In Praise (Again) Of The Great Ann Coulter

How can a  steamroller be so agile?

I anxiously awaited Ms. Coulter's column yesterday. I knew it had to be about the immigration bill, and I wondered of she would finally unload on Bush. If you haven't read it, she didn't.

But how can a hydraulic press be so deft?

I haven't spoken to Ann in a while, so this is mere speculation, but while she mentioned El Presidente, she chose to focus on the problem, and I reckoned it was because bulldozing a Bush served no purpose. It was overkill, and it would cost way more than Bush is worth. He's virtually untouchable anyway, and intense criticism now only divides conservatives.

Lesson learned, although since my criticism seems to unite conservatives, I may not change course.

In any case, Bush has all he needs, but he doesn't have all he wants – the grand prize – the reason why his big money backers bought him. Our job is to keep him from attaining that goal, but our bigger job is to unite in restoring America and its vision – for Americans.

That means we welcome legal immigrants – from a variety of nations, not tens of million from one, so matter how much we like their food and their music.

Ann did cite what I've been saying for years, only she said it better:

"In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner. One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population. "

Too general? Does she presume too much?

How about this:

"If liberals think Iraqis are genetically incapable of pulling off even the most rudimentary form of democracy, why do they believe 50 million Mexicans will magically become good Americans, imbued in the nation's history and culture, upon crossing the Rio Grande?"

Ann Coulter, ladies and gentlemen – accept no substitutes.

Then she quotes Samuel P. Huntington's book "Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity:"

"Would America be the America it is today if in the 17th and 18th centuries it had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish or Portuguese Catholics?

So forget Bush. I mean, leave him to me, you have more important things to do. Please just remember the next time you hear him say that deporting 12 million illegals would be "impractical," If that's true, it was he, more than anyone else, who made it so.

————–

In other news, filthy O'Reilly labeled Michael Savage "a hater" today, because he claimed that Savage posted pictures on his website in which he allegedly alluded to the possibility that they were our missing soldiers in Iraq.

I say "allegedly," because The Factor scumbag couldn't be bothered with providing any quotes, nor could he even speculate as to why Savage might have done something like that. This is not the first time O'Weasel has sought to exalt and advance himself as the voice of moderation at the expense of conservatives. It's not even the hundredth.

For my part, I don't like Michael Savage's crude ways, and I don't listen to him, but I'll defend him all day, everyday, sight unseen if I have to choose between him and opportunists like O'Reilly. And if Savage is a hater, I know for a fact that he at least hates the right things.

One more note. I don't think O'Reilly knows how mush he's like Don Imus. Both think (thought) they were more powerful than they are, and when the chips were down with Imus, he was shown to be impotent because in reality, he had no supporters.

 

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to In Praise (Again) Of The Great Ann Coulter

  1. KatieKat says:

    Oh no…we agree. O'Reilly is nothing more than an opportunist former tabloid journalist. He would sell out his mother if it meant getting ahead…

  2. Max says:

    One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been.WTF? I am not surprised that Ann wrote it, I am surprised anyone would find this pseudo-historical (and yes – racist) hooey worth quoting…If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. She is still talking about the hypothetical Mexican dictatorship that rapes white women, forces white males into labor camps, forcibly separates white children from their parent and raises them in Mexican families, and most importantly exisists solely in Ann's sick head, right? Here is the definition of genocide:"Genocide is the mass killing of, a group of people, as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."" (from here)So it wouldn't be called genocide – it would be called typical Ann Coulter's hogwash.

  3. I read every article by Ann, she is so awesome. She is also fearless in the sense of World War ll, America. America first and always. She also says nothing she cannot back up with facts, unlike the left. Funny, the conservative side has produced more prolific female writers than the woman loving Democrats. They don't mean what they say. They have no Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin or Laura Ingraham. I am glad they are on our side.

  4. TedWest says:

    Katie, I know people on your side of the sanity divide think O is a conservative, but I've never met a conservative who likes him, and in the issue I mentioned, I am at a loss to understand what provoked O'Reilly and whom he thought he's be fooling, because you likely have no interest, and people who know anything about Savage know that he would never intentionally denigrate, demean or exploit our soldiers.
    Now Max, apparently your friends haven't clued you in about me, but I'm going to give you a pass because it makes me uncomfortable to ridicule anencephalics.
    I smiled when I saw Ann use the term "genocide," because I knew she did it intentionally to hook people like you. You do love your keywords. They're like dangling something shiny in front of you, I know..
    Which brings me to your other keyword: "racist," as in, I don't countenance people who are, much less do I allow them to post their garbage here. And there's probably nothing worse than a racist who's against his own race.
    You do realize I'm talking about you?
    I'll decide what's racist. We discuss issues here. We do it directly, frankly, openly, and freely, and I don't let real racists like yourself showcase their hatred.

  5. Max says:

    Now Ted,Nobody has clued me in about you, because, frankly, nobody gives a rat’s ass about your ramblings. Your self-important writing is something I was ignoring for a long time, and truth be told, should have continued to ignore. You posted in a public group (political) and I had a sudden urge to call a turd a turd (Ann Coulter – racist). I regret succumbing to this urge.As for Ann’s writing – I always smile when I run into her babble. Of course she used the word “genocide” on purpose. It’s like calling Israel a Nazi state – an etymological oxymoron that gets everyone’s attention. Because let’s be honest here – attention is what Ann (and you for that matter) live for. Doesn’t matter if it’s a negative type of attention – for people like Ann any attention is good, for after all, that’s how she makes a living (of people like you primarily.) When I used the word “racist” to describe Ann – I knew that you would get all worked up about it. However, I did not expect your perverted definition of this term to include – “race traitors” like me. I have to admit – you succeeded in surprising me in that regard. As to my “anencephalic” nature – thank you. Insults from people like you prove that a) I am on the right path, since if you praised me it would indicate that something is terribly wrong with me;and b) You do not have an actual counterpoint to my position. You enjoy spitting out your pompous nonsense in front of people that agree with you, and yet run away from any actual argument, hiding behind insults and pseudo-humorous statements.

  6. TedWest says:

    Correction: We thought Sad Max was a mindless bigot, but now it appears he's a friendless, undisciplined, mindless bigot.

  7. Chad says:

    Dang Ted! No matter how hard you try, you always seem to get attention, even from those who don't want you to get attention. You're truly a gifted man. I don't give a flip about your ramblings either, which is why I spend so much time reading and commenting on your blog. You, you, you…..conservative tote Nazi!Have a good one ol bean:)C

  8. ed-infinitum says:

    It, generally, takes one to take a brave step out of the proverbial 'box' prior to criticising 'one's own' 'race'. For, in such a step, s/he has taken a step towards becoming a part of the race of Cosmopolitans. We ought to take a cultural critic as nothing but. For to judge the content of what s/he says by the colour of her/is skin comes at the price of missing the point altogether.

  9. TedWest says:

    Thanks for the setup, Chad, you've been really terrific, and it gives me a chance to say again how the much I appreciate so many of the acquaintances I've made here.
    The problem Max had is a common one, that of assuming he has a position on something, that it makes sense, and that it's worth debating.
    You should have been here when John was playing the Max character. He was very intelligent and well-educated. We know this because he never missed an opportunity to tell us so. Even better, John knew the terms and principles of logical argument – Sadly though, he was unable to deploy them.
    Here's what I mean. On Maddy's blog, Ole John attempted to rationalize the Democrats all having taken separate private planes to the Carolina debate.a month or so back by saying that a la Gerald Ford when he was Veep, it was probably too expensive for the Demdolts to travel commercial.
    And so in a couple of sentences, John had made a complete mess of himself.
    First, no one knew a lick about Ford traveling commercial, and John offered no documentation even when requested to do so by yours truly. I doubt he ever did, and I feel confident that Ford never traveled commercial in the context in which John wished to frame it.
    But more importantly – what has expense got to do with anything when it's the environment that's at stake and the Dems are the self-designated protectors of it?
    Somewhere here, I think I used my longtime slogan: "Helping stupid people realize their full potential." I remember one girl once upbraiding me for being so rude and ignoring my "vow," completely missing the point that I was, in fact, helping her to be as stupid as she possibly could be.
    So Max certainly won't be the last, but I try to to be cordial and reasonable with anyone who shows even a rudimentary awareness, not unlike I was this time around with Kate.
    Meanwhile, Ed here is being all general and "philosophical," so it wouldn't be fair for me to make a formal assessment at this time. And I think he prefers detachment, anyway.
    And although I have no patience whatsoever for sub-Kates, I'm proud of the fact that I've managed to refrain from being even the slightest bit nasty over all these thirteen years..
    But in answer to your specific comment, it's a skill like anything else. Most people prefer to avoid conflict. Me, I write to inflame. Max was only unusual in his admission that I finally got to him. But there are countless Maxes, and there's only one me.
    I think you know I don't say things I don't mean unless it's an attempt to ensnare idiots, so I'm telling you again that I like your style very much. You're going to be here long after I'm gone, either because I'm going to have a stroke or because I just can't stand looking at the growing sea of fools anymore. so I'm counting on you to carry on. Just remember that you have to name names. If nothing else, it makes them feel special.
    Oh and remember too, all of these fine liberals surely graduated in the top ten percent of their classes and only became liberals through an unfortunate and ongoing series of accidents that leaves them with the I.Q.s of bubble wrap, so I hope you'll be as merciful as I always have been?!?

  10. Scio, Scio says:

    Max used to be so nice on my blog…he's snippy lately. He really
    didn't like my suggestions on immigration. I think he believes
    humanity can somehow coexist peacefully by talking about it or
    something.

  11. TedWest says:

    Well, I think I proved him wrong, then.

  12. TedWest says:

    You know, Sci, I got to thinking that this is the second person you've mentioned having some trouble with, and, well, you've simply got to start treating people better.
    Because they're apparently leaving you and coming here and annoying me.

  13. Scio, Scio says:

    I'm sorry Ted. Maybe they think you're more reasonable than I am?
    Or perhaps I *ahem* befuddle them with my intellect and they retreat, blinded, into your blog/maw.

  14. Someone please help me off the floor, the tears of laughter are free flowing down my face like Niagara Falls and I can't get up. Thank goodness I have a wireless keyboard. I love you guys. You have charm and wit and that is a pretty good combination. I like playing with the boys, even when I finish last. At least you know I don't quit or back down at the first sign of adversity. Hope you don't mind having a girl, a blond no less, on your team.

  15. TedWest says:

    Maddy, here's my problem: I would much rather be doing schtick than writing seriously about politics, but I seem to share an affliction with a very talented writer named Julia Gorin, who would first and foremost like to be known as a comedian.
    The problem is, we can't get over being outraged at the injustice and stupidity we encounter.
    But that takes a toll, as you know, so periodically, I vow to stick to the lighter side…
    And if I'm lucky, that sometimes lasts for an entire day!
    But there's nothing more fulfilling than having someone laugh at what you say or write… it's way better than having people agree with your point of view.
    Now, Scio, if people think I'm more reasonable than you are, they're dumber than we ever imagined, and that's really saying something. The intellect part is more believable, even if that isn't necessarily saying much for you, since most of them couldn't even spell "intellect."

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s