The "Mainstream" Is Located In France (Ann Coulter Slams The French-Looking Democrats)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 10/29/03 | Ann Coulter

[goldstategop]

The newspaper that almost missed the war in Iraq because its reporters were in Georgia covering the membership policies of the Augusta National Golf Club has declared another one of President George Bush's judicial nominees as "out of the mainstream." The New York Times has proclaimed so many Bush nominees "out of the mainstream" that the editorial calling California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown "out of the mainstream" was literally titled: "Out of the Mainstream, Again."

Among Bush's "many unworthy judicial nominees," the Times said, Brown is "among the very worst" – more "out of the mainstream" than all the rest! Even Teddy Kennedy, who might be well advised to withhold comment on a woman's position relative to a moving body of water, has described Brown as "out of the mainstream," adding, "Let's just hope this one can swim."

Liberals are hysterical about Justice Brown principally because she is black. Nothing enrages them so much as a minority who does not spend her days saying hosannas to liberals.

On the basis of its editorial positions, the Times seems to have called a bunch of racist Southern election supervisors out of retirement to cover judicial nominations for the paper. The only difference is, instead of phony "literacy" tests, now we have phony "mainstream" tests. Amazingly, no matter how many conservative minorities Bush sends up, the Times has not been able to find a single one who is "qualified." The Times thinks Justice Brown should be the maid and Miguel Estrada the pool boy.

According to the Times, Brown has "declared war on the mainstream legal values that most Americans hold dear." What the Times means by "mainstream legal values" is: off-the-charts unpopular positions favored by NAMBLA, the ACLU and The New York Times editorial page.

Thus, for example, opposition to partial-birth abortion – opposed by 70 percent of the American people – is "out of the mainstream."

Support for the death penalty – supported by 70 percent of the American people – is "out of the mainstream."

Opposition to government-sanctioned race discrimination – which voters in the largest state in the nation put on an initiative titled Proposition 209 and enacted into law – is "out of the mainstream."

Opposition to gay marriage – opposed by 60 percent of the American people – is "out of the mainstream."

Failing to recognize that totally nude dancing is "speech" is "out of the mainstream."

Questioning whether gay Scoutmasters should be taking 14-year-old boys on overnight sleepovers in the woods is "out of the mainstream."

I guess if your "mainstream" includes Roman Polanski, Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Jacques Chirac, then Brown really is "out of the mainstream." This proverbial "stream" they're constantly referring to is evidently located somewhere in France.

Liberals are always complaining that they haven't figured out how to distill their message to slogans and bumper stickers – as they allege Republicans have. Though it can't be easy to fit the entire Communist Manifesto on a bumper sticker, I beg to differ. (Bumper sticker version of the current Democratic platform: "Ask me about how I'm going to raise your taxes.")

The problem is, if Democrats ever dared speak coherently, the American people would lynch them. Fortunately for liberals, soccer moms hear that a nominee is "extreme" and "out the mainstream" and are too frightened to ask for details. (Ironically, based on ticket sales and TV ratings, soccer is also out of the mainstream.)

In addition to the fact that she is black and "out of the mainstream," the first item in the Times' bill of particulars against Brown was this:

"She regularly stakes out extreme positions, often dissenting alone. In one case, her court ordered a rental car company to stop its supervisor from calling Hispanic employees by racial epithets. Justice Brown dissented, arguing that doing so violated the company's free-speech rights."

Despite the Times' implication that Brown was "dissenting alone" in this case, she was not. The opinion of the California Supreme Court in the case, Aguilar v. Avis, was as closely divided as it gets: 4-3. Among the dissenters was Stanley Mosk, who was once described by the Los Angeles Times as "the court's most liberal member." When Mosk died in 2001, his obituary in The New York Times described him as "the only liberal on the seven-member court." I suppose if the Times had mentioned that a prominent liberal jurist had agreed with Brown in Aguilar, it would be harder to frighten silly women with that "out of the mainstream" babble.

But the real beauty part of Brown's dissent in Aguilar is that she was vindicating a constitutional principle that is second in importance only to abortion for liberals: no prior restraints on speech.

In a major victory for Avis, the jury rejected almost all of the claims against Avis by Hispanic employees, but did find that two managers – only one of whom still worked at Avis – had called Hispanics names. So the lower-court judge got the idea to issue an injunction prohibiting one single Avis manager from ever using derogatory language about Avis' Hispanic employees.

The injunction was broad enough to prevent the manager from using such language in his home, out of earshot of his employees, in a joking or friendly manner, as part of a hypothetical example, or even if his speech were incapable of creating a "hostile environment" under the law. Questions were also raised about whether he was even allowed to chuckle at the little dog in those "Yo quiero Taco Bell" TV commercials. It was basically a bill of attainder against this one manager (who was himself married to a Hispanic).

I note that liberals laughed at the idea that a "hostile environment" could be created by a single incident of a governor dropping his pants and asking a subordinate to "kiss it." But the mere speculative threat of a manager saying "wetback" – one time – was such a threat to the stability of the nation that the Times backed a prior restraint on the manager's speech.

Usually The New York Times is citing the law's antagonism to prior restraints on speech in order to wax eloquent about the Supreme Court's "landmark decision in the Pentagon Papers case." In a ruling that celebrated the very essence of the First Amendment, the court ruled that the government couldn't stop the Treason Times from publishing classified national-security documents. As the Times put it, that case had "made it clear that only a showing of concrete, immediate risk to the nation could justify a judicial order imposing a prior restraint on any kind of publication."

But apparently, there is one interest even more vital than preventing an immediate risk to the nation: stopping a supervisor someplace in America from ever using the word "spic." Anyone who disagrees is "out of the mainstream." And any minority who is not duly grateful to liberals for supporting prior restraints against certain words is only qualified to be the maid

[Dan Evans]

Somebody should remind them: we're the ones with the guns.

Don't be too sure. About half the liberals I know own guns.

[ontos-on]

Take another look at this. It reminds one of what we have lost and also of some certain facts about those charaters which may have faded a little from memory.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/kelly112900.asp

[Dan Evans]

Well, who DID invent American football?

Football wasn't invented as much as it was evolved through a gradual process of innovations and improvements. Truly an American sport.

[PGalt]

Beautiful Mind

[Qwinn]

I think you're quite right about a lot of these intentions. What I'm saying is that they've failed miserably in a lot of ways. They overestimated how well academic indoctrination can work in a society as open as ours, they didn't anticipate the internet, and they didn't anticipate that 100's of channels would break their TV monopoly. And -who- could have predicted a resurgence of AM radio?

They're failing, and in fact it looks like their indoctrination efforts are seriously backfiring, with 60% of college students calling themselves "conservative" now.

Now, granted, a lot of them are what we would call South Park Republicans. I enjoy South Park, but I am socially conservative regardless. You are right that their game plan has been undermining American culture and American values. The social conservatives don't have a whole lot of reason to be excited about the South Park Republicans. But they're not as bad as RINO's either. They -hate- liberals, and aren't easily fooled into the Marxist line of thought. They are also much more likely to go socially conservative as they grow older than a liberal would be. It's a step in the right direction. Bush is right- the country's not ready to totally ban abortion yet. Moving society back socially to sanity will take a couple of decades, but I think the seeds of -that- culture revolution are already growing.

The social damage they've caused is significantly worse than the political damage. Economically, I think things will turn around fairly soon, or at least not overall devolve any further.

"Is there anything noble or admirable in America that is ever presented? The answer is obvious I believe."

Yes, it is. But don't think it's obvious just to us. Remember that every precept of conservatism depends upon respect for the intelligence and individuality of the population. I think most Americans are starting to realize the obvious as well. Look at the staggering drop in network-TV viewership. People are getting sick of it. TV's are being taken out of young kid's rooms as they celebrate the all-sex-all-the-time agenda day after day after day.

There's such a thing as TOO MUCH, and one thing we can count on is, the stupid liberals and leftists won't just cross that line, they'll cannonball through it. I think the tide started to turn around 1994, and our election successes, rather than slow down or reverse, are going to accelerate. They just went too far too quickly (surprising - the trait I always feared most about the Left was their amazing capacity for patience) and are in the process of alienating almost everyone but the most die-hard Leftists who are a lost cause anyway.

Their stupidity and power-hunger are what will destroy them. They thought they'd demoralized us enough and decided to go for the 60 yard run. They're about to get slammed all the way back to their own endzone. The social recovery will take longer, but I think the degeneration will slow and stop soon.

You can't really be a conservative if you are misanthropic and don't trust the majority of free individuals to exercise their intelligence. If propaganda were really enough to turn the majority into happy hard working robots obedient to the State over their family and God, then face it - they'd actually be right! Their utopia could work if that were true! But it isn't, and their utopia is as ludicrous as the stupid precepts it's built up from.

Qwinn

[Bonaparte]

Despite the Times' implication that Brown was "dissenting alone" in this case, she was not. The opinion of the California Supreme Court in the case, Aguilar v. Avis, was as closely divided as it gets: 4-3. Among the dissenters was Stanley Mosk, who was once described by the Los Angeles Times as "the court's most liberal member." When Mosk died in 2001, his obituary in The New York Times described him as "the only liberal on the seven-member court."

Ann nails the NYT again!

You go, grrrrrrrl!

[pittsburgh gop guy]

I love Ann's writings - but MY GOD WOMAN, eat something!

[Dan Evans]

60% of college students calling themselves "conservative"

I think that's a really important issue, Qwinn. And I'd like to know just what college kids call "conservative". Anybody know? I would research it but I'm tired.

[Dan Evans]

I love Ann's writings - but MY GOD WOMAN, eat something!

No kidding. And someone here said she drinks Diet Coke.

[Tall_Texan]

Though it can't be easy to fit the entire Communist Manifesto on a bumper sticker, I beg to differ. (Bumper sticker version of the current Democratic platform: "Ask me about how I'm going to raise your taxes.")

How tough is it to put "It's All Bush's Fault" on a bumper sticker? That's the party's entire message. No suggestions. No alternatives. Just one long four-year temper tantrum.

The entire Democrat Party platform can be re-written into two sentences: 2. We think you should too.

Once you try to pin them down on details, you find there's little more thought to their whole reason for being than this. Or at least what they'll admit to.

if Democrats ever dared speak coherently, the American people would lynch them.

Brilliant, Ann! Now THAT would be a great bumper sticker - my nominee for Quote of the Day!

[Dan Evans]

Ann is brave woman. She doesn't just take on the easy outrages of the liberals, she tackles the tough ones -- defending a guy who said "spic" or defending Joe McCarthy. And it turns out she's right.

[Qwinn]

I already mentioned it. They are "South Park" Republicans.

This means, OVERALL, economically and militarily conservative but socially fairly liberal to moderate. Definetly not -way- liberal though. They are tolerant and accepting of gays, for example, try to be "inclusive", but utterly reject the notion of utter and complete tolerance to any immoral behavior. They "accept" and "tolerate" and will not be bigoted against gays, but think that the "celebration" and "recruitment" phases of the culture war are going just way too far.

It's actually not a totally unhealthy attitude. You won't see them preach against the evils of homosexuality, but you won't see them praise it either - their attitude on that is pretty much "whatever", and seem more amused at over-the-top gays than anything else. But they'll push back hard if the agenda gets pushed in their face -too- much.

They're probably as divided on abortion as the overall population is. One South Park episode scored some -really- well-aimed points against things like stem-cell research (with a cartoon Christopher Reeves cracking open dead fetuses and sucking out the contents to heal his injuries and eventually give himself super-powers). South Park is like that. They go TOTALLY over the top in their presentation of certain social issues, they -definetly- love going for the shock factor and the fans are amused by it far more than a typical social conservative would be, but in most cases their overall point is actually pretty conservative. What the SPR's -wouldn't- like is someone who denounces the (sometimes really horrid) presentation of South Park without acknowledging the underlying valid points they're trying to make.

They'd likely be against most of the aspects of the War on Drugs, at least legalizing marijuana. I am actually with them on this point.

They -utterly despise- political correctness. The hypocrisy inherent in it is as blatantly obvious to them as it is to us.

They'd probably endorse a reasonable level of social programs, but if they had their way we'd be done paying out taxes -way- before July too. I'm pretty much with them on this too, though I'd bring any taxation for those programs back to the local and state level.

I have no idea how they'd feel about Constitutional Constructionism.

Qwinn

[SevenDaysInMay]

I thought this might have been about a urologist's opinion about pissants in politics.

Our Miss Ann needs to be Chief Justice Ann. Imagine that glorious hair cascading down her black robe as she shares her wisdom in the SCOTUS Opinions for decades.

We shall have our ratified Constitution back. Those ruling beyond our Law of the Land are outlaws with no more lawful power than the meekest are willing to bow to. In this 21st Century we shall put an end to American fascist's "living" constitution's "compelling State interests" nullifying our RATIFIED Constitution through more connived judicial and executive tyrannies. Stare decisis my a$$. Since when are serial unConstitutional rulings "settled law"? We shall have our ratified Constitutional Republic again.

I wouldn't mainstream them if they were on fire.

[Dan Evans]

I had no idea that "South Park" was so political, I thought you were talking about some New York Central Park crowd.

So this is what we're reduced to, getting the message out through potty-mouthed, construction-paper cartoon characters. Between that and Arnold Schwarzenegger the future face of the Republican party doesn't look too pretty.

Oh well, better than nothing though.

But thanks for the post, I learned a lot.

[Qwinn]

Think of it like the Simpsons. Conservatives hated it when it first came out. Everyone said the same things about that that you just did about South Park. Now, many conservatives -love- the Simpsons, and it's one of the best sources for satire of liberals. South Park is similar.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

I would just add though... it's -way- worse than the Simpsons, but probably as bad by today's standards as the Simpsons first were back in -that- day.

And if you are religious and sensitive to "heresy", -don't- watch it. Hide the children, bury the TV, lock the door and pray. That show would be very very offensive to someone who was fundamentalist about their religion and was unable to deal with blatant irreverence. I'm agnostic and sometimes -I've- found it offensive - but then I also know that they offend -everyone- and religions are actually not one of their primary targets. In fact, they've supported religion a few times, but their depictions are still always VERY irreverent.

Barbra Streisand - now she was a primary target ;)

Qwinn

[Kuksool]

Bump to the smartest blonde on the planet!

[Gritty]

Somebody should remind them: we're the ones with the guns.

Hardly. Tens of thousands of gang-bangers, drug dealers and criminals would disagree with you.

So would the BATF, FBI, IRS, USFS and a raft of other four lettered government agencies.

And so does the military. Those who control the levers of government power control the military. As was whispered in clinton's ear during his First Inaugural Parade (when the F-16s flew over), "those are ours now!". As bad as things were under the clintons, the military was not about to revolt or disobey orders if there was the least shred of chance the orders were legitimate. In fact, they were more than willing to help in such places as Waco.

So, don't be so sure genuine patriots have all the advantage in a hot civil war.

[moodyskeptic]

"The Times thinks Justice Brown should be the maid and Miguel Estrada the pool boy."

Yeah, Ann. Pretty or not, she's great.

[familyofman]

"Liberals think every one who doesn't think like them is "out of the 'mainstream.'""

Who refers most to the "mainstream" media, liberals or conservatives? I say conservatives use the term much more often than liberals. We conservatives always complain about it - we made the phrase popular, and we never refer to conservative media types as being "mainstream". Would it not be better to refer to conservatives in media as "mainstream" instead of propping up liberals by treating them as the "norm"?