Showing posts with label coulter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coulter. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Ann Coulter: We have no choice but to vote for these Republicans, including the crap-ass ones

AnnCoulter:Wehavenochoicebutto

Ann Coulter: We have no choice but to vote for these Republicans, including the crap-ass ones

posted at 11:21 am on August 13, 2014 by Allahpundit

An electrifying midterm rallying cry on a slow summer news day. Boehner, incidentally, isn’t one of the crappy-asses, she says. She doesn’t name names there, but she’s been known to diverge from grassroots conservatives in these matters before.

What would happen, though, if Boehner turned around and made a deal with Harry Reid on amnesty in September? One of the goals of Obama’s looming power grab over legalization is to scare Republican leaders with the thought that Latino voters will be so grateful, they’ll break even harder for Democrats in 2016. The only countermeasure, Dems would have you believe, is for the GOP to agree to comprehensive reform before then and steal some of Obama’s thunder. No one in conservative media (with the possible exception of the boss emeritus) is as vociferously anti-amnesty as Coulter. If Republicans signed off on a legalization deal, as is quite possible next spring or summer, would she consider that reason enough for conservatives to protest by staying home in 2016? We all have our red lines when it comes to political betrayals, but as the example of Obama and Syria reminds us, a red line that isn’t enforced is meaningless and even counterproductive in how it invites further aggression. I’m reluctantly willing to boycott the next election if the GOP makes a bad deal on immigration in the name of showing them how steep the cost of future betrayals might be. Is Coulter? Or are we destined for a “three cheers for the Gang of Eight bill!” column in two years if/when Rubio is the nominee?

Exit question: Besides immigration, which other issues (within the realm of realistic possibility) could the GOP endorse before 2016 that would give righties serious pause about voting? I can’t think of one offhand. I suppose Boehner and McConnell could make a terrible grand bargain with O on deficit reduction that annoyed everyone, but even a bad bargain would contain some concessions on entitlements that they could spin to their advantage.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat10:01

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:01 pm on August 6, 2014 by Allahpundit

Why did Dr. [Kent] Brantly have to go to Africa? The very first “risk factor” listed by the Mayo Clinic for Ebola — an incurable disease with a 90 percent fatality rate — is: “Travel to Africa.”

Can’t anyone serve Christ in America anymore?

[S]erving the needy in some deadbeat town in Texas wouldn’t have been “heroic.” We wouldn’t hear all the superlatives about Dr. Brantly’s “unusual drive to help the less fortunate” or his membership in the “Gold Humanism Honor Society.” Leaving his family behind in Texas to help the poor 6,000 miles away — that’s the ticket.

Today’s Christians are aces at sacrifice, amazing at serving others, but strangely timid for people who have been given eternal life. They need to buck up, serve their own country, and remind themselves every day of Christ’s words: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.”

There may be no reason for panic about the Ebola doctor, but there is reason for annoyance at Christian narcissism.

***

Why did he decide to take his family to “this far-off place” he knew nothing about?

“It’s because God has a call on my life,” Brantly said.

Quoting the Apostle Paul, Brantley urged the congregation to live boldly, saying, “God did not give us a spirit of timidity.”

The sermon offers a deeper look at the man whose life has been permanently damaged by his work, and how his faith drove him to sacrifice.

“On difficult days,” Brantly said, “when I want to give up or when I wonder if I’ve made the right decision, retelling my story reminds me of how God has brought me to where I am.”

***

Brantly served the poor and infirm and put his own life in jeopardy serving patients in Liberia, so you would think that he would be received as a hero, admired for his work, and held up as an example of the highest calling of his profession and his religion. The same is true of his colleague, American Liberia volunteer Nancy Writebol, who just arrived in the States for treatment.

But not everyone seems to think so. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has received hate e-mails and phone calls. An op-ed in Bloomberg View questions who made the decision to bring Brantly home, and social media is abuzz with demands that Ebola victims not be admitted to the United States at all. The New York Post proclaimed “Ebola fear is going viral” and quoted one of Donald Trump’s tweets: “Ebola patient will be brought to the U.S. in a few days — Now I know for sure that our leaders are incompetent. KEEP THEM OUT OF HERE!”…

There are two epidemics in the world today. The first is a troubling spread of the Ebola virus in poor countries in Africa, an outbreak that is the result of poverty, inattention by those countries’ political leaders, and a general lack of concern by the wealthier nations about epidemics that don’t yet seem to directly affect them.

But the second epidemic is a more dangerous one. It is a spreading lack of compassion, characterized by disaster fatigue, helplessness in the face of war refugees, intolerance for immigration, and now, the desire to ban even American citizens who are sick and need our help. The second epidemic seems harder to contain than the first, but it is every bit as important.

***

Even atheists could find a guide to goodness in asking themselves What Would Kent Do?

What Jesus would do is what Brantly did when he agreed to work in an Ebola isolation ward in Liberia despite being admittedly terrified.

What Brantly also did was what Jesus also would have done after the doctor’s worst fears became real and he was infected along with a fellow health worker.

Only one dose of an experimental serum was available, and Brantly insisted that it go to his colleague, Nancy Writebol.

Instead, Brantly got a blood transfusion from a 14 year-old Ebola survivor who was among those the doctor had treated while placing himself in such mortal peril.

A good preacher could draw a telling parallel between the absolving blood of Christ and the blood of this teen, which contains antibodies from the successful fight against the virus that Brantley so selflessly assisted.

The hope now is that those antibodies will now help Brantly in his own battle for life.

***

These Americans generously went to Africa on a humanitarian mission to help eradicate a disease that is especially deadly in countries without our health-care infrastructure. They deserve the same selflessness from us. To refuse to care for these professionals would raise enormous questions about the ethical foundation of our profession. They have a right to come home for their care when it can be done effectively and safely.

As health-care professionals, this is what we have trained for. People often ask why we would choose to care for such high-risk patients. For many of us, that is why we chose this occupation — to care for people in need. Every person involved in the treatment of these two patients volunteered for the assignment. At least two nurses canceled vacations to be a part of this team. They derive satisfaction from knowing that, after years of preparing for this type of case, they are able to help, to comfort and to do it safely. The gratitude they receive from the patients’ families drives their efforts.

As human beings, we all hope that if we were in need of superior health care, our country and its top doctors would help us get better. We can either let our actions be guided by misunderstandings, fear and self-interest, or we can lead by knowledge, science and compassion. We can fear, or we can care.

***

Liberals treat prosperity in America as a zero sum game — if there are winners, there must be losers. They are wrong. Christians should not do the same with Christianity — surely a Christian may lose his life, but even then he is a winner. There are no losers except the Devil himself when a Christian goes therefore until all the nations.

How many Liberians might come to know the Lord because of Dr. Brantly’s sacrifice? How many Americans, in an age of growing hostility to Christians, might see his sacrifice and pick up their own crosses? How many Liberians might grow in affection for the United States through Dr. Brantly’s sacrifice? We may never know the answer to any of these. But history itself shows us many will be saved and many will turn their hearts toward this great country. Christians should be focused on saving souls where the Lord leads them and lends them talent and we should all praise the work of the Holy Spirit in so doing.

Surely Christians in America can spare one man to Africa or even ten. After all, Christians are to save souls, not just American ones. Had Dr. Brantly gone to our southern border and provided his services there, some would attack him there too for helping illegal aliens.

But Dr. Brantly, as do we all, goes where the Holy Spirit leads.

***

***


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Ann Coulter on 2016: Second look at Mitt Romney?

AnnCoulteron2016:SecondlookatMitt

Ann Coulter on 2016: Second look at Mitt Romney?

posted at 3:21 pm on April 3, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via MofoPolitics, which is responsible for the clip, and Free Republic, where the Romney 3.0 movement is, shall we say, off to a bad start in the comments. I’m 90 percent sure she’s joking but there’s no way to be sure: Any conservative willing to offer three cheers for RomneyCare qualifies, indisputably, as a true blue Mitt fan. I didn’t think they existed, but they do. Even among people who knew all along that, if nominated, he would lose.

Why Romney instead of someone else, though? One big reason, she says, is immigration. He was the guy who hammered Rick Perry in the debates for supporting in-state tuition for illegals; he was also the guy who made attrition through enforcement — a.k.a. “self-deportation” — the foundation of his immigration policy, despite endless bleating from the media. Call him a squish on other matters if you like but on amnesty he was rock-solid. But see, this was the whole problem with Romney: Was he rock-solid on immigration or was he merely telling primary voters what he thought they wanted to hear? You never really knew with Mitt. He already had one gigantic, potentially fatal political liability with health care. He likely reasoned, correctly, that he couldn’t afford another one by taking a centrist line on immigration. So he became a staunch conservative on legalization and citizenship and it worked for him — for awhile.

How about after the election, though, when he no longer had to worry about offending voters? Here’s what he told a WaPo reporter for a book on the 2012 campaign that came out last year:

On his plan for self-deportation, Romney said, “I still don’t know whether it’s seen as being punitive in the Hispanic community. I mean, I know it is in the Anglo community … I didn’t recognize how negative and punitive that term would be seen by the voting community.”…

When Romney started to trail Gingrich in polls ahead of the South Carolina primary, the book explains that his advisers want to run immigration-themed ads against Gingrich — but Romney refused to “run an immigration campaign.”

Balz also reports in Collision 2012 that Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, thought that the immigration attacks on Perry were “both damaging and unnecessary.”

“Looking back, I think that’s right,” Romney told Balz. “I think that I was ineffective in being able to bring Hispanic voters into our circle and that had I been less pointed on that in the debates, I would have been more likely to get more Hispanic voters.”

That sounds to me like a man who regrets having taken such a hard line. Here he is again in November 2013, months after the Gang of Eight bill passed the Senate:

Another issue — immigration — is something the Republican Party must deal with, Mitt Romney said. Asked if there should be a pathway to citizenship put forward, he said, “I do believe those who come here illegally ought to have an opportunity to get in line with everybody else. I don’t think those who come here illegally should jump to the front of the line or be given a special deal, be rewarded for coming here illegally, but I think they should have a chance just like anybody else to get in line and to become a citizen if they’d like to do so.”

It’s not entirely clear what he means there. Does he think illegals should be allowed to stay, with legal status, while they get in line to apply for citizenship, or does he think they should be removed and then try applying for a visa while back in their own country just like every other aspiring American in the world? Come to think of it, that’s not the right question. The right question is, how would President Romney, having just won a squeaker over Obama but having lost 70+ percent of the Latino vote, respond to a concerted push by congressional Democrats for immigration reform? Would he have held firm to “self-deportation” or, having been chastened by the Latino reaction to “self-deportation” during the campaign and with Republican leaders breathing down his neck about changing demographics and 2016, would he have tried to broker some sort of deal involving legalization? Which seems truer to the Romney ethos to you? Reagan signed an amnesty but Mitt the Unconquerable wouldn’t have?

I do think she’s right that it’ll probably be a governor in 2016, though. Are there any of those on the Republican bench who are as firmly opposed to amnesty as Romney 2012 was?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair