Sean Hannity is not letting MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry off the hook any time soon. On Monday night, he and Ann Coulter said Harris-Perry’s tearful apology for a segment making light of a picture of Mitt Romney and his white family with an adopted black grandchild was insincere and pushed by management, while Coulter went so far as to call Harris-Perry the “token” African-American at MSNBC.RELATED: WSJ Columnist: MSNBC Has a ‘Pattern’ of ‘Hiring Black Mediocrities’ to ‘Race-Bait’
Coulter found it ironic that Harris-Perry would insinuate that anyone else, like Kieran Romney, is a token, because “what does she think she is at MSNBC?”
Hannity was actually stunned Coulter would say this, giving the slightest of defenses to MSNBC by saying they have other black personalities like Al Sharpton. But aside from that, he agreed with Coulter that the network is full of “lunatics” who just can’t get enough of their own hyperbolic rhetoric.
Coulter also pointed out the irony of MSNBC taking on race in this fashion while they’ve gone above and beyond in finding ways to accuse Republicans and conservatives of racism. She said, “Unfortunately for liberals, there is no more racism in America. There is more cholera in America than there is racism.”
Tuesday evening on CNN’s The 11th Hour, a truly fascinating discussion occurred: Ann Coulter and Marc Lamont Hill went head-to-head over who can say certain “forbidden words,” including the notorious “n-word.”RELATED: Chuck D Says Rappers Who Use The N-Word On Records Are Lazy
It’s an interesting segment to watch for three main reasons: 1) Coulter isn’t in “home territory” since she’s on CNN; 2) She and Hill are very cordial with one another, to a point where this feels less like a typical cable news “battle” and more like a panel discussion at a respected institution; and 3) Who agreed with whom, and on which particular words should never be said by certain people, will very likely surprise you.
Just as a teaser, Coulter at one point asserted that “No other word is like the ‘n-word,’” after lamenting how P.C. police often try to lump words like “retard” and “illegal alien” in with the “n-word.” (Coulter has gotten into hot water for using the first two quite frequently.)
“Ann Coulter for the win!” Hill shouted. “Nobody saw that coming!” Host Don Lemon laughed as he acknowledged that this may very well be the first time he agrees with Coulter.
The conversation then veered into other “forbidden words” and their usage. That’s where we saw a bit more tension.
Ann Coulter joined Sean Hannity Monday night to talk about liberal media hypocrisy in the politics of mass shooters. Coulter echoed sentiments made by Rush Limbaugh that most school shooters are “inspired” by leftism, and even went so far as to say “liberalism is on the spectrum of mental illness.”RELATED: Denver Post Stealth Edits Out ‘Socialist’ from Profile of Arapahoe School Shooter
They were reacting to The Denver Post stealth-editing the word “socialist” the word “socialist” out of a profile for the Arapahoe shooter, saying this never would have happened if he was right-wing. Coulter said it’s always “crazy people” involved and on the left in particular, because “the left has a 200-year history of engaging in violence.”
They were both quick to say that they don’t want to blame the left for individual school shootings like they believe liberals do to conservative-affiliated shooters.
Whenever liberals are in a tight spot, they adopt the scorched-earth policy of argumentation. With no answer, they start demanding that you define words: What do you mean "liberal"? What do you mean "democracy"? What do you mean "patriotism"?RELATED: Larry Elder Blasts Media Outlets for Downplaying ‘Knockout Game’
They retreat from argument, burning the English language as they go.
Accustomed to playing the role of Soviet commissar censoring the news when it comes to black violence, the Non-Fox Media are in a panic now that the alternative media can post videos of young black males punching out random strangers.
As a result, liberals are denying the "Knockout Game" exists by refusing to understand the meaning of basic words, such as "game" and "trend."
Knockout Game-debunkers place great significance, for example, on the fact that the assailants have not signed affidavits calling it a "game."
Thus, The New York Times noted that in one recent case of a random stranger being knocked out by young black males, "the attacker insisted the assault was not part of any organized 'game.'"
A 78-year-old woman is punched by a young black male for no reason, and the Times' central point is: "Perp says it's not a 'game.'"
Similarly, in Philadelphia magazine, Stephen Silver said of two recent knockout attacks in Philadelphia that he wasn't counting either one as "confirmed cases of the Knockout Game" on the grounds that the puncher said he "was not participating in the Game."
Until the assailants admit they're playing a game, liberals say the Knockout Game is a "hoax."
Obviously, it doesn't matter what the participants call it. I don't know anyone who calls himself a "pundit," but that doesn't mean people don't go on TV and give their opinions. Every liberal denies he's a liberal, but that doesn't mean "liberals" don't exist. (Would that it were so!)
While we're on the subject, I can't think of a single instance in which someone has admitted to committing a "hate crime," but liberals are always calling things "hate crimes."
The Huffington Post concluded that the Knockout Game was "fabricated" based on one of the most famous victims, James Addlespurger, denying that it was a game. Instead, he calls his knockout an "assault," saying "game" is just a "label."
Hey, you know what else is just a label? The word "assault." "James Addlespurger" is a label. Another expression for "label" is "word" -- meaning, "something liberals try to blow up whenever they're about to be trapped into admitting the truth."
As Sgt. Tom Connellan of Syracuse, N.Y., patiently explained to the Times, it's called a "game" because there is no other motive for these attacks. They're not done for vengeance, robbery, gang initiations or payback. Strangers are being punched out strictly for amusement. Also, there are rules. You get only one punch to knock someone out.
(Incidentally, the reason the Times was quoting a policeman from Syracuse -- in an article questioning the reality of the "Knockout Game" -- is that two recent knockout attacks in that city were fatal.)
Remember when the proponents of the Affordable Care Act promised that ObamaCare would save most Americans $2,500 in premium costs a year? And perhaps you remember when Barack Obama claimed “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” so often that it became a mantra, too. Oregon television station KATU discovers that both of those promises turn out to be empty, and the “Affordable” in the bill’s title a case of bitter ironyRELATED: It Depends on What the Meaning of 'Settled Law' Is
Ann Coulter joined Sean Hannity Thursday night to take on what she views as a politically-motivated government shutdown, on the part of President Obama. Lamenting the closure of the World War II memorial and other “privately-run” sights, Coulter said, “This is absolutely 100% political.”RELATED: Shutdowns have been frequent tools of policy. Just ask Reagan.
“He’s doing this to punish people so he can blame Republicans when it is 100% the Democrats,” Coulter continued. Picking up where Hannity left off in his previous segment, she said “the entire fight has come down to” whether Democrats will agree to “live under Obamacare” like the rest of America.
Coulter explained why she was for a government shutdown to achieve this goal in 2013 when she was against it back when Newt Gingrich was leading the charge against President Bill Clinton. Most importantly, she said, conservative now own part of the media landscape.
“There was no Fox News in 1995,” she said. “Nobody was on the internet. Talk radio wasn’t as big as it is now. If you look at the polls, even with 100% of the non-Fox media pushing the idea that it’s Republicans’” fault, the gap between those who blame Democrats and those who blame Republicans is far smaller than it was in 18 years ago.
And on Republicans who Hannity described as “giving in to the bullying” of President Obama and showing signs of compromise, Coulter asked, “Were they in a coma during the launch of the Obamacare exchanges? Have they seen what’s happening?”
There's been another mass shooting by a crazy person, and liberals still refuse to consider institutionalizing the dangerous mentally ill.RELATED: Aaron Alexis: police piece together picture of man 'as normal as you or me'
The man who shot up the Washington Navy Yard on Monday, Aaron Alexis, heard voices speaking to him through the walls. He thought people were following him. He believed microwave ovens were sending vibrations through his body. There are also reports that Alexis believed the Obamacare exchanges were ready to go.
Anyone see any bright red flags of paranoid schizophrenia? (Either that, or Obama's NSA is way better than we thought!)
But Alexis couldn't be institutionalized because the left has officially certified the mentally ill as "victims," and once you're a victim, all that matters is that you not be "stigmatized."
But here's the problem: Coddling the mentally ill isn't even helping the mentally ill. Ask the sisters of crazy homeless woman "Billie Boggs" how grateful they were to the ACLU for keeping Boggs living on the streets of New York City. Ask the parents of Aaron Alexis, James Holmes (Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooter), Jared Loughner (Tucson, Ariz., mall shooter) or Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter) how happy they are that their sons weren't institutionalized.
Tellingly, throughout the last three decades, the overall homicide rate has been in free fall, thanks to Republican crime policies, from 10 per 100,000 in 1980 to 4 per 100,00 today. (You might even call them "common sense" crime policies.) But the number of mass shootings has skyrocketed from 4 per year, between 1900 and 1970, to 29 per year since then.
Something seems to have gone horribly wrong right around 1970. What could it be? Was it the introduction of bell-bottoms?
That date happens to correlate precisely with when the country began throwing the mentally ill out of institutions in 1969. Your memory of there not being as many mass murders a few decades ago is correct.
Your memory of there not being as many homeless people a few decades ago is also correct.
But liberals won't allow the dangerous mentally ill to be committed to institutions against their will. (The threat of commitment is very persuasive in getting disturbed individuals to take their medicine.) Something in liberals' genetic makeup compels them to attack civilization, for example, by defending the right of dangerous psychotics to refuse treatment and then representing them in court after they commit murder.
Do liberals have any arguments for their idiotic ideas besides calling their opponents "racist"?
The two big public policies under attack by the left this week are "stop-and-frisk" policing and voter ID laws. Democrats denounce both policies as racist. I'm beginning to suspect they're getting lazy in their arguments.
Stop-and-frisk was a crucial part of the package of law enforcement measures implemented by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani that saved the city. Under David Dinkins, who preceded Giuliani, murders averaged about 2,000 a year. There were 714 murders in New York the year Giuliani left office. Continuing Giuliani's policing techniques, Mayor Michael Bloomberg's New York had only 419 murders last year.
Just during his first year in office, Giuliani's policies cut the murder rate an astonishing 20 percent. That first year of his administration was responsible for 35 percent of the crime drop nationwide from 1993 to 1995. The New York Times hailed this remarkable achievement with an article headlined, "New York City Crime Falls but Just Why Is a Mystery."
It was mostly black lives that were saved by Giuliani's crime policies. By the end of his administration, the Rev. Calvin Butts, liberal pastor of Harlem's Abyssinian Baptist Church, was comparing Giuliani to King Josiah of the Bible, who "brought order, peace, the law back to the land." The black minister told The New York Times, "I really think that without Giuliani, we would have been overrun."
About the same time as the Rev. Butts was comparing Giuliani to King Josiah, Richard Goldstein of The Village Voice claimed he felt less safe in New York under Giuliani. It was the ravings of a madman, like saying winter is warmer than summer. But now, Goldstein's ideas are being delivered from the federal bench by Judge Shira Scheindlin, who recently held New York City's stop-and-frisk policies unconstitutional.
Yes, Democrat Bob Filner can pat down his female employees, but cops can't pat down suspected criminals.
Liberals wail about guns, but how do they imagine police get guns off the street without going to high-crime neighborhoods and stopping young men acting suspiciously?
Giuliani's policing policies, including stop-and-frisk, reduced gun homicides in New York by 75 percent within five years.
It is precisely the fear of being caught with a gun that induces young hoodlums not to carry them. The word gets out: Don't carry a gun! It's not worth the risk.
Of course cops don't find many guns anymore! That's because they're doing stop-and-frisk.
By liberals' logic, the government should stop doing meat inspections because it turns up so few cases of contamination these days, anyway. We can also drop the metal detectors at airports. How many people does the TSA actually catch trying to sneak guns onto airplanes?
Have liberals polled the elderly black residents of high-crime neighborhoods on stop-and-frisk? As soon as the word gets out that it's now safe to carry weapons, spray paint, drugs and stolen goods again, criminals will rule the streets and the elderly will, once more, be confined to their homes. As Martin Luther King said, crime is "the nightmare of the slum family."
But liberals don't care about the innocent black victims of crime. They don't care about citizens being prisoners in their own homes -- as long as it's not in their neighborhoods. The important thing is to self-righteously preen about racism.
When a policy that has saved thousands of black lives is attacked as "racist," the word has no meaning. At this rate, liberals will be claiming that peanut butter sandwiches are racist -- except that wouldn't be as crazy.
RELATED: New York City Police Department Commissioner Ray Kelly blasts stop-and-frisk ruling, says violent crime will spike under proposed reformsVoter ID laws don't actually save black lives the way stop-and-frisk policies do, but it's not clear how such laws hurt them. I suppose the argument is that by allowing Democrats to steal elections, they can pass all those laws that improve black lives immeasurably, like promoting trial lawyers, gay marriage, abortion and amnesty for illegals. You know, the Democratic policies that really enhance black lives.
Pfc. Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army soldier implicated in the largest release of documents relating to national security in the history of the country, was found not guilty of the charge of aiding the enemy in a military court on Tuesday. He has, however, been found guilty on 15 counts of releasing classified documents.RELATED: Bradley Manning: Poster Boy For ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
The 25-year-old army private was accused of aiding the enemy by helping Julian Assange’s government transparency advocacy group Wikileaks obtain classified documents relating to American national security starting in late 2009. Manning had insisted, however, that he did not begin facilitating leaks until February, 2010.
A CBS News report reveals that Manning could face a life sentence for his role in the release of classified documents. He was convicted of five counts relating to espionage, and had already admitted to his guilt in 10 charges in connection with the release of those documents.
Manning stands accused of federal espionage, theft, and computer fraud for his role in releasing roughly 700,000 battlefield reports, diplomatic cables, and pieces of video footage to the controversial organization, which subsequently published much of the material on its website. The unauthorized disclosure represented the largest leak of classified material in American History.Manning asked for a military judge instead of a jury to hear his case. The military prosecutor in this case sought to prove that Manning was aware that the documents he released would benefit America’s enemies, specifically Al Qaeda.
Ann Coulter sat down with Sean Hannity tonight lambasting the way the mainstream media has been covering the George Zimmerman murder trial since if began mere weeks ago. Both of them agreed that the media proclaimed Zimmerman guilty long before the trial began and overplayed the racial angle, while Coulter compared this case to the Duke Lacrosse rape case from a few years ago, saying that the media’s trying to tell the public here that “racist America is out trying to rape and murder black people.”RELATED: Geraldo: Al Sharpton And ‘Race Politics’ Forced Florida To Pursue ‘Weak’ Case Against Zimmerman
Coulter proclaimed that liberals always “gin up the racial demagoguery” in cases like this, and doubted anyone would have cared about the trial if the races were reversed. She compared the Zimmerman trial to the Duke Lacrosse case that was also hyped up in the media to explain why this particular case is getting so much attention.
“They need their fake cause of how racist America is out trying to rape and murder black people.”She also found it ludicrous that a lot of the media coverage seems to assume that Zimmerman has to prove “he did not engage in racial profiling,” because it’s not a crime to do so, and added that Trayvon Martin never even needed to lift a finger for Zimmerman to think his life was in danger.
Hannity added it bothers him that it looks like the prosecution started out by overcharging and are only now putting out lower charges with the hope that the jury “cuts the difference.”
Pfc. Bradley Manning pleaded guilty Thursday to 10 of the 22 charges against him -- but not the most serious one, "aiding the enemy" -- in what the government says is the largest leak of classified documents in the nation's history.
And, for the first time, Manning offered his rationale for the crimes.In court, Manning detailed why and how he sent classified material to WikiLeaks, a group that facilitates the anonymous leaking of secret information through its website.He said he passed on information that "upset" or "disturbed" him, but nothing he thought would harm the United States if it became public. Manning said he thought the documents were old and the situations they referred to had changed or ended.Reading a statement for more than an hour, Manning described his motivations, beginning with what he called "sigact tables," documents describing significant actions in Iraq and Afghanistan that he said represented the "ground reality" of both conflicts.He said he'd become "depressed about the situation there" and made copies of the sigact tables in his secure workstation in Iraq. Then, he took them back to the United States and pondered what to do with them.Manning said he first called The Washington Post. He spoke to a woman who he believed was a reporter and told her the kind of material he had. After five minutes, he got the impression she wasn't taking him seriously, he said.He said he then called The New York Times and got nothing but answering machines, so he left a message and his phone number and e-mail address, but never heard back.Manning said he finally decided to send the documents to the WikiLeaks organization."I believed if the public was aware of the data, it would start a public debate of the wars," he told the court.Manning acknowledged to the court he was not authorized to receive the classified documents he leaked and said he knows that he had other avenues through which he could have expressed his dissatisfaction.
Posts
All Comments
