An Ol' Broad's Ramblings
Liberals Go Crazy for the Mentally Ill
by Ann Coulter
Obama has been draping himself in families of the children murdered in Newtown.
MSNBC’s Martin Bashir suggested that Republican senators need to have a member of their families killed for them to support the Democrats’ gun proposals. (Let’s start with Meghan McCain!)
In a bizarre version of “A Christmas Carol,” CNN’s Carol Costello fantasized about “a mother who lost her child,” showing up and knocking on Sen. Rand Paul’s door, saying, “Please don’t do this!”
The victims of gun violence are the left’s latest “human shields” — a term coined by me in Godless: The Church of Liberalism — for their idiotic ideas. At least it’s not the godawful Jersey Girls this time.
The one clear thread that unites all the mass murders currently being exploited by the Democrats is that they were committed by visibly crazy people who were unaccountably not institutionalized. But Democrats refuse to do anything about crazy people. Apparently, the views of families with relatives murdered by severely disturbed individuals are no longer relevant when it comes to institutionalizing the mentally ill.
(Since I’ve been spending time with family in Texas, I’ve not been exactly ‘Johnny on the spot’ with a lot of my postings. Hey..I actually DO have a life away from the computer! And besides, Ann was late getting her column up, so I completely forgot due to the real world invading. )
I honestly don’t understand the liberal need to control other people’s lives. Why don’t they worry about whether or not they live in a glass house, before throwing stones at someone else’s? Way back in the dark ages, when I was in school, girls who turned up pregnant were not praised, they weren’t touted as victims, they were shamed, and there were a LOT fewer teen pregnancies then because of it. Shame isn’t a bad thing, and for the liberals who do their utmost to ‘shame’ others for not adhering to their distorted view of the world is just plain hypocritical!
I honestly believe that liberals WANT children to have children, so they can murder those children, create a dependent class if they don’t, push more people into government controlled environments, and make sure there are more gang murders due to the lack of a family structure. Now tell me…who is it that is destroying the country. It sure isn’t those who prefer a nation of moral responsibility!
Trouble in the Nanny State
by Ann Coulter
Like the proverbial monkey typing for infinity and getting Shakespeare, Mayor Bloomberg’s obsession with reforming New Yorkers’ health has finally produced a brilliant ad campaign.
Posters are popping up in subway stations and bus stops giving statistics about teen pregnancy that show cute little kids saying things like, “Honestly, Mom … chances are he won’t stay with you. What happens to me?” and “I’m twice as likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen.”
(Based on a recent CBS report, the kid could add, “Then again, I’m in the New York City public school system, so even if I graduate I won’t be able to read.”)
It’s one thing to stigmatize “Big Gulp” drinkers, but liberals are hopping mad at this attempt to stigmatize teen pregnancy, 90 percent of which is unwed. To put it another way, if you’re a New York teen with a distended belly these days, it had better be because you’re pregnant.
Planned Parenthood’s Haydee Morales complained that the ads are creating “stigma” and “negative public opinions about teen pregnancy.” (I’m pretty sure that’s the basic idea.)
Why does anyone need to read about celebrities?
by Ann Coulter
Having given up on trying to persuade Americans that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will reduce the murder rate, Democrats have turned to their usual prohibitionary argument: “Why does anyone need (an assault weapon, a 30-round magazine, a semiautomatic, etc., etc.)?”
Phony conservative Joe Manchin, who won his U.S. Senate seat in West Virginia with an ad showing him shooting a gun, said, “I don’t know anyone (who) needs 30 rounds in a clip.”
CNN’s Don Lemon, who does not fit the usual profile of the avid hunter and outdoorsman, demanded, “Who needs an assault rifle to go hunting?”
Fantasist Dan Rather said, “There is no need to have these high-powered assault weapons.”
And prissy Brit Piers Morgan thought he’d hit on a real showstopper with, “I don’t know why anyone needs an assault rifle.” Of course, where he comes from, policemen carry wooden sticks.
Since when do Americans have to give the government an explanation for why they “need” something? If that’s the test, I can think of a whole list of things I don’t know why anyone needs.
When are Republicans going to stop acting like Democrats? They wonder why people are leaving the party? Pfft! I don’t suppose it has ever occurred to them that one of the big reasons is because they are no longer the Republican Party….the party of Lincoln, the party of Reagan….the party that believes in the rule of law! The party that fought for the civil rights of black Americans! The party that USE to stand by the U.S. Constitution! If they don’t return to their roots, they will find themselves a footnote in the history books, just like the Whigs.
Hispanicked GOP elite: They’ll respect us in the morning
by Ann Coulter
Don’t anyone tell Marco Rubio, John McCain or Jeff Flake that nearly 80 percent of Hindus voted for Obama, or who knows what they’ll come up with.
I understand the interest of business lobbies in getting cheap, unskilled labor through amnesty, but why do Republican officeholders want to create up to 20 million more Democratic voters, especially if it involves flouting the law? Are the campaign donations from the soulless rich more important than actual voters?
Without citing any evidence, the Rubio Republicans simply assert that granting 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens amnesty will make Hispanics warm to the GOP. Yes, that’s worked like a charm since Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986!
You’ve heard the saying, “Ignorance is bliss.” Well, it’s not true. Ignorance is…well….ignorant. And if you are willfully ignorant, well, that’s even worse that being illiterate. At least the illiterate can be taught to read. The willfully ignorant actually CHOOSE to be oblivious.
White liberals tell black lies about civil rights
by Ann Coulter
Liberals ignored my book “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama” throughout the fall. Now that I’m safely home from my book tour, they feel free to jabber on about their make-believe history of the civil rights movement with abandon.
In the hackiest of all hacky articles, Sam Tanenhaus, the man responsible for ruining The New York Times Book Review, has written a cover story in The New Republic, titled: “Original Sin: Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people.”
MSNBC has been howling this cliche for a decade — or, as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said of Tanenhaus’ article, “a bold headline”!
Being interviewed by a giddy Matthews — who has no black friends, employees or neighbors — Tanenhaus announced the startling fact that once, long ago, some Republicans supported civil rights!
The GOPers are losing. Why? Because conservatives don’t want to vote for Dem Lite. It’s just that simple. The elites needs to realize that we, the unwashed masses, aren’t going to go along with their absurd, LOSING, plans. If they have any intention of ever winning, they better get their sorry asses back to the basics!
The GOP’s Primary Problem
by Ann Coulter
Having just lost an election, many Republicans are anxious to remake our party in the image of Democrats. The theory seems to be that whatever we’re doing isn’t working, so we better change everything.But in fact, whatever Republicans did in 2012 — other than an overly long primary fight — worked amazingly well, given the circumstances.
In a detailed analysis of the 2012 election, William A. Galston, a fellow with the liberal Brookings Institution, makes a number of fascinating observations that Republicans would do well to consider before embracing amnesty, abortion, gay marriage and Beyonce.
In my analysis of his analysis, the single most important factor in the election was simply that Obama was an incumbent. As Galston notes, beating an incumbent president is a feat that has happened only five times since the turn of the last century. Republicans have done it only once.
I like Marco Rubio. I think he’s a very bright young man. That being said, he has made a major mistake. I understand his background. I do understand how many others came, fighting against unbelievable odds, to find freedom on our shores. However, that does NOT give those who continuously sneak across our borders, or over stay their visas, a free pass to stick around. I’m sorry, we just can’t afford to support them all!
Yes, yes… I know. They are just looking for jobs and freedom. How about they stay home and do the same in their own country? We’re broke. Our LEGAL citizens need jobs, and when they are unable to find work, what few resources that are left are stretched way too thin due to the support of illegals. The fraud is amazing, and yet….silence!
Yes, there are some of Hispanic descent who are extremely conservative. Unfortunately, no matter what the Republicans have done over the last 30+ years, starting with Reagan’s failed amnesty of 3 million, we will not be able to convince them it is in their best interest to turn away from the Democrats. Most Hispanics are very pro-life and family oriented, yet they vote in droves for the party of death and family destruction.
Before anyone speaks of any sort of amnesty, let’s see that border secured, with MORE, and BETTER armed, border patrol, and remove the constant criminals who are destroying our streets, a la gang activity.
Senator Rubio, with all due respect, let’s enforce the laws we have on the books. Secure our borders. Keep LEGAL residents and citizens safe from the invasion we’ve been suffering for decades.
Rubio’s amnesty a path to oblivion for GOP
by Ann Coulter
Apart from finding out that Barack Obama did far worse in his re-election than nearly any other incumbent who won re-election, the only thing that perked me up after Nov. 6 was coming across a Time magazine published after the 2004 election, when George W. Bush won a second term. In the mirror image of all the 2012 post-election analyses, the Democrats were said to be finished, out of ideas, hopelessly unpopular. It’s like watching MSNBC, with the word “Democrats” replaced with “Republicans.”
Democrats had thrown everything they had into beating Bush, crushing the Howard Dean wing of their party and running a moderate — a Vietnam veteran, no less! They had George Soros, Michael Moore and Code Pink working like fiends to topple Bush.
Still, they lost to an incumbent. As Time noted, the Democrats had “lost five of the past seven presidential elections.”
But the pendulum swings. The Democrats came roaring back in 2006 and again in 2008. There’s no reason Republicans can’t do the same, unburdened by having to run against an incumbent in 2016.
Unless Marco Rubio has his way.
The good news is: Obama and the Senate Democrats have no intention of passing more idiotic gun legislation in response to the Newtown massacre. The bad news is that they also have no intention of passing any legislation about the mentally ill, which would actually do something to reduce these mass shootings.
Instead, the Democrats will jawbone about “assault weapons” and other meaningless gun laws for the sole purpose of scaring soccer moms into hating the National Rifle Association. Expect to hear a lot about Republicans preferring “the gun lobby” to “children.” (Which is evidently not at all like preferring the teachers lobby to children.)
Democrats are hoping to pick up another dozen congressional seats in 2014, so they need terrified women.
Just don’t expect a vote. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid cannot afford a vote on any of these nonsense gun laws because he needs to protect the seats of Democrats who have to get re-elected in districts where voters know something about guns.
Even the stupidest politician has to know how utterly meaningless “assault weapon” bans are. (In fairness, New York’s Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Gov. Andrew Cuomo may not know.) But Democrats need to gin up the most easily fooled voters.
“Assault weapons” are defined as “whatever politicians say they are.” The guns that are banned and the ones that aren’t are functionally identical. They’re all semi-automatics.
Semi-automatics shoot one bullet per trigger pull — that’s the definition. Any handgun manufactured since the Civil War is a “semi-automatic.” The most basic self-defense revolver for women is a “semi-automatic.”
Guns don’t kill people, mentally ill do
by Ann Coulter
Seung-Hui Cho, who committed the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, had been diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder as a child and placed under treatment.
But Virginia Tech was prohibited from being told about Cho’s mental health problems because of federal privacy laws.
At college, Cho engaged in behavior even more bizarre than the average college student. He stalked three women and, at one point, went totally silent, refusing to speak even to his roommates. He was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for one night and then unaccountably unleashed on the public, whereupon he proceeded to engage in the deadliest mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history.
The 2011 Tucson, Ariz., shopping mall shooter, Jared Loughner, was so obviously disturbed that if he’d stayed in Pima Community College long enough to make the yearbook, he would have been named “Most Likely to Commit Mass Murder.”
After Loughner got a tattoo, the artist, Carl Grace, remarked: “That’s a weird dude. That’s a Columbine candidate.”
One of Loughner’s teachers, Ben McGahee, filed numerous complaints against him, hoping to have him removed from class. “When I turned my back to write on the board,” McGahee said, “I would always turn back quickly — to see if he had a gun.”
Doing the research the New York Times won’t do
by Ann Coulter
In Sunday’s New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, “More Guns = More Killing.” She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: (1) anecdotal observations; and (2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.
There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws. The Times will never mention this study.
Instead, Rosenthal’s column proclaimed that armed guards do not reduce crime because: “I recently visited some Latin American countries … where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, ATM, restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.”
So there you have it: The cock crowed, then the sun came up. Therefore, the cock’s crowing caused the sun to come up. Rosenthal went to Harvard Medical School.
by Ann Coulter
I am bored with politics, refuse to pay attention to the news and am watching only True Crime TV shows and Turner Classic Movies these days. With the Democrats controlling the Senate and presidency, nothing good can possibly come out of Washington for at least another two years. So I thought I’d start the new year with something useful, like a short list of bad inventions.
(1) SILENT DISHWASHERS
Are people installing dishwashers next to their beds? I’ve checked my “Top 500 Daily Irritations” list and dishwasher noise is not on it.
What possible benefit derives from having a dishwasher that makes absolutely no noise? Was that gentle whooshing sound driving some homeowners bonkers? Is this a product designed by the same people who gave us the electric car, a vehicle so silent that the first sign of its approach is the sound of your pelvis breaking as the car hits you?
Not only are the virtues of a silent dishwasher elusive, but there’s one big disadvantage: You can’t tell if it’s running. A dishwasher doesn’t have to sound like the Concorde blasting off to provide some indication that the thing is working.
Now, in addition to the usual steps of washing dishes — loading the dishwasher, inserting the cleaning agent and turning on the machine — the fancy new quiet dishwashers demand yet another step of the homeowner: You have to hang around and keep putting your ear against the door hoping to hear activity. If you forget to perform this bonus time-waster, every once in a while you’ll start unloading dishes the next morning and notice that they’re still dirty.
The whole point of having a dishwasher is to minimize the work involved to get clean dishes. The dishwasher is a product that’s devolving.
Stupidity is not a game plan, and it has never saved any lives………..ever!
We know how to stop school shootings
by Ann Coulter
In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman’s mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation’s attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.
Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.
Tax rich liberals
by Ann Coulter
Republicans have been forced into a Hobson’s choice of either letting the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone or agreeing to a tax hike on the top 2 percent of income earners (not to be confused with “the rich,” who have already made, inherited or married their money).
If Republicans object to the Democrats’ hitting job creators with a tax hike, three things will happen: Taxes will go up for everyone; Republicans will be seen as the “party of the rich”; and the inevitable economic collapse will be blamed on Republicans.
If Democrats were merely trying to raise taxes on the rich in a vacuum, it would be easier for Republicans to oppose raising anyone’s taxes. But because the Bush tax cuts are only temporary, unless the high-income earners’ taxes go up, everyone’s taxes revert to pre-Bush tax rates.
Republicans cannot be the party that raised everyone’s tax rates to prove that they can’t be pushed around by the Democratic Senate and Democratic president. You don’t want job-killing tax hikes on producers? Vote Republican next time.
It is not helpful to complain, “But Republicans will be blamed no matter what they do!” Yes — true. When has that not been true? It’s not a novel insight, and it’s certainly not an argument for handing our enemies a baseball bat to bludgeon us with.
I was kind of busy last night, doing other things…almost a domestic diva? Ok, let’s not get carried away here! So, I missed Ann’s column. After reading it this morning, I will do what I normally do on Wednesday evening, when I agree with her larger points….copy & paste.
America Nears El Tipping Pointo
by Ann Coulter
I apologize to America’s young people, whose dashed dreams and dim employment prospects I had laughed at, believing these to be a direct result of their voting for Obama.
On closer examination, it turns out that young voters, aged 18-29, overwhelmingly supported Romney. But only the white ones.
According to Pew Research, 54 percent of white voters under 30 voted for Romney and only 41 percent for Obama. That’s the same percentage Reagan got from the entire white population in 1980. Even the Lena Dunham demographic — white women under 30 — slightly favored Romney.
Reagan got just 43 percent of young voters in 1980 — and that was when whites were 88 percent of the electorate. Only 58 percent of today’s under-30 vote is white and it’s shrinking daily.
What the youth vote shows is not that young people are nitwits who deserve lives of misery and joblessness, as I had previously believed, but that America is hitting the tipping point on our immigration policy.