Now Matt Drudge is on the “we think Gingrich is not conservative”?
I was aghast the other night when I heard Ann Coulter say Mitt Romney was THE REAL CONSERVATIVE in the Presidential race for 2012.

I simply passed it off as SHE HAS SLIPPED A COG OR 2.
Maybe because SHE IS A CHRISTY GIRL supporting her guy for what?
VP to Mitt by chance?

Now Matt Drudge is falling sway for this lunacy too?
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME?

Between Romney and Gingrich the WHO IS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE PRIZE clearly goes to Newt
FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
Personally I have been voting for 50 years as a Republican and conservative.
To my knowledge Gingrich HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING BUT CONSERVATIVE.

All of the Romney RHETORIC about how he was Governor in a Democratic run state so HE WAS FORCED to go along with their will?
Sounds like a total crock to me.
Then add to that the explanations for his apparent changes of mind (aka flip flop)?
Sorry folks that is not bipartisan cooperation or unification it is plain and simple CAVING IN … for whatever reason I don’t know or care.

How far do the excuses go before the public who already view Romney as “MILK TOAST” turn him into BURNT TOAST?

How far do the Coulters and Drudges care to go before their credibility is TOTALLY SHOT? The public is looking for THE FACTS not more BLATANT spins and lies from people that were once considered trusted media sources.

By: Ann Coulter
Posted: October 12, 2011
6:55 pm Eastern © 2011

So far, the only major accomplishment of the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters is that it has finally put an end to their previous initiative, “Occupy Our Mothers’ Basements.”

Oddly enough for such a respectable-looking group – a mixture of adolescents looking for a cause, public sector union members, drug dealers, criminals, teenage runaways, people who have been at every protest since the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, people 95 percent of whose hair is concentrated in their ponytails, Andrea Dworkin look-alikes and other average Democrats – they can’t even explain what they’re protesting.

The protesters either treat inquiries about their purpose as a trick question, or – worse – instantly rattle off a series of insane causes: “No. 1, abolish capitalism; No. 2, because 9/11 was an inside job; No. 3, because Mumia is innocent …”

Curiously, the only point universally agreed upon by the protesters and their admirers in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media is that “Occupy Wall Street” should be compared to the tea party. Yes, that would be the same tea party that has been denounced and slandered by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media for the last three years.

As a refresher: The Democratic National Committee called the tea partiers “angry mobs” and “rabid right-wing extremists.” ABC said they were a “mob.” CNN accused them of “rabble rousing.” Harry Reid called them “evil mongers.” Nancy Pelosi said they were “un-American.” CNN’s Anderson Cooper and every single host on MSNBC called the tea partiers a name that referred to an obscure gay sex act.

But apparently liberals couldn’t even convince themselves that tea partiers were an extremist group unworthy of emulation.

At least they’re embarrassed about what the OWS protesters really are: wingless, bloodsucking and parasitic. This is the flea party, not the tea party.

Contrary to all the blather you always hear about how lawless street protests and civil disobedience are part of the American tradition – “what our troops are fighting for!” – they are not. We are an orderly people with democratic channels at our disposal to change our government.

The very reason we have a constitutional republic is because of a mob uprising. Soon after the American Revolution, Shays’ Rebellion so terrified and angered Americans that they demanded a federal government capable of crushing such mobs.

For nearly 200 years, Americans understood that they lived in a country capable of producing bad politicians and bad policies, but that it was subject to change through peaceful, democratic means. There was no need to riot or storm buildings because we didn’t have a king. We had a representative government.

Even when injustice existed, there were constitutional mechanisms to right wrongs. For nearly a century after the Civil War, congressional Republicans kept introducing bills that implemented the civil rights amendments – only to be blocked by segregationist Democrats. But then, attorney Thurgood Marshall came along and began winning cases before the Supreme Court, redeeming black Americans’ constitutional rights through the judiciary.

As long as a Republican sat in the White House, those victories were enforced. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Ark., to walk black children to school in defiance of the segregationist, Democratic governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus – Bill Clinton’s friend.

This is what our Constitution was designed for: to use the force of the federal government to uphold the law when the states couldn’t (Shays’ Rebellion) or wouldn’t (segregationist Democrats).

If Richard Nixon had won the 1960 election instead of John F. Kennedy – as some say he did – there never would have been a need for the Freedom Rides and the rest of the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement.

But as soon as the Democrats got control of the White House, enforcement of the Supreme Court’s civil rights rulings came to a crashing halt. Elected Democrats in the states were free to violate legitimate constitutional rulings without interference from Democratic presidents.

The ingenious system given to us by our Founding Fathers faltered on the morally corrupt obstructionism of elected Democrats. They simply refused to abide by the rules – with glee at the state level, and at the federal level, cowardice.

Here, finally, was an appropriate case for nonviolent protest. There hasn’t been another justification for civil disobedience in this country until the Supreme Court invented a “right” to abortion in Roe v. Wade – another act of lawlessness by liberals.

(All this and more is detailed in the smash best-seller, “Demonic: How the Liberal Mobs Are Endangering America”!)

Now liberals compare their every riot, every traffic blockage, every Starbucks-window-smashing street protest to the civil rights movement – which was only necessary because of them. These “Occupy Wall Street” ignoramuses seem to imagine they are blacks living in 1963 Alabama under Democratic Gov. George Wallace.

To the contrary, the Wall Street protesters have no specific objections and no serious policy proposals in a country that is governed, as Abraham Lincoln put it, “by the people.” They protest because they enjoy creating mayhem, not because the law is being ignored or their rights violated without penalty by government officials.

They are not in the tradition of the tea partiers, much less our Founding Fathers. They are not in the tradition of the civil rights movement or Operation Rescue. They are in the tradition of Shays’ Rebellion, the Weathermen and Charles Manson.

Sometimes Ann Coulter is drop dead funny … this is definitely one of those times.
I could not resist the whole reprint.

Ann Coulter
Posted: June 01, 2011
7:11 pm Eastern

Sometimes I wonder if Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., is too nice for his own good.

An evil swine hacks into Weiner’s Twitter account and posts an embarrassing photo of spindly legs topped by a small erect penis draped in dingy gray briefs no male over the age of 11 would wear – and Anthony just wants to forget the whole thing!

Instead of angrily demanding an investigation like anyone else would, Anthony has gone all St. Francis of Assisi on us.

He doesn’t want an investigation! How big-hearted is that? Talk about a forgiving nature! He’s almost too magnanimous. I wish I had that kind of forbearance.

Maybe he’s ready to live and let live, but speaking as one of Anthony’s biggest Twitter followers, I am not. Otherwise, Weiner’s hacker is just going to go out and hack and hack again.

So while I admire Anthony’s selfless refusal to be “distracted” by this issue, I would urge him to reconsider.

Only a full and complete investigation will show that he had absolutely nothing to do with that humiliating photo of the tiny stub of a male organ sent to a 21-year-old coed from his Twitter address last Friday night.

Anthony needs to remember that hacking is a serious crime. In fact, there probably will have to be a federal investigation whether or not our gentle Anthony requests one.

Another example of Anthony’s amazing forbearance is how he has not retaliated against CNN for its malicious editing of Weiner’s press conference on Tuesday.

CNN obviously sabotaged the tape to make it look as if he was refusing to answer the simplest, most direct questions. (I confess I did not see the entire conference live; I was too busy sending private messages to the hundreds of college coeds I follow on Twitter, just like Anthony.)

Through sheer trickery, CNN made it appear as if Anthony kept lurching back to the same irrelevant story about a heckler in an audience of 45,000 people.

Anyone could see there was something off about the video because no matter what reporters asked him, CNN kept looping back to that clip of Anthony telling his long, pointless parable about a heckler in an audience and how he’d respond and then demanding that he be allowed to finish, when he obviously had already finished.

This falsely suggested that he was stonewalling reporters. Perhaps the CNN tape was hacked, too.

It’s time for Anthony to stand up for himself, if you’ll pardon the expres – Hey, wait a minute! Now my column is being hacked! – and demand an investigation of both the hacker and CNN.

You don’t need to apologize for anything, congressman. Your only problem is, you’re just too damn nice.

But knowing Anthony, he’ll probably forgive CNN. There’s a reason why, year in and year out, Anthony Weiner has been voted Congress’ most forgiving person.

I try to be a good Christian, but it took Anthony Weiner to show me what true mercy is. I salute you, congressman! …

The preceding several paragraphs are what we call “irony,” i.e. saying one thing while meaning the opposite.

What I meant to say is: OF COURSE ANTHONY WEINER DOESN’T WANT AN INVESTIGATION BECAUSE IT WOULD SHOW THAT HE HIMSELF POSTED THE PHOTO OF HIS SMALL ERECT PENIS.

The reason the congressman is so eager to forgive the hacker is that there is no hacker. He cannot have an investigation for the simple reason that it will show that he posted the photograph himself.

In a panic when he saw he had hit the wrong button and sent a private tweet of his pecker to his entire Twitter following, Weiner blurted out the hacker defense, quickly typing: “FB hacked. Is my blender gonna attack me next?”

Unfortunately, there was no lawyer in the room to tell him: “Don’t say that! They’ll have to investigate!”

On Sunday, his staff followed up with a press release, saying: “Anthony’s accounts were obviously hacked.”

So he can’t now claim he didn’t say it.

After hiring a lawyer, Weiner quickly backpedaled from the “hacker” claim and began insisting, in another press release: “This was a prank. We are loath to treat it as more.”

If it was a prank, then why did he hire a lawyer?

Weiner isn’t a celebrity: He’s a CONGRESSMAN. Whoever can hack into his Twitter account may be able to hack into other congressmen’s accounts – or into Weiner’s briefing files from, say, the Department of Defense.

(Indeed, unless the alleged hacker is arrested, who knows how many Anthony Weiner penis shots could start circulating on Twitter?)

But when one of Weiner’s colleagues, Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., requested a congressional investigation into cybersecurity based on Weiner’s self-proclaimed computer attack on his Twitter account, Weiner denounced and insulted Stearns.

The best Weiner can do now is try to take his utterly humiliating photo out of the realm of criminal law by eliding “hacked” into “pranked.” Legally, it’s not clear what the difference is.

He’s stuck angrily announcing that he wants to move on, there’s important work to be done, and calling a CNN reporter a “jackass” merely for asking if Weiner sent the penis photo or not.

For a guy who’s suddenly taking the position that this was all just a harmless prank, he seemed pretty bent out of shape at that CNN press conference. If that condition persists for more than four hours, congressman, consult your doctor.

I love Ann Coulter for all of the reasons liberal/progressives hate her.
She is bright.
Her facts are always dead on accurate.
She dishes out the mean spirited commentary 10 times worse than what liberal/progressives started long ago.
It makes me laugh to see these liberal/progressives whine and cry foul over tactics they themselves introduced to society … when directed their way.

Here is a snip of the latest by Ann Coulter:

Alas, it is still too early to tell at MSNBC. For Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews – at least two of whom would be severely punished under Shariah law – the shooting of George Tiller was an act of terrorism, no question. The death of a census taker in Kentucky was also an act of terrorism. (We learned this week that it was a suicide–insurance scam.) But as to Maj. Hasan, the jury is still out – and will be out for many, many years.

Actually, according to Keith, the Fort Hood massacre may not have happened at all. He has argued persuasively, on several occasions, that it is impossible, literally impossible, to commit mass murder at a military base.
The whole story …

When Coulter takes aim she ALWAYS hits her target right between the eyes.

Anyone who reads this blog much is probably getting the message.
I love Ann Coulter. She ALWAYS makes me laugh out loud.

Her opposition hates her for one reason.
SHE IS DEADLY RIGHT!
Worse she makes them laughing stocks. They have one defense … foam at the mouth and call her names.

Personally as you all know I think what is good for the goose is good for the gander. They can dish (and do viciously) it out? Well they better be willing to take it back in kind.

We the middle ground are tired of the unchecked stupidity being foisted our way by mostly ignorant ranting liberals. I learned long ago that these people are on the ropes when their assessment of a situation consists of denigration and name calling only.

The tactic is simple “let me TRY and drag them down to my level”.

Here is what Ann has to say on the subject of strong sexy women who can actually think on their own:

Not even Dick Cheney can incite the blood-curdling rage of liberals at the sight of a sexy evangelical Christian. Paula Jones, Katherine Harris, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and, most recently, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, have all come under a frenzy of attacks from liberals.

Christians are supposed to be fat, balding sweaty little men with bad complexions. It’s liberals who are supposed to be the sexy ones. (I know that from watching “The West Wing” and all movies starring Julia Roberts.)

But sadly for liberals, in real life, the fat, balding sweaty little guy with the bad complexion is Perez Hilton and the smoking-hot babe is Carrie Prejean.

This apparent contradiction incites violent anger in liberals, triggering their famous “flight or flight” response. So liberals are, once again, launching furious attacks on a beautiful Christian in a fit of pique similar to the one directed at Joan of Arc.

First, the Miss USA contest held a press conference to announce that Prejean had breast implants. Take a Christian position in public and Satan’s handmaidens will turn all your secrets into front-page news.

Next, a photographer released a single cheesecake photo of Prejean. This prompted liberal reporters who have never met a Christian to proclaim that Christians were outraged by the photo. Liberals believe abortion is a sacrament, but smoking, wearing short skirts and modeling lingerie are mortal sins. (And if wearing women’s underwear is a basis for being disqualified from the pageant, that’s the end of Perez Hilton’s judging career.)

The rest of the story …

I know how so many people rant and rave about Ann Coulter and how abrasive she can be. All of that is true. But personally I love her. She is bright, witty, but most of all NEVER succumbs to the crap foisted her way.

I have long thought the Republicans who sat idle while the Democrats threw mud on EVERYONE for the slightest thing were cowards. It’s kind of like the bully beating up the little guy and everyone doing nothing. COWARDLY and STUPID are the words that pop into my mind.

Onto the scene walks Ann Coulter picks up the gauntlet and starts firing back. OH MY the snivels, whines, shrieks and wails that arise in the wake of her presence.

Her latest column on Keith Olbermanm caused me to roll on the floor laughing. I do not watch his network … the few times I caught him only a nano second passed when I realized he flat lies. One significant time he was telling his audience what someone had said while the words of that person were posted on a split screen. Since neither his words or meaning matched that of the person who said them … it was clear Olberman figured the mass failed reading 101 or maybe he simply thought no one but the hearing impaired read the screen at all.

I came away with two thoughts.
DOES HE CARE HE JUST EXPOSED HIMSELF AS A BLATANT LIAR?
HOW STUPID IS THIS GUY?

After reading the Coulter piece yesterday … apparently more stupid that he hopes the public will ever know.

I could not resist posting it here for all of you to enjoy also.

Posted: March 04, 2009
3:02 pm Eastern

Fortunately, we have Keith Olbermann to point out that Rush Limbaugh did not accurately quote the Preamble to the Constitution in his CPAC speech last weekend. I’m not sure what scam Olbermann imagined Rush was trying to put over on the American people by saying conservatives believed in the “Preamble to the Constitution” and then quoting words from the Declaration of Independence – but Olbermann put an end to that cruel deception!

These small-time opportunities to show off by correcting someone else’s teeny-tiny mistakes are the lifeblood of Olbermann’s MSNBC show, “Countdown.” Olbermann is no more capable of not correcting Rep. Charlie Rangel when he said “inferred,” but meant “implied,” than an obsessive compulsive could pass a sink without washing his hands.

There is utterly no purpose to these lame “gotchas,” except that Olbermann is so desperately insecure that he is willing to waste valuable airtime to convince other status-conscious idiots that he is, like, scary-smart.

Olbermann relentlessly attacked low-level Bush administration employee Monica Goodling for not going to a name-dropping college, saying – approximately 1 million times – that she got her law degree “by sending 100 box tops to Religious Lunatic University.”

I would venture to say that the students at Goodling’s law school at Regent University are far more impressive than those at the Cornell agriculture school – the land-grant, non-Ivy League school Keith attended.

I wouldn’t mention it, except that Olbermann savages anyone who didn’t go to an impressive college. As it happens, he didn’t go to an impressive college, either.

If you’ve ever watched any three nights of his show, you know that Olbermann went to Cornell. But he always forgets to mention that he went to the school that offers classes in milking and bovine management.

Indeed, Keith is constantly lying about his nonexistent “Ivy League” education, boasting to Playboy magazine, for example: “My Ivy League education taught me how to cut corners, skim books and take an idea and write 15 pages on it, and also how to work all day at the Cornell radio station and never actually go to class.”

Except Keith didn’t go to the Ivy League Cornell; he went to the Old MacDonald Cornell.

The real Cornell, the School of Arts and Sciences (average SAT: 1,325; acceptance rate: 1 in 6 applicants), is the only Ivy League school at Cornell and the only one that grants a bachelor of arts degree.

Keith went to an affiliated state college at Cornell, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (average SAT: about that of pulling guards at the University of South Carolina; acceptance rate: 1 of every 1.01 applicants).

Olbermann’s incessant lying about having an “Ivy League education” when he went to the non-Ivy League ag school at Cornell would be like a graduate of the Yale locksmithing school boasting about being a “Yale man.”

Among the graduates of the Ivy League Cornell are Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Thomas Pynchon, Paul Wolfowitz, E.B. White, Sanford I. Weill, Floyd Abrams, Kurt Vonnegut, Douglas Ginsburg, Janet Reno, Henry Heimlich and Harold Bloom.

Graduates of the ag school include David LeNeveu of the Anaheim Ducks, Mitch Carefoot of the Phoenix RoadRunners, Darren Eliot, former professional hockey player and Joe Nieuwendyk, multiple Stanley Cup winner.

One begins to understand why Harvard students threw a chicken on the ice during Cornell’s famous rout of Harvard at a 1973 hockey game.

If you actually want to pursue a career related to agriculture, there is no better school than the Cornell ag school. I have nothing but admiration for the farmers and aspiring veterinarians at the ag school. They didn’t go there just to have “Cornell” on their resumes.

In addition to the farmers, there are some smart kids who go to the ag school – as there are at all state universities. But most people who majored in “communications” at an ag school don’t act like Marshall Scholars or go around mocking graduates of Regent University Law School.

The sort of insecurity that would force you to always say “trebled” instead of “tripled” could only come from a communications major with massive status anxiety, like Keith. Without even looking it up, I am confident that Harvard, Yale and Princeton do not offer degrees in “communications.” I know there is no “communications” major at the Ivy League Cornell.

“Communications” is a major, along with “recreation science,” most commonly associated with linemen at USC. But at least the linemen can throw a football, which Keith cannot because his mother decided he was not physically robust enough to play outdoors as a child.

It may seem cruel to reveal the true college of someone who already wakes up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat worried that he’s a fraud. But I believe that by pointing out that Olbermann actually is a fraud, I am liberating him.

You may not realize it now, Keith, but you will look back on this day and say, “That was the best thing that ever happened to me!”

Finally, you can stop pretending that you went to the hard-to-get-into Cornell.

Now you won’t have to quickly change the subject whenever people idly remark that they didn’t know it was possible to major in “communications” at an Ivy League school.

No longer will you have to aggressively bring up Cornell when it has nothing to do with the conversation.

Relax, Keith. Now you can let people like you for you.

I have been watching this Franken situation since election day.
Today I stumbled onto an article by Ann Coulter.

She is caustic no doubt about it. Funny certainly! Rabidly hated by the left who generally have no comeback other than name calling. All of this as she blows them off and laughs all the way to the bank. Apparently her books are evenly read by both sides of the political isle.
Clearly she is not “politically correct” which gives her “kudos” in my book. So I just dashed out to order an autographed copy of her latest “Guilty” … I trust it will not be dull or disappointing.

Her read on the situation and as always you decide what to make of it.

Posted: December 17, 2008
5:45 pm Eastern

© 2008

It’s bad enough that the Republican Party can’t prevent Democrats from voting in its primaries and saddling us with the New York Times’ favorite Republican as our presidential nominee. If the Republican Party can’t protect an election won by the incumbent U.S. senator in Minnesota, there is no point in donating to the Republican Party.

The day after the November election, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman had won his re-election to the U.S. Senate, beating challenger Al Franken by 725 votes.

Then one heavily Democratic town miraculously discovered 100 missing ballots. And, in another marvel, they were all for Al Franken! It was like a completely evil version of a Christmas miracle.

As strange as it was that all 100 post-election, “discovered” ballots would be for one candidate, it was even stranger that the official time stamp for the miracle ballots printed out by the voting machine on the miracle ballots showed that the votes had been cast on Nov. 2 – two days before the election.

Whole story …