Showing posts with label Coulter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coulter. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Ann Coulter - The Left Is 'Willing To Fight To The Last Drop Of Black Blood'

http://madworldnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ann-coulter1.jpg

Ann Coulter's latest on Ferguson, the Left and the racial grievance industry is right on target. Here's a slice:

 The riot in Ferguson reminds me, I hate criminals, but I hate liberals more. They planned this riot. They stoked the fire, lied about the evidence and produced a made-to-order riot.

Every other riot I've ever heard of was touched off by some spontaneous event that exploded into mob violence long before any media trucks arrived. This time, the networks gave us a countdown to the riot, as if it were a Super Bowl kickoff.

From the beginning, Officer Darren Wilson's shooting of Michael Brown wasn't reported like news. It was reported like a cause.

The media are in a huff about the prosecutor being "biased" because his father was a cop, who was shot and killed by an African-American. What an assh@le! Evidently, the sum-total of what every idiot on TV knows about the law is Judge Sol Wachtler's 20-year-old joke that a prosecutor could "indict a ham sandwich." We're supposed to be outraged that this prosecutor didn't indict the ham sandwich of Darren Wilson.  Liberals seem not to understand that they don't have a divine right to ruin someone's life and bankrupt him with a criminal trial, just so they're satisfied.

The reason most grand jury investigations result in an indictment is that most grand juries aren't convened solely to patronize racial mobs. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was basically demanding an indictment of Wilson before Big Mike's body was cold. It was only because of racial politics that this shooting wasn't dismissed without a grand jury, at all.

Obama says anger is an "understandable reaction" to the grand jury's finding. Why? And why -- as almost everyone is saying -- are we supposed to praise the "peaceful protests"?

There's nothing to protest! A cop shot a thug who was trying to kill him. The grand jury documents make perfectly clear that Big Mike was entirely responsible for his own death. Can't the peaceful protesters read?

The night of the riot, Obama said the law "often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatory fashion." Maybe, but not in this case -- except toward Officer Wilson. i>

I know liberals were hoping they had finally found the great white whale of racism, but they're just going to have to keep plugging away. They might want to come up with a more productive way to spend their time, inasmuch as they're about 0:100 on white racism sightings.

Anyone following this case has seen the video of Big Mike robbing a store and roughing up an innocent Pakistani clerk about 10 minutes before being shot by Officer Wilson. They've seen him flashing Bloods gang signs in photos.

They know Brown's mother was recently arrested for clubbing grandma with a pipe over T-shirt proceeds. They've seen the video of Brown's ex-con stepfather shouting at a crowd of protesters after the grand jury's decision: "Burn this bitch down!"

Liberals will say none of that is relevant in court, but apparently they don't think actual evidence is relevant either. It's certainly relevant in the court of public opinion that the alleged victims are a cartoonishly lower-class, periodically criminal black family.

TV hosts narrated the riot by saying it showed "the community" feels it's not being listened to. Only liberals look at blacks looting and say, See what white Americans made them do?

That's their proof of injustice -- look at how blacks are reacting! (While I don't approve of the looting part, I do approve of the whole throwing-bottles-at-CNN part.)

The looters aren't the community!

The community doesn't want black thugs robbing stores and sauntering down the middle of its streets. The community doesn't want to be assaulted by Big Mike. The community didn't want its stores burned down.


Read the rest at the link.

Thursday, November 07, 2013

"Health Care For The Pushy" - Ann Coulter's Latest





Ann Coulter, as usual, has the right ot it. Here's her latest:


So now it turns out Obama knew that 93 million Americans would have their health insurance canceled the whole time he was claiming, "If you like your insurance, you can keep it. Period."

Obama lied. Period. "Hope and Change" was actually "A Sucker Is Born Every Minute."

Even without the 2010 Health and Human Services (HHS) report admitting that 93 million Americans would lose their health insurance, anyone with half a brain (which is a pre-existing condition) knew that millions of Americans would be thrown off their insurance plans under Obamacare. Under the law, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is to determine what every health insurance plan must cover -- and any plans that don't are illegal.

As a result, gay guys are now going to be forced to buy plans that cover maternity care. Mormons will have to buy plans that cover gambling addiction therapy. Elderly couples can buy only insurance that includes pediatric dental care. Catholic hospitals will be required to provide birth control and abortions.

Our federal overseers, led by the arrogant and smug gender-feminist Sebelius, know what's best for us. (Which is so nice of her since, as she recently pointed out, she doesn't work for us.) Her idea of flexibility is not requiring Catholic priests to perform abortions. Not yet, anyway.

Obviously, health insurance premiums are going through the roof with all these federal mandates. Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute reports that health insurance premiums will be higher than before Obamacare in at least 45 states -- an astronomical 256 percent higher in some cases. The Los Angeles Times says middle-income families in California will pay 30 percent more for health insurance, even with the subsidies.

Policies are being canceled because your old plan -- the one you shopped for and liked -- is now illegal. It doesn't cover Sandra Fluke's dental dams. Obama is blaming the insurance companies for discontinuing policies that he made illegal. (At least he isn't blaming the cancellations on a guy who put a movie trailer on the Internet this time.)

Isn't it your basic duty as a caring human being to buy an expensive health care plan you don't really want? Because who knows better about the health care needs of 310 million Americans than a smug gender-feminist? Certainly not you.

And absolutely not your doctor. While campaigning for national health care, our "Conspiracy Theorist-in-Chief" repeatedly claimed that a doctor would rather amputate your foot or leg and make $50,000 than treat you for diabetes because "if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 -- immediately the surgeon is reimbursed." (Leaving aside Obama's unwarranted slander against doctors, Medicare reimburses a surgeon $740 to $1,140 for a leg amputation.)

Why would you want to keep these psycho doctors anyway? Trust Kathleen Sebelius. Under Obamacare, you'll get a nice nurse practitioner to attend to your needs -- provided your needs are limited to birth control and psychotherapy. Meanwhile, your doctor will now be offering shoe repair to make ends meet.


More at the link

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Ann Coulter On The Zimmerman Trial:'This Year's Duke Lacrosse Case'

 

A real gem from La Coulter...here's a slice:

This week, instead of attacking a Hispanic senator, Marco Rubio, I will defend a Hispanic citizen, George Zimmerman, on trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin. (Zimmerman would make a better senator.)

It's becoming painfully obvious why no charges were brought against Zimmerman in this case -- until Al Sharpton got involved. All the eyewitness accounts, testimony, ballistics and forensics keep backing up Zimmerman. We should send a big, fat bill for the whole thing to Sharpton, courtesy of MSNBC.

With the prosecution's witnesses making the defense's case, the inquisitors' last stand is to claim that, if the races were reversed, the black guy would have been instantly charged with murder. As explained in The New York Times:

"Had Mr. Martin shot and killed Mr. Zimmerman under similar circumstances, black leaders say, the case would have barreled down a different path: Mr. Martin would have been quickly arrested by the Sanford Police Department and charged in the killing, without the benefit of the doubt." (Also, CNN could have dropped the "white" and referred to Zimmerman exclusively as "Hispanic.")

The people who say this are counting on the rest of us being too polite to mention that it is nearly impossible to imagine such a case in a world where half of all murders and a majority of robberies are committed by blacks. To reverse the races with the same set of facts, first, we're going to need a gated, mixed-race community, similar to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, that has recently experienced a rash of robberies by white guys. The only way to do that is to enter "The Twilight Zone."

There were at least eight burglaries in the 14 months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin. Numerous media accounts admit that "most" of these were committed by black males. I'm waiting to hear about a single crime at Twin Lakes that was not committed by a black male.


Just six months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin, two men had broken into the home of a neighbor, Olivia Bertalan, while she was alone with her infant son. She had just enough time to call 911 before running upstairs and locking herself in a room. The burglars knew she was home, but proceeded to rob the place anyway, even trying to enter the locked room where she held her crying child.

Bertalan had seen the burglars just before they broke into her house -- one at the front door and one at the back. They were young black males. They lived in the Retreat by Twin Lakes.

In another case, a black teenager strode up to Zimmerman's house and, in broad daylight, stole a bicycle off the front porch. The bike was never recovered.

Weeks before Zimmerman saw Martin, he witnessed another young black male peering into the window of a neighbor's house. He called the cops, but by the time they arrived, the suspect was gone.

A few days later, another house was burglarized. The thieves made off with jewelry and a new laptop. Roofers working across the street had seen two black teenagers near the house at the time of the robbery. When they spotted one of the teens the next day, they called the police.

This time, the roofers followed the suspect so he wouldn't get away. The cops arrived and found the stolen laptop in his backpack. This was the same black teenager Zimmerman had seen looking in a neighbor's window.

The only reason it's hard to imagine the Zimmerman case with the races reversed is that it's hard to imagine a white teenager living in a mixed-race, middle-class community, mugging a black homeowner. This is not a problem of society's reactions, but of the facts.

There is, however, at least one case of a black homeowner fatally shooting a white troublemaker. He was not charged with murder.


More at the link.

Thursday, August 09, 2012

Should Romney Campaign Aide Be Fired For Her Response to 'Romney Murdered My Wife' Ad?



After the outcry over the despicable and blatantly false ad put out by Obama's super PAC priorities USA claiming, essentially, that Mitt Romney murdered a laid off steel worker's wife, one of the few talking points the left has left on this is the fact that Romney campaign aide Andrea Saul stupidly chirped up a statement to the effect that, 'hey, if this woman lived in Massachusetts, she would have had health insurance because of Governor Romney's health care plan.'

Greg Sargent over at the Washington Post made a particularly adept spin attempt using those remarks.

Of all the things that could have been said about this, Ms. Saul's response was unbelievably inept, considering how unpopular government mandated health care is among Americans in general, not to mention the GOP base.

A number of people, including Ann Coulter are calling for her to be fired forthwith. Are they right?

As much as I agree with Ann Coulter on the sheer idiocy of the response, I don't think it would be a good idea to fire Andrea Saul. It would seem vindictive and petty, and would be played up by the Obama press as 'see, he fired her because she told the truth. '

Considering that the Obama campaign's only leg to stand on is inventing Romney negatives, among which is a portrait of him as a heartless plutocrat, firng Ms. Saul would provide yet another talking point. It would also give Andrea Saul's unfortunate remarks additional legs as a story.

Far better to 're-assign' her to a place where she'll have no contact with the media whatsoever, along with a stern warning that anything she says that gets picked up by the media will result in her immediate dismissal.

Canning her for stupid would be appropriate, but unwise from a campaign standpoint.

Also, as I mentioned, this ad opens up some doors. Far better for the pro-Romney super PACS to spend some time and money making their own ads on President Obama's character and history in office, and I have a number of suggestions here.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Ann Coulter: Obama’s silver spoon was ‘an affirmative action silver spoon’



Ann Coulter on Hugh Hewitt's radio program, responding to Obama saying that he and Michelle weren't 'born with a silver spoon in their mouths':

“Really, this ‘silver spoon’ business?” Coulter said. “Are they going to do that about every Republican while simultaneously revering FDR and JFK? They really were pure silver spoon aristocrats inheriting all their money. Mitt Romney gave away all the money he inherited. He made it on his own.”

“And the silver spoon Obama got — I mean that generation, it can’t be denied, you can’t support affirmative action and then pretend it doesn’t exist. You don’t transfer from Occidental, which by his own accounts in his autobiography he mostly spent smoking pot, to a fine Ivy League university like Columbia if you’re not checking off ‘black’ on your application. So you know, the silver spoon since I’ve been alive has been an affirmative action silver spoon.”

“I just don’t think Americans are angry at people who go out, work hard and show talent and make the world a better place,” she said. “Do we hate Steve Jobs or Bill Gates?…I think the real class warfare that Americans are hopping mad about is the class warfare between those of us who pay taxes and the people’s whose salary they pay — for their fabulous pensions and they’re partying trips to Las Vegas. And visiting whores in Colombia, and the highest-income counties in the nation not being Beverly Hills or Grosse Point or Greenwich, Conn., but counties all around the seat of government in Washington, D.C.”

“That kind of class warfare I think really strikes a chord right now. Not somebody who has worked hard and done well for himself.”

As usual, she hits the nail on the head.

Another thing worth noting...aside from affirmative action bonus points, the president was the grandson of a bank president who raised him and paid his fees at the exclusive Punahou School in Hawaii..and Michelle Obama's father was a well connected Democrat ward leader, with all that entails.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Ann Coulter Endorses Romney



Ann Coulter makes the case for Mitt Romney, with her usual eloquence. Here's a slice:

So now, apparently, we have to go through the cycle of the media pushing Newt Gingrich. This is going to be fantastic.

In addition to having an affair in the middle of Clinton's impeachment; apologizing to Jesse Jackson on behalf of J.C. Watts -- one of two black Republicans then in Congress –- for having criticized "poverty pimps," and then inviting Jackson to a State of the Union address; cutting a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi; supporting George Soros' candidate Dede Scozzafava in a congressional special election; appearing in public with the Rev. Al Sharpton to promote nonspecific education reform; and calling Paul Ryan's plan to save Social Security "right-wing social engineering," we found out this week that Gingrich was a recipient of Freddie Mac political money.

(Even I will admit, however, that Newt was great when he was chairman of GOPAC back in the '90s with Gay Gaines at the helm.)

Although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the institutions most responsible for the nation's current financial crisis -- were almost entirely Democratic cash cows, they managed to dirty up enough Republicans to make it seem like bipartisan corruption.

Democrats sucked hundreds of millions of dollars out of these institutions: Franklin Raines, $90 million; Jamie Gorelick, $26.4 million; Jim Johnson, $20 million.

By contrast, Republicans came cheap. For the amazingly good price of only $300,000 apiece, Fannie and Freddie bought the good will of former Reps. Vin Weber, R-Minn., Susan Molinari, R-N.Y., and Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.* Former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., was even cheaper at $240,000.

[*Correction: After Gingrich admitted last week to receiving $300,000 from Freddie, we found out this week that it was actually closer to $1.6 million.]

So now conservatives shy away from denouncing these crooked organizations for fear of running into Vin Weber at a cocktail party.

Sorry, guys -- on the plus side, you're millionaires, but on the downside, you've earned the contempt of your fellow man.

The mainstream media keep pushing alternatives to Mitt Romney not only because they are terrified of running against him, but also because they want to keep Republicans fighting, allowing Democrats to get a four-month jump on us.

Meanwhile, everyone knows the nominee is going to be Romney.

That's not so bad if you think the most important issues in this election are defeating Obama and repealing Obamacare.

There may be better ways to stop Obamacare than Romney, but, unfortunately, they're not available right now. (And, by the way, where were you conservative purists when Republicans were nominating Waterboarding-Is-Torture-Jerry-Falwell-Is-an-Agent-of-Intolerance-My-Good-Friend-Teddy-Kennedy-Amnesty-for-Illegals John McCain-Feingold for president?)

Among Romney's positives is the fact that he has a demonstrated ability to trick liberals into voting for him. He was elected governor of Massachusetts -- one of the most liberal states in the union -- by appealing to Democrats, independents and suburban women.

He came close to stopping the greatest calamity to befall this nation since Pearl Harbor by nearly beating Teddy Kennedy in a Senate race. (That is when he said a lot of the things about which he's since "changed his mind.") If he had won, we'd be carving his image on Mount Rushmore.

He is not part of the Washington establishment, so he won't be caught taking money from Freddie Mac or cutting commercials with Nancy Pelosi.

Also, Romney will be the first Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan who can talk. Liberals are going to have to dust off their playbook from 30 years ago to figure out how to run against a Republican who isn't a tongue-tied marble-mouth.


Read the rest here.

What Ann Coulter is doing is applying Reagan's rule - you vote for the most conservative candidate that can get elected. It makes a great deal of sense.Or, as th e old song says, you can't always get what you want,but if you try real hard, sometimes you get what you need.

Another problem with Newt Gingrich La Coulter could have mentioned but didn't is his close relationship with closet GOP Islamist Grover Norquist. That alone should give pause to anyone considering jumping on the Gingrich bandwagon.

-Selah-

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Ann Coulter: 'The Sun never Sets On The British Welfare State'


Another masterpiece from La Coulter, who agrees with me in seeing the UK riots as a product of the Nanny State:


Those of you following the barbaric rioting in Britain will not have failed to notice that a sizable proportion of the thugs are white, something not often seen in this country.

Not only that, but in a triumph of feminism, a lot of them are girls. Even the "disabled" (according to the British benefits system) seem to have miraculously overcome their infirmities to dash out and steal a few TVs.

Congratulations, Britain! You've barbarized your citizenry, without regard to race, gender or physical handicap!

With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes.

I guess we now have the proof of what conservatives have been saying since forever: Looting is a result of liberal welfare policies. And Britain is in the end stages of the welfare state.

In 2008, a 9-year-old British girl, Shannon Matthews, disappeared on her way home from a school trip. The media leapt on the case -- only to discover that Shannon was one of seven children her mother, Karen, had produced with five different men.

The first of these serial sperm-donors explained: "Karen just goes from one bloke to the next, uses them to have a kid, grabs all the child benefits and moves on."

Poor little Shannon eventually turned up at the home of one of her many step-uncles -- whose ex-wife, by the way, was the mother of six children with three different fathers.

(Is Father's Day celebrated in England? If so, how?)

The Daily Mail (London) traced the family's proud Anglo ancestry of stable families back hundreds of years. The Nazi war machine couldn't break the British, but the modern welfare state has.

A year earlier, in 2007, another product of the new order, Fiona MacKeown, took seven of her eight children (by five different fathers) and her then-boyfriend, on a drug-fueled, six-month vacation to the Indian island of Goa. The trip was paid for -- like everything else in her life -- with government benefits.

(When was the last time you had a free, six-month vacation? I'm drawing a blank, too.)

While in Goa, Fiona took her entourage on a side-trip, leaving her 15-year-old daughter, Scarlett Keeling, in the capable hands of a 25-year-old local whom Scarlett had begun sleeping with, perhaps hoping to get a head-start on her own government benefits. A few weeks later, Scarlett turned up dead, full of drugs, raped and murdered.

Scarlett's estranged stepfather later drank himself to death, while her brother Silas announced on his social networking page: "My name is Si, n I spend most my life either out wit mates get drunk or at partys, playing rugby or going to da beach (pretty s**t really)."

It's a wonder that someone like Silas, who has never worked, and belongs to a family in which no one has ever worked, can afford a cellphone for social networking. No, actually, it's not.

Britain has a far more redistributive welfare system than France, which is why France's crime problem is mostly a matter of Muslim immigrants, not French nationals. Meanwhile, England's welfare state is fast returning the native population to its violent 18th-century highwaymen roots.

Needless to say, Britain leads Europe in the proportion of single mothers and, as a consequence, also leads or co-leads the European Union in violent crime, alcohol and drug abuse, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases.


Read the rest here.




please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

One Of Ann Coulter's Funniest Columns To Date

http://blog.utc.edu/TheLoop/files/2009/10/PhotoofAnn-Outside1.jpg

A laugh-out-loud masterpiece...especially in view of the CPAC kerfluffle:

I've been finishing my next book and only able to catch bits and pieces of the news this month, but, based on what I've heard from the mainstream media, I'm pretty sure the conservative movement is now being led either by Jared Loughner or GOProud's president, Chris Barron.

In honor of the gays who have come out of the closet as Republicans to be one of the 140 sponsors of CPAC 2011, I thought I'd run one of the interviews I gave before speaking to GOProud last September, which the reporter never ran after wasting my time.

This is also in honor of The New York Times reporter who wasted my time by writing an article -- or at least a headline, which is as far as I got -- on my speech to the gays that specifically required knowing absolutely nothing about me.

Moreover, I'm feeling like the tea party is stealing my thunder again this week, so it's time to suck up to the gays! (That's from the Times' headline.)

* * *

Hi, Ann. I'm a feature writer for (a mainstream media publication), e-mailing per Chris Barron. Doing a story on the "new" gay left and "new" gay right (Get Equal, GOProud). Questions below my signature. Happy to talk on the phone if you like. Otherwise, feel free to respond via e-mail as tersely or verbosely as you like. My deadline is 6 p.m. tomorrow. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

(1) How often do you give speeches?

Constantly. And whenever someone cuts me off in traffic I usually have some extemporaneous remarks. But if you mean in front of an audience, about a dozen times a year.

(2) Have you ever spoken to an LGBT group or attended an LGBT event before?

Yes. I call them "Ann Coulter book signings." You have no idea how many of my fans are gay.

(3) Can you give me a general preview of what you plan to say at Homocon?

I usually start with my version of "Over the Rainbow," then I take it from there.

(4) (I'm told) you yourself came up with the "right-wing Judy Garland" line; why'd you describe yourself like that?

It was in answer to Grover Norquist's e-mail telling me I was by far GOProud's No. 1 choice as their first speaker. I said: "Duh. I'm the right-wing Judy Garland." (I wanted to be the right-wing Patti LaBelle, but Ken Mehlman beat me to it.)

(4b) Do you plan to sing?

Honestly, it depends on the money. We'll pass the hat and let the chips fall where they may.

(5) Can you lay out your stance on marriage equality (Prop 8, DOMA) and DADT?

I'm against gay marriage, but that's no offense to gays. It is just in defense of a crucial linchpin of civilization that's already hanging by a thread.

(6) Are gay rights part and parcel with basic conservatism? If so, why are so many elected Republicans so skittish/unsupportive about the subject? If not, tell me why.

No, we don't generally care for identity politics of any sort, much less hearing about people's sex lives, even Nino Scalia's. (And judging by the number of children he has, it's pretty active.) Conservatives believe in individual rights, low tax rates, fighting terrorism and punishing criminals -- so do gays! They also happen to believe Judy Garland was the most underappreciated and misunderstood person in the history of show business. I don't think most gays care about gay marriage; they like going to the gay marriage meeting because it's a good way to meet other gays.

(7) Why attend and speak at Homocon?

Why lie? I'm in the market for a new hair stylist.



And it gets better from there..enjoy yourselves, but be careful not to read this one with a mouthful of liquid.






please donate...it helps me write more gooder!