From Ann Coulter's Dot Com: The Gentle Musings of an Anti Semetic White Supremacist (week of April 15)

I had no idea how important this week's nationwide anti-tax tea parties were until hearing liberals denounce them with such ferocity. Nice use of reverse psychology here. Reality the tea parties were a joke. People like Krugman denounced them for their fundamentally wrong historical perspective. But what can you expect from party leaders so creative they re-brand Neo Naxi as Neo Con and think nobody will catch on. The New York Times' Paul Krugman wrote a column attacking the tea parties, apologizing for making fun of "crazy people." It's OK, Paul, you're allowed to do that for the same reason Jews can make fun of Jews. ...Speaking of Neo Nazism.

On MSNBC, hosts Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have been tittering over the similarity of the name "tea parties" to an obscure homosexual sexual practice known as "tea bagging." Again you're almost as hip as the Queen of England, but not quite. Tea bagging is more of a drunken frat thing. Homosexuals like myself call it what it is: "licking balls." Different. Night after night, they sneer at Republicans for being so stupid as to call their rallies "tea bagging."

Every host on Air America and every unbathed, basement-dwelling loser on the left wing blogosphere (vivid description of left wing bloggers here shows promise of a good writer) has spent the last week making jokes about tea bagging, a practice they show a surprising degree of familiarity with.

Except no one is calling the tea parties "tea bagging" -- except Olbermann and Maddow. Republicans call them "tea parties." Excellent point.

But if the Republicans were calling them "tea-bagging parties," the MSNBC hosts would have a fantastically hilarious segment for viewers in San Francisco and the West Village and not anyplace else in the rest of the country. On the other hand, they're not called "tea-bagging parties." (That, of course refers to the cocktail hour at Barney Frank's condo in Georgetown.)

You know what else would be hilarious? It would be hilarious if Hillary Clinton's name were "Ima Douche." Unfortunately, it's not. It was just a dream. Most people would wake up, realize it was just a dream and scrap the joke. Not MSNBC hosts.

The point of the tea parties is to note the fact that the Democrats' modus operandi is to lead voters to believe they are no more likely to raise taxes than Republicans, get elected and immediately raise taxes. Excuse Ms. Coulter, again, for being one of those unfortunate millionaires disgruntled at their tax hike; but hey even Ann might benefit in the end. After all, what would a Neo Nazi-Con Media Blogger be without a reason to cry wolf about taxes.

Apparently, the people who actually pay taxes consider this a bad idea.

Obama's biggest shortcoming is that he believes the things believed by all Democrats, which have had devastating consequences every time they are put into effect. (Again, Ms. Coulter must either have severe dementia or live in an alternate universe. Potaito, Potauto.) Among these is the Democrats' admiration for raising taxes on the productive. What country do you actually live in; or what alternate universe. You think CEO's of these failed companies are productive, or just fat. Go have intercourse with Rush Limbaugh and let's talk productivity.

All Democrats for the last 30 years have tried to stimulate the economy by giving "tax cuts" to people who don't pay taxes. Evidently, offering to expand welfare payments isn't a big vote-getter.

Even Bush had a "stimulus" bill that sent government checks to lots of people last year. Guess what happened? It didn't stimulate the economy. There is a difference here; Bush signed a lazy, wasteful stimulus bill while Obama signed a thoughtful stimulus bill that invests in the future. Obama's stimulus bill is the mother of all pork bills for friends of O and of Congressional Democrats. ("O" stands for Obama, not Oprah, but there's probably a lot of overlap.) I can't help but think this is somehow subtly racist; however, since I don't attend clandestine meatings of the Ku Klux Klan, then I can't be sure.

And all that government spending on the Democrats' constituents will be paid for by raising taxes on the productive.

Raise taxes and the productive will work less, adopt tax shelters, barter instead of sell, turn to an underground economy -- and the government will get less money. Apt description here, Ms. Coulter, of the culture of private enterprise. But big business already exists in an underground economy, they barter things like bonuses, corporate retreats, business lunches and dinners, and gifts.

The perfect bar bet with a liberal would be to wager that massive government deficits in the '80s were not caused by Reagan's tax cuts. (Are you scared that Reagan's dirty little secret might get out, since a tripling of the national defecit from 9 billion to 2.8 trillion dollars? Nice play.) If you casually mentioned that you thought Reagan's tax cuts brought in more revenue to the government -- which they did -- you could get odds in Hollywood and Manhattan. Ms. Coulter, you are occassionally a walking satire of conservatism. Sometimes you are that confusing. (This became a less attractive wager in New York this week after Gov. David Paterson announced his new plan to tax bar bets.)

The lie at the heart of liberals' mantra on taxes -- "tax increases only for the rich" -- is the ineluctable fact that unless taxes are raised across the board, the government won't get its money to fund layers and layers of useless government bureaucrats, none of whom can possibly be laid off. (Maybe if people got promotion and jobs during the Bush deregulation years, and weren't sliding roughshod into a depression, you'd have a point. Unfortunately we're not and you don't.) How much would you have to raise taxes before any of Obama's constituents noticed? They don't pay taxes, they engage in "tax-reduction" strategies, they work for the government, or they're too rich to care. (Or they have off-shore tax shelters, like George Soros.)

California tried the Obama soak-the-productive "stimulus" plan years ago and was hailed as the perfect exemplar of Democratic governance. (The Ms. Coulter creed: where history fails to support your argument write big words and cite fringe sources.)

In June 2002, the liberal American Prospect magazine called California a "laboratory" for Democratic policies, noting that "California is the only one of the nation's 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control."

They said this, mind you, as if it were a good thing. In California, the article proclaimed, "the next new deal is in tryouts." As they say in show biz: "Thanks, we'll call you. Next!"

In just a few years, Democrats had turned California into a state -- or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" -- with a $41 billion deficit, a credit rating that was slashed to junk-bond status and a middle class now located in Arizona.

Democrats governed California the way Democrats always govern. You're acting as if the California problem is an outlier phenomenon and not a function of the nationwide economic meltdown created by bankrupt private sector leadership and poor oversight by the Bush administration. They bought the votes of government workers with taxpayer-funded jobs, salaries and benefits -- and then turned around and accused the productive class of "greed" (Ms. Coulter, I can't help but think you're acting to "re-brand" the wealthy as "the productive class." There is nothing wrong with being wealthy; its the disconnect between performance/productivitiy and compensation combined with excessive job loss that leaves the leaders of the private sector largely bankrupt. Remember it is not that people just "lose" they're jobs; executives cut their jobs) for wanting not to have their taxes raised through the roof. Having run out of things to tax, now the California legislature is considering a tax on taxes. Seriously. The only way out now for California is a tax on Botox and steroids. (Nice thinking here, Ms. Coulter. NOW you're on to something. You might throw ) Sure, the [Republican] governor will protest, but it is the best solution ...

California was, in fact, a laboratory of Democratic policies. This is not a fact, Ms. Coulter, this is the Rovian Neo Nazi-Con Media Corps' marketing machine rolling out more bullshit. The rabbit died, (in one of the two wars that Bush left on Obama's plate) so now Obama is trying it on a national level.

That's what the tea parties are about.

Once again, the train of thought here leaves me speechless, but not quite. Ms. Coulter's continues to waste her Ivy League education here; Ms. Coulter's gross productivity is one poorly researched essay a week.

Work Cited:
Article published on AnnCoulter.com, COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106