And They Can Live Happily Ever After in Ann's Malibu Beach Dream House Astute reader Pete noted that the perfect mate for Ann Coulter was right beneath our noses the whole time: BEEFMAN! And you know, Pete might just be right about that. But Ann does have other choices. Just go to Talking Ann Coulter Action Figure and you can get your own Ann doll to line-up with your other action figures! (While she does say 14 different phrases, if you don't put in any batteries in her, presumably you can get her to shut up.) And while there you can also buy the five fine Ken substitutes who exist to escort Ann to the prom, be the groom at her weddings, and help her blow up the NYT's building: George W Bush, George H.W. Bush, Top Gun George Bush, Bill Clinton, or my favorite, Rummy (he says 28 phrases, and so should be able to hold his own with Chatty Ann). Just don't be surprised when Ann ditches them all to run off to Iraq with G.I. Joe, or leaves Earth to destroy galaxies with Bobba Fett. Warning: Watch that that '70s Karen Black movie Trilogy of Terror -- specifically the segment about the homicidal, unstoppable evil doll from helll -- before ordering, so you know what you'll be up against. 7:08:07 PM  |
Okay, recomending a blog which just started today is kind of unusual, but this one: KiddingIsn't.com is funny. I particularly like Rastafarian Rush. 6:30:57 AM |
"I Like Long Walks on the Beach, Cuddling, and Forcibly Converting Foreigners to Christianity" You know, the Ann Coulter Dating Club doesn't seem to have found a mate for Ann yet (sure, it find her dates, but she drains their vital fluids and then tosses them away like used Kleenex, which makes it hard for her to settle down and raise the Republican babies needed to keep our civilization from crumbling). But I think I may have found her perfect match: some Canadian guy named Mark Steyn! (You probably already know all about him, but until I started this blog I made it a point not to hang out in bad neighborhoods like the Washington Times.) Anyway, Mark seems ideal for Ann, in that he's in the lunatic fringes of conservatism, writes hateful racist stuff, and has only a nodding acquaintanceship with the truth. And if he gets called on anything, he just claims that it was satire! I think these two kids were made for each other. (While Mark claims on his website to be "happily married, with three kids," I don't think that should stand in the way of true love.) Let's look at some bits from his latest column Linkage logarithms, a little piece showing that everything bad that has happened in the last year or so was caused by Muslims, and so we should break up with Saudi Arabia.
Wow, that sure shows Roeper! Steyn says there was an item in the London Evening Standard! And sure enough, we checked, and there WAS an item in the London Evening Standard (we also noted that the paper's top story for today is "Diana Feared Death Plot," so I kinda doubt it is up for many journalism awards). And what does the item in the Standard say about the evidence linking Muhammad to a terrorist group? Well, same as Mark told us, that "evidence has emerged." And just what evidence would that be? Well, um, you know . . . stuff. You'd think that the American papers would be all over a story like this, especially with Muhammad's trial coming up, but no, not a single U.S. paper reported anything about this evidence. Slackers! Well, almost a year ago the far-right pseudo-media (Washington Times, WorldNet, Bill O'Reilly, etc.) did report that some local some sheriff told them that the FBI was investigating WHETHER Muhammad had ties to Al Fuqra, but we haven't heard anything since. And that can only mean that there IS evidence linking Muhammad to the group, but only the London Evening Standard knows what it is, and they aren't talking (well, other than to say that evidence has emerged). Yes, Mark has been vindicated in his claim that Islam was behind the killings, and Richard Roeper has been proven to be a FOOL for saying that the a lot of conservatives really, really wanted the snipers to be terrorists. Let's read a little further:
How many things wrong in the above paragraphs can YOU spot? I'm no expert in Islam, terrorism, chaplains, etc., but I found 8. You can probably do better, but here's my list: 1. More than one organization certifies Muslim chaplains for the military. 2. Yes, Alamoudi was stopped for trying to smuggle money into Syria, and arrested for accepting money from Libya and bringing it into the United States. He says it wasn't from a terrorist group. Maybe it wasn't -- but it probably was. Middle-Eastern terrorist groups almost always use some of their funds for feeding orphans, taking care of widows, etc. That's how they do their fundraising: they tell potential donors that they need money to stop Isreal from invading Muslim countries, but more importantly, they need funds to help Muslim widows and orphans. And they do help them, through people like Alamoudi. He says the money he was given was to be used for charitable purposes. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But even John Ashcroft isn't saying that Alamoudi was a "bagman for terrorists." So, this is hyperbole at best; libel at worst. 3. Which al Qaeda chaps are "set up in the heart of the U.S. military"? Couldn't be Alamoudi, because he was hardly "in the heart" of the military -- all he did was head a group which provided religious endorsements for Muslim chaplains. And the Chaplain Corps is hardly the key infiltration target of any subversive group. And besides, if Alamoudi is linked with any terrorist groups, it would be Hammas and Hezbollah. And I haven't heard of anybody else in the heart of the military being al Queda operatives -- so either Mark knows something I don't know, or there ARE no such chappies. 4. Yes, the CIA has said that terrorist cells are difficult to penetrate. And while we don't know of any al Queda chaps in the heart of the military, I'll concede that it would be a heckova lot easier for one to get there than for the CIA to get an American CIA officer into an al Queda cell. That's because in America even the military doesn't restrict its membership to people from one particular extended family or tribe. Is Mark suggesting we change that, and model our army on a terrorist organization? If not, what WAS his point? 5. Alamoudi's group didn't recommend Yee. Blurring together the American Muslim Armed Forces with the Veterans Affairs Council was a cute way around that, though. 6. While Yee was "detained under suspicion of spying", he was ony CHARGED with security violations: the unauthorized transportation of classified material to his home, and not using the proper security container or covers to convey the material. And he's yet to be convicted of even those charges. Failing to mention this is dishonest. 7. Yes, two translators were also arrested for unauthorized possession of classified information. But they don't have anything to do with Alamoudi. Or with Saudi Arabia. So, seven examples of errors, obfuscation, evasion, leaps from one tangent to another, and paranaoic hyperpole in just four paragraphs, all to further the goal of indicting swarthy, non-Christian men as the cause of all evil, as a prelude to invading their countries, killing their leaders, and converting them to Canadianism. I think you'll agree that Mark is Ann's better half. (Well, better is a matter of opinion, I guess -- while Mark seems to be able to construct his sentences more skillfully, I think Ann is better at invective.) While we could do this all day, let's look at just one more passage, because it's here that Mark shows that Joseph Wilson was a Saudi spy, with the implication being that the Senior Administration Official who blew Wilson's wife's cover was a PATRIOT!
Okay, here's our "things wrong" list for this part of Steyn's piece: 1. The Army doesn't "subcontract the certification of chaplains." The military relies on religious groups to recommend candidates for chaplain positions, be they Muslim, Christian, Jew, or what have you. Because that darned First Ammendment won't let the state (and thus, the military) ordain or appoint their own clergy. 2. Saudi Arabia's rulers aren't pushing for Wahhabism activism, because they fear that such a movement would throw out the House of Saud in favor of an Islamic state, like Iran. And the Saudi elite are against Al-Qaeda, since one of it's primary stated goals is to undermine the Al-Saud regime and to damage its ties with the United States. While the Saudi government doesn't seem to be trying hard enough to stop the flow of funds to terrorism (as an elite, they are always afraid of so alienating their people that a revolution ensues), the Saudi government doesn't fund terrorism. 3. The Middle East Institute only gets receives $200,000 of its annual $1.5 million budget from the Saudi government. Now, on to Steyn's piece de resistance:
I've already provided my reasons for why Wilson was probably chosen for this mission (and being an intelligence specialist wasn't one of them). But I like Steyn's new twist on the whole thing: that because Wilson does part-time work for the MEI, he's pro-Saudi. Based on that logic, since Mark Steyn's column appears in the Washington Times, he's pro-Moonie. But not only is Wilson pro-Saudi, he's anti-Iraqi war. And so are the Saudis. And Wilson found no evidence that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Nigeria! This can only mean...GASP... that he is an Saudi agent, who deliberately HID evidence of Saddam buying uranium at the behest of his Saudi masters. But let's go a little farther with this: who was it who approached Wilson at the behest of the CIA to undertake this mission? Yes, his wife, Valerie Plame! She must be a Saudi spy too! It's a GOOD thing that she can't work undercover anymore, since she would only be futhering Saudi interests if she did. Scooter should get a medal for outing her! But let's get back to pro-Moonie Mark Steyn. It all fits that he would be preaching against Islam -- because the Moonies believe that eventually all religions will be abolished except for Unificationism. He's obviously just punditing to futher the goals of his Moonie paymasters. And it also makes a hideous kind of sense that Steyn would be agitating to get the U.S. to break off relations with Saudi Arabia, as this would ignite instability in the Middle East, war would ensure, and the West, lacking fuel, wouldn't be able to defend themselves. And after the armageddon, Reverend Moon will rule the world! I think it's obvious that Mark Steyn is a Moonie spy, and should be jailed immediately! And there should be an immediate investigation into the right-wing punditing institute, to ascertain how a Canadian chap was able to work his way into its heart. Sorry, Ann. Maybe Mark isn't the right man for you after all. 5:59:45 AM |
No comments:
Post a Comment