Ann Coulter on The View

I think it’s clear that Ann Coulter not only enjoys her shock-jock gimmick that sells books, but she also finds it amusing that so many people start shrieking uncontrollably whenever she appears on their show to defend it.  What’s funny to me is practically every time Ms. Coulter is interviewed by a liberal, they seem to embody the cliches that she mocks so prodigiously. 

Take someone like Whoopi Goldberg.  Okay, Ann Coulter’s point about actresses such as Halle Berry using their black heritage as a way to fast-track their career is a contentious one.  Regardless of how much Ms. Coulter truly believes in this argument, she knows full well that it’s going to raise hackles.

But how did Ms. Goldberg respond to the point?  All she could manage was that since Ann Coulter didn’t have “experience” in this matter, her argument was “bullshit.”  Apparently since Ms. Coulter is blonde and pale-skinned, she’s incapable of making a valid argument about any issue involving black Americans.  When Coulter reminded her that she wasn’t arguing from personal experience, Ms. Goldberg again failed to deliver any rational response to the argument and retreated to saying that Ms. Coulter “can dish it out but not take it.”

These are simple tactics for shutting down discourse rather than meeting the argument.  Ms. Goldberg might as well have said, “You’re a mean person, Ann, so nothing you say  matters.”  And the “personal experience” counter is about as ridiculous as I’ve ever heard, a shadow of the moronic liberal tactic of attacking Republican politicians for “starting” a war and sending troops to fight in it even though they don’t have kids in the military.

By this rationale, maybe Barack Obama shouldn’t have been allowed to criticize Hillary Clinton because he doesn’t have a vagina – he doesn’t know what it’s like to be a woman in politics.  How about we reverse this tactic on the liberals and say they can’t make valid arguments against the War on Terror until they go fight in it?

Whoopi Goldberg just ended up making Ann Coulter’s point, her ubiquitous claim that liberals aren’t capable of arguing rationally.  And besides, is Ann Coulter really so horrible, compared to liberal shock jocks?  I don’t her Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar blasting all the Hollywood dingbats who say Bush is Hitler and other nasty things that make Ann Coulter appear civil.  Rosie O’Donnell say on that show and called our troops terrorists.

And what about Ms. Goldberg herself?  I remember when John McCain was on The View, and she made that “slavery” comment about the way John McCain supported the Constitution.  That was one of the dumbest, most insulting things I’ve ever heard a rational person say with a straight face.  How about she apologize for implying that a presidential candidate needs to clarify that he’s not pro-slavery?  Honestly, what would Ms. Goldberg think if Elizabeth Hasselbeck had asked Barack Obama, “You’re pro-choice, so does that mean you’re comfortable murdering babies?”  Can you imagine the gasps and self-righteous whining?

Endorsement from Al Qaeda

So it comes out that Osama bin Laden is supporting John McCain for the presidency.  Talk about a high-profile star endorsement.  McCain certainly needs some celebrity endorsements, doesn’t he?

I was at first surprised, because the general attitude I’ve heard is that Barack Obama is the terrorist president of choice.  Even Joe Biden seems to think that our enemies will “test” Obama shortly after he becomes president.  After all, he wants to let al Qaeda win in Iraq.  (If we followed his plan and never instituted the Surge, guess what would have happened?)  He seems to have an almost apologist approach sometimes (downplaying the threat of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, saying that Georgia should “show restraint” after getting invaded).  Hezbollah voiced their support for Obama.  As McCain himself once said, “I guarantee they wouldn’t endorse me; I’m their worst nightmare.”  Well said, but now it’s been proven erroneous, right?

Not really.  You have to look at the reason why bin Laden seems to hope McCain becomes the president.  He states it outright: A McCain presidency is likely to keep the Muslim world riled up against America.  I mean really, how dare we elect a guy who wants to kill terrorists?  We’re so not like Europe.  We’re so yesterday.  Us Americans are just so uncouth and aggressive and we never listen to other people’s feelings.  Obama will make all the terrorists like us.  That’s the goal, right?  Everyone knows the sensible thing to do is sit down with murderous dictators without precondition.

Give me a break.  I’m so tired of hearing milquetoast liberals like Obama whining about how we need to “restore America’s standing in the world.”  He makes cowardly comments like accusing our troops of killing civilians in Afghanistan, and draws a moral equivalency between Russia invading Georgia and our War in Iraq.  If that’s how he views America, maybe he should move to Europe and becomes one of the naysayers who whines about American “imperialism.”

John McCain wants to kill the scum who do things like perpetrate 9/11, obliterate Israeli couples in cafes, and murder babies so they can pop seventy-two cherries in heaven.  He’s a tough old bastard, and he’s unapologetic about it.  He subscribes to the apparently “outdated” tactic that if there’s a global movement bent on the destruction of your country, your people, and your entire way of life, you should perhaps be a little cavalier when fighting it.  If this is what riles up the Muslim world, if they unite and call America evil, then so be it.  Have at it.  The more excitable ones will burn a few flags, terrorize some elderly people in Europe, and maybe even prove their bravery by beheading a tourist or a homosexual.

Of course, I’m sure I have it all wrong.  Everything is America’s fault.  All the Muslims in the world were just meditating peacefully and minding their own business, then the Great Satan came along with capitalism and a thirst for oil and corrupted everything.  It’s that “white greed” that Obama’s mentor Jeremiah Wright will tell you all about.

I’m so glad we have Obama to guide us away from that “defunct” method of fighting one’s enemies.  We should apologize to them, legitimize them, kiss their ass and promise that the old days of George Bush are over.  This is a new America; a softer, gentler America.

Yeah, because “softer and gentler” has always been such a great method for success.

Obama’s slogan should be: “Less Capitalism But More Capitulation.”

Touchy-Feely Economic Policy

I literally can’t understand why the American people think George Bush and the Republicans are to blame for the current economic problems.  Say what you want about Bush, but the economy has been absolutely wonderful for the last seven years, almost the entirety of his time in office.  It’s only the last couple months that things have turned sour.

What exactly have the Democrats done in the last two years about the economy?  I hear all sorts of Johnny-come-lately politicians claiming to have warned about the economic crisis, but not one of them did anything.  Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, the Democratic social engineering programs, and the government-backed groups like Fannie and Freddie all shoulder most of the blame here.  And yet, for some reason people are hooting like monkeys, saying: “This is George Bush’s fault.  This is because of Republican deregulation.”

That’s garbage.  Regulation and social engineering is at least mostlyto blame for this mess, and that’s indisputable.  Government intervention is now making it worse.  If you want to blame Bush for something, blame him for backing (along with Obama, McCain, and all the rest) that sickening bailout bill and these other economic “stimulus” packages.

Still, government’s just not that important in the long run.  The economy will recover, and not because McCain backs a new bill or Obama signs a new entitlement program.  The economy will recover because it’s made up of millions of people engaging in free trade and enterprise.  I wish the government would just stand aside and let them get on with it.

What’s scary to me is that the government is beginning to do the one thing – the only thing – it possibly can that will actually, seriously screw things up forever.  What’s scary is that every Marxist-leaning Chicken Little is coming out and saying “Capitalism is broken.”  They’re growing emboldened.  They see a borderline socialist like Obama about to become president with a borderline socialist Congress to give him whatever he wants, and they’re secretly clapping their little rat claws with glee.  This is the first step towards their version of what’s “right” and “moral” for society.  And it’s inevitable: With this election cycle, we have a choice between Big Government and Bigger Government.  With the economy as bad as it is, people are willing to vote for anyone who promises relief and a check in the mail.  They’ll give the looters a lot of leeway, they’ll nod along to social programs and stimulus bills and more regulation for those “greedy” rich people.

After all, it sounds so lovely on paper doesn’t it?  It’s all about being nice and giving back to the country that’s done so much for you.  You’ve done so well; shouldn’t the government require that you pay a little more – just a little – to help those who simply want a good home for their kids?  What could be more decent than that?  Doesn’t it sound so unfair and mean-spirited that McCain wants to give all those rich corporations tax cuts?  What do those greedy bastards need with more money?

We could say that those “greedy bastards” are the ones doing all the investing in America and creating all the jobs.  We could say that all McCain wants to do is leave them alone and stop punishing them as if they’re criminals who need to be fined.  We could say that someone has a right to do whatever they want with the money they earn.  We could say that it’s stunningly immoral to take what others earn at the point of a gun and give it to those who “deserve” it.

None of that ever seems to matter.  It’s as if all people want to hear is: “We’ll make it all better.  We’re going to reward you with an allowance and lots of rules to protect you from your own decisions because we care.”  This is what they seem to want, and this is what they’re going to get.

America’s First Left-Wing Radical President

Maybe I’m way out of the loop here, but I just don’t understand why Americans are voting for Barack Obama.  A man with this many questionable ties and friendships is going to be in the Oval Office.  A man who sat listening to a racist scumbag like Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and then has the temerity to tell us he never knew the extent of his views.  Christ, Obama acts like Wright just said his controversial statements in a vacuum, like he got drunk one night and started spouting off.  This “reverend” paints these sickening notions as the main thrust of his message.  They’re on the church’s website, they’re on fliers in the lobby!

Yet Obama defends this guy, then decides to drop him when it might hurt his political career, then tells us he never knew the man had those views.  And America doesn’t care.

We have a similar situation with Bill Ayers and his wife.  Again, Obama’s piddling little excuses come out.  He was eight years old when Ayers committed his bombings.  Okay, but how old was Obama around 9/11, when Ayers stated that he should have done more?  How old was Obama when he sat on boards with this guy or wrote a blurb for his book?

This is mind-boggling to me.  We’re going to put this guy in the White House!  One of the most liberal leaders in America is going to have a very Democratic Congress at his beck and call.  A guy who is comfortable hanging out with – and even choosing as his mentor and spiritual advisor – radicals, racists, and domestic terrorists.  How is Obama going to fight terrorism?  He doesn’t even have the moral fortitude to tell a guy like Bill Ayers: “You’re an unrepentant terrorist who hates this country – I’m not going to talk to you or have any dealings with you whatsoever.”

I’m a convicted felon and I wouldn’t shake hands with a guy like Bill Ayers.  But Obama needed the guy for his political career.  And America doesn’t care.

This isn’t about partisanship.  If McCain had ties to people like Wright and Ayers, I would absolutely be calling for his head.  But it wouldn’t matter – if McCain had friends like Wright and Ayers, he would have been forced out of the race long ago.  He never would have had a chance.  Jeremiah Wright talks about “white greed” and America being run by racist white men and the “United States of KKK.”  What if McCain had chosen as his lifelong spiritual advisor someone who said equivalent things?  And what if McCain’s excuse was, “He’s really a good man who taught me about Jesus.  Don’t listen to that time he called all black people crack-smoking gangbangers.  That was just one stupid thing he said.”

Even without his connections, the future Obama envisions for this country appears rather ominous.  More government spending, more social engineering, wealth redistribution, mandated health care, an apologist approach to dictators like Ahmadinejad, a blame-America-first stance.  But hey, he’s charismatic and he promises to give all the voters money.  So elect away, America.  Put your hands out and Obama will smile and pat your little heads and give you your allowance.  He knows what’s best for you.  Just ask him.

As I’ve said before, I hope Obama does well.  I hope things improve.  I don’t wish harm on him and especially not on America.  But this seems to me absurd.  Wake up, people.

Liberal Nuclear Dunces

I saw Jackson Browne on The Colbert Report the other night and it got me thinking about something.  Browne was on to mainly discuss how he was suing John McCain for using one of his songs in his campaign, but I focused on the singer’s ignorance on the subject of nuclear power (apparently he’s a big opponent of power plants).

Number one, he stated that nuclear power “doesn’t pay for itself,” so the government would have to charge us extra taxes to support nuke plants.  I could hardly believe my ears.  Of all the nonsense about nuclear power, I had never heard that one.  Here’s a news flash for Jackson Browne:  Nuclear power plants do, in fact, pay for themselves.  That’s why they’re build, that’s why France and other countries use them so prodigiously.  Indeed, it is clean energy sources like wind and solar that require government subsidies to function right now.

Number two, he spoke about the typical irrational fears surrounding nuclear power.  Here are the facts:  Nuclear power has killed less than fifty people in its entire fifty-year history.  That includes Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (at which there was no meltdown and not a single person died or was even injured).  If you count the long-term deaths from radiation at Chernobyl, it’s another twenty-five or so.  Now, even one death is one death too many.  But in contrast, hundreds of people die every single year from coal mining, oil production, and natural gas.  You wanna talk about long-term effects from radiation and nuclear waste?  How about long-term effects from oil spills and coal (like the Black Lung)?

Nuclear power has proven itself to be safe and effective, especially in comparison to the established alternatives.  Yet these anti-nuclear people seem to think that casualties from nuclear power somehow make you “more dead” than casualties from other energy sources.  Every endeavor has risk; nuclear is less risky that what we’re already doing.

Coincidentally, I was listening to the president of Iran spouting his usual Zionist conspiracy nonsense, and a though occurred to me.  The same liberals who decry nuclear power are also generally the same people who think John McCain and other Republicans are rushing into war with Iran.  Obama said he would sit down with Ahmadinejad without precondition, and every day I hear from liberals in the news about how we should “use diplomacy,” and “Iran isn’t that big of a threat,” and “we don’t need another war.”  I’ve even heard people say, “We have no right preventing Iran from getting nuclear power and weapons since we have them ourselves.”

Iran is the biggest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world.  Their Republican Guard is a terrorist organization that kills Americans.  They fund Hezbollah, who pre-9/11 killed more Americans than any other group.  Ahmadinejad has talked openly about destroying Israel.  We’ve been “using diplomacy for five years and it hasn’t slowed down their nuclear program in the least.  Yet these liberals still seem to play down the possibility of Iran giving a nuclear weapon to a murderous group like Hezbollah.

It’s amazing.  They’re sit quietly and allow Iran to obtain nukes, but they shriek and whine like electrocuted cats about building nuclear power plants.  How do you square that with logic?

The First Presidential Debate

I want McCain to be our next president, but at the debate, when the topic was economics, I thought his performance was subpar, to say the least.  Obama kept pointing out his economic “plan” of giving ninety-five percent of the country a tax break, and McCain kept returning to talking points about cutting spending.

Don’t get me wrong: spending needs to be controlled, and no one can argue that McCain would be more adept at such a task than someone like Obama.  But it almost seemed like McCain couldn’t answer a question, or even that he was incapable of defending free market capitalism from a “borderline” socialist like Obama.

Here’s what I wish McCain would have said.  When Obama spewed his populist promises about how only the top five percent of the earners in this country would see their taxes raised under this plan, I would have loved to see McCain give that creepy smile of his and say, “Senator Obama, under my plan, no one will see their taxes raised.”

What exactly is Obama’s plan anyway?  I’ll tell you:  Let’s throw more money and government intervention at the problem and hope for the best.  His economic policy is pretty much the same thing you hear from all Democrats (and all pandering politicians, to some extent).  They simple promise to give people money.  That’s it.  That’s all it really comes down to.  They prey off of people’s insecurities, financial hardships, and bills, and they promise that a nanny will come along and burp them and make everything okay.  Since when did politicians become Santa Claus?

McCain came off better when the topic was foreign policy.  The gap in policy experience between the two men was as striking as always.  But it’s not all about experience, either.  It’s also about wanting a person in the White House who will make the right decisions.  Obama’s first reaction to events (such as saying both Russia and Georgia need to “show restraint” when Georgia was invaded) seem to fall along the lines of multiculturalism and Blame-America-First nonsense.  I’m not questioning his patriotism, but honestly, how many times has he focused on the idea that America needs to cater to other countries needs and desires?  How many times has he said, “America is the greatest country on Earth, but…” and rambled on with some typically left-wing indictment of American hegemony?  Christ, speaking about Russia invading Georgia, he even brought up Iraq and said America needs to “lead by example” and not go invading countries willy-nilly, as if the War in Iraq is in any way comparable to Russia invading Georgia.

And the best he can come up with in a debate is to continually compare his opponent to George Bush.  At least John McCain has a more substantive argument than comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter, for example.

American Exceptionalism

The other day I saw John McCain being grilled about American “exceptionlism.”  The woman interviewing him almost seemed like she was trying to trap him into saying, “Americans are better than other people.”  McCain, for his part, answered like a politician; he said he thinks Americans are special, but added the stipulation that this is not meant to demean any other people or nation.

Me, I don’t even think he should have to explain that much away.  Political correctness and multicultural nonsense shouldn’t force us to apologize for thinking our country and its people are great.  For the record, I’ll say what no politician would dare to: America is better than many other countries.  To be more specific, American culture and society are better than the culture and society of many other countries.

I’m sure that’s “arrogant” or “insulting” to some people, but I don’t care.  I’m not saying that American people are inherently born superior to others, or that we’re smarter or more innovative or anything like that.  And this isn’t about mindless patriotism or fervent nationalism; it’s about the facts.

Take North Korea, for example.  It’s people are starving, they’re forced to worship a dingbat leader like a demigod, they barely have concepts of private ownership, they have few personal freedoms, and the country is full of human rights violations.  How about Iran or Russia, where political dissidents can get thrown in jail or murdered?  How about some Muslim societies where women are still treated as property?  How about Rwanda, where genocide and mass murder is an acceptable means of political reform?

So, isn’t it safe to say that American society is better than examples like this?  Should it really be arrogant to take a position such as: 1) In America we have freedom of speech, expression, and religion; 2) In Country A they do not; therefore 3) America is better than Country A?

Every society is not equal, every culture is no tthe moral equivalent of every other culture, and every position and/or belief is most definitely not worthy of respect.  It seems to me that in many cases, those who tell you otherwise are often those who are too cowardly to take their own moral stand.  I’m sure they’ll refer to themselves as “tolerant,” but it’s not enough to be tolerant.  You also have to be willing to defend the ideal of tolerance from those who would destroy it.

Obama and McCain on Economics

The economy’s not doing all that great, so Obamais making some headway in the polls.  For some reason, people equate the current economic crisis withGeorge Bush, and then George Bush with John McCain, so they start to lean toward Obama.  And of course, the Obamacampaign is playing this up for all it’s worth, putting forth the notion that if you want the economy to get better, don’t elect McCain because he’ll keep doing what Bush has done.

I’d love them to answer exactly what President Bush has done to make the economy this way.  In fact, every single person I’ve talked to or heard can’t name one single bill Bush has approved or vetoed that is responsible for the economy.  Neither can they think of something McCain will do that will be along the same lines as Bush.

Okay, I’m kind of a dunce in some areas, but do Americans need to go back to freaking high school?  Do they not realize that the Democrats have been in charge of Congress for the last two years?  And that Congress is responsible for making laws, passing spending bills, and changing economic policy?  Has Obama every blamed his own party for anything in the last two years?  Using the Obama logic, shouldn’t we avoid putting a Democrat in the White House?

I think one thing about Bush’s policy is bad for the economy: his spending.  He spends like a Democrat (he just doesn’t raise taxes to pay for it).  I think we can all criticize him for that.  Now the taxpayers have to pick up another $700 billion-dollar bill for the bailout for AIG.  Again, I’m very far from an expert in these matters, but doesn’t a bailout of that magnitude only push the problem ahead farther?  Doesn’t it simply cause more inflation, the same inflation that brought about the home mortgage crisis in the first place?  What good does a bandaid do, if the wound doesn’t get better?

People are always so quick to name the rich fat cats on Wall Street as the crooks.  Bill O’Reilly does it almost every night on his program, calling CEOs”villains.”  He equates greed with evil.  Even President Bush comes out and says that people short-selling stocks are “parasites,” as if making profits by predicting that stocks will go down is somehow morally different from making profits by predicting they’ll go up.  Every politician, whether Republican or Democrat, keeps promising more help to the American people by taxing the American people.  Joe Biden said his wealth redistribution plan is a call for “patriotism.”  Now you’re unpatriotic if you see something wrong with a non-productive politician taking money from people who produce and arbitrarily deciding where it should go.  Absolutely stunning.

You know what I’d like to see?  You know what would make me stand up and cheer?  I’d love to see a politician (whether Democrat or Republican), when asked about a solution to the mortgage crisis, look the American people in the eye and say: “Don’t buy a house you can’t afford.”  Maybe it’s heartless, but they’re adults; they can take it.

The Left-Wing Propaganda Machine

A couple weeks ago when Rick Warren asked John McCain how he would define “rich” (for the purpose of tax policy), the senator replied with a joke: “I don’t know, how about $5 million?”  It elicited a laugh from the audience, and McCain went on to say that people would surely take such a statement out of context.

Last night I got the new issue of Rolling Stone in the mail, and they mocked John McCain.  Next to a picture of him holding fistfuls of cash was this: “John McCain, when asked to define what makes someone rich: ‘How about $5 million?’”

Now I’m pretty sure the Rolling Stone editors knew exactly the context of that quote.  Jesus Christ, McCain even said that people like this would take it out of context, and Rolling Stone did it anyway!  I can just imagine all the kids who read this magazine that might not ever know what McCain really said.  I know Rolling Stone is an admitted left-wing publication, but this is dishonest and unfair.  That representation was a flat-out lie.

How about Rolling Stone print how John McCain actually responded to that question: “I don’t want to take anyone’s money; I want everyone to be rich.”

Jon Stewart is another example.  He created a cute little montage that showed Bill O’Reilly taking it easy on the Palin family about Bristol’s pregnancy and saying that it should be private business, then played a clip of O’Reilly calling the Spears family pinheads (when news of Jaime Lynn Spears’s pregnancy came out).  Stewart’s audience laughed and cheered at this display, thinking it evidence of O’Reilly’s hypocrisy and right-wing bias.  But this was completely disingenuous.  As O’Reilly himself pointed out, Stewart took him out of context eight times.

O’Reilly was calling the Spears family pinheads because of a general lack of parental supervision in the household, not just because of the teenage pregnancy.  Lynn Spears sold pictures of her teenage daughter’s baby for cash and press.  We should all be calling her a freaking pinhead.  I think everyone can agree Sarah Palin is not Lynn Spears.  And unless Stewart wants to claim that the level of responsibility and supervision in the Palin household and Spears household are equal, then O’Reilly wasn’t guilty of hypocrisy or bias.

The left always whines about right-wing propaganda, but here are clear examples of the opposite.  I’m as socially liberal as anyone; I can’t believe that I have to take the position of defending John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Bill O’Reilly.  No, I take that back – I’m not defending them.  I like to think that I’m defending rationality.  Reason.  Honesty.  The truth has intrinsic value, regardless of political partisanship.

Why McCain Should Ignore the Conservative Base

You know what I think makes the conservatives more upset than anything during this election season?  It’s not that John McCain as the Republican nominee isn’t their ideal candidate.  They’re constantly bemoaning this fact, talking about where he differs from traditional conservative values, and how he needs to “reassure the conservative base.”

But this isn’t why they’re agitated.  They’re upset because they have no power this time around, and the reason is that they’re going to vote for McCain anyway.  I doubt you’ll hear them admit that, but it’s true.  No matter about those pesky McCain positions that cause conservatives to bite their fingernails (such as the environment, immigration, and campaign finance reform), he’s still a thousand miles right of Barack Obama and everyone knows it.  He’s a warrior on national defense, he won’t raise taxes to pay for huge entitlement programs, and he’ll appoint conservative judges.  Look at Obama’s voting record and promises, and tell me that conservatives are going to pick him over McCain.  Yeah right.

Conservatives won’t be voting for Obama, and they won’t be sitting out.  They’re stuck with McCain.  He’s their man.  And they’re incredibly fortunate to have him, because there’s no way someone like Romni or Huckabee would have a chance to win in November.  McCain will probably still lose, but Romni or Huckabee wouldn’t even have come close.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am someone who agrees with Obama’s positions socially.  Nevertheless, I would vote for McCain a thousand times over.  The ramifications of an Obama presidency with a Democratic Congress are simply scary.  And if it scares someone like me, I know it frightens the hell out of conservatives.

John McCain needs to assure America that he’ll keep it safe from Islamic terror and lower gas prices; that’s how he can win.  He has to give up that ridiculous reluctance to drill in ANWR, select a running mate with economic and business credentials, and buckle down for a fight.  Conservatives are going to embrace McCain anyway; he should divert his energy to the moderates and independents that are going to decide this election.  Period.