Archive for the ‘Ann Coulter Blurbs’ category

More by Ann Coulter

May 12, 2007

C’est Si Bon

Sarkozy’s victory makes France our new friend and Democrats look foolish

No Wonder They’re Afraid of Brit Hume

The Democrats’ foolish responses during the debate demonstrate their obvious lack of preparation to lead the country

For cranky right-wingers who think politicians don’t listen to them, this week I give you elected Democrats running like scared schoolgirls from the media’s demand that they enact new gun control laws in response to the Virginia Tech shooting.Instead, …

Ho Ho Ho, Merry Imus!

If at First You Don’t Appease — Cry, Cry Again

‘Sorry’ Doesn’t Seem to Be the Hardest Word

Gore’s Global Warming Religion

In Washington, It’s Always the Year of the Rat

Shooting Elephants in a Barrel

Let Them Eat Tofu!

John Murtha: Caving In to Arabs Since 1980

Jonathan Livingston Obama

Yellowcake and Yellow Journalism

Free the Fitzgerald One

I Am Woman, Hear Me Bore

The Stripper Has No Clothes

Stripper Lied … White Boys Fried

The Democratic Party: A Vast Sleeper Cell

Kwanzaa: Holiday From the FBI

Let’s Make America a ‘Sad-Free Zone’!

May 11, 2007

Let’s Make America a ‘Sad-Free Zone’!

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday’s school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to “do something” to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can’t be locked up until it’s too late. It’s not against the law to be crazy — in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It’s certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing — as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.
And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can’t shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic “Gun-Free School Zone” laws.

From the people who brought you “zero tolerance,” I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn’t the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.
Oh by the way, the other major “Gun-Free Zone” in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we’re disallowed from arguing back. That’s how good their arguments are. They’re that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone — at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: “Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?”

If it wasn’t obvious then, it is now.

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Slander,” ““How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” and most recently, “Godless.”

A collection of great quotes on evolution by the brainy blonde bombshell

April 26, 2007

Just to clean the palate of a century of evolutionists’ browbeating everyone into saying evolution is a FACT and we’ll see you in court if you criticize the official state religion, we begin with a story from the late Colin Patterson, respected paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London. Like Diogenes searching for one honest man, Patterson was on a quest to find someone who could tell him-as he put it-“anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true”. Patterson said,”I tried that question on the geology staff at the field museum of natural history, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time”.

Liberals’ Creation Myth is Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Which is about one notch above Scientology in Scientific rigor. It’s a make believe story based on a theory that is tautology, with no proof in the Scientists laboratory or in the fossil record-and thats after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldnt still be talking about it butfor the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God.

Even if evolution were true, it wouldnt disprove God. God has performed more spectacular feats then evolution. Its not even a daunting challenge to a belief in God. If you want something that complicates your belief in God, try coming to terms with Micheal Moore being one of God’s special creatures.

Although believers in God don’t need evolution to be false, athiests need evolution to be true. William provine, an evolutionary biologist at cornell university, calls Darwinisim the greatest engine of atheisim devised by man. His fellow Darwin disiple, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, famously said,”Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” This is why there is mass panic on the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence against evolution.

The ACLU sued a school district in Cobb County, Georgia , mearly for putting stickers in niology textbooks that urged students to study evolution “with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” According to the ACLU, an open mind violates the “seperation of church and state,” which appears in the constitution just after the abortion and sodomy clauses. In Lebec, California, parents represented by Americans United for Seperation of Church and State sued to prevent the school from even offering an elective philosophy class on intelligent design, creationism, and evolution. In Dover, Pennsylvania, a small group of parents backed by the ACLU and AUSCSsued to prevent any discussion of intelligent design in a 9th grade biology class. The judge ruled in their favor and ordered the school to pay the plantiffs legal fees, which will probably exceed $1 million dollars.

So that’s that. After Dover, no school district will dare breath a word about “intelligent design”, unless they want to risk being bankrupted by ACLU lawsuits. The Darwinists have saved the secular sanctity of there temples: the public schools. They didnt win on science,persuasion, or the evidence. They won the way liberals always win: by finding a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter.

This isn’t science , its treating doubts about evolution as religious heresy. Darwinisim, as philosopher and mathematician David Berlinski says, is “the last of the great 19th century mystery religions.” The only reason a lot of Christians reject evolution is that we are taught to abjure big fat lies. You can look it up-we have an entire commandment about the importance of not lying.

Not suprisingly, the Darwiniacs, as author and collumnist Joe Sobran calls them, would aparently prefer to discuss anything but evolution, since they are always pretending evolution means something utterly uncontroversial, like “change over time” is like discribing abortion as “choice.” Aren’t we all for “choice”? Don’t animals change over time? The boring point that organisims “change over time” is not what the Darwiniacs are teaching school children, and thats not what the fuss is about.

Darwins theory of evolution says life on earth began with single celled life forms, which evolved into multi celled life forms, which over countless eons evolved into higher lifeforms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidence or assistence from any intelligent entity like God or the department of agriculture. Which is to say, evolution is the eminently plausable theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespere, and Ronald Reagan (among other things) all came into existence by pure accident.

Evolution is not selective breeding, which produces thoroughbred horses, pedigreed dogs, colored cotton, and so on. Evolution is not the capacity of bactiria to develop antibiotic resistance, but which never evolves into anything but more bacteria. Evolution is not the phenomenon of an existing species changeing over the course of many years-for example, of a frenchmen becoming shorter during the Napoleonic era or Asians becoming taller after immagrating to North America. In fact evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all. Darwins theory says we get a new species, not a taller version of the same species. Evolutionists call such adaptations “microevolution” only to confuse people. This would be like the flat earth society referring to the Sahara Desert as a “micro-flat earth”, as if they are halfway to proving there theory. Well, its flat isn’t it?

What the theory of evolution posits is an accidental, law-of-the-jungle, survival-of-the-fittest mechanisim for creating new species-as indicated in the title of Darwins book,”The Origin of Species”. Leave aside the thornier issues, like how the accidental process that gave us opposeable thumbs could produce a moral sense and consciousness of mortality. Lets consider just the basic steps of evolution.

1.Random mutation of desirable attributes(highly implausable)

2.Natural selection weeding out the “less fot” animals (pointless tautology)

3.leading to the creation of new species (No evidence after 150 years of searching)

Atheists and Liberals – Nuts in the crosshairs

April 26, 2007


Nuts in the crosshairs

Posted: April 25, 2007
5:42 p.m. Eastern

For cranky right-wingers who think politicians don’t listen to them, this week I give you elected Democrats running like scared schoolgirls from the media’s demand that they enact new gun control laws in response to the Virginia Tech shooting.

Instead, Democrats are promoting a mental health exception to the right to bear arms. We’ve banned mass murder and that hasn’t seemed to work. So now we’re going to ban mass murderers. Yes, that will do the trick!

This is a feel-good measure that is both wildly under-inclusive (the vast majority of nutcases receive no formal court adjudication of their nuttiness) and wildly over-inclusive (the vast majority of nuts don’t kill people). The worst thing most nuts do is irritate everybody else by driving their electric cars on the highway.  

As lovely as it would be, we cannot identify mass murderers before they have broken any law, and mass murder is often the first serious crime they commit. No one can be locked up permanently for being potentially dangerous.

Even stalking laws can put away a person known to be dangerous for only a few years – at best – which is generally not worth spending a day sitting in court, facing your stalker and then waiting a month for the court order.

So on one hand, the mental health exception is a feel-good measure that would be largely pointless. But on the other hand, it’s no skin off my back. Liberals go to therapy. Conservatives go to church. And I think we’d all sleep better knowing that David Brock could not buy a gun.

In fact, I think we should expand the mental illness exception to cover First Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights.

I note that before mass murder, the only harassment the Virginia Tech killer was guilty of involved speech: creepy e-mails, creepy short stories, creepy phone calls. Stalkers, too, engage in frightening speech – but that is protected. Revealing a stalking victim’s address is “speech” but is little different from being the one to pull the trigger.

This small measure would have taken Dan “What’s the Frequency, Kenneth” Rather off the airwaves years ago, preventing him from presenting doctored National Guard documents to the American people to try to throw a presidential election. A mental illness bar would deal a quick blow to Air America and both its remaining listeners. It would also free up about 90 percent of the Internet.

And it would end the public lunacy of Jim Wallis, the Democrats’ Christian. Wallis’ first remark on the massacre at Virginia Tech last week was to hail the remarkable “diversity” of the victims. True, Cho murdered 32 people in cold blood. But at least he achieved diversity!

Anyone who thinks a single-minded fixation on diversity must be the ultimate goal of every human endeavor, including mass murder, is not the sort of person who should be able to buy a gun or to publish his daft ruminations in public forums.

But just to get this straight: Democrats are saying we should be able to jail “strange” or “angry” people, but we can’t deplane imams who demand extra-length seatbelts after boarding?

Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed the public expressions of shame and contrition from the Korean-American community after the Virginia Tech shooting? Of course, no one blames this exemplary community for the actions of one nut. The Koreans are manifestly law-abiding and decent – nipping at the heels of Italians as the greatest Americans and tied for second with the Cubans.

Indeed, I believe this marks the first time a Korean has killed anyone in the United States, not involving an automobile. Nonetheless, Korean congregations, community groups and the family members themselves are issuing statements of sorrow. Not “pleas for tolerance.” But sorrow. Remorse. Remember those? They were big back in the day.

If the Koreans can do it, why can’t the Muslims? What explains the lack of a Muslim guilt impulse – so normal, as seen in the case of the saddened Koreans – after dozens of terrorist attacks on Americans?

How about a Muslim exception to the Second Amendment? That would have prevented the Virginia snipers from killing 10 people within three weeks in 2002. But most important: It would help us achieve “diversity” in our gun law prohibitions.