Advertisements
Home

DAMNING REPORT: Ann Coulter Releases List of Women Trump Sexually Assaulted

Leave a comment

This is from Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.

Ann Coulter has a wicked sense of humor.

 

n some ways, the Trump campaign will actually like this report coming out. See why!

By Ann Coulter

The New York Times’ front-page article last Saturday on Donald J. Trump’s dealings with women forced me into a weekend of self-examination. As much as I support Trump, this isn’t a cult of personality. He’s not Mao, Kim Jong-un or L. Ron Hubbard. We can like our candidates, but still acknowledge their flaws. No one’s perfect.

I admit there are some things about Trump that give me pause. I’m sure these will come out eventually, so I’m just going to list them.

First — and this is corroborated by five contemporaneous witnesses — in 1978, Trump violently raped Juanita Broaddrick in a Little Rock, Arkansas, hotel room, then, as he was leaving, looked at her bloody lip and said, “Better put some ice on that” — oh wait, I’m terribly sorry. Did I say Trump? I didn’t mean Trump, I meant Bill Clinton.

Hang on — here we go! Knowing full well about Bill Clinton’s proclivity to sexually assault women, about three weeks after that rape, Trump cornered Broaddrick at a party and said, pointedly, “I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate the things you do for him. Do you understand? Everything you do.”

No! My mistake! That wasn’t Trump either. That was Hillary Clinton… But this next one I’m sure was Trump.

In the early 1990s, Trump invited a young female staffer to his hotel room at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, dropped his pants and said, “Kiss it” — WAIT A SECOND!

I don’t know how this keeps happening. That was Bill Clinton. Please bear with me — it’s late at night and my notes are jumbled.

As CEO of an organization, Trump had a female employee, just months out of her teens, perform oral sex on him while he made business calls. That girl’s name was Monica Lewin– No! Wrong again! That was Bill Clinton, too! Please don’t stop reading. Let me find my Trump notes…

What I meant was that Trump was the one who later smeared that girl as a delusional stalker. She may have volunteered for the sex — at around age 20 — but Monica Lewinsky didn’t volunteer to be slandered! And yet this fiend, this user-of-women, this retrograde misogynist, Donald Trump, deployed his journalist friends, like Sidney Blumenthal, to spread rumors that Monica was a stalker, trying to blackmail the president.

Advertisements

7 Ways Liberals Are Just As Bad As The People They Hate Most

2 Comments

This is from Town Hall.

 

“Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago.” — Ann Coulter

“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”Ronald Reagan

Liberals are the mirror image of everything they claim to hate. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds, their ability to unflinchingly examine their own beliefs is practically non-existent and they are almost incapable of objectively examining the policies they advocate. The more fully people become engulfed by liberalism, the more they embrace political correctness, groupthink, and close-mindedness until their thought process becomes little more than simplistic tribalism.

Liberalism is good, just, and best because it’s liberalism. Conservatism is bad, unjust, and worse because it’s conservatism. End of story.

Seldom do liberals realize that they advocate positions that are just as morally repulsive as the grotesque positions they habitually (and usually incorrectly) attribute to people who disagree with them.

Want some examples?

1) It’s just as bad to accuse people of Islamophobia for being concerned about radical Islam as it is to hate decent, patriotic, peaceful people because they happen to be Muslims. If you can’t acknowledge that there are Muslims who love America and just want to live a good life and there are also Muslims who murder, rape and enslave innocent people because they believe Islam endorses it, then it doesn’t matter which side of the fence you come down on; you don’t have a good grasp on reality.

2) It’s just as bad to support race-based groups like La Raza, MEChA, the New Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network as it is to back the KKK, the Aryan Nation and the American Nazi Party. They may have different levels of societal acceptance, but they’re all race-based groups that are hostile to certain groups of people based on the color of their skin.

3) It’s just as bad to hate men, blame them for everything and accuse them of perpetuating rape culture as it is to hate women and view them as being good for nothing other than having sex, bringing you beer and making you sandwiches. Anyone, male or female, who holds members of the opposite sex in contempt has deep-seated issues that need to be worked through with a psychologist.

4) It’s just as bad to idolize Communists like Mao, Castro, and Che Guevara as it is to idolize Nazis like Adolph Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Hermann Goering. They’re both similar ideologies, they both killed tens of millions, and whether an innocent person was sent to his death by a mass murderer like Stalin or a mass murderer like Adolf Eichmann, he’s still dead.

5) It’s just as bad to hate gay Americans for being gay as it is to try to force Christians to unwillingly participate in gay weddings. Just as holding a sign up in front of a gay man’s funeral is an act of hatred, trying to force someone to bake a cake or take pictures at a wedding that goes against his religious beliefs is also an act of hatred.

6) It’s just as bad to support kangaroo courts in colleges that make it easy for men to be falsely accused of rape as it is to be someone who accuses rape victims of having “brought it on themselves” by wearing short skirts. Either way, you’re blaming the victim and making it easier for innocent people to be victimized by the scum of the earth.

7) It’s just as bad to hate children and wish ill on them as it is to run the deficit up into the stratosphere. In fact, the person who detests children may be BETTER than the profligate spender because he may at least avoid them, while those who advocate massive spending increases “for the children” are putting our nation’s children in a financial hole so big that it may swallow their entire future.

https://social.newsinc.com/media/json/69017/25414514/singleVideoOG.html?videoId=25414514&type=VideoPlayer/16×9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017

6 Arguments Only A Liberal Could Believe

4 Comments

This is from Town Hall.

John Hawkins nails liberals in this article.

 

“Arguing with liberals…it’s like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it’s victorious.” — Anonymous

“If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you’ve said — unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It’s like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.” — Ann Coulter

 

It’s almost impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion with a liberal because while you’re trying to come up with logical points to support your position, he’s trying to come up with new ways to convince people you’re Hitler. Modern liberalism has turned into a willful embrace of stupidity. It’s all about setting reason and intellect aside in order to take an emotionally-satisfying position that makes a liberal feel better about himself. This is how people who are undeniably intelligent can feel good about taking brainless positions that hurt a lot of people. While liberals have emotionally blinded themselves so totally that they believe they’re taking compassionate, intellectual, well-crafted stands, this is how they sound to everyone who’s not a liberal.

1) Everyone who disagrees with a liberal is racist! The Tea Party? Racist! Republicans? Racist! Fox News? Racist? Black conservatives? Racist! Barack Obama’s grandma? Racist! Do I think Social Security is solvent? My position on that is that “You’re a racist!” What do I think about flattening the tax code? Sarah Palin is a racist! Do I like potatoes? Well, Republicans eat potatoes sometimes; so potatoes are racist! Racist, racist, racist!

2) We’re all going to die because man is causing global warming! Proof? It’s science! Granted, no one can explain the science that proves global warming. But, science isn’t about science, it’s about repeating the word “science” over and over again like a magic incantation. Science, science, sciencey, sciencey science! See? It’s science and scientists agree that it’s science! Why do you hate science so much? Why do you want polar bears to die? Oh, and science!

3) (Before Obamacare was passed) Everyone should support Obamacare because it will cover all of the uninsured, it’ll save you money on health care, you’ll get to keep your doctor and it’ll be super convenient! It’s going to be the greatest thing ever! (Now) Sure, Obamacare mostly insures people it knocked off of their existing insurance, it costs a lot more, you can’t keep your doctor and the website is insanely difficult to deal with, but it’s the greatest thing ever!

4) Guns cause crime and if we take guns away from people who haven’t broken the law yet, then criminals will also not have guns somehow. Gun-free zones also protect people from criminals, who we’re sure won’t enter “gun-free zones” for some reason. Unless they do…. Which proves the problem is actually law abiding gun owners somehow or another. And that’s why we need more and more gun laws until all the people who obey gun laws can’t have guns any more, which will save us from criminals and crazy people who don’t care about the law.

5) You can’t expect black people to get voter ID. I mean, white guys? Sure. Hispanics? No problem. Asians and Jews? Obviously. But, have you met any black people in your life? You really think they’re capable of going to a government office with the proper paperwork and coming out with identification with their name on it? These guys? Seriously? Seriously? Okay, well, right after you run across a black American who can figure out how to get his own ID, why don’t we set up classrooms to teach cats how to do Algebra. Hey, Mr. Kitty, 3x + 10 + 2x = 12 + 4x? Black people getting IDs? Geeze….

6) Republicans are waging a war on women! You can tell because they oppose killing female babies and think women should buy their own birth control, just like men! Also, they’re so mean to women! For example, they oppose Hillary Clinton becoming President — obviously because she’s a woman. All criticism of women from conservatives is based on gender.

Not like criticism of that @%$#^ Sarah Palin, who is so incredibly, unbelievably stupid that she only managed to become a mayor, a governor, a VP candidate, put out best selling books, had a successful TV show and became a wealthy, sought-after speaker while getting married and having 5 kids. She’s almost as bad as those @#$%!*$ — Michelle Malkin, S.E. Cupp, and Dana Loesch, although a little more evil than Ann Coulter and Megyn Kelly and more of a @#%@^$%^ #@$%^&(*^ @#$%^ than Laura Ingraham and Jan Brewer! Also, conservatives call women names!

 

Rush Limbaugh Is Pretty Sure This TIme That Obama’s Leading a Coup D’Etat

1 Comment

This is from Yahoo News.

Sadly I think Rush is 100% correct.

It is time for Conservatives to get off their asses and retake

the Republican Party.

It is time to tell Olympia Snowe,Susan Collins,Lindsey Graham

John McCain and Reince Priebus your no longer welcome in the GOP.

If you do not practice and preach Conservatism your not welcome

to be part of the GOP.

Squishy Moderate candidates in  2008 and 2012 gave us eight

years of Barack Milhous Capone Kardashian.

Ronald Reagan won twice running as a Conservative.

Conservatism can and does win when it is tried.

There is not a split between Conservatives on the NSA.

It is between Conservatives and squishy Moderates.

 

There is a split among conservatives between those who think theNSA’s collection of data about every phone call in America is an important counterterrorism tool, and those who think President Obama is, as usual, trampling on the constitution and the flag and the Founding Fathers. But Rush Limbaugh takes it one step further. He says Obama is leading a coup d’etat. And this time it’s for real.

RELATED: Zero Dark Verizon: Why D.C. Hates Leaks Until It Loves Hunting Them Down

On Friday, Limbaugh added up the evidence — the IRS targeting of conservatives, plus Fast and Furious and Obamacare, and now the NSA. “The evidence of the totalitarian nature or the authoritarian nature of this administration is on display undeniably every day,” he said. What does it add up to? “Herbert Meyer,” — a blogger at American Thinker — “asserted that essentially what’s taking place in the United States right now is a coup, not a violent coup, and not a [militaristic] coup, but nevertheless a takeover of a government, and it’s being done by the Obama administration.” Limbaugh emphatically agrees:

He referred to it as a coup. I don’t know if he used the word “peaceful,” but clearly there’s a coup d’etat going. You know it and I know it. This is what animates us. This is why the Tea Party exists. This country was founded on certain concepts, principles, beliefs — and they’re under assault. Chief among them under assault is the right to privacy, and that’s what all this is about. So in the midst of this coup d’etat… I happen to like that formulation.

You know how we know Limbaugh likes that formulation? Because he’s said Obama has been leading a coup so many times.

RELATED: Obama’s NSA Defense: Congress Can Raise Objections It Can’t Actually Raise

  • February 26, 2009: “This is not even about politics anymore, folks. This is really not even about politics. I’m going to have to come up with a way of explaining that so you understand what I mean. This is not about politics. It’s a political coup, maybe, if you want to look at it that way.”
  • September 23, 2009: “I did refer to this as a coup, a bloodless coup. He has delivered the United States to the global powers without firing a shot.”
  • September 23, 2009: [in a Rush quote roundup] “I would describe what Obama is doing to this country as basically a coup. It’s just frightening. He talks about a New World Order, and the New World Order is him. Obama is bigger than his country, bigger than the presidency — he is the world.”
  • September 30, 2010: A caller said Obama’s immigration politics were “the basically coup d’etat tactics.” Limbaugh did not disagree. Later, he said, “Bouncing here off the subject of our last caller, the issue here is the dictatorial nature of this regime and Obama’s willingness to do anything to advance his agenda.”

And that was before all the evidence rolled in! Now all the pieces are falling together. “You know it and I know it,” Limbaugh said. “It’s peaceful, nonviolent. The military isn’t involved. But nevertheless it’s a coup.”

RELATED: Thanks to Rush, Sandra Fluke Is Now an Actual Obama Campaign Operative

On Fox News, Ann Coulter, too, added up all the data and concluded this is about something more than counterterrorism: “with the Rosen case and with the AP listening to their phone lines case or tapping to see where they were calling. And that is that the National Security justification was nonsense. It was bunk.”  (She did not use the c-word.)

RELATED: The Obama Phone’s Roots in Government Deregulation

Dean Chambers, of Unskewed Polls fame, agrees with Limbaugh, and adds one more piece of data — “all the tricks and dirty tactics Obama used to be elected in 2008 and reelected last year.” He concludes, “That’s right lefties, your beloved president Obama was SELECTED, not elected. Selected by the left, put in office by non-violent coup.” However, Obama is the democratically-elected leader of the état in question.

RELATED: From Hawks to Doves in Five Days Flat

And that’s why we are also forced to admit that Limbaugh has been on both sides of the coup issue.

  • June 29, 2009: “Oh, and you know we learned about Honduras? We learned the Obama administration tried to stop the coup. Now, the coup was what many of you wish would happen here without the military.”
  • March 23, 2011:  “But is there a contingency plan for — I don’t want to say an anti-American president, ’cause that’s gonna cloud my real intent here… Is there a contingency plan to deal with a president who is of the belief that the United States is the problem?”

Careful, Rush. Obama is listening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will Boston Bombings Lead to Greater Loss of Privacy?

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

 Just like with The Patriot Act  after 9/11/01.

The TSA act of 2001.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002.

We will see more liberties slip away after the Boston Bombings.

Every time something tragic happens in America, we lose more privacy rights for the sake of security.

After 9/11, the Bush administration formed the Department of Homeland Security who quickly started monitoring personal communications such as email and cell phone calls.  They claimed it was necessary to fight the war on terrorism and keep Americans safe.  Legal challenges were mounted to protect our privacy, but all of those challenges were defeated by judges who ruled that the government had the right to invade our privacy to help insure the nation’s security.

Since 9/11, a number of larger cities in the US began installing hundreds and thousands of surveillance cameras throughout their cities.  The cameras are supposed to be used to help prevent crime and help catch those who commit crimes.  Besides the city governments installing surveillance cameras everywhere, many businesses are also following suit and installing cameras for security measures.

In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel admits that they have thousands of video cameras, public and private, mounted throughout the city that can be accessed by their 9-1-1- center and emergency management personnel.  Again, they claim that the cameras are there purely for safety purposes.  After the bombings in Boston, Emanuel said:

“I will say, as I always have, because we have continued to put cameras throughout the city for security … purposes, they serve an important function for the city in providing the type of safety on a day-to-day basis – not just for big events like a marathon, but day-to-day purposes.”

On Wednesday, Sean Hannity of Fox News asked columnist Ann Coulter how she felt about surveillance cameras.  She told him that she was in favor of them:

“You know I was just thinking about that today and I’m glad you asked me that.  This is a long-standing argument Matt Drudge and I have had. He is against these surveillance cameras. I am for them. I think they are the least restrictive method. I mean, we can’t prevent all violence, as we see. We can do some things, like lock up schizophrenics to cut down on mass public shootings. But leaving that aside, people can commit violence — you can’t stop everything.”

“Are we going to have, you know, armed military guards, turn half the country into a police force and be on every street corner?  And could that have even stopped this? With the surveillance cameras in a public place — they shouldn’t be in the ladies’ bathroom — but in a public place where a cop could be. There are so many surveillance cameras going. It’s not like police watching you at all times. Otherwise you would have to have half the country watching the other half. But after something like this happens, you can go back and look at the tape. And this seems like the least freedom-infringing way to keep America as safe as you can make any free country.”

So how do you feel about having surveillance cameras that track all of your movements out in public?  Do you want law enforcement and the government to know where you go and what you do?  They can already monitor your position via the GPS in your cell phone and they can read your emails and they monitor Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites.

With incidents like the Boston Marathon bombings, we are surely going to lose more privacy, that is if there is any left to lose.  It almost makes me want to wear a wide brim hat and sunglasses whenever I go outside and pay cash for everything so they can’t track me through my credit cards.  As for my cell phone, I still have a dumb phone that doesn’t have internet access and it doesn’t have a GPS.  If I keep it turned off all the time, except when I really need to use it, then they won’t be able to track me that way either.

Is anything private anymore?  Do Americans realize just how little privacy they have these days?  Perhaps it’s time to move completely off the grid, produce my own power via wind or geothermal and grow my own food and say goodbye to our Big Brother society.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/10451/will-boston-bombings-lead-to-greater-loss-of-privacy/#ixzz2Qx9G9fWV

5 Things the Gun Grabbers Apparently Don’t Understand

1 Comment

This is from Clash Daily.

How many times has Josh Marshall has passed concealed carries,

and was not aware of that fact.?

People like Josh Marshall turn my stomach.

 

Screen Shot 2013-03-06 at 8.57.48 AM

“I’m not a gun owner and, as I think as is the case for the more than half the people in the country who also aren’t gun owners, that means that for me guns are alien. In the current rhetorical climate people seem not to want to say: I think guns are kind of scary and don’t want to be around them.” — Josh Marshall

maturity.” — Sigmund Freud

Sorry, but your Second Amendment rights no longer apply because liberals like Josh Marshall tinkle on themselves every time they come within fifty feet of a gun. This is really what the debate on gun control in America comes down to in the end: people who lose nothing if guns are banned because they don’t use them demanding that everyone else be disarmed. Meanwhile, trying to reason with gun control advocates is like arguing with a four year old about whether her imaginary friend is real or not. It doesn’t matter how clearly you prove your case; she’ll be pouring her pal tea two minutes after you’ve left the room. Speaking of imaginary…

1) A “gun free zone” won’t keep bad people with guns away: The basic problem with a “gun free zone” is that anyone you can’t trust with a gun will bring it in anyway while it will cause the people you’d want armed in a dangerous situation to leave their weapons behind. If this concept actually worked, we’d just train all of our soldiers in Jiu-jitsu and then we’d declare everywhere we sent them to be a “gun free zone.” Admittedly, Mortal Kombat: Afghanistan sounds like it would be an amazing movie, but someone needs to inform Democrats that the world doesn’t really work this way.

2) Criminals and lunatics don’t obey gun laws: The belief that someone who’s planning to go on a killing spree is going to turn in a gun because it’s made illegal is almost as nuts as going on the killing spree. Yet, the gun grabbers in the Democrat Party operate on the assumption that nut jobs like Adam Lanza or a gangbanger who sells crack for a living is going to get rid of a high-capacity magazine if Congress says he can’t have it. That’s like a prohibitionist who gets upset about alcoholism and deals with the problem by demanding that all the people without drinking problems have to be kept away from booze.

3) We already have somewhere between 200-300 million guns in this country: Adding to the last point, ever heard this old joke?

A drunk loses the keys to his house and is looking for them under a lamppost. A policeman comes over and asks what he’s doing. “I’m looking for my keys” he says. “I lost them over there”.
The policeman looks puzzled. “Then why are you looking for them all the way over here?”
“Because the light is so much better”.

If there were no already existing guns in America, gun control could conceivably help keep weaponry out of the hands of criminals and mass murderers. However, in a nation that’s already armed to the teeth, the next Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, Tookie Williams or Mumia Abu-Jamal has already got his gun and new laws will only disarm law abiding Americans.

4) Gun owners aren’t required to explain a “need” for our Second Amendment rights: Why do gun owners “need” their guns? The same reason that Rosa Parks “needed” her seat at the front of the bus. In other words, it’s our constitutional right; so kiss off! If you need more of an explanation than that, why does California “need” to have its votes counted in the next presidential election? Why do we “need” so many liberal newspapers? Why not close a few? Why do movie stars “need” to make so much money for their films? Why don’t we confiscate it? What was it that Ann Coulter said?

“Free people are not in the habit of providing reasons why they ‘need’ something simply because the government wants to ban it. That’s true of anything — but especially something the government is constitutionally prohibited from banning, like guns.”

5) You’re not fooling us: Liberals like to think they’re smarter than everyone else, but they’re as transparent as glass to anyone who’s paying attention. That’s why gun sales have blown up like a can of shaving cream in a microwave. If Barack Obama, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and the rest of the Democrat gun grabbers in Congress could get away with it, they would ban and confiscate every gun in America tomorrow — and people know it. Anything short of, “Nobody is allowed to own a firearm except the government,” is unacceptable to them and that’s why they always seem so ghoulishly pleased after tragedies like the Gabrielle Giffords shooting or the Newtown massacre. Everybody else is thinking of the victims, while they’re twirling their mustaches Snidely-Whiplash-style and repeating, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” to each other.

Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/03/5-things-the-gun-grabbers-apparently-dont-understand/#ixzz2Mv3AqYaQ
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.comFacebookTwitter, and YouTube.

 

5 Myths Liberals Have Created About Themselves

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

This is the best explanation of the liberal myth.

Conservatives need to shatter these myths.

Liberalism is like a restaurant with ugly decor, terrible food, overflowing toilets and roaches scurrying across the floor — that stays packed every night. Sure, liberals may be sanctimonious, mean spirited and advocate policies that don’t work, but you can’t help but admire the excellence of their public relations network. They can laud themselves for courage because they take a stand everyone they know agrees with, pat themselves on the back for their compassion as they maliciously insult someone that disagrees with them and congratulate themselves for their charitable behavior as they give other people’s money away. Liberal mythology is one thing, but what it actually looks like is a different beast entirely.

1) Liberals love science: As Ann Coulter says, “Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional. Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution.” The liberal commitment to science consists entirely of talking about how important science is when they believe they can use it to further the liberal agenda. On the other hand, when science shows that adult stem cells actually work better than embryonic stem cells, millions in Africa have died because liberals needlessly insisted on banning DDT or the evidence shows AIDS is never going to take off in non-drug-using heterosexuals, liberals have about as much interest in science as they do in supporting the troops.

2) Liberals care about education: If you define “education” as doing as much as humanly possible to toss plums to the teachers’ unions who help fund and elect Democrats, liberals love education. Alternately, if you define education as the rest of us do, making sure our kids learn as much as possible and are prepared for the working world, liberals don’t care about education at all. They fight merit pay, oppose firing bad teachers and try to kill even effective school choice programs. Any time there’s a divergence between what’s best for the teachers’ unions and what’s best for the kids, the kids ALWAYS lose with liberals.

3) Liberals are tolerant: In a very real sense, liberals don’t understand tolerance. To them, tolerance is promoting whatever position they happen to hold while excluding all competing views. So, if a conservative speaker shows up on a college campus, liberals try to shout him down. Liberals have tried to censor conservative talk show hosts with an Orwellian “Fairness Act.” They work tirelessly to try to silence Fox News, which is the one center right network up against ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. They block professors for their conservative views, blacklist conservative actors and lock conservatives out of almost every major newspaper in America. That’s not open-minded; it’s a level of dogmatic intolerance that could rival the most radical cult.

4) Liberals don’t moralize: Liberals believe in allowing children to have abortions over the protests of their parents, they want to force churches to perform gay weddings that violate their Christian beliefs and they demand that the Catholic Church provide abortion and birth control over its strenuous moral objections, but then they turn around and deny that they’re moralizing. Getting beyond that, they couch their arguments about tax rates, government programs and economics in distinctly moral terms. After all, what is the term “fair share” if not an appeal to morals? If liberals are going to continue to pretend that they don’t moralize, at least they should admit that they’re morally inferior to conservatives.

5) Liberals love the poor: For both philosophical and practical reasons, conservatives believe in helping the poor escape poverty. We agree wholeheartedly with Ben Franklin’s words of wisdom,

 

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

On the other hand, liberals “love” the poor like a cat loves mice. The cat gets fat off the mice and liberals get elected off of sadistically keeping as many Americans mired in poverty as they can. Then, they can give the poor just enough money to get by on while railing against those mean old conservatives who’re claiming the destitute can have better lives when any “compassionate” person would realize food stamps and welfare are the best most of these people can ever do. That’s not love; that’s a gang of pushers trying to hook as many customers as possible.

MSNBC’s motto: ‘Lean racist’

Leave a comment

 

This is by Ann Coulter in The Daily Caller.

Liberals define racism as a Conservative besting them in a discussion.

The Obama media only has the race card to play against Conservatives.

As they know they can not tout Obama’s policies as they are a failure.

 

If one were trying to prove in court that MSNBC is crazily biased, you could do worse than submitting Rachel Maddow’s Tuesday night show.

She was discussing the recently released June 2007 tape of Barack Obama using Hillary Clinton’s black accent to tell an audience of black preachers that the U.S. government doesn’t care about black people. Maddow explained with her typical leaden sarcastic wit that the tape reveals Obama’s “secret plan to be way more black than he seems to you now.”

(Though it’s counterintuitive, apparently some higher-ups at MSNBC are convinced that Rachel’s adorableness is working and they want more of it.)

Yes, it’s that Obama is black, that’s what the tape illustrates.

In the speech, Obama lied about America to portray the nation as irredeemably racist. Channeling Kanye West, Obama said the government doesn’t “care about” black people in New Orleans. This was based on his assertion that New York City received more help from the federal government after 9/11, and Florida got more after Hurricane Andrew.

Unlike blacks in New Orleans, he said, those victims were considered “part of the American family.”

Obama was a sitting senator when he spouted this nonsense. He had to know that months earlier, $100 billion in federal disaster relief had been sent to the Gulf states hit by Katrina — or five times more than the disaster relief funds sent to New York after 9/11.

All this was edited out of the clips Rachel played from Obama’s speech. This allowed her to smirk: “This is how [Obama] snuck into the White House, right? People didn’t actually know he was this black, and if they had known he was this black, they never would have elected him. That’s the idea here, right?”

Actually, Rachel, I think the point is that this half-black, private-schooled Hawaiian, born in 1961, is desperate for reasons to be angry at white America, so he can play-act Ralph Ellison in “The Invisible Man.”

As noted in that great new book “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama,” it’s always the person with the least black heritage who is angriest at the anti-racism meetings. The ones who have never actually experienced anything resembling Jim Crow — in fact, nothing but white suck-uppery — are the most consumed with rage about things having nothing to do with their lives.

You know who’s even angrier than the half-black Hawaiian about nonexistent racism in America? Pasty-white liberals on MSNBC.

Last week, Mitt Romney used the word “apartment.” That font of racial understanding, Chris Matthews (who has no black friends, neighbors or employees), revealed on MSNBC that the word “apartment” is racist.

So please add that to your New Racist Dictionary, along with others common to native English speakers, such as “law and order,” “welfare,” “Chicago,” “kitchen cabinet,” “golfing” and “the.” (“The” became racist when Donald Trump said he had a “great relationship with the blacks.”)

Liberals reason that if a Republican said it, it must be racist, and proceed from there.

In 2008, John McCain’s campaign ran a surprisingly effective ad called “Celeb.” On MSNBC, it was adjudged racist.

The ad began with a clip of a Berlin crowd ecstatically cheering Obama (historically, the mark of a great leader), followed by photos of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, as the narrator called Obama “the biggest celebrity in the world.” Then, the music turned ominous, and the narrator listed Obama’s high-tax policies and opposition to offshore drilling, before saying that this was “the real Obama.”

It must have taken hours to come up with something racist about that, but Jonathan Alter and Keith Olbermann whipped out their “Captain America Super-Racist Decoder Rings”:

Alter, Newsweek columnist at the time: “The larger issue, I think, is clear — which is they’re trying to portray him as being uppity. Now, is that racist? I’m not sure.”

Olbermann: “Well, if we’re playing Password, and you say ‘uppity,’ the word that comes into my mind, that’s racist, yes.”

Wait — who said “uppity,” again? Did any Republican call Obama uppity? No. Did the ad call Obama uppity? No. Alter said “uppity”: It’s about Obama’s uppityness. That much we know. Is that racist? That’s for the public to decide. I remain neutral.

The ad had nothing to do with Obama being uppity. It was nearly the opposite, comparing him to lightweight celebrities.

In 2010, even Scott Brown’s pickup truck came in for a charge of racism on MSNBC. Olbermann said that what Scott Brown voters truly opposed was having “an African-American president.”

When this insane point was met with mild resistance from Howard Fineman, Keith produced the smoking gun: “What were the Scott Brown ads, though? Every one of the Scott Brown ads had him in a pickup truck.”

I wonder if it was an “uppity” pickup truck …

As soon as the racism hunters at MSNBC come up with a final and complete list of racist code words, they should release it to the public. But it needs to be aired on a network with lots of viewers, so they better send it to Fox News.

In a world bristling with imaginary “dog-whistle” racists, white liberal racists prefer bullhorns.

 

%d bloggers like this: