VIDEO: Ann Coulter: "It will be this way from now until the end of time"

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

David Axelrod's pattern of sexual misbehavior ~ By Ann Coulter

In this column, Ann Coulter makes a concluding statement that just may say it all:

This time, Obama's little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.

One of the things I had asked in a recent post here was, who would be responsible for this horrid character assassination of Herman Cain?

After Herman Cain's excellent press conference today, there was a conversation on "The Five" (Fox News), where a debate came up about who is responsible for the attacks on Herman Cain. Could it have been the DNC because Obama is afraid to face Cain? Could it have been other campaigns running for the Republican nomination? Could it be the media? Or, how about Cain's own staff in order to get him more face time?

And that would be totally absurd for anyone to hold Cain's own staff to be responsible, but I had to say it to reflect on the absurdity of the media to make their suggestions that it was anyone else but the Democrats!

Ann seems to answer the question here by showing the motive and opportunity for the Democrats being responsible for getting this story about the harassment allegations started. And this also provides me with information that makes me even more confident that the sexual allegations against Herman Cain are completely untrue. It's almost as if the Democrats, assuming they are responsible, have a lynch mob mentality. I'm just sayin'...

RELATED COLUMN:
Why the Establishment Wants to Destroy Herman Cain ~ By Dr. Alveda King

*     *     *     *

David Axelrod's pattern of sexual misbehavior

ANN COULTER

By Ann Coulter

November 09, 2011 ~ 5:05 pm Eastern

© 2011

Herman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country – Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. – but never in Chicago.

So it's curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod.

Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O'Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley's chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain's personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain's short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he's alleged to have been a sexual predator.

After O'Grady's name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain's personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them – by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)

And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we've suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of ... Chicago.

READ MORE on WND.com

Glenn Beck vs. the mob ~ By Ann Coulter

Bullying is on the rise everywhere in America – and not just because Obama decided to address it. It's because no one hits back. The message in our entire culture over the last two decades has been: DON'T FIGHT!

There were a lot fewer public confrontations when bullies got their faces smashed.

Maybe it's time for Beck to pony up some of those millions of dollars he's earned and hire people to rough up the liberal mob, or, at a minimum, to provide a legal defense to those like Profitt who do.

These liberal pukes have never taken a punch in their lives. A sock to the yap would be an eye-opening experience, and I believe it would do wonders.

They need to have their behavior corrected. It's a shame this job wasn't done by their parents. It won't be done by the police.

As long as liberals can't be normal and prosecutors can't be reasonable, how about a one-punch rule against anyone bothering a stranger in public? Then we'll see how brave these lactose-intolerant mama's boys are.

Believe me, liberal mobbings will stop very quickly after the first toilet-training champion takes his inaugural punch.

Hi, it's me, John Kubicek, otherwise known as johnny2k. There are a few things that we need to discuss regarding this article by Ann Coulter.

I like Ann, I like what she stands for, and that she sticks to her principles. She's a great writer, and she's fun to watch or listen to when she is serving as a Fox News contributor from time to time. Some people would call her brash, but that is just her style. If you were going to look back at all the things that she says about liberals, you'd find that she is generally correct. And that is the whole point to what I want to say about this column.

Ann's generalizations about Liberals are, well, they're generalizations. I know a lot of liberals. And I am sure you do, too. Are they all rude, obnoxious, godless, imbeciles? I would say no, and I'm sure you will too. In general, many of the most liberal people I am acquainted with are just the opposite. But then, I'm not usually hanging out with radicals and people that would associate with the kind of people that ruined Glenn Beck's family outing at the movie (see the related links below).

I do not want to offend my liberal friends, and they would feel the same way about me. When Ann wrote this column, she made it seem that ALL liberals are gutless bullies. Well, that is where I have to disagree with her. However, what I will agree with Ann on is that the people that displayed the kind of disgusting behavior toward Glenn Beck and his family this last Monday night were liberals. As Ann stated, "I could draw a mug shot of every one of Beck's tormentors, and I wasn't there." And, I'm okay with stating my belief that they were liberals, because I do not know any Conservative that would ever behave that way, even if they outnumbered the liberals 100-1. About the only kind of "mob" that I know most Conservatives would participate in would be a flash mob, singing Christmas carols in a mall.

As I said, it isn't my intention to trash my liberal friends. For the most part, I understand HOW many of the liberals I know came to their philosophies. That's a no-brainer. The liberals in the media and education found how easy it is to spread that sentiment. It's fairly easy to influence young minds with the emotions of envy and "social justice." It was apparently not all that difficult to get people to confuse equal opportunity with equal results. And about compassion? Can we say entitlements? What politician that wants to be re-elected and joins the crowd in the Beltway would ever want to try to take away the entitlements that about half of America now enjoys?

No, I'm not here to insult my friends who happen to be liberal. The only thing I can not defend, though, is why they think the way they do, and how they would be tied to people that would be as destructive as were the individuals that harassed Glenn Beck and his family. I know that if my Conservative friends ever acted that way, and they started or tried to instigate physical violence, I would disassociate myself from that group immediately. However, I've yet to see Conservatives or tea partiers resolve our issues in that manner. Vulgar language and bullying wouldn't even be considered, either, by my Conservative friends.

So, remember, this is John Kubicek speaking about what Ann Coulter generalized about liberals' behavior. My friends aren't going to be involved in the mob mentality that the Beck family experienced. Whether Conservative or Liberal, Christian or not, black or white, or any other assorted labels, it doesn't matter to me, as long as your behavior is civil to your fellow human beings. Regardless of your political persuasion, please remember that the generalizations are based on what just a few people do, and I am hoping that was the point that Ann Coulter was making. I'm just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:

• Loving left accost Glenn & family

• Part II: Loving left accost Glenn & Family

• Woman Seated Near Beck at Movie Claims Innocence…But What Does Twitter Tell Us…(With UPDATES!)
  

*    *    *

Glenn Beck vs. the mob

ANN COULTER

By Ann Coulter

June 29, 2011 ~ 5:54 pm Eastern

© 2011

Glenn Beck

Of all the details surrounding the liberal mob attack on Glenn Beck and his family in New York's Bryant Park last Monday night, one element stands out. "No, it won't be like that, Dad," his daughter said when Beck questioned the wisdom of attending a free, outdoor movie showing in a New York park.

People who have never been set upon by a mob of liberals have absolutely no idea what it's like to be a publicly recognizable conservative. Even your friends will constantly be telling you: "Oh, it will be fine. Don't worry. Nothing will happen. This place isn't like that."

Liberals are not like most Americans. They are the biggest p---ies on Earth, city-bred weaklings who didn't play a sport and have never been in a fight in their entire lives. Their mothers made excuses for them when they threw tantrums and spent way too much time praising them during toilet training.

I could draw a mug shot of every one of Beck's tormentors, and I wasn't there.

Beck and his family would have been fine at an outdoor rap concert. They would have been fine at a sporting event. They would have been fine at any paid event, mostly because people who work for the government and live in rent-controlled apartments would be too cheap to attend.

Only a sad leftist with a crappy job could be so brimming with self-righteousness to harangue a complete stranger in public.

A liberal's idea of being a bad-a-- is to say vicious things to a conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back. Getting in a stranger's face and hurling insults at him, knowing full well he has too much at risk to deck you, is like baiting a bear chained to a wall.

They are not only exploiting our lawsuit-mad culture, they are exploiting other people's manners. I know I'll be safe because this person has better manners than I do.

These brave-hearts know exactly what they can get away with. They assault a conservative only when it's a sucker-punch, they outnumber him, or he can't fight back for reasons of law or decorum.

Liberals don't get that when you're outnumbering the enemy 100-1, you're not brave.

But they're not even embarrassed. To the contrary, being part of the majority makes liberals feel great! Honey, wasn't I amazing? I stood in a crowd of liberals and called that conservative a c--t. Wasn't I awesome?

This is a liberal's idea of raw physical courage.

When someone does fight back, liberals transform from aggressor to victim in an instant, collapsing on the ground and screaming bloody murder. I've seen it happen in a nearly empty auditorium when there was quite obviously no other human within 5 feet of the gutless invertebrate.

People incapable of conforming to the demands of civilized society are frightening precisely because you never know what else such individuals are capable of. Sometimes – a lot more often than you've heard about – liberals do engage in physical violence against conservatives ... and then bravely run away.

That's why not one person stepped up to aid Beck and his family as they were being catcalled and having wine dumped on them at a nice outdoor gathering.

No one ever steps in. Never, not once, not ever. (Except at the University of Arizona, where college Republicans chased my assailant and broke his collarbone, God bless them.)

Most people are shocked into paralysis at the sight of sociopathic liberal behavior. The only ones who aren't are the conservative's bodyguards – and they can't do anything without risking a lawsuit or an arrest.

READ MORE at WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Liberals give till it hurts (you) ~ By Ann Coulter

Let me start you out with the introduction to the column. Ann writes:

Liberals never tire of discussing their own generosity, particularly when demanding that the government take your money by force to fund shiftless government employees overseeing counterproductive government programs.

They seem to have replaced "God" with "Government" in scriptural phrases such as "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37).

This week, we'll take a peek at the charitable giving of these champions of the poor.

In her column this week, Ann Coulter explores the charitable giving habits of the very politicians that so compassionately desire your money to help the poor. I've skipped through all of the details of who (Democrats) gave how much money in the paragraphs that I've excerpted, but I promise, it is in her column that you can read in full.

UPDATE, December 30, 2010:

This segment with John Stossel was on Fox & Friends this morning, just hours after I had posted this column.

John Stossel: Who does the charitable giving? It might surprise you!

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Liberals give till it hurts (you)

ANN COULTER

By Ann Coulter

December 29, 2010 ~ 5:58 pm Eastern

© 2010

The only way to pry a liberal from his money is to hold ticker-tape parades for him, allowing him to boast about his charity in magazines and on TV.

Isn't that what Jesus instructed in the Sermon on the Mount?

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do. ... But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you" (Matthew 6:2-4).

In my Bible, that passage is illustrated with a photo of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

At least the hypocrites in the Bible, Redmond, Wash., and Omaha, Neb., who incessantly brag about their charity actually do pony up the money.

Elected Democrats crow about how much they love the poor by demanding overburdened taxpayers fund government redistribution schemes, but can never seem to open their own wallets.

The only evidence we have that Democrats love the poor is that they consistently back policies that will create more of them.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Scrooge was a liberal ~ By Ann Coulter

6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9 As it is written:

"They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor; their righteousness endures forever."

2 Corinthians 9:6-9 (NIV)

Ann Coulter explains why Conservative Christians give more money to charities than secular liberals. Liberals try to cite the Bible "to demand the redistribution of income by government force." And what the liberals don't bother to tell you is that our taxes don't really go to "the poor." Actually, our taxes end up going mostly "to government employees who make more money than you do."


Scrooge was a liberal

ANN COULTER

By Ann Coulter

December 22, 2010 ~ 5:51 pm Eastern

© 2010

It's the Christmas season, so godless liberals are citing the Bible to demand the redistribution of income by government force. Didn't Jesus say, "Blessed are the Health and Human Services bureaucrats, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"?

Liberals are always indignantly accusing conservatives of claiming God is on our side. What we actually say is: We're on God's side, particularly when liberals are demanding God's banishment from the public schools, abortion on demand, and taxpayer money being spent on Jesus submerged in a jar of urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with pornographic photos.

But for liberals like Al Franken, it's beyond dispute that Jesus would support extending federal unemployment insurance.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, but it does nicely illustrate Shakespeare's point that the "devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."

What the Bible says about giving to the poor is: "Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7).

Being forced to pay taxes under penalty of prison is not voluntary and rarely done cheerfully. Nor do our taxes go to "the poor." They mostly go to government employees who make more money than you do.

The reason liberals love the government redistributing money is that it allows them to skip the part of charity that involves peeling the starfish off their wallets and forking over their own money. This, as we know from study after study, they cannot bear to do (unless they are guaranteed press conferences where they can brag about their generosity).

Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks' study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Like a condom, 1st Amendment can't always protect you ~ By Ann Coulter

I hope I won't get sued by Ann Coulter for excerpting several parts of her column. After all, she is an attorney. (Oh, wait, maybe I could claim that I am a journalist...) But anyway, Ann's column has so much good information in it, sharing it with you will hopefully provide some understanding as to what can be done about Julian Assange, (that is, if Eric Holder ever gets off his hind end), and why the 1st Amendment really is a non-issue in this case. Ann will explain why that is, and why being a "journalist" doesn't give a person immunity from the laws of the land.

Like a condom, 1st Amendment can't always protect you

ANN COULTER

By Ann Coulter

December 15, 2010 ~ 6:21 pm Eastern

© 2010

First of all, I feel so much more confident that the TSA's nude photos of airline passengers will never be released now that I know the government couldn't even prevent half a million classified national security documents from being posted on WikiLeaks.

President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder will be getting around to WikiLeaks' proprietor, Julian Assange, just as soon as they figure out which law the New Black Panthers might have violated by standing outside a polling place with billy clubs.

These legal eagles are either giving the press a lot of disinformation about the WikiLeaks investigation or they are a couple Elmer Fudds who can't find their own butts without a map.

Since Holder apparently wasn't watching Fox News a few weeks ago, I'll repeat myself and save the taxpayers the cost of Holder's legal assistants having to pore through the federal criminal statutes starting with the A's.

Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ...

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

As is evident, merely being in unauthorized possession of classified national security documents that could be used to harm this country and publishing those documents constitutes a felony.

There's no exception for albinos with webpages – or "journalists." Journalists are people, too!

And now, skipping down to the end of the column:

If Assange had unauthorized possession of any national defense document that he had reason to believe could be used to injure the United States, and he willfully communicated that to any person not entitled to receive it, Assange committed a felony, and it wouldn't matter if he were Lois Lane, my favorite reporter.

As I have noted previously, the only part of the criminal law that doesn't apply to reporters is the death penalty, at least since 2002, when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute the retarded.

Also, journalists can slander people at will. That ought to make them happy.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

GOP on track to snatch defeat from jaws of victory ~ By Ann Coulter

Ann asks the Republican Party to back off on making predictions about how successful the GOP will be in the November 2010 mid-term election. It will only make the Republicans look worse - as in defeat - if expectations end up being too high.

As depressing as it is to watch the Republican Party dive headlong off a cliff, at least we have Dick Blumenthal.

Connecticut's attorney general, pompous, freakishly ambitious, self-righteous, hold-a-press-conference-every-day Blumenthal, was a shoo-in to take Chris Dodd's Senate seat this fall.

After all, he was a Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star and Purple Heart winner from his days as a four-star general in Vietnam. (And captain of the Harvard swim team to boot!)

But now we find out from a front-page article in the New York Times that, despite Blumenthal's repeated references to serving "in Vietnam" – he was never in Vietnam. He got five draft deferments and then joined an elite unit of the Marine Reserves to avoid going to war, serving in their heroic "Toys for Tots" brigade.

By Ann Coulter

Posted: May 20, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Republican consultants are doing a wonderful job raising expectations sky-high for the November elections, so that now, even if Republicans do smashingly well, it will look like a defeat (and an across-the-board endorsement of Obama's agenda). Thanks, Republicans!

That's what happened in the 1998 congressional elections, nearly foiling Clinton's impeachment. It's what happened to the Conservative Party in Britain a week ago. And that's what happened this week in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, formerly represented by Rep. John Murtha.

Note to Republicans: Whenever possible, victory parties should be held after the election, not before it.

The result of the election in Murtha's old district on Tuesday was that the rabidly anti-Obamacare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate won! Yippee!

But the news on Wednesday morning was that the election "dealt a blow to Republicans," as the New York Times reported.

The reason the Times' description was not utter madness (in violation of New York Times' official policy) is because the anti-Obamacare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate was a Democrat, and, for the past two months, every Republican on TV has been predicting a Republican victory in Murtha's district.

Thanks to all the happy talk, if the Republican actually had won, it would have been Page 16 news. But when the Democrat won, it seemed like an against-all-odds, come-from-behind Hoosiers victory!

Why were Republicans predicting victory in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1? Given a choice between two candidates who both hate Obamacare, why would lifelong Democrats not vote for the Democrat?

Republicans are playing the same raised-expectations game with the November elections. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner is ludicrously predicting Republicans will pick up 100 seats in the House in November. Newt Gingrich puts the figure at an equally insane (and weirdly precise) 78. He also predicts the Cubs will win 132 games this season and six games will be rained out.

Keep it up, Republicans, and I'm going to keep naming names. I have Nexis.

For more than half a century, the average midterm pickup for the party out of power has been 24 seats.

Your job, Republicans, is not to go on Fox News and whisper sweet nothings in conservatives' ears. Your job is to repeal the Obama agenda. Raising expectations so high that a 30-seat Republican pickup will seem like a loss is not helping.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Update: May 24, 2010
 
RELATED VIDEO:

05/24/10 - Ann Coulter is saying that the GOP is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Obama national-security policy: Hope their bombs don't work ~ By Ann Coulter

Ann "applauds" Obama's great national security plan of hoping the terrorists' bombs keep fizzling.

And speaking of a "highly trained federal force," who's working at the INS these days? Who on earth made the decision to allow Shahzad the unparalleled privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen in April 2009?

Our "Europeans Need Not Apply" immigration policies were absurd enough before 9/11. But after 19 foreign-born Muslims, legally admitted to the U.S., murdered 3,000 Americans in New York and Washington in a single day, couldn't we tighten up our admission policies toward people from countries still performing stonings and clitorectomies?

The NYPD can't be everyplace.

By Ann Coulter

Posted: May 05, 2010 ~ 5:16 pm Eastern

© 2010

It took Faisal Shahzad trying to set a car bomb in Times Square to get President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to finally use the word "terrorism." (And not to refer to tea-party activists!)

This is a major policy shift for a president who spent a month telling Americans not to "jump to conclusions" after Army doctor Nidal Malik Hasan reportedly jumped on a desk, shouted "Allahu Akbar!" and began shooting up Fort Hood.

After last weekend, now Obama is even threatening to pronounce it "Pack-i-stan" instead of "Pahk-i-stahn." We know Obama is taking terrorism seriously because he took a break from his "Hope, Change & Chuckles" tour on the comedy circuit to denounce terrorists.

In a bit of macho posturing this week, Obama declared that – contrary to the terrorists' wishes – Americans "will not be terrorized, we will not cower in fear, we will not be intimidated."

First of all, having the Transportation Security Administration wanding infants, taking applesauce away from 93-year-old dementia patients and forcing all Americans to produce their shoes, computers and containers with up to 3 ounces of liquid in Ziploc bags for special screening pretty much blows that "not intimidated" look Obama wants America to adopt.

"Intimidated"? How about "absolutely terrified"?

Second, it would be a little easier for the rest of us not to live in fear if the president's entire national security strategy didn't depend on average citizens happening to notice a smoldering SUV in Times Square or smoke coming from a fellow airline passenger's crotch.

But after the car bomber and the diaper bomber, it has become increasingly clear that Obama's only national defense strategy is: Let's hope their bombs don't work!

If only Dr. Hasan's gun had jammed at Fort Hood, that could have been another huge foreign-policy success for Obama.

The administration's fingers-crossed strategy is a follow-up to Obama's earlier and less successful "Let's Make Them Love Us!" plan.

In the past year, Obama has repeatedly apologized to Muslims for America's "mistakes."

He has apologized to Iran for President Eisenhower's taking out loon Mohammad Mossadegh, before Mossadegh turned a comparatively civilized country into a Third World hellhole. You know, like the Ayatollah has.

He has apologized to the entire Muslim world for the French and English colonizing them – i.e. building them flush toilets.

He promised to shut down Guantanamo. And he ordered the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to be tried in the same courthouse that tried Martha Stewart.

There was also Obama's 90-degree-bow tour of the East and Middle East. For his next visit, he plans to roll on his back and have his belly scratched like Fido.

Despite favorable reviews in the New York Times, none of this put an end to Islamic terrorism.

So now, I gather, our only strategy is to hope the terrorists' bombs keep fizzling.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

Prescriptions for disaster now covered under Obamacare ~ By Ann Coulter

Ann discusses how the President claims that ObamaCare includes some Republican ideas for the health care, but it is far from the real truth.

And just incidentally, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to go bankrupt slightly before the United States of America is projected to go bankrupt. So turning all of health care into a larger Medicare program may need a little more thinking through.

These programs will have to be reconfigured at some point, but how society takes care of the old and the poor should be put in a separate box from how the non-elderly and non-poor should obtain health care.

Democrats want to turn the entire citizenry into welfare recipients.

By Ann Coulter

Posted: March 31, 2010 ~ 5:27 pm Eastern

© 2010

On the "Today" show Tuesday, President Obama claimed the massive government takeover of health care the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote was a "middle of the road" bill that incorporated many Republican ideas.

One Republican idea allegedly incorporated into the Democrats' health-care monstrosity is "medical malpractice reform." Needless to say, the Democrats' idea of malpractice reform is less than nothing. Until trial lawyers are screaming bloody murder, there has been no medical malpractice reform.

The Democrats' "malpractice" section merely encourages the states to set up commissions to "study" tort reform, in the sense that frustrated mothers "encourage" their kids not to slouch. By "study," the Democrats mean "ignore."

So we get more taxpayer-funded government workers under the Democrats' "medical malpractice reform," but not one tittle of actual reform.

Democrats manifestly do not care about helping Americans get quality health care. If they did, they could not continue to support trial lawyers like John Edwards making $50 million by bringing junk lawsuits against doctors who are saving people's lives. (At least Edwards has not done anything else to publicly disgrace himself since then.)

At a minimum, any health-care bill that purports to improve Americans' health, rather than trial lawyers' bank accounts, must include a loser-pays rule and a restriction on damages to actual losses – as opposed to punitive damages, which mostly serve to enrich the John Edwardses of the world, and their mistresses.

The Democrats also lyingly claim their health-care reform includes the Republican ideas of competition across state lines.

I know they're lying because – well, first because I read the bill – but also because Democrats are genetically incapable of understanding the free market. You might say it's a pre-existing condition with them.

True, you can buy insurance across state lines under the new health insurance law – but only after the Democrats have created a national commission telling all insurance companies what they are required to cover.

That's not as bad as the current patchwork of state mandates – it's worse!

At least before the passage of Obamacare you could move to states such as Idaho or Kentucky, where all insurance plans aren't required to cover fertility treatment, restless leg syndrome and social anxiety disorder.

Under federal mandates, there will be no escape.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Oh, Canada! ~ By Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter's experience in Canada was not pleasant. Hey, could we send all our progressives up there? They will all feel at home.

If a university official's letter accusing a speaker of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she's given the speech – which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of the speech – is not hate speech, then there is no such thing as hate speech.


Either Francois goes to jail or the Human Rights Commission is a hoax and a fraud.

By Ann Coulter

Posted: March 24, 2010 ~ 5:44 pm Eastern

© 2010

Since arriving in Canada, I've been accused of thought crimes, threatened with criminal prosecution for speeches I hadn't yet given and denounced on the floor of the Parliament (which was nice because that one was on my "bucket list").

Posters advertising my speech have been officially banned, while posters denouncing me are plastered all over the University of Ottawa campus. Elected officials have been prohibited from attending my speeches. Also, the local clothing stores are fresh out of brown shirts.

Welcome to Canada!

The provost of the University of Ottawa, average student IQ: 0, wrote to me – widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me – in advance of my visit to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.

This marks the first time I've ever gotten hate mail for something I might do in the future.

Apparently, Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which the provost, Francois A. Houle, advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."

I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use, but I take it I'm not supposed to say, "F--- you, Francois."

While it was a relief to know that it is still permissible in Canada to promote hatred against unidentifiable groups, upon reading Francois' letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle (French for "Frank A. Hole").

What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? ("Ottawa": Indian for "Land of the Bed-Wetters.")

How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?

Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Or – my suspicion – is it only conservative women who fuel Francois' rage?

How about sending a letter to all Muslim speakers advising them to please bathe once a week while in Canada? Would that constitute a hate crime?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

My health-care plan ~ By Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter has come up with the CoulterCare plan that seems to be a lot better than ObamaCare or PelosiCare...

In addition to saving taxpayer money and providing better health insurance, my plan also saves trees by being 2,199 pages shorter than the Democrats' plan.


Feel free to steal it, Republicans!

By Ann Coulter

Posted: March 17, 2010 ~ 5:53 pm Eastern

© 2010

Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don't have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan!

It's a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let's all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term "free market."

Nearly every problem with health care in this country – apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors' waiting rooms – would be solved by my plan.

In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.

We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make insurers compete.

The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today.

That's the only way to bypass idiotic state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover, for example, the Zone Diet, sex-change operations and whatever it is that poor Heidi Montag has done to herself this week.

President Obama says we need national health care because Natoma Canfield of Ohio had to drop her insurance when she couldn't afford the $6,700 premiums, and now she's got cancer.

Much as I admire Obama's use of terminally ill human beings as political props, let me point out here that perhaps Natoma could have afforded insurance had she not been required by Ohio's state insurance mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments and unlimited ob/gyn visits, among other things.

It sounds like Natoma could have used a plan that covered only the basics – you know, things like cancer.

The third sentence of my bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies.

Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice.

Instead of Harry Reid deciding whether your insurance plan covers Viagra, this decision would be made by you, the consumer. (I apologize for using the terms "Harry Reid" and "Viagra" in the same sentence. I promise that won't happen again.)

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

What part of 'Party of No' don't you understand? ~ By Ann Coulter

In her column, Ann Coulter explains why it is a great idea for the Republicans to be the party of NO! It is what the American people actually want, despite what Barack Obama is trying to say about it.

If Republicans were smart, they'd shock the world by sending in one of their most appealing members of Congress, who can speak clearly on health care – Sen. Jon Kyl, Rep. Steve King or Rep. Ron Paul.


Actually, if the Republicans were really smart, they'd send in 14-year-old Jonathan Krohn, who understands the free market better than most people in Washington. Of course, so does my houseplant.

By Ann Coulter

Posted: February 24, 2010 ~ 6:11 pm Eastern

© 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Sadly, as the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has noted, the Democratic base is "@#$%^ retarded."

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Ahmadinejad: 'Yep, I'm nuclear!' ~ By Ann Coulter

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

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


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


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

By Ann Coulter

Posted: February 17, 2010 ~ 6:02 pm Eastern

© 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so they did.

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

READ FULL STORY >

Can't we at least get a toaster? ~ By Ann Coulter

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Ann Coulter Posted: January 27, 2010 ~ 6:09 pm Eastern © 2010 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. READ FULL STORY >

That old Obama magic is back ~ By Ann Coulter

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Ann Coulter Posted: January 20, 2010 ~ 6:11 pm Eastern © 2010 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 three 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. READ FULL STORY >

Harry Reid's Negro problem ~ By Ann Coulter

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Ann Coulter Posted: January 13, 2010 ~ 5:58 pm Eastern © 2010 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. READ FULL STORY >