Posted at 18:04 in ANN COULTER, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don't have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan! It's a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let's all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term "free market." Nearly every problem with health care in this country -- apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors' waiting rooms -- would be solved by my plan. In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance. We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make insurers compete. The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today. That's the only way to bypass idiotic state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover, for example, the Zone Diet, sex-change operations, and whatever it is that poor Heidi Montag has done to herself this week. President Obama says we need national health care because Natoma Canfield of Ohio had to drop her insurance when she couldn't afford the $6,700 premiums, and now she's got cancer. Much as I admire Obama's use of terminally ill human beings as political props, let me point out here that perhaps Natoma could have afforded insurance had she not been required by Ohio's state insurance mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments and unlimited OB/GYN visits, among other things. It sounds like Natoma could have used a plan that covered only the basics -- you know, things like cancer. The third sentence of my bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies. Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice. Instead of Harry Reid deciding whether your insurance plan covers Viagra, this decision would be made by you, the consumer. (I apologize for using the terms "Harry Reid" and "Viagra" in the same sentence. I promise that won't happen again.) Instead of insurance companies jumping to the tune of politicians bought by health-care lobbyists, they would jump to tune of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market. Hypochondriac liberals could still buy the aromatherapy plan and normal people would be able to buy plans that only cover things such as major illness, accidents and disease. (Again -- things like Natoma Canfield's cancer.) This would, in effect, transform medical insurance into ... a form of insurance! My bill will solve nearly every problem allegedly addressed by ObamaCare -- and mine entails zero cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, a free market in health insurance would produce major tax savings as layers of government bureaucrats, unnecessary to medical service in America, get fired. For example, in a free market, the government wouldn't need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding "pre-existing conditions." Of course, an insurance company has to be able to refuse NEW customers with "pre-existing conditions." Otherwise, everyone would just wait to get sick to buy insurance. It's the same reason you can't buy fire insurance on a house that's already on fire. That isn't an "insurance company"; it's what's known as a "Christian charity." What Democrats are insinuating when they denounce exclusions of "pre-existing conditions" is an insurance company using the "pre-existing condition" ruse to deny coverage to a current policy holder -- someone who's been paying into the plan, year after year. Any insurance company operating in the free market that pulled that trick wouldn't stay in business long. If hotels were as heavily regulated as health insurance is, right now I'd be explaining to you why the government doesn't need to mandate that hotels offer rooms with beds. If they didn't, they'd go out of business. I'm sure people who lived in the old Soviet Union thought it was crazy to leave groceries to the free market. ("But what if they don't stock the food we want?") The market is a more powerful enforcement mechanism than indolent government bureaucrats. If you don't believe me, ask Toyota about six months from now. Right now, insurance companies are protected by government regulations from having to honor their contracts. Violating contracts isn't so easy when competitors are lurking, ready to steal your customers. In addition to saving taxpayer money and providing better health insurance, my plan also saves trees by being 2,199 pages shorter than the Democrats' plan. Feel free to steal it, Republicans!
Posted at 18:41 in ANN COULTER, UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
From Ann Coulter: Liberal Lies about National Health Care
Myth #(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.
This appeared in an earlier installment of "Liberal Lies About
Health Care," but I keep seeing Democrats like Howard Dean and Rep. Jan
Schakowsky on TV angrily shouting that these are despicable lies --
which, in itself, constitutes proof that it's all true.
Posted at 09:42 in ANN COULTER, COLLECTIVISM, EVIL INDIVIDUALS AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO ABOUT THEM, OBAMUNISM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.
Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)
In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."
So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.
Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.
Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.
The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can think of.
The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.
Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)
Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for
their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can
be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an
American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The
war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim
audience as a discussion of gay marriage.
Ann Coulter
Posted at 22:56 in ANN COULTER, EVIL INDIVIDUALS AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO ABOUT THEM, OBAMUNISM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.
In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.
Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.
So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life -- and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller -- only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.
...The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live?
I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?
Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.
Read the rest at AnnCoulter.com
Posted at 11:14 in ANN COULTER, COLLECTIVISM, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, EVIL INDIVIDUALS AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO ABOUT THEM, LIFE, OBAMUNISM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
How much would you have to raise taxes before any of Obama's constituents noticed? They don't pay taxes, they engage in "tax-reduction" strategies, they work for the government, or they're too rich to care. (Or they have off-shore tax shelters, like George Soros.)
California tried the Obama soak-the-productive "stimulus" plan years ago and was hailed as the perfect exemplar of Democratic governance.
In June 2002, the liberal American Prospect magazine called California a "laboratory" for Democratic policies, noting that "California is the only one of the nation's 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control."
They said this, mind you, as if it were a good thing. In California, the article proclaimed, "the next new deal is in tryouts." As they say in show biz: "Thanks, we'll call you. Next!"
In just a few years, Democrats had turned California into a state -- or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" -- with a $41 billion deficit, a credit rating that was slashed to junk-bond status and a middle class now located in Arizona.
Democrats governed California the way Democrats always govern. They bought the votes of government workers with taxpayer-funded jobs, salaries and benefits -- and then turned around and accused the productive class of "greed" for wanting not to have their taxes raised through the roof.
Having run out of things to tax, now the California legislature is considering a tax on taxes. Seriously. The only way out now for California is a tax on Botox and steroids. Sure, the governor will protest, but it is the best solution ...
California was, in fact, a laboratory of Democratic policies. The rabbit died, so now Obama is trying it on a national level.
That's what the tea parties are about.
Posted at 12:22 in ANN COULTER, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ECONOMY, HISTORY, OBAMUNISM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I can think of a lot more government beneficiaries who are badly in need of firing.
Just off the top of my head, how about Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and everybody at the Department of Education?
How about firing all the former Weathermen, like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Mark Rudd, whose university salaries are subsidized by the taxpayer?
Nearly every university in the country accepts government money. Is there any industry in America more in need of some "restructuring" than academia? What's Berkeley's "business plan" to stop turning out graduates who hate America?
And what is Obama's justification for keeping Shirley M. Tilghman as president of Princeton University as long as Princeton employs prominent crackpot Peter Singer?
Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton's Center for Human Values, believes parents should have the right to kill newborn babies with birth defects, such as Down syndrome and hemophilia, and says there is nothing morally wrong with parents conceiving children in order to harvest them for spare parts for an older child -- or even for society to breed children on a massive scale for spare parts.
His views on these issues are so extreme I'm surprised Singer hasn't been offered a position in the Obama cabinet yet. Perhaps he paid his taxes and was disqualified.
Singer compares the black liberation movement to the liberation of apes, saying we must "extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species." (Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had said that and then go lie down for 20 minutes.)
The esteemed professor Singer also believes sex with animals is acceptable and has no objections to necrophilia -- provided the deceased gave consent when still alive. We're still waiting to hear his views on sex with dead animals. Especially me, as I have no plans for next weekend.
Doesn't a "new vision" for Princeton -- which benefits from massive taxpayer subsidies in the form of student loans and government grants -- require firing the president of Princeton? That university is clearly teetering on the brink of moral bankruptcy.
When is the government going to get around to firing 99 percent of public school superintendents? They're clearly turning out an inferior product -- i.e., America's public school graduates -- as compared to some of the foreign models now available.
In New York City, spending on public schools increased by more than 300 percent between 1982 and 2001, coming in at $11,474 per pupil annually -- compared to about $5,000 for private schools.
But in 2003, a New York court ruled that graduates of New York City's public schools did not have the skills to be "capable of voting and serving on a jury." (Worse, some kids coming out of New York high schools are so stupid they don't even know how to get out of jury duty.)
If Obama can tell GM and Chrysler that their participation in NASCAR is an "unnecessary expenditure," isn't having public schools force students to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan "jihads" also an "unnecessary expenditure"? Are all those school condom purchases considered "necessary expenditures"?
Illegal aliens cost the American taxpayer more than $10 billion a year, net, in Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, free school lunches, prison, school and court costs. And yet cities, counties and states across the nation are openly refusing to enforce federal immigration law against illegal aliens -- all while accepting billions of dollars of stimulus money on top of a litany of other federal payouts.
Shouldn't somebody be fired over this? Like maybe Geraldo Rivera?
How about hauling San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom before a congressional committee and firing him? In fact, just being named "Gavin Newsom" should be grounds for dismissal. San Francisco is getting $18 million of stimulus money -- to say nothing of its residents who receive federal money in the form of Social Security payments, government grants, welfare payments, federal highway funds and on and on and on.
Doesn't PBS take federal funds? Obama should really ask Big Bird to step down. While we're at it, shouldn't Tim Geithner be fired?
Now that the government owns everything, there's no end to the dead wood that can be cleared out.
Except the problem is -- as this very partial list demonstrates -- most of the dead wood exists only because of the government in the first place. Capitalism has its own methods of clearing out dead wood, which the government keeps preventing by forcing the taxpayer to bail out capitalism's losers.
Posted at 13:16 in ANN COULTER, IDIOCRACY, OBAMUNISM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
"Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.
For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.
That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.
Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.
As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: 'I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians.'"
Posted at 21:53 in ANN COULTER, OBAMUNISM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
by Ann Coulter
February 25, 2009
As Obama prepared to deliver his address to Congress on Tuesday, the Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner, Fox News' Bret Baier and Charles Krauthammer all gushed that history was being made as the first African-American president appeared before Congress.
Even Gov. Bobby Jindal, whom I suppose I should note was the first Indian-American to give the Republican response to a president's speech, began with an encomium to the first black president. (Wasn't Bobby great in "Slumdog Millionaire"?)
Are we going to have to hear about this for the next four years? Obama is becoming the Cal Ripken Jr. of presidents, making history every time he suits up for a game. Recently, Obama also became the first African-American president to order a ham sandwich late at night from the White House kitchen! That's going to get old pretty quick.
But as long as the nation is obsessed with historic milestones, is no one going to remark on what a great country it is where a mentally retarded woman can become speaker of the house?
Obama spent more than twice as much time in his historic speech genuflecting to the teachers' unions than talking about terrorism, Iraq or Afghanistan. So it was historic only in the sense that Obama is the first African-American president, but was the same old Democratic claptrap in every other respect.
After claiming that the disastrous stimulus bill would create or save 3.5 million jobs -- "more than 90 percent" in the private sector -- Obama then enumerated a long list of exclusively government jobs that would be "saved."
He was suspiciously verbose about saving the jobs of public schoolteachers. Because nothing says "economic stimulus" better than saving the jobs of lethargic incompetents who kick off at 2 p.m. every day and get summers off. Actually, that's not fair: Some teachers spend long hours after school having sex with their students.
As with the Clintons, Obama so earnestly believes in public school education that he sends his girls to ... an expensive private school. He demands that taxpayers support the very public schoolteachers he won't trust with his own children.
It is one thing to tell voters that school choice is wrong, because, you know, the public schools won't get better unless Americans sacrifice their children to the teachers' union's maw. But it is quite another for Democrats to feed their own kids to the union incinerator.
Consequently, no Democrat since Jimmy Carter has been stupid enough to send his own children to a public school.
And yet the stimulus bill expressly prohibits money earmarked for "education" to be spent on financial aid at private or parochial schools. Private schools might use it for some nefarious purpose like actually teaching their students, rather than indoctrinating them in anti-American propaganda.
The stimulus bill includes about $100 billion to education. By "education," Democrats don't mean anything a normal person would think of as education, such as learning how to talk good. "Education" means creating lots of useless bureaucratic jobs, mostly in Washington, having nothing to do with teaching.
Apparently, nothing irritates public schoolteachers more than being asked to teach. While 80 percent of the employees of private schools are teachers, only half the employees of public schools are. The rest are "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering" something or other.
The Department of Education alone provides more than 4,000 jobs that haven't the faintest connection with teaching. And now the stimulus bill will double the Education Department's funding. (For those of you who went to a public school, that means it will become twice as big.)
We've come a long way from Ronald Reagan promising to eliminate the Education Department, which itself was a Jimmy Carter sop to the teachers' unions.
Federal meddling in education has been an abject failure, so the Democrats' plan is to keep doing more of the same. If only there were some aphorism about people who fail to learn from history -- oh, well!
It can't be easy to reduce the educational achievement in America year after year, but the education establishment has done it! Yes they can!
Thanks to the hard work of thousands of government workers at the Department of Education and well-paid teachers' union employees, American schoolchildren perform worse on education tests for every year they spend in a public school.
It turns out that being in U.S. public schools has the same effect on people as hanging around Paris Hilton does.
In fourth grade, the earliest grade for which international comparisons are available, American students outperform most other countries in reading, math and science. Fourth-graders score in the 92nd percentile in science, the 58th percentile in math and the 70th percentile in reading, where they beat 26 of 35 countries, including Germany, France and Italy.
But by the eighth grade, American students are only midrange in international comparisons. (On the plus side, by the eighth grade they're noticeably fatter.)
By the 12th grade -- after receiving the full benefits of an American education -- Americans are near the bottom. Let X represent the number of years spent in U.S. public schools, and Y represent average test scores in math and reading -- oh, never mind.
With an additional eight years of a public school education under their belts, Americans fall from the 92nd percentile in science to the 29th percentile. While American fourth-graders are bested only by South Korea and Japan in science, by 12th grade, the only countries the American students can beat are Lithuania, Cyprus and South Africa.
Which suggests that if public education were extended all the way through college, by the time a student gets to graduate school he might very well be qualified to be ... speaker of the house!
Posted at 06:26 in ANN COULTER, EDUCATION, OBAMUNISM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Bureaucrats at Health and Human Services will [soon] electronically collect every citizen's complete medical records and determine appropriate medical care.
Judging by the care that the State Department took with private visa records last year, that the Ohio government took with Joe the Plumber's government records, that the Pentagon took with Linda Tripp's employment records in 1998, and that the FBI took with thousands of top secret "raw" background files in President Clinton's first term, the bright side is: We'll finally be able to find out if Bill Clinton has syphilis -- all thanks to the stimulus bill!
HHS bureaucrats will soon be empowered to overrule your doctor. Doctors who don't comply with the government's treatment protocols will be fined. That's right: Instead of your treatment being determined by your doctor, it will be settled on by some narcoleptic half-wit in Washington who couldn't get a job in the private sector.
And a brand-new set of bureaucrats in the newly created office of "National Coordinator of Health Information Technology" will be empowered to cut off treatments that merely prolong life. Sorry, Mom and Pop, Big Brother said it's time to go.
At every other workplace in the nation -- even Wal-Mart! -- workers are being laid off. But no one at any of the bloated government bureaucracies ever need fear receiving a pink slip. All 64,750 employees at the department of Health and Human Services are apparently absolutely crucial to the smooth functioning of the department.
With the stimulus bill, liberals plan to move unfirable government workers into every activity in America, where they will superintend all aspects of our lives.
Posted at 11:06 in ANN COULTER, ECONOMY, OBAMUNISM, POLITICS | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
...It will not be easy for President B. Hussein Obama. More than half the country voted for him, and yet our newspapers are brimming with snippy remarks at every little aspect of his inauguration.
Here's a small sampling of the churlishness in just The New York Times:
-- The American public is bemused by the tasteless show-biz extravaganza surrounding Barack Obama's inauguration today.
-- There is something to be said for some showiness in an inauguration. But one felt discomfited all the same.
-- This is an inauguration, not a coronation.
-- Is there a parallel between Mrs. Obama's jewel-toned outfit and somebody else's glass slippers? Why limousines and not shank's mare?
It is still unclear whether we are supposed to shout "Whoopee!" or "Shame!" about the new elegance the Obamas are bringing to Washington.
Boy, talk about raining on somebody's parade! These were not, of course, comments about the inauguration of the angel Obama; they are (slightly edited) comments about the inauguration of another historic president, Ronald Reagan, in January 1981.
...Liberals always have to play the victim, acting as if they merely want to bring the nation together in hope and unity in the face of petulant, stick-in-the-mud conservatives. Meanwhile, they are the ones booing, heckling and publicly fantasizing about the assassination of those who disagree with them on policy matters.
Posted at 14:49 in ANN COULTER, OBAMUNISM, POLITICS | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Ann Coulter's new book is one that everyone concerned with the left's assault on reason should get ahold of and read. Coulter is often compared to Senate-seat-thief Al Franken, but there is really no comparison and not only because Coulter is funny and also witty. If you read a Franken book, what you learn is that conservatives are liars -- in other words what you learn is a lie. Reading Coulter's new offering Guilty: Liberal Victims And Their Assault on America you will get a serious look into the strategy of the left which has been consistent since Rousseau and Marx and is summed up by Coulter in this pithy phrase: "Speak loudly and carry a small victim."
Posted at 14:35 in ANN COULTER, Books, WORDS OF THE WISE | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Posted at 14:27 in ANN COULTER, Books, Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
...The Treason Times' banner series about Iraq and Afghanistan veterans accused of murder began in January last year but was quickly discontinued as readers noticed that the Times doggedly refused to provide any statistics comparing veteran murders with murders in any other group.
So they waited a year, hoping readers wouldn't notice they were still including no relevant comparisons.
What, for example, is the percentage of murderers among veterans compared to the percentage of murderers in the population at large -- or, more germane, in the general population of young males, inasmuch as violent crime is committed almost exclusively by young men?
Any group composed primarily of young men will contain a seemingly mammoth number of murderers.
Consider the harmless fantasy game, Dungeons and Dragons -- which happens to be played almost exclusively by young males. When murders were committed in the '80s by (1) young men, who were (2) Dungeons and Dragons enthusiasts, some people concluded that factor (2), rather than factor (1), led to murderous tendencies.
Similarly, for its series about how America's bravest and finest young men are really a gang of psychopathic cutthroats, the Times triumphantly produced 121 homicides committed by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in order to pin the blame for the murders on the U.S. military.
Perhaps the Times' next major expose could be on how a huge percentage of murderers are people who won't ask for directions or share the TV remote.
Let's compare murders by veterans to murders by other 18- to 35-year-olds in the U.S. population at large. From 1976 to 2005, 18- to 24-year-olds -- both male and more gentle females -- committed homicide at a rate of 29.9 per 100,000. Twenty-five- to 35-year-olds committed homicides at a rate of 15.8 per 100,000.
Since 9/11, about 1.6 million troops have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. That makes the homicide rate among veterans of these wars 7.6 per 100,000 -- or about one-third the homicide rate for their age group (18 to 35) in the general population of both sexes.
But fewer than 200,000 of the 1.6 million troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been women, and the murder rate for the general population includes both males and females. Inasmuch as males commit nearly 90 percent of all murders, the rate for males in those age groups is probably nearly double the male/female combined rates, which translates to about 30 to 55 murderers per 100,000 males aged 18 to 35.
So comparing the veterans' rate of murder to only their male counterparts in the general population, we see that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are about 10 times less likely to commit a murder than non-veterans of those wars.
But as long as the Times has such a burning interest in the root causes of murder, how about considering the one factor more likely to create a murderer than any other? That is the topic we're not allowed to discuss: single motherhood.
As I describe in my new book, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent. (The second strongest factor is owning a Dennis Kucinich bumper sticker.)
...By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced.
A 1990 study by the left-wing Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime disappeared.
Various studies come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. A study cited in the far left-wing Village Voice found that children brought up in single-mother homes "are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home."
With new children being born, running away, dropping out of high school and committing murder every year, it's not a static problem to analyze. But however the numbers are run, single motherhood is a societal nuclear bomb.
Think I'm being cruel? Imagine an America with 60 to 70 percent fewer juvenile delinquents, teenage births, teenage suicides and runaways, and you will appreciate what the sainted "single mothers" have accomplished.
Even in liberals' fevered nightmares, predatory mortgage dealers, oil speculators and Ken Lay could never do as much harm to their fellow human beings as single mothers do to their own children, to say nothing of society at large.
But the Times won't run that series because liberals adore single motherhood and the dissolution of traditional marriage in America. They detest the military, so they cite a few anecdotal examples of veterans who have committed murder and hope that no one asks for details.
Posted at 12:11 in ANN COULTER, PATRIOTIC, POLITICS, Science, SCIENCE FALSELY SO-CALLED | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
from Ann Coulter
After NBC canceled me "for life" on Monday -- until seven or eight
hours later when the ban was splashed across the top of The Drudge
Report, forcing a red-faced NBC to withdraw the ban -- an NBC insider
told The Drudge Report: "We are just not interested in anyone so highly
critical of President-elect Obama, right now," explaining that "it's
such a downer. It's just not the time, and it's not what our audience
wants, either."
In point of fact, I'm not particularly critical of Obama in my new
book. I'm critical of the media for behaving like a protection racket
for Obama rather than the constitutionally protected guardians of our
liberty that they claim to be. So I think what the NBC insider meant to
say is that NBC is not interested in anyone so highly critical of NBC
right now. It's such a downer, it's just not the time, and it's not
what their audience wants right now, either.
In fact, I think my book is the downer America has been waiting
for! So herewith, I present an excerpt from the smash new book out this
week, "Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America":
When the Obama family materialized, the media was seized by a mass
psychosis that hadn't been witnessed since Beatlemania. OK! magazine
raved that the Obamas "are such an all-American family that they almost
make the Brady Bunch look dysfunctional." Yes, who can forget the
madcap episode when the Bradys' wacky preacher tells them the
government created AIDS to kill blacks!
Still gushing, OK! magazine's crack journalists reported: "Mom goes
to bake sales, dad balances the checkbook, and the girls love Harry
Potter" -- and then the whole family goes to a racist huckster who
shouts, "God damn America!"
Months before network anchors were interrogating vice presidential
candidate Sarah Palin on the intricacies of foreign policy, here is how
NBC's Brian Williams mercilessly grilled presidential candidate Barack
Obama: "What was it like for you last night, the part we couldn't see,
the flight to St. Paul with your wife, knowing what was awaiting?"
Twisting the knife he had just plunged into Obama, Williams
followed up with what has come to be known as a "gotcha" question: "And
you had to be thinking of your mother and your father." Sarah Palin was
memorizing the last six kings of Swaziland for her media interviews,
but Obama only needed to say something nice about his parents to be
considered presidential material.
The media's fawning over Obama knew no bounds, and yet, in the
midst of the most incredible media conspiracy to turn this jug-eared
clodhopper into some combination of Winston Churchill and a young
Elvis, you were being a bore if you mentioned the liberal media. Oh
surely we've exploded that old chestnut. ... Look! Look, Obama just lit
up another Marlboro! Geez, does smoking make you look cool, or what!
Yeah, Obama!.
The claim that there's no such thing as a left wing press is a
patent lie said to enrage conservatives. Newspapers read like the press
under Kim Jung Il, which, outside of a police state, looks foolish. The
prose is straight out of The Daily Worker, full of triumphal rhetoric
with implicit exclamation points. Still, their chanted slogans fill
your brain, like one of those bad songs you can't stop humming.
There is no other explanation for the embarrassing paeans to
Obama's "eloquence." His speeches were a run-on string of embarrassing,
sophomoric Hallmark card bromides. It seemed only a matter of time
before Obama would slip and tell a crowd what a special Dad it had
always been to him.
The major theme of Obama's campaign was the audacity of his running
for president. He titled his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic
National Convention, "The Audacity of Hope" –- named after a sermon
given by his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright, whom we were not allowed
to mention without being accused of playing dirty tricks. (Rejected
speech titles from sermons by Rev. Wright included "God Damn America!,"
"The U.S. of K.K.A." and "The Racist United States of America.")
What is so audacious about announcing that you're running for
president? Every U.S. Senator has run for president or is currently
thinking about running for president. Dennis Kucinich ran for
president. Lyndon LaRouche used to run for president constantly.
But the media were giddy over their latest crush. Even when Obama
broke a pledge and rejected public financing for his campaign -- an
issue more dear to The New York Times than even gay marriage -- the
Times led the article on Obama's broken pledge with his excuse. "Citing
the specter of attacks from independent groups on the right," the Times
article began, "Sen. Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would opt
out of the public financing system for the general election."
So he had to break his pledge because he was a victim of the Republican Attack Machine.
When Obama broke his word and voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill (FISA), the Times' editorial began: We
are shocked and dismayed by Sen. Obama's vote on ... oh, who are we
kidding? We can't stay mad at this guy! Isn't he just adorable?
Couldn't you just eat him up with a spoon? Is he looking at me?
Ohmigod, I think he's looking at me!!!! Couldn't you just die?
It has ever been thus.
Posted at 21:29 in ANN COULTER, Books, OBAMUNISM, POLITICS | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
In her most controversial and fiercely
argued book yet, Ann Coulter calls out liberals for always playing the
victim-–when in fact, as she sees it, they are the victimizers. In
GUILTY, Coulter explodes this myth to reveal that when it comes to
bullying, no one outdoes the Left.
GUILTY is a mordantly witty and
shockingly specific catalog of offenses which Coulter presents from A
to Z. And as with each of her past books, all of which were NYT
bestsellers, Coulter is fearless in her penchant for saying what needs
saying about politics and culture today.
Posted at 06:35 in ANN COULTER, Books | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Posted at 08:36 in ANN COULTER, POLITICS, Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Posted at 13:13 in ANN COULTER, POLITICS | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
...Far from being sodomized and tortured by U.S. forces -- as Obama's base has wailed for the past seven years -- the innocent scholars and philanthropists being held at Guantanamo have been given expensive, high-tech medical procedures at taxpayer expense. If we're not careful, multitudes of Muslims will be going to fight Americans in Afghanistan just so they can go to Guantanamo and get proper treatment for attention deficit disorder and erectile dysfunction.
After being captured fighting with Taliban forces against Americans in 2001, Abdullah Massoud was sent to Guantanamo, where the one-legged terrorist was fitted with a special prosthetic leg, at a cost of $50,000-$75,000 to the U.S. taxpayer. Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, Massoud would now be able to park his car bomb in a handicapped parking space!
No, you didn't read that wrong, because the VA won't pay for your new glasses. I said $75,000. I would have gone with hanging at sunrise, but what do I know?
Upon his release in March 2004, Massoud hippity-hopped back to Afghanistan and quickly resumed his war against the U.S. Aided by his new artificial leg, just months later, in October 2004, Massoud masterminded the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in Pakistan working on the Gomal Zam Dam project.
This proved, to me at least, that people with disabilities can do anything they put their minds to. Way to go, you plucky extremist!
...although Massoud's swashbuckling reputation as a jihadist with a prosthetic leg appears in many news items, where he got that leg is almost purposely hidden -- even lied about.
"Abdullah Massoud ... had earned both sympathy and reverence for his time in Guantanamo Bay. ... Upon his release, he made it home to Waziristan and resumed his war against the U.S. With his long hair, his prosthetic limb and impassioned speeches, he quickly became a charismatic inspiration to Waziristan's youth." -- The New York Times
He's not a one-legged terrorist -- he's a freedom fighter living with a disability. I think we could all learn something about courage from this man.
"He lost his leg in a landmine explosion a few days before the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in September 1996. It didn't dampen his enthusiasm as a fighter and he got himself an artificial leg later, says Yusufzai."-- The Indo-Asian News Service
Where? At COSTCO?
"The 29-year-old Massoud, who lost his left leg in a landmine explosion while fighting alongside the Taliban, often used to ride a horse or camel because his disability made it painful for him to walk long distances in hilly areas." -- BBC Monitoring South Asia
Side-saddle, I'm guessing. And you just know those caves along the Afghan-Pakistan border aren't wheelchair accessible.
"He was educated in Peshawar and was treated in Karachi after his left leg was blown up in a landmine explosion in the Wreshmin Tangi gorge near Kabul in September 1996. He now walks with an artificial leg specifically made for him in Karachi." -- Gulf News (United Arab Emirates)
Karachi? Hey, how do I get into this guy's HMO?
They can't lick leprosy in Karachi, but the Gulf News tells us Massoud got his artificial leg at one of their specialty hospitals.
Anyone who thinks the Guantanamo detainees can be released without consequence doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Posted at 14:48 in ANN COULTER, IDIOCRACY, ISLAMIC HERESY, POLITICS | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
by Ann Coulter
October 8, 2008
If Sarah Palin had made just one of the wildly inaccurate statements smugly uttered by Sen. Joe Biden in last week's vice presidential debate, there would have been 3-inch headlines in newspapers across America. (I can almost hear Katie Couric asking me, "Which newspapers?")
These weren't insignificant errors, such as when Biden said, "Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time, and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years."
It turns out that Katie's restaurant, where Biden gets his feel for the average American, closed 20 years ago. The only evidence that he spends any time in Home Depot is that it appears that a pipe wrench fell on his head one too many times.
Palin would surely have been forced to withdraw from the ticket had she said something like that, but most of Biden's errors were not trifling mistakes like these. They were lengthy Lyndon LaRouche-like disquisitions that were pure fantasy from beginning to end.
For example, Biden said about Hezbollah: "When we kicked -- along with France -- we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon." Hezbollah was never kicked out of Lebanon.
He continued: "I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.'" This is madness -- Lebanon is not a NATO country, nor had any NATO country been attacked by Lebanon.
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of foreign policy.
Biden also stoutly denied that Obama ever said he would sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Liberals find it hilarious that McCain can't use a computer keyboard on account of his war injuries, but Biden is apparently unaware of the Internet, because there are clips all over the Internet of Obama saying exactly that during the CNN/YouTube debate last year.
Biden might have remembered that debate since: (1) He was there, and (2) he later attacked Obama's answer, telling the National Press Club in August 2007: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president? Absolutely, positively, no."
And that's still not all! Obama's own Web site says: "Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his ability to remember well-known facts.
Biden also gave a long speech at the debate on vice president Dick Cheney's "dangerous" belief that "he's part of the legislative branch." The great constitutional scholar Biden cited Article I of the Constitution as proof that Cheney "works in the executive branch" and has "no authority relative to the Congress." Biden huffily added: "He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."
Palin would have had to deny that Alaska is a state in the union in order to say something comparably stupid.
Article II, not I, describes the executive branch. Someone tell Biden, who is supposed to be a lawyer. Apart from getting the Articles of the Constitution mixed up, what on earth does Biden mean when he says that the vice president "has no authority relative to Congress," apart from breaking ties?
The Constitution makes him president of the senate every day of the week. I realize that Biden may not be able to count to two, but Article I says the vice president is president of one of the two houses of Congress -- the one Biden is in, for crying out loud -- which is what you might call "authority relative to Congress."
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of the Constitution.
In one especially hallucinatory answer, Biden authoritatively stated: "With Afghanistan, facts matter, Gwen. ... We spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country."
According to the Congressional Research Service, since 9/11, we've spent $172 billion in Afghanistan and $653 billion in Iraq. The most money spent in Iraq came in 2008, when we have been spending less than $3 billion a week. So by Biden's calculations, we've spent only about $9 billion "on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country." There isn't even a "9" in $172 billion.
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of math.
In the same answer, Biden went on to claim that "John McCain voted against a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that every Republican has supported."
The last nuclear test ban treaty the Senate voted on was the one Clinton signed in the '90s. As The New York Times editorialized on the Senate vote a few years later: "Last week, Senate Republicans thundered 'no' to the nuclear test ban treaty, handing the White House its biggest defeat since health care in 1994." Forty-nine Republicans voted against the treaty; only four liberal Republicans voted for it. That's the treaty Biden says "every Republican has supported."
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his ability to function as vice president.
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
Posted at 08:55 in ANN COULTER, POLITICS | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his running mate finally gave Republicans a reason to vote for him -- a reason, that is, other than B. Hussein Obama.
The media are hopping mad about McCain's vice presidential selection, but they're really furious over at MSNBC. After drawing "Keith + Obama" hearts on their denim notebooks, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews stayed up all night last Thursday, writing jokes about Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, the presumed vice presidential pick. Now they can't use any of them.
So the media are taking it out on our brave Sarah and her 17-year-old daughter.
They claimed Palin was chosen only because she's a woman. In fact, Palin was chosen because she's pro-life, pro-gun, pro-drilling and pro-tax cuts. She's fought both Republicans and Democrats on public corruption and does not have hair plugs like some other vice presidential candidate I could mention. In other words, she's a "Republican."
As a right-winger, Palin will appeal to the narrow 59 percent of Americans who voted for another former small-market sportscaster: Ronald Reagan. Our motto: Sarah Palin is only a heartbeat away!
...It's as if a basketball player made the winning shot in the last three seconds of the game and liberals demand that we have a week-long discussion about whether the player should have taken that shot. WHAT IF HE MISSED?
With Palin, McCain didn't miss.
www.anncoulter.com
Posted at 19:56 in ANN COULTER, POLITICS | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
As with Ronald Reagan, everyone prefers to remember great men when they weren't being great, but later, when they were being admired. Having changed the world, there came a point when Buckley no longer needed to shock it.
...Buckley's first book, God and Man at Yale, was met with the usual thoughtful critiques of anyone who challenges the liberal establishment. Frank Ashburn wrote in the Saturday Review: "The book is one which has the glow and appeal of a fiery cross on a hillside at night. There will undoubtedly be robed figures who gather to it, but the hoods will not be academic. They will cover the face."
The president of Yale sent alumni thousands of copies of McGeorge Bundy's review of the book from the Atlantic Monthly calling Buckley a "twisted and ignorant young man." Other reviews bordered on the hyperbolic. One critic simply burst into tears, then transcribed his entire crying jag word for word.
Buckley's next book, McCarthy and His Enemies, written with L. Brent Bozell, proved that normal people didn't have to wait for the Venona Papers to be declassified to see that the Democratic Party was collaborating with fascists. The book -- and the left's reaction thereto -- demonstrated that liberals could tolerate a communist sympathizer, but never a Joe McCarthy sympathizer.
Relevant to Republicans' predicament today, National Review did not endorse a candidate for president in 1956, correctly concluding that Dwight Eisenhower was not a conservative, however great a military leader he had been. In his defense, Ike never demanded that camps housing enemy detainees be closed down.
Nor would National Review endorse liberal Republican Richard Nixon, waiting until 1964 to enthusiastically support a candidate for president who had no hope of winning. Barry Goldwater, though given the right things to say -- often by Buckley or Bozell, who wrote Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative-- was not particularly bright.
But the Goldwater candidacy, Buckley believed, would provide "the well-planted seeds of hope," eventually fulfilled by Ronald Reagan. Goldwater was sort of the army ant on whose body Reagan walked to greatness. Thanks, Barry. When later challenged on Reagan's intellectual stature, Buckley said: "Of course, he will always tend to reach first for an anecdote. But then, so does the New Testament."
With liberal Republicans still bothering everyone even after Reagan, Buckley went all out against liberal Republican Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. When Democrat Joe Lieberman challenged Weicker for the Senate in 1988, National Review ran an article subtly titled: "Does Lowell Weicker Make You Sick?"
Buckley started a political action committee to support Lieberman, explaining, "We want to pass the word that it's OK to vote for the other guy or stay at home." The good thing about Lieberman, Buckley said, was that he "doesn't have the tendency of appalling you every time he opens his mouth."
That same year, when the radical chic composer Leonard Bernstein complained about the smearing of the word "liberal," Buckley replied: "Lenny does not realize that one of the reasons the 'L' word is discredited is that it was handled by such as Leonard Bernstein." The composer was so unnerved by this remark that, just to cheer himself up, he invited several extra Black Panthers to his next cocktail party.
When Arthur Schlesinger Jr. objected to his words being used as a jacket-flap endorsement on one of Buckley's books in 1963, Buckley replied by telegram:
"MY OFFICE HAS COPY OF ORIGINAL TAPE. TELL ARTHUR THAT'LL TEACH HIM TO USE UNCTION IN POLITICAL DEBATE BUT NOT TO TAKE IT SO HARD: NO ONE BELIEVES ANYTHING HE SAYS ANYWAY."
...Writing in defense of the rich in 1967, Buckley said: "My guess is, that the last man to corner the soybean market, whoever he was, put at least as much time and creative energy into the cornering of it as, say, Norman Mailer put into his latest novel and produced something far more bearable -- better a rise in the price of soybeans than 'Why Are We in Vietnam?'" (For you kids out there, Norman Mailer was an America-hating drunkard who wrote books.)
Some of Buckley's best lines were uttered in court during a lengthy libel trial in the '80s against National Review brought by the Liberty Lobby, which was then countersued by National Review. (The Liberty Lobby lost and NR won.)
Irritated by attorney Mark Lane's questions, Buckley asked the judge: "Your Honor, when he asks a ludicrous question, how am I supposed to behave?"
In response to another of Lane's questions, Buckley said: "I decline to answer that question; it's too stupid."
When asked if he had "referred to Jesse Jackson as an ignoramus," Buckley said, "If I didn't, I should have."
Buckley may have been a conservative celebrity, but there was a lot more to him than a bow tie and a sailboat.
Posted at 15:14 in ANN COULTER | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
(1) Men who were fatties in high school and consequently are willing to submit to the hell of running for office to compensate for their unhappy adolescences -- like Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich. (Somewhere in this great land of ours, even as we speak, the next Bill Clinton is waddling back to the cafeteria service line asking for seconds.)
(2) Billionaires and near-billionaires -- like Jon Corzine, Steve Forbes, Michael Bloomberg and Mitt Romney -- who can fund their own campaigns (these aren't necessarily sociopaths, but it certainly limits the pool of candidates).
(3) Celebrities and name-brand candidates -- like Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Bush, Giuliani and Hillary Clinton (which explains the nation's apparent adoration for Bushes and Clintons -- they've got name recognition, a valuable commodity amidst totalitarian restrictions on free speech).
(4) Mainstream media-anointed candidates, like John McCain and B. Hussein Obama.
What a bizarre coincidence that a few years after the most draconian campaign-finance laws were imposed via McCain-Feingold, our two front-runners happen to be the media's picks! It's uncanny -- almost as if by design! (Can I stop now, or do you people get sarcasm?)
By prohibiting speech by anyone else, the campaign-finance laws have vastly magnified the power of the media -- which, by the way, are wholly exempt from speech restrictions under campaign-finance laws. The New York Times doesn't have to buy ad time to promote a politician; it just has to call McCain a "maverick" 1 billion times a year.
It is because of campaign-finance laws like McCain-Feingold that big men don't run for office anymore. Little men do. And John McCain is the head homunculus.
Posted at 07:41 in ANN COULTER, POLITICS | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
...Sen. John McCain's claim to being a Republican comes down to two factors:
(1) He was a POW -- I know that because he mentions it more often than John Kerry told us that he served in Vietnam.
And (2) he has a relatively conservative voting record compared to, say, Maxine Waters.
I note that there were hundreds of POWS in Vietnam. We can't make them all president. If we're just going to pick one, how about one who doesn't want to shut down Guantanamo and give amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants? Hey, didn't Duncan Hunter serve in Vietnam? Why, yes, I believe he did!
...McCain and Romney are mirror opposites: As Romney had to tailor his conservative views to the liberal voters of Massachusetts, McCain has had to tailor his liberal views to the conservative voters of Arizona. While Romney's record in a liberal bastion is as bad as it will ever be, McCain's record from a conservative bastion is as good as it will ever be. Which isn't very good.
In the immortal words of -- well, me, actually: Always choose a strong conservative from a blue state over a lukewarm conservative from a red state.
...Rudy [Giuliani] supports torturing terrorists -- or using "enhanced interrogation techniques," as they say, announcing in one of the debates: "I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of."
McCain is hysterical about pouring water down terrorists' noses and campaigns to shut down Guantanamo.
He demands that no terrorist interrogation be "degrading" -- perhaps recalling how not degrading it was for people in the upper floors of the Twin Towers to have to leap to their deaths rather than be burned alive on Sept. 11.
...everyone knows he'll take the liberal position on social issues like abortion -- and everything else -- as soon as he doesn't need the voters of Arizona anymore.
Posted at 14:10 in ANN COULTER, POLITICS | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
...McCain angrily denounces the suggestion that his "comprehensive immigration reform" constituted "amnesty"--on the ludicrous grounds that it included a small fine. Even the guy who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy didn't fall for this a few years ago.
...McCain's amnesty bill would have immediately granted millions of newly legalized immigrants Social Security benefits. He even supported allowing work performed as an illegal to count toward Social Security benefits as recently as a vote in 2006 -- now adamantly denied by Mr. Straight Talk.
...McCain keeps boasting that he was "the only one" of the Republican presidential candidates who supported the surge in Iraq.
What is he talking about? All Republicans supported the surge -- including Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. The only ones who didn't support it were McCain pals like Sen. Chuck Hagel. Indeed, the surge is the first part of the war on terrorism that caused McCain to break from Hagel in order to support the president.
...McCain started and fanned the vicious anti-Bush myth that, before the 2000 South Carolina primary, the Bush campaign made phone calls to voters calling McCain a "liar, cheat and a fraud" and accusing him of having an illegitimate black child.
...Seeking even more favorable press from The New York Times, McCain launched an unprovoked attack against the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, calling them "agents of intolerance."
...To ensure he would get full media coverage for that little gem, McCain alerted the networks in advance that he planned to attack their favorite whipping boys. Newspaper editors across the country stood in awe of McCain's raw bravery. The New York Times praised him in an editorial that said the Republican Party "has for too long been tied to the cramped ideology of the Falwells and the Robertsons."
Though McCain generally votes pro-life -- as his Arizona constituency requires -- he embraces the loony lingo of the pro-abortion set, repeatedly assuring his pals in the media that he opposes the repeal of Roe v. Wade because it would force women to undergo "illegal and dangerous operations...."
No, friends---Mc-inane is not our man.ce
Posted at 09:14 in ANN COULTER, EVIL INDIVIDUALS AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO ABOUT THEM, ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, PATRIOTIC, POLITICS | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
...The candidate Republicans should be clamoring for is the one liberals are feverishly denouncing. That is Mitt Romney by a landslide.
New York Times columnist Frank Rich says Romney "is trying to sell himself as a leader," but he "is actually a follower and a panderer, as confirmed by his flip-flops on nearly every issue."
But Rich is in a swoon over Huckabee. I haven't seen Rich this excited since they announced "Hairspray" was coming to Broadway.
...Curiously, however, Huckabee's Christianity doesn't bother Rich. In column after column, Rich hails Huckabee as the only legitimate leader of the Republican Party. This is like a girl in high school who hates you telling you your hair looks great.
Liberals claim to be enraged at Romney for being a "flip-flopper." I've looked and looked, and the only issue I can find that Romney has "flipped" on is abortion. When running for office in Massachusetts -- or, for short, "the Soviet Union" -- Romney said that Massachusetts was a pro-choice state and that he would not seek to change laws on abortion.
...After his term as governor, NARAL Pro-Choice America assailed Romney, saying: "(A)s governor he initially expressed pro-choice beliefs but had a generally anti-choice record. His position on choice has changed. His position is now anti-choice."
...Of all the Republican candidates for president, Romney and Rudy Giuliani are the only ones who had to be elected in pro-choice districts. Romney governed as a pro-lifer and has been viciously attacked by pro-abortion groups.
By contrast, Giuliani cleverly avoids the heinous "flip-flopper" label by continuing to embrace baby-killing. (Rudy flip-flops only on trivial matters like illegal immigration and his own marital vows.)
...At worst, Romney will turn out to be a moderate Republican -- a high-IQ, articulate, moral, wildly successful, moderate Republican. Of the top five Republican candidates for president, Romney is the only one who hasn't dumped his first wife (as well as the second, in the case of Giuliani) -- except Huckabee...
...It's also possible that Romney will turn out to be a conservative Republican -- at least more conservative than he was as governor of Massachusetts. Whatever problems Romney's Mormonism gives voters, remember: Bill Clinton came in third in heavily Mormon Utah in 1992.
Posted at 09:31 in ANN COULTER, POLITICS | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Recently, Stine began holding conferences that seek to reach men who feel marginalized by the church. Those "GodMen" conferences are designed to help men form relationships and Christian spirituality that is "absolutely honest and unconstrained in dealing with the real and difficult issues men face daily that are not being addressed in church," states the website. Issues, according to Stine, that would be less likely to be addressed at a Promise Keepers event.
"We are a little bit more raw about how we approach some of these subjects," he explains. "We also are really trying to find this unity of our faith that can be maintained in the community as we leave -- that you're the tribe of Daytona or of Des Moines or wherever it is that we happen to be."
Stine argues that many men are tired of what he calls a "sugar-coated and watered-down" Christianity. To counter that, he says, the one-day "GodMen" events challenge men to embrace the full character of Christ. He cites the example of what he describes as the "table-tipping Jesus."
"[That's] the strong Jesus that really deals with masculinity, [an aspect] that men are oftentimes not taught," Stine explains. "We're taught one side of Jesus. He was merciful and gracious and loving and sweet and kind -- and he was all those things, and we don't deny that; we need that desperately. But there was a table-tipping Jesus," he continues. "There was a time when the season was more aggressive and that you were allowed to be angry and sin not."
Because of the nature of some of the topics that are discussed, no one under the age of 15 can attend a "GodMen" event.
[The Berean Call: There has been an increasing coarseness in what is deemed acceptable in Christian language and conduct. It is not a matter of "sugar coating" Christianity. The same Bible that told of Jesus driving out the moneychangers also admonished us to "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers” (Ephesians 4:29).]
I have heard of Stine's comedy, though I've not heard it explicitly. I am the first to admit my humor runs to the coarser side, having been a soldier and staunch political conservative (less politically correct than most), yet I believe there is a place for politics and a place for worship. To combine the two becomes dangerously close to melding and forgetting inherent boundaries. I love Ann Coulter's acerbic wit and sharp mind, but I wouldn't want her preaching. I want a President who has a saving personal relationship with Christ, but I don't believe a true Christian can hold such an office without compromising his faith. We all do need to work on holding our tongues and speaking only that which is pleasing to the Lord--I'm standing at the front of the line.
Taken from the GodMen website: We are unique in that we provide audience-speaker dialogue and interaction in order to teach men how to shoulder each others’ burdens, never to be alone again. Our ultimate desire is to encourage men to leave committed to daily acts of courage, guiding them into a new and fresh journey. Does this resonate with you and your search for meaning and truth? Then you are of our tribe - come walk with us and bring your unique life experience and perspective to our journey.
I don't believe we're called to shoulder each other's burdens or to commit ourselves to daily acts of courage. Instead, we are told to allow Christ to carry our yoke, as His is easy. We're told to lean and walk daily with Him, not display outward courage. It is a dangerous road to pleasing man, not God.ce
Posted at 08:32 in ANN COULTER, BIBLE, LIFE, Religion | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
1) Comparing the cancellation of the self-indulgent Golden Globes ceremony to the fall of Saigon.
2) The death of Ann Coulter’s father (via Darleen Click).
DISGUSTING PIGS. DISGUSTING PIGS. ce
Posted at 12:04 in ANN COULTER, BLOGGING, EVIL INDIVIDUALS AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO ABOUT THEM, IDIOCRACY, POLITICS, REMEMBERING | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
He would return to a store if he was given too much change -- and this was a man who was so "thrifty," as we Scots like to say, he told us he wanted to be buried in two cardboard boxes from the A&P rather than pay for a coffin.
When I was bombarded with arguments for baby-killing as a kid, I asked Father about the old chestnut involving a poverty-stricken, unwed teenage girl who gets pregnant. (This was before they added the "impregnated by her own father" part.) Father just said, "I don't care. If it's a life, it's a life." I'm still waiting to hear an effective counterargument.
...When Mother was in a rehabilitative facility briefly after surgery a few years ago and Father was not supposed to be driving, we were relieved that a snowstorm had knocked out the power to the garage door opener, so Daddy couldn't get to the car. It would just be a week and then Mother would be home.
My brother came home to check on Father the first day of this arrangement to find that he had taken an ax to the side door of the garage, so he could drive to the rehab center and sit with Mother all day.
...Now Daddy is with Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan. I hope they stop laughing about the Reds long enough to talk to God about smiting some liberals for me.
Posted at 09:31 in ANN COULTER | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
KWANZAA: HOLIDAY FROM THE FBI
by Ann Coulter
January 2, 2008
(NOTE: This is an updated version of a column by Ann Coulter that first ran several years ago.)
Is it just me, or does Kwanzaa seem to come earlier and earlier
each year? The same goes for the Iowa caucuses -- the early scheduling
of which forced me to run an attack on a synthetic candidate, rather
than a synthetic holiday, last week.
I've seen so few mentions of Kwanzaa this year, I was going to
declare my campaign a success, but I see that President Bush issued
another absurd Kwanzaa message in December, referring to millions of
African-Americans gathering to celebrate Kwanzaa.
I believe more African-Americans spent this season reflecting on
the birth of Christ than some phony non-Christian holiday invented a
few decades ago by an FBI stooge. Kwanzaa is a holiday for white
liberals, not blacks.
It is a fact that Kwanzaa was invented in 1966 by a black radical
FBI stooge, Ron Karenga, aka Dr. Maulana Karenga. Karenga was a founder
of United Slaves, a violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers and
a dupe of the FBI.
In what was probably ultimately a foolish gamble, during the
madness of the '60s the FBI encouraged the most extreme black
nationalist organizations in order to discredit and split the left. The
more preposterous the organization, the better. Using that criterion,
Karenga's United Slaves was perfect. In the annals of the American
'60s, Karenga was the Father Gapon, stooge of the czarist police.
Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of
the '60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. They did not seek
armed revolution. Those were the precepts of Karenga's United Slaves.
United Slaves were proto-fascists, walking around in dashikis, gunning
down Black Panthers and adopting invented "African" names. (That was a
big help to the black community: How many boys named "Jamal" currently
sit on death row?)
Whether Karenga was a willing dupe, or just a dupe, remains
unclear. Curiously, in a 1995 interview with Ethnic NewsWatch, Karenga
matter-of-factly explained that the forces out to get O.J. Simpson for
the "framed" murder of two whites included: "the FBI, the CIA, the
State Department, Interpol, the Chicago Police Department" and so on.
Karenga should know about FBI infiltration. (He further noted that the
evidence against O.J. "was not strong enough to prohibit or eliminate
unreasonable doubt" -- an interesting standard of proof.)
In the category of the-gentleman-doth-protest-too-much, back in
the '70s, Karenga was quick to criticize rumors that black radicals
were government-supported. When Nigerian newspapers claimed that some
American black radicals were CIA operatives, Karenga publicly denounced
the idea, saying, "Africans must stop generalizing about the loyalties
and motives of Afro-Americans, including the widespread suspicion of
black Americans being CIA agents."
Now we know that the FBI fueled the bloody rivalry between the
Panthers and United Slaves. In one barbarous outburst, Karenga's United
Slaves shot to death Black Panthers Al "Bunchy" Carter and Deputy
Minister John Huggins on the UCLA campus. Karenga himself served time,
a useful stepping-stone for his current position as a black studies
professor at California State University at Long Beach.
(Sing to "Jingle Bells")
Kwanzaa bells, dashikis sell
Whitey has to pay;
Burning, shooting, oh what fun
On this made-up holiday!
Kwanzaa itself is a lunatic blend of schmaltzy '60s rhetoric,
black racism and Marxism. Indeed, the seven "principles" of Kwanzaa
praise collectivism in every possible arena of life -- economics, work,
personality, even litter removal. ("Kuumba: Everyone should strive to
improve the community and make it more beautiful.") It takes a village
to raise a police snitch.
When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy
underlying Kwanzaa, from "classical Marxism," he essentially explained
that under Kawaida, we also hate whites. While taking the "best of
early Chinese and Cuban socialism" -- which one assumes would exclude
the forced abortions, imprisonment of homosexuals and forced labor --
Kawaida practitioners believe one's racial identity "determines life
conditions, life chances and self-understanding." There's an inclusive
philosophy for you.
Coincidentally, the seven principles of Kwanzaa are the very same
seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another charming
invention of the Worst Generation. In 1974, Patricia Hearst, kidnap
victim-cum-SLA revolutionary, posed next to the banner of her alleged
captors, a seven-headed cobra. Each snake head stood for one of the
SLA's revolutionary principles: Umoja, Kujichagulia, Ujima, Ujamaa,
Nia, Kuumba and Imani -- the exact same seven "principles" of Kwanzaa.
With his Kwanzaa greetings, President Bush is saluting the
intellectual sibling of the Symbionese Liberation Army, killer of
housewives and police. He is saluting the founder of United Slaves, who
were such lunatics that they shot Panthers for not being sufficiently
insane -- all with the FBI as their covert ally.
It's as if David Duke invented a holiday called "Anglika," and the
president of the United States issued a presidential proclamation
honoring the synthetic, racist holiday. People might well stand up and
take notice if that happened.
Kwanzaa was the result of a '60s psychosis grafted onto the black
community. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural nonsense
that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga's
United Slaves -- the violence, the Marxism, the insanity. Most
absurdly, for leftists anyway, is that they have forgotten the FBI's
tacit encouragement of this murderous black nationalist cult founded by
the father of Kwanzaa.
Now the "holiday" concocted by an FBI dupe is honored in a
presidential proclamation and public schools across the nation. In
Oregon public schools this year, Kwanzaa -- but not Christmas --
appeared on the official calendar.
Bush called Kwanzaa a holiday that promotes "unity" and "faith."
Faith in what? Liberals' unbounded capacity to respect any faith but
Christianity?
A movement that started approximately 2,000 years before Kwanzaa
leaps well beyond mere "unity" and "faith" to proclaim that we are all
equal before God. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male
nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). It
was practitioners of that faith who were at the forefront of the
abolitionist and civil rights movements. But that's all been washed
down the memory hole, along with the true origins of Kwanzaa
.
Posted at 19:11 in ANN COULTER | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Recent Comments