Posts Tagged ‘ann coulter’

Over the weekend, conservative commentator Ann Coulter appeared on Fox News’ “Geraldo at Large,” where she debated anti-obesity activist MeMe Roth. While the conversation was initially centered upon New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his proposed (and enacted) policies on sugary drinks, smoking and other related subjects, it ended up taking an unsuspected turn.

In making the point that cigarette smoke isn’t the only activity that impacts overall health care costs, Coulter noted that sodomy, gay bathhouses and AIDS are all issues that also raise the cost of medical care.

Her point? If the government is going to go after smokers with the rationale that their activities impact the greater society, why not go after those who use gay bathhouses and, as a result, are at increased risk for health-related expenses?

Coulter noted that she wasn’t advocating for the latter point and that she was simply comparing Bloomberg’s policies on smoking and cigarettes to other issues that she said have a similar health impact. The conservative pundit posited the sodomy comparison as Roth was doubling-down on defending the mayor’s bans.

“There’s lots of behavior that’s worse,” Coulter said, later decrying the fact that smokers are regularly singled-out for their actions. ”People know smoking is bad for you and…all of the stigma of the world comes down on this one behavior.”

But Roth wasn’t budging, as she noted that smoking is a costly personal choice.

“If you make a personal decision that ends up costing others money, somebody has to pick up that tab,” she said. ”If we’re picking up the tab, somebody’s got to help pay for that.”

Read more here.

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.

Their study controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment, retirement, poverty rates, state population, murder arrest rates, violent crime rates, and on and on.

The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.

Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.

Read more here.

Despite receiving flack from liberals and some conservatives for referring to President Barack Obama as “the retard” in a tweet, conservative commentator Ann Coulter showed no remorse for using the word. In an appearance on Alan Colmes’ Thursday radio show, first flagged in a rare catch from Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher, Coulter scoffed at her critics, saying “Oh, screw them.”

“No, of course I don’t,” Coulter, the author of Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama, said when asked by host Alan Colmes if she regretted the tweet. “I regret — one regret at this moment is that I’m not promoting my book, Guilty, subtitle: Liberal Victims and Their Attack on America. Liberal victims are the biggest bullies of all. Look, no one would refer to a Down Syndrome child, someone with an actual mental handicap, by saying ‘retard.’ Where do you think the words ‘imbecile,’ ‘idiot,’ ‘moron,’ ‘cretin’ come from? These were all technical terms at one time. ‘Retard’ had been used colloquially to just mean ‘loser’ for 30 years,” she continued. “But no, no — these aggressive victims have to come out and tell you what words to use.”

Read more here.

Actresses Scarlett Johansson, Eva Longoria and Kerry Washington warn in a new MoveOn.org web ad that a Mitt Romney presidency would irrevocably undercut women’s rights, destroy Planned Parenthood, redefine rape and mandate transvaginal ultrasounds for women across the country.

But Ann Coulter, author of “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama,” isn’t buying it. On Monday’s broadcast of “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel, Coulter said the ad’s dire predictions — along with threats by some liberals that blacks will riot if President Barack Obama loses in November — are simply invented to stir up emotions.

“I think the threats to riot and the claim that abortion will be somehow miraculously be illegal in places like California and New York is not going to swing the undecided voters here,” Coulter said. “I will note that white liberals are always threatening black riots whenever they’re about to lose an election. Al [Gore] did it in 2000.”

Coulter referenced her 2009 book, “Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America,” for viewers interested in learning more about Gore’s statement.

“It was very clear that [Gore] was speaking in both cases about black people rioting,” Coulter said. “Black people don’t riot, but thanks for the hat tip, liberals. And if it’s white liberals who are threatening to riot, I don’t think we have much to worry about from the people who have been hysterical about Big Bird over the last two weeks. You know, what are they going to do, knock over their sippy cups or throw a tantrum when mother is changing her blouse in the department store too long? I don’t think we have much to worry about white liberals rioting, and black people have not shown a disposition to riot, despite liberals slandering them by saying they are about to.”

Read more here.

An uncomfortable situation unfolded on “The View” set this morning when co-host Whoopi Goldberg confronted conservative author Ann Coulter. Goldberg demanded that the commentator tell her how much she knows “about being black” and later proclaimed that Coulter’s “facts are a little shaky.”

Appearing on her the show to discuss her new book, “Mugged,” Coulter detailed her reasoning for writing the book, while defending Republicans against common Democratic talking points about race. Her comments were apparently so infuriating to Goldberg that the network was forced to bleep out the co-host.

“What I’m trying to say is race-mongering has been very bad for America,” she said. “Liberals use it to promote causes that have nothing to do with blacks and, in fact, harm blacks.”

Read more here.

How about Chris Matthews? He is an aggressive bean counter when it comes to the number of blacks at Tea Parties—as if the Tea Partiers can control who shows up at their rallies.

Blacks as a group are overwhelmingly one-party voters. Jews have more Republicans. As a result, any group that espouses Republican principles obviously isn’t going to have a lot of black people—although probably more than the schools Chris Matthews’s children attended.

While living cheek-by-jowl with the nation’s capital, which happens to be a majority black city, Matthews’s kids managed to go to schools that are probably about 3 percent black. When Matthews had an opportunity to associate with blacks by sending his children to public schools, he chose not to. His obsession with race is all about self-congratulation. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said: “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”

The Tea Parties weren’t as white as Chris Matthews’s office. They weren’t as white as Matthews’s neighborhood or television audience. (It’s doubtful that even Eugene Robinson watches Hardball.)

This is New-York-Times-Charlie-Rose-PBS thinking. We’re not racist, they are. This pompous self-perception allows liberals to be offensively, self-righteously preening in the positions they take, such as demanding school busing for other people but sending their own kids to private schools.

If we attended a party at the Matthews home in Chevy Chase, Maryland, how many blacks would we see? Could we at least wave to the black neighbors? The New York Times write-up of his son’s wedding included a panoramic shot of the church, showing nearly a hundred guests. Not one of them is black.

Read more here.

The actual Republican Establishment –- political consultants, The Wall Street Journal, corporate America, former Bush advisers and television pundits — are exhorting Mitt Romney to flip-flop on his very non-Establishment position on illegal immigration.

Both as governor of Massachusetts and as a presidential candidate, Romney has supported a fence on the border, E-Verify to ensure that employees are legal and allowing state police to arrest illegal aliens. He is the rare Republican who recognizes that in-state tuition, driver’s licenses and amnesty are magnets for more illegal immigration.

These positions are totally at odds with Establishment Republicans who pander to the business lobby by supporting the cheap labor provided by illegal immigration, and then accuse Americans opposed to a slave labor class in America of racism. If this continues, America will become California and no Republican will ever be elected president again. Big business doesn’t care and Establishment Republicans are too stupid to notice.

If you’re not sure how you feel about illegal immigration, ask yourself this: “Do I have a nanny, a maid, a pool boy, a chauffeur, a cook or a business requiring lots of cheap labor that the rest of America will have to subsidize with social services to make up for the wages I’m paying?” Press “1″ to answer in English.

If the answer is “no,” illegal immigration is a bad deal for you. Cheap labor is cheap only for the employer.

Today, 70 percent of illegal immigrant households collect government benefits — as do 57 percent of all immigrant households — compared to 39 percent of native households.

Immigrant households with the highest rate of government assistance are from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (tied at 75 percent), based on the latest available data from 2009. Immigrant households least likely to be on any welfare program are from the United Kingdom (7 percent).

British immigrants aren’t picking the tomatoes Karl Rove doesn’t want his son to pick. (That’s how he justified Bush’s amnesty proposal.)

You can either pay a little more for tomatoes picked by Americans or you can pay a lot more in welfare to the illegal immigrants who will pick them as well as to generations of their descendants.

Yes, many illegal immigrants work hard, but it’s not our responsibility if their employers don’t pay them a living wage. This is known as an “externality,” which we hear a lot about in the case of greedy businesses polluting the land, but not when it’s greedy businesses making the rest of us support their underpaid employees.

Romney is one of the few Republicans to recognize that there is no need to “round up” illegal aliens (in the lingo of amnesty supporters) to get them to go home. Illegal aliens will leave the same way they arrived. They decided to walk across the border to get jobs — and welfare, apparently — and they’ll walk back across the border as soon as the jobs and welfare dry up.

Read more here.