Category Archives: Ann Coulter

Socking It To Soccer

Ann Coulter, Europe, Sport

This was for a game that ended in a tie. Yes, a TIE – an exhilarating 1-1 final score. … So in a 100-minute game, something happened two times and nothing happened 98 times. … Watching people run 62 miles by circumnavigating a big field all day with no scoring! …
… You can’t use your hands in soccer (thus eliminating the danger of having to catch a fly ball). What sets man apart from the lesser beasts, besides a soul, is that we have opposable thumbs. Our hands can hold things. Here’s a great idea: Let’s create a game where you’re not allowed to use them!
… I resent the force-fed aspect of soccer. The same people trying to push soccer on Americans are the ones demanding that we love HBO’s “Girls,” light-rail, Beyonce and Hillary Clinton. The number of New York Times articles claiming soccer is “catching on” is exceeded only by the ones pretending women’s basketball is fascinating.

Ann Coulter makes good fun of football or soccer. Whether you’re a fan of the game or not, you should find the two columns a lot of fun. The fact that she got hate mail for these pieces is a sure sign that the witless now walk the earth.

* “Hating soccer: Part Deux”

* “America’s Favorite Pastime: Hating Soccer”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: Haman Hussein’s Healthcare (The Latest)

Ann Coulter, Barack Obama, Healthcare, Judaism & Jews

With each exorbitant healthcare bill I pay these days—and have paid since my policy was restructured to comply with Haman’s healthcare edicts—I am reminded to say the thing we Jews say following the name of a force for evil. Let me put it in context:

The last hellcare update you got here was of Ann Coulter struggling mightily to buy insurance after a policy cancellation. That a well-to-do woman would fight to find and purchase a product as essential as healthcare insurance in the USA, tells you all you need to know about those “markets” the moron, “Yimach Sh’mo,” has ruined.

Yimach Sh’mo means “may his name be erased from memory” (or Damnatio memoriae) and it “is commonly uttered by Jews after the mention of Hitler, Stalin and Haman.

A bit of hyperbole, perhaps?

Haman Hussein is hurting my pocket and may hurt my health. He is hurting the health of many less fortunate than I; should Individuals whose healthcare insurance Haman has canceled fall seriously ill—he’ll be the ruin of them. They’ll have to deplete their savings and sell their homes to heal themselves. No, the mention of Haman and Hussein in tandem does not constitute hyperbole.

In short succession, I’ll bring you the latest developments in Haman’s healthcare.

UPDATE (3/31): The facts not finessed:

The administration claims 6 million have “signed up” for Haman’s health care. There is a big difference between selecting a plan and paying for one. Data from state exchanges, says Betsy McCaughey, indicate that up to a third have not paid. Data from the federal exchanges point to 20 percent.

How many of the 6 million insured by Haman are new, paying policy holders, and how many had insurance before Haman, “Yimach Sh’mo,” dispossessed them of their chosen plans and shoved them on to his?

Only about 27 percent of Haman healthcare policy holders were uninsured before, estimate McKinsey & Company.

Given that as many as 5 to 6 million people lost plans they liked and were forced onto exchanges and plans they dislike—there has been “no net increase in the number of insured,” ventures Ms. McCaughey’s

Of course, the CBOafs (The Congressional Budget Oafs)—whose practice it is to “first confirm government predictions of the great savings that will accrue due to this or the other wastrel, welfare program. Later, when it’s safer, they adjust their statistical sleight of hand”—had echoed Haman. They promised that “the vast majority of the people eligible for subsidies on the exchanges would be previously uninsured individuals.”

Instead, says Avik Roy, “the vast majority are previously insured people, many of whom are getting a better deal on the exchanges because they either qualify for subsidies, or because they’re older individuals who benefit from the law’s steep rate hikes on the young.”

This is nothing new to those of us who understood the simple mathematical facts about a $2 trillion government program.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

It Happened To Ann Coulter. She Lost IT. Guess What?

Ann Coulter, Healthcare

It happened to Ann Coulter. The health insurance she liked was outlawed. Her illegal, “undocumented” healthcare plan was deported. Read what’s coming down the pike for all Americans once the waivers expire and the employers give up on covering their employees. After scouring the healthcare terrain for her options, Coulter concludes the following in this superb column:

“Health insurance has been outlawed, replaced with a welfare program that has been renamed ‘insurance.’”

… That’s not insurance! It’s a huge transfer of wealth from people who work for a living to those who don’t, accomplished by forcing the workers to buy insurance that’s not insurance. Obamacare has made actual health insurance “illegal.”

It’s not “insurance” when what I want to insure against isn’t covered, but paying for other people’s health care needs — defined broadly — is mandatory.

It’s as if you wanted to buy a car, so you paid for a Toyota — but then all you got was a 10-speed bike, with the rest of your purchase price going to buy cars, bikes and helmets for other people.

Or, more precisely, it would be like having the option of car insurance that covers either collisions or liability, but not both. Your car insurance premium would be gargantuan, because most of it would go to buy insurance, gas and air fresheners for other people in the plan.

If you have employer-provided health care, you may not have to make the 400 phone calls I had to, but the result will be the same: You’re not getting what is commonly known as “insurance.” You’re getting a massive bill to pay for other people’s chiropractors, marriage counselors, birth control pills, smoking cessation programs, “preventive care” appointments and pre-existing conditions. …

… When Matt Drudge decided he’d rather pay for his own health care, liberals hysterically denounced him for not buying an Obamacare transfer-the-wealth, fake “insurance” plan. It used to be shameful to be a public charge. Now it’s shameful to pay for yourself.

And it’s shameful to work for yourself. The self-employed are currently the only Americans subjected to Obamacare. (In a way, it’s lucky for the Democrats that there aren’t enough of us to hurt them in this year’s midterm elections!)

But we’re the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. You may have an employer-provided plan now, but the waivers can’t go on forever. If you live in America, your health insurance is going to disappear, too.

The government simply cannot force all insurance companies to give subsidized health care to a third of the country, to ignore the pre-existing health conditions of its customers, to pay for every little thing tangentially related to health — like smoking cessation programs, marital counseling and pediatric dental care — and also expect them to cover your cancer treatment.

It doesn’t matter if you’ve been paying for insurance your whole adult life. That policy is now “illegal.” Put your hands in the air, nice and easy, and step away from the policy …

You 99-percenters still unaffected by Obamacare will blithely go to the polls this November and vote on some teeny-tiny issue, completely unaware of the total destruction of health insurance in America. The waivers have worked.

Now we’ll have to wait 40 years for a future Mickey Kaus to come along and expose the disastrous consequences of this horrendous government program, just like the real Mickey Kaus did with welfare. But for now, I say: Screw you, Mickey Kaus.

.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Conservative Argument From Feelings Against Fem Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action, Ann Coulter, Conservatism, Feminism, Gender, Reason

Presumably pursuant to the posts “Conservatives and Lefties United Against The Beauty Ideal” and “With Some Exceptions, ‘Women Are Fascists At Heart,’” Ben Cohen of “American Thinker” has been kind enough to send me his piece, “The Legitimacy of White Male Anger.”

Thanks.

My problem, however, with “The Legitimacy of White Male Anger” is its non-stop apologetics, which come close to accepting the premise of “gender parity through affirmative action,” provided women are a little more gracious about all the concessions they are getting.

“Those demanding that more women be hired in various academic fields” are “sanctimonious and callous,” “blatantly self-serving”; not nice, demanding.

This amounts to psychologizing, not arguing.

Moreover, why is it “bad” for men to have given an “unfriendly reception” to women who’ve been forcibly integrated into the traditionally male trades?

If they don’t deserve to be on the job, on merit, why does friendliness matter; why is it the focus here? And why have men taken to arguing like women? (“You hurt my feelings. Be nice.” Or, “do feminists ever stop and consider the men’s perspective?”)

It’s disconcerting.

As an individualist, I am all for recruiting your lesbian, Amazonian lady to the traditionally male occupations. She is a rare creature who can match men in physicality. Seek her. Keep her. In an increasingly feminized, soft society, warrior women need the military, for example, as an outlet for their abilities. Let these women join the police, military or the fire brigade. An exception, not the rule, however, is the woman who can match a man in strength, speed, physical endurance and handiness.

So why on earth is male “unfriendliness” toward women who force them to do double duty on the job relevant? Even the woman-glorifying, TV cop series we all watch can’t help but display men outrunning their partners, catching up to the criminal, pummeling the thug, and saving the more feeble female cop’s life.

A male cop who serves along a 100 pound woman with silicone for breasts is risking his life. Receiving her with hostility into the force is hardly the issue here. Neither is it wrong.

I hardly think an “unfriendly” reception is the crux of the matter in the grander program of engineered gender parity.

Read “Freeze! I Just Had My Nails Done!” by Ann Coulter, where she gets straight to the matter:

How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? … The inestimable economist John Lott has looked at the actual data. (And I’ll give you the citation! John R. Lott Jr., “Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime,” Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.)

It turns out that, far from “de-escalating force” through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts. (Especially when perps won’t reveal where they bought a particularly darling pair of shoes.)

Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott’s analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent. …

MORE.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Über Alec, Barking-Mad Bashir, Death-Defying Libertarians

Ann Coulter, English, Family, Feminism, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, libertarianism, Objectivism, Political Correctness

“Über Alec, Barking-Mad Bashir & The Death-Defying Libertarians” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

…. BLACKOUT. “Phony panic” and “urban myth” is how the “prestige press” is characterizing widespread reports of en masse, black-on-white Knock-Out attacks. “Boys behaving badly,” noodled one jocular Democratic strategist about the sucker-punching to death of a few people, so far.

The mischief-makers must be laughing. They couldn’t care a fig. In fact, the rhetorical reprisals the perpetrators deploy to define their crimes are as precise as the blows they land on their pale victims: “polarbearing,” Jew hunting, and so on.

But some libertarians were having none of it, insisting à la the left, that to frame the felons in anything but race-neutral terms is collectivist and racist.

In the face of such dogged denial, I worry that libertarians who reject reality may be doomed to extinction.

Picture this: You walk past a feral gang of black youths, like the ones depicted in all these terrifying YouTube clips. You grin bravely, place honky hands on ears and hum loudly as you saunter by, until… you are coshed on the head by a black youth. Then another. And another.

As you fall to your knees near death, you congratulate yourself on cleaving not to reality, but to a noble “theory” instead. You die a happy, theoretically pious libertarian.

It must be abundantly clear to any thinking man that this is idiotic, not individualistic.

Those who’re derided as apostles of intolerance—”collectivists”—for cleaving to reality will likely outlive the self-sacrificing, self-styled individualists, sacrificed to an idea that has no basis in objective reality. …

The complete column is “Über Alec, Barking-Mad Bashir & The Death-Defying Libertarians.” Read it on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

On my Facebook page.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

Happy Private-Property Day.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Like Father, Like Daughter

Ann Coulter, Family, Homosexuality, Neoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Republicans

Liz Cheney is a snake like her father, Dick, whom Fox News continues to dust off periodically and present as a voice of wisdom. Even though she hangs out with her gay sister and sister’s partner and expresses support for the couple in private, the opportunistic Liz—who is running for office—disses her sister’s life in public:

It’s a good thing Mary Cheney can’t vote in Wyoming.

After an appearance on Fox News Sunday in which Wyoming Senate candidate Liz Cheney said she and her married gay sister “just disagree” on the subject of marriage equality, Mary Cheney posted a sharp rebuke to her Facebook page. “Liz – this isn’t just an issue on which we disagree, you’re just wrong – and on the wrong side of history,” she wrote.

Mary Cheney’s wife, Heather Poe, also took to Facebook to sound off. “Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children, and when Mary and I got married in 2012 – she didn’t hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us. To have her say she doesn’t support our right to marry is offensive to say the least.”

Their comments came after Liz Cheney, who is struggling in the polls against Rebublican [sic] incumbent Senator Mike Enzi, tried to explain to host Chris Wallace that her support of a State Department policy that grants benefits to same sex couples is not inconsistent with her broader opposition to allowing those couples to get married.

Ann Coulter had some fighting words for Liz (in defending the indefensible: the GOP):

“The problem is we have hucksters, shysters, people ripping off the Republican Party for their own self-aggrandizement, for their own egos, to make money,” Coulter said on Fox News’s “Hannity.”

“I would put Todd Akin, Newt Gingrich, Liz Cheney, Mark Sanford all in the same boat, and the consultants who persuaded Linda McMahon and John Raese to run,” she added.

Republicans just can’t stop mentioning issues that win them no support from most Americans. Most people think that a person’s sexual life is his or her business. What’s wrong with saying, “I have very many positions on policy, gay marriage is not one of them.” It’s hardly a make-or-break matter. Or simply echo this paleolibertarianism position:

In furtherance of liberty, Uncle Sam’s purview must be curtailed, not expanded. On this score, let our gay friends and family members lead the way. Let them solemnize their commitment in contract and through church, synagogue and mosque (that will be the day!). Once interesting and iconoclastic, gays have become colossal bores who crave nothing more than the state’s seal of approval. Go back to the days of the Stonewall Riots, when the police’s violations of privacy and private property were the object of gay anger and activism.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint