Coulter Defends White Supremacists

I dare say all Liberals are familiar with far-right Ann Coulter and her notorious, rabid rant. But, at any rate, here are a few chosen examples to help refresh your memory: Bill Clinton is a "very good rapist,"Al Gore is a "total fag," Democrats are "gutless traitors," Muslims are "ragheads" and America should "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," Jews need to be "perfected," the New York Times building including its editorial staff should be bombed, Justice John Paul Stevens needs to have "rat poison" mixed in his food, Princess Diana "had sex in front of her children, Al Sharpton is a "fat, race-baiting black man," North Korea should be "nuked."and more.

According to a recent report by Mark Potok Feb. 13, 2009, from the Southern Poverty Law Center's white supremacist/hate watch group, Coulter has, in her latest book, Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America, devoted the better part of three pages bolstering a white supremacist hate group known as the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) which the New York Times has described as a "thinly veiled white supremacist organization." Coulter, on the other hand, wholeheartedly disagrees: The CCC she says, " is a conservative group that has been unfairly branded as racist because some of the directors of the CCC had, decades earlier, been leaders of a segregationist group." Continuing, Coulter says, "There is no evidence on its web page that the modern incarnation of the CCC supports segregation.""Apart from some aggressive reporting on black-on-white crimes -- the very crimes that are aggressively hidden by the establishment media -- there is little on the CCC website suggesting" that the group is racist. Indeed, its main failing is "containing members who had belonged to a segregationist group thirty years earlier."

Coulter could hardly be more wrong. And even if she can't find time to read beyond a page of the CCC's website, she really ought to know -- after all, the organization where she frequently speaks, the Conservative Political Action Committee, has publicly banned the CCC from its annual gathering because it is racist. Also in the late 1990s, Jim Nicholson, then-chairman of the Republican National Committee, asked GOP members to stay away from the CCC because of its "racist and nationalist views."

Mark Potok outlines some of the CCC's racist commentary that has appeared on their website:
The CCC's columnists have written that black people are "a retrograde species of humanity," and that non-white immigration is turning the U.S. population into a "slimy brown mass of glop." Its website has run photographic comparisons of pop singer Michael Jackson and a chimpanzee. It opposes "forced integration" and decries racial intermarriage. It has lambasted black people as "genetically inferior," complained about "Jewish power brokers," called gay people "perverted sodomites," and even named the late Lester Maddox, the baseball bat-wielding, arch-segregationist former governor of Georgia, "Patriot of the Century."


But to Ann Coulter, there is "no evidence" on its website that the CCC "supports segregation." Mostly, she says, the group -- which was formed from the debris of the White Citizens Councils that Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once called "the uptown Klan" -- is about "a strong national defense, the right to keep and bear arms, the traditional family, and an `America First' trade policy." Indeed, she says, The New York Times and other critics of the CCC are simply liberals "who have no principles."

read the complete article ist-ann-coulter-defends-white-supremacis t-group/

The following excerpt is from the CofCC website is typical white supremacy, white nationalist rant:

<Obama Nation- Whose America? What Now?<p>

When I was in the airport yesterday, the first thing I saw after finding out that Barack Hussein Obama was elected President was a Black man holding hands with a trashy White woman. The first thing that came to my mind was, "after my ancestors came here on the Mayflower, served in every war our country has fought, and founded this great country on White ideals; these race-mixers have taken it over with one fowl swoop."

That's right. It doesn't matter that Hussein Obama's mother was a trashy White gutter-tramp, his heritage has nothing to do with ours'. I love this country. I love my people. And if you think Hussein Obama has any regard for the well-being of my people, our history or our heritage, just read his Black manifesto "Dreams From My (Deadbeat) Father" or ask his raving, Black nationalist lunatic wife Michelle or Pastor Jeremiah Wright.

I'm proud that Alabama voted overwhelmingly for John McCain, and more importantly for Sarah Palin. I'm proud that the Deep South voted as a block. Many believe that our region is backward, but that's because they don't have enough sense to pour pee out of a boot with somebody reading them instructions.>


read more obama-nation-whose-america-and-what-now

The following excerpt is a comment on segregation of the races and secession from the website American Renaissance Secession & Racial Nationalism which is linked to the Council of Conservative Citizens (Cof CC) home site:

<"One can defend or attack the desirability of secession; examine and criticize past or present secessionist movements from a racial nationalist perspective; evaluate existing secessionist and partition proposals (e.g., Wilmot Robertson's The Ethnostate, Harold Covington's Northwest Quartet, the proposals of Michael Hart, Edgar Steele, and others); address specific problems that secessionist movements must solve, etc."

There is no need for this, none at all!

I am a white man and an American, and this is my country, end of discussion!

These: blacks; Asians; "Latinos;" Arabs; and all the other assorted individuals "of color," or otherwise "differently aggrieved" political positions, can simply get lost as far as I am concerned!

I do not see splitting this country up and handing chunks of it to the nonwhite breeders and feeders, as an "equitable" solution. Quite the contrary, my position is the same as that of the late and great Dr. Samuel T. Fancis; this being, that whites should reconquer their country.
As Dr. Francis himself noted in his March 1995 article for American Renaissance, "Prospects for Racial and Cultural Survival:"


The answer is, quite simply, the reconquest of the United States. This reconquest does not involve any restoration of white supremacy in the political and legal sense that obtained under slavery or segregation, and there is no reason why nonwhites who reside in the United States could not enjoy equality of legal rights. But a white reconquest of the United States would mean the supremacy of whites in a cultural sense, or in the sense of what is nowadays called "Eurocentrism." There are essentially three things that whites must do in order to carry out this reconquest of the nation and culture they have almost lost:

(1) Whites must formulate a white racial consciousness that identifies racial and biological endowments as important and relevant to social behavior, and their own racial endowments as essential to the continuing existence of Euro-American civilization. The formation of a white racial consciousness does not mean that whites should think of themselves only as whites, to the exclusion of ethnic, national, religious, regional, class, or other identities, nor that individuality should yield to the collective category of race. It means merely that we recognize racial realities, that we recognize that racial-biological endowments are necessary to certain kinds of human behavior (e.g., the political and civic behavior appropriate to stable self-government, the work habits and life-styles appropriate to a dynamic economy; the intellectual behavior that is necessary for science and scholarship, etc.) and that because these endowments are largely unique to whites, the behavior they make possible cannot be replicated by most nonwhites.

Nor does the formation of white racial consciousness mean that we should conceive of ourselves only as biological beings to the exclusion of religious or metaphysical identities. Racial consciousness means that we add recognition of biological and racial factors to our traditional concepts of human nature and modify both our biological and non-biological conceptions of what man is, as evidence and reason dictate. It may be true that some traditional religious and metaphysical conceptions would not survive recognition of the scientific realities of race, just as some did not survive earlier scientific discoveries in astronomy, geology, and biology.

But the formation of white racial consciousness does mean that whites would recognize themselves as a race and their racially based behavior as legitimate, and hence it would mean the end of tolerance for nonwhite assaults on white people and the norms of white civilization. Whites would simply no longer countenance nonwhite aggression and insults or the idolization of nonwhite heroes, icons, and culture; white children would be raised in accordance with what is proper to being white, and norms openly recognized as appropriate to whites would be the legitimizing and dominant norms of American society as they were prior to the 1960s. Racial guilt and truckling would end.

(2) Based on this racial consciousness, whites must counter the demographic threat they face from immigration and nonwhite fertility and whites' own infertility. This means (a) an absolute halt to all future legal immigration into the United States, deployment of the armed forces on the appropriate borders to cut off illegal immigration, and deportation of all illegal immigrants (and perhaps many recent legal immigrants); (b) the end of subsidies for the nonwhite birth rate through welfare programs, obligatory use of contraception by welfare recipients, and encouragement of its use among nonwhites, and (c) encouragement of increases in white fertility.

(3) Whites must correct the political and legal order to end the political power of nonwhite minorities and their white anti-white allies. This political effort would involve a radical dismantling of all affirmative action and civil rights legislation as well as a good part of the federal governmental superstructure that entrenches minority power. It also would require recovering an understanding of constitutional law that permits local and state governments to govern, and private institutions to function independently of government.

In short, as I see it, the legalized and enforced development of a "white racial consciousness," that is unapologetic. Moreover, that also employs, for lack of a better term, "punitive ostracism" against all whites who refuse to comply with it as a governing policy of the USA. That would be the overriding key element here, the total smashing of the totalitarian "multicultural" dynamic that we now live under.

From there, and as Dr. Francis also notes, white majority preservation and enhancement should be embarked upon. Along with ever tightening and strict reductions in nonwhites' pernicious influences on our culture and country at every measurable level. It does not have to be bloody, or even require excessive force, as a break-up might; it only requires a determined understanding that "freedom" for nonwhites has limits in the USA. These limits being, `live by our established rules and standards, or get out.'

Enough said!>

very interesting and there is more: say_competiti.phf

But Coulter insists there is no white supremacy on the Council of Conservative Citizens website. Well, the old girl is the "queen of misinformation" for sure. She proves it every time she takes up her pen to write or opens her mouth to speak.

And, there are many more revelations that can be exposed by tracing the activity of certain right-wing individuals on the network of white nationalists/supremacists internet sites.

There's more...

Ann Coulter Defends White Supremacists

I dare say all Liberals are familiar with far-right Ann Coulter and her notorious, rabid rant. But, at any rate, here are a few chosen examples to help refresh your memory: Bill Clinton is a "very good rapist,"Al Gore is a "total fag," Democrats are "gutless traitors," Muslims are "ragheads" and America should "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," Jews need to be "perfected," the New York Times building including its editorial staff should be bombed, Justice John Paul Stevens needs to have "rat poison" mixed in his food, Princess Diana "had sex in front of her children, Al Sharpton is a "fat, race-baiting black man," North Korea should be "nuked."and more.

There's more...

Sarah Palin: Conservative Of The Year!

Lord knows she was my favorite conservative of the year, providing what seemed like an unlimited supply of blog fodder and some classic moments in what was already an historic race for the presidency. But I don't think that's why Human Events named her their Conservative of The Year, nor do I think it's why Ann Coulter enthusiastically wrote the column announcing the honor. Rather, reading through the piece, the only rationale for the choice of Palin I can glean appears to be her skill at getting under liberals' skin.

Pre-Palin it had been one race -- boring old "You kids get off my lawn!" John McCain versus the exciting, new politician Barack Obama, who threw caution to the wind and bravely ran as the Pro-Hope candidate. And then our heroic Sarah bounded out of the Alaska tundra and it became a completely different race. This left the press completely discombobulated and upset. They didn't know whether to attack Sarah for not having an abortion or go after her husband for not being a sissy.

I assume Palin was chosen because McCain had heard that she was a real conservative and he had always wanted to meet one -- no, actually because he needed a conservative on the ticket, but that he had no idea that picking her would send the left into a tailspin of wanton despair.

But if anyone on the McCain campaign chose Palin because she would drive liberals crazy, my hat is off to him!

Coulter takes particular glee in using the piece to take on her favorite of liberal bogeymen, the media, accusing them of holding Palin to a double standard, accusing them of sexism and on and on and on. Coulter here is exorcising her demons of the 2008 race as though that were still relevant. It's actually sort of sad.

What's even sadder though is that there's very little in the editorial that references Palin's conservatism. The message Coulter is sending is that what defines conservatism is not ideology or policy but rather the effectiveness of its opposition to liberalism, which pretty much sums up the problem with movement conservatism. It's always been an opposition movement even when they were nominally in power. This is what they do, they rail against their fictional demonized version of liberalism and now that failing is laid bare for all to see in Coulter's rant. It also points to why movement conservatism is so unsustainable -- it's based on nothing but tearing down straw men. As long as conservative institutions continue to give the likes of Coulter a megaphone, conservatives will continue to be in the wilderness, which, let's face it, is where they're most comfortable anyway.

There's more...

Confronting Your Opponent (A Lesson From Elizabeth Edwards)

One thing that a number of us have been upset at the Obama campaign about has been an inability or unwillingness to go negative when the situation would merit it. But the truth is, Obama's camp HAS gone negative on a number of occasions. Including multiple times when it was very satisfying. And yet it never seems to last. For whatever reason, the strategy of the Obama campaign has rang hollow for most of us.

And I might know why. Obama needs to follow the example of Elizabeth Edwards and confront the liars directly.

There's more...

See, Ann Coulter practices open-mindedness too!

It is almost routine to hear a die-hard democrat question the reasons for why a republican is a republican. "It is because your parents are republicans and that is the only thing you know", "You are religious?", "You are only concerned about the welfare of yourself and not this country as a whole". This past week Ann Coulter has turned this stereotype around with her comments on numerous occasions about supporting Clinton over McCain. She expressed her belief that Clinton holds more conservative beliefs than does McCain. During an interview with Sean Hannity she confirmed for everyone that she would undoubtedly vote for Clinton over McCain if it came down to it:

There's more...


Advertise Blogads