Category Archives: Ann Coulter

UPDATE II: The McCulloch Remarks Nobody Bothered To READ (Coulter’s Blame-Liberals Reductionism/Rubbish)

Ann Coulter, Justice, Law, Left-Liberalism, libertarianism, Race, Racism

Regrettably, at the time of the Michael-Brown shooting, this libertarian column had expressed the opinion that Brown was the victim of “murder-by-cop.” As the evidence subsequently demonstrated, I was wrong.

Part of my conversion lies is the remarks of St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch, a Democrat. These were, well, remarkable. (More about that in the weekly, WND column, tomorrow.) McCulloch’s remarks revealed the exhaustive scope of the search for truth undertaken by a grand jury that was left to its own devices.

Since the text of the statement has not been disseminated, I’ve transcribed and summarized some of it for interested Americans. Particularly brilliant is the manner in which McCulloch co-opted the DC “RIC” in support of the rule of law, in Ferguson, Missouri:

St. Louis county police conducted an extensive investigation at the crime scene together with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at the direction of Attorney General Eric Holder. Together they sought out witnesses and gathered additional information over a period of three months, beginning on the day of the shooting death of Michael Brown. Fully aware of the growing concerns in parts of the community that the investigation and review of the death would not be full and fair, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch decided to hand over to a grand jury all physical evidence related to the case, all individuals claiming to have witnessed any aspect of the events and any and all related matters. The grand jury comprised of 12 members of the community.

Federal investigators worked closely with local law enforcement, with the St. Louis county police and persecutor and Attorney General Holder and his department vowing to follow where the evidence led. These federal investigators shared information with St. Louis county investigator and vice versa. In addition, the Department of Justice conducted its own investigation and performed its own autopsy. Yet another autopsy was carried out by the Brown family and all information was shared and collated. All testimony before the grand jury was immediate forwarded to the DOJ. Eyewitness accounts were compared with the physical evidence. Many witnesses contradicted their own statements and the physical evidence.

As an example of witness testimony that contradicted the physical evidence McCulloch offered numerous statements that claimed to have seen Officer Wilson stand above Michael Brown and fire many rounds into his back. Others claimed that Officer Wilson shot Mr. Brown in the back as he was running away. Once the autopsy was released showing that the deceased did not sustain injuries to his back, statements to that effect were retracted. Others admitted they had, in fact, not witnessed the shooting.

All statements were recorded and presented to the grand jury before the autopsy results were released. There was no “document dump,” as some media claimed. Two of Bob McCulloch’s assistants presented the information to the jury in an organized, systematic manner. All jurors heard every word of testimony and examined every item of evidence presented. McCulloch described a proactive and engaged group working since August 9th to do their due diligence. In the course of 25 days, the jury dissected over 70 hours of testimony and listened to 60 witnesses. They heard from three medical examiners and many other DNA and forensic experts. They examined hundreds of photographs and looked at various pieces of physical evidence. They were instructed in the law and presented with five possible indictments. Their burden was to determine, based on all the evidence, if probable cause existed to determine that a crime was committed and Daren Wilson committed that crime. There is no question that Officer Wilson caused the death of Michael Brown by shooting him. However the law authorizes an officer of the law, and all people, to use deadly force to defend themselves in certain situations. The grand jury considered whether Officer Wilson was the initial aggressor, or whether he was authorized to use deadly force in the situation and acted in self-defense.

They were the only people who examined every piece of evidence and heard every witness. They debated among themselves. After an exhaustive review of the evidence the grand jury deliberated further over two days to arrive at their final decision. And it is that no probable cause exists to file any charges against Officer Darren Wilson. They returned a “No True” bill on each of the five indictments. All the evidence, witness statements included, was made public.


UPDATE I: I abbreviated without explaining: RIC is the “Racism Industrial Complex,” originated by Jack Kerwick. More in the weekly, WND column, tomorrow.

UPDATE II: Coulter’s Blame-Liberals Reductionism/Rubbish. As I always argue, in the structure of argument—and thus the source of culpability— there is no difference between conservative, lite-libertarian, and left liberal. That structure is: The Dog/Society/State/Liberals Ate the Criminal’s Homework. This, Ann Coulter proves. She blames liberals for rioter actions.

“‘Absolut’ Libertarian Lunacy” touches on this blame the society/state/liberals reductionism: “For the sins of man, hard leftists blame society, and hard-core libertarians saddle the state. ‘The State made me do it’ is how such social determinism can be summed-up.”

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

There’s Always A Way To Blame Honky

Ann Coulter, Crime, Justice, Race, Racism, Sport

To paraphrase the old nursery rhyme, When she’s good she’s very very good. (But when she’s bad, she’s horrid!.) Ann Coulter on the chain of blame at the NFL:

… once the MSM figured out how to blame a white guy for a black athlete punching his fiancee … the only news was about Ray Rice and – the true villain – NFL Commissioner Roger Goddell …

There’s always a way to blame honky.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

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.”


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. …


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint