SUPPORT PTBC
with this PTBC site-nourishing,
national pride-inducing purchase

Liberals can buy the pin too!

---

• Members:

---

• Help us fight
the good conservative fight!

PTBC totally relies on YOUR cash contributions.

---

• About PTBC

First: It's a question.

Other than that: A true conservative site that helps explain the difference between liberals and conservatives. We're:
Pro-life. Pro-freedom. Pro-USA. Pro-Christian. Pro-Israel. Pro-family. Pro-traditional marriage. Pro-free market capitalism. Pro-war-on-terror and war on Islamofascism and terror in Iraq and everywhere else. Pro-military. We're for smaller governments. For less taxes. Against socialism. Against state-owned or state-run media. Against asinine state controls on our legal gun ownership. Against the so-called "progressive", left-wing church of liberalism. Against idiocy generally. ...Read more...

---

• Worst Canadians

• An apparently typical state-owned CBC fan, on news of the death of a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan:
"THIS IS WHAT YOU DESERVE"
(Also see PTBC's CBC reader comments of hate category).

• As taxpayers bail out the auto companies in Canada, the head of the auto workers' union in Canada, Ken Lewenza, blames Canada's "right wing" (that's me) and "corporate agenda" (arguably also me) for the global financial collapse, in what I call (A) an outright lie, (B) yet another declaration of class warfare in Canada by the extreme left, and (C) overall abject stupidity. He also (D) sounds like a communist. Reference.

---

---

• Search PTBC

Advanced Search

• CBC -related blog entries
• CBC reader comments of hate

---

• Syndicate

• Blackberries, mobiles etc.:
  http://ptbc.mobi/
• RSS 2.0
• Atom

      ProudToBeCanadian

It's a question.

PTBC Columnist Team

Columnists -- with bite! We feature conservative-friendly writers from Canada and the U.S. who help clarify the difference between liberals and conservatives. All have personally agreed to be a part of our team here at PTBC.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Thursday, March 18, 2010
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version
    Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)

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!

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Thursday, March 11, 2010
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version
    Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)

A group of “leading conservative lawyers”—a phrase never confused with “U.S. Marines”—has produced an embarrassingly pompous letter denouncing Liz Cheney for demanding the names of attorneys at the Justice Department who formerly represented Guantanamo detainees.

The letter calls Cheney’s demand “shameful,” before unleashing this steaming pile of idiocy:

“The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams’ representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre.”

Yes, but even John Adams didn’t take a job with the government for another 19 years after defending the British guards—who, in 1770, were “the police.” He also didn’t take a position with the U.S. government that involved processing British murder suspects.

I’d be more interested in hearing about the sacred duty of lawyers to defend “unpopular clients” if we were talking about clients who are unpopular with anyone lawyers know.

Every white shoe law firm in the country has been clamoring to take the cases of Guantanamo detainees, while young associates line up to be put on the case. This is even more fun than defending Ted Bundy!

As The Wall Street Journal put it in a 2007 article, a list of the law firms representing Guantanamo detainees “reads like a who’s who of America’s most prestigious law firms”—which conveniently doubles as Santa’s “naughty” list.

The terrorists’ lawyers have included Shearman and Sterling, Arnold & Porter; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr; Covington & Burling; Hunton & Williams; Sullivan & Cromwell; Debevoise & Plimpton; King & Spalding; Cleary Gottlieb, Morrison & Foerster; Jenner & Block; O’Melveny & Myers and Sidley Austin.

At least 34 of the 50 largest firms in the United States have performed pro bono work on behalf of Guantanamo detainees.

Years ago, when I nearly died of boredom working for a law firm, I heard whispered rumors about a partner, Michael Tierney, whom none of the female associates wanted to work with because his pro bono work included defending—gasp!—pro-life groups. (There was at least one female associate who wanted to work with him!)

I didn’t hear a peep about the august “American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients” back then.

Like Hollywood actresses, lawyers need to believe they’re noble and courageous to help them forget that they are corporate drones doing soul-destroying work, which mostly consists of making photocopies.

Defending terrorists gives status-conscious attorneys a chance to get standing ovations at the annual ABA convention—much like promoting “global warming” makes climatologists feel like they’re saving the world, rather than studying water vapor.

It took me exactly one Nexis search for “ABA,” “award” and “Guantanamo” to find that the 2006 “Outstanding Scholar Award” at the ABA annual banquet was given to New York University law professor Anthony G. Amsterdam for his “extensive pro bono practice, litigating cases that range from civil rights claims, to death penalty defense, to claims of access to the courts for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.”

A rule I have is: You’re not defending an unpopular client if you’re getting awards from the ABA, particularly if the award mentions “courage.”

You’ll never see a pompous letter like the one attacking Liz Cheney on behalf of any lawyer defending clients who are unpopular with lawyers, which terrorists are not.

Ken Starr, a signatory to the “Please God, Let This Get Me a Good Obituary in The New York Times” letter, once, totally by mistake, had a case unpopular with the establishment: Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

He’s shown his mettle by saying that if he met Clinton today, he’d say “I’m sorry.” Because isn’t that what Jesus said? Be very concerned with the opinion of the world!

Speaking of which, I also never heard any testimonials to the sacred duty of lawyers to defend unpopular causes when every lawyer working on the Clinton impeachment was being smeared as a “tobacco lawyer.”

Tobacco companies, being wildly unpopular, are in need of a lot of legal services. Scratch any litigator from a big law firm and you’ll find someone who, if necessary, could be slimed as a “tobacco lawyer.”

You will notice a pattern developing: We only hear paeans to the “American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients” when it’s being used to defend causes popular with liberals—serial killers, terrorists and a horny hick who promised to save partial-birth abortion.

Lawyers want to be congratulated for their courage in defending “unpopular” clients, while taking cases that are utterly noncontroversial in their social circles.

They’d be scared to death to take the case of an anti-abortion activist. Defending the guy who killed George Tiller the Baby Killer won’t make them a superstar at the next ABA convention.

Not only do Americans have a right to know the legal backgrounds of lawyers setting detainee policy at the Department of Justice, but I personally demand the right not to have to listen to Eddie Haskell lawyers constantly claiming to be Atticus Finch.

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version
    Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)

It looks like Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes is on track to win another endorsement from ACORN!

This week, Hynes announced that “no criminality has been found” after his investigation of the videotapes made by investigative journalists James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, which show ACORN employees counseling the pair on getting a mortgage for a house of prostitution.

(They got a choice of government loans: Phat Fannie Mae, Prince Freddie Mac or Barney Fresh Daddy Frank ... aka “Sir Fix-A-Lot.”)

I’m just glad to know that Hynes conducted a thorough “investigation” first. Who did he have screen the videotapes, Gov. Paterson?

If his investigators had actually watched the videotapes, they would have found ACORN employees apparently advising a pimp and prostitute on how to defraud mortgage lenders, deposit prostitution money in a bank, hide money from the government and avoid detection while running a whorehouse with teenage girls from El Salvador.

I’m not a lawyer—oh, wait, yes, I am—but I count approximately a half-dozen state law crimes being discussed on those tapes, from money laundering to advancing prostitution.

In a “Eureka” moment, ACORN Employee-of-the-Month Volda Albert identifies for O’Keefe and Giles the problem they had been having getting a mortgage:

  Albert: Um, is it legalized? Is prostitution legalized in New York state?
  O’Keefe: It’s not. It’s not, unfortunately.
  Albert: Well see, that’s your problem

As ACORN employee Milagros Rivera said, “You can’t say what you do for a living because of the law.” But displaying ACORN’s can-do attitude, she explained: “Honest is not going to get you a house.”

ACORN employees helped concoct a scheme to hide from the lender the source of O’Keefe and Giles’ down payment money. Albert suggested that O’Keefe “pay a down payment—or (Giles) can transfer to somebody else, who is not in that business ... a close friend, then (Giles) can transfer that, and then he can give you, like, a gift to purchase.”

Under New York law, hiding the true source of down payment money from a lender constitutes mortgage fraud. Also, using the proceeds of criminal conduct in any banking transaction is money laundering.

Does anybody need a flow chart at this point, or should I continue?

To help Giles hide her income from turning tricks, ACORN employee Albert advised Giles to open two banking accounts, depositing no more than $500 per week in each one. (This would not only enable her to conceal her illegal earnings, it would also qualify her for free checking.)

But Albert’s most inspired idea was that Giles get a “house with a backyard. You get a tin can ... and bury (your money) down in there, and you put the money right in, and you put grass over it, and you don’t tell a single soul but yourself where it is.”

Back when I was in Louisiana, we advised people to put their illegal money in the freezer, but that didn’t work out so well. And I guess putting your money in a mattress isn’t advisable if you live in a whorehouse.

Anyway, Albert was particularly detailed on the tin-can-in-the-backyard investment plan: “Keep thinking: ‘I have a yard. I have a house.’ You gotta start coming out with, like, plants and you start doing—so it won’t be suspicious. You start buying plants for the backyard in pots and what have you, and you mark a spot.”

She later told Giles: “You are not paying Social Security, so you’ll have society, all right? You are not getting a pension, so you need to save that money for in later years.” ACORN: Helping Plan Your Financial Future.

If only shady lawyers advised clients to bury money in cans in their backyards, instead of putting it in tax shelters, we wouldn’t have all those attorneys clogging up prison cells!

The ACORN employees also stressed that Giles should do nothing to attract attention to her prostitution money. Albert said: “You can buy a decent car for yourself, no big fancy thing to attract people, all right?”

In Albert’s defense, this could have been common etiquette advice. No one likes a showy hooker.

Even after Giles explained her plan to house a “slew” of 13-, 14- and 15-year-old girls from El Salvador for her prostitution business, Rivera simply responded: “So you guys ready to schedule that (mortgage application) for the summer?”

Rivera clearly missed her calling—she should be pushing vacation time shares in Boca Raton beach condos.

Under New York law, a person is guilty of advancing prostitution if he: “knowingly ... aids a person to commit or engage in prostitution (or) ... engages in any other conduct designed to institute, aid or facilitate an act or enterprise of prostitution.”

It is a class D felony (up to seven years in prison) if the prostitute is under 19 years old—as the ACORN employees knew Giles was—and a class C felony (up to 15 years in prison) if the prostitute is under 16 years old—as Giles stated the El Salvadoran girls were. (And if she’s under 15 years old, Eliot Spitzer may be involved.)

If none of the advice given by ACORN on those videotapes constitutes conspiracy or aiding or abetting a crime, see this column next week for my opus: “10 Detailed Plans to Kill George Soros and Why This Might Be Right for You.”

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version
    Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)

Inasmuch as Obamacare has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing (but did you see how much snow they got in hell last week?), everyone is wondering what President Obama is up to by calling Republicans to a televised Reykjavik summit this week to discuss socializing health care.

At least they served beer at the last White House summit this stupid and pointless.

If the president is serious about passing nationalized health care, he ought to be meeting with the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Republicans can’t stop the Democrats from socializing health care: They are a tiny minority party in both the House and the Senate. (Note to America: You might want to keep this in mind next time you go to the polls.)

As the Democratic base has been hysterically pointing out, both the House and the Senate have already passed national health care bills. Either body could vote for the other’s bill, and—presto!—Obama would have a national health care bill, replete with death panels, abortion coverage and lots and lots of new government commissions!

Sadly, as the president’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has noted, the Democratic base is “@#$%^ retarded.”

The reason massive Democratic majorities in Congress aren’t enough to pass socialist health care is AMERICANS DON’T WANT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!

In fact, you might say that the nation is in a boiling cauldron of rage against it. Consequently, a lot of Democrats are suddenly having second thoughts about vast new government commissions regulating every aspect of Americans’ medical care.

Obama isn’t stupid—he’s not seriously trying to get a health care bill passed. The whole purpose of this public “summit” with the minority party is to muddy up the Republicans before the November elections. You know, the elections Democrats are going to lose because of this whole health care thing.

Right now, Americans are hopping mad, swinging a stick and hoping to hit anyone who so much as thinks about nationalizing health care.

If they could, Americans would cut the power to the Capitol, throw everyone out and try to deport them. (Whereas I say: Anyone in Washington, D.C., who can produce an original copy of a valid U.S. birth certificate should be allowed to stay.)

But the Democrats think it’s a good strategy to call the Republicans “The Party of No.” When it comes to Obamacare, Americans don’t want a party of “No,” they want a party of “Hell, No!” or, as Rahm Emanuel might say, “*&^%$#@ No!”

It’s as if the patient has a minor fever and the Democrats (as doctor in this example) want to cut off his arms and legs. The Republicans want to give the patient two aspirin. “Compromise” means the Republicans agree to amputate only one arm and one leg.

Complaining that Republicans are “obstructionists” is not a damaging charge when most Americans are dying to obstruct the Democrats with a 2-by-4. While you’re at it, Democrats, why not call the GOP the “Party of Brave Patriots”?

So Obama’s sole objective at the “summit” is to hoodwink Republicans into agreeing with some of his wildly unpopular ideas on national TV. If this were a reality show on NBC, it would be called, “Dateline: To Catch a R.I.N.O.”

This shouldn’t be hard, inasmuch as he will be talking to elected Republicans. About a third of them were enthusiastically engaging in “bipartisanship” on Obamacare last year—Chuck Grassley, you know who you are! (That’s better than Lindsey Graham, who still wants to compromise.)

And then the American people spoke up.

In town halls and tea parties across the nation, Obama lost the argument with Americans. So now he wants a debating partner who will be less challenging: elected Republicans.

If Republicans were smart, they’d shock the world by sending in one of their most appealing members of Congress, who can speak clearly on health care—Sen. Jon Kyl, Rep. Steve King or Rep. Ron Paul.  Actually, if the Republicans were really smart, they’d send in 14-year-old Jonathan Krohn, who understands the free market better than most people in Washington. Of course, so does my houseplant.

There are other important points Republicans cannot raise often enough—such as putting scuzzy medical malpractice lawyers like John Edwards out of business. OK, that wasn’t fair: Even trial lawyers are almost never as scuzzy as John Edwards. We want to put them all out of business.

But there’s really only one idea the Republicans must cling to—like they’re clinging to their guns and religion!—in order to resist agreeing to something moronic and losing their advantage as Americans’ only allies in Washington.

Please, Republicans, remember the free market—the same free market that gave us cheap cell phones, computers, flat-screen TVs, and stylish, affordable eyeglasses in about an hour.

Congress needs to outlaw state and federal mandates on insurance companies and allow interstate competition in health insurance.

The end.

Love, the American People.

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version
    Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)

The only man causing President Obama more headaches than Joe Biden these days is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who, coincidentally, was right after Biden on Obama’s short-list for V.P.).

Despite Obama’s personal magnetism, the Iranian president persists in moving like gangbusters to build nuclear weapons, leading to Ahmadinejad’s announcement last week that Iran is now a “nuclear state.”

Gee, that’s weird—because I remember being told in December 2007 that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that Iran had ceased nuclear weapons development as of 2003.

At the time of that leak, many of us recalled that the U.S. has the worst intelligence-gathering operations in the world. The Czechs, the French, the Italians—even the Iraqis (who were trained by the Soviets)—all have better intelligence.

Burkina Faso has better intelligence—and their director of intelligence is a witch doctor. The marketing division of Wal-Mart has more reliable intel than the U.S. government does.

After Watergate, the off-the-charts left-wing Congress gleefully set about dismantling this nation’s intelligence operations on the theory that Watergate never would have happened if only there had been no CIA.

Ron Dellums, a typical Democrat of the time, who—amazingly—was a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, famously declared in 1975: “We should totally dismantle every intelligence agency in this country piece by piece, brick by brick, nail by nail.”

And so they did.

So now, our “spies” are prohibited from spying. The only job of a CIA officer these days is to read foreign newspapers and leak classified information to The New York Times. It’s like a secret society of newspaper readers. The reason no one at the CIA saw 9/11 coming was that there wasn’t anything about it in the Islamabad Post.

(On the plus side, at least we haven’t had another break-in at the Watergate.)

CIA agents can’t spy because that might require them to break laws in foreign countries. They are perfectly willing to break U.S. laws to leak to The New York Times, but not in order to acquire valuable intelligence.

So it was curious that after months of warnings from the Bush administration in 2007 that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was leaked, concluding that Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons program years earlier.

Republicans outside of the administration went ballistic over the suspicious timing and content of the Iran-Is-Peachy report. Even The New York Times, of all places, ran a column by two outside experts on Iran’s nuclear programs that ridiculed the NIE’s conclusion.

Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control and Valerie Lincy of Iranwatch.org cited Iran’s operation of 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz, as well as a heavy-water reactor being built at Arak, neither of which had any peaceful energy purpose. (If only there were something plentiful in Iran that could be used for energy!)

Weirdly, our intelligence agencies missed those nuclear operations. They were too busy reading an article in the Tehran Tattler, “Iran Now Loves Israel.”

Ahmadinejad was ecstatic, calling the NIE report “a declaration of the Iranian people’s victory against the great powers.”

The only people more triumphant than Ahmadinejad about the absurd conclusion of our vaunted “intelligence” agencies were liberals.

In Time magazine, Joe Klein gloated that the Iran report “appeared to shatter the last shreds of credibility of the White House’s bomb-Iran brigade—and especially that of Vice President Dick Cheney.”

Liberal columnist Bill Press said, “No matter how badly Bush and Cheney wanted to carpet-bomb Iran, it’s clear now that doing so would have been a tragic mistake.”

Naturally, the most hysterical response came from MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. After donning his mother’s housecoat, undergarments and fuzzy slippers, Keith brandished the NIE report, night after night, demanding that Bush apologize to the Iranians.

“Having accused Iran of doing something it had stopped doing more than four years ago,” Olbermann thundered, “instead of apologizing or giving a diplomatic response of any kind, this president of the United States chuckled.”

Olbermann ferociously defended innocent-as-a-lamb Mahmoud from aspersions cast by the Bush administration, asking: “Could Mr. Bush make it any more of a mess ... in response to Iran’s anger at being in some respects, at least, either overrated or smeared, his response officially chuckling, how is that going to help anything?”

Bush had “smeared” Iran!

Olbermann’s Ed McMahon, the ever-obliging Howard Fineman of Newsweek, agreed, saying that the leaked intelligence showed that Bush “has zero credibility.”

Olbermann’s even creepier sidekick, androgynous Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe, also agreed, saying American credibility “has suffered another serious blow.”

Poor Iran!

Olbermann’s most macho guest, Rachel Maddow, demanded to know—with delightful originality—“what the president knew and when he knew it.” This was on account of Bush’s having disparaged the good name of a messianic, Holocaust-denying nutcase, despite the existence of a cheery report on Iran produced by our useless intelligence agencies.

Olbermann, who knows everything that’s on the Daily Kos and nothing else, called those who doubted the NIE report “liars” and repeatedly demanded an investigation into when Bush knew about the NIE’s laughable report.

Even if you weren’t aware that the U.S. has the worst intelligence in the world, and even if you didn’t notice that the leak was timed perfectly to embarrass Bush, wouldn’t any normal person be suspicious of a report concluding Ahmadinejad was behaving like a prince?

Not liberals. Our intelligence agencies concluded Iran had suspended its nuclear program in 2003, so Bush owed Ahmadinejad an apology.

Feb. 11, 2010: Ahmadinejad announces that Iran is now a nuclear power.

Thanks, liberals!

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version
    Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)

The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are bristling with the news that Republicans have decided now is the time to suck up to Wall Street. As the saying goes, there is no truer friend than a Wall Street arbitrageur—they are the salt-of-the-earth, the most loyal men who ever drew a breath!

What are Republicans thinking? While not every money-manipulator on Wall Street deserves to be treated like a heroin dealer, lots do. Could the Republicans be a little more discriminating in picking up the Democrats’ old friends?

The Democrats are acting as if they want to punish everyone in the financial services industry, including the innocent, while the Republicans seem to want to protect everyone on Wall Street, including the guilty.

How about just punishing the guilty? The Democrats can’t do that because the list of Wall Street’s biggest offenders may turn out to be eerily similar to the list of Obama’s biggest campaign contributors.

Employees from Goldman Sachs gave more to the Obama campaign than any other organization except the University of California—with Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase quickly following in sixth and seventh place.

Whatever Obama has in mind for punishing the financial industry, I promise you, he won’t punish his friends. After JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon took a $17 million bonus this week, and Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein got a $9 million bonus, Obama said he didn’t begrudge them their bonuses, saying, “I know both those guys.”

Obama seems to be hoping that his vague bluster about “obscene profits” will lure Republicans into embracing Wall Street welfare recipients—thereby losing Americans forever.

Never bet against Republicans being outwitted.

Risk-taking and speculation are good. But the Democrats’ crony capitalism is the worst of both worlds: risk-taking without any real risk for the risk-takers. It’s like gambling with your rich daddy’s money, except we’re the rich daddy.

Obama, like the rest of his party, is an ideologue who doesn’t understand or particularly like the free market. He fundamentally believes in the efficacy of the welfare state, whether the beneficiary is a layabout single mother or a rich Wall Street banker.

As Peter Schweizer describes in his magnificent book “Architects of Ruin,” the Democrats have been bailing out investment houses from their bad bets since the Clinton administration. The bankers got all the profits when their risky bonds were paying—and then gave massive donations to their Democratic benefactors. But once the bets went bad, it was the taxpayers’ problem.

Heavily leveraged securities packages put together by Goldman Sachs and others were the HIV virus that killed the American economy. And the reason investment firms piled leverage on leverage on leverage was that they knew the government would bail them out if their house of cards collapsed.

On one hand, Goldman put together toxic securities packages for their clients, but on the other hand, Goldman knew the mortgage securities being sold on the market were crap, so they also took out lots of insurance with AIG on crappy products being traded on the market.

It would be as if, anticipating a major earthquake, Goldman bought massive insurance policies on every house on the San Andreas fault line.

There’s nothing wrong with taking risks and making bets, provided that if you bet wrong or if you bankrupt your betting partner with wild gambles: You lose.

The problem was that Goldman and AIG, among many others, knew they wouldn’t lose. Twenty years of Democratic bailouts have led them to understand that when their bets go bad, the taxpayer will save them.

Which is exactly what happened.

When the earthquake hit toxic securities, the insurer, AIG, couldn’t pay up. Normally, that would result in the insurer going bankrupt, an orderly proceeding in bankruptcy court to distribute AIG’s assets, and Goldman recovering only a portion of the insurance payout on the crappy products.

But instead of AIG going bankrupt and Goldman taking a hit, the U.S. taxpayer made good on AIG’s securities insurance. In a deal arranged by former Goldman CEO and current Obama BFF, Hank Paulson, Goldman ended up being paid—by you—an astonishing 100 cents on the dollar.

So Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein’s boast that his firm didn’t want TARP money and has paid it all back is completely irrelevant. Goldman took billions of dollars—that’s millions with a “b”—of the AIG bailout money. How about paying that back?

It took The New York Times a year and a half to figure out Goldman’s jackpot winnings from the AIG bailout—$12.9 billion, according to the Times—so the first thing Republicans ought to do is hold hearings to determine who benefited from the Democrats’ crony capitalism, and not take their bluster as fact.

The next step should be to get all the bailout money back.

When the government steps in to save the very financial institutions that poisoned the nation’s financial system with contaminated securities and derivatives—all while the bankers get to keep the fees and bonuses on their bad bets—we are not talking about a free market.

We’re talking about regular Americans being forced to foot the bill for the gambling habits of left-wing multimillionaires by buying the malefactors more chips every time they lose.

Republicans should defend any investment houses that never benefited from a government bailout. But anyone who took huge gambles, lost and got bailed out with taxpayer money should be tortured and then shot, miraculously brought back to life, tortured some more, then shot a few more times.

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Thursday, February 04, 2010
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version
    Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)

In a “Special Report” on the president’s question-and-answer session with Republicans last Friday, MSNBC’s jock-sniffers Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow produced a museum-quality show:

MATTHEWS: Everybody agrees he could handle everything today. ...

OLBERMANN: It almost felt like watching the stories of John L. Sullivan, the 19th-century boxer, who would volunteer to fight anybody and everybody in the house and knock them all out. ...

MADDOW (imagining Obama thinking): You’ve brought a pet issue here, congressman, who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee, let me tell you 400,000 things about it, and invite you to continue the discussion with me later. ...

MATTHEWS: (T)oday showed me that we do produce probably the best candidate and best president we can in this system you can imagine in the world. ...

OLBERMANN: They had 140 players on the field and the other team had one guy and they lost to him. ...

MATTHEWS: You were so unbelievably hot, Mr. President! You blew away the other team!

OBAMA: Beat it.

MATTHEWS: OK, I’ll go stand in my locker now.

Unlike the jock-sniffers, normal people watching the president’s tete-a-tete with the Republicans only wondered why Obama always responds to imaginary arguments no one made, rather than the questions actually being asked.

That is Obama’s signature move: Invent “people” who are “saying” ridiculous things and then encourage the audience to laugh at these made-up buffoons.

Since Obama’s reformulations of Republican arguments are always absurd, no further response from him is necessary—and none is ever forthcoming.

Thus, for example, Obama’s description of Republican criticism of his plan to nationalize health care was that “this thing was some Bolshevik plot.”

No. No one said it was a “plot,” Bolshevik or otherwise.

Republicans’ objection to national health care could be more accurately portrayed as follows: Obama’s plan to nationalize health care was a terrible idea because it would turn over one-sixth of the American economy to Washington bureaucrats, who would run the system as competently as the federal government runs everything else, from airport security to the post office to FEMA.

How about responding to that argument? (And as long as Obama brought it up, can he explain which part of national health care the Bolsheviks would have objected to most strongly?)

This isn’t how adults conduct serious political debates; it’s how children argue with their parents. Don’t have a cow! Liberals hide conservative arguments from the public like teenagers hide contraband from mother under the bed.

Repeatedly positing imaginary attacks by Republicans accusing him of a “plot,” Obama said that “the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives.”

Again, not a “plot” and certainly not “wild-eyed.” The only person accusing anyone of “plotting” here is Obama accusing the GOP of plotting against him. I guess they don’t teach irony at Harvard Law School.

If Obama is going to keep imagining others accusing him of “plots,” could he provide just one example?

Republicans also did not accuse Obama of trying to “impose huge government in every aspect of our lives.” Just the part of it that determines how long we get to live.

Continuing his fantasy battle with imaginary opponents, Obama said, “What you’ve been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”

I gather Obama is incapable of responding to his opponents’ actual argument, which is that he is proposing all sorts of things that would be very bad for America.

Since he pleads innocence only on the claim that he is doing “crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America”—an argument no one made—apparently he’s guilty as charged on the claim that he’s merely doing very bad things to America.

Adopting the pose of limpid nonpartisanship, Obama repeatedly accused Republicans of horrible things using his peculiar straw-man technique.

He told Republicans he was “absolutely committed” to working with them, “but it can’t just be political assertions that aren’t substantiated.”

Can Obama please name a single “unsubstantiated” political assertion by a Republican before wasting everyone’s time by instructing Republicans to stop making them?

I can name a few from Obama!

How about the whopper he told about national health care not covering illegal aliens? Or the one about it not covering abortions?

Weeks after Obama made those unsubstantiated political assertions before a joint session of Congress, Democrats were in death-match battles with Republicans (and some moderate Democrats) who tried to exclude coverage for illegals and abortion from the very bills Obama said never contained such coverage in the first place.

How about Obama’s claim in his State of the Union address last week that a recent Supreme Court ruling would allow “foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections”?

In the case Obama mentioned, the court overruled section 441a of the campaign-finance law, which had banned all corporate spending on elections. The case did not concern, nor did the court address, section 441e, which prohibits foreign corporations from making any “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value ... in connection with a Federal, State or local election.”

History will record that these remarks from his State of the Union address were the only case legendary barrister Barack Obama ever argued before the Supreme Court. And he lost.

Even when presented with a short, straightforward, simply stated question by Rep. Mike Pence, Obama couldn’t help but to formulate a different question.

Pence asked: “Mr. President, will you consider supporting across-the-board tax relief, as President Kennedy did?”

The question Obama wanted Pence to ask was: Mr. President, will you join Republicans in cutting taxes of billionaires?

Luckily, Obama’s reformulation gave him an opening for a killer answer: “What you may consider across-the-board tax cuts could be, for example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars. I may not agree to a tax cut for Warren Buffett.”

Republicans should take that answer and run like a thief in the night! OK, let’s cut taxes on everyone except billionaires. I’d even support a specific tax expressly on Warren Buffett. Now, son, how much will you give us for these magic beans?

If only Republicans could maneuver Obama into answering a question on abortion, we could probably get him to agree to ban all abortions—except in the case of teenage girls who have been raped by their fathers. (This is how I assume Obama would rephrase the question.)

No conservative argues like this. To the contrary, we’re morose that Nexis archives are not more complete, so we can’t quote liberals directly more often.

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Thursday, February 04, 2010
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version
    Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)

In the wake of the Massachusetts Miracle last week (“The other Boston Massacre”), President Obama adopted a populist mantle, claiming he was going to “fight” Wall Street. It was either that or win another Nobel Peace Prize.

Now the only question is which Goldman Sachs crony he’ll put in charge of this task.

If Obama plans to hold Wall Street accountable for its own bad decisions, it will be a first for the Democrats.

For the past two decades, Democrats have specialized in insulating financial giants from the consequences of their own high-risk bets. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs alone have been rescued from their risky bets by unwitting taxpayers four times in the last 15 years.

Bankers get all the profits, glory and bonuses when their flimflam bets pay off, but the taxpayers foot the bill when Wall Street firms’ bets go bad on—to name just three examples—Mexican bonds (1995), Thai, Indonesian and South Korean bonds (1997), and Russian bonds (1998).

As Peter Schweizer writes in his magnificent book Architects of Ruin: “Wall Street is a very far cry from the arena of freewheeling capitalism most people recall from their history books.” With their reverse-Midas touch, the execrable baby boom generation turned Wall Street into what Schweizer dubs “risk-free Clintonian state capitalism.”

Apropos of the Clintonian No-Responsibility Era, Goldman Sachs and Citibank became heavily invested in Mexican bonds after a two-day bender in Tijuana in the early ‘90s. Any half-wit could see that “investing” in the dog track would be safer than investing in a corrupt Third World government controlled by drug lords.

But precisely because the bonds were so risky, bankers made money hand-over-fist on the scheme—at least until Mexico defaulted.

With Mexico unable to pay the $25 billion it owed the big financial houses, Clinton’s White House decided the banks shouldn’t be on the hook for their own bad bets.

Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, former chairman of Goldman, demanded that the U.S. bail out Mexico to save his friends at Goldman. He said a failure to bail out Mexico would affect “everyone,” by which I take it he meant “everyone in my building.”

Larry Summers, currently Obama’s National Economic Council director, warned that a failure to rescue Mexico would lead to another Great Depression. (Ironically, Summers’ current position in the Obama administration is “Great Depression czar.”)

Republicans in Congress said “no” to Clinton’s Welfare-for-Wall-Street plan.

It’s not as if this hadn’t happened before: In 1981, Reagan allowed Mexico to default on tens of billions of dollars in debt—Mexico claimed the money was “in my other pair of pants”—leaving Wall Street to deal with its own bad bets.

As Larry Summers expected, this led like night into day to the Great Depression we experienced during the Reagan years ... Wait, that never happened.

At congressional hearings on Clinton’s proposed Mexico bailout a decade later, Republicans Larry Kudlow, Bill Seidman and Steve Forbes all denounced the plan to save Goldman Sachs via a Mexican bailout.

So the Clinton administration did an end run around the Republicans in Congress and rescued improvident Wall Street bankers by giving Mexico a $20 billion line of credit directly from the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund.

Relieved of any responsibility for their losing bets, Wall Street firms leapt into buying other shaky foreign bonds. Soon the U.S. taxpayer, through the International Monetary Fund, was propping up bonds out of South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, then Russia—all to save Goldman Sachs.

The IMF could have saved itself a lot of paperwork by just sending taxpayer money directly to Goldman, but I think they’re saving that for Obama’s second term.

Throughout every bailout, congressional Republicans were screaming from the rooftops that this wasn’t capitalism. It was “Government Sachs.” As Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) put it, the same rules that apply to welfare mothers “ought to apply to rich Greenwich, Conn., investors who are multimillionaires.”

But Wall Street raised a lot of money for the Democrats, so Clinton bailed them out, over and over again.

Before you knew it, once-respectable Wall Street institutions were buying investment products even more ludicrous than Mexican bonds: They were buying the mortgages of Mexican strawberry-pickers.

Why shouldn’t Wall Street trust in suicidal loans no sane person would ever imagine could be paid back? Time after time, when their bets paid off, they pocketed huge fees; when their bets failed, they sent the bill to the taxpayers.

With nothing to fear, the big financial houses bought, repackaged and resold investment products that included loans like the one issued by Washington Mutual to non-English-speaking strawberry pickers earning a combined $14,000 a year to purchase a $720,000 house.

But the financial wizards on Wall Street were trading these preposterous loans as if they were bars of gold. They may as well have bet the entire U.S. economy on a dice game in an alley off 44th Street.

Every mortgage-backed security bundle was infected with suicidal, politically correct loans that had been demanded by community organizers such as Barack Obama—as is thoroughly documented in Schweizer’s book.

On the off chance that mammoth mortgages to people who could barely afford food somehow went bad, Wall Street firms could be confident that their Democrat friends would bail them out.

Even the Republicans would have to bail them out this time: They had strapped the dynamite of toxic loans onto the entire economy and were threatening to pull the clip. Wall Street had infected every financial institution in the country, including completely innocent banks.

But now Obama says he’s going to “fight” Wall Street, which is as plausible as claiming he’ll “fight” the trial lawyers.

As Schweizer demonstrates, whenever the Democrats “regulate” Wall Street, the innocent pay through the nose, while Wall Street swine lower than drug dealers and pornographers end up with multimillion-dollar bonuses so they can run for governor of New Jersey and fund lavish Democratic fundraisers in the Hamptons.

Republicans should respond the way they always have: Support the free market, not looters and welfare recipients on Wall Street, especially the Democrats’ friends at Goldman.

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version
    Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 1 so far)

In the wake of the Massachusetts Miracle last week (“The other Boston Massacre”), President Obama adopted a populist mantle, claiming he was going to “fight” Wall Street. It was either that or win another Nobel Peace Prize.

Now the only question is which Goldman Sachs crony he’ll put in charge of this task.

If Obama plans to hold Wall Street accountable for its own bad decisions, it will be a first for the Democrats.

For the past two decades, Democrats have specialized in insulating financial giants from the consequences of their own high-risk bets. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs alone have been rescued from their risky bets by unwitting taxpayers four times in the last 15 years.

Bankers get all the profits, glory and bonuses when their flimflam bets pay off, but the taxpayers foot the bill when Wall Street firms’ bets go bad on—to name just three examples—Mexican bonds (1995), Thai, Indonesian and South Korean bonds (1997), and Russian bonds (1998).

As Peter Schweizer writes in his magnificent book Architects of Ruin: “Wall Street is a very far cry from the arena of freewheeling capitalism most people recall from their history books.” With their reverse-Midas touch, the execrable baby boom generation turned Wall Street into what Schweizer dubs “risk-free Clintonian state capitalism.”

Apropos of the Clintonian No-Responsibility Era, Goldman Sachs and Citibank became heavily invested in Mexican bonds after a two-day bender in Tijuana in the early ‘90s. Any half-wit could see that “investing” in the dog track would be safer than investing in a corrupt Third World government controlled by drug lords.

But precisely because the bonds were so risky, bankers made money hand-over-fist on the scheme—at least until Mexico defaulted.

With Mexico unable to pay the $25 billion it owed the big financial houses, Clinton’s White House decided the banks shouldn’t be on the hook for their own bad bets.

Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, former chairman of Goldman, demanded that the U.S. bail out Mexico to save his friends at Goldman. He said a failure to bail out Mexico would affect “everyone,” by which I take it he meant “everyone in my building.”

Larry Summers, currently Obama’s National Economic Council director, warned that a failure to rescue Mexico would lead to another Great Depression. (Ironically, Summers’ current position in the Obama administration is “Great Depression czar.”)

Republicans in Congress said “no” to Clinton’s Welfare-for-Wall-Street plan.

It’s not as if this hadn’t happened before: In 1981, Reagan allowed Mexico to default on tens of billions of dollars in debt—Mexico claimed the money was “in my other pair of pants”—leaving Wall Street to deal with its own bad bets.

As Larry Summers expected, this led like night into day to the Great Depression we experienced during the Reagan years ... Wait, that never happened.

At congressional hearings on Clinton’s proposed Mexico bailout a decade later, Republicans Larry Kudlow, Bill Seidman and Steve Forbes all denounced the plan to save Goldman Sachs via a Mexican bailout.

So the Clinton administration did an end run around the Republicans in Congress and rescued improvident Wall Street bankers by giving Mexico a $20 billion line of credit directly from the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund.

Relieved of any responsibility for their losing bets, Wall Street firms leapt into buying other shaky foreign bonds. Soon the U.S. taxpayer, through the International Monetary Fund, was propping up bonds out of South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, then Russia—all to save Goldman Sachs.

The IMF could have saved itself a lot of paperwork by just sending taxpayer money directly to Goldman, but I think they’re saving that for Obama’s second term.

Throughout every bailout, congressional Republicans were screaming from the rooftops that this wasn’t capitalism. It was “Government Sachs.” As Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) put it, the same rules that apply to welfare mothers “ought to apply to rich Greenwich, Conn., investors who are multimillionaires.”

But Wall Street raised a lot of money for the Democrats, so Clinton bailed them out, over and over again.

Before you knew it, once-respectable Wall Street institutions were buying investment products even more ludicrous than Mexican bonds: They were buying the mortgages of Mexican strawberry-pickers.

Why shouldn’t Wall Street trust in suicidal loans no sane person would ever imagine could be paid back? Time after time, when their bets paid off, they pocketed huge fees; when their bets failed, they sent the bill to the taxpayers.

With nothing to fear, the big financial houses bought, repackaged and resold investment products that included loans like the one issued by Washington Mutual to non-English-speaking strawberry pickers earning a combined $14,000 a year to purchase a $720,000 house.

But the financial wizards on Wall Street were trading these preposterous loans as if they were bars of gold. They may as well have bet the entire U.S. economy on a dice game in an alley off 44th Street.

Every mortgage-backed security bundle was infected with suicidal, politically correct loans that had been demanded by community organizers such as Barack Obama—as is thoroughly documented in Schweizer’s book.

On the off chance that mammoth mortgages to people who could barely afford food somehow went bad, Wall Street firms could be confident that their Democrat friends would bail them out.

Even the Republicans would have to bail them out this time: They had strapped the dynamite of toxic loans onto the entire economy and were threatening to pull the clip. Wall Street had infected every financial institution in the country, including completely innocent banks.

But now Obama says he’s going to “fight” Wall Street, which is as plausible as claiming he’ll “fight” the trial lawyers.

As Schweizer demonstrates, whenever the Democrats “regulate” Wall Street, the innocent pay through the nose, while Wall Street swine lower than drug dealers and pornographers end up with multimillion-dollar bonuses so they can run for governor of New Jersey and fund lavish Democratic fundraisers in the Hamptons.

Republicans should respond the way they always have: Support the free market, not looters and welfare recipients on Wall Street, especially the Democrats’ friends at Goldman.

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version
    Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)

Once again, the people have spoken, and this time they quoted what Dick Cheney said to Pat Leahy.

Less than two weeks ago, The New York Times said that so much as a “tighter-than-expected” victory for Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley would incite “soul-searching among Democrats nationally,” which sent Times readers scurrying to their dictionaries to look up this strange new word, “soul.”

A close win for Coakley, the Times said, would constitute “the first real barometer of whether problems facing the party” will affect the 2010 elections.

But when Coakley actually lost the election by an astounding 5 points, the Chicago boys in the White House decided it was the chick’s fault.

Democratic candidate Martha Coakley may be a moral monster, but it’s ridiculous to blame her for losing the election. She lost because of the Democrats’ obsession with forcing national health care down the nation’s throat.

Coakley campaigned exactly the way she should have.

As a Democrat running in a special election for a seat that had been held by a Democratic icon (and another moral monster) for the past 46 years in a state with only 12 percent registered Republicans, Coakley’s objective was to have voters reading the paper on Friday, saying: “Hey, honey, did you know there was a special election four days ago? Yeah, apparently Coakley won, though it was a pretty low turnout.”

Ideally, no one except members of government unions and Coakley’s immediate family would have even been aware of the election.

And until Matt Drudge began covering it like a presidential election a week ago, it might have turned out that way.

Coakley had already won two statewide elections, while her Republican opponent, Scott Brown, had only won elections in his district. She had endorsements from the Kennedy family and the current appointed Democratic senator, Paul Kirk—as well as endless glowing profiles in The Boston Globe.

And by the way, as of Jan. 1, Brown had spent $642,000 on the race, while Coakley had spent $2 million.

On Jan. 8, just 11 days before the election, The New York Times reported: “A Brown win remains improbable, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1 in the state and that Ms. Coakley, the state’s attorney general, has far more name recognition, money and organizational support.”

It was in that article that the Times said a narrow Coakley win would be an augury for the entire Democratic Party. But now she’s being hung out to dry so that Democrats don’t have to face the possibility that Obama’s left-wing policies are to blame.

Alternatively, Democrats are trying to write off Brown’s colossal victory as the standard seesawing of public sentiment that hits both Republicans and Democrats from time to time. As MSNBC’s Chris Matthews explained, it was just the voters saying “no” generally, but not to anything in particular.

Except when Republicans win political power, they hold onto it long enough to govern. The Democrats keep being smacked down by the voters immediately after being elected and revealing their heinous agenda.

As a result, for the past four decades, American politics has consisted of Republicans controlling Washington for eight to 14 years—either from the White House or Capitol Hill—thus allowing Americans to forget what it was they didn’t like about Democrats, whom they then carelessly vote back in. The Democrats immediately remind Americans what they didn’t like about Democrats, and their power is revoked at the voters’ first possible opportunity.

Obama has cut the remembering-what-we-don’t-like-about-Democrats stage of this process down from two to four years to about 10 months. Folks, I’m convinced that if we all work really hard, we can get it down to three months.

Four years of Jimmy Carter gave us two titanic Reagan landslides, peace and prosperity for eight blessed years—and even a third term for his feckless vice president, George H.W. Bush.

Two years of Bill Clinton gave us a historic Republican sweep of Congress, which killed the entire Clinton agenda (with the exception of partial-birth abortion and felony obstruction of justice)—and also gave us two terms for George W. Bush.

And now, merely one year of Obama and a Democratic Congress has given us the first Republican senator from Massachusetts in 31 years.

In other recent news, last November, New Jersey voters, who haven’t voted for a Republican for president since 1988, threw out their incumbent Democratic governor, Jon Corzine. In Virginia, which Obama carried by 6 points a year earlier, a religious-right Republican won the governor’s office by 17 points.

Sen. Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, won his last election in 2006 by 28 points—the largest margin for a Democratic Senate candidate in that state in a quarter-century.

Since voting for the Senate health care bill last Christmas, the once-bulletproof Sen. Nelson not only gets booed out of Omaha pizzerias, but he has also seen his job approval rating fall to 42 percent and his disapproval rating soar to 48 percent. (Meanwhile, the junior senator from Nebraska, Mike Johanns, who voted against the bill, has a job approval rating of 63 percent.)

The Democrats have no natural majority because they have no fundamental principles—at least none that they are willing to state out loud. They are like a drunken vagrant who emerges from the alley to cause havoc every few years. They are the perpetual toothache of American politics.

To be sure, the fact that 52 percent of Massachusetts voters are racist, sexist tea-baggers—i.e., voted for a Republican—means only that the Democrats just went from having the largest congressional majority in a generation to the second largest. But this was “Teddy Kennedy’s seat.” And it was in Massachusetts.

Now, no Democrat is safe.

But the country just got a lot safer.

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version
    Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)

The recently released book Game Change reports that Sen. Harry Reid said America would vote for Barack Obama because he was a “light-skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

The book also says Bill Clinton called Sen. Ted Kennedy to ask for his endorsement of Hillary over Obama, saying of Obama: “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

And we already knew that Obama’s own vice president, Joe Biden, called Obama “articulate” and “clean” during the campaign. (So you can see why Biden got the vice presidential nod over Reid.)

Democrats regularly say things that would end the career of any conservative who said them. And still, blacks give 90 percent of their votes to the Democrats.

Reid apologized to President Obama, and Obama accepted the apology using his “white voice.” So now all is forgiven. Clinton also called Obama to apologize, but ended up asking him to bring everybody some coffee.

Now the only people waiting for an apology are the American people who want an apology from Nevada for giving us Harry Reid.

Reid will be the guest of honor at a luncheon in Las Vegas this week hosted by a group called “African-Americans for Harry Reid.” That’s if you can call two people a “group.”

They used to be called “African-Americans for David Duke,” but that was mostly a social thing. Now they’re doing real political organizing.

If this gets off the ground, “African-Americans for Harry Reid” will be a political juggernaut that cannot be denied. Their motto: “We Will Be Heard—As Soon As I Get This Gentleman’s Coffee.”

Reid has also picked up an endorsement from the United Light-Skinned Negro College Fund. And Tiger Woods is considering endorsing him. He is the one light-skinned half-black guy right now who’s thrilled with Reid’s comments.

Reid’s defenders don’t have much to work with. Their best idea so far is that at least he said “Negro” and not “Nigra.”

Liberals are saying that since Reid was pointing out Obama’s pale hue in support of his run for the presidency, it was OK to praise his skin color and non-Negro dialect. (Reid is denying reports that in 2007 he said to Obama: “You should run. You people are good at that.”)

In fact, Reid didn’t endorse Obama until after Hillary dropped out of the race. It turns out, he also admired Hillary for her light skin and the fact that she only uses a Negro dialect when she wants to.

In the alternative, liberals are defending Reid by claiming he said nothing that wasn’t true, though he may have used “an unusual set” of words—as light-skinned Reid-defender Harold Ford Jr. put it.

As long as we’re mulling the real meaning of Reid’s words and not just gasping in awe at the sorts of things Democrats get away with saying, I think Reid owes America an apology for accusing the entire country of racism. A country, let us note, that just elected a manifestly unqualified, at least partially black man president.

On the other hand, Reid couldn’t have been expecting Republicans to vote for a Democrat, so I gather Reid was accusing only Democratic voters of being racists.

I don’t disagree with that, but I’d like to get it in writing.

I think the Democratic platform should include a statement that the Democrats will not vote for dark-skinned blacks with a Negro dialect. Check with Harry Reid on the precise wording, but something along the lines of “no one darker than Deepak Chopra.”

The “whereas” clauses can include the Democrats’ history of supporting slavery, segregation, racial preferences, George Wallace and Bull Connor—and also a precis of their treatment of dark-skinned Clarence Thomas.

BREAKING NEWS: Hoping to curry favor with the African-American community, Sen. Reid was arrested late this afternoon after breaking into his own home.

Democrats couldn’t win an election without the black vote, but the Democratic Party keeps treating blacks like stage props, wheeling them out for photo-ops and marches now and then but almost never putting them in charge of anything important.

President Bush appointed the first black secretary of state and then the first black female secretary of state. Meanwhile, the closest black woman to Bill Clinton was his secretary, Betty Currie.

The one sitting black Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, was appointed by a Republican.

The head of the Republican National Committee is black—medium-skinned, but liberals treated Michael Steele like a dark-skinned black when they threw Oreo cookies at him during the Maryland gubernatorial campaign in 2002.

After the 2000 election, Democrats had a chance to make one of the rare smart Democrats, Donna Brazile, head of the Democratic National Committee. Brazile had just run a perfectly respectable campaign on behalf of that bumbling buffoon Al Gore.

She also happens to be black. Again, blacks give 90 percent of their votes to the Democrats.

But the Democrats skipped over Brazile and handed the DNC chairmanship to the goofy white guy in lime green pants, Howard Dean.

UPDATE: Harry Reid has just apologized to the light-skinned people of Haiti for the 7.0 earthquake that hit them Tuesday afternoon.

The single most insulting remark made about blacks in my lifetime was Bill Clinton’s announcement—after being caught in the most humiliating sex scandal in world history—that he was “the first black president.”

He did not call himself “the first black president” when liberals were dancing and singing to Fleetwood Mac at his inauguration. He did not call himself “the first black president” when he was feeling our pain and being lionized by the media. He did not call himself “the first black president” when he was trying to socialize health care or passing welfare reform.

Not until he became a national embarrassment did Clinton recognize that he was “the first black president.”

At least he could finally get his own coffee.

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version
    Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)

Someone mentioned Christianity on television recently and liberals reacted with their usual howls of rage and blinking incomprehension.

On a Fox News panel discussing Tiger Woods, Brit Hume said, perfectly accurately:

“The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.” v

Hume’s words, being 100 percent factually correct, sent liberals into a tizzy of sputtering rage, once again illustrating liberals’ copious ignorance of Christianity. (Also illustrating the words of the Bible: “How is it you do not understand me when I speak? It is because you cannot bear to listen to my words.” John 8:43.)

In The Washington Post, Tom Shales demanded that Hume apologize, saying he had “dissed about half a billion Buddhists on the planet.”

Is Buddhism about forgiveness? Because, if so, Buddhists had better start demanding corrections from every book, magazine article and blog posting ever written on the subject, which claims Buddhists don’t believe in God, but try to become their own gods.

I can’t imagine that anyone thinks Tiger’s problem was that he didn’t sufficiently think of himself as a god, especially after that final putt in the Arnold Palmer Invitational last year.

In light of Shales’ warning Hume about “what people are saying” about him, I hope Hume’s a Christian, but that’s not apparent from his inarguable description of Christianity. Of course, given the reaction to his remarks, apparently one has to be a regular New Testament scholar to have so much as a passing familiarity with the basic concept of Christianity.

On MSNBC, David Shuster invoked the “separation of church and television” (a phrase that also doesn’t appear in the Constitution), bitterly complaining that Hume had brought up Christianity “out-of-the-blue” on “a political talk show.”

Why on earth would Hume mention religion while discussing a public figure who had fallen from grace and was in need of redemption and forgiveness? Boy, talk about coming out of left field!

What religion—what topic—induces this sort of babbling idiocy? (If liberals really want to keep people from hearing about God, they should give Him his own show on MSNBC.)

Most perplexing was columnist Dan Savage’s indignant accusation that Hume was claiming that Christianity “offers the best deal—it gives you the get-out-of-adultery-free card that other religions just can’t.”

In fact, that’s exactly what Christianity does. It’s the best deal in the universe. (I know it seems strange that a self-described atheist and “radical sex advice columnist f*****” like Savage would miss the central point of Christianity, but there it is.)

God sent his only son to get the crap beaten out of him, die for our sins and rise from the dead. If you believe that, you’re in. Your sins are washed away from you—sins even worse than adultery!—because of the cross.

“He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross.” Colossians 2:14.

Surely you remember the cross, liberals—the symbol banned by ACLU lawsuits from public property throughout the land?

Christianity is simultaneously the easiest religion in the world and the hardest religion in the world.

In the no-frills, economy-class version, you don’t need a church, a teacher, candles, incense, special food or clothing; you don’t need to pass a test or prove yourself in any way. All you’ll need is a Bible (in order to grasp the amazing deal you’re getting) and probably a water baptism, though even that’s disputed.

You can be washing the dishes or walking your dog or just sitting there minding your business hating Susan Sarandon and accept that God sent his only son to die for your sins and rise from the dead ... and you’re in!

“Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Romans 10:9.

If you do that, every rotten, sinful thing you’ve ever done is gone from you. You’re every bit as much a Christian as the pope or Billy Graham.

No fine print, no “your mileage may vary,” no blackout dates. God ought to do a TV spot: “I’m God Almighty, and if you can find a better deal than the one I’m offering, take it.”

The Gospel makes this point approximately 1,000 times. Here are a few examples at random:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.” Ephesians 2:8.

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23.

In a boiling rage, liberals constantly accuse Christians of being “judgmental.” No, we’re relieved.

Christianity is also the hardest religion in the world because, if you believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead, you have no choice but to give your life entirely over to Him. No more sexual promiscuity, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no killing inconvenient old people or unborn babies—no doing what all the other kids do.

And no more caring what the world thinks of you—because, as Jesus warned in a prophecy constantly fulfilled by liberals: The world will hate you.

With Christianity, your sins are forgiven, the slate is wiped clean and your eternal life is guaranteed through nothing you did yourself, even though you don’t deserve it. It’s the best deal in the universe.

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

In response to a Nigerian Muslim trying to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day, the government will now prohibit international travelers from going to the bathroom in the last hour before the plane lands.

Terrorists who plan to bomb planes during the first seven hours of the eight-hour flight, however, should face no difficulties, provided they wait until after the complimentary beverage service has been concluded.

How do they know Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab didn’t wait until the end of the flight to try to detonate explosives because he heard the stewardess announce that the food service was over and seats would have to be placed in their upright position? I can’t finish my snack? This plane is going down!

Also prohibited in the last hour of international flights will be: blankets, pillows, computers and in-flight entertainment. Another triumph in Janet Napolitano’s “Let’s stay one step behind the terrorists” policy!

For the past eight years, approximately 2 million Americans a day have been subjected to humiliating searches at airport security checkpoints, forced to remove their shoes and jackets, to open their computers, and to remove all liquids from their carry-on bags, except minuscule amounts in marked 3-ounce containers placed in Ziploc plastic bags—folding sandwich bags are verboten—among other indignities.

This, allegedly, was the price we had to pay for safe airplanes. The one security precaution the government refused to consider was to require extra screening for passengers who looked like the last three-dozen terrorists to attack airplanes.

Since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with the same hair color, eye color and skin color. Half of them have been named Mohammed.

An alien from the planet “Not Politically Correct” would have surveyed the situation after 9/11 and said: “You are at war with an enemy without uniforms, without morals, without a country and without a leader—but the one advantage you have is they all look alike. ... What? ... What did I say?”

The only advantage we have in a war with stateless terrorists was ruled out of order ab initio by political correctness.

And so, despite 5 trillion Americans opening laptops, surrendering lip gloss and drinking breast milk in airports day after day for the past eight years, the government still couldn’t stop a Nigerian Muslim from nearly blowing up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day.

The “warning signs” exhibited by this particular passenger included the following:

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He’s Nigerian.

He’s a Muslim.

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He boarded a plane in Lagos, Nigeria.

He paid nearly $3,000 in cash for his ticket.

He had no luggage.

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Two months ago, his father warned the U.S. that he was a radical Muslim and possibly dangerous.

If our security procedures can’t stop this guy, can’t we just dispense with those procedures altogether? What’s the point exactly?

(To be fair, the father’s warning might have been taken more seriously if he had not simultaneously asked for the U.S. Embassy’s Social Security number and bank routing number in order to convey a $28 million inheritance that was trapped in a Nigerian bank account.)

The warning from Abdulmutallab’s father put his son on some list, but not the “no fly” list. Apparently, it’s tougher to get on the “no fly” list than it was to get into Studio 54 in the ‘70s. Currently, the only people on the “no fly” list” are the Blind Sheik and Sean Penn.

The government is like the drunk looking for his keys under a lamppost. Someone stops to help, and asks, “Is this where you lost them?” No, the drunk answers, but the light’s better here.

The government refuses to perform the only possibly effective security check—search Muslims—so instead it harasses infinitely compliant Americans. Will that help avert a terrorist attack? No, but the Americans don’t complain.

The only reason Abdulmutallab didn’t succeed in bringing down an airplane with 278 passengers was that: (1) A brave Dutchman leapt from his seat and extinguished the smoldering Nigerian; and (2) the Nigerian apparently didn’t have enough detonating fluid to cause a powerful explosion.

In addition to the no blanket, no computer, no bathroom rule, perhaps the airlines could add this to their preflight announcement about seat belts and emergency exits: “Should a passenger sitting near you attempt to detonate an explosive device, you may be called upon to render emergency assistance. Would you be willing to do so under those circumstances? If not we will assign you another seat ...”

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Thursday, December 24, 2009
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

Irritated at the bumps on the road to the Democrats’ Thousand-Year Reich, liberals are now claiming that Republican Sen. Tom Coburn requested a prayer for the death of Sen. Bob Byrd during the health care debate last Saturday night.

Here is what Coburn actually said: “What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can’t make the vote tonight. That’s what they ought to pray.”

After reporting Coburn’s remark, The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank added: “It was difficult to escape the conclusion that Coburn was referring to the 92-year-old, wheelchair-bound Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.).”

Contrary to Milbank’s claim, I find it extremely easy to get away from that conclusion. In fact, I’m a regular Houdini when it comes to that conclusion. That conclusion couldn’t hold me for a second.

There are a million ways a senator could miss a vote, other than by dying. Ask Patrick Kennedy. At 1 a.m. on a Sunday night in the middle of a historic blizzard in the nation’s capital, I don’t think the first thing that came to anyone’s mind was death. More likely it was: “Last call.”

Milbank was employing the MSNBC motto, “In Other Words,” which provides the formula for 90 percent of the political commentary on that network. The MSNBC host quotes a Republican, then says “in other words,” translates the statement into something that would be stupid to say, and spends the next 10 minutes ridiculing the translated version. Which no one said. Except the host.

Also, by the way, Sen. Coburn did not “go to the Senate floor to propose a prayer,” as Milbank reported. He was giving a floor speech in which he used the turn of phrase, “What the American people ought to pray is ...”

Inasmuch as liberals want to talk about anything but their plan to take over one-sixth of the American economy, let’s talk about health care!

Democrats tout Medicare as their model for a government-run health care system, bragging about what an extremely popular government program it is.

Medicare is tens of trillions of dollars in the red. It is expected to go bankrupt by 2017. In order to pay for Medicare alone, the government will either have to cut every other federal program in existence, or raise federal income taxes to rates as high as 77 percent.

Medicare is like a $500 hamburger: I assume it’s good—it had better be—but no one would say, “THAT’S A FANTASTIC SUCCESS!”

Until 10 minutes ago, the liberal argument for national health care was that it wasn’t fair that some people—“the rich”—have access to better health care than others.

In liberals’ ideal world, everyone lives in abject poverty and stands in long lines, but we all live in the same abject poverty and stand in the same long lines—just like in their beloved Soviet Union of recent memory! (Except the commissars, who get excellent health care, food, housing, maid service and no lines.)

Instead of being honest and telling us that their plan is to make health care worse and more expensive—but fairer!—liberals have recently begun claiming that providing universal health care will actually save money. Overnight, they went from wailing about basic human needs being “more important than bombs” to claiming: “Our plan will be cheaper!”

Hmmm, I didn’t make any notes to debate the manifestly insane points. But I’m pretty sure that extending full medical benefits to 30 million people who don’t currently have them—47 million once the federal health commission rules that illegal aliens are covered—will not be less expensive than the current system.

You can say—mistakenly—that the liberals’ plan is more compassionate. You can say—also incorrectly—that it will be fairer. On no set of facts can you say it will be cheaper.

Democrats keep citing the Congressional Budget Office’s “scoring” of their bills as if that means something.

The CBO is required to score a bill based on the assumptions provided by the bill’s authors. It’s worth about as much as a report card filled out by the student himself.

Democrats could write a bill saying: “Assume we invent a magic pill that will make cars get 1,000 miles per gallon. Now, CBO, would that save money?”

The CBO would have to conclude: Yes, that bill will save money.

Among the tricks the Democrats put into their health care bills for the CBO is that the government will collect taxes for 10 years, but only pay out benefits for the last six years. Will that save money? Yes, the CBO says, this bill is “deficit neutral”!

But what about the next 10 years and the next 10 years and the next 10 years after that? Will the health care plan continually pay benefits only in the last six years of every 10-year period? I think their plan assumes we’ll all be dead from global warming in a decade.

Also, I note that the Democrats claim it’s urgent that we pass ObamaCare by Christmas, but the bill doesn’t get around to paying out any benefits until 2014. Poor uninsured chumps.

In other words ... Democrats are praying for the death of Bob Byrd!

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

Ann Coulter

  posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof recently wrote a column about John Brodniak of Oregon, who developed a cavernous hemangioma, causing him great pain as blood leaks into his brain.

According to Kristof, Brodniak can’t get medical help because we don’t have universal health care. Senators who vote against ObamaCare, Kristof said, are morally equivalent to someone who would walk past a man “writhing in pain on the sidewalk.”

In another article in the Times, William Yardley wrote about Melvin Tsosies—also of Oregon—who ended up with $200,000 in medical bills after having a heart attack.

As of March 2008, Yardley reported, Tsosies was waiting to find out if he would win the Oregon lottery for health insurance. But with 600,000 uninsured state residents and a “universal” health care program with only enough money to pay for about 24,000 of them, Tsosies is more likely to win a Powerball lottery.

How can this be happening? Oregon already has “universal health care”! (Probably just a coincidence, but isn’t Oregon also the only state with physician-assisted suicide?)

Once again forgetting about the existence of the Internet, the Times neglects to mention its own erstwhile enthusiasm for Oregon’s universal health care plan, introduced back in 1990.

Back then, the Times published an editorial titled “Oregon’s Brave Medical Experiment,” hailing this technocratic monstrosity as an example of “hardheaded compassion” designed to make “health coverage available to many more families.”

Ron Wyden—then a congressman from Oregon, now a U.S. senator at the forefront of pushing “universal health care” onto the nation—said: “This is a strong dramatic step toward universal access of health care.” He predicted, “[T]his is going to be copied everywhere.”

No wonder Wyden is such an ardent proponent of national health care—it will force states that didn’t adopt these idiotic universal health care schemes to bail out the ones that did.

Liberals cite medical horror stories from the very states they once cheered for enacting universal health care in order to argue for a national health care plan that will wreck the entire nation’s medical care the same way liberal states already wrecked their own medical care.

Only Democrats could propose fixing one Bernie Madoff-style scam with an even bigger Bernie Madoff-style scam.

Maybe when national universal health care fails, we’ll be able to go international. Then interplanetary—then interstellar! Why should I pay for my gall bladder surgery when some Venusian could?

Eighty-five percent of Americans are happy with their health care, but Democrats have a plan to make it worse for more money. As a bonus, national health care will add trillions of dollars to the national debt, and your insurance rates will skyrocket.

Democrats are being utterly disingenuous to say that you won’t have to leave your current plan under national health care. Maybe, but it won’t be your choice: Your employer will be making that decision for you.

Recall that one of the big selling points of national health care is that it is supposed to reduce costs for American businesses. The only way national health care will make American companies “more competitive” is if they dump their employees into the public health care system.

It’s so weird! We expected X number of people to show up for health care and instead 75X showed up! Yeah, just like every other government program in the history of the world.

Ten years from now, we’ll be talking about cost overruns of $6 trillion—but by then, national health care will be an untouchable “third rail” of politics, just as Medicare is now. (Ironically, injuries sustained from actually touching the third rail won’t be covered under ObamaCare.)

As with Medicare, voters will be terrified to go back to even the wisp of a free market system we have now, afraid that they’ll never be able to get health insurance without the government providing it. Having been dragged unwillingly into the government plan, how will a 58-year-old be able to leave the public system and get insurance on the free market?

Speaking of which, how many of you are planning to retire on your Social Security benefits? Just you there, with the shopping cart full of cans?

The only solution will be for the government to keep running up gigantic deficits and raising taxes on “the rich,” which, in turn, will stifle job creation and economic growth in a phenomenon known to economists as “the Carter years.”

In addition to forcing Americans into dealing with surly government workers in order to obtain medical care, sooner or later, there’s no free lunch. (And if government X-rays are anything like the photos the DMV takes for your license, count me out. I don’t want my lungs looking like they had a bad hair day.)

Even if national health care puts the screws to doctors and pharmaceutical companies by reimbursing them below cost—so all future doctors will soon resemble DMV employees and no new drugs will ever be invented—the government is still going to have to cut services and pay for the system with massive tax hikes.

Which is exactly what happened with Oregon’s “Brave Medical Experiment.”

©2004-09 Ann Coulter.  Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann Coulter’s column appears here at ProudToBeCanadian.ca by license, weekly.

Buy all SEVEN of Ann Coulter’s best-sellers! Buying them though our web site generates small sales commissions from Amazon that financially supports ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

---

• Home
• J-Log
• Columnists
• PTBC Amazon Store
• PTBC Stuff
• About
• Contact
• Cashier