April 29, 2008, - 9:13 am

Will a Certain Pseudo-Conservative Attack Victims of Latest Shark Attacks . . . Again?

By Debbie Schlussel
I’m of the opinion that you can’t be an animal rights loon and against construction and development (and attack hunters) AND be a conservative. You also can’t outright blame innocent human victims of animal attacks–who did nothing to provoke their attackers–and pretend you’re any different than the nutjobs at PETA a/k/a PUTAh (People for the Unethical Treatment of Animals and human).
Yet, there is a certain pseudo-conservative who wrote an op-ed that sounded like it could have been written by the top terrorists from the Animal Liberation Front and the Environmental Liberation Front, and the most vocal PETA activists. Remove the byline, and you’d think PETA’s Ingrid Koch wrote the piece. The “conservative” blamed victims of shark attacks for the tragedies that resulted, excoriated the building of housing and malls, and said it is the fault of families that their babies were attacked by bears foraging for garbage.
The woman wrote this article in USA Today. And I wonder–with news of the latest multiple shark attacks on innocent swimmers in waters off the coasts of California and Florida–will this “conservative” again blame the victims and tell us this . . .?:

lauraingrahamanimals2.jpg

We assume we’re so advanced, so powerful, that most flora and fauna exist for our pleasure. Nature has its place, as long as it stays out of our way.
Hanker for a new outlet mall? Clear-cut the trees! (Why do you think they’re called strip malls?) Need a golf course? Bulldoze the pastures! The foxes will find somewhere else. Want to expand the ski slopes of Vail, Colo.? How endangered can those pesky bobcats be?
Of course, most animals don’t stand a chance against man. The stag may look noble against a winter landscape, but it can’t outrun a hunter on a snowmobile. A glorious marlin can rip through the strongest currents, yet has trouble evading million-dollar fishing boats rigged with deep-sea sonar.
But this summer we have been reminded – often horribly – that we can’t always control what is wild. Sometimes animals will try to reclaim what they can of their shrinking habitats. Animals will be animals.
It took grisly shark attacks in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and the Bahamas to remind us that other things swim in the water besides oiled-up humans.

Yup, us selfish humans–we deserve to be “the other white meat” and “what’s for dinner” for sharks and bears. We are the scariest. Uh-huh.
Who wrote this column? Who is the PETA/ELF/ALF-style chick parading as a conservative? Click below to find out.


lauraingrahamanimals.jpg

The scariest animal doesn’t wear pants. But one of the phoniest conservatives does.
lauraingraham.jpg

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly




12 Responses

This is why you’re my fave, Debbie.
You don’t pull punches or play favorites even when it regards so called conservatives, whether Ingraham, Sean Vannity, the Bushes, or anyone else.
Stay hardcore!

Jeff_W on April 29, 2008 at 10:52 am

Debbie
Nobody’s perfect. I’d take an animal rights loon, if she also happens to be anti-Islam, as Laura clearly is. Indeed, if we could somehow get ELF thugs to do to the Mohammedans what they do to SUV’s (after all, the Mohammedans too are humans and they too drive gas guzzling cars) after letting them loose in dar ul Islam, then it’s would be like setting off an Alien vs Predator match.

Infidel Pride on April 29, 2008 at 11:01 am

What else would we expect? She went to Dartmouth, hangs with elites, talks like a blue collar chick, but walks like the Ivy Leaguer she is. She runs in RINO circles and tends to talk down to the rest of us. Her only saving grace is that she’s as anti-muslime as a real Conservative.
Otherwise, what use is she?

Sharps Rifle on April 29, 2008 at 11:22 am

What else is your opinion based on besides one op-ed? She sounds right on-target with most things, but then again, so do you…I mean, do you consider Tammy Bruce (pro-choice) or Newt Gingrich (pro CLIMATE CHANGE) “conservatives” even though not every single one of their ideas might not be authentically conservative?
I’d be curious to hear if there’s anything else you know about her. Because she doesn’t sound phony to me at all – and I know you’re not phony. Maybe I’m fooled? Thanks.

C-Hay on April 29, 2008 at 12:57 pm

I just think its really sad that whenever someone sees some wild animal people then think they have to kill it in order to feel safe. For example, I’ve heard lots of stories of hikers in California ‘sighting’ a mountain lion or coyote and then the animal police go in and kill the animal. These people in California go hiking in the mountains to feel close to nature but as soon as they see some nature they feel they have to kill it.

PrincessKaren on April 29, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Congratulations! This blog has uncovered the main problem with “conservatives.” The tent is way way too large.
Current definition of a conservative allows someone to be offered 10 precepts, and if they agree with maybe one, they are called “conservative.”
Conservative DOES NOT EQUAL agreeing with the Republican party talking points. Anyone on this blog think GW Bush is conservative??

Red Ryder on April 29, 2008 at 4:08 pm

So what makes someone a conservative? What do the conservative thought police approve of? Who defines what conservative is?

Dan E Boye on April 29, 2008 at 6:53 pm

Ok. So based on ONE ISSUE that she may be legitimately wrong on she is pseudo conservative. Uh-huh.
So if that is the case I don’t think anyone on this planet is a real conservaitve.
I don’t mind someone imperfect as long as they have some humility to recognize that we all are human and are limited by our own experiences with some people on the conservative side don’t and those people I QUESTION THEIR CONSERVATIVISM more then the one’s that are imperfect but have humility. If you think are G-d and perfect I don’t think that is being a conservative no matter how right wing you think you are and those people will soon become left wing facists because of their lack of humility and refusing to see that on some issues they are wrong as well.
So what about Ann Coulter who is supporting Hillary Clinton. Is she a phony too? I haven’t heard you mention her. I guess she is too obvious.

adam6275 on April 29, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Amen, Red Ryder.
Some of these comments I’ve read here demonstrate why the Republican party is such a disaster right now. They’ve abandoned the conservative base in an attempt to be all things to all people.
What about this? What about that? Who are you to say?…..bah. You is or you ain’t.
I’ll take a dyed in the wool liberal over these phonies who don’t want to take a stand any day.
Where are the Ronald Reagans today? I’ve had it with the Mary Matalins, the Bushes, the McCains.

Jeff_W on April 30, 2008 at 8:55 am

What on earth do you find wrong about Laura’s column? It consists of two things: a) We as humans should be good stewards of this planet and b) We should be careful around animals since they are unpredictable. She wasn’t saying the swimmer deserves to be eaten–only that humans should realize that when swimming near sharks that sharks have been known to attack humans. Myself, there’s no way you’d get me into the water if sharks are in the area.
I’ve heard Laura’s show many times. Listening to her views will tell you that she’s not a phony conservative. As for comparing Laura to PETA, please. PETA in the past has said that a) Jesus was a vegetarian (wrong), b) Eating meat causes impotence (wrong) and c) Jesus overthrew the moneychangers’ tables in the temple because they were selling animals (wrong). To lump Laura in with them is absolutely asinine.

richardzowie on April 30, 2008 at 10:01 am

If you can see one shark, there are probably seven more that you can’t see.
Do you know what military divers and BUDS students are made to watch before beginning open water training?
Videos of “Shark Week” from the Discovery channel.
Do you know who started the national parks in the U.S.?
Teddy Roosevelt (R)
Oh, and he hunted too.
Conserve means to use wisely, and save some for later. Waste not, want not.
Wonder what Mz. Ingraham’s opinion was on the hunting “rights” of Indians in Alaska…ya know the Indians that the “liberals” litigated on behalf of, to ensure the Indians had the “right” to conduct ritual hunting of whales…with power boats, RADAR, radios, and large (Russian made) harpoon guns. Some “ritual” tradition eh?
I bet Mz. Ingraham owns, “The Smiths; Meat is Murder” album.
duuuunt dunt… duuuunnnt dunt… dunt dunt dunt dunt
FIN HARDER!

Nuggler on April 30, 2008 at 11:08 am

To all the faint-hearted:
I’ll make it real simple. The gold standard for conservative is the late Sen. Robert Taft.
Here are a few issues that should be unassailable–
1. Smaller govt
2. Lower taxes (high taxes are not good just because they are for military rather than social welfare)
3. While social conservatives will be pro-life, a *political* conservative will realize that it is not properly a federal issue in the first place.
4. Serious limits on immigration
5. Vouchers
6. Serious limits on foreign adventures

Red Ryder on April 30, 2008 at 11:48 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field