Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ann Coulter Op-ed’

Ann Coulter Op-ed” 9/11


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 08, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/09/08/911—p–n2595560/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

9/11

Source: AP Photo/Richard Drew, File

In honor of the 20-year marker of the 9/11 attacks, I thought I’d run excerpts from a few of my post-9/11 columns.

One point I politely refrained from making 20 years ago: Why was the president of the United States reading “The Pet Goat” to a class of second-graders at the moment our nation was attacked?

I think the “Attack France” column (Dec. 20, 2001) holds up well, mostly because I’d rather be bringing in hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen right now than hundreds of thousands of Afghans. (Who knew the golden ticket to U.S. citizenship was being the country that hosted Osama bin Laden?)

But that column didn’t make the cut. In 2007, the magnificent Gallic made Nicolas Sarkozy the new president of France, and now we’re friends again.

Finally, for the sub-literate: After the defeat of Japan in World War II, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, leader of the occupation, put out a call to American Christians: “Send missionaries and Bibles!” Thousands of missionaries poured in. The same thing happened after the Korean War, with greater success than in Japan.

On this point, there was surprising unanimity. Even President Truman agreed with his nemesis MacArthur, who said: “[Democracy] will endure when it rests firmly on the Christian conception of the individual and society.”

Today, not even a Republican would say that. Good luck, America!

— “This Is War,” Sept. 12, 2001

[T]he nation has been invaded by a fanatical, murderous cult. And we welcome them. We are so good and so pure we would never engage in discriminatory racial or “religious” profiling. People who want our country destroyed live here, work for our airlines, and are submitted to the exact same airport shakedown as a lumberman from Idaho. This would be like having the Wehrmacht immigrate to America and work for our airlines during World War II. Except the Wehrmacht was not so bloodthirsty.

“All of our lives” don’t need to change, as they keep prattling on TV. Every single time there is a terrorist attack — or a plane crashes because of pilot error — Americans allow their rights to be contracted for no purpose whatsoever.

The airport kabuki theater of magnetometers, asinine questions about whether passengers “packed their own bags” … somehow allowed over a dozen armed hijackers to board four American planes almost simultaneously on Bloody Tuesday. Did those fabulous security procedures stop a single hijacker anyplace in America that day?

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac.

We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.

— “Future Widows of America: Write Your Congressman,” Sept. 27, 2001

After the World Trade Center was bombed by Islamic fundamentalists in 1993, the country quickly chalked it up to a zany one-time attack and five minutes later decided we were all safe again. We weren’t. We aren’t now …

Congress has authority to pass a law tomorrow requiring aliens from suspect countries to leave. As far as the Constitution is concerned, aliens, which is to say non-citizens, are here at this country’s pleasure …

[T]he very nature of the enemy is that they have infiltrated this country and pass themselves off as law-abiding, peaceful immigrants. Their modus operandi is to smuggle mass murderers to our shores. But the country refuses to respond rationally. Rather, Congress is busily contemplating a series of “anti-terrorism” measures most notable for their utter irrelevance to the threat. …

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., has proposed that we take the aggressive step of asking aliens in the country to register periodically with the government so we know where they are. That’s already the law in Germany. Several of the hijackers in this attack lived in Hamburg, and they obediently complied.

The mastermind of the most vicious terrorist attack in the history of the world, Mohamed Atta, was in Florida on a “vocational status” visa — in order to attend flight school. Let’s say Atta had registered. Now what, Joe?

— “Build Them Back,” June 7, 2002

The reason liberals prefer a park to luminous skyscrapers [on the site of the World Trade Center] is that they are not angry. Liberals express sympathy for the victims, but they’re not angry. Instead of longing to crush and humiliate the enemy, they believe true patriotism consists of redoubled efforts to expand the welfare state.https://a7dc841daceec5d9069484a50746f032.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html#xpc=sf-gdn-exp-3&p=https%3A//townhall.com

Sen. Hillary Clinton proposed a school for the World Trade Center site and Sen. Charles Schumer, a park. Yeah, that’ll show ’em!

Meanwhile, the construction workers clearing away the rubble vowed they would work without pay to rebuild the World Trade Center. Of course, now that we have 14 cows, that shouldn’t be necessary. (In a genuinely touching story, a tiny cow-herding village in Kenya only recently got word of the attack on America and, this week, made a special present of 14 cows to the United States.)

The attack on the World Trade Center ripped America’s soul not only for the thousands of lives it snuffed out. Even if the towers had been empty, the destruction of those buildings would have been heart-wrenching. Skyscrapers are the hallmark of civilization, monuments to human brilliance and creativity. …

Mohamed Atta loathed skyscrapers. Newsweek reported that he viewed the emergence of tall buildings in Egypt as an odious surrender to Western values. The most fitting memorial to the victims of the World Trade Center attack is to build the most breathtaking skyscraper in the world on top of Mohamed Atta’s corpse.https://a7dc841daceec5d9069484a50746f032.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html#xpc=sf-gdn-exp-4&p=https%3A//townhall.com

— “This Whistleblower They Like,” June 13, 2002

In their enthusiasm to bash the Bush administration for its handling of the war — which Democrats consider an annoying distraction from the real business of government, which is redistributing income — the left has embraced FBI agent Coleen Rowley as a modern Joan of Arc …

[T]he gravamen of Rowley’s 13-page memo is essentially that FBI headquarters botched the Zacarias Moussaoui case (the 20th hijacker) by refusing to racially profile Muslims. …

[Specifically] she condemned FBI brass for refusing to authorize a search warrant for Moussaoui based on the following information: 1) he refused to consent to a search of his computer; 2) he was in flight school; 3) he had overstayed his visa; and 4) he was a Muslim.

Let’s see, which of these factors constitutes probable cause?

— Refusal to consent to a search? It is your right to refuse. Any other rule would allow cops to bootstrap their way into a warrant. “Hi, Zacarias, may we search your computer? No? That’s suspicious! Grounds for a warrant!” I don’t think so.

— In flight school? NO.

— Overstayed visa? NO.

— Is a Muslim? NOT ALLOWED. …

I happen to agree with her, but liberals don’t. So how did Rowley become the left’s new Norma Rae? … FBI headquarters rebuffed Rowley’s callous insensitivity to Muslims and denied a warrant request to search Moussaoui’s computer — and thus failed to uncover the Sept. 11 plot.

The FBI allowed thousands of Americans to be slaughtered on the altar of political correctness. What more could liberals ask for?

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Parenthood Has Driven Our Policy Elite Mad


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 04, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/08/04/parenthood-has-driven-our-policy-elite-mad—p–n2593603/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Parenthood Has Driven Our Policy Elite Mad

Source: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

There’s a disturbing trend among post-Trump populists to think that just because they’ve rejected the old GOP ideas about tax cuts and permanent war, they should also reject standard GOP ideas about big government social engineering projects. Currently, the most embarrassing of the allegedly populist right-wing enthusiasms is the pro-natalist position. The idea, in a nutshell, is that family formation is good for society, so why not create government programs that encourage family formation?

The main way the government could do that is by eliminating 90 percent of itself, but that’s not in the cards. So instead, Sens. Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio, The New York Times’ Ross Douthat, and “Hillbilly Elegy” author J.D. Vance, among others, want to pay women to have children. Vance recently suggested giving parents extra votes for each of their children, which I’m hoping was just a brilliant satire of political pandering. A slew of populist-conservative male icons, like Gavin McInnes and Mike Cernovich, are constantly haranguing young men to “put a ring on it” and start popping out kids.

One is left with the strong impression that these marriage and child boosters are people who are sorry they got married and had kids, so they have to turn their life’s greatest regret into the equivalent of landing at Normandy.

Human reproduction doesn’t require a P.R. team. Who would think that activities humans have engaged in for millennia require government incentives, except the unhappily married or those who consider heterosexual sex a horrible drudgery?

What was the worst calamity ever to befall this country? Nope, not the 1965 immigration act, but that’s a good guess. Not World War II or 9/11, terrible though those were. Not even the Jan. 6 ATTACK ON THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF OUR COUNTRY — NAY! DEMOCRACY ITSELF!

It was the government paying women to have kids.

During the most destructive period in American history, the rollout of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs, the federal government thought it would be a peachy idea to pay women to have babies. You’ll never guess what happened next!

Lots and lots of women started having babies — at a clip that didn’t allow time for acquiring a husband first.

Within a decade, the world had gone to hell, taking the black family down with it. While many blamed the implosion of the black family on African customs, slavery, the Middle Passage, Jim Crow and so on, a black demographer at the Rockefeller Foundation, Erol Ricketts, looked at the evidence.

It turned out the black family was thriving until the What-Could-Go-Wrong? Great Society programs of the 1960s. Based on nearly a century of U.S. Census reports, Ricketts found that between 1890 and 1950, black Americans married at higher rates than whites. (You’ll find this and other amazing facts in “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama.”)

The marriage rate for black women fell below 70 percent for the first time in 1970.

Today, we’d hold ticker-tape parades if 70 percent of black kids were being raised in intact families.

Why do some conservatives think we should do more of the exact thing that destroyed the black family — and did a number on all American families? The opposite of “Establishment Republican” shouldn’t be “moron.”

We’re told that tax credits, payments, subsidies — extra votes! — for having kids is “pro-family.” You know what’s “pro-family”? Life is pro-family. Any government intervention repeals the natural consequences of life, and is, therefore, anti-family.

But if we’re too afraid to let life take its course and want a government program to give us happy families, how about 30-to-life for adultery and divorce? Sending out a government check to those who manage the amazing feat of human reproduction is simultaneously dysgenic and small-bore.

Back in the 1960s, conservatives could only predict disaster from these allegedly pro-child policies. By now, we’ve been running the experiment for more than a half-century. We’re living the disaster. Paying women to have kids actively destroys families, which I believe is the opposite of “pro-family.”

Incidentally, the “pro-family” line is the exact same con open-borders Republicans ran on Christian groups when promoting “family reunification” policies in the 1990s, allowing endless waves of immigrants’ extended families to relocate to the U.S. and outvote the Christians. Whenever you hear about some great new government program that’s “pro-family,” reach for your gun.

National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru claims that paying women to have kids is less a government intrusion than “a way of helping them to live out what they already want.” In surveys, it seems, American women say they want more kids than they ultimately end up having.

This is why researchers distinguish between “stated preference” and “revealed preference.” For example, I think the ideal number of times to have fish every week is: two. But the number of times I actually eat fish each week is: zero. Please, conservatives, don’t help me by subsidizing fish.

It is simply asserted that it’s a terrible thing for a nation’s birthrate to fall below replacement level. But the only concrete downside to a declining birthrate is that the Social Security system will collapse without a never-ending supply of younger workers to fund it. Apparently, the government lied to us about a Social Security Trust Fund, and now the till is dry, requiring a constant influx of withholding taxes to keep the system afloat.

That’s a great way to govern: Create a new government program to paper over the failure of an earlier government program!

As a matter of psychology, it’s probably true that a people who are pessimistic about the future of their country won’t be keen on having a lot of kids. But the solution to that is to fix the country, not to pay people to simulate one single behavioral characteristic of optimists.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: The Vaccine Karens


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 28, 2021 5:24 PM

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/07/28/the-vaccine-karens—p–n2593262/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

The Vaccine Karens

Source: AP Photo/Marta Lavandier

If I weren’t already staunchly pro-vaccination, the vaccine zealots would turn me against the COVID shot. The proof that they’re practicing religion and not science is their refusal to acknowledge the great heaping hunks of immunity a person gets from natural infection.

Obviously, you don’t want to contract COVID just to get all that boffo immunity, but lots of people have already been infected, so why can’t we count them the same as vaccinated?

The current research — and that’s all we have for the vaccines, too — indicates that natural immunity is not as good as vaccine immunity — it’s better! Study after study keeps finding that the previously infected have stronger, broader and longer-lasting immunity than people who’ve received the vaccine.

When the vaccinated, with their pipsqueak immunity, stop browbeating the already-infected, I’ll believe this is something other than a cult.

Why is the only proof of virtue — I mean, “Trusting the Science(TM) — a vaccination card and not a positive COVID test? Why don’t sports teams, concert halls and foreign countries accept proof of prior infection the same way they accept proof of vaccination?

Nope. Your prior infection is no good here! We are accepting ONLY vaccination cards.

Whatever that impulse is based on, it’s not “science.”

Despite earlier reports showing that antibodies declined rapidly after infection, in May of this year, scientists at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, released a study showing that “robust” antibodies were still present at least 11 months after infection. (France accepts proof of prior infection not older than six months. If they trust the science, they’ll soon be accepting prior infection for a year.)

Then in June, the Cleveland Clinic produced a gigantic, perfectly controlled study finding that people who’d already had COVID received no benefit from vaccination.

The clinic had tested its 52,238 employees throughout 2020. At one point or another, 2,579 tested positive. By mid-December, 46% of the recovered COVID patients had taken the vaccine, but more than half (54%) had not.

Five months later, none of the previously infected had been re-infected — including the 1,359 who did not take the vaccine. (Among clinic employees who were vaccinated, but not previously infected, 15 got COVID.)

The authors concluded: “Our study … provid[es] direct evidence that vaccination does not add protection to those who were previously infected.”

Great news, right?

NO! This was terrible news for the vaccination Karens! Their position is: Everyone must get the vaccine. Even if you live alone on a mountaintop and eat leaves and beetles to survive, even if you’re a burbling infant, even if you’ve had COVID, YOU MUST GET THE VACCINATION!

In short order, the Cleveland Clinic was bullied into submission. The authors of the report issued what sounded like a retraction, but, on closer examination, was just a lot of airy nonsense.

E.g.: “This is still a new virus and more research is needed. …”

Duh. Same for the studies showing how fantastic the COVID vaccines are.

“It is important to keep in mind that this study was conducted in a population that was younger and healthier than the general population. …”

This study SUCKS. It only applies to the entire working-age population of the U.S.!

“In addition, we do not know how long the immune system will protect itself against re-infection after COVID-19. …”

Ditto for the vaccine.

“It is safe to receive the COVID-19 vaccine even if you have previously tested positive …”

Presumably, it’s also “safe” to use Gwyneth Paltrow’s healing crystals if you have previously tested positive. The question is: Do you need to?

” … and we recommend all those who are eligible receive it.”

Perhaps, someday, there will be a study establishing that the previously infected should get the vaccine, but your study didn’t, Cleveland Clinic. Everyone knows you’re only telling the previously infected to get vaccinated so the loons will leave you alone.

Just this week, a study out of the Emory University Vaccine Center, led by “world renowned immunologist” (as he is known) Rafi Ahmed, found “durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection.” And get this: The researchers also found that a natural COVID infection protects against a range of other coronaviruses, too.

What’s so impressive about these studies is that they are going against the woke mob. After a year of seeing scientists and scientific journals irredeemably corrupted, any study that won’t be cited in Teen Vogue carries extra credibility. Worse, the results support Sen. Rand Paul! Nobody’s going to lie about that.

This isn’t just a matter of policy not catching up to the science. The vaccine Karens positively disdain the previously infected. Instead of being treated like the superhumans that they are, recovered COVID patients are scorned, treated like smokers or AIDS victims. (No, sorry — the latter were revered as “angels.”) We’re simultaneously told that COVID is WILDLY contagious and … it’s your own damn fault for not wearing a mask, socially distancing or getting a vaccine.

The dismissal of people who’ve developed their own antibodies springs from the same totalitarian mindset of gun control activists: You cannot protect yourself! Your body cannot protect you! Only the government can protect you. Or, as Mussolini said: “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

This abject refusal to acknowledge the existence of natural immunity proves that the vaccine Karens don’t care about the health of their fellow human beings. They just want to boss us around.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: What’s Dumber Than CRT? CNN


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 21, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/07/21/whats-dumber-than-crt-cnn—p–n2592908/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org..

What's Dumber Than CRT? CNN

Source: AP Photo/Ron Harris

As we discussed last week, “critical race theory” is a subtle philosophical construct where the answer to everything is: THAT’S RACIST! Teachers hawking this glop are being defended by their journalist allies, who sneer that CRT critics are too stupid to understand the nuances of the theory. The Aristotelian ideal of this sneer was Elle Reeve‘s “special report” for CNN — pre-taped to eliminate any danger of Elle being contradicted by someone smarter, such as a 10-year-old.

CNN’s Brianna Keilar introduced the segment by asking her: “Do these vocal opponents of critical race theory actually understand fully what it is?”

(That’s what’s known as a “rhetorical question,” kids!)

Elle: “No.” [Bored] “And why should they? It’s an academic theory taught mostly at the grad student level. But what they think it means is teaching white kids that all white people are bad and racist. And so, of course they’re afraid of that.”

They’re afraid!!! Wait — remind me: Who’s banning books, again? Who’s flipping out about “microaggressions”? Who’s demanding that Big Tech censor people? Who’s demanding “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” from speech they don’t like?

Parents aren’t “afraid”; they’re incensed. They’re paying the salaries of people who spend all day telling their kids that America is racist. (Elle didn’t give that explanation. Perhaps it frightens her.)

The “vocal opponents” of CRT who “don’t actually understand fully what it is” seem to be mostly billionaire investment bankers — at least judging by the articles in the Daily Mail. Elle’s conclusion: A “theory” that consists of going around shouting “RACISM!” is too complex for those guys to understand.

The format of Elle’s pre-taped report consisted of her interviewing opponents of CRT … then nailing them with her brilliant comebacks! Except even with CNN doing the editing, the CRT opponents sounded perfectly reasonable, while Elle’s comebacks kept revealing her yawning stupidity.

Early in Elle’s report, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is shown saying, “Critical race theory says America’s fundamentally racist.” What a dope!

About 60 seconds later, Elle deferentially asks a hijab-wearing high school teacher to explain CRT. The teacher exclaims: “Race and racism is literally the building blocks of this country!” (Were I the editor of Elle’s piece, I think I would have cut that part of her answer.)

Next, Elle talks to a parent fighting CRT, who says: “Don’t force on our kids a particular worldview. Taking a wide brush and painting this country as structurally racist, it’s insane … it’s a lie.”

To this, Elle patronizingly informs the parent that America’s racism “isn’t distant history.” Her evidence of contemporary racism? “In the ’90s, the crime bill gave much more severe sentencing to crack cocaine versus powder cocaine simply because black people were perceived as doing crack cocaine and white people weren’t …”

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS? The reason crack penalties were so severe is because the Congressional Black Caucus demanded it. (And as long as I’m correcting Elle’s false facts, the crack penalties were passed in 1986 and 1988, not “in the 1990s.”)

Black churches, black leaders and black members of Congress were enraged by what the crack epidemic was doing to their neighborhoods. A 1986 New York Times article reported on “all-night vigils” held by the leaders of 60 black churches, who called the crack epidemic “a new form of genocide.” Urban League President John Jacob railed against communities “held hostage by crack dealers,” saying “drugs kill more blacks than the (Ku Klux) Klan ever did.” Running for president in 1988, Jesse Jackson spoke of the scourge of crack cocaine and told a cheering crowd, “When I become president, the drug pusher is in trouble.”

White supremacists — right, Elle?

This has been patiently explained roughly 1 million times. But why bother knowing stuff when smug arrogance is good enough for CNN?

Elle’s next big “gotcha” was even more embarrassing, if that is possible. She rolled out the old chestnut about blacks being considered “three-fifths” of a human being in our Constitution. Yes, she really did that.

Here’s her exchange with a college Republican:

COLLEGE REPUBLICAN: To paint the country as an inherently racist country from its founding I think is dangerous.

REEVE: The three-fifths compromise is written into the Constitution in which slaves are counted as three-fifths of a person.

SCORE!

How can you be in journalism and have no idea what the three-fifths clause means? No research is involved, Elle! Just read it.

The three-fifths clause means exactly the opposite of what Elle thinks it means. This was not a general statement on the slaves’ humanity: It was about congressional apportionment. The slave states wanted to count slaves as full “persons” in order to increase the number of their representatives in Congress.

If you adored slavery, you’d want the Constitution to count each slave as a full person — as 20 people! The slaves still couldn’t vote, but their slave masters would get more votes in Congress. It’s the same idea behind California’s demand that illegal aliens be counted when determining that state’s congressional apportionment.

I can’t even believe there’s anyone in America who needed that explained again. (Next time, I’ll just say: Get a home-schooler to explain it to you, Elle.)

It must have been embarrassing for everyone at CNN to watch this bimbo misstating well-known facts in a network “special report” that was supposed to show what cretins CRT critics are.

So how did the CNN hosts react? They were gobsmacked by the genius of Elle’s report!

JOHN BERMAN: That was so great.

KEILAR: Right?

BERMAN: I mean, that was just so great, and just the way the questions are asked. Just by asking simple questions you revealed so much. I mean, that was just fantastic.

ELLE: Thank you.

My idea of hell is being condescended to by an idiot, forever and ever, with no respite. In other words, watching CNN.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: