HANNITY VISITS TUCSON/KNST (2) 


Anticipating a bigger crowd, KNST set up a tent outside.

HANNITY VISITS TUCSON/KNST (1) 


I was wondering how popular Hannity is in Tucson, pop. 525K. These pics from inside KNST show that there wasn't a big turnout.

WHERE'S THE COULTER COLUMN?

I was reading the Tucson Daily Star and I was disappointed because there was no Coulter column. I look forward to this target of opportunity so I called the Editorial Page Editor, Dennis Joyce, and left a message asking about Ann.

I then went to Coulter's site to read her latest screed and I think I know the reason her column wasn't published: she couldn't back up her lies. This is from her e-mail section:

Email from the Arizona Daily Star following up on this week's column: Greg, The closing paragraphs of Ann Coulter's column this week contain information we need to verify in order to run it. They differ from our understanding of the facts. We need to get these two questions answered before we can publish it. In addition, the subject of county attorney's operations here is an ongoing news story - independent of Ms. Coulter - so our news reporters may ask you to help us get questions from her answered as well today. Many thanks Dennis Joyce Editorial page editor Arizona Daily Star Tucson, Arizona 520 573-4235 djoyce@azstarnet.com —————————————- 1. Who told you or how do you know that female prosecutors left the Pima County Attorney's Office because of the way Berkman treats women? [IT'S BEEN ALL OVER THE NEWS, INCLUDING NEXIS, GOOGLE, AND A SMALL ORGANIZATION CALLED "THE ASSOCIATED PRESS."] 2. You make an issue of the Star's failure to contact you, yet your editor at Universal - which is listed as the contact on your column - says he can only speak to you once a week, usually Wednesdays. How does one reach you? [YES, I AM PRETTY HARD TO FIND THESE DAYS WHAT WITH THE FOUR BEST-SELLERS, THE CONSTANT TOURING, NIGHTLY TV OR RADIO APPEARANCES, TIME MAGAZINE COVER— I'VE BECOME QUITE THE RECLUSE.]

Let's take a look at the relevant parts of her column for 4/20/05, entitled "Pies, Lies and Videotapes":

In fact, my verbatim reply in an e-mail dated Feb. 15, 2005, to the only notice I ever received about my appearing at the trial was the following, preserved through the miracle of computers: "I remain very committed to pressing charges. What is the date of the trial? I do not live in AZ and it may be difficult for me to get there for the trial. Does the prosecutor believe he will have to call me as a witness? I believe there is videotape of the entire event and it is evident thereon that I apprehended the attack and ran away." I was never asked to attend any trial.

Ann's been out of law school for some time so I guess she forgot about the 6th Amendment:

Amendment VI - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

More from the column:

The only other notice I ever received about the trial was a postcard informing me that the case had been dismissed a few weeks ago. Contrary to the above news account, I called the number on the postcard after getting the notice, got an answering machine, and left a message.

So, in AnnWorld, the deputy DA is lying and the Star reporter is incompetent.

QUOTE OF THE YEAR NOMINEE

"This will not be the last thing that you read about that makes me look ridiculous," Dobson said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-strategy22apr22,1,799431.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=2&cset=true

HYDE ON CLINTON

Rep. Hyde reflects on 30 years of office
Hyde led impeachment of Pres. Clinton
By Andy Shaw
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/042105_ns_hyde.html

April 22, 2005 — As Congressman Henry Hyde prepares to step down due to poor health, he reflects on 30 years of service and answers a poignant question about leading the Clinton impeachment hearings--Would he do it again? "That is a very good question. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I might not," said Hyde.
The veteran republican is also admitting for the first time that the impeachment of Clinton may have been in part political revenge against the democrats for the impeachment proceedings against GOP President Richard Nixon 25 years earlier. *
"Was this pay back?" asked Andy Shaw.
"I can't say it wasn't. But I also thought that the Republican Party should stand for something, and if we walked away from this, no matter how difficult, we could be accused of shirking our duty," said Hyde.

COULTER ON HANNITY'S RADIO SHOW

Coulter told Sean that he should get a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Terri Schiavo story. She claimed he brought out facts that no one else had uncovered!


Coulter repeated the lie about the Pima County DA. She denied the Tucson Daily Star story that claimed she didn't show up for the first trial but she promised on air to show up for the next one. She also claims that she was never asked to attend the first trial, again contradicting the Star story. Even better, she claims the DA's office has a record of treating women poorly!

AOL TOS Abuse

This entry is for providing people a place where they can share stories about what they feel is AOL's abuse of TOS penalties. I'll start the first one here and others can add their stories in the Comment section.

Mine is a chatroom TOS which I received during the Terri Schiavo travesty. Here's what I did wrong:

On 03/20/05 14:35:52 Eastern the SMPJ screen name violated the TOS in the In the Headlines 5 chat room. The following is an excerpt from the chat room discussion:
Smpj: CHERRIE- SHE HAS NO CEREBRAL CORTEX

Smpj: CHERRIE- SHE HAS NO CEREBRAL CORTEX

Smpj: CHERRIE - NO, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE
When creating an AOL account, all members agree to abide by America Online`s TOS. These guidelines prohibit vulgar language, sexually explicit images, harassment, discussion of illegal activities, and/or other activities that may impair the enjoyment of our members.

According to the AOL woman I spoke with, my statements constituted harassment. I pointed out to her that the reason I repeated the first statement was because I wasn't sure if CHERRIE had read it.

Tucsonans respond to Coulter

From The Tucson Daily Star

I love it. Ann Coulter doesn't show up for her own trial and then cries foul. I thought she was the victim. Poor baby.

Kym Jones

Will the law protect conservatives in Pima County? Of course! Would it protect Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh? I hope not! Conservatives don't have to rely on lies. Ann and Rush do!

Dennis Jones
Copper miner

Ann Coulter nails it on the head; most liberals feel they are the intellectual superior, but the truth is, they cannot compete in a fact-driven, intellectual argument and usually resort to the low path of insult and harassment. Tucson is a liberal town, and the Star is a liberal paper. The pie-throwing does not surprise nor the fact that it was not prosecuted.

Jim Borchardt
U.S. military

(different page)

It is a sad commentary that Ann Coulter received such discourteous treatment in Tucson and that the perpetrators went unpunished. No wonder she said that conservatives were not protected here under law. Some liberals cannot abide opposing thought. I am heartened that the liberal "Star" now invites a broad spectrum of opinion.

Shirley Cooney
Retired

Ann Coulter along with the other conservative speakers mentioned in her article were attacked on college campuses in what are classic hate crimes undoubtedly promoted by the Democratic National chairman who made it clear he hates Republicans. Such attacks and hate speech demonstrate the inability of liberals to deal with political facts and realities. The two attackers should be terminated as students and barred from college campuses.

William E. Dart
Retired

More on the America Dream

(From Greenethoughts)

Here's an excerpt but I encourage you to read the entire article:

IRS data, adjusted for inflation, show that the poor are really getting poorer and the super rich are getting fabulously richer, a trend enhanced by their falling tax burden. In 1970, the poorest third of Americans had more than 10 times as much income as the super rich, the top 1/100th of one percent. Back then the poor had more than 10 percent of all income and the super rich had one percent.
By 2000 the two groups were equal -- the 28,000 Americans at the top had as much income as the 96 million at the bottom. The poor's share of income fell by half while the super rich's share rose to more than 5 percent of all income.
Not only did the poorest third's share of income shrink, they actually had less money. The average 25-year-old man in 1970 made $2 per hour more, adjusted for inflation, than in 2000.