Topmost (in use)

Author Archive | Ann Coulter

Investigate This!

The Republicans are back in charge in the House of Representatives this week, and not a moment too soon!

Forget “stimulus” bills and “shovel-ready” bailouts (for public school teachers, who need shovels for what they’re teaching), the current financial crisis, which is the second Great Depression, was created slowly and methodically by Democrat hacks running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the past 18 years.

As even Obama’s treasury secretary admitted in congressional hearings, “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.” And if it’s something Tim Geithner noticed, it’s probably something that’s fairly obvious.

Goo-goo liberals with federal titles pressured banks into making absurd loans to high-risk borrowers—demanding, for example, that the banks accept unemployment benefits as collateral. Then Fannie repackaged the bad loans as “prime mortgages” and sold them to banks, thus poisoning the entire financial market with hidden bad loans.

Believe it or not, the loans went belly up, banks went under, and the Democrats used taxpayer money to bail out their friends on Wall Street.

So far, Fannie and Freddie’s default on loans that should never have been made has cost the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars. Some estimates say the final cost to the taxpayer will be more than $1 trillion. To put that number in perspective, for a trillion dollars, President Obama could pass another stupid, useless stimulus package that doesn’t create a single real job.

Obama’s own Federal Housing Finance Agency reported recently that by 2014, Freddie and Fannie will cost taxpayers between $221 billion to $363 billion.

Over and over again, Republicans tried to rein in the politically correct policies being foisted on mortgage lenders by Fannie Mae, only to be met by a Praetorian Guard of Democrats howling that Republicans hated the poor.

In 2003, Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee wrote a bill to tighten the lending regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Every single Democrat on the committee voted against it.

In the House, Barney Frank angrily proclaimed that Fannie Mae was “just fine.”

Rep. William Clay, D-Mo., accused Republicans of going on a “witch hunt” against Fannie Mae and attempting a “political lynching of Franklin Raines” (which, in a game of “bad metaphor Scrabble” would have been a double word score).

Fannie was pressuring banks to write mortgages with no money down and no proof of income. What could go wrong?

In 2004, Bush’s White House Chief Economist Gregory Mankiw warned that Fannie was creating “systemic risk for our financial system.” In response, Barney Frank went to a champagne brunch with his partner “just because.”

Democrats saw nothing of concern in the Fannie debacle. Bad mortgages don’t contain sodium, do they? They don’t engage in “hate speech.” And they don’t emit carbon dioxide. There was nothing to catch a Democrat’s eye.

In 2005, when the housing bubble burst, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced a bill allowing Fannie Mae to buy up even more schlock mortgages, apparently reasoning that if owning some toxic mortgages is bad, owning lots of them must be better!

He accused Republican opponents of his suicidal bill of being against affordable housing. (And that is a specific example of how liberals love the poor so much, they promoted policies to create millions more of them.)

As late as 2008, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who had received more than $133,000 in political contributions from Fannie Mae, called Fannie “fundamentally strong” and “in good shape”—which is the kind of thing the Politburo used to say about Yuri Andropov right after he died.

(Amazingly, Dodd was only the second most embarrassing Democrat to run for president in 2008, but only because John Edwards was also running that year.)

As the titanic losses were racking up, Fannie Mae’s operators, Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick, disguised the catastrophe by orchestrating a $5 billion accounting fraud—all the while continuing to pressure banks to make absurd, politically correct loans and denouncing Republicans as enemies of the poor.

In Gorelick’s defense, at least when she was wrecking the economy, she wasn’t able to wreck national security by building any more walls between the FBI and the CIA.

Have you ever noticed that whenever there’s a major calamity in this country, the name “Jamie Gorelick” always pops up? I think I’ll pull some articles about the Great Chicago Fire from Nexis to see if there was a “Gorelick” living on Catherine O’Leary’s block.

As Peter Schweizer points out in his magnificent book “Architects of Ruin,” which everyone should read, Enron’s accounting fraud was a paltry $567 million—and it didn’t bring down the entire financial system. Those involved in the Enron manipulations went to prison. Raines and Gorelick not only didn’t go to jail, they walked away with multimillion-dollar payouts, courtesy of the taxpayer.

(Here’s more fascinating Jamie Gorelick trivia: That giant wall she built between the FBI and the CIA, making 9/11 possible? It was financed with a risky loan from Fannie Mae.)

Under the Democrats’ 2010 “Financial Reform” bill (written by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Goldman Sachs), Raines keeps his $90 million, Jamie Gorelick keeps her $26.4 million, and Goldman keeps its $12 billion from the AIG bailout.

Let’s get it back. Twelve billion, one hundred and sixteen point four million dollars might not sound like a lot to you, but it starts to add up.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Liberals Give ‘Til It Hurts (You)

Liberals never tire of discussing their own generosity, particularly when demanding that the government take your money by force to fund shiftless government employees overseeing counterproductive government programs.

They seem to have replaced “God” with “Government” in scriptural phrases such as “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37)

This week, we’ll take a peek at the charitable giving of these champions of the poor.

In 2009, the Obamas gave 5.9 percent of their income to charity, about the same as they gave in 2006 and 2007. In the eight years before he became president, Obama gave an average of 3.5 percent of his income to charity, upping that to 6.5 percent in 2008.

The Obamas’ charitable giving is equally divided between “hope” and “change.”

George W. Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year he was president, as he did before becoming president.

Thus, in 2005, Obama gave about the same dollar amount to charity as President George Bush did, on an income of $1.7 million—more than twice as much as President Bush’s $735,180. Again in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama’s.

In the decade before Joe Biden became vice president, the Bidens gave a total—all 10 years combined—of $3,690 to charity, or 0.2 percent of their income. They gave in a decade what most Americans in their tax bracket give in an average year, or about one row of hair plugs.

Of course, even in Biden’s stingiest years, he gave more to charity than Sen. John Kerry did in 1995, which was a big fat goose egg. Kerry did, however, spend half a million dollars on a 17th-century Dutch seascape painting that year, as Peter Schweizer reports in his 2008 book, “Makers and Takers.”

To be fair, 1995 was an off-year for Kerry’s charitable giving. The year before, he gave $2,039 to charity, and the year before that a staggering $175.

He also dropped a $5 bill in the Salvation Army pail and almost didn’t ask for change.

In 1998, Al Gore gave $353 to charity—about a day’s take for a lemonade stand in his neighborhood. That was 10 percent of the national average for charitable giving by people in the $100,000-$200,000 income bracket. Gore was at the very top of that bracket, with an income of $197,729.

When Sen. Ted Kennedy released his tax returns to run for president in the ‘70s, they showed that Kennedy gave a bare 1 percent of his income to charity—or, as Schweizer says, “about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his 50-foot sailing sloop Curragh.” (Cash tips to bartenders and cocktail waitresses are not considered charitable donations.)

The Democratic base gives to charity as their betters do. At the same income, a single mother on welfare is seven times less likely to give to charity than a working poor family that attends religious services.

In 2006 and 2007, John McCain, who files separately from his rich wife, gave 27.3 percent and 28.6 percent of his income to charity.

In 2005, Vice President Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. He also shot a lawyer in the face, which I think should count for something.

In a single year, Schweizer reports, Rush Limbaugh “gave $109,716 to ‘various individuals in need of assistance mainly due to family illnesses,’ $52,898 to ‘children’s case management organizations,’ including ‘various programs to benefit families in need,’ $35,100 for ‘Alzheimer’s community care—day care for families in need,’ and $40,951 for air conditioning units and heaters delivered to troops in Iraq.”

(Rush also once gave $50 to Maxine Waters after mistaking her for a homeless person.)

The only way to pry a liberal from his money is to hold tickertape parades for him, allowing him to boast about his charity in magazines and on TV.

Isn’t that what Jesus instructed in the Sermon on the Mount?

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do … But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (Matthew 6:2-4)

In my Bible, that passage is illustrated with a photo of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

At least the hypocrites in the Bible, Redmond, Wash., and Omaha, Neb., who incessantly brag about their charity actually do pony up the money.

Elected Democrats crow about how much they love the poor by demanding overburdened taxpayers fund government redistribution schemes, but can never seem to open their own wallets.

The only evidence we have that Democrats love the poor is that they consistently back policies that will create more of them.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Scrooge Was A Liberal

It’s the Christmas season, so godless liberals are citing the Bible to demand the redistribution of income by government force. Didn’t Jesus say, “Blessed are the Health and Human Services bureaucrats, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”?

Liberals are always indignantly accusing conservatives of claiming God is on our side. What we actually say is: We’re on God’s side, particularly when liberals are demanding God’s banishment from the public schools, abortion on demand, and taxpayer money being spent on Jesus submerged in a jar of urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with pornographic photos.

But for liberals like Al Franken, it’s beyond dispute that Jesus would support extending federal unemployment insurance.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, but it does nicely illustrate Shakespeare’s point that the “devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”

What the Bible says about giving to the poor is: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians (9:7)

Being forced to pay taxes under penalty of prison is not voluntary and rarely done cheerfully. Nor do our taxes go to “the poor.” They mostly go to government employees who make more money than you do.

The reason liberals love the government redistributing money is that it allows them to skip the part of charity that involves peeling the starfish off their wallets and forking over their own money. This, as we know from study after study, they cannot bear to do. (Unless they are guaranteed press conferences where they can brag about their generosity.)

Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks’ study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.

In his book “Who Really Cares?” Brooks compared the charitable donations of religious conservatives, secular liberals, secular conservatives and “religious” liberals.

His surprising conclusion was … Al Franken gave the most of all!

Ha ha! Just kidding. Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most to charity—$2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large.

Even when it comes to purely secular charities, religious conservatives give more than other Americans, which is surprising because liberals specialize in “charities” that give them a direct benefit, such as the ballet or their children’s elite private schools.

Indeed, religious people, Brooks says, “are more charitable in every measurable nonreligious way.”

Brooks found that conservatives donate more in time, services and even blood than other Americans, noting that if liberals and moderates gave as much blood as conservatives do, the blood supply would increase by about 45 percent.

They ought to set up blood banks at tea parties.

On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe in the redistribution of income will give away 100 times more—and 50 times more to secular charities—than a person who does not attend religious services and strongly believes in the redistribution of income.

Secular liberals, the second largest group coming in at 10 percent of the population, were the whitest and richest of the four groups. (Some of you may also know them as “insufferable blowhards.”) These “bleeding-heart tightwads,” as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof calls them, were the second stingiest, just behind secular conservatives, who are mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.

Despite their wealth and advantages, secular liberals give to charity at a rate of 9 percent less than all Americans and 19 percent less than religious conservatives. They were also “significantly less likely than the population average to return excess change mistakenly given to them by a cashier.” (Count Nancy Pelosi’s change carefully!)

Secular liberals are, however, 90 percent more likely to give sanctimonious Senate speeches demanding the forced redistribution of income. (That’s up 7 percent from last year!)

We’ll review specific liberals next week.

Needless to say, “religious liberals” made up the smallest group at just 6.4 percent of the population (for more on this, see my book, “Godless”).

Interestingly, religious liberals were also “most confused” of all the groups. Composed mostly of blacks and Unitarians, religious liberals made nearly as many charitable donations as religious conservatives, but presumably, the Unitarians brought down their numbers, making them second in charitable giving.

Brooks wrote that he was shocked by his conclusions because he believed liberals “genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did”—probably because liberals are always telling us that.

So he re-ran the numbers and gathered more data, but it kept coming out the same. “In the end,” he says, “I had no option but to change my views.”

Every other study on the subject has produced similar results. Indeed, a Google study of philanthropy found an even greater disparity, with conservatives giving 50 percent more than liberals. The Google study showed that liberals gave more to secular causes overall, but conservatives still gave more as a percentage of their incomes.

The Catalogue for Philanthropy analyzed a decade of state and federal tax returns and found that the red states were far more generous than the blue states, with the highest percentage of tightwads living in the liberal Northeast.

In his book “Intellectuals,” Paul Johnson quotes Pablo Picasso scoffing at the idea that he would give to the needy. “I’m afraid you’ve got it wrong,” Picasso explains, “we are socialists. We don’t pretend to be Christians.”

Merry Christmas to all, skinflint liberals and generous Christians alike!


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Like a Condom, the First Amendment Can’t Always Protect You

First of all, I feel so much more confident that the TSA’s nude photos of airline passengers will never be released now that I know the government couldn’t even prevent half a million classified national security documents from being posted on WikiLeaks.

President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder will be getting around to WikiLeaks’ proprietor, Julian Assange, just as soon as they figure out which law the New Black Panthers might have violated by standing outside a polling place with billy clubs.

These legal eagles are either giving the press a lot of disinformation about the WikiLeaks investigation or they are a couple Elmer Fudds who can’t find their own butts without a map.

Since Holder apparently wasn’t watching Fox News a few weeks ago, I’ll repeat myself and save the taxpayers the cost of Holder’s legal assistants having to pore through the federal criminal statutes starting with the A’s.

Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:

“Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, … (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) …

“Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

As is evident, merely being in unauthorized possession of classified national security documents that could be used to harm this country and publishing those documents constitutes a felony.

There’s no exception for albinos with webpages—or “journalists.” Journalists are people, too!

Depending on the facts adduced at trial, there are about a half-dozen other federal laws that might apply to the WikiLeaks document dump, including 18 USC 641, which provides that any person who “receives” or “retains” a “thing of value of the United States” knowing “it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted” is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.

Classified information is valuable government property.

The entire public discussion about prosecuting Assange has been neurotically fixated on the First Amendment, as if that matters. Is Assange a “journalist”? What kind of journalist? Who is a “journalist” in the world of the Internet?

Assange’s lawyer, naturally, wraps his client in the First Amendment, saying Assange “is entitled to First Amendment protection as publisher of WikiLeaks.”

Even Sen. Diane Feinstein, who wants Assange prosecuted—bless her patriotic Democratic heart—has responded to Assange’s free speech defense by saying, “But he is no journalist: He is an agitator intent on damaging our government, whose policies he happens to disagree with, regardless of who gets hurt.”

All this is completely irrelevant.

New York Times reporters are agitators intent on damaging our government, and they’re considered “journalists.” That doesn’t mean they have carte blanche to hunt endangered species, refuse to pay their taxes or embezzle money. The First Amendment isn’t a Star Trek “energy field” that protects journalists from phasers, photon torpedoes, lasers, rockets and criminal prosecutions.

It’s possible for the First Amendment to be implicated in a case involving national security information, just as it’s possible for the First Amendment to be implicated in a case involving the Montgomery County (Ala.) public safety commissioner.

This isn’t that case.

The government isn’t trying to put a prior restraint on Assange’s publication of the documents, as in the Pentagon Papers case (though it probably could have). It wouldn’t be punishing Assange for his opinions. The government wouldn’t be prosecuting Assange to force him to give up his sources—and not only because we already know who his source is (a gay guy in “an awkward place”), but because it simply doesn’t matter.

Assange would be prosecuted for committing the crime of possessing and releasing classified national security documents that could do this country harm. The First Amendment has no bearing whatsoever on whether Assange has committed this particular crime, so whether or not Assange is a “journalist” is irrelevant.

The problem here is that people get their information from the media, which is written by journalists, and journalists have spent the last half-century trying to persuade everyone that laws don’t apply to them.

If a fully certified, bona fide, grade-A “journalist,” rushing to get a story, swerves his car onto a sidewalk and mows down 20 pedestrians, he’s committed a crime. It doesn’t matter that he was engaged in the vital First Amendment-protected activity of news-gathering.

If Paul Krugman shoots his wife because she’s talking too much when he’s engaged in the First Amendment activity of finishing another silly column about the economy, he’s committed a crime.

Journalists can’t run red lights, they can’t print Coca-Cola’s secret formula, they can’t torture sources for information, and—as Gawker Media recently discovered when it published a story on the new iPhone before it was released—journalists can’t misappropriate lost property.

Fox News’ Alan Colmes said he checked with Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano, who told him there’s no case against Assange because the government can’t punish “the disseminator of information.” They should have been on Gawker’s legal team!

If Assange had unauthorized possession of any national defense document that he had reason to believe could be used to injure the United States, and he willfully communicated that to any person not entitled to receive it, Assange committed a felony, and it wouldn’t matter if he were Lois Lane, my favorite reporter.

As I have noted previously, the only part of the criminal law that doesn’t apply to reporters is the death penalty, at least since 2002, when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that it’s “cruel and unusual punishment” to execute the retarded.

Also, journalists can slander people at will. That ought to make them happy.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Call Our Troops Homophobes

The Pentagon’s poll on “don’t ask, don’t tell” is beyond idiotic. Instead of asking whether the troops support repeal of DADT, the Pentagon asked only if they can learn to play nice with the gays.

Even more absurdly, the Pentagon polled all military “personnel”—and their spouses! Only a small portion of what is known as “the military” actually does the fighting. The rest is a vast bureaucracy along the lines of the DMV.

Today’s military features “victim advocates” and sensitivity training facilitators, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services personnel and a million other goo-goo positions. How did we ever take the shores of Normandy without a phalanx of “sensitivity training” counselors?

No one has any need to be reassured that the military’s “social action” staff will enjoy working with gays. Whatever a career in “social action” entails, it better be gay-friendly. Frankly, it’s appalling the Pentagon’s poll of all military personnel and their families didn’t produce better numbers for the gays.

We’re interested in what the men who fight think. As the Pentagon study itself reports: “A higher percentage of service members in war-fighting units predicted negative effects.”

So gays openly serving in the military will harm the “war-fighting” part of the military, but the “social action” part will thrive!

Naturally, Marines are the most resistant to overturning “don’t ask, don’t tell,” with 58 percent of those in combat opposed.

Who cares if the Pentagon’s sexual harassment task force supports gays in the military? The combat units don’t, and they’re the ones who do the job. The rest of us shouldn’t get to vote on gays in the military any more than we get to vote on the choreography of “Chicago.”

Military combat is a very specialized field comparable to nothing in civilian life. There has to be a special bond among warriors—and only one kind of bond. The soldierly bond gets confused if some guys think their comrades are hot or if they suspect their superior is having a relationship with a fellow soldier.

It’s the same confusion that results from putting girls in the military. When an officer makes a decision, nothing should enter into it except his views on the best military strategy.

The military part of the military has valid reasons for wanting to separate the idea of martial ardor and sexual attraction. Combat units can’t have anything that interferes with unit cohesion, such as, for example, platoon members who are dating one another. Racial prejudice is not the same thing as sexual attraction, so please stop telling us this is just like integrating blacks in the military.

A Military Times survey in 2005 found that nearly half of all women in the military claim to have been the victim of sexual harassment—ludicrously more than women in civilian life. By contrast, two-thirds of minorities said they were treated better in the military than in society at large.

The Pentagon’s report found that service members “repeatedly” said that allowing gays to serve openly would “lead to widespread and overt displays of effeminacy,” as well as “harassment” and unwelcome advances. (To which I would add, “and the occasional leak of massive amounts of classified documents.”)

Gays in the military understand this better than heterosexuals in civilian life. According to the Pentagon’s survey, only 15 percent of gays currently serving said they would want their units to know they’re gay. (Also, 2 percent of gays currently serving giggled when asked about their “unit,” which is down from 5 percent from last year.)

There are far more discharges for pregnancy and “parenthood” than for homosexuality. In the past five years, less than 1 percent of all unplanned military discharges (i.e. not due to retirement or completion of service) were for homosexuality.

Here’s a record of the discharges for 2008, according to the Defense Department:
—Drugs: 5,627
—Serious offenses: 3,817
—Weight standards: 4,555
—Pregnancy: 2,353
—Parenthood: 2,574
—Homosexuality: 634

The main lesson from these figures isn’t that we should have gays openly serving in the military, but that we need to get girls out of the military, inasmuch as they are constantly being discharged for pregnancy, parenthood and weight issues.

According to a 1998 Department of Defense report, most discharges based on homosexuality involved “junior personnel with very little time in the military” and “the great majority of discharges for homosexual conduct are uncontested and processed administratively.” More than 98 percent of discharges for homosexuality were honorable.

So gays and girls can join the military, get taxpayers to foot the bill for their education and then, when it comes time to serve, announce that they’re gay or pregnant and receive an honorable discharge. Indeed, there’s no proof that all the discharges for homosexuality involve actual homosexuals.

Why can’t the Army and Marines have their own rules? Why does everything have to be the same? Whatever happened to “diversity”?

Maybe we could have an all-gay service! They’d be allowed to wear camouflage neckerchiefs (a la Paul Lynde) and camo capri pants. To avoid any sexual harassment claims, they’d have to have their own barrack, which we could outfit with a dance club, a cosmo bar and a counseling center called “The Awkward Place.” Their band would mostly play show tunes, and soldiers captured by the enemy would be taught to reveal only their name, rank and seasonal color analysis (“I am Private First Class Jeffrey Smith and I’m a ‘winter.’”)

They wouldn’t be allowed in combat, however, for the same reason women aren’t


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Bradley Manning: Poster Boy For ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

The two biggest stories this week are WikiLeaks’ continued publication of classified government documents, which did untold damage to America’s national security interests, and the Democrats’ fanatical determination to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow gays to serve openly in the military.

The mole who allegedly gave WikiLeaks the mountains of secret documents is Pfc. Bradley Manning, Army intelligence analyst and angry gay.

We’ve heard 1 billion times about the Army translator who just wanted to serve his country, but was cashiered because of whom he loved.

I’ll see your Army translator and raise you one Bradley Manning.

According to Bradley’s online chats, he was in “an awkward place” both “emotionally and psychologically.” So in a snit, he betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history.

Isn’t that in the Army Code of Conduct? You must follow orders at all times. Exceptions will be made for servicemen in an awkward place. Now, who wants a hug? Waitress! Three more apple-tinis!”

According to The New York Times, Bradley sought “moral support” from his “self-described drag queen” boyfriend. Alas, he still felt out of sorts. So why not sell out his country?

In an online chat with a computer hacker, Bradley said he lifted the hundreds of thousands of classified documents by pretending to be listening to a CD labeled “Lady Gaga.” Then he acted as if he were singing along with her hit song “Telephone” while frantically downloading classified documents.

I’m not a military man, but I think singing along to Lady Gaga would constitute “telling” under “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Do you have to actually wear a dress to be captured by the Army’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” dragnet?

What constitutes being “openly” gay now? Bringing a spice rack to basic training? Attending morning drills decked out as a Cher impersonator? Following Anderson Cooper on Twitter?

Also, U.S. military, have you seen a picture of Bradley Manning? The photo I’ve seen is only from the waist up, but you get the feeling that he’s wearing butt-less chaps underneath. He looks like a guy in a soldier costume at the Greenwich Village Halloween parade.

With any luck, Bradley’s court-martial will be gayer than a Liza Minelli wedding. It could be the first court-martial in U.S. history to feature ice sculptures and a “Wizard of Oz”-themed gazebo. “Are you going to Bradley’s court-martial? I hear Patti LaBelle is going to sing!”

Maybe there’s a reason gays have traditionally been kept out of the intelligence services, apart from the fact that closeted gay men are easy to blackmail. Gays have always been suspicious of that rationale and perhaps they’re right.

The most damaging spies in British history were the Cambridge Five, also called “the “Magnificent Five”: Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt, Donald Maclean and John Cairncross. They were highly placed members of British intelligence, all secretly working for the KGB.

The only one who wasn’t gay was Philby. Burgess and Blunt were flamboyantly gay. Indeed, the Russians set Burgess up with a boyfriend as soon as he defected to the Soviet Union.

The Magnificent Five’s American compatriot Michael Straight was—ironically—bisexual, as was Whittaker Chambers, at least during the period that he was a spy. And of course, there’s David Brock.

So many Soviet spies were gay that, according to intelligence reporter Phillip Knightley, the Comintern was referred to as “the Homintern.” (I would have called it the “Gay G.B.”)

Bradley’s friends told the Times they suspected “his desperation for acceptance—or delusions of grandeur” may have prompted his document dump.

Let’s check our “Gay Profile at a Glance” and … let’s see … desperate for acceptance … delusions of grandeur … yep, they’re both on the gay subset list!

Obviously, the vast majority of gays are loyal Americans—and witty and stylish to boot! But a small percentage of gays are going to be narcissistic hothouse flowers like Bradley Manning.

Couldn’t they just work for JetBlue? America would be a lot safer right now if gays in an “awkward place” psychologically could do no more damage than grabbing a couple of beers and sliding down the emergency chute.

Look at the disaster one gay created under our punishing “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. What else awaits America with the overturning of a policy that was probably put there for a reason (apart from being the only thing Bill Clinton ever did that I agreed with)?

Liberals don’t care. Their approach is to rip out society’s foundations without asking if they serve any purpose.

Why do we have immigration laws? What’s with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards—why not make heroin legal? Let’s take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens!

For liberals, gays in the military is a win-win proposition. Either gays in the military works, or it wrecks the military, both of which outcomes they enthusiastically support.

But since you brought up gays in the military, liberals, let’s talk about Bradley Manning. He apparently released hundreds of thousands of classified government documents as a result of being a gay man in “an awkward place.”

Any discussion of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should begin with Bradley Manning. Live by the sad anecdote, die by the sad anecdote.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Strange Men Grope Nancy Pelosi Or The Terrorists Have Won

As long as the head of the TSA, Long Dong Silver, refuses to get rid of the intrusive, possibly dangerous airport searches, how about requiring members of Congress to go through the same security screening in order to enter hallowed congressional office buildings?

Not just Barney Frank—I mean all members of Congress. “We’ve patted you down twice, Congressman Frank. Why don’t you just go to your office now?”

The Rayburn House Office Building is a far more likely target for a terrorist attack than a random flight out of a random American airport. But every passenger on every flight in America must allow a TSA agent to get to second base with them, in some cases third base, or appear live in a nude video in order to board the plane.

If that’s necessary to keep us airline passengers safe, why not use the same security procedures to protect members of Congress?

According to the FAA, there were about 37,000 commercial flights per day in 2008. A mere six buildings contain the offices of every member of our country’s entire legislative branch.

So why shouldn’t the people entering those tempting terrorist targets be given the same security screenings as the roughly half-million Americans taking random commercial flights every day?

It can’t be because Capitol Hill security guards recognize members of Congress and their staff. TSA agents presumably recognize lots of people going through airport security. Ten to 20 percent of passengers are frequent fliers taking the same routes over and over again, year after year.

In addition, TSA agents will recognize their neighbors of 40 years, their hometown mayor, their children’s teachers, local and national celebrities, actors, athletes and other famous personalities. Some TSA agents probably recognize Christian Slater as that guy who sometimes has a gun in his carry-on bag.

But all those people have to take their shoes off, remove their computers from their luggage and be subjected to a pat-down because TSA agents are prohibited by the Homeland Security Department from using an ounce of common sense.

In June 2002, Al Gore got searched at an airport. Gore may have a forgettable face, but at that point, he had been vice president of the United States for eight of the previous 10 years, had run for president, and then had made a spectacle of himself by demanding a recount when he lost.

I’ve seen James Caan in an airport security line. Is James Caan less recognizable than Rep. Steve Rothman? (Tip for the TSA: When your agents are asking passengers for their autographs, you’re probably not on the verge of nabbing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.)

Why are members of the ruling class the only Americans for whom it’s possible to design a security system that takes the obvious into account?

If security guards at a big, fat terrorist target like the U.S. Capitol can be expected to figure out that members of Congress aren’t a threat, why don’t we trust TSA agents to figure out that little grandmothers, nuns and 8-year-olds aren’t a threat either?

Nancy Pelosi is more likely to engage in a terrorist attack on America than any grandmother or 8-year-old. Just look at what she did to our health care.

Pelosi opposed the Gulf War on the grounds that it would be bad for the environment. She voted to reduce funds for the B-2 intercontinental bomber and repeatedly voted against a missile defense system. She voted to end Radio Marti broadcasts to Cuba. She voted against war in Iraq. She voted against a constitutional amendment to permit school prayer and against allowing state and local governments to display the Ten Commandments.

No wonder she has a 100 percent congressional rating from al-Qaida.

And yet Pelosi is not only able to breeze into the U.S. Capitol without a search, but she can usually board a commercial airline without submitting to the groping or nude body scan that awaits the rest of us. Members of Congress and government officials are generally exempted from the TSA’s airport screenings.

Does TSA administrator John “Long Dong Silver” Pistole get searched at an airport? How about Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano? FBI Director Robert Mueller? Michelle Obama and the kids?

No, of course not. TSA agents are busy X-raying James Caan’s shoes and feeling up nuns.

I’d feel safer if Pistole and Napolitano had the full body cavity search than Grandma. Anyone involved in the creation of an airport security system that requires pilots to be checked for weapons has got to be removed from any government job and promptly institutionalized, as he is a danger to himself and others.

We’re talking about the pilot. Is there anyone in the government who can tell us why the pilot doesn’t need a box-cutter to seize control of the airplane and kill everyone on it? You there, in the back—the skinny guy with the big ears behind the teleprompter: Wanna take a guess? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?

I’m for any program that requires Nancy Pelosi and Janet Napolitano to either be felt up or videotaped nude every morning by Jose, the $20-an-hour security guard—just as they do for the rest of us.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Napolitano: The Ball’s In My Court Now

After the 9/11 attacks, when 19 Muslim terrorists—15 from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates and one each from Egypt and Lebanon, 14 with “al” in their names—took over commercial aircraft with box-cutters, the government banned sharp objects from planes.

Airport security began confiscating little old ladies’ knitting needles and breaking the mouse-sized nail files off of passengers’ nail clippers. Surprisingly, no decrease in the number of hijacking attempts by little old ladies and manicurists was noted.

After another Muslim terrorist, Richard Reid, AKA Tariq Raja, AKA Abdel Rahim, AKA Abdul Raheem, AKA Abu Ibrahim, AKA Sammy Cohen (which was only his eHarmony alias), tried to blow up a commercial aircraft with explosive-laden sneakers, the government prohibited more than 3 ounces of liquid from being carried on airplanes.

All passengers were required to take off their shoes for special security screening, which did not thwart a single terrorist attack, but made airport security checkpoints a lot smellier.

After Muslim terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria tried to detonate explosive material in his underwear over Detroit last Christmas, the government began requiring nude body scans at airports.

The machines, which cannot detect chemicals or plastic, would not have caught the diaper bomber. So, again, no hijackers were stopped, but being able to see passengers in the nude boosted the morale of airport security personnel by 22 percent.

After explosives were inserted in two ink cartridges and placed on a plane headed to the United States from the Muslim nation of Yemen, the government banned printer cartridges from all domestic flights, resulting in no improvement in airport security, while requiring ink cartridges who traveled to take Amtrak.

So when the next Muslim terrorist, probably named Abdul Ahmed al Shehri, places explosives in his anal cavity, what is the government going to require then? (If you’re looking for a good investment opportunity, might I suggest rubber gloves?)

Last year, a Muslim attempting to murder Prince Mohammed bin Nayef of Saudi Arabia blew himself up with a bomb stuck up his anus. Fortunately, this didn’t happen near an airport, or Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano would now be requiring full body cavity searches to fly.

You can’t stop a terrorist attack by searching for the explosives any more than you can stop crime by taking away everyone’s guns.

In the 1970s, liberal ideas on crime swept the country. Gun owners were treated like criminals while actual criminals were coddled and released. If only we treated criminals with dignity and respect and showed them the system was fair, liberals told us, criminals would reward us with good behavior.

As is now well known, crime exploded in the ‘70s. It took decades of conservative law-and-order policies to get crime back to near-1950s levels.

It’s similarly pointless to treat all Americans as if they’re potential terrorists while trying to find and confiscate anything that could be used as a weapon. We can’t search all passengers for explosives because Muslims stick explosives up their anuses. (Talk about jobs Americans just won’t do.)

You have to search for the terrorists.

Fortunately, that’s the one advantage we have in this war. In a lucky stroke, all the terrorists are swarthy, foreign-born, Muslim males. (Think: “Guys Madonna would date.”)

This would give us a major leg up—if only the country weren’t insane.

Is there any question that we’d be looking for Swedes if the 9/11 terrorists, the shoe bomber, the diaper bomber and the printer cartridge bomber had all been Swedish? If the Irish Republican Army were bombing our planes, wouldn’t we be looking for people with Irish surnames and an Irish appearance?

Only because the terrorists are Muslims do we pretend not to notice who keeps trying to blow up our planes.

It would be harder to find Swedes or Irish boarding commercial airliners in the U.S. than Muslims. Swarthy foreigners stand out like a sore thumb in an airport. The American domestic flying population is remarkably homogenous. An airport is not a Sears department store.

Only about a third of all Americans flew even once in the last year, and only 7 percent took more than four round trips. The majority of airline passengers are middle-aged, middle-class, white businessmen with about a million frequent flier miles. I’d wager that more than 90 percent of domestic air travelers were born in the U.S.

If the government did nothing more than have a five-minute conversation with the one passenger per flight born outside the U.S., you’d need 90 percent fewer Transportation Security Administration agents and airlines would be far safer than they are now.

Instead, Napolitano just keeps ordering more invasive searches of all passengers, without exception—except members of Congress and government officials, who get VIP treatment, so they never know what she’s doing to the rest of us.

Two weeks ago, Napolitano ordered TSA agents to start groping women’s breasts and all passengers’ genitalia—children, nuns and rape victims, everyone except government officials and members of Congress. (Which is weird because Dennis Kucinich would like it.)

“Please have your genitalia out and ready to be fondled when you approach the security checkpoint.”

This is the punishment for refusing the nude body scan for passengers who don’t want to appear nude on live video or are worried about the skin cancer risk of the machines—risks acknowledged by the very Johns Hopkins study touted by the government.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that we need to keep the government as far away from airport security as possible, and not only because Janet Napolitano did her graduate work in North Korea.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

REPEAL THE 26TH AMENDMENT!

Jimmy Carter was such an abominable president we got Ronald Reagan, tax cuts, a booming economy and the destruction of the Soviet Union.

Two years of Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress got us the first Republican Congress in half a century, followed by tax cuts, welfare reform and a booming economy


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

We’re All Bigots Now!

After Tuesday’s election, the fresh new faces of the Democratic Party are … Harry Reid and Jerry Brown! (Who had the worst election night? Chuck Schumer, who’s been waiting in the wings to replace Reid as Senate majority leader. Who had the second worst election night? The people who live below Barney Frank’s apartment.)

With the addition of new Republican senators Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Rand Paul (Kentucky) and Marco Rubio (Florida)—among others—the average IQ of Senate Republicans has just increased by about 20 points. Also, liberals won’t have Sharron Angle to kick around anymore. Now that Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are gone, Keith Olbermann is indefinitely suspending his “Worst Persons of the World” segment.

Republicans added two magnificent new black faces to the Congress with Allen West in Florida, who beat sore loser Ron Klein 54.3 percent to 45.7 percent (with 97 percent counted, Klein wouldn’t concede), and Tim Scott in South Carolina, who crushed Democrat Ben Frasier, 65-29.

Republicans also launched two new Hispanic stars this election: Sen.-elect Marco Rubio from Florida and the new governor of New Mexico, Susanna Martinez. And we got a bonus Sikh—Nikki Haley, the new governor of South Carolina. MSNBC is still searching for the “Republicans are racist” angle in all of this.

The most important outcome of this week’s election is that Republicans clobbered the Democrats in the state gubernatorial and legislative races. Next year, state lawmakers draw new congressional districts, determining the congressional map for the next decade. In the past, Democrats have had a 2-1 advantage in congressional redistricting. Not anymore.

Tuesday night, Republicans won governorships in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Alabama, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina—pause, deep breath—New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Maine, Iowa and Florida. They also swept the state legislatures.

Meanwhile, the Democrats won governor’s races in California, New York, Massachusetts, Arkansas and Maryland.

Not only are all the Democrats’ states losing population, which isn’t as important for redistricting, but the Democrats’ biggest plum, California—losing congressional seats for the first time since the ‘50s—also approved a ballot measure that will take redistricting out of the hands of the California legislators and turn it over to a Citizens Redistricting Commission.

So the Democrats got nothing out of this election. Worst of all, now they’re stuck with Harry Reid.

Democrats’ congressional redistricting dreams weren’t the only thing that died Tuesday night. A slew of election myths died—though I’m sure they’ll have to be killed off again in every future election:

(1) All but the broadest election predictions are an enormous waste of everyone’s time.

We may as well listen to people on TV give us their guesses on how many jellybeans are in the 10-gallon jar. The only prediction that came true was my prediction that most predictions were worthless.

Last week, Charles Krauthammer predicted a pickup of 55 House seats and eight Senate seats—which, weirdly, was the exact polling average given by Real Clear Politics. For months now, Dick Morris has been assuring Fox News viewers that Republicans were going to take both houses.
If only some of that precious airtime had been spent interviewing the great Bill Brady, he would not now be locked in a tight election recount for governor in Illinois—Obama’s home state and the sixth most populous state in the nation.

(2) A “wave” election would give the victory to Republicans in all close Senate races.

We had a wave. We had an enormous wave, a tidal wave, a wave that produced more than 60 seats in the House in the biggest party turnover since 1948. But Democrats still won all Senate races that were tied in the polls. The fact that the close races were all in solidly Democratic states had more to do with the outcome than the “wave.” Demographics matter, not “waves.”

(3) Newt Gingrich engineered the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress.

All Newt did was avoid standing in front of a runaway freight train in 1994, when Republicans picked up a comparatively paltry 54 seats. We would have done that if Pee-wee Herman had been the face of the Republican Party. This year, with absolutely no Republican or Tea Party leader, Republicans picked up 60-plus House seats.

Republican landslides are apparently inevitable whenever Democrats try to turn our health care over to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

(4) Tea Party candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell were bad for the Republican Party.

Au contraire! Every Republican who won a tightly contested election should be sending a thank-you note to Angle and O’Donnell for taking all the fire from the mainstream media and keeping the heat off of them.

Republicans never had a chance to take the Senate, and anyone who knows the difference between California and Tennessee knew that. Most of the Senate seats up this year happened to be in very, very “blue” states. Short of a Republican invasion of the body snatchers, Republicans weren’t going to be electing senators from California, New York and Oregon.

Acting as if O’Donnell’s primary victory dashed Republican dreams of taking the Senate was always absurd—particularly coming from the people who supported a World Wrestling Entertainment impresario in Connecticut and did nothing to help a Republican who could have won that race.

(5) The Republican landslide in the House will lead to a bitterly divided Congress with unimaginable gridlock.

The fact that this year’s crop of Senate elections was bad for the Republicans means the Senate elections two years from now, and then again four years from now, are going to be fantastic for Republicans.

Do you think Claire McCaskill, Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown and Jon Tester of Montana—all of whom will be facing the voters in two years—noticed that popular, long-serving Democrat Russ Feingold just lost an election in a much more liberal state than their own?

Even Lindsey Graham is going to start voting with the Republicans!

(6) Connecticut voters wouldn’t mind a World Wrestling Entertainment impresario.

Connecticut isn’t Minnesota. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with Connecticut knew WWE owner Linda McMahon never had a chance even against Dick Blumenthal, a Democrat so repulsive even The New York Times attacked him.

Republicans had the ideal Connecticut candidate in Rob Simmons, who lost the primary to McMahon. He had won in liberal districts before, was a graduate of Haverford College and Harvard University, was an Army colonel who served in Vietnam and teaches at Yale. He also never kicked a man in the groin for entertainment. But Simmons didn’t have McMahon’s money, so Republicans went with McMahon.

If, instead of listening to pundits guess how many jellybeans are in the jar, the conservative media had showcased Simmons, he would have won the primary, and today conservatives and liberals would be united in joy over the defeat of Dick Blumenthal.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Your Don’t Have To Be Crazy To Be a Democrat, But It Helps

With the media sneering about the Tea Party candidates being a bunch of nuts, how about we take a look at some of the Democrats running this year?

We’ve got Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, who personally presided over the housing crash after getting that gay prostitution business behind him. Of course, Frank’s actions are nothing compared to Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul’s alleged participation in a college prank. Now, THERE’S a scandal!

California Sen. Barbara Boxer refuses to say whether a newborn baby is a human life. When Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., asked her on the Senate floor a few years ago whether she believed a baby born alive has a constitutionally protected a right to live, Boxer was stuck for an answer. Her nonresponsive replies included these:

“I support the Roe v. Wade decision. …

“I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born—and the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights. …

“Define ‘separation’ …

“You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in its mother’s arms? …

“The baby is born when the baby is born. That is the answer to the question. …

“I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions!”

(Also, I think she said: “Please call me ‘senator.’”)

That’s not Patty Murray-stupid, but it’s still pretty stupid. How many late-term abortions are you planning to get, Californians, that it’s worth being represented by such a cretinous woman?

Even if you are under the misimpression that Boxer’s Republican opponent, Carly Fiorina, is somehow going to outlaw abortion in California, Carly will cut your taxes so much that you’d be able to fly to Sweden for all your abortions and still come out ahead!

Liberals are indignant that Sarah Palin writes speech notes to herself on her hand. This week, Alex Sink, the Democratic candidate for governor in Florida, was slipped a debating point by her makeup artist, texted by a campaign aide in violation of the rules during a debate with her Republican opponent, Rick Scott.

Oh, those thick Tea Party candidates!

Last weekend, Illinois governor Pat Quinn—Rod Blagojevich’s running mate—stood silently as his supporter, state Sen. Rickey Hendon, blasted Quinn’s Republican opponent, Bill Brady, as “idiotic, racist, sexist, homophobic.”

Hendon has repeatedly made headlines over the past few years for his inappropriate behavior toward female colleagues. Once—during a Senate debate—he asked Sen. Cheryl Axley if her hair was naturally blond and then publicly propositioned her.

Another time, Hendon tackled Rep. Robin L. Kelly, knocking her to the ground after a House-Senate softball game she had come to watch in office attire.

Of the impeccable Brady, Hendon wailed: “If you think that women have no rights whatsoever, except to have his children, vote for Bill Brady. If you think gay and lesbian people need to be locked up and shot in the head, vote for Bill Brady.”

Even the Chicago press was shocked by this, calling on Quinn to apologize. Quinn has “renounced” Hendon’s remarks, but refused to apologize.

But watch out for the Tea Party candidates! There are some real loose cannons in that bunch.

Also last week, Rep. Ron Klein, Democrat of Florida, hysterically claimed he had been “threatened” by one of the Vietnam Veteran bikers supporting his Republican opponent, Allen West.

The man who had allegedly “threatened” Klein is 60 years old and goes by the terrifying name of … “Miami Mike.” Mike told the Miami Herald that he had simply e-mailed Klein, saying that he deserved to be voted out of office and, in addition, he needed “a good ass-kicking, which I’d be more than happy to do even though I’m a lot older than you.”

As Miami Mike said: “A threat? Give me a break. He cannot be scared of what I wrote. If he is, he is just a real baby.”

Apparently so. Klein turned Mike’s e-mail over to the Capitol police, where they promptly burst out laughing and then ordered framed copies of the e-mail.

Speaking of little girls in pink party dresses, Keith Olbermann has repeatedly claimed that Allen West “disgraced his uniform.” Weirdly, he never gives details of how he thinks West did that. (Maybe Olbermann could check on war-zone protocol with fake-Vietnam War veteran Dick Blumenthal, who’s running for the Senate from Connecticut by lying about having served in Vietnam.)

As a colonel in Iraq, West was interrogating an Iraqi terrorist who knew about a planned ambush. Unable to get him to talk, West shot a gun near the terrorist’s head, whereupon the frightened but unharmed detainee spilled the beans.

Because of that, West’s men were able to capture a potential attacker and identify future ambush sites. There were no further attacks on West’s men.

As West later told The New York Times, “There are rules and regulations, and there’s protecting your soldiers.” He said, “I just felt I’d never have to write a letter of condolence home to a ‘rule and regulation.’”

When the Army considered court-martialing West, thousands of letters poured in defending West and thanking him for what he had done. Ninety-five members of Congress signed a letter to the secretary of the Army in support of West. No court-martial was ever convened.

Liberals won’t say that John Phillip Walker Lindh disgraced his country. Washington Sen. Patty Murray thinks Osama bin Laden is a swell guy for building “day care centers” in Afghanistan. But they say a hero like Allen West “disgraced his uniform” by saving the lives of American soldiers.

Yeah, the Tea Party candidates are a real embarrassment.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Chris Coons Lied, Granny Died

In all of life’s tribulations, there is nothing so aggravating as being condescended to by an idiot. In last week’s CNN debate in the Delaware Senate race between the astonishingly well-spoken Christine O’Donnell and the unfortunate-looking Chris Coons, O’Donnell had to put up with it from Coons for 90 minutes.

O’Donnell wiped the floor with Coons, moderators Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Karibjanian, and the idiotic University of Delaware students asking questions—all of whom were against her.

(With the nation on the verge of another great depression—the brunt of which, to my delight, will fall most heavily on college students—guess what the dunderheads asked? GUESS! That’s right: They asked about abortion “in the case of rape or incest,” “don’t ask, don’t tell,” doing something about “our carbon footprint,” and the kook-minister who was going to burn Korans, because ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE, I TELL YOU!)

O’Donnell’s responses couldn’t have been better if Thomas Sowell were whispering them in her ear. But after every well-thought-out answer she gave, Coons would act as if O’Donnell were speaking in tongues and make a dismissive remark to the moderators: “If you can reconcile all those comments, you’re an even more talented reporter than I think you are, Nancy.”

O’Donnell managed to simply answer the questions without wasting everyone’s time with snippy asides about Coons’ replies.

Then Coons would say something incomprehensible, false or insane—such as his conspiracy theory about the Australians uniting with the Chinese against America.

Yes, Australia, America’s most loyal ally.

After O’Donnell described the China problem with absolute precision—the Chinese hold so much of our debt, we can’t hold them accountable in their dealings with Iran or North Korea—Coons smirkingly replied: “It’s hard for me to respond effectively, Wolf, to all the different issues that my opponent has raised in previous statements, and I’ll just let that stand.”

Then he launched his Chinese-Australian conspiracy theory!

Coons said: “The Australian navy engaged in joint exercises with the Chinese and specifically excluded us recently. A dramatic shift in the Australian policy.”

Somehow, The New York Times had missed the national security implications of Australia’s engaging in naval exercises with China! Either that or Coons is Dennis Kucinich, I’ve-got-eight-test-tube-babies-and-I’m-broke crazy.

Weirdly, though, considering Australia is snubbing the U.S. and sidling up to China, the Australian navy also recently staged a dramatic re-enactment of Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s Incheon landing during the Korean War, which saved Australian troops from annihilation.

It’s strange that the Australians would honor America—or as the North Koreans put it, try to impress “U.S. sycophants and lackeys”—just as they’re distancing themselves from us. Maybe that’s why no one else in the developed world is worried about Australia’s joint naval exercises with China.

(But The Weekly World News is jumping right on it!)

In contrast to O’Donnell’s manifestly true point that “China could take us over monetarily before they could militarily,” Coons seemed more worried about a military invasion. He warned that “as the Chinese have become economically stronger, they are seeking to become militarily stronger.”

(O’Donnell quipped: “Are you saying that China has a plot to take over America?”—exactly what she has been falsely accused of saying.)

If you do nothing else before casting your vote, Delawareans, ask people who know something if China poses more of a military threat, or a monetary threat, to us. (Make sure they know you’re talking about China the country, not singer/actress Chynna Phillips.)

What should worry Delaware voters even more than Coons’ demanding a first strike against China was the elaborate lying he did—on stage, in front of everyone—about his family’s financial interest in cap and trade.

Responding to the question about “our carbon footprint” from a student who will be living with his parents soon, O’Donnell gave a tour-de-force attack on the cap-and-trade bill, mentioning the massive electricity bills that will devastate Delaware’s farmers and elderly citizens.

She concluded by asking Coons: “Speaking of cap and trade, your family business stands to financially benefit from some environmental legislation under Bush—“

Then she was cut off by the moderator.

Coons sneered: “A fascinating question that really makes no sense, yet, so if you’d like to—better ask the whole question, I’d be—what’s she talking about?”

O’Donnell said sweetly, “I’d like to know if your family business stands to have a financial gain if cap and trade is passed and, if so, would you recuse yourself in the lame duck sessions from voting with Harry Reid?”

Coons again scoffed at O’Donnell: “Fascinating question. No.”

Thinking he had caught O’Donnell in a gaffe, Blitzer asked for her evidence. Oops!

O’Donnell cited W.L. Gore—the company owned by Coon’s stepfather, which also provided Coons with the only for-profit job he ever held—and said that the company makes fuel cells and other things that companies will be forced to buy under cap and trade. (Making W.L. Gore at least the second entity named “Gore” to cash in on the global warming hoax, by the way.)

Blitzer asked Coons, “Is that true?” Oops, again!

Amid a litany of irrelevancies and insults—That’s quite a stretch, Gore makes a lot of products, we also sell dental floss!—Coons finally coughed up the truth: Yes, Gore will benefit if cap and trade becomes law.

He explained his earlier, by-now-obvious lie by saying that “it took a couple of minutes to even understand what she was talking about.”

Really? That’s strange, because according to Delaware newspaper articles not seven years ago, Coons himself—as the lawyer for Daddy’s company


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

There’s a Reason They Call Him ‘Dick’

If the Bush administration ever treated terrorism suspects the way Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal treats law-abiding citizens and small businesses, even conservatives would have blanched.

This activist, interventionist Democrat—like his identical, slightly less oily twin, Eliot Spitzer—decided at age 5 he was going to be a U.S. senator and then the first Jewish president. And he doesn’t care how many lives he has to destroy to get there.

Currently, Blumenthal is running for the U.S. Senate against Linda McMahon in Connecticut. He must be stopped.

Even his ideological ally, The New York Times, thinks he must be stopped. That paper ran a front-page expose on Blumenthal’s lies about having served in Vietnam, violating a century-old Times tradition of never printing information unflattering to a Democrat.

Blumenthal apologized for lying about being in Vietnam, saying, “I take full responsibility.” Who else was he considering blaming? The voices in his head?

Among Blumenthal’s taxpayer-funded citizen-persecution projects was the one he waged against Gina Kolb, owner of Computer Plus Center in East Hartford.

After selling $17.2 million worth of computers and servers to the state in 2001, Kolb found herself being sued by Blumenthal for $1.75 million for allegedly overcharging the state $500,000.

Publicity-whore Blumenthal sent out an accusatory press release about Kolb, saying: “No supplier should be permitted to shortchange or overcharge the state without severe consequences.”

Soon thereafter, Kolb was arrested at her home on seven first-degree larceny charges, courtesy of Connecticut’s crazily hyperactive attorney general.

Wonder why you have a $4 billion deficit, Nutmeggers? Blumenthal’s endless investigations into responsible, law-abiding citizens like Kolb have now cost more than the entire Iraq War. (And that’s just the cost of the paper for Blumenthal’s 12 billion press releases!)

A court dismissed all charges against Kolb and her company in 2008. But not before this female businesswoman had her company completely shattered by the pathologically ambitious attorney general.

I’m sorry, I know you need to be on television every single day, Dick, but that’s not enough of a reason to destroy innocent citizens’ lives, much less use taxpayer money to do so.

Kolb was far from the only innocent citizen persecuted by Blumenthal. The reason we know her story is that, instead of moving as far away from Connecticut as she could, Kolb turned around and sued the state for violating her constitutional rights.

The jury agreed, awarding her $18 million for Blumenthal’s “pattern of conduct” that destroyed Kolb’s business and impugned her integrity.

Noticeably, the attorney general who spends most of his waking hours phoning reporters, holding press conferences and issuing press releases did not make a peep about Kolb’s total vindication in court, despite his having earlier blackened her name. Perhaps he was busy attending a fake Vietnam veterans’ reunion that day.

To the contrary, Blumenthal continued using the power of his office to persecute Kolb. This is the problem with government officials using taxpayer money to further their own political ambitions: No one could tell him to cut his losses and stop harassing Kolb.

Blumenthal filed a blizzard of motions—at taxpayer expense—appealing the jury’s verdict in favor of Kolb. One of them finally succeeded in getting a judge to reduce the damages to Kolb, who presumably is now living in Hawaii under an assumed name so Blumenthal doesn’t start making crank calls to her.

(She should go to Vietnam! Blumenthal will never find her there!)

Connecticut taxpayers spent millions of dollars harassing this innocent businesswoman, successfully destroying a profitable, job-creating computer company in the state and one law-abiding taxpayer in the process. Thanks, Dick!

Blumenthal’s 24-hour publicity office managed to produce a gleaming press release on the reduction of Kolb’s damages award, in which he vowed to “continue fighting to overturn this verdict.”

Asked by Charles Kochakian of the New Haven Register about the case and whether Blumenthal ever released a statement when a victim of his legal harassment was vindicated, Blumenthal essentially said: No one is ever vindicated. Just because no wrongdoing was found, he said, doesn’t mean wrongdoing didn’t occur.

Welcome to Connecticut, where you’re guilty until proved innocent (and you can never be proved innocent).

Most shockingly, Blumenthal said he would never issue a press release about one of his publicly accused targets being vindicated because “new evidence may well emerge.”

“New evidence may well emerge” that Dick Blumenthal is a child molesting ax murderer. But until it does, no one has a right to say so. Hello? ACLU? Heard of Dick Blumenthal?

Everyone in Connecticut knows Blumenthal’s name, largely on account of his daily press conferences for nearly two decades as attorney general, announcing lawsuits to combat every minor inconvenience. Arby’s served jalapeno poppers at 114 degrees? Blumenthal is holding a press conference at noon!

This hyperactive, publicity-mad lunatic is constantly announcing new lawsuits far beyond the purview of his office, like some New England version of Hugo Chavez. This won him the title: “Worst Attorney General in the Country” from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

He’s sued power companies for contributing to “global warming,” asking the courts to impose cap and trade—a bill so absurd neither Obama nor the Democratic Senate will touch it.

He’s sued gun companies, trying to hold them responsible for criminal acts by third parties involving guns.

He’s sued tobacco companies so he could extort millions of dollars for his old law firm and other legal cronies overseeing the shakedown—I mean “settlement.”

Blumenthal is now in a tight race with Linda McMahon for the U.S. Senate. I understand why Connecticut would like to get rid of him, but that’s no reason to foist this menace on the rest of the country. How about sending him to Vietnam?


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Not Your Average Joe

My friend Joe Sobran died last Thursday, and the world lost its greatest writer.

To my delight, some obituaries noted that he had influenced my writing style. I only wish I had known he was so close to the end so I could have seen him again to let him influence me some more.

The G.K. Chesterton of our time, Joe could deliver a knockout punch with a single line. Many of his aphorisms were so catchy that everyone repeats them now without realizing their provenance.

It was Joe who came up with the apocryphal New York Times headline: “New York Destroyed by Earthquake; Women and Minorities Hit Hardest.”

Joe created the phrase “strange new respect” to describe the sudden warm admiration the media have for any conservative who becomes a liberal.

In the ‘80s, Bill Buckley suggested that AIDS sufferers be required to get tattoos on their buttocks to protect other gays. As all hell broke loose over his proposal, Sobran simply suggested that it might borrow from Dante: “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”

I’ve recently been telling a friend who talked me into agreeing to an interview with the Times that I wouldn’t be mad at him no matter what the Times does to me because “your enemies can never hurt you, only your friends can.” I remember now that it was Sobran who told me that, years ago, in reference to his treatment by Buckley.

Ironically perhaps, I’ve often used a Sobran observation to explain why I have a greater affinity to Israel than to the Muslim world after 9/11: Watching a death-match fight on Animal Planet once, Joe said he found himself instinctively rooting for the mammal over the reptile.

Joe was comically immune to group-think. Every Christian should be, but with Joe it was nearly pathological.

A Shakespeare expert, Joe became convinced that the real author was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. Among his vast trove of evidence were the sonnets, some of which clearly expressed love for another man.

When Joe was writing what became “Alias Shakespeare,” he used to tell me he was going to title the book: “He’s Here, He’s Queer, He’s Edward de Vere!”

Reading through some of his columns after he died and being reminded of what an eloquent writer Joe was, I realized that the best tribute would be to quote him extensively.

As Joe himself said: “I note that my enemies have written a great deal about me, yet they rarely quote me directly. Why not? If I am so disreputable myself, I must at least occasionally say disreputable things. Is it possible that what I say is more cogent than they like to admit?”

Joe’s quotes are much better when you’re reading his columns and a beautifully turned phrase sneaks up on you, but here are a few good ones, even in isolation:

—On our democracy: “Your chances of meeting an IRS agent are far greater than your chances of meeting anyone you voted for.”

—On Clinton: “Once again, his defenders, furiously attacking the prosecution and equating opposition with ‘conspiracy,’ don’t dare mount the best defense: ‘He’s not that sort of man.’ It’s because Clinton is, supremely, ‘that sort of man’ that this whole thing has happened. He’s a lying lecher, a prevaricating pervert, an utterly slimy crook, without a trace of honor or loyalty, desperately trying to save his own skin one last time.”

—On big government: “Freedom has ceased to be a birthright; it has come to mean whatever we are still permitted to do.”

—On Obama: “Nor has he said anything memorable—not even a single aphorism over this long campaign. And the title of his book ‘The Audacity of Hope’—what on earth does that mean? He is always hinting at a substance that is never disclosed to us. He seems to live by raising vague aspirations he never fulfills.”

—On Buckley’s book “In Search of Anti-Semitism”: “Its real message is not that we should like or respect Jews; only that we should try not to hate them. But this implies that anti-Semitism is the natural reaction to them: If it’s a universal sin, after all, it must be a universal temptation. … When he defends Jews, I sometimes feel like saying: ‘Bill! Bill! It’s all right! They’re not that bad!’”

—On evolution: “If our furry and scaly friends were still evolving, none of them appeared to be gaining on us.”

—On Canada banning Dr. Laura: “Canada has to protect itself against such pernicious, hate-filled American notions as the Law of Moses. If Dr. Laura wants to spew the Ten Commandments, let her do it in her own country.”

After I made some point to Joe once, he paid me a compliment that describes exactly why it was so fun to be around him. He said, “Your mind is always going.”

His body is gone, but I’m sure his mind is still going like gangbusters. And I’m insanely jealous that he’s giving God all the good belly laughs now.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Patty Murray: The Stupidest Person in America

No liberal has standing to call any Republican stupid as long as Patty Murray remains in the U.S. Senate.

Soon after being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992, Murray went on a radio show and said:

“When I was growing up, the big fear in my life was the nuclear war. I remember second- and third-grade teachers giving us skills to deal with it, if that big alarm goes off, which was ‘Hide under your desk.’ Would that do any good? I don’t know. But as a child, that gives you a feeling there’s something to do beyond panic. Today the biggest fear our kids live with is whether … the kid beside them has a gun. We have to give them skills so they feel confident to deal with it.”

The woman is not sure if ducking under a school desk would help in a nuclear attack. Not only that, but she wants to do something similarly pointless to help children “deal with” school shootings. Maybe imaginary bullet-proof vests!

With amazing understatement, one of Murray’s Democratic colleagues in the state senate told The Seattle Times in 1992: “She just doesn’t strike you as somebody who’s been reading The New York Times every day for the past five years.” I wonder when Katie Couric is going to ask Murray what newspapers she reads.

After Murray was elected to the U.S. Senate, the Democrats tried to keep her locked in her office to prevent her from saying anything that might end up in a newspaper. But in the confusion after the 9/11 attack, the leadership must have lost the keys and Murray escaped to say this about Osama bin Laden:

“He’s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. He’s made their lives better.”

Yes, Osama was out building “day-care facilities”—and probably sponsoring “Bring Your Daughter to Work” days! I defy anyone to produce something stupider ever uttered by a homo sapiens. Not Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden or even John Edwards can hold their dimly lit candles to her.

Murray, whose college major was “recreation,” got her start in politics fighting to save her own useless government job.

The laughably apocryphal story she tells is that she was told by some crusty old male politician, still unnamed decades later: “You’re just a mom in tennis shoes—you can’t make a difference!” (You know how politicians love gratuitously insulting their constituents.)

This stuck in Murray’s craw and so, filled with righteous anger, she ran for state office and won as a “mom in tennis shoes.”

The real story is that Murray was teaching a “parenting” class at a community college, which no one was taking, so the state decided to cut it. Murray’s reaction was, “Wait—I’m a public employee! You have no right to fire me!”

She wasn’t a parent upset that her child’s school was dropping an art history class. She was a deadbeat public employee who didn’t want her job cut. No one was taking her course, but she thought taxpayers should be required to pay her salary anyway.

Fighting to keep your own cushy job isn’t a point of principle; it’s evidence of a narcissistic personality disorder.

But you have to do a lot of research to find out that the class being eliminated was Murray’s own. This deliberate policy on the part of the press to hide Murray’s utterly self-serving motive for saving the class proves they know this is a problem for her.

The media’s admiration for Murray’s tenacious political start is like applauding the pluck of a stalker: “That guy sure has moxie and determination!” You’re not supposed to be canonized for fighting to keep your own job.

Murray is the equivalent of a Wall Street fat-cat saying, “I’m going to fight for my $50 million severance package because it’s the right thing to do!”

This remarkably unimpressive woman has tried to turn being a flat-footed dork into an advantage by selling herself as a tribune of regular folks. Yes, like most regular folk, she listed no religious affiliation whatsoever in the first few additions of the Congressional Almanac. (She probably couldn’t remember she was supposed to say “Catholic.”)

Soon after being elected to the Senate in 1992, Murray fought for a federal government jobs program by saying, “The highest-paying job I had before coming to Washington, D.C., paid $23,000 a year. … I know what it’s like to tell my kids they can’t buy everything they want.”

Is that what Murray thinks a senator should be doing? Ensuring that parents can tell their children they can buy everything they want?

True, Murray is a mom. You could also describe Hitler as a “war veteran and painter,” but I think the more salient fact is that he was a German dictator.

Similarly, Murray’s relevant characteristic is that she is a lifelong public-sector union zealot.

Again, Murray’s class was on “parenting”—the very definition of a pointless government program. Imagine going back in a time machine and trying to explain to someone from 1950 why the government was paying for classes on “parenting.” How about classes on “waking up” or “getting dressed”?

Democrats have completely infantilized the populace in order to create jobs for useless social workers like Murray—and then people wonder why states are going bankrupt under crushing debt burdens.

But I guess we have to fund these idiotic programs in order not to be outshone by Osama’s “Partnership With Working Mothers Initiative” in Peshawar.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Ann Coulter Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

"ProudToBeCanadian."
It's a question.