CPC Report; An unabashedly liberal perspective

  15 August 2009

By way of Introduction

This is the first edition of the CPC Report, which is an unabashedly liberal perspective on politics. My name is G. Lynn Braman aka Glynn Braman. I cite as one of my credentials a BA in history from Wichita State University.

Unlike many on the right, I do not pretend to be unbiased. Everyone is biased. Anyone who says differently is either a fool or a liar, for bias is merely the prism through which one views the world and is influenced by ones values and beliefs. The only question is how the bias affects ones view of that world, for an extreme bias can greatly distort ones outlook. If you need proof of that, just listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Fox News.

My gaze in this report shall mostly fall upon what I shall call the Right Wing Lying Machine (RWLM) and the Conservative Political Correctness (CPC) in which they promote. This consists of conservative bloggers spreading malicious gossip on the Internet about liberals;  talk show hosts such as Boss Rush Limbaugh, to whom the GOP pays homage; the party members to whom for the most part are kept in line by the boss; Fox News known for being unfair and quite unbalanced, birthers demanding to see President Obama's birth certificate which is on the Internet for anyone to see and has been authenticated by the Republican governor of Hawaii; television commentators such as Patrick Buchanan and cast of hundreds, left unnamed; the Conservative Book Club which promotes fact checked free books written by  many of the previously mentioned conservatives and the American Enterprise Institute which is allegedly a think tank and is known to promote conservative ideology for a price. In the writing of this online newsletter, it is my aim to be accurate. I shall not put forth lies that individuals such as Rush Limbaugh, Patrick Buchanan, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly of Fox News do. The RWLM is opposed to liberals, for which I shall for the most defend. However if I believe that a conservative is right on any given issue, I am quite willing to say so. Please note, I do not consider this to be an organized conspiracy. I only believe that the organizations and people of the RWLM often work in concert with one another

 

So Much Ado About Nothing

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. William Shakespeare, MacBeth

Lies about Sonia Sotomayer from the right

The cacophony has subsided upon Capital Hill, save for the rhetoric about socialized medicine. The hearings about the nomination of Ms. Sonia Sotomayer in the Senate Judiciary Committee has ended with a whimper as the Republicans on the committee have concluded their inquisition. In the end, they really had nothing to say. In regards to her fitness to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court, the questions posed were redundant, were often repeated and were asked over and over again. What it comes down to is a matter of so much ado about absolutely nothing. Thus far, this has been the case for the Republican Party and its fellow travelers of the the right. Senator John Cornyn of Texas (R), said it best when asked a nominee to the Supreme Court that if he gets asked the same questions, would that nominee give a different answer? However that remark was posed to John Roberts, who was the choice for nominee for the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by fellow Republican George W. Bush. However with Ms. Sotomayer, there was Senator Cornyn mimicking his fellow GOP partisans on the committee in taking a few remarks that Ms. Sotomayer had made in the past totally out of context and doing so over and over again along with his fellow partisans. To people of their mentality, no answer that the nominee could give would be satisfactory. Ms. Sotomayer, attempted to place those poorly chosen words in the context of that speech. For example, she had praised an all white Supreme Court for unanimously ruling for the defendants of Brown Vs. the Topeka Board of Education, et. al. (Of course, this would not impress the typical bigot). Her Republican audience preferred to portray the "Wise Latina" remark as being racist and anything she had to say in her defense, was simply ignored. Perhaps, these Republican members of the committee were selectively deaf in deciphering Ms. Sotomayer's remarks.

One of her inquisitors, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama (R), the ranking Republican member on the committee, seemed fixated on the matter of the wise Latina. This is this Senator who was rejected by the the Judiciary Committee in the Reagan administration in 1986 for a position on the U.S. Court of Appeals by a vote of 9 to 9. This is when the Republicans ran the committee. The reason why he was rejected by the committee was in part for calling the N.A.A.C.P. unamerican and communist inspired. This is a throw back to the 1940's, 50's and 60's when just speaking out against Mr. Jim Crow made one unamerican and a communist. Old habits must die hard for white folks like Senator Sessions. His disdain for the matter of civil rights for minorities certainly was demonstrated by his prior declaration that the "civil rights (of black Americans) were being shoved down the throats of (white) Americans" and by asking Ms. Sotomayer why she did not vote with another judge who oversaw a reverse discrimination case, simply because they were both Puerto Ricans.You might as well ask why all of the white male members of the Supreme Court do not vote in the same manner.

In regards to that reverse discrimination case, Ms. Sotomayer voted with the majority on the court upholding the Hartford City Council's decision to throw out test scores for the fire fighters exam. This was done because the results of the test would not promote diversity within the fire department. Her ruling, as she explained, was based on the law as she understood it. This ruling was later reversed by the same court that she is now seeking to join. Is that not what conservatives want- justices who do not make law from the bench? Or perhaps, they are only concerned that the outcome is according to their own biases.

The greatest irony of the hearing was when Senator Sessions confessed that he was a crackhead. That was quite a shock. This is when Senator Sessions said to Ms. Sotomayer "Let's do that crack thing." Of course, what he was really talking about was reducing the penalties for the possession of crack cocaine. However one might wonder if Senator Sessions might have come to the realization how a misspoken phrase might be taken out of context. One might also wonder if the good senator from Alabama is indeed a crackhead after seemingly confessing to being one.

What it comes down to, it is that Republicans are playing politics. This is a grave matter indeed. In the past it was the only the Democrats who were guilty of this, or so said Republicans. They were by their own lights above this sort of thing.

The cacophony from Capitol Hill was amplified in the studio of the Rachel Maddow Show. This is when she confronted Patrick Buchanan on the matter of whether Ms. Sotomayer was a racist, in regards to the case of the wise Latina and to that one case regarding affirmation as well. Pat said yes to Rachel saying no.

Pat also argued that Ms. Sotomayer was unqualified. One of the reasons was that she once claimed to be an "affirmation action baby". By that logic George W. Bush was not qualified to attend Yale University because he got in by way of affirmative action. He got in not because of merit, but because he belonged to a family of alumni who had gone to Yale. It is called the legacy and it is a kind of affirmative action. Certainly, there were more qualified people for Yale, than Dubya who was a mediocre student by all accounts. Ironically, at one time Pat did advocate affirmative action- for ethnic Catholics. In a memo when Richard Nixon was president and Pat was a speechwriter, he wrote a memo about giving the "Jewish" or "Black" seat to an ethnic Catholic, such as an Italian, on the Supreme Court. This fact was discovered by the research team working for Ms. Maddow.

On the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, Pat was typically Pat which is asinine, unfair and awfully shrill in his arguments. Rachel being typically Rachel, on the next day, debunked much of what Pat had to say, based on careful research. The first example of this has already been given. Another example is Pat's declaration that this is basically a white man's country, built by white men. Rachel pointed out that blacks also contributed to the building this country through slave labor on plantations and in the construction of much of the country infrastructure. An example of the latter was in the building of of our national capital, Washington. For example, slaves worked on constructing the U.S. Capitol and the White House. There were also things that Ms. Maddow failed to note. Such as when Pat said that whites were the ones who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Blacks had no educational opportunities and could neither vote nor hold political office. What chance would a black man have in the founding of our country as Pat argued? When Pat stated that no blacks died at Gettysburg or Vicksburg on the Union side, Ms Maddow did not respond to that. She did point out that blacks did die in the civil war. The reason why there were no black fatalities in those battles was because for most of the war, blacks were not allowed to serve in the Union Army, even though many of them were willing to volunteer, as opposed to Irish immigrants who did not want to serve and rioted in New York City as a protest against the draft in 1863. Many an unfortunate black man encountered by were murdered by these rioting Irish Catholics. (Pat, aren't you an Irish Catholic?) This riot took place at time that blacks were not allowed to serve in the Union Army. Only in the last two years were blacks were allowed to enlist. She also mentioned Chinese immigrants working on the Union Pacific from San Francisco to Utah as an example of a minority group contributing to the growth of the nation, along with even more debunking of Pat's rhetoric not written about here.

Returning to the matter of Ms. Sotomayer, Pat would have one believe that he reads a lot of law journals when he declared that Ms.Sotomayer. had not written any article in any law journal that he had read. The next day, Rachel revealed on her show that Ms. Sotomayer had written at least five articles, the last one being in 2004. ( Pat, you are not reading the right journals.) The reply to Pat's statement that Ms. Sotomayer only got on the Yale Law Journal Review Board because of affirmative action, it was revealed on her show by herself that the members of that board were elected by the Yale law students. Her being on the board was not a given. Now Pat, take heed. The word assume, in which you are guilty of doing, can be broken down into three parts. They are as follows- ass, u and me. Pat, when you assume to much, it is an ass that you look like to me. Here's a thought, Pat. Try talking about subjects that you actually know something about.

Regarding the conservative attack on the current Supreme Court nominee, it is interested to note in regards to her judicial record, it based entirely on that one affirmative action case, and some remarks isolated from any context and examined in that manner. Seventeen years as a judge were simply dismissed, as well as her academic performance at Yale and the respect shown to her by peers at Yale and on the judicial bench. Studies have even shown that her voting record on the bench is well within the mainstream, for which the conservatives should be pleased. From a Democratic President, they really cannot expect more. Yet, all they can do is to nitpick. It makes one wonder as to whom they are pandering. It certainly is not the ever growing Hispanic population. These people will on the whole remember the treatment of one of there own. Is it to their ever decreasing base of birthers, deathers, teabaggers, Sarah Palin fans and Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads? They are certainly alienating the moderates of their party and the independents as well. Just how far will that get them? Only their God knows for sure. (Since this was written, Ms. Sonia Sotomayer has been confirmed as a justice of the Supreme Court.

 A Letter to Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia

On 19 August 1989, an off duty police officer was shot and killed. Seven of the nine prosecution witnesses have since recanted their original testimony. Another witness who might have cleared Troy Davis never testified. This witness is Tonya Johnson. Her testimony would have indicated another man was the shooter. She had fingered the star prosecution witness, a man she had stated she was afraid of. What she said was she saw this man running from the parking where the shooting took place. This man seemed "panicked". He dropped two guns behind a screen door in an unoccupied apartment next to hers. This case was recently ordered by the Supreme Court to be reconsidered by a federal Judge in Georgia over the opposition of Justice Antonin Scalia and  his shadow- Justice Clarence Thomas.

To Justice Antonin Scalia,

Although I am hardly a legal scholar such as yourself, I still would have to disagree with you in regards to the case involving Troy Davis, who is accused of killing a police officer in Savannah, Georgia. As you very well know, 7 out of 9 eyewitnesses have recanted. That was the entire case against Mr. Davis. Your position is that it does not matter, just as long as he was given a "fair trial". Define "fair trial" please.

First of all it has  been alleged that police coerced the testimony from the witnesses. If police misconduct can be proven, would the trial still be fair? What if is evidence had been withheld by the prosecution from the defense? Such has been alleged. If this were proven, would the trial still be fair?

A witness who did not testify in the first trial has evidence if true, would implicate one of the two witness who did not recant. This witness has never changed his story. Is this testimony irrelevant? Suppose this witness confessed to the murder? Would this also be irrelevant? Furthermore, this individual who had a motive to lie, was not even investigated. His house was not searched for the gun that was the murder weapon. He had admitted to owning a gun which was the same as the murder weapon after at first denying it. That weapon had not been found.

What about the remaining witness? Initially he told the police that he did not recognize the shooter? Is this also irrelevant? I am asking this question repeatedly because this is essentially what you are saying without actually saying it. The majority of the Supreme Court was right by ordering the case against Troy Davis reconsidered by the state of Georgia. You were wrong.

The Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of the American people. Are you saying that you could find nothing in there to protect Troy Davis's life, such as the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments?

What if the real culprit was discovered. What if it was that witness who was the only one who had not changed his story? What if he did indeed confess? Could you try him for the crime that someone else supposedly committed without actually admitting that an innocent man was murdered by the state? Does that witness deserve to go free if he is indeed the murderer? What if someone arrested and convicted of murder and then executed turned out to be innocent? And the real killer turned out to be a serial killer? The conviction of the wrong person might have contributed to the right person getting away with murder and perhaps other murders after the fact. Is this what you want? What if that person was you? Would you say that your conviction is fair and therefore accept your own execution without protest? "Do on to others as you would expect others do on to you". Sound familiar? Or is that also irrelevant because it is too empathic.?

In this imperfect world, there is much that is not absolutely certain. Humans make it that way. Much can go wrong in our judicial system. There is mistaken identity. DNA has proven this to be true many times. There are incompetent defense attorneys, such as the one in California who had a hard time staying awake during the trial. There is the possibility of forensic evidence mishandled or interpreted wrongly by the experts, such as the case of the dingo making off with a baby and the mother getting tried and convicted for murder. (This was in Australia.) The jury may be swayed by matters unrelated by the evidence. ( Also take note of the Scottsboro nine of the 1930's. These were nine youths accused by two women of rape. One of the women changed her story before the trial and testified for the defense. The forensic evidence given on behalf of the prosecution even proved the innocence of the defendants. The semen found in the two women was non-motile, hence dead. Semen is motile for over 24 hours, yet these two women were allegedly raped six hours before they were examined by a medical doctor. The nine youth were convicted and given the death sentence were black. The two white women who were alleged to be raped were white. The conviction was based solely on race. The Supreme Court twice overturned their convictions and 5 of them were retried and convicted. However, none of them were executed and all of them eventually got out.) There is the possible misconduct on the part of police, prosecutors* and the presiding judge or the possibility of these people making mistakes in the performance of their job. Furthermore, not considering evidence not known at the time of the trial is really quite absurd.

The bottom line is this. You sir, are so much enthralled with capital punishment like so many of your like conservative minded jurists, you would rather risk the possible execution of an innocent person than admit that capital punishment might ever be or has ever been applied unjustly. I might also add that you seem to be also enthralled with judicial procedure. In your view, procedure trumps human life. It must be strictly adhered to, regardless of the consequences. Sir, your position is totally immoral and maybe even sadistic. If it is ever accepted as part of the law, this is my reply; In the words of Charles Dickens, "The law is an ass."

*Consider the 46 people, 40 of them black, who were arrested by a gypsy cop, which is a cop who offers to work cheaply for underfunded police departments in Texas. Tom Coleman*, the gypsy cop in question, went undercover in Tulia, Texas to seek out drug sellers. Most of those arrested were convicted. The police department and the district attorney's office provided backup for that cop in regards to his sworn testimony.

But the case kind of falls apart when you consider that one of the arrested was not in Tulia on that day. She was a couple of hundred miles away in Oklahoma City at the time of the alleged sale. The proof were bank and phone records. The description of another of the arrested was being thin and of having an afro, when in reality he was overweight and bald. Another man was at his place of employment at the time he was allegedly selling drugs to that cop. For these people, the charges were dropped. Even though this should have been a red flag, most of the others were convicted by all white juries based solely on the testimony of that cop or confessed to avoid a long term jail sentence like those being handed out to the convicted. The weakness of the case against these 46 were that no recording of any of the drug buys were made. There were also no fingerprints on the drugs purchased or any independent witnesses. Besides, Tulia is a town of about 5,000 people. For a town that small, it is amazing that its market for illegal drugs could support 46 drug pushers. All of those convicted were eventually released.

Also consider the 4 inmates on death row in Illinois who who forced to confess to murder as a result of it being proven that the police used enhanced interrogation methods (aka torture) on them. Governor Ryan rightly pardoned those four,all of whom were black. One of the alleged murderers who was tortured was Aaron Patterson. His "confession" was written by a cop and was unsigned. His case is very similar to the case of Troy Davis insofar as a witness questioned by the police turned out to be the real killer of a couple. The wife of the real killer eventually told the police that her husband was the one. In the case of Troy Davis, it is a possibility that the real murderer was one of those questioned. Only a stay of execution by the governor allowed a university class of journalism to discover the truth of Aaron Patterson's innocence and the guilt of the real culprit. If it had not been for that stay, Aaron Patterson would be dead today. Of course that would be just fine with you. You might argue that the system worked. I would argue these people were just lucky. How about the ones we do not know about who were not so lucky?

Although I am hardly a legal scholar such as yourself, I still would have to disagree with you in regards to the case involving Troy Davis, who is accused of killing a police officer in Savannah, Georgia. As you very well know, 7 out of 9 eyewitnesses have recanted. That was the entire case against Mr. Davis. Your position is that it does not matter, just as long as he was given a "fair trial". Define "fair trial" please.

First of all it has  been alleged that police coerced the testimony from the witnesses. If police misconduct can be proven, would the trial still be fair? What if is evidence had been withheld by the prosecution from the defense? Such has been alleged. If this were proven, would the trial still be fair?

A witness who did not testify in the first trial has evidence if true, would implicate one of the two witness who did not recant. This witness has never changed his story. Is this testimony irrelevant? Suppose this witness confessed to the murder? Would this also be irrelevant? Furthermore, this individual who had a motive to lie, was not even investigated. His house was not searched for the gun that was the murder weapon. He had admitted to owning a gun which was the same as the murder weapon after at first denying it. That weapon had not been found.

What about the remaining witness? Initially he told the police that he did not recognize the shooter? Is this also irrelevant? I am asking this question repeatedly because this is essentially what you are saying without actually saying it. The majority of the Supreme Court was right by ordering the case against Troy Davis reconsidered by the state of Georgia. You were wrong.

   

The Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of the American people. Are you saying that you could find nothing in there to protect Troy Davis's life, such as the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments?

What if the real culprit was discovered. What if it was that witness who was the only one who had not changed his story? What if he did indeed confess? Could you try him for the crime that someone else supposedly committed without actually admitting that an innocent man was murdered by the state? Does that witness deserve to go free if he is indeed the murderer? What if someone arrested and convicted of murder and then executed turned out to be innocent? And the real killer turned out to be a serial killer? The conviction of the wrong person might have contributed to the right person getting away with murder and perhaps other murders after the fact. Is this what you want? What if that person was you? Would you say that your conviction is fair and therefore accept your own execution without protest? "Do on to others as you would expect others do on to you". Sound familiar? Or is that also irrelevant because it is too empathic.?

In this imperfect world, there is much that is not absolutely certain. Humans make it that way. Much can go wrong in our judicial system. There is mistaken identity. DNA has proven this to be true many times. There are incompetent defense attorneys, such as the one in California who had a hard time staying awake during the trial. There is the possibility of forensic evidence mishandled or interpreted wrongly by the experts, such as the case of the dingo making off with a baby and the mother getting tried and convicted for murder. (This was in Australia.) The jury may be swayed by matters unrelated by the evidence. ( Also take note of the Scottsboro nine of the 1930's. These were nine youths accused by two women of rape. One of the women changed her story before the trial and testified for the defense. The forensic evidence given on behalf of the prosecution even proved the innocence of the defendants. The semen found in the two women was non-motile, hence dead. Semen is motile for over 24 hours, yet these two women were allegedly raped six hours before they were examined by a medical doctor. The nine youth were convicted and given the death sentence were black. The two white women who were alleged to be raped were white. The conviction was based solely on race. The Supreme Court twice overturned their convictions and 5 of them were retried and convicted. However, none of them were executed and all of them eventually got out.) There is the possible misconduct on the part of police, prosecutors* and the presiding judge or the possibility of these people making mistakes in the performance of their job. Furthermore, not considering evidence not known at the time of the trial is really quite absurd.

The bottom line is this. You sir, are so much enthralled with capital punishment like so many of your like conservative minded jurists, you would rather risk the possible execution of an innocent person than admit that capital punishment might ever be or has ever been applied unjustly. I might also add that you seem to be also enthralled with judicial procedure. In your view, procedure trumps human life. It must be strictly adhered to, regardless of the consequences. Sir, your position is totally immoral and maybe even sadistic. If it is ever accepted as part of the law, this is my reply; In the words of Charles Dickens, "The law is an ass."

*Consider the 46 people, 40 of them black, who were arrested by a gypsy cop, which is a cop who offers to work cheaply for underfunded police departments in Texas. Tom Coleman*, the gypsy cop in question, went undercover in Tulia, Texas to seek out drug sellers. Most of those arrested were convicted. The police department and the district attorney's office provided backup for that cop in regards to his sworn testimony.

But the case kind of falls apart when you consider that one of the arrested was not in Tulia on that day. She was a couple of hundred miles away in Oklahoma City at the time of the alleged sale. The proof were bank and phone records. The description of another of the arrested was being thin and of having an afro, when in reality he was overweight and bald. Another man was at his place of employment at the time he was allegedly selling drugs to that cop. For these people, the charges were dropped. Even though this should have been a red flag, most of the others were convicted by all white juries based solely on the testimony of that cop or confessed to avoid a long term jail sentence like those being handed out to the convicted. The weakness of the case against these 46 were that no recording of any of the drug buys were made. There were also no fingerprints on the drugs purchased or any independent witnesses. Besides, Tulia is a town of about 5,000 people. For a town that small, it is amazing that its market for illegal drugs could support 46 drug pushers. All of those convicted were eventually released.

Also consider the 4 inmates on death row in Illinois who who forced to confess to murder as a result of it being proven that the police used enhanced interrogation methods (aka torture) on them. Governor Ryan rightly pardoned those four,all of whom were black. One of the alleged murderers who was tortured was Aaron Patterson. His "confession" was written by a cop and was unsigned. His case is very similar to the case of Troy Davis insofar as a witness questioned by the police turned out to be the real killer of a couple. The wife of the real killer eventually told the police that her husband was the one. In the case of Troy Davis, it is a possibility that the real murderer was one of those questioned. Only a stay of execution by the governor allowed a university class of journalism to discover the truth of Aaron Patterson's innocence and the guilt of the real culprit. If it had not been for that stay, Aaron Patterson would be dead today. Of course that would be just fine with you. You might argue that the system worked. I would argue these people were just lucky. How about the ones we do not know about who were not so lucky?


"We must invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Ann Coulter on 13 September 2009

AN ORATION DEVOTED TO ANN COULTER*

Friends, Americans and Ms. Ann Coulter,
Lend me your ears, 

I have come to praise you, Ms. Coulter, not to condemn you.

The evil that humans do live long in memory,

But the good is too often hidden from view.

So be with you, Ms. Coulter.

Those naughty liberals have said that you are a cold hearted witch.

If so, it is a grievous fault.

And grievously do you pay for it,

From those vicious lies from the left.

For even though you badly suffer from rabies,

You, Ms. Coulter, are truly a wonderful woman.

 Oh how I hate them. Oh how I hate the waiting...Tomorrow we take revenge.(1)

With mercy for whom you love, malice for whom you loathe;

With firmness in the right, as Rush gives you to see that right.

You shall strive forth to spew the venom you do possess,

In order to put in their places those for whom you do loathe.

But I shall not speak so ill of you, Ms Coulter,

For indeed you are truly a wondrous woman,

Who is in dire need of a rabies shot and soon.

 "Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity." (2)

You accuse liberals of belonging to a godless religion,

Whereas you and Rush are among those of the faith

Whose creed seems to be, bare false witness if you must,

And to do onto others before they can do onto you,

But I shall not sully your reputation with slander, Ms. Coulter.

Since you are a such a true woman of wonderment,

But I beg of you, please get that shot for rabies.

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women." (3)

Of those of your gender who are unmarried, whose majorities

Favor the Democratic Party and the liberals you do loathe,

Whom you have so much defiled with your venomous spew,

You have declared " Should not vote!" ... But are you also unwedded?

Yet I shall not put in ill repute your reputation, Ms. Coulter

Truly you are a woman (or so it has been said).

Must I beg of you to get that much needed rabies shot?

 I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." (4)

You accuse liberals of Unamerican activities; of treason,

While simultaneously also accusing them of slandering

Yourself, Rush and those of the conservative type.

You, Ms. Coulter, who so righteously puts them in their place...

But who am I to besmirch your good name, Ms Coulter.

For you are indeed a woman who invokes wonder,

But, pray tell, when might you be getting that shot?

 ...there are the 39 million greedy geezers collecting Social Security. The greatest generation rewarded itself with a pretty big meal. (5)

You have so idolized the infamous Joe McCarthy

Known for seeking out, yet finding none- Communists

In our government and who had in the Senate chambers

Defended the murderers of Americans at Malemady- Nazis.

I do not wish to defame your character, Ms. Coulter,

And since you are so much of a wacky woman,

The world wonders, will you to ever get that shot?

 "There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats." (6)

"At the spawn of Satan convention of Boston", twas 2004

In which you did write of female delegates being "corn fed"

With no "make-up" and of them being "bra needing, sandal wearing,

Hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chuck pie wagons." Oh my!

Oh the shame of it! Yet your newspaper** refused to print this.

Ms. Coulter, you are such a wonky woman, and I wonder,

With the world on my side, will you be getting that shot?

 "The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail." (7)

Like the witch that you are, you like to stir the pot.

Not an ounce of impartiality do you possess,

Balance is what you reject. Unbalanced, you have become.

A "shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited" (8) polemicist is what you are.

Oh woe is me; with you I do have issues, Ms. Coulter,

You seem to be such a wicked woman, and yet I wonder...

Damn it woman, you must get that friggin rabies shot!

To a disabled Vietnam vet; "People like you caused us to lose that war."  (9)

"The time has come", Ms. Coulter replied

"To speak of many things,

Of a fox, of steel, of the GOP,

Of fascists and kings,

And why am I so boiling cold

And whether Rush has wings.

 

Alas, poor Ann, I knew her well.

A woman of infinite jest,

With a most excellent fanny,

She has given us much amusement,

A hundred times;

But now how mad she has become,

Spewing her venom everywhere.

Alas, it is too late.

(1)Ann Coulter on 7 November, 2000 on the eve of the Presidental election of 2000.

(2) Ann Coulter, from her column; March 4, 2004

(3) Ann Coulter 2 Oct. 2007 quoted in the New York Observer

(4) Comedy Central; Politically Incorrect; February 26, 2001

(5) WorldNetDaily; December 10, 2003, "Vegan computer geeks for Dean"

(6) Interview with Brian Lamb; August 11, 2002

(7) Fox News; Hannity and Colmes; August 24, 2001

(8) Wikipedia quoted the Augusta Daily Star. Complaints were made by self described conservatives in which resulted in her column being dropped by the paper.

(9) MSNBC, 10/11/97

* My apologies to the following for the butchery of their literary works- William Shakespeare (Julius Caesar, Hamlet), Abraham Lincoln (Second Inaugural Address) & Lewis Carroll (Through the Looking Glass)

**USA Today

 

Postscripts

To President Barack Obama,

Since 2 August 2009 was your birthday, I am therefore wishing you a belated Happy Birthday. May your administration be a great success.

To Eugene Robinson,

Here's a belated congratulations for winning the Pulitzer in journalism. May it be one of many.

To Joe T. Plumber,

Did you know that your fifteen minutes of fame are up?

To Glenn Beck of Fixed News,

In response to the controversy about President Obama remarks about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, you argued that President Barack Obama has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture," and "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."

There are two things wrong with these remarks. First of all, the two statements are at odds with each other. How can you say that he has "a deep-seated hatred for white people" and be "a racist" while also denying that you were saying that "he doesn't like white people". You do not see a contradiction between the two statements?

The second problem is that President Obama is biracial. His African father left him when he was two and was never a part of his life. It was his mother and grandmother who raised him. The latter died shortly before the Presidential election of 2008. He took off a few days from the campaign to be with her. But since both of them are White, would that mean that he hates both his grandmother and mother? Glenn, you are really full of it.

To ex-Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska (R),

When you gave that interview with Charles Gibson, what were thinking? When he asked for your opinion about something, such as the Bush Doctrine, it is very foolish to fake understanding the question you clearly did not understand. Exactly whom do you think that you were fooling. The Bush doctrine is the idea of preemptive war, not Bush's world view. Is it that you enjoy looking stupid or are you just TDL* to do your homework in preparation for the interview. Have you ever considered taking an IQ test?

*Too damn lazy.

To Representative Michele Bachman of Minnesota (R),

After confusing economists with economics in a speech on the House floor, let me set you straight. I know that this might be a little confusing for you, but an economist is a person and economics is what that person studies and writes about. Have you ever considered taken an IQ test?

To whom it may concern,

Should our elective officials be required to take IQ tests?

To Sarah Palin again,

Can you really see Russia from your house?

To the Newt,

The next time you cheat on your wife, don't confess to just being human like you did the last time. You had said it yourself. The liberals are responsible for the decline of family values and our American civilization. You should let yourself off the hook and just blame us liberals. I for one am willing to accept total responsibility.

To Callista Gingrich,

Have you ever heard of Jackie Battley? She was one of his high school teachers and was married to Newt from 1962-81. After walking out on her and his two daughters and being sued for child support, he visited her in a hospital while she was recovering from surgery. He was reported to have said of Jackie that "She isn't young enough or pretty enough to be the President's wife."
His second wife, Marianne Ginther, was the other woman during his first marriage. That marriage, which lasted started in 1981 until shortly before he married you in 2000. This time, you were the other woman who was screwing him while he was criticizing President Clinton and preaching family values. Makes one wonder, who else is he screwing now?

To Sarah Palin again,

I can see the moon from my yard. Does that make me an astronaut?

To Senator David Vitter of Louisiana (R)*,

I'm thinking of visiting our nation's capital soon. Can you recommend some female companionship which is not too expensive?

*Senator Vitter has shown up on a madam's list of clients. 

To Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana (R),

In your response to President Obama's first address to Congress earlier this year, you went through a litany of examples of government waste. Listed, among other things, was the monitoring of volcanic activity. If you really want to know why this is being done, why don't you go online and look up Pompeii in Wikipedia. What about the monitoring of hurricanes? Is that also a waste of money?

To Sarah Palin again,

You have said that the scientific study of fruit flies is a waste of public funds? Did you know that flies have a short life span and are quite prolific? This enables biologists to study flies with defective genes mutating in a very short period of time, such as a few weeks? On this basis, they are able to a construct a gene therapy. Did you know that such studies has led to advances in understanding autism? Dealing with autism is one of your pet projects, is it not?. Once again, you do not know what you are talking about, Sarah Palin. So why don't you just look this up online and educate yourself? In the meantime, stick to talking about subjects you are knowledgeable about, such as clothing and hairstyles.

To Rush Limbaugh,

When you were busy bouncing up and down on the stage at that conservative convention while flailing your arms in the air, what drug were you on? And did it give you a RUSH?

To Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama (R),

Are you really the crackhead that you had confessed to being? Or were you just putting us on?

To Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina (R),

How is the hiking on the old Appalachian Trail?

To Sarah Palin again,

Do you realize how Orwellian you sound when you say that by quitting being governor, you are not really quitting? And furthermore, by quitting, you might very well be on that mythic bridge to nowhere in regards to your political future for not serving out the remainder of you term as the governor of Alaska.

To Patrick Buchanan,

Why can't you see that your good friend Sarah Palin is a twit?

To Rush again,

  Some time ago when you were in one of usual rants, arguing on the air that the shooter of the Holocaust Museum, James von Brunn, hated Republicans and was therefore a liberal. Whether he hated Republicans or not, I do not know. I do know that he hated Jews and Blacks in that order. This has been proven.

  Mr. von Brunn believed in that utter nonsense of a world wide conspiracy  involving Jews, which has traditionally been an affliction of the right, not the left. Historically Jews have been liberal in this country. They were major supporters of civil rights for blacks in 1960's and before. Both Jews and Blacks tend to vote for the Democratic Party ( Wouldn't that mean that Mr. von Brunn hate Democrats more than Republicans.) From these facts, we might conclude that he might believe that Jews might be conspiring to gain control of this nation as a means of gaining world domination. They might be allied with liberals as a means of gaining power. In any case, Jews tend to support liberal causes. Since liberals are in favor of civil rights for blacks, he would have two reasons for hating liberals. If he were a liberal as you have argued, based on what has been stated, he would support civil rights for blacks, even though he hates them. And wouldn't he also hate himself for being liberal?

There is a name for this kind of argument. It is called reductio ad absurdum. It is a means of disproving an argument by demonstrating contradictions within that argument. Rush, perhaps those drugs you are taking have rendered you addled-minded. Your argument is really quite insane.

 

To Rachel Maddow of the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC & Air America,

There is nothing wrong with being gay. With that nice smile of yours, trust me, being cheerful is very appealing on you. Give my regards to Susan Mikula.

"Here's looking at you, kid."    Humphrey  Bogart  (Casablanca)                                                                                          

 Glynn Braman

Make a Free Website with Yola.