What was that sound on the phone just now? A NSA goon slurping his coffee? We are all wondering if that is static we hear on the line today or Big Brother. And we have also learned that Big Brother has a sister, and her name is Ann Coulter.
In her most recent rant Ann Coulter, not satisfied with the blood bath going on in Iraq and the violations of individual rights perpetuated by the Bush Administration, calls for open war between Republicans and, evidently, everyone else on the face of the Earth and questions the masculinity of Republicans who fail to hit the barricades in behalf of the NeoCon agenda. This is ironic since more every day have gender questions about Coulter herself. So in the name of transparency in media I have a proposal to answer those questions for all time. More on that in a moment.
Reading too much Coulter is emotionally debilitating but I hung on long enough to get the real point. Coulter is finally admitting that the NeoCons have long been applying the techniques of war to the political process and, their days numbered, are now frantic to send the Real Republicans, to take up their weapons and throw themselves into the battle against NeoConism's enemies. Ann is trying to counter the hasty retreat of so many who once trusted them by questioning their manhood. This makes her own gender a legitimate question.
Coulter's trembling finger was pointed at the Democrats as she said, “For a political party that grasps the concept of victory against foreign enemies, Republicans can't seem to grasp that concept when it comes to domestic enemies. Instead of taking a page from Sun-tzu's "Art of War," when it comes to fighting liberals, American conservatives prefer the Jimmy Carter unconditional-surrender strategy.” In her new book she evidently suggests a 12 step program for those Republican Men reluctant to die maintaining her lucrative constituency.
For Coulter if it is not a NeoCon it is a liberal. This does keep things simple for her.
The liberals are never that organized or effective.
Coulter starts her screed with slams, only moderately amusing, against the Kennedys, Patrick and Old Teddy. As she careens on you can almost see the white froth dripping from her lips. She manages to position Rush Limbaugh as a martyr to drug laws, characterizing Rush's prosecution for the illicit use of prescription drugs as political persecution. Who was it who has continued the Drug War Atrocities? Perhaps Ann should check her facts. NeoCons never met a war they didn't love.
We all know that Coulter is very much in favor of the continuing debilitations of the War on Drugs, an activity that lines the pockets of the greedy and grasping all the way from the White House on down.
The leadership in both the Democratic and Republican Parties are all for the largess they realize from that war on us; this is not a partisan issue and far more us, the people, versus all of the leadership from both parties and their corporate cronies.
In a sick way Coulter's rant is actually rather funny. It is as if in 1941 Adolph Hitler, the SS standing firmly behind him, decided to pick a fight with a local Kindergarten class. Nothing the Democratic Party has done has even been an effective defense for longer than I can remember and Ann herself has apostatized them as too wimpy to be believed. This is not inappropriate.
I once bought the fiction that there was a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy when I was active as a Republican, I was chagrined to discover that the worst I could find were individuals with doubtful ethics, non-existent personal morals, and short range personal agendas that went no further than the next election or even their next lobbyist funded jaunt. If they are larcenous at least they are not efficient about it.
Joe Conason was right. The Democrats steal less.
It was a hard truth to acknowledge but the fact is that the Republican Party was the first fatality in the present War on Americans launched by the NeoCons and supported through the amazing vitriol, lies, and misdirection, of such as Ann Coulter and John Fund. Ann does the screaming, Fund does the scheming.
Real Republicans are still twitching, but those among them who have kept their ideological grounding intact are now beginning to understand who stole freedom.
Karl Rove perfected his use of the myriad of bureaus and institutions along with his application of policy as a profit center to augment the donations from corporations while still flexing his flabby muscles down in Texas.
The war against Americans has been covert up until now and really, it is nice of Coulter to bring the truth out in the open. That admission is a sign of NeoCon desperation.
Was Clinton a womanizer? Yep. That made him eminently attackable and attack the NeoCons did through such institutions as the Wall Street Journal and the practiced offices of John Fund who has spent the last thirty years grasping for the gold ring of wealth and power, using the weapons of deceit, manipulation, and war to create himself as someone he never was. (Catch the Interview) Coulter has described liberals as 'girly' since 9/11 and has consistently used 'boys' instead of men and 'girls' instead of women. Why is that? Could this focus originate in her own gender confusion?
The gender bent of Coulter's rant also brought to mind another story that is picking up steam through the diligent efforts of Dan Borchers, a Conservative Republican who has voiced many questions about Coulter.
Is Ann Coulter a female? While the answer would appear to be obvious; she is after all, blond, curvy, and attractive, real affirmation is not in evidence. Coulter is a fag hag, her best friends are gay. She has never married or evidently been in a long term relationship and she has had no children and is nearly menopausal.
So is she or isn't she female? Rumors includes the titillating piece of gossip that she might not really know herself. Coulter could have been born with both and had her parents pick wrong. It happens. That would explain the hysterically violent tone in her writing and other signs noted elsewhere. So how can Coulter prove her gender?
I suggest that we turn to the Daughters of the American Revolution. They can oversee a DNA test that will settle the question This is appropriate because Ann is a member of that rectitudinous body and if the lovely Ann is not really female the DAR would certainly want to know that so her membership could be shifted to the Sons of the American Revolution. That would made for interesting meetings.
Inquiring minds want to know and all it takes is a swab from the inside of the mouth, not nearly as intrusive as Ann's rhetoric I might add.
Now, about the balance of Ann's article aimed at selling her book and stoking the fires of Republican Manhood. Perhaps if the test proves what so many believe Ann can be the first to sign up for her own course on Manhood as she leads her own militia of macho renewed Republicans over the top, if any can be enlisted in 'her' campaign.
Historically, real men declared war before the hostilities began. In this, as in so many things, the NeoCons are 'different.' But what can you expect from NeoConning cowards who have never faced the real thing?
Catch the interview of Melinda Pillsbury-Foster by Gene Gaudette this Friday at 4PM, PDT on BBSRadio.com. Melinda, the host of the Spiritual Politician, will turn the mike over to Gene for an interview on The Real John Fund.
No comments:
Post a Comment