannity as evidence of “liberal racism” (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200604260015).
But the banshee was finished with her racially charged commentaries, earlier she tweeted a comment regarding the Kim Kardashian divorce, “Kim Kardashian inspires slogan for 2012 presidential campaign,” she tweeted. “[Once] you go half-black, you CAN go back.”
Coulter is firing off half-thought commentary falling in line with Rush Limbaugh that the accusations against Cain are part of a process to tear down a black Republican. “Liberals detest, detest, detest conservative blacks,” she said. “…This is now the second time a conservative black has had outrageous and what appear to be false allegations leveled against him.”
Hannity said that, while he was not downplaying the seriousness of sexual harassment, he felt that everyday office banter was being misconstrued too often as inappropriate. “These people are humorless,” he said.
So, here we have Sean Hannity supporting sexual harassment victims as being humorless? Problem with guys like Hannity is they just don’t get it; there are serious limits on what someone can and cannot say to someone – anyone – in a professional environment, and certainly inviting a woman to your private corporate apartment (as Cain allegedly did) is one of the things you cannot do.
Hannity was confused – hard to believe I know – as to why liberals were, in his words, so “threatened” by Cain. Coulter was blunt in her response.
“Our blacks are so much better than their blacks,” she said, speaking of Democrats. “To become a black Republican, you don’t just roll into it. You’re not going with the flow…and that’s why we have very impressive blacks in the Republican party.”
“Our blacks are so much better than their blacks”? Really? Did you really just say “Our blacks are so much better than their blacks”? There are so many different rabbit holes this comment could send everyone into, such as, is Coulter somehow claiming ownership over conservative blacks? At best her comment demonstrates an incredible amount of ignorance regarding race; at worse it shows a racist sub current flowing below the peroxide.
Coulter Blames Liberals for Herman Cain’s Sexual Harassment?
The Banshee of the uber-conservative talking heads has decided where the truth lies regarding the charges of sexual harassment against Herman Cain; and it isn’t on the Pizza Man’s shoulders. “There’s nothing liberals fear more than a black conservative,” Ann Coulter asserted on Geraldo At Large over the weekend. “This is an outrageous attack on a black conservative who is doing extremely well and I think will be our vice presidential candidate.” Later, in response to fellow conservative Juan Williams challenging her logic, she laughingly claimed, “Right-wingers never bring up personal attacks like this.”
“This is the conservative Republican establishment going after Herman Cain,” Williams retorted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRzk4T_As8U&feature=player_embedded
What was very interesting in all this exchange is while Geraldo required Williams to back up his assertion he apparently never thought to require Coulter to do the same.
Williams said – very logically – that liberals hadn’t yet spun up opposition research operations against Cain. “For the last 10 days, the Republican establishment has been going after Herman Cain,” Williams said, pointing out Cain’s comments on abortion and his tax plan have been attacked by conservatives. “A lot of that has come from people like Grover Norquist who’ve said, ‘This (the 9-9-9 plan) is going to drive up your taxes, don’t fall for it.’ So this is the Republican establishment. Karl Rove, Grover, those guys.”
The Banshee of course had nothing to truly counter Williams evidence, “Number one, right-wingers never bring up personal attacks like this.” After cleaning off my computer screen from my spit takes, I thought, “Really Ms. Coulter, conservatives don’t make personal attacks”? Well, how about Mike Huckabee’s attacks against Mitt Romney’s faith in 2007, and again this past month by Rick Perry? What about allegations against John McCain by the Bush machine in 2000 regarding a “black child” during the lead up to the South Carolina primaries?
Williams pointed out that right now Cain has no liberal opponent. “What he’s running against is Mitt Romney, Rick Perry. Those are the people who are right now fighting, battling Herman Cain and who are being hurt by Herman Cain’s tremendous success… This is a political fight going on for the Republican nomination among Republicans and the split inside there is between Republican establishment and grass roots Tea Party folks – most of whom right now have been going with Herman Cain.”
The Banshee is – as always – off her nut, and completely ignorant to real political facts; Williams however, as a conservative pundit who really pays attention to politics and not just attacking liberals, is spot on with his analysis. Does Coulter really think the Democratic Party is afraid of Herman Cain? He would be a great candidate to run against, and would be torn not just to shreds, but to little tiny shreds by the President in a debate.
Mass executions will end the riots in Britain?
The moon is almost full, the winds howling off the moors, and the Banshee is flying – oh wait, it’s just Ann Coulter. Considering what she spews, she is the next best thing to a Banshee, a very uneducated, uncouth and unappealing banshee.
In her “Human Events” column Coulter starts off by observing, “Those of you following the barbaric rioting in Britain will not have failed to notice that a sizable proportion of the thugs are white, something not often seen in this country.”
Meaning what? That white people don’t riot here in America, riots here are only caused by the barbaric Blacks, Indians and Latinos? Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s what she meant to imply, especially when you consider the audience she writes for. The angry white male red neck Christian uber-conservative FOX News watching crowd; you know the type, the ones who show up at “spontaneous” Tea Party events with racist signs carrying guns.
Coulter’s uneducated guess is that the cause of the rioting in the UK is it’s entitlements, “With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes.”
“I guess we now have the proof of what conservatives have been saying since forever: Looting is a result of liberal welfare policies. And Britain is in the end stages of the welfare state.”
Coulter then went on ad nauseam about single mothers in the UK and how all the young people there are drunk, tattooed, sex crazed and on the dole; and that it’s the county’s “redistributive welfare system” that is “ fast returning the native population to its violent 18th-century highwaymen roots.”
England is returning to its violent 18th-century highwaymen roots”? Can she be any more insulting to the English? Her words imply that the vast majority of the English population during the 18th-century were robbers and thieves. I wonder if that includes the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin; after all they were all Englishmen during the 18th-century. The revered Founding Fathers were highwaymen?
Continuing her spewtations, the Banshee said, “Democrats would be delighted if violent mobs like those in Britain arose here — perhaps in Wisconsin! That would allow them to introduce yet more government programs staffed by unionized public employees, as happened after the 1992 L.A. riots and the 1960s race riots.”
Again, wow. “Democrats would be delighted if violent mobs like those in Britain arose here – perhaps in Wisconsin!?” OK, she’s insane; that’s the only rational explanation for anyone to write something that absurd. That’s just stupid; no it’s beyond stupid it’s incredibly moronic, and yet thousands of FOX News conservatives across the country are nodding in agreement with her.
Banshee went on to howl, “Inciting violent mobs is the essence of the left’s agenda: Promote class warfare, illegitimate children and an utterly debased citizenry.”
Yes she caught us. Inciting violent mobs is and always has been on the left’s agenda; good old liberals like Samuel and John Adams inciting the debased citizenry of Boston into throwing that tea overboard and to revolt against good King George. Of course let’s not forget Benjamin Franklin fathering some illegitimate children.Thank God for Liberals eh Ann?
And what oh witch of the moors is the cure for the riots?
“A few well-placed rifle rounds and the rioting would end in an instant. A more sustained attack on the rampaging mob might save England from itself, finally removing shaved-head, drunken parasites from the benefits rolls that Britain can’t find the will to abolish on moral or utilitarian grounds,” Banshee screams. “We can be sure there’s no danger of killing off the next Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke in these crowds.”
Typical conservative answer, mass murder of your own citizenry; now what other uber-conservative nations have done that very thing? Let me think; oh yeah, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I guess there’s little doubt which side Coulter would have rooted for; she’s already proven herself – on numerous occasions – to be both a racist and an anti-Semite.
“This is how civilizations die,” the Banshee declares. “It can happen overnight, as it did in Revolutionary France. If Britain of 1939 were composed of the current British population, the entirety of Europe would today be doing the “Heil Hitler” salute and singing the “Horst Wessel Song.” And of course Ms Coulter would be singing in the bass section.
Repeal the 26th Amendment, or Ann Coulter Thinks 18-25 Year Olds Are Too Stupid to Vote?
The Banshee of the Right – Ann Coulter – has come out of her cave once again, bellowing that because young people between the ages of 18-25 voted overwhelmingly for President Obama they should be punished and the Congress should repeal the 26th Amendment to do so.
The 26th Amendment was adopted on 1 Jul 1971, limiting the minimum voting age in America to no more than 18, in response to young Americans being drafted into military service during the Vietnam War. It was widely felt that if young men were old enough to fight and die for their country, they were old enough to vote in its elections. And who was the first American President to put forth this socialistic idea of allowing the young to vote? President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
During his 7 Jan 1954 State of the Union address President Eisenhower said, “For years our citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 have, in time of peril, been summoned to fight for America. They should participate in the political process that produces this fateful summons. I urge Congress to propose to the States a constitutional amendment permitting citizens to vote when they reach the age of 18.” – Read more: State of the Union Address: Dwight D. Eisenhower (January 7, 1954) — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/166.html#ixzz155JtcX4S
So, almost 40 years after its adoption Coulter now puts forth the idea that young Americans are too stupid to vote, simply because they’re not rushing in droves to vote for the likes of John McCain and Sarah Palin?
Coulter says, “Adopted in 1971 at the tail end of the Worst Generation’s anti-war protests, the argument for allowing children to vote was that 18-year-olds could drink and be conscripted into the military, so they ought to be allowed to vote.
“But 18-year-olds aren’t allowed to drink anymore. We no longer have a draft.”
The point Coulter misses on the draft was made by President Eisenhower, “For years our citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 have, in time of peril, been summoned to fight for America.”
Did you catch that Ann? “… have, in time of peril, been summoned to fight for America.” That would mean during a draft. Your statement that we no longer have a draft is either a deliberate lie or you’re just too stupid to know that every young man in America is required – by law – to register for selective service. That would of course be for moments when “… in time of peril” to be “… summoned to fight for America.”
Coulter continues her reasons for repeal, “Eighteen- to 26-year-olds don’t have property, spouses, children or massive tax bills. Most of them don’t even have jobs because the president they felt so good about themselves for supporting wrecked the economy.”
Just one more lie from the Banshee, “…the president they felt so good about themselves for supporting wrecked the economy.” I’m sorry? Did they vote for President Bush? The economy was already well off the road and in the ditch before President Obama was sworn into office. But, when you’re a right wing banshee who cares about trifling little facts like that?
Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful?
The right wing’s lead banshee, Ann Coulter, used the murder of abortion Dr. George Tiller to attempt to claim that pro-life extremists are peaceful, and that Muslims are not. Not Muslim extremists, Muslims; All Muslims.
“Why aren’t liberals rushing to assure us this time that “most pro-lifers are peaceful”? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful,” Coulter said.
In an attempt to justify her claim, she compared 9-11 to just “five abortionists” killed since Roe v. Wade became law.
“According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion – which is consistent with liberals’ hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade,” Coulter said. “In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let’s recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.”
A halftime score? I’m not sure how to take that analogy. We’re going to flippantly compare the number of abortions performed in the past 36 years, all legally performed, to the number of people murdered who performed abortions, and do so with a sports analogy? How characteristically feeling of you Ms. Coulter.
But wait, she’s not through. Coulter went on to tie all Muslims living in the United States, almost all of them patriotic, tax paying citizens to the terrorist responsible for the murders of 9-11.
“Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I’m fairly certain they’ve killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number “3,000” keeps popping into my head.
“So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life – and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller – only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.”
Isn’t it interesting that Coulter never uses the term, “Muslim Extremist”; she prefers to just throw all the followers of Islam into one big group. Much the same way Islamic Terrorists throw all non-Muslims into the same bag, or the same way Adolf Hitler and his thugs threw all the Jews of Europe into one group. I think this is very revealing in deed.
I also find it very interesting that Coulter claims only the five actual killings count as acts of violence by right to life extremists. In fact, there have been 22 documented cases of violence carried out by pro life extremists in this country. Now using your own twisted logic Ann, let’s see? Twenty two (22) acts of violence committed by right wing, pro life extremists here in the United States, and only two attacks by extremist Muslims in America, counting the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and then the 9-11 attacks. Now, who exactly appears to be more violent?
Coulter doesn’t just limit her attacks on Muslims however, but also goes after the largest Lutheran organization in America, as well as comparing Dr. Tiller to a notorious serial killer.
“Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller’s fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer,” she said.
Ms. Coulter, like many right wing extremists seems to have forgotten that a woman’s right to an abortion is a protected right in this country. It’s legal. While someone may not agree with abortion, or like Dr. Tiller because he was performing abortions, he was not a serial killer, not was he an executioner.
Coulter continues her rant by questioning whether Tiller had a right to live.
She said, “The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: “A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born.” As long as we’re deciding who does and doesn’t have an “absolute right to be born,” who’s to say late-term abortionists have an “absolute right” to live?”
Ms. Coulter, inciting someone to commit murder would make you as guilty as the person who acts based on your words. When you make such a statement you are inciting others to act violently. And, oh by the way, who are you to decide who has an absolute right to live? While I may think you’re a right wing extremist nut job, I would defend your “absolute right” to live. Yes, even you have an “absolute right” to live.
