OWS Walking Past Soros’ House To Protest Outside Murdoch’s Apartment

On Wednesday’s The Factor, Bill O’Reilly brought on author and columnist Ann Coulter to discuss Barack Obama being in “full campaign mode.”

As you know, Obama visited Jay Leno where he talked about, among other things, the end of the Iraq War and Occupy Wall Street.

Coulter shared that she finds Obama’s mannerisms “increasingly grating.” O’Reilly noted that a recent poll organized by Fox News found that 48 percent of respondents would be “distraught” if Obama were re-elected (Less people, O’Reilly joked, than would totally freak out were Coulter elected Commander-in-Chief. I don’t think she terribly appreciated that attempt at humor ). Coulter was dismayed that more people weren’t preparing to high-tail it to Canada given Obamacare’s impact on the economy.

On the matter of Occupy Wall Street, Coulter found Obama’s comments on Leno’s show “annoying” given that he is “buddies” with the very überwealthy, corrupt Wall Streeters the movement professes to be against. Plus, she added, it’s not as if the protest is especially committed to upholding its professed ideas across the board instead of creating a demonstration that has a much more partisan agenda:

In point of fact, these people are not against Wall Street. They’re walking right past George Soros’ house and protesting outside Rupert Murdoch’s apartment. Well, you know, the name of their group isn’t “Occupy Producers Of Products We Don’t Approve Of.”

Have a look, via Fox News.

Read More

The death penalty prevents future crimes

By Ann Coulter

IF I WERE A LIBERAL ...

October 26, 2011

If I were a liberal, I would have spent the last week in shock that a Democratic audience in Flint, Mich., cheered Vice President Joe Biden's description of a policeman being killed. (And if I were a liberal desperately striving to keep my job on MSNBC, I'd say the Democrats looked "hot and horny" for dead cops -- as Chris Matthews said of a Republican audience that cheered for the death penalty.)

Biden's audience whooped and applauded last week in Flint when he said that without Obama's jobs bill, police will be "outgunned and outmanned." (Wild applause!)

I suppose liberals would claim they were applauding because they believe Obama's jobs bill will prevent these murders. Which reminds me: Republicans believe the death penalty prevents murders!

Which belief bears more relationship to reality?

In a case I have previously mentioned, Kenneth McDuff was released from death row soon after the Supreme Court overturned the death penalty in 1972 and went on to murder more than a dozen people.

William Jordan and Anthony Prevatte were sentenced to death in 1974 for abducting a teacher, murdering him and stealing his car. They came under suspicion when they were caught throwing the murder weapon from the stolen vehicle in a high-speed car chase with the cops and because they were in possession of the dead man's wallet, briefcase and watch.

The Georgia Supreme Court overturned their capital sentences in an opinion by Robert H. Hall, who was appointed by Gov. Jimmy Carter.

Hall said that the death sentences had to be set aside on the idiotic grounds that the jurors had overheard the prosecutor say that the judge and state supreme court would have the opportunity to review a death sentence, which might have caused them to take their sentencing role less seriously.

(If the facts had been the reverse, the court would have overturned the death sentences on the grounds that the jurors did not take their sentencing decision seriously, under the misapprehension that no judge or court would second-guess them.)

Prevatte was later released from "life in prison" and proceeded to murder his girlfriend. Jordan escaped and has never been found.

As president, Carter appointed Hall to a federal district court.

Darryl Kemp was sentenced to death in California in 1960 for the rape and murder of Marjorie Hipperson and also convicted for raping two other women. But he sat on death row long enough -- 12 years -- for the death penalty to be declared unconstitutional. He was paroled five years later and, within four months, had raped and murdered Armida Wiltsey, a 40-year-old wife and mother.

Kemp wasn't caught at the time, so he spent the next quarter-century raping (and probably murdering) a string of women. In 2002, his DNA was matched to blood found on the fingernails of Wiltsey's dead body. Although Kemp was serving a "life sentence" for rape in a Texas prison, he was months away from being paroled when he was brought back to California for the murder of Wiltsey.

His attorney argued that he was too old for the death penalty. He lost that argument, and in 2009, Kemp was again given a capital sentence. He now sits on death row, perhaps long enough for the death penalty to be declared unconstitutional again, so he can be released to commit more rapes and murders.

Dozens and dozens of prisoners released from death row have gone on to murder again. No one knows exactly how many, but it's a lot more than the number of innocent men who have been executed in America, which, at least since 1950, is zero.

What is liberals' evidence that there will be more rapes and murders if Obama's jobs bill doesn't pass? Biden claims that, without it, there won't be enough cops to interrupt a woman being raped in her own home -- which would be an amazing bit of police work/psychic talent, if it had ever happened. (That's why Americans like guns, liberals.)

Obama's jobs bill tackles the problem of rape and murder by giving the states $30 billion ... for public school teachers.

Only $5 billion is even allotted to the police, but all we keep hearing about are the rapes and murders that Democrats are suddenly against (as long as being "against" rape and murder means funding public school teachers and not imprisoning or executing rapists and murderers).

Finally, did Flint use any money from Obama's last trillion-dollar stimulus bill to hire more police in order to prevent rape and murder? No, Flint spent its $2.2 million from the first stimulus bill on buying two electric buses.

Even if what Flint really needed was buses and not cops, for $2.2 million, the city could have bought seven brand-new diesel buses and had $100,000 left over for streetlights.

Rather than reducing the rate of rape and murder, blowing money on "green" buses is likely to increase crime, since people will be forced to spend a lot more time waiting at bus stops for those two buses.

It's going to be a long wait: The "green" buses were never delivered because the company went out of business -- despite a $1.6 million loan from the American taxpayer.

But if I were a liberal, I wouldn't acknowledge these facts, or any facts. I would close my eyes, cover my ears, demand that MSNBC fire Pat Buchanan and the FCC pull the plug on Fox, and pretend to believe that taxpayer-funded "green" projects and an ever-increasing supply of public school teachers were the only things that separated us from Armageddon.

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500

Read More

Ann Coulter on #OWS: "As always, the mob is serving liberalism. "

'OCCUPY WALL STREET' [HEARTS] WALL STREET

October 19, 2011

The worst thing about Occupy Wall Street is that it's ruining a good cause: hating Wall Street. Just when opposing Wall Street was gaining momentum, these brain-dead zombies are forcing us to choose between thieving bankers and them.

If the Flea Party were really concerned about the greedy "Wall Street 1 Percent," shifting money around to make themselves richer and everyone else poorer, their No. 1 target should be George Soros.

Of course, we don't know exactly how much money Soros has, since he keeps all his money in offshore bank accounts protected by Sen. Chuck Schumer (Democrat).

We do know that Soros has been convicted of insider trading. And we know that his general modus operandi is to run around the world panicking sovereign nations, so he can pocket the difference when their currencies collapse.

But the Occupy Wall Street protesters love Soros! It's Fox News they hate.

Last week, the great minds of the OWS movement, bored with playing bocce ball and getting stoned, decided to protest at the homes of Wall Street's robber barons. They then proceeded to walk right past George Soros' apartment building in order to protest at the homes of Rupert Murdoch and David Koch.

THEY'RE NOT WALL STREET!

You may not like Koch and Murdoch's products -- fertilizer and media -- but neither one has anything to do with Wall Street. Unlike money manipulators such as John Corzine (Democrat), Robert Rubin (Democrat) and George Soros (Democrat and Obama's biggest supporter), Koch and Murdoch make money from corporations that actually produce something.

They take risks, make things and get menaced by the government. Wall Street schemers take no risks, produce nothing and get bailed out by the government.

Even assuming, for purposes of argument, that Koch and Murdoch are as evil as these morons seems to think, the protesters call their demonstration "Occupy Wall Street," not "Occupy Businesses Whose Products We Disapprove Of."

This would be like protesting the Holocaust by walking past Adolf Hitler's house and protesting at O.J. Simpson's house.

The Flea Partiers try to win good will by pretending to protest "Wall Street" -- but they ignore Wall Street's villains. They claim to speak for 99 percent of Americans, but their sponsor, George Soros, would be delighted if America collapsed and the 99 percent were impoverished. All he cares about is his own power and pocketbook.

Recall that when the markets first opened after 9/11 and little grandmothers in Iowa were patriotically calling their local savings banks to find out how to buy a share of stock so that the American stock market wouldn't crash because of the terrorist attack, Soros said: Sell, sell, sell!

Now he's helping the cretinous Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Liberals love mob movements because you can't get mobs to think, which is perfect for Democratic ideas.

Do the Wall Street protesters even know that Obama got more money from Wall Street than any other candidate, ever?

These pea-brained protesters either admire or have never heard of the most egregious of the Wall Street looters and their co-conspirators: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson, Rahm Emanuel, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. Democrats all!

They have no idea that George Soros has a hand-in-glove relationship with the Democrats, having bought a whole slew of them, including Obama, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, John Corzine, Barbara Boxer, Mary Landrieu, as well as the Democratic National Committee.

Hamptons-vacationing, helicopter-flying, Russell Simmons party-attending New York bankers always give about 80 percent of their political contributions to Democrats.

And the Democrats always return the favor.

In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton repeatedly bailed out his friends at Goldman Sachs and Citibank under the tutelage of his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- former chairman of Goldman Sachs. U.S. taxpayers were fleeced to prop up nations that were about to default on risky bonds purchased by Goldman and Citibank, such as Mexico (in 1995), Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea (in 1997), and Russia (in 1998).

Of course, if the bonds turned a profit, only Goldman and Citibank would benefit.

This is the Democrats' idea of "capitalism": Rich, Democratic-donating bankers get to engage in wild risk-taking; if the bets pay off, they keep all the winnings, but if the bets lose, they still keep the winnings, and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

Democrats are firm believers in the welfare state for their own constituents, whether that's a crack addict mother of five or a Wall Street banker.

Are the protesters aware that the Democrats' 2010 "financial reform" bill provides for future bailouts of reckless banks? Goldman Sachs and Citibank strongly supported the bill.

The protesters don't care -- they have no interest in actual malfeasance by actual Wall Street bankers. They're too busy denouncing Fox News. (Which did not, incidentally, receive a taxpayer-funded bailout.)

And these are the intellectuals of the Occupy Wall Street movement! Never mind the ones who just think stuff should be free and America is the moral equivalent of al-Qaida. They either know that they are benefiting Wall Street looters or are utterly brainless.

Given a choice between Wall Street looters and protesters defecating in the street, throwing rocks at police and chanting "F—k the USA," most people will choose Wall Street.

As always, the mob is serving liberalism.

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

Read More

Ann Coulter: 'The Sun never Sets On The British Welfare State'

Source

Another masterpiece from La Coulter, who agrees with me in seeing the UK riots as a product of the Nanny State:


Those of you following the barbaric rioting in Britain will not have failed to notice that a sizable proportion of the thugs are white, something not often seen in this country.

Not only that, but in a triumph of feminism, a lot of them are girls. Even the "disabled" (according to the British benefits system) seem to have miraculously overcome their infirmities to dash out and steal a few TVs.

Congratulations, Britain! You've barbarized your citizenry, without regard to race, gender or physical handicap!

With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes.

I guess we now have the proof of what conservatives have been saying since forever: Looting is a result of liberal welfare policies. And Britain is in the end stages of the welfare state.

In 2008, a 9-year-old British girl, Shannon Matthews, disappeared on her way home from a school trip. The media leapt on the case -- only to discover that Shannon was one of seven children her mother, Karen, had produced with five different men.

The first of these serial sperm-donors explained: "Karen just goes from one bloke to the next, uses them to have a kid, grabs all the child benefits and moves on."

Poor little Shannon eventually turned up at the home of one of her many step-uncles -- whose ex-wife, by the way, was the mother of six children with three different fathers.

(Is Father's Day celebrated in England? If so, how?)

The Daily Mail (London) traced the family's proud Anglo ancestry of stable families back hundreds of years. The Nazi war machine couldn't break the British, but the modern welfare state has.

A year earlier, in 2007, another product of the new order, Fiona MacKeown, took seven of her eight children (by five different fathers) and her then-boyfriend, on a drug-fueled, six-month vacation to the Indian island of Goa. The trip was paid for -- like everything else in her life -- with government benefits.

(When was the last time you had a free, six-month vacation? I'm drawing a blank, too.)

While in Goa, Fiona took her entourage on a side-trip, leaving her 15-year-old daughter, Scarlett Keeling, in the capable hands of a 25-year-old local whom Scarlett had begun sleeping with, perhaps hoping to get a head-start on her own government benefits. A few weeks later, Scarlett turned up dead, full of drugs, raped and murdered.

Scarlett's estranged stepfather later drank himself to death, while her brother Silas announced on his social networking page: "My name is Si, n I spend most my life either out wit mates get drunk or at partys, playing rugby or going to da beach (pretty s**t really)."

It's a wonder that someone like Silas, who has never worked, and belongs to a family in which no one has ever worked, can afford a cellphone for social networking. No, actually, it's not.

Britain has a far more redistributive welfare system than France, which is why France's crime problem is mostly a matter of Muslim immigrants, not French nationals. Meanwhile, England's welfare state is fast returning the native population to its violent 18th-century highwaymen roots.

Needless to say, Britain leads Europe in the proportion of single mothers and, as a consequence, also leads or co-leads the European Union in violent crime, alcohol and drug abuse, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases.


Read the rest here.

Read More

Ann Coulter: Conservatives are more generous then liberals

SCROOGE WAS A LIBERAL
December 22, 2010


It's the Christmas season, so godless liberals are citing the Bible to demand the redistribution of income by government force. Didn't Jesus say, "Blessed are the Health and Human Services bureaucrats, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"?

Liberals are always indignantly accusing conservatives of claiming God is on our side. What we actually say is: We're on God's side, particularly when liberals are demanding God's banishment from the public schools, abortion on demand, and taxpayer money being spent on Jesus submerged in a jar of urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with pornographic photos.

But for liberals like Al Franken, it's beyond dispute that Jesus would support extending federal unemployment insurance.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, but it does nicely illustrate Shakespeare's point that the "devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."

What the Bible says about giving to the poor is: "Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians (9:7)

Being forced to pay taxes under penalty of prison is not voluntary and rarely done cheerfully. Nor do our taxes go to "the poor." They mostly go to government employees who make more money than you do.

The reason liberals love the government redistributing money is that it allows them to skip the part of charity that involves peeling the starfish off their wallets and forking over their own money. This, as we know from study after study, they cannot bear to do. (Unless they are guaranteed press conferences where they can brag about their generosity.)

Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks' study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.

In his book "Who Really Cares?" Brooks compared the charitable donations of religious conservatives, secular liberals, secular conservatives and "religious" liberals.

His surprising conclusion was ... Al Franken gave the most of all!

Ha ha! Just kidding. Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most to charity -- $2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large.

Even when it comes to purely secular charities, religious conservatives give more than other Americans, which is surprising because liberals specialize in "charities" that give them a direct benefit, such as the ballet or their children's elite private schools.

Indeed, religious people, Brooks says, "are more charitable in every measurable nonreligious way."

Brooks found that conservatives donate more in time, services and even blood than other Americans, noting that if liberals and moderates gave as much blood as conservatives do, the blood supply would increase by about 45 percent.

They ought to set up blood banks at tea parties.

On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe in the redistribution of income will give away 100 times more -- and 50 times more to secular charities -- than a person who does not attend religious services and strongly believes in the redistribution of income.

Secular liberals, the second largest group coming in at 10 percent of the population, were the whitest and richest of the four groups. (Some of you may also know them as "insufferable blowhards.") These "bleeding-heart tightwads," as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof calls them, were the second stingiest, just behind secular conservatives, who are mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.

Despite their wealth and advantages, secular liberals give to charity at a rate of 9 percent less than all Americans and 19 percent less than religious conservatives. They were also "significantly less likely than the population average to return excess change mistakenly given to them by a cashier." (Count Nancy Pelosi's change carefully!)

Secular liberals are, however, 90 percent more likely to give sanctimonious Senate speeches demanding the forced redistribution of income. (That's up 7 percent from last year!)

We'll review specific liberals next week.

Needless to say, "religious liberals" made up the smallest group at just 6.4 percent of the population (for more on this, see my book, "Godless").

Interestingly, religious liberals were also "most confused" of all the groups. Composed mostly of blacks and Unitarians, religious liberals made nearly as many charitable donations as religious conservatives, but presumably, the Unitarians brought down their numbers, making them second in charitable giving.

Brooks wrote that he was shocked by his conclusions because he believed liberals "genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did" -- probably because liberals are always telling us that.

So he re-ran the numbers and gathered more data, but it kept coming out the same. "In the end," he says, "I had no option but to change my views."

Every other study on the subject has produced similar results. Indeed, a Google study of philanthropy found an even greater disparity, with conservatives giving 50 percent more than liberals. The Google study showed that liberals gave more to secular causes overall, but conservatives still gave more as a percentage of their incomes.

The Catalogue for Philanthropy analyzed a decade of state and federal tax returns and found that the red states were far more generous than the blue states, with the highest percentage of tightwads living in the liberal Northeast.

In his book "Intellectuals," Paul Johnson quotes Pablo Picasso scoffing at the idea that he would give to the needy. "I'm afraid you've got it wrong," Picasso explains, "we are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."

Merry Christmas to all, skinflint liberals and generous Christians alike!

COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

Read More