Not to be outdone, Ann Coulter gets in on the lying

In her most recent dim and irrational loony rant, entitled "MUSLIMS: 'WE DO THAT ON FIRST DATES'," Upper East Side Ann begins so:

"Without any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted 'torture' and have irreparably harmed America's image abroad."

ZING! Wow. Good one, Ann. I guess neither the laws of the United States and the U.S. Constitution provide a good basis upon which to form an argument in her opinion. She does, however, manage to include all the ingredients she needs to get people to read her stupid column: an insult to an entire group of people, a childishly silly (her intellect level, after all) claim, and the big L word.

Now first of all, let's just establish that after 5 minutes with a few CIA interrogators using the techniques she calls "wussy," Ann would wet herself and start crying. But that's entirely beside the point. And of course there are other things in her article that I (or any 5-year old) could take apart, but let's just get straight to the lying. At one point, Ann states:

"As non-uniformed combatants, all of the detainees at Guantanamo could have been summarily shot on the battlefield under the Laws of War."

Not only is our dear Ann wrong, she's like extra, super-duper wrong. Let's do a quick review of the relevant international law on the subject:

"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR - 1966, Article 6.1)

" [The Death] penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court" (ICCPR (1966), Article 6.2)

"In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. (ICCPR (1966), Article 14.1)"

And finally, the real kick in the pants for Mr. Coulter:

"No sentence shall be passed and no penalty shall be executed on a person found guilty of an offence except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality." (Second Protocol of the Geneva Conventions (1977) Art 6.2)

Anyway, instead of tearing the rest of her stupid article apart - I'll leave that to a 6th grader - I'll just leave it at this.

Who Wanted to End Individual Liberty in America, Lush?

You've probably heard the lunatic rant of the right's favorite drug addict, Lush Rimbaugh, at CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) over the weekend. It's amazing how he was able to sum up what I hate about that fat moron and his ilk in one sentence:

So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?

Ok, so it's two sentences. Now, another interesting piece of news came out today, which was:

The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote.

Now I purposely left out the commentary - or what could be considered commentary - from the article because I wanted to point out the fundamental belief held by the Bush administration that certain Constitutional rights did not always apply, and we aren't talking that they did not apply to foreigners or to terrorists, but that they did not apply to AMERICAN CITIZENS. Can you even possibly imagine what Lush would say if either President Obama or President Clinton had said that our first and fourth amendment rights had to be "subordinated" for the good of the country? Someone would have to get that hulking slob an Oxycontin, because he would blow fat deposit.

President Obama is actually working away from some of the constitutional abuses of the Bush administration, yet Rollie-Pollie Limbaugh is somehow certain that "individual liberty [will not be] the foundation [of the United States]"? You mean our individual liberty to speak our minds, our individual liberty to a free press, and our individual protections against warrantless searches that BushCo. didn't think we had, you raging hypocrite?

How Bill Clinton forced banks to make loans to poor people - the Hannity 5-Minute Lie part Duex

This is just outrageous. I was watching Sean Hannity tonight, and he and Ann Coulter told me about how Bill Clinton forced banks to make loans to people who might not be able to pay them back. I was so upset, I did a little research. Here is what I found out:

[The Act] requires the Secretary to establish specified housing goals for [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac], including goals for purchase of mortgages on housing for low- and moderate-income families (adjustable annually to meet unaddressed needs of such families for affordable housing), and on housing located in underserved areas (both urban and rural).

Requires the Secretary to monitor and enforce compliance with such goals, establishing guidelines, filing goal failure notices, and requiring (of noncompliant enterprises) submission of housing plans.

Authorizes the Secretary to issue cease-and-desist orders, subject to administrative hearings. Provides for judicial review of such orders by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Sets forth civil money penalties for noncompliance with housing plan requirements, ranging from $10,000 to $25,000 for each day of failure.

So not only did the government force banks to make mortgage loans to poor people, they also threatened them with FINES if they didn't do it!

One problem: the law I quoted above is the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. That's right, 1992, when Bill Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas. (google "H.R.5334 ", it's the first listing, then click on "CRS Summary"). Not only that, but it didn't force banks to lend anything to anybody - it simply changed the standards for mortgages that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac could purchase from banks.

So Sean, I have to hand it to you, you at least made me work for this one (this took a fairly diligent amount of research, which apparently none of the sheep who watch you are willing to do). You also almost made it through 5 minutes - almost.

Another Hannity 5-minute lie. Adieu.

The 5-minute "Hannity Lying Game"

This is a blast. I've taken recently to actually watching the single dumbest human being alive, Sean Hannity, whenever I happen by the Faux News Channel. I used to just spare myself the aggravation - nevermind the lost minutes of my life - and keep going past it to the Golf Channel, but I remembered recently an interesting game Senator Al Franken once talked about, when he bet an assitant he could find a lie in one of Anne Coulter's books before his wife could put her lipstick on. He flipped open one of Anne's books to a random page, and lo and behold, found a boldface lie (see video here, it's truly worth the watch).

So anyway, I decided that I would watch Hannity for 5 minutes and see if he told a lie. Can you guess what the outcome was?

The ever astute Mr. Hannity was talking to the South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford, and in round about 3 minutes said one of the dumbest things I've ever heard: he actually said South Carolina taxpayers are going to be sending their money to states like New York and California, because unlike South Carolina, they are fiscally irresponsible. Now granted, there is no disputing the fact that New York and California are fiscally irresponsible - as a New York taxpayer, I ought to know - but to suggest that South Carolina has sent or will be sending its federal tax money to either New York or California is patently ludicrous.

Hannity Lying to His Listeners - click here

When I heard this, I literally laughed out loud. In about 18 seconds on my computer, I found the following information (which I knew already to be true, just not the actual numbers): for the most recent year that this data is available from the Tax Foundation, 2005, South Carolina was 43rd in federal tax dollars sent to Washington per capita, and 24th in tax dollars received, meaning South Carolina isn't sending their hard-earned tax dollars to New York, California, or anywhere else for that matter. South Carolina actually gets $1.35 in federal spending for every dollar it pays in federal taxes. New York and California, of course, are at the opposite end of the spectrum: they get 79 and 78 cents in federal spending, respectively, for every dollar in federal taxes they send to Washington.

Now Gov. Sanford, listening to Hannity's idiotic bloviation, replies "of course" as Hannity blathers on about how South Carolina will be propping up New York and California and about how fiscally responsible South Carolina has been - so fiscally responsible, in fact, that it is practically a ward of the federal government.

I would actually imagine that Sean knows full well that what he said is patently untrue, and I know for damn sure that the Governor knows that his state ain't sending a dime to New York or California or anywhere else. And this is why I hate people like Hannity: he has no problem whatsoever lying to his listeners, most of whom will not question him and find out for themselves whether he's right or not.

Deliberately misinforming people to push your own political agenda - ya gotta love Sean Hannity and Faux News.