I agree! And whether you agree with her or not, the woman knows her stuff and just spits it out! And she truly does NOT back down from anyone! Talk about thick skinned. But that's what ya need if you're gonna be 'out there'!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
If you're going to get involved in politics on the radio, TV or news paper you'd better have thick skin because the Dems will go after you. I just read on the Drudge report that the Dems right hand organization Move On. Org is trying to get Fox News sponsors to drop their support to Fox. They just approached Home Depot to drop their adds on the show. That's real nice if you don't like what's being said on a program you create a small army of members to call all the sponsors and threaten to not buy their products. Move On really doesn't like Bill O'Reilly as he investigated one of their left wing programs and said that the program was just a hate filled propaganda show.
CNN commentators keep telling us how young and hip the audience was for last week's YouTube Democratic debate, apparently unaware that the camera occasionally panned across the audience, which was the same oddball collection of teachers' union shills and welfare recipients you see at all Democratic gatherings.
Noticeably, Gov. Bill Richardson got the first "woo" of the debate -- the mating call of rotund liberal women -- for demanding a federal mandate that would guarantee public schoolteachers a minimum salary of $40,000.
So much for the "younger, hipper" audience. Maybe CNN meant "hippier," as in, "My, she's looking a bit hippy these days."
Not counting talking snowmen, the main difference in the YouTube debate audience and the audience for the earlier CNN Democratic debate is that the YouTube debate had 173,000 fewer viewers in the 18-49 demographic. So it was provably not young and, on the basis of casual observation, definitely not hip.
As usual, the audience consisted mostly of public schoolteachers. According to CNN, the highest reading achieved on the CNN feelings-knob was for Richardson talking about public schoolteachers. (Some in the audience said they hadn't been that excited since the last time they had sex with an underage student.)
B. Hussein Obama said he was for slavery reparations in many forms, but the only one that got applause was for more "investment" in schools. In Obama's defense, the precise question was: "But is African-Americans ever going to get reparations for slavery?" So a switch to the subject of education was only natural.
Moreover, a question on reparations has got to be confusing when you're half-white and half-black. What do you do? Demand an apology for slavery and money from yourself? I guess biracial reparations would involve sending yourself money, then sending back a portion of that money to yourself, minus 50 percent in processing fees -- which is the same way federal aid works.
It was fun to hear the Democratic candidates give heart-rending reasons for not sending their own kids to public schools. Except John Edwards. He got a "woo" for sending his kids to public schools from all those "young, hip" Democrats whose greatest concern is how to transfer more money to public schoolteachers while reducing their workload.
The candidates all managed to come up with good reasons for sending their kids to private schools -- with extra points for reasons that involved a family tragedy or emergency -- but it didn't seem to occur to any of them that ordinary families might have good reasons, too.
In her first risible lie of the debate, Hillary said Chelsea went to public schools in Arkansas. But when they moved to Washington, they were advised that "if she were to go to a public school, the press would never leave her alone, because it's a public school. So I had to make a very difficult decision."
"Unfortunately," she said, it was "good advice."
Was it really that difficult a decision not to send Chelsea to public schools in Washington, D.C.?
This is how The New York Times recently described the schools in Washington, which it called "arguably the nation's most dysfunctional school system."
"Though it is one of the country's highest-spending districts, most of the money goes to central administration, not to classrooms, according to a recent series of articles in The Washington Post. Its 55,000 mostly poor students score far worse than comparable children anywhere else in reading and math, with nearly 74 percent of the district's low-income eighth-graders lacking basic math skills, compared with the national average of 49 percent."
So Hillary was dying to send Chelsea to the D.C. public schools, but "unfortunately" did not do so only because of the press? Did she also agonize over whether to allow Chelsea to play in traffic?
She was not dying to send Chelsea to D.C. public schools. And no Democrat cares about "education" or "the poor."
Democrats care about social service bureaucrats who make their living allegedly working on behalf of the poor -- the famed "public service" the Democrats always drone on about -- jobs that would disappear if we ever eliminated poverty. That's why Democrats keep coming up with policies designed to create millions and millions more poor people.
Democrats fight tooth and nail against any measures that would actually help the poor, such as allowing schools to fire bad teachers. They refuse to allow parents with children in the rotten D.C. public schools to take money out of the public school system so their kids could go to Sidwell Friends like Chelsea.
Most important, Democrats resolutely refuse to tell the poor the secret to not being poor: Keep your knees together until marriage.
That's it. Not class size, not preschool, not even vouchers, though vouchers would obviously improve the education of all students. You could have lunatics running the schools -- and often do -- and if the kids live with married parents, they will end up at good colleges and will lead happy, productive lives 99 percent of the time.
But Democrats don't care about the poor. They don't care about the children. They care about government teachers and other government bureaucrats -- grimy, dowdy women who "woo" at political debates. Or as CNN calls them, the "young," "hip" crowd.
You have to love her for her willingness to tell it like it is. She won't have many teachers in her corner but a lot of what she said was true. Get an education, the teachers have got to start teaching again instead of just putting in their time and collecting a big paycheck for doing nothing.
Most important, Democrats resolutely refuse to tell the poor the secret to not being poor: Keep your knees together until marriage.
She is just too hysterical....but the best!!! The entire article was excellent. Thank God for people like Ann Coulter who has the courage and the thick skin and if she was a man, the ba**s, to tell it like it is!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
And we cant live by testing our kids to death.....that leads to narrow minded mind control.....memorize it memorize it memorize it.......it is very very easy to 'slip in' ideologies under the guise of----"it's just for testing purposes"......
teachers need to teach and parents need to teach......
What are we teaching is the big question........where is the foundation??
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Democrats care about social service bureaucrats who make their living allegedly working on behalf of the poor -- the famed "public service" the Democrats always drone on about -- jobs that would disappear if we ever eliminated poverty. That's why Democrats keep coming up with policies designed to create millions and millions more poor people.
WOW!! Did she ever say a mouthfull here. She hit it right on the head!!!!! And she is talking Washington DC here. I would love her to take a close look at NYS!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
If at First You Don’t Succeed, Lie, Lie Again by Ann Coulter
Suspiciously, Daniel Pearl's widow is suddenly being lavishly praised by the Treason Lobby. Jane Mayer, co-author of the discredited hit-book on Clarence Thomas, "Strange Justice," published an article in The New Yorker last week recounting that Mariane Pearl was called by Alberto Gonzales in March with the news that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had admitted to American interrogators that he had personally beheaded her husband and they were going to release the transcript to the press. Mayer wrote: "Gonzales' announcement seemed like a publicity stunt."
Frank Rich followed up with an article in The New York Times saying of Gonzales' call: "Ms. Pearl recognized a publicity ploy when she saw it."
Inasmuch as these are journalists who adjudge George Bush more evil than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, their perception of reality is to be treated gingerly. But if Ms. Pearl is toying with the idea of becoming the latest liberal cause celebre, she might want to consider the trajectories of the rest of them.
All the Democrats' most dearly beloved anti-war/anti-Bush heroes invariably end up in the Teresa Heinz Kerry wing of the nut-house. Scott Ritter went from being a trusted U.N. weapons inspector valiantly defending poor, misunderstood Saddam Hussein from George Bush's imperialistic war to being just another creep trying to have sex with underage girls.
Cindy Sheehan once had "absolute moral authority." Now she's just a madwoman writing mash notes to Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.
Max Cleland was a war hero who lost his limbs as a result of Viet Cong grenades, giving him the stature to gleefully taunt George Bush and Dick Cheney. "Where the hell were you in the Vietnam War?" Cleland responded to Cheney. "If you had gone to Vietnam like the rest of us, maybe you would have learned something about war."
Then we learned Cleland was a victim only of his own clumsiness and had dropped the grenade on himself in Vietnam after stopping for a beer.
Bill Burkett was the left's most admired military veteran since Benedict Arnold. He claimed Bush had shirked his National Guard duty and said he had the documents to prove it. According to Dan Rather and CBS News, Burkett was a "solid" and "unimpeachable" source who was being attacked by "partisan political operatives."
And then Burkett turned out to be a foaming-at-the-mouth loon. He was eventually forced to admit on air that he had "misled" CBS on the phony National Guard documents, which is a little like Hugo Chavez "misleading" Sean Penn. Burkett's current medical diagnosis: too crazy to be a homeless person.
The congressional campaign of anti-war Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett was treated in the media as if it were the Second Coming. The New York Times described Hackett adoringly as a "lean 6-foot-4, he is garrulous, profane and quick with a barbed retort or a mischievous joke." The Times even produced the obligatory quote-ready Republican who said that "Mr. Hackett's service had caused him to consider voting Democratic."
Then we found out with a little more specificity what some of those quick-witted barbs were. Hackett called the president a "chickenhawk," referred to Bush's "Bring it on" statement as "the most incredibly stupid comment," and called Bush "the biggest threat in America." Yes, he was a veritable Noel Coward, that Hackett.
Soon, even Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Chuck Schumer were trying to get Hackett to drop his next political campaign for the U.S. Senate.
Gen. Wesley Clark was once compared to Eisenhower, which, in mediaspeak, means: "He is virulently anti-Bush." Democrats were so tickled to have found an anti-war Southerner and retired general, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert asked, is he "just a mirage?"
Then it turned out the only war Clark wanted to lead was America's War on Fetuses, declaring that abortion should be legal for any reason until the moment of birth. Soon Clark was buddying around with Michael Moore and Madonna. Also, he claimed he had received calls from "the White House" by which he meant "a think tank in Canada."
Last we heard, Gen. Clark was on the alternate list for "Dancing With the Stars."
Joe Wilson went from being billed in the media as a trusted adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and billed (by himself) as an eyewitness to the president's "lies," to being an apron-wearing househusband who had been sent on an errand by his wife.
Not only did he fail to debunk the Niger yellowcake story, he also forgot to bring home the quart of milk his wife had requested. (Wilson is now demanding a congressional investigation into who leaked the classified information that his wife wears the pants in the family.)
The Joe Wilson celebrity tour officially ended when The Washington Post editorialized: "It's unfortunate that so many people took (Wilson) seriously" -- not the least of whom were reporters at The Washington Post itself.
Most recently, The New Republic's "Baghdad Diarist" has been unveiled as a liar, another illustrious chapter in that magazine's storied history of publishing con men and frauds.
If conservatives are the ones driven by ideological passions, then why are liberals the ones always falling for laughable hoaxes in support of their anti-war ideological agenda? And if liberal beliefs are true, why do they need all the phony stunts to prove them? How about liberals keep hoaxes out of politics and return them to their rightful place: "proving" Darwinian evolution.
Wow...I guess the dems will dig up and use just about anyone for promoting their agenda. The dems should clearly do background checks on these people if they are going to use them for their poitical ploys. The people they use to worship, they end up crucifying anyways.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Unfortunatly there are plenty of them around! The dems truly do embrace the nuts! And some are actually in a political office!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
The left-wing organization People For the American Way has sent out a mass e-mail to its supporters targeting Ann Coulter at an upcoming speech she will deliver at Xavier University in Cincinnati on Sept. 6.
The e-mail sent this past week says it is seeking to turn the conservative commentator’s “hatemongering against her” at an Ohio rally.
Noting that Coulter will receive a speaking fee of around $20,000, or about $5 per Xavier student, the mailing says People For the American Way (PAW) is “asking 'progressives' to chip in $5 to support groups like Xavier’s Gay-Straight Alliance, Amnesty International, Habitat for Humanity, and Earthcare.
“Can you spare just $5 to support the same communities Coulter regularly bashes for pay?”
While Coulter is speaking, PAW and other left-wing students and activists “will participate in a rally on Xavier’s campus, where we will counter Coulter’s divisive message and present a check to Xavier’s progressive student groups for the total amount raised.”
The mailing touts the effort as “a way for progressives to turn radical right-wingers’ vitriol, bigotry, and intolerance against them, while at the same time bolstering our movement.”
It’s signed “Your Allies (Against the Radical Right) at People for the American Way.”
Coulter’s next book, “If Democrats Had Brains, They’d Be Republicans,” is due out in October.
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards escalated his feud with author Ann Coulter by calling her a "she-devil" on a visit to Iowa.
According to Editor & Publisher, Coulter had hurled a gay slur at Edwards earlier this year, and after more back and forth, his wife called her during a national TV appearance to ask some hard questions.
Edwards had reminded the crowd today in Burlington, Iowa, that his wife had challenged Coulter to stop "personal attacks." He continued: "We know these people. We know their game plan. They're going to attack us personally," Edwards said, according to an ABC report. "They attacked Elizabeth personally, because she stood up to that she-devil Ann Coulter."
Catching himself, he added: "I should not have name-called. But the truth is -- forget the names -- people like Ann Coulter, they engage in hateful language."
Logged
Did she ever say a mouthfull here. She hit it right on the head!!!!! And she is talking Washington DC here. I would love her to take a close look at NYS!!!
