PTBC banner       ProudToBeCanadian

It's a question.

** HELP HAITI **
World Vision


The latest from our COLUMNIST SECTION:

Click here to see more of our columns or use the drop-down menu atop this stack)



PTBC PUSH-BACK

Free-Market Capitalist Consumer Information:
These companies choose to advertise on the
socialism-reliant CBC:
(Links lead to mailing addresses)
• AIG (insur)
• Air Canada
• AOL Travel
• Best Western
• Canada Protection Plan
• Canada Revenue Agency (!)
• Canadian Tire Fin Serv
• Chip Home Income Plan
• CIBC
• Cold FX
• Desjardins (insurance)
• Directbuy, Inc
• Edward Jones
• General Motors
• Grand and Toy
• Grey Power (insurance)
• H&R Block
• Hilton Hotels
• iContact email marketing
• Infinity (cars)
• Koodoo mobile
• Lens Crafters
• Monster.ca
• National Post
• Neutrogena
• Nutrisystem
• Quicktax
• RBC (Royal bank)
• Rogers Cable
• ScotiaBank
• Shaw Cable
• Texas Travel
• The Co-operators (ins)
• Tim Hortons
• Travelodge
• Vonage
• WeightWatchers
• Westjet
• Working.com
• Zip.ca

Please read more here.


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

Ann Coulter

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

Matthews and Olbermann Now Openly Fighting Over Obama

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.

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 02/04/10 at 08:21 AM
COMMENT! Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

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

Can’t We At Least Get a Toaster?

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.

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 02/04/10 at 06:51 AM
COMMENT! Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

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

Can’t We At Least Get a Toaster?

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.

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 01/27/10 at 04:45 PM
COMMENT! Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 1 so far)
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

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

That Old Obama Magic Is Back

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.

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 01/20/10 at 06:02 PM
COMMENT! Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

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

Harry Reid’s Negro Problem

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.

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 01/13/10 at 05:34 PM
COMMENT! Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

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

If You Can Find a Better Deal, Take It!

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.

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 01/06/10 at 06:01 PM
COMMENT! Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

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

Ivana Trump Escorted Off Plane: Napolitano Declares ‘The System Worked’

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 ...”

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 12/30/09 at 05:23 PM
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

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

In Other Words…

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!

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 12/24/09 at 09:31 AM
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

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

Less Health Care for More Money

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.”

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 12/17/09 at 07:39 AM
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

  posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

Martha Coakley: Too Immoral For Teddy Kennedy’s Seat

In Tuesday’s primary election, Massachusetts Democrats chose as their Senate nominee a woman who kept a clearly innocent man in prison in order to advance her political career.

Martha Coakley isn’t even fit for the late Teddy Kennedy’s old seat. (What is it about this particular Senate seat?)

During the daycare/child molestation hysteria of the ‘80s, Gerald Amirault, his mother, Violet, and sister, Cheryl, were accused of raping children at the family’s preschool in Malden, Mass., in what came to be known as the second-most notorious witch trial in Massachusetts history.

The allegations against the Amiraults were preposterous on their face. Children made claims of robots abusing them, a “bad clown” who took the children to a “magic room” for sex play, rape with a 2-foot butcher knife, other acts of sodomy with a “magic wand,” naked children tied to trees within view of a highway, and—standard fare in the child abuse hysteria era—animal sacrifices.

There was not one shred of physical evidence to support the allegations—no mutilated animals, no magic rooms, no butcher knives, no photographs, no physical signs of any abuse on the children.

Not one parent noticed so much as unusual behavior in their children—until after the molestation hysteria began.

There were no witnesses to the alleged acts of abuse, despite the continuous and unannounced presence of staff members, teachers, parents and other visitors at the school.

Not one student ever spontaneously claimed to have been abused. Indeed, the allegations of abuse didn’t arise until the child therapists arrived.

Nor was there anything in the backgrounds of the Amiraults that fit the profile of sadistic, child-abusing monsters. Violet Amirault had started the Fells Acre Day School 18 years before the child molestation hysteria erupted.

Thousands of happy and well-adjusted students had passed through Fells Acres. Many returned to visit the school; some even attended Cheryl’s wedding a few years before the inquisition began.

It’s one thing to put a person in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. It’s another to put an entire family in prison for a crime that didn’t take place.

In the most outrageous miscarriage of justice since the Salem witch trials, in July 1986, Gerald Amirault was convicted of raping and assaulting six girls and three boys and sentenced to 30 to 40 years in prison. The following year, Violet and Cheryl Amirault were convicted of raping and assaulting three girls and a boy and were sentenced to 8 to 20 years.

The motto of the witch-hunters was “Believe the Children!” But the therapists resolutely refused to believe the children as long as they denied being abused. As the police advised the parents: In cases of child abuse, “no” can mean “yes.”

To the children’s credit, they held firm to their denials for heroic amounts of time in the face of relentless questioning.

But as copious research in the wake of the child abuse cases has demonstrated, small children are highly suggestible. It’s surprisingly easy to implant false memories into young minds by simply asking the same questions over and over again.

Indeed, the interviewing techniques in the Amirault case were so successful that the children also made accusations against three other teachers, two imaginary people named “Mr. Gatt” and “Al” and even against the child therapist herself—the one claim of abuse that was provably true.

But only the Amiraults were put on trial for any alleged acts of abuse.

Coakley wasn’t the prosecutor on the original trial. What she did was worse.

At least the original prosecutors, craven and ambition-driven though they were, could claim to have been caught up in the child abuse panic of the ‘80s. There had not yet been extensive psychological studies on the suggestibility of small children. A dozen similar cases from around the country had not already been discredited and the innocent freed.

Of all the men and women falsely convicted during the child molestation hysteria of the ‘80s, by 2001, only Gerald Amirault still sat in prison. Even his sister and mother had been released after serving eight years in prison for crimes that never occurred.

In July 2001, the notoriously tough Massachusetts parole board voted unanimously to grant Gerald Amirault clemency. Although the parole board is not permitted to consider guilt or innocence, its recommendation said: “(I)t is clearly a matter of public knowledge that, at the minimum, real and substantial doubt exists concerning petitioner’s conviction.”

Immediately after the board’s recommendation, The Boston Globe reported that Gov. Jane Swift was leaning toward accepting the board’s recommendation and freeing Amirault.

Enter Martha Coakley, Middlesex district attorney. Gerald Amirault had already spent 15 years in prison for crimes he no more committed than anyone reading this column did. But Coakley put on a full court press to keep Amirault in prison simply to further her political ambitions.

By then, every sentient person knew that Amirault was innocent. But instead of saying nothing, Coakley frantically lobbied Gov. Jane Swift to keep him in prison to show that she was a take-no-prisoners prosecutor, who stood up for “the children.” As a result of Coakley’s efforts—and her contagious ambition—Gov. Swift denied Amirault’s clemency.

Thanks to Martha Coakley, Gerald Amirault sat in prison for another three years.

Remember all that talk about President Bush shredding constitutional rights? Overzealous liberal prosecutors and feminist do-gooders allowed Gerald Amirault to sit in prison for 18 years for crimes that didn’t exist—except in the imaginations of small children under the influence of incompetent child “therapists.”

Martha Coakley allowed her ambition to trump basic human decency as she campaigned to keep a patently innocent man in prison.

Anyone with the smallest sense of justice cannot vote to put this woman in any office. If you absolutely cannot vote for a Republican on Jan. 19, 2010, write in the name “Gerald Amirault.”

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 12/09/09 at 04:03 PM
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

  posted on Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

Do Smoking Guns Cause Global Warming Too?

As we now know (and by “we” I mean “everyone with access to the Internet”), the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has just been caught ferociously manipulating the data about the Earth’s temperature.

Recently leaked e-mails from the “scientists” at CRU show that, when talking among themselves, they forthrightly admit to using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in the Earth’s temperature since 1960—as one e-mail says. Still another describes their manipulation of the data thus: “[W]e can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

Am I just crazy from the heat or were they trying to deceive us?

Global warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage” do not mean “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage.” These words actually mean “onion soup,” “sexual submissive” and “Gary, Ind.”

(Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine words right in the middle of a debate.)

Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed “in context”—the words’ check was in the mail, and they’d like to spend more time with their families.

I have placed the words in context and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic academic fraud.

The leaked e-mail exchanges also show the vaunted “scientists” engaging in a possibly criminal effort to delete their own smoking-gun e-mails in response to a Freedom of Information request. Next, the fanatics will be telling us that “among scientists,” this behavior does not indicate knowledge of guilt.

If I recall correctly, their next move should be to fire the special prosecutor late Saturday night.

These e-mails aren’t a tempest in a teapot. They are evidence of pervasive fraud by a massively influential institution that has dominated news coverage of global warming.

CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on “global climate analysis”—including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming.

Having claimed to have collected the most complete data on the Earth’s temperature for the last half century, the CRU’s summary of that data was used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its 2007 report demanding that we adopt a few modest lifestyle changes, such as abolishing modern technology, reverting to hunter/gatherer status and taxing ourselves into servitude.

But then last weekend—in the middle of the “Let’s Cook the Books!” e-mail scandal—the CRU said that all its data on the Earth’s temperature since 1960 had been irretrievably “lost.” (Although I suspect “overcooked” might be a more apt term.)

The way this episode is unfolding, the environmentalists may be forced to drop their phantom threat of global warming and go back to the phantom threat of global cooling.

Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated “scientists” were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited.

This sabotage of global warming dissenters may be more galling than their manipulation of the data. Until now, the global warming cult’s sole argument has been to demand that everyone shut up in response to the “scientific consensus” that human activity was causing global warming.

That’s their idea of a free and open debate.

It’s always the same thing with primitive people—voodoo practitioners, rain dancers and liberals. In lieu of facts, debate and a weighing of the evidence, religious fanatics respond to all counterarguments by invoking a higher authority: the witch doctor, a “scientific consensus,” “the Constitution” or “historians are agreed.”

Liberals won’t tell us why Congress passed a law outlawing incandescent lightbulbs by 2014 — a bill solemnly delivered to the president in a Prius hybrid (making it the slowest-moving bill in U.S. history). Instead, they tell us there’s a “scientific consensus” that we have to use fluorescent lightbulbs or we’ll all die.

They won’t tell us why Ten Commandments monuments must be stripped from every public space in America. Instead, they tell us “the Constitution” says so (according to the high priests who interpret it to mean things the document doesn’t remotely say).

They won’t tell us what Sen. Joe McCarthy lied about. They say: Historians are agreed that McCarthy was a liar. (These are the same historians who also stated as fact that “few American Communists were spies”—until decrypted Soviet cables proved that the Communist Party was awash with Soviet spies.)

This is precisely what liberals accuse Christians of doing, but which Christians never do. We don’t cite the Bible as authority—and then refuse to let anyone read it. We certainly don’t claim to have “lost” it, so you can’t check for yourself. But that’s exactly what the CRU has done with its secret data allegedly showing a warming Earth.

Also, biblical data on the great flood and Noah’s ark have held up remarkably well.

Even if the Earth were warming—which apparently it is not—the idea that humans using energy-efficient lightbulbs would alter the temperature of the globe is approximately as plausible as the Aztecs’ belief that they were required to wrench the beating heart out of living, breathing humans in order to keep the sun on its path.

Sadly, the “human sacrifice deniers” lost the argument to Aztec CRU scientists, who explained that there was a “scientific consensus” on the benefits of ritual murder.

But at least the Aztecs only slaughtered tens of thousands of humans in the name of “climate change.” The global warming cultists want us all dead.

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 12/02/09 at 04:08 PM
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

  posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

MSNBC Exclusive: Fort Hood Never Happened!

It’s been weeks since eyewitnesses reported that Maj. Nidal Hasan shouted “Allahu akbar” before spraying Fort Hood with gunfire, killing 13 people.

Since then we also learned that Hasan gave a medical lecture on beheading infidels and pouring burning oil down their throats (unfortunately not covered under the Senate health care bill). Some wondered if perhaps a pattern was beginning to emerge but were promptly dismissed as racist cranks.

We also found out Hasan had business cards printed up with the jihadist abbreviation “SOA” for “Soldier of Allah.” Was that enough to conclude that the shooting was an act of terrorism—or does somebody around here need to take another cultural sensitivity class?

And we know that Hasan had contacted several jihadist Web sites and that he had been exchanging e-mails with a radical Islamic cleric in Yemen. The FBI learned that last December, but the rest of us only found out about it a week ago.

Is it still too soon to come to the conclusion that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism?

Alas, it is still too early to tell at MSNBC. For Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews—at least two of whom would be severely punished under Shariah law—the shooting of George Tiller was an act of terrorism, no question. The death of a census taker in Kentucky was also an act of terrorism. (We learned this week that it was a suicide/insurance scam.) But as to Maj. Hasan, the jury is still out—and will be out for many, many years.

Actually, according to Keith, the Fort Hood massacre may not have happened at all. He has argued persuasively, on several occasions, that it is impossible, literally impossible, to commit mass murder at a military base.

Like many on the left, Keith loved to sneer at all terrorist plots allegedly foiled by the Bush administration. He was particularly contemptuous of the purported plan of six aspiring jihadists to sneak onto the Fort Dix army base and kill as many soldiers as they could.

On Nov. 11, 2008, he explained why the Fort Dix terrorist plot was a laughable fraud, saying the “morons” apparently didn’t realize that “all the soldiers have these big guns.”

Keith, the moron, apparently doesn’t realize that on military bases on U.S. soil only MPs have guns. (Special authorization is required for soldiers to carry a firearm, which can be granted only in the case of a specific and credible threat against military personnel in that region. Thank you, Bill Clinton.)

Again on May 21 this year, Olbermann ridiculed the Fort Dix terror plot, pointing out that the six alleged terrorists seemed to be “forgetting that every man there was armed.”  (Curiously, even though ROTC was offered at the ag school Keith attended, he appears not to have investigated it.)

But it was not until Aug. 21 of this year that Olbermann hit upon the true reason for the Bush administration’s hyping of this implausible terror plot. According to Keith—and I’m not kidding—it was to distract from Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ announcement that her state had been unable to respond adequately to a tornado because Bush had diverted the National Guard to his crazy war in Iraq!

The Bush administration, you see, had revealed the arrest of the Fort Dix conspirators the day after Sebelius’ world-reverberating bombshell about Kansas’ decimated National Guard! Eureka!

This little theory of Keith’s, adorable though it is, has problems apart from his insistence that it would be impossible to kill army personnel on “a closed compound full of trained soldiers with weapons.” The other problem is Gov. Sebelius was full of crap.

First, Sebelius wasn’t in much of a position to know how well Kansas responded to the tornado, inasmuch as she had been partying at New Orleans’ Jazzfest the day after the tornado hit—while Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts and both local congressmen were on the scene, helping the rescue efforts.

Second, the manager of the actual rescue team soon contradicted Sebelius, saying: “We have all the staff that we need and can manage at this time. If we had more people right now, it would just start being a cluster.”

The Kansas National Guard had 352 Humvees, 72 dump trucks and more than 320 other trucks, which would seem to be sufficient for the town hit by the tornado, Greensburg, Kan., population 1,574. That’s almost one National Guard truck for every two people. (This is the same tornado that Obama claimed had killed 10,000 people. He was off by 9,988.)

Third, it turned out that Gov. Sebelius had rejected offers of additional help from neighboring National Guard units.

Consequently, the day after her dramatic cri de coeur for more National Guard resources, Sebelius’ office completely reversed course, telling The Associated Press that the rescue efforts were going “just fine.”

What the governor had meant, her office explained, was that Kansas’ National Guard might be stretched thin if, hypothetically, another natural disaster were to strike immediately after the tornado.

Keith, unfortunately, was unaware of Sebelius’ humiliating about-face, as it was not carried on Daily Kos.

Last December, five of the Fort Dix plotters were found guilty by a federal jury of conspiring to kill American soldiers. The sixth had already pleaded guilty.

Still, compare the macho posturing of the Bush administration over thwarting the Fort Dix terror plot to the masterful handling of domestic terrorist plots since the angel Obama has taken the helm. Why, the Obama administration managed to capture and arrest Maj. Hasan without violating a single American’s civil liberties!

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 11/25/09 at 06:04 PM
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

  posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

At the End of the Day, Diversity Has Jumped the Shark

It cannot be said often enough that the chief of staff of the United States Army, Gen. George Casey, responded to a massacre of 13 Americans in which the suspect is a Muslim by saying: “Our diversity ... is a strength.”

As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.
 
Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare—I mean the beautiful mosaics—in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”

By contrast, the canard “diversity is a strength” has now replaced “at the end of the day,” “skin in the game,” “blood and treasure,” “jumped the shark,” “boots on the ground,” “horrific” (whatever happened to the perfectly good word “horrible”?), “not so much,” “I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here,” and “that went well,” as America’s most irritating cliche.

We should start making up other nonsense mantras along the lines of “diversity is a strength” and mindlessly repeating them until they catch on, too.

Next time you’re at a cocktail party, just start saying, “Chocolate pudding is dramatic irony” from time to time. Eventually other people will start saying it, without anyone bothering to consider whether it makes sense. Then we’ll do another one: “Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine.”

Before you know it, liberals will react to news of a mass murder by muttering, “Well, you know what they say: Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine,” while everyone nods in agreement.

Except mere nonsense makes more sense than “diversity is a strength.”

If Gen. Casey’s wildly inappropriate use of this lunatic cliche in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre doesn’t kill it, nothing will.

Among the worst aspects of America’s “diversity” is that liberals’ reaction to a heterogeneous population is to create a pecking order based on alleged victimhood—as described in electrifying detail in my book, Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America.

In modern America, the guilty are sanctified, while the innocent never stop paying—including with their lives, as they did at Fort Hood last week. Points are awarded to aspiring victims for angry self-righteousness, acts of violence and general unpleasantness.

But liberals celebrate diversity only in the case of superficial characteristics like race, gender, sexual preference and country of origin. They reject diversity when we need it, such as in “diversity” of legal forums.

After conferring with everyone at Zabar’s, Obama decided that if a standard civilian trial is good enough for Martha Stewart, then it’s good enough for the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is coming to New York!

Mohammed’s military tribunal was already under way when Obama came into office, stopped the proceedings and, eight months later, announced that Mohammed would be tried in a federal court in New York.

In a liberal’s reckoning, diversity is good when we have both Muslim jihadists and patriotic Americans serving in the U.S. military. But diversity is bad when Martha Stewart and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are subjected to different legal tribunals to adjudicate their transgressions.

Terrorists tried in civilian courts will be entitled to the whole panoply of legal protections accorded Stewart or any American charged with a crime, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, the right to exclude evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights, the right to a speedy trial, the right to confront one’s accusers, the right to a change of venue, the right to examine the evidence against you, and the right to subpoena witnesses and evidence in one’s defense.

Members of Congress have it in their power to put an end to this lunacy right now. If they don’t, they are as complicit in Mohammed’s civilian trial as the president. Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution give Congress the power to establish the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and to create exceptions to that jurisdiction.

Congress could pass a statute limiting federal court jurisdiction to individuals not subject to trial before a military tribunal. Any legislator who votes “nay” on a such a bill will be voting to give foreign terrorists the same legal rights as U.S. citizens—and more legal rights than members of the U.S. military are entitled to.

In the case of legal proceedings, diversity actually is a strength.

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 11/18/09 at 06:55 PM
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

  posted on Thursday, November 12, 2009
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

Muslim Suffers Bruised Ego in Fort Hood Tragedy

The massacre at Fort Hood last week is the perfect apotheosis of the liberal victimology described in my book “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America.”

According to witnesses, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan entered a medical facility at Fort Hood, prayed briefly, then shouted “Allahu akbar” before he began gunning down American troops. Now I don’t know which to be more afraid of: Muslims or government-run health care systems.

President Obama honored the victims by immediately warning Americans not to “jump to conclusions”—namely, the obvious conclusion that the attack was an act of Islamic terrorism. As conclusions go, it wasn’t much of a jump.

But the mainstream media waited for no information—indeed actively avoided learning any information—before leaping to the far less obvious conclusion that the suspect’s mass murder was set off by “stress.”

The day after the slaughter, The New York Times ran one editorial and two of three op-eds asserting as much—which was at least one more than the Times usually runs about psycho-killer soldiers going on rampages.

Two days after the mass shooting, the Times’ laughably predictable headlines about the Fort Hood bloodbath were:

—“Preliminary Inquiry Finds No Link to Terror Plot”

—“Painful Stories Take a Toll on Military Therapists”

—“When Soldiers’ Minds Snap”

The Los Angeles Times jumped to the exact same conclusion, running an article on the massacre titled: “Fort Hood Tragedy Rocks Military as It Grapples With Mental Health Issues.” Time magazine followed suit, posting an article titled: “Stresses at Fort Hood Were Likely Intense for Hasan.”

Inasmuch as Maj. Hasan had never been deployed overseas, much less seen combat, liberals seem to have discovered the first recorded case of “pre-traumatic stress syndrome.”

Their point was: The real victim of Fort Hood was Maj. Hasan. Indeed, all Muslims were the victims that day.

The media quickly set to work assembling lachrymose accounts of taunts Hasan had been subjected to in the military for being a Muslim, the most harrowing of which seems to have been his car being keyed at his off-base apartment complex.

I suppose we should be relieved that liberals weren’t claiming Hasan snapped because of the dimming prospects for a health care bill by the end of the year.

The evidence for the manifestly obvious conclusion we were supposed to avoid jumping to is rather more extensive.

According to numerous eyewitness accounts, Hasan denounced the “war on terror” as a war against Islam, said Muslims should attack Americans in retaliation for the war in Iraq, defended suicide bombers and said he was “happy” when a Muslim murdered a soldier at a military recruiting center in Arkansas earlier this year.

Stranger still, he wasn’t auditioning for his own show on MSNBC when he made these statements.

Hasan shared a “spiritual adviser” with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, whose unseemly enthusiasm for jihad got him banned from speaking in Britain, even by video link.

A few years ago, Hasan delivered an hour-long PowerPoint lecture to an audience of doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, arguing that non-Muslims should be beheaded and have burning oil poured down their throats.

He had tried to contact al-Qaida, and at least one U.S. intelligence official says the Army knew it.

Despite being well aware of Hasan’s disturbing views and conduct, the Army did nothing.

Far less offensive speech has been grounds for discipline or even removal from duties in the military. In the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal, for example, two Navy officers were reprimanded and reassigned after putting up a sign with the words of a nursery rhyme altered to include a vulgar sexual reference to liberal congresswoman Patricia Schroeder.

But a Muslim Army doctor can go around a military installation somberly advocating the beheading of infidels, and the girls running the military treat him like he’s Nicole Kidman and they’re press junket reporters.

The Army’s top brass, Gen. George Casey, responded to the military’s shocking decision to keep a terrorist-sympathizing Muslim in the Army by announcing: “Our diversity ... is a strength.” And I thought gays couldn’t openly serve in the military.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Muslims moved to the top of liberals’ victim pantheon on the basis of having slaughtered 3,000 Americans. Muslims were “victims” of Americans’ displeasure with them for the biggest terrorist attack in world history. The only American deserving of more coddling than a Muslim is the first African-American president.

So, now any dyspeptic expression toward a Muslim is grounds for calling in a diversity coordinator. And when the “victim” attacks, as at Fort Hood, the rest of us are supposed to feel guilty because Hasan’s car got keyed once. As with all liberal “victims,” it is the victim who is massively guilty.

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 11/12/09 at 08:11 AM
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

  posted on Thursday, November 05, 2009
Bio/Email | Ann Coulter Archives | Printer-Friendly Version

Election 2009: Change I Can Believe In!

—MSNBC, Aug. 31, 2009, Keith Olbermann on Robert F. McDonnell, Republican candidate for governor of Virginia:
 

“In (McDonnell’s master’s thesis), he described women having jobs as detrimental to the family, called legalized use of contraception illogical, pushed to make divorce more difficult, and insisted government should favor married couples over, quote, ‘cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.’ Wow. When did he write this? 1875? No, 1989. Wow, 1989.
 
“Goodbye, Mr. McDonnell.”

 
—MSNBC, Sept. 22, 2009, Rachel Maddow also on McDonnell:
 

“And here’s where the conservative movement and the Republican establishment smash into each other like bumper cars without bumpers. Here’s where Republican electoral chances stop being separate from the wild-eyed excesses of the conservative movement.
 
“Part of watching Republicans try to return to power is watching ... the conservative movement eat the Republican Party, eat their electoral chances over and over and over again.”

 
On election night, conservatives-eating-Republicans resulted in an 18-point landslide for McDonnell, who beat his Democratic opponent 59 percent to 41 percent—winning two-thirds of all independent voters and ending the Democrats’ eight-year reign in the Virginia governor’s office.
 
Republicans swept all statewide offices for the first time in 12 years, winning the races for lieutenant governor and attorney general, as well as assembly seats, garbage inspector, dog catcher and anything else Virginians could vote for.
 
To paraphrase a pompous blowhard: Goodbye, Mr. Democrat.
 
And that’s not the most exciting news from election night! Astoundingly, Jon Corzine, the incumbent governor of heavily Democratic New Jersey—a state that Barack Obama won by 16 points just a year ago—lost by 5 points.
 
At 49 percent for Republican Chris Christie versus 44 percent for Corzine, the election wasn’t even close enough to be stolen by ACORN. (Although Corzine did extremely well among underaged Salvadoran prostitutes living in government housing.)
 
The biggest winner election night was pollster Scott Rasmussen, who—once again—produced the most accurate poll results. New York Times poll: Corzine 40, Christie 37; Quinnipiac poll: Corzine 43, Christie 38; Rasmussen poll: Christie 46, Corzine 43.
 
The biggest loser was President Obama, who campaigned tirelessly for Corzine, even giving up golf on several occasions and skipping a quarter-million-dollar “date night” with Michelle to stump for the Democrat.
 
Just two days before the election, Obama was at a rally in New Jersey assuring voters that Corzine was “one of the best partners I have in the White House. We work together. ... Jon Corzine helped get this done.”
 
Except the problem is that voting for Obama a year ago was a fashion statement, much like it was once a fad to buy Beanie Babies, pet rocks and Cabbage Patch Kids. But instead of ending up with a ridiculous dust-collector at the bottom of your closet, the Obama fad leaves you with higher taxes, a reduced retirement fund, no job and a one-year wait for an MRI.
 
That is why Corzine’s defeat sounded the death knell for national health care.
 
The good news: Next time Corzine is in a major car accident after speeding on the New Jersey Turnpike, he’ll be able to see a doctor right away.
 
The media will try to rescue health care by talking about nothing but the 23rd district of New York, where the Democrat won Tuesday night. Congratulations, Democrats—you won a congressional seat in New York! Next up: A Catholic elected pope!
 
Far from an upset, the Democrats’ winning the 23rd district was a long-term plan of the Obama White House. That’s why Obama made John McHugh, the moderate Republican congressman representing the 23rd district, his Secretary of the Army earlier this year. The Democrats thought McHugh’s seat would be easy pickings.
 
Only in the last week has everyone acted as if a Democratic victory in the 23rd district would be a shocking surprise—an upset victory caused by puritanical Republicans staging inquisitions against “mainstream” Republican candidates like Dede Scozzafava, the designated “Republican” candidate in the special election.
 
This is preposterous—there was absolutely nothing Republican about Scozzafava. As a supporter of partial-birth abortion, card-check union schemes and massive government spending programs, she was less Republican than John McCain.
 
Even Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos called Scozzafava the most liberal candidate in the race—which may explain why she was the choice of George Soros’ Working Families Party and why she promptly endorsed the Democrat after withdrawing from the race last weekend.
 
Conservative opposition to Scozzafava hardly suggests that they plan to impose litmus tests on every Republican candidate in the 2010 elections.
 
Speaking of litmus tests, on MSNBC recently, liberal blogger Jane Hamsher said of the possibility that a blue dog Democrat would oppose national health care: “I dare Blanche Lincoln—I dare Blanche Lincoln to join a filibuster. She’ll draw primary opponents so fast it would make your head spin.”
 
While I’m sure an out-of-touch liberal blogger from Hollywood knows more about Arkansas than an elected senator from that state, Hamsher’s threat sounds more like an intra-party civil war than conservatives opposing a George Soros-supported Republican candidate in a New York congressional race.
 
Not only do conservatives not pick insane fights—such as staging a 2006 primary fight against a recent vice presidential candidate because he supported the war in Iraq—but conservatives are more popular than Republicans.
 
By contrast, liberals are less popular than Democrats. When conservatives take control of the Republican Party, Republicans win. When liberals take control of the Democratic Party, Democrats end up out of power for eight to 12 years.

Nice line, eh

Ann Coulter's graphic

©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.



Posted on 11/05/09 at 10:15 AM
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Ann Coulter +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

Page 1 of 17 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »