Obama's Poll Numbers Down, Imaginary Racism Up

It's a hot topic this week. What we have been seeing with ThinkProgress.org editing a video for propaganda purposes and then with Shirley Sherrod admitting to an overt act of racism, is a massive playing of the race card by the left. Only this time, the race card is blowing up right in their faces, and they know it. Thus, they go on the offensive and claim that only Conservatives can be racist but they immediately clam up or go into major spin mode when asked to explain the comments of people like King Shabazz and Shirley Sherrod.

And of course, no one on the left will even consider commenting on the Justice Department's directive not to pursue any case where the victim was white and the perpetrator black.

Ann Coulter has a nice take on this:

This is what "racism" has come to in America. Democrats are in trouble, so they say "let's call conservatives racists." We always knew it, but the Journolist postings gave us the smoking gun. This explains why we've heard so much about Tea Partiers being "racists" lately. But despite a frantic search, the media have been unable to produce any actual evidence of racism at the Tea Parties. Even the trace elements are either frauds or utterly trivial.

Whereas bloggers like me have been posting hard evidence about racism in other organizations or that alleged Tea Party racism turns out to be fabricated, we have yet to find one person or group that has any hard evidence of a racist Tea Party.

Rememeber when Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 to anyone who could produce an audio or video tape showing that some Tea Partier had called Rep. John Lewis a certain racial epithtet (beginning with the letter "N") at least one time, nevermind the 15 times that the news media charged? That reward still remains unclaimed. Why? Because the incident never happened.

Given the number of video cameras, cell phones and other recording devices that were present, there is no way someone could have yelled that word fifteen times and it never got recorded.

More:

And now this week, with the NAACP accusing the Tea Partiers of harboring racists, and conservatives demanding proof, the George Soros-backed Center for American Progress ran a 45-second video allegedly showing racism at the Tea Parties. One of the videos shows an obvious liberal plant announcing, "I'm a proud racist!" Apparently this was their best shot, because they had to work this video into the montage twice, amid utterly innocuous posters, for example, saying, "God bless Glenn Beck." So I guess they didn't have anything better. Here's the part Soros' people didn't show you: In the fuller video shown on the Glenn Beck show, the Tea Partiers surrounded the (liberal plant) racist, jeering at him, telling him he's not one of them and to go home. In a spectacularly evil fraud, all that was edited out.

I have that very video posted on this blog.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama's Poll Numbers Down, Imaginary Racism Up
Ann Coulter
Townhall.com
July 22, 2010

Ann Coulter's Conservative Sell-Out

We all know that Ann Coulter has written and spoken some pretty controversial things over the years. Most of them we enjoyed, some not so enjoyable. Dr. Mike Adams is one of the first conservative columnists to call Ann Coulter out due to recent events.

There are several reasons for this. Her suggestion that we invade Muslim countries and force their leaders to convert to Christianity as well as her use of the terms "rag head" and "faggot" at CPACs have had the effect of bringing more negative attention to the Conservative Movement. But her support for Sen. Clinton's Presidential bid is the straw that broke the camel's back for Dr. Adams.

From his most recent column:

It should go without saying that Roe v. Wade will never be over-turned if those three things happen. Even a one-term Clinton presidency will give her at least two picks for the USSC. And we can all expect picks with the ideology of a Laurence Tribe (or maybe an Alan Dershowitz) coming from President Rodham Clinton. On the other hand, a President McCain may well pick judges who think like Chief Justice John Roberts. And that would provide at least some hope that Roe could be over-turned. When it appeared that Rudy Giuliani was the front runner for the Republican nomination Ann said she could never support him for president because he is pro-choice. But Giuliani is a pro-choice Republican who opposes partial-birth abortion. Clinton is a pro-choice Democrat who supports partial-birth abortion. Why does the same litmus test not apply?

I've wondered the same thing. Ann's biggest criticism of Sen. John McCain is that he crossed to the other side of the aisle and worked with our opponents. Isn't she doing exactly the same thing here? And if we are to hold Sen. McCain accountable for such, shouldn't we hold Ann Coulter equally accountable?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Ann Coulter's Conservative Sell-Out
Mike S. Adams
TownHall.com
March 7, 2008

McCain: Bush Should Veto Torture Bill

Despite Sen. McCain's opposition to waterboarding as an interrogation technique, he voted against a bill that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh techniques and is now calling on President Bush to veto the measure.

From the Associated Press via GOPUSA:

McCain voted against the bill, which would restrict the CIA to using only the 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual. His vote was controversial because the manual prohibits waterboarding -- a simulated drowning technique that McCain also opposes -- yet McCain doesn't want the CIA bound by the manual and its prohibitions.

Is this the same Sen. John McCain that Ann Coulter claims is more liberal than Sen. Hillary Clinton? Did not this same Ann Coulter say that Sen. McCain's opposition to waterboarding was a major piece of evidence for said claim? (Anyone care to guess whether or not Sens. Clinton and Obama supported this bill?)

Seems to me that if Sen. McCain were more liberal than Sen. Hillary Clinton, then he would have voted for this measure and would now be calling on President Bush to sign it.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain: Bush Should Veto Torture Bill
Libby Quaid
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
February 21, 2008

Ann Coulter Goes Off The Deep End

I was a big fan of Ann Coulter for a long time. But that changed on February 13, 2008 with her publication of the following column:

There's A Democrat Behind Door No. 1, 2 and 3
Ann Coulter
Human Events Online
February 13, 2008

The change was made permenent last night when I watched her on Glenn Beck. You see, I don't appreciate people who insult my intelligence whether those people are on the left (e.g. those with Bush Derangement Syndrome) or on the right (e.g. the blinded by hate McCain bashers). At issue here is what Ann wrote in her column and reiterated on Glenn Beck:

Hillary is, shockingly enough, the most conservative candidate among the top three presidential candidates.

Ann used scant and flimsy evidence to back up this idiotic claim, both in the column and on Glenn Beck, citing only waterboarding and the proposed closing of Gitmo. But what is interesting is that Ann cites the American Conservative Union Ratings for Congressional Delegations to help further back up her claim:

We keep hearing about McCain's "lifetime" rating from the American Conservative Union being 82.3 percent. But McCain has been a member of Congress for approximately 400 years, so that includes his votes on the Spanish-American War. His more current ratings are not so hot. In 2006 -- the most recent year for which ratings are available -- McCain's ACU rating was 65. That year, the ACU rating for the other senator from Arizona, Jon Kyl, was 97. Even Chuck Hagel's ACU rating was 75, and Lindsey Graham's was 83.

Now here is what is really interesting about Ann's column. Nowhere does she even try to mention the ACU rating for Senator Hillary Clinton. Why would that be?

Because had Ann actually told us what Hillary's rating was and allowed us to compare it to the rating John McCain has, it would have made Ann look like a blathering idiot. Here are the ratings comparisons:

Senator McCain had in 2006 a rating of 65 and in 2005 a rating of 80. His lifetime rating is 82.3.

Senator Clinton had in 2006 a rating of 8 and 2005 a rating of 12. Her lifetime rating is 9.

You can access this information on-line here:

American Conservative Union 2006 U.S. Congress Ratings
American Conservative Union Website

I can certainly see why Ann chose to hide that information from us. It makes her statement about Hillary's conservatism completely laughable and it makes Ann look like a fool. Further, it shows that Ann didn't think we were intelligent enough to go do research and check her claims.

Well, I am that intelligent and I do not like being insulted like that.

But let's not stop here. Let's look at the Presidential campaign and compare policy proposals to see exactly how "conservative" Hillary is, as Ann claims.

On the issue of Health care, John McCain has pledged to keep Health Care in the realm of the Free Market while Hillary wants to implement a socailized Health Care system that has been nothing short of disastrous in Great Britain and Canada. This makes McCain more conservative than Hillary.

On the issue of taxes and the economy, John McCain has pledged to make the 2001 tax cuts permanent while Hillary has proposed removing them and raising taxes. This makes McCain more conservative than Hillary.

On the issue of judicial apointments, John McCain has pledged to appoint justices like John Roberts and Samual Alito. Hillary prefers judges who would legislate from the bench. This makes McCain more conservative than Hillary.

On the issue of terrorism, John McCain has pledged to keep America on the offensive against terrorists and their sponsors. Hillary wants to back down. This makes McCain more conservative than Hillary.

You can see where this is heading, right?

Ann Coulter, like David Hackworth a few years ago, has lost her credibility. She has also lost a fan. I used to read her articles and defend her positions from liberals all over the Internet. I can no longer do so, unless Ann comes out and apologizes for thinking people like me to be less than intelligent enough to do research on our own and think for ourselves.

Decision Time And An Open Letter To McCain's Detractors

It's been almost a week since Mitt Romney bowed out and the vitriol against John McCain that has been coming from the right has steady flowed non-stop, almost to the point of becoming a sort of derangement syndrome. Frankly, the Dems couldn't have asked for a better scenario than that, especially since their contest may actually come down to the Convention and who has control over the superdelegates. Such a situation could tear the Dems apart and seriously hamper their efforts in the final two months before November.

Lt. Col. Oliver North reminds us that the same thing can happen to the GOP and that the voter turnout numbers in the Dem and GOP primaries are not encouraging. From his latest column:

My "colleagues" in the so-called mainstream media gladly roll their cameras and recorders for those who assert that "McCain is not a real conservative" or who say, "I can never support him," and the ones claiming, "I just won't vote this year." It is, for me, a disheartening display because I have, as we say in the Marines, "been there -- done that." After I won the 1994 Republican nomination for a U.S. Senate seat in Virginia, I naively assumed that all in the GOP would pull together behind my conservative candidacy. I clearly don't know much about politics. If I did, I'd be writing this from my U.S. Senate office instead of my home in Virginia's Blue Ridge Mountains. But at the trade school John McCain and I attended in Annapolis, Md., they did teach me how to count. I lost by a narrow margin in a three-way race. Some of those who were with me then are among those who now say they won't support John McCain.

I remember that race. I couldn't vote in it because I was living in Maryland at the time but I do remember how it turned out. The same thing could very well happen to the GOP if we don't unite.

Lt. Col. North goes on:

Worse still, since this election cycle began last year, the Democrats have raised more money than the GOP, and in the primary balloting that began last month, Democrats have turned out more voters. These numbers matter because they reflect the energy and commitment of the opposing parties in this year's presidential contest.

And this begs a question: Where were all the GOP voters who claim they could only support a Conservative during these past primary elections and on Super Tuesday? It seems as if there are more anti-McCain Republicans than there were people who actually showed up to vote in the primaries! How did that happen?

For some reason, the more Conservative candidates such as Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson had fewer supporters than the more liberal candidates McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani. Where were these Conservative "values voters" when the voting happened in places like Florida? I can't tell you where those people were when the polls opened, but I can tell you where they were not: voting or campaigning for a Conservative candidate.

Thus, my belief is that it is not one single person or one faction of the GOP that brought us to where we are now. We all share in this responsibility either by commission or by omission. Now, we need to deal with the reality of that collective responsibility.

Lt. Col. North is right: the most logical way to deal with it is to unite.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Decision Time
Lt. Col. Oliver North
GOPUSA.com
February 12, 2008

---

And along this line of reasoning, we have an open letter from Jack Kemp to radio personalities Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and columnist Ann Coulter. Jack writes:

The mistakes he alluded to in his CPAC speech reflect humility going forward that is encouraging to those of us like me, Steve Forbes, Ted Olsen, former Sen. George Allen and other conservatives who wanted to see in him a genuine desire to work with, and listen to, some of the original Reaganites. ... Collectively, you have all pointed out some of his faults (and failures), but overall, McCain is a genuine American hero, an 82.5 percent conservative, according to the American Conservative Union, and a man whose courage and tenacity are well-chronicled. You gave him your best shots and he took it like a man. Now, as he heads toward the nomination, I urge you to continue to be critical, but to do so in measured ways that will not damage his ability to win in November against those who would weaken our nation's defense, wave a white flag to al-Qaida, socialize our health-care system, and promote income redistribution and class warfare instead of economic growth and equality of opportunity. With Supreme Court appointments to be made in the near future and attacks mounting on traditional family values, it's critical to our cause to have a candidate who can appeal to Reagan Democrats and independent voters who share our world view. The stakes are enormous, and I urge you to put the McCain candidacy into historical perspective and recognize that he isn't just a bulldog of the Senate, but that he can become the lion of the 21st century.

We all know what the alternative is. Is anyone seriously willing to risk that?

I'm not.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

An Open Letter To Rush, Sean, Laura, Ann, Mark, et al.
Jack Kemp
TownHall.com
February 11, 2008