Posts Tagged ‘Ann Coulter’

Glenn Beck’s Wife And Daughter Heckled And Assaulted By Vile Mob Of Liberal Cowards

June 30, 2011

This is what liberals being liberals looks like.  It’s ugly, because liberals are ugly people:

Glenn Beck Harrassed In Bryant Park (VIDEO, PHOTOS) Hate-Fueled Assault
by Jim Brogan

Right-wing Fox host Glenn Beck decided it was finally time that he took his daughter and wife to see a showing of Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘The 39 Steps’ at Bryant, a trip he’d wanted to do for years. He did on Monday night – but was unfortunately met by a bunch of people acting like animals.

Beck has wanted to take his daughter to Bryant Park for a very long time, and when his wife said to him, “You wanna go?” because of the whispering, pointing and texting and other behavior from the people there, he turned and said to her, “Not on your life.”

“It was a hostile situation,” Beck recounted of the trip. The host’s WIFE – yes, his wife, had a bottle of alcohol “accidentally” kicked on to her back, leaving her and the blanket “completely wet.” The crowd behind them laughed about it.

It unfortunately didn’t get any better as the night went on. His wife and daughter were getting up to go to the bathroom when a man pointed his fingers and yelled, “We hate conservatives here!” His daughter had tears in her eyes when she and her mother returned to their blanket.

Another woman stood up behind the family, pointed her finger at them and said, “We’re in New York, and we HATE Republicans!”

Beck and his family were treated like garbage by ignorant, rude liberals at the movie showing. He said Tuesday, “If I had suggested — and I almost did — wow, does anybody have a rope? Because there’s a tree here. You could just lynch me. And I think there would’ve been a couple in the crowd that would’ve!”

But the host somehow maintained his sympathy for others at the showing: “I apologize to anybody who had their movie experience wrecked because of the people that found it so necessary to spew hatred,” Beck said, “but there’s nothing I can do about it.”

Beck was also bothered by the fact that no one jumped to his defense at the park. He said he was “…a little surprised that nobody — nobody — in the crowd said ‘knock it off. Just, stop. Just be cool. I don’t agree with the guy, but just be cool.’ “

The host said his experience was so horrible, he wouldn’t wish it on his worst enemies: “All through the evening, I wanted to say to you today, please, please, please don’t ever treat anybody like that. If Van Jones comes and sits right next to you, please don’t treat anybody like that.”

Video below. Where’s the outrage?

By the way, this isn’t uncommon at all.  It’s not dissimilar to the way that Andrew Breitbart was treated when he showed up in the public common area at a Netroots Nation convention.  He was immediately accosted, surrounded and heckled and treated like dirt by people who actually called themselves “journalists.”

Garden variety liberals are much more classless vermin, of course.  Here’s video of an elderly woman who was assaulted for bringing a cross to a “No on Prop 8″ event in Palm Springs.  Liberals came unglued, because they are godless, wicked people and coming unglued is what they do best.

I have met a fair number of “celebrities” in my life.  As someone who lives in the Palm Springs area, it’s not all that unusual – especially if one is involved at all in the community.  If I genuinely admired a celebrity, I offered my congratulations to him or to her; if I didn’t, I have left them alone and ignored them.

I don’t understand how liberals can think that Nazis have a right to march through a town largely populated by Jewish death camp survivors, but conservatives don’t have a right to anything.  It’s just an exhibit of what vile, vile hypocrites liberals are.  Liberals would probably sneer and say something stupid like, “That’s because conservatives are worse than Nazis,” but what it really proves is that liberals are tolerant of Nazi fascists, but utterly intolerant of anyone with whom they disagree.

I would NEVER have treated a liberal celebrity like this.  And as despicable as these people acted, it was even MORE despicable for these cockroach liberals to treat Glenn Beck’s family this way.

I love Ann Coulter’s take on this vile example of the fact that liberals are genuinely vile people:

Glenn Beck Vs. The Mob
by  Ann Coulter
06/29/2011

Of all the details surrounding the liberal mob attack on Glenn Beck and  his family in New York’s Bryant Park last Monday night, one element  stands out. “No, it won’t be like that, Dad,” his daughter said when  Beck questioned the wisdom of attending a free, outdoor movie showing in  a New York park.

People who have never been set upon by a mob of liberals have  absolutely no idea what it’s like to be a publicly recognizable  conservative. Even your friends will constantly be telling you: “Oh, it  will be fine. Don’t worry. Nothing will happen. This place isn’t like  that.”

Liberals are not like most Americans. They are the biggest  pussies on Earth, city-bred weaklings who didn’t play a sport and have  never been in a fight in their entire lives. Their mothers made excuses  for them when they threw tantrums and spent way too much time praising  them during toilet training.

I could draw a mug shot of every one of Beck’s tormentors, and I wasn’t there.

Beck and his family would have been fine at an outdoor rap  concert. They would have been fine at a sporting event. They would have  been fine at any paid event, mostly because people who work for the  government and live in rent-controlled apartments would be too cheap to  attend.

Only a sad leftist with a crappy job could be so brimming with  self-righteousness to harangue a complete stranger in public.

A liberal’s idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to  a conservative public figure who can’t afford to strike back. Getting  in a stranger’s face and hurling insults at him, knowing full well he  has too much at risk to deck you, is like baiting a bear chained to a  wall.

They are not only exploiting our lawsuit-mad culture, they are exploiting other people’s manners. I know I’ll be safe because this person has better manners than I do.

These brave-hearts know exactly what they can get away with.  They assault a conservative only when it’s a sucker-punch, they  outnumber him, or he can’t fight back for reasons of law or decorum.

Liberals don’t get that when you’re outnumbering the enemy 100-1, you’re not brave.

But they’re not even embarrassed. To the contrary, being part of the majority makes liberals feel great! Honey, wasn’t I amazing? I stood in a crowd of liberals and called that conservative a c**t. Wasn’t I awesome?

This is a liberal’s idea of raw physical courage.

When someone does fight back, liberals transform from aggressor  to victim in an instant, collapsing on the ground and screaming bloody  murder. I’ve seen it happen in a nearly empty auditorium when there was  quite obviously no other human within 5 feet of the gutless  invertebrate.

People incapable of conforming to the demands of civilized  society are frightening precisely because you never know what else such  individuals are capable of. Sometimes — a lot more often than you’ve  heard about — liberals do engage in physical violence against  conservatives … and then bravely run away.

That’s why not one person stepped up to aid Beck and his family  as they were being catcalled and having wine dumped on them at a nice  outdoor gathering.

No one ever steps in. Never, not once, not ever. (Except at the  University of Arizona, where college Republicans chased my assailant  and broke his collarbone, God bless them.)

Most people are shocked into paralysis at the sight of  sociopathic liberal behavior. The only ones who aren’t are the  conservative’s bodyguards — and they can’t do anything without risking a  lawsuit or an arrest.

My hero Tim Profitt is now facing charges for stopping a  physical assault on Senate candidate Rand Paul by a crazed woman  disguised in a wig.

But the disturbed liberal whose assault Profitt stopped faces  no charges — she instigated the entire confrontation and then instantly  claimed victim status. In a better America, the cop would say, “Well,  you provoked him.”

Kentucky prosecutors must be very proud of how they so  dutifully hew to the letter of the law (except in the case of Paul’s  assailant).

Maybe they wouldn’t be such good little rules-followers if they  ever, just once, had to face the liberal mob themselves. But if Beck’s  own daughter can’t imagine the liberal mob, I suppose prosecutors can’t  be expected to, either.

Michael Moore and James Carville can stroll anywhere in America  without risking the sort of behavior the Beck family experienced. But  all recognizable conservatives are eternally trapped in David Dinkins’  New York: Simply by virtue of leaving their homes, they assume a 20  percent chance of being assaulted.

Bullying is on the rise everywhere in America — and not just  because Obama decided to address it. It’s because no one hits back. The  message in our entire culture over the last two decades has been: DON’T  FIGHT!

There were a lot fewer public confrontations when bullies got their faces smashed.

Maybe it’s time for Beck to pony up some of those millions of  dollars he’s earned and hire people to rough up the liberal mob, or, at a  minimum, to provide a legal defense to those like Profitt who do.

These liberal pukes have never taken a punch in their lives. A  sock to the yap would be an eye-opening experience, and I believe it  would do wonders.

They need to have their behavior corrected. It’s a shame this  job wasn’t done by their parents. It won’t be done by the police.

As long as liberals can’t be normal and prosecutors can’t be  reasonable, how about a one-punch rule against anyone bothering a  stranger in public? Then we’ll see how brave these lactose-intolerant  mama’s boys are.

Believe me, liberal mobbings will stop very quickly after the first toilet-training champion takes his inaugural punch.

One day liberals will get their comeuppance.  God created hell for Satan and his demons and their legion of demonic bureaucrats that are also known as “Democrats.”  And it is that belief that there IS a divine justice – and that vengeance is God’s – that separates conservatives from liberals.

Left Continues To Be Source Of ACTUAL Acts of Violence

March 30, 2010

I’ve heard all kinds of crap about right wing violence over health care.  I haven’t SEEN any violence; I haven’t seen or heard a shred of evidence caught on tape; but I’ve certainly heard bogus charges.

House Democrat Black Caucus members deliberately went through the crowd of Tea Party protesters hoping to create an incident - and video recorded their passage just in case their deliberate provocation incited something.  They certainly didn’t have to walk through that crowd.  You know who else did that?  Nazis, hoping to create an incident when they went through Skokie, Illinois, home of many Jewish death camp survivors.  Which is to say, the Black Caucus literally used a vile Nazi tactic.

There’s no evidence of it, no tape, no video, no cell phone footage, but when the Tea Party people didn’t give them what they wanted, Black Caucus members invented it for them: they screamed that someone in a crowd of tens of thousands of people used the N-word.

Rep. John Lewis is one of the main figures saying he heard the N-word.  Should anybody believe him?  He’s a documented race-baiter.  He accused John McCain of being tantamount to segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace.  If John Lewis wants to encounter a racist, he need only look in the mirror.

One thing: Wallace was a racist, all right.  He was also a DEMOCRAT.  It would have been nice if Lewis had actually been able to find a right wing racist if he wanted to demonize the right wing as racist.

The left has tried to falsely demonize the right as racist before.  At a Sarah Palin rally during the 2008 presidential campaign, a reporter claimed he heard someone shout “Kill him!” regarding Barack Obama.  The Secret Service – which takes such threats seriously – thoroughly investigated the  case and specifically concluded that no such threat had been made.

Glenn Beck had the following to say about where the REAL violence has come from from the very outset:

The media, they’ll spin it.  CNN was doing more today on the violence of the right. Why would they do that? A, to set you up; B, to stop you from talking about health care and what are you going to do to stop it. They are setting the trap to make anybody who is against this bill an enemy of the State, a traitor, a terrorist, a violent killer.

Let me ask you this: The tea parties have been peaceful and, yet, they’re dangerous killers. Peaceful but, yet, dangerous. Let’s look at the bricks through the window. When there’s been actual violence, the democratic headquarters, this is the first brick that went through the window.  In Denver, there was a brick that went through the window. Who did it?  It was a lefty, democratic operative that threw a brick through the democratic window. It was a lefty that did it! Where was the press on the liberal who bit off a man’s finger in a health care argument? Bit his finger off. That wasn’t somebody on the right. That was somebody on the left. How about the media on all of the damage done by the G 20 protesters? That wasn’t a protest from the right. That was a protest from the left. How about the stories of the radio tower that was torn down, blown up, in Seattle? That was done by the left. How about the Hummers, because they get bad gas mileage? That’s from the left. How about Amy Bishop, who shot coworkers? She was from the left, an Obama fan. How about the SEIU thugs that beat down opponents at health care rallies? Intimidation? You want intimidation? How about that? How about the SEIU members that the media decided not to cover and you have it on tape as they are beating down a black man, calling him the N word?! How about Ann Coulter?

Note: I supplied the links.

There’s more violence by the left.  Here’s footage of a Tea Party bus getting egged by Harry Reid supporters.  Andrew Breitbart got out to question the lefties.  One starts saying “Get him out of here, or I’m going to go to jail” (for the violent act he is going to commit on him):

Now we have a story about Norman Leboon, Sr., an Obama financial donor, being arrested for making death threats against Rep. Eric Cantor.  Should I mention that Cantor is Jewish?

Here’s video of Karl Rove shouted down and forced to leave a book signing event.  Hundreds of Rove fans came to have him sign their books and hear him speak; but a tiny group of protestors shouted him down and forced him to leave:

You could call this Stalinist, or Nazi, or fascist; they’d all be correct.  It is the LEFT that despises free speech, and it is the LEFT which routinely shouts down speech with which they disagree in clear demonstrations of hate and wild disregard for our democracy.

The mainstream national news media has been a collective of Joseph Goebbels wannabes, as is their usual custom.  They fell all over themselves to point out that conservatives had called Bart Stupak with hateful messages after he announced he was going to vote for ObamaCare.  What they DIDN’T bother to report was that Bart Stupak got hateful messages from liberals during the period when he said he would vote AGAINST ObamaCare.

The media intentionally provides the false narrative that violence is only coming from the right; if anything, it’s only coming from the left.  We’re not saying don’t cover the anger: what we’re saying is stop being partisan about it.  Cover BOTH sides.  Put the story into context.  Stop the propaganda.  Stop covering only one side of the anger through a narrow, partisan viewpoint intentionally manipulated to demonize the right.  If you’re going to cover Bart Stupak receiving hateful phone calls after saying he’d vote yes for ObamaCare, cover Bart Stupak receiving hateful phone calls throughout the period he said he’d vote NO for ObamaCare.

The anger, rage, and even acts of violence isn’t something that just happened yesterday.  It’s been going on for months.  And the documented incidents are coming from the left.

If you want to see real hatred, and real acts of violence, look at the left, because that’s where it is.

If you want to see the worst kind of demonization and demagoguery, also look to the left.

Obama’s Afghanistan Mess Proves Why Making Iraq Central Front Good Idea

October 15, 2009

Bush didn’t make a good case for invading Iraq – and the liberal, Bush-derangement-syndrome-media certainly didn’t help him.  He certainly could have argued his case much more effectively.

It is actually easy to justify invading Iraq just by quoting Democrats:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

One could also point out that A) every single Western intelligence service believed that Saddam Hussein was continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction.  They only knew for sure that B) Saddam had clearly possessed WMD, as demonstrated that he had repeatedly used such weapons on his own people as well as Iran;  C) Saddam Hussein was in fact training and equipping radical Islamic terrorists who could attack the United States and U.S. interests; D) Saddam had thrown out the weapons inspectors for 4 years prior to the 2003 invasion (Saddam ordered inspectors out of the country on November 1, 1997).  And no one could know what was going on in Iraq during that period.In August, 1998, absent effective monitoring, U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter remarked that Iraq could:

“reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.”

Kenneth Pollack, writing in the liberal journal The Atlantic, said the following:

This issue has some personal relevance for me. I began my career as a Persian Gulf military analyst at the CIA, where I saw an earlier generation of technical analysts mistakenly conclude that Saddam Hussein was much further away from having a nuclear weapon than the post-Gulf War inspections revealed. I later moved on to the National Security Council, where I served two tours, in 1995-1996 and 1999-2001. During the latter stint the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon.

He cites a number of reasons for the U.S. view (which, again, had been held by the Clinton administration as well) and then adds:

Western intelligence agencies understandably took these actions to mean that nothing in Saddam’s weaponry plans had changed.

And to that we can also add E) There is actually good reason to believe that Bush – and the Democrats quoted in the three sites above – were COMPLETELY CORRECT in believing that Saddam had WMD.

We know that long convoys went to Syria prior to our arrival.  Colin Powell displayed satellite photos of a 50-truck convoy en route to Syria.  And there is very good reason to believe that Saddam’s WMD materials were in those convoys. And see. And see also here. And here. And here.

Here’s an ABC story reporting on the story:

Part of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons program was transferred from Iraq to neighbouring Syria, and their status has yet to be resolved, Dr David Kay, the just-resigned head of the Iraq Survey Group, was quoted Sunday as telling a British newspaper.

In what it called an exclusive interview, the Sunday Telegraph said it was told by Dr Kay that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before the start of the Iraq war in March last year.

But there was another reason that George Bush decided to make Iraq a central front in the war on terror: he knew he could win there, and he knew that his victory would have a huge impact on the region over time.

Think of it: an Arab and Islamic democracy in the heart of the totalitarian Arab world.  Think of other Islamic states, whether Iran or Saudi Arabia, having to explain to its people why their countries shouldn’t be more democratic, just like Iraq.  George Bush believed that a democratic Iraq could potentially turn around a poisonous Islamist dynamic that was growing more and more poisonous all the time.

And with that, I introduce an article by Ann Coulter:

NATURAL-BORN LOSERS
October 14, 2009

The question of whether President Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan misses the point.

What Obama really needs to do is: Invent a time machine, go back to the 2008 presidential campaign and not say, over and over and over again, that Afghanistan was a “war of necessity” while the war in Iraq was a “war of choice.” (Oh, and as long as you’re back there, ditch Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett and that gay “school safety” czar.)

The most important part of warfare is picking your battlefield, and President Bush picked Iraq for a reason.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 — or the dozen other times American embassies, barracks and buildings came under jihadist onslaught since Jimmy Carter presided over “regime change” in Iran in 1979. Both countries — and others — gave succor to terrorists who had attacked the U.S. repeatedly, and would do so again.

As liberals endlessly reminded us during the three weeks of war in Afghanistan before the U.S. military swept into Kabul, Afghanistan has all the makings of a military disaster. It is mountainous, cave-pocked, tribal, has no resources worth fighting for and a populace that makes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed look like Alistair Cooke.

By contrast, Iraq had a relatively educated, pro-Western populace, but was ruled by a brutal third-world despot.

It’s always something with the Muslims. You either have mostly sane people governed by a crazy dictator — Iraq, Iran and Syria (also California and Michigan) — or a crazy people governed by relatively sane leaders — Pakistan and Afghanistan, post-U.S. invasion (also Vermont and Minnesota). There are also insane people ruled by insane leaders (but enough about the House Democratic Caucus). Sane people with sane rulers has not been fully tried yet.

Not only could regime change in Iraq work, but Iraq’s countryside was susceptible to America’s overwhelming air power. Also, Iraq has fabulous natural resources. Once the U.S. got control of Iraq’s oil fields, the Shia, Sunni and Kurds could decide to either prosper together or starve together. (And it’s not just oil: They’re basically sitting on top of most of the world’s proven reserves of cab drivers.)

By contrast, there aren’t a lot of sticks that can be used in a wasteland like Afghanistan, where the people live in caves and scratch out a living in the dirt. The only “carrot” we might be able to offer them would be actual carrots.

But Democrats couldn’t care less about military strategy — at least any “strategy” that doesn’t involve allowing soldiers to date one another. To the extent you can get liberals to focus on national security at all, you will find they are rooting against their own country.

Liberals sneered at Bush’s description of Iraq as the “central front of the war on terror” and a step toward the “democratization of the Middle East” — as Mark Danner did in the Sept. 11, 2005, New York Times — because sneering was all they could do. By design, Iraq was the central front in the war on terrorism.

Any fanatic who hated the Great Satan, owned an overnight bag and was not already working for The New York Times was lured across the border into Iraq … to be met by the awesome force of the U.S. military. Bush chose the battlefield that made the best flytrap for Islamic crazies and also that was most amenable to regime change.

Now nearly all denizens of the Middle East want the U.S. to invade them, so they can live in democracy, too. As Thomas Friedman inadvertently admitted, Lebanese voters credit their recent free election, in which the voters threw out Hezbollah, to President Bush. (American liberals, naturally, gave the credit to Obama, who they also believe is responsible for the sun rising every morning.)

Brave Iranian students who protested the tyrant Ahmadinejad did so because of Iraq — and then they stopped because of Obama’s indifference. Sadly for them, America’s foreign policy will now be based on a calculus of political correctness, not national security.

During the campaign, Obama prattled on about Iraq being a “war of choice” and Afghanistan a “war of necessity” for no more thoughtful reason than a desire to win standing ovations from treasonous liberals.

But lo and behold, those very liberals who were champing at the bit to fight in Afghanistan are suddenly full of objections to the war there, too. As Frank Rich points out: “Afghanistan is not Iraq. It is poorer, even larger and more populous, more fragmented and less historically susceptible to foreign intervention.”

Now they notice.

Afghanistan is a brutal battlefield, largely invulnerable to modern warfare — something the British and Russians learned. But as our military under Bush showed the world in 21 days, scimitar-wielding savages are no match for the voluntary civilian troops of a free people.

Bush removed the Taliban from power, captured or killed the lunatics and, for the next seven years, about the only news we heard out of Afghanistan were occasional announcements of parliamentary elections, new schools, water and electricity plants.

The difficult choice Obama faces in Afghanistan is entirely of his own making, not his generals’ and certainly not Bush’s. It was Obama’s meaningless blather about Afghanistan being a “war of necessity” during the campaign that has moved the central front in the war on terrorism from Iraq — a good battleground for the U.S. — to Afghanistan — a lousy battlefront for the U.S.

And it was Obama’s idea to treat war as if it’s an ordinary drug bust, reading suspects their Miranda rights and taking care not to put civilians in harm’s way.

A Democrat is president and, once again, America finds itself in an “unwinnable war.” I know Democrats will never learn, but I wish the voters would.

Ann Coulter does an excellent job depicting why Iraq was a place where we could win, and Afghanistan was a place where we could fall into an abyss.  Iraq – with its flat terrain and its conventional military dynamic, was a place where American technological might could completely dominate.

In making Iraq the central front, Bush chose a war that he knew America could win.

In demanding that Afghanistan be the central front, Democrats – and in particular Barack Obama – may well have chosen a war that we can’t win.

And Democrats now have a well-known history of losing wars since 1950.

Hence her title, Natural born losers.

And allow me to take that concept of the people now leading our country being “natural born losers,” and turn it to the even greater threat of Iran.

I’m going to close by pointing out that George Bush faced a similar dilemma in Iraq that Barack Obama will face in Iran: the utter uselessness and in fact counter-productiveness of the United Nations.

Russia, China, and France all had permanent member veto power, and all three had no intention of allowing any kind of meaningful sanction, resolution, or threat of military force to be passed by the United Nations.  While France has since joined the United States’ side, China and Russia will continue to be a thorn in the side of any effort to thwart Iran’s ultimate nuclear weapons ambitions (which merely continues a pattern that had ben going on for years).

Just today, Russian leader Vladimir Putin has put the kibosh on sanctions on Iran.

If Barack Obama still believes that he will be able to woo these countries – or for that matter Western Europe – to his side, he is a naive fool.  Just as he was always a naive fool for trusting in such patent nonsense.

And, so, just as with Bush and Iraq, Barack Obama will be largely forced to go it alone if he wants to prevent the terribly dangerous development of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Nearly a year-and-a-half ago, I pointed out that a Democrat president who demonized the war in Iraq would be unable to justify a war to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.  And absolutely nothing has since happened to change that conclusion one iota.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers