Historic Victory for Diebold!

November 8, 2006
written by Ann Coulter
from www.anncoulter.com

History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.

So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet.

Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.

Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb — I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming.

Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards.

Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas!

But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).

In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" — especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" — as MSNBC calls it — rather than the death throes of a dying party.

During eight years of Clinton — the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! — Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House — only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate — and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.

In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy.

The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia."

The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.

Get a Damned Job!!!

So, it's currently 1:37 AM, and I have to be up at 8am. I should be asleep correct? Yes. But I can't seem to bring myself to do it. Instead, I write. Prepare thineself. Of course, you're probably asking yourself, "I wonder what this sick bastard is writing?" Well, I can't answer that for you. Because I don't know yet. I'm just going to write, and eventually, something will come of it I'm sure. I mean, there's so much I want to talk about! I really should invest in a laptop, or get the net at my apartment so I can write whenever I want. Things pop into my head all the time, but I'm never around a computer where I can write it out, and it sucks.

I mean, I would sit in the hospital with Angela when she was in there, and things would just pop into my mind, but there was nowhere to record it. Of course, I hate writing on paper, so I would have had to find a computer. Or when I'm at Kroger, brilliant ideas and rants pop in and out of my mind, yet I can't record them. Another good instance is when I'm driving. I always think of topics and rants when I'm in my car. If I had a laptop, I would seriously pull over and type them out. One of these days I'll get one, I'm sure. O, and if you've never heard me rant in person, you haven't lived. I can talk, and boy when I talk, let me tell you, it's a thing of beauty. It's just this uncontrollable gift, and when I finally stop to breathe, the people around me are either visibly impressed, or horribly offended. I can get quite colorful in my speeches, regardless of the topic. The hypocrisy of the Christian Church, the endless circle that our government is in, the futility of explainign things to women. Ever heard me talk about the welfare system, and those that rely on it? It's a beautiful thing. But, that's not a topic I can easily sit down and write. Someone would have to get me fired up about it, and just record everything I say as I rant. It just comes to me.

I mean, let's be honest. Probably 70% of the people on welfare, don't actually need it. they just do it because they're lazy peices of human waste that figure "Why should they work, when the government buys their food for them?" It's one thing if they were working 40+ a week, and still not making enough to pull it off. But I get so heated when I'm at work aroudn the first of the month, and I see these fools walk into the store at 3pm in their PJ's and sandals, getting snotty with me because we're out of 2% milk, T-bones, pepsi 24 packs, 1 gallon buckets of ice cream, or Family Sized Oreos.. I just want to throw them to the ground and let loose. The governments money will still be on that little card tommorow! It's not going anywhere. I mean honestly. Why the hell can people get half the crap they get with food stamps anyways?! Shouldn't they be limited to essentials? Bread, milk, cereal, peanut butter, vegetables, and soups? Why the hell are they using my tax money to eat better than I do? What have they done special? They're not in poverty. They just can't keep it in their pants, and refuse to get a job. I mean, I've never been for abortion, but hell, if someone is gonna have a kid, and they don't have a job, isn't it our civil duty to NOT bring that child into the hell of a life it would have?

Ya know, you hear about school test scores dropping, and they blame it on teachers. (even though I've seen about 100 teachers get cut from our city schools in the past 2 years.) But it's not the teachers. It's the parents. Lazy, ignorant people are breeding, and their offspring are being raised to be lazy and ignorant as well. What the hell else do you expect? If 2 French have a kid, and raise him in France, chances are... he'll speak French, know the French lifestyle, and probably be a wimp, like the other French. He's not gonna pop out and start singing the Star Spangled Banner, speaking English, and have any testicular fortitude. That's just simple logic. So if you have 2 people who've been dependent on the welfare system, and have adapted to the amazingly plush lifestyle of not working, or even attempting to get a job, then they will raise someone in the same mindset. Why should he try hard in school? His parents didn't try and they have everything they need. Much like the character "Jigsaw" speaks of in the Saw Trilogy, people have lost the will to survive.

"John: The jigsaw piece that I cut from my subjects was only ever meant to be a symbol that that subject was missing something. A vital piece of the human puzzle. The survival instinct."

Of course, there will be exceptions. There always are. It's called evolution. No, I'm not saying I agree with a theory that says we all used to be monkeys.

.. width="425" height="350">..>

I'm saying that people adapt, and there are always anomalies. Out of all the crap that comes out of our society, somethign great will happen from time to time. Someone will be born who has higher expectations, and wants to make something out of themselves, and they will strive to acheive. And by something better I don't mean a football player, or a rap star, or anything like that. The majority of kids I went to school with were either "rappers" or sports players who were gonna "go pro." I'm talking about scientists, doctors, nurses, things like that. Even just a decent citizen. Someone that gives to squirts about other people, and about themselves. So, I guess this is my rant. I guess somethign did come out of just sitting down and writing. I feel much better. The moral of this article is... Get a damned job! For me, get a damned job. And maybe some birth control pills.