Imagine how awesome it would be if politicians weren’t completely cowed by the threat of being called a racist. Ann Coulter thinks the race card is the only thing standing between Mr. President Obama and impeachment.

He is vetoing legislation by refusing to enforce it. The constitution demands that the president of the United States take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He has simply taken it upon himself to rewrite Obamacare, to rewrite immigration laws, — you indicated with the DREAMers thing — to rewrite drug laws.

Now we’re not — Colorado and Washington, sure, just legalize drugs that the federal government, that the Congress has written and made illegal. This is the bottom of the slippery slope, and I think he would be impeached if he weren’t America’s first black president.

Lefty Rebuttal: “Huh! Look, it’s Man Coulter!” (Ha, that’ll show those right-wing nutjobs. I’m so clever. [Toot. Bend over. Sniff]

(more…)

In the comments for my last post on Obamacare commenter Ignatius began his discussion of the legislation’s undesirable albeit unstated aims with the observation: “I believe that political discussions would be much easier if those on the right jettisoned this quaint idea that leftists have good intentions.”  I highlighted that sentence in a subsequent comment, and other commenters took up the theme, as well.

Commenter Eddie Swaim observed:

While reading the comments about “the left,” it suddenly occurred to me that after listening to Rush Limbaugh for 25 years, he has always been careful to separate “the left” politicians in D.C. from “the left” common everyday folk. I always agreed with him but now I’m not so sure. Most of the gay male liberals that I know fall right in line with the D.C. politicians. Anything and everything is o.k. if it hurts [conservatism] or wins them a battle against the right, whether or not their action is legal or ethical. The ends always justify the means.

Likewise, commenter Steve linked to this video of Ann Coulter discussing the tendency of liberals and the lamestream media to fall back on “racial demagoguery” to advance their agenda in cases like the Zimmerman trial.

I thought of all three comments when I came across another link to an article by John Hawkins dated March 27, 2012.  Hawkins’ article is entitled “5 Uncomfortable Truths About Liberals,” and I encourage everyone to read the whole thing.  For the moment, though, I’ve summarized his five points below.  Hawkins writes that:

1) Most liberals are hateful people.

2) Liberals do more than any other group to encourage race-based hatred.

3) Most liberals are less moral than other people.

4) Most liberals don’t care if the policies they advocate work or not.

5) Most liberals are extremely intolerant.

Now while the language in those observations is strong enough that Hawkins could be accused of engaging in hyperbole, I think a certain amount of strong language is necessary for describing leftist rhetoric and means of argumentation.  There’s no need to take my word for it, though, read the whole thing and decide for yourself.

I would say, though, that in both the Zimmerman case and in the debates (and protests) over late-term abortion restrictions in Texas, we’ve seen many of the traits Hawkins describes displayed quite openly by many leftists.

Likewise, consider this article in The Advocate which a Facebook acquaintance brought to my attention.  The article focuses on the “mighty change of heart” which many Mormons have undergone on the issues of gay rights and gay marriage.  True to what both Hawkins and our commenters noted, most gay leftists will have none of it, as is very evident from their comments on the Advocate article.  Rather than welcome the changes underway in the LDS church, they are expressing their hatred and intolerance for the Mormons in very hostile language.  Read the comments there and see for yourself.

Now while I know a number of our readers might believe that the Mormons brought the hatred on themselves through the church’s advocacy against Proposition 8 in California in 2008, I’d point out a few things that the left never will, namely: 1). Despite what the HRC and its allies would have us believe, opposition to gay marriage isn’t necessarily motivated by hate, however easy or convenient it may be to believe that, and 2). Individuals are and should be defined by more than their affiliation with some group or collective.  The gay left is always up in arms about what this group or that group said or did about some gay issue, but they never have qualms about denouncing or smearing or insulting members of that group in a similar manner.

As diligent readers of this blog know, I have changed my opinion of Ann Coulter in recent years.  I used to think that she was a right-wing bomb thrower, saying outrageous things merely to get a name for herself.  But, when I met her, I put her “outrageousness” into context.

What Ann does, I wrote last April, “is just throw the left’s broadsides on conservatives back at them, returning with a playful smile what lefties send out with a self-righteous scowl.  She mocks in good fun and to make a point.”  Read the whole post for an insight into my shifting views of this conservative diva.

In short, I began to appreciate this particular diva by putting her comments into a cultural context.  Today, Mickey Kaus also takes a broader view of this conservative, finding “More evidence for [his] contention that Ann Coulter is really quite sensible if you don’t provoke her with liberal BS.: Here is a passage from her recent column on taxes and spending:”

As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes “in return for [the Democrats'] agreement to cut spending by $280 billion,” but, Reagan continues, “the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.” Maybe that’s why Republicans won’t agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending.

For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats’ history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans’ opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That’s why Republicans need to remind them. [E.A]

Read the whole thing.  H/t Instapundit.

I guess the only “real gay bashing” is one that involves gays of a Leftist persuasion? (h/t – Peter Hughes)

Via The Daily Caller:

Why am I posting this?  Well, for no other reason the sheer delight of knowing that Gay Leftist heads will be exploding all over the place this morning.  Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha.

“I WROTE a new speech for the gays and I don’t have it memorized yet!” said Ann Coulter, as she ducked into a hallway in the Union Square apartment of the venture capitalist Peter Thiel on a recent Saturday night, flicking a half-empty packet of Habitrol gum between her fingers. She was there to speak at Homocon 2010, a party for the one-year anniversary of GOProud, the Washington-based advocacy group for gay conservatives.

For a right-wing, evangelical Christian who has made fun of homosexuals and opposes same-sex marriage, Ms. Coulter seemed awfully … game. Wearing a black lace-up cocktail dress and high black heels, she posed for a photograph with the founder of Boy Butter, a maker of sex lubricants. She joked about her fellow conservatives. “Yes, that was Elton John at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding, not Velma from ‘Scooby-Doo,’ ” she said, as listeners chuckled. She warmly greeted a pornographic film director, and admired the “freedom is fabulous” T-shirt worn by one volunteer. “Can you be gay and conservative?” she shouted at the mostly male crowd, many of whose shirt collars were soaked with sweat after the air-conditioning had faltered. “You have to be!” Conservatives, she surmised, are tough on the war against Islamic terrorists. “And you know what the Muslims do to gays,” she said, flashing a knowing look.

Ah, but for the rest…. you will have READ THE WHOLE THING.

By the way, the founder of Boy Butter must have slipped my attention at the Homocon event.  LOL.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)