body~politic

~~~~~~~~~> Does DEBT  become SERFDOM ?

Tweet me @ColonialSerf, and let me know, and I'll share the answers HERE!!!

Saturday, February 12, 2011

WHAT LIBERALS DON'T KNOW ABOUT GUNS, CHAPTER 217


WHAT LIBERALS DON'T KNOW ABOUT GUNS, CHAPTER 217
February 2, 2011


Fresh off of blaming Jared Loughner's killing spree in the Tucson mall on Sarah Palin, liberals are now blaming it on high-capacity magazines. They might as well imprison everyone named "Jared" to prevent a crime like this from ever happening again.

During the presidential campaign, Obama said: "I don't know of any self-respecting hunter that needs 19 rounds of anything. You don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer, and if you do, you shouldn't be hunting." It would have been more accurate for him to end that sentence after the word "hunter."

It's so adorable when people who wouldn't know a high-capacity magazine from Vanity Fair start telling gun owners what they should want and need.

In fact, high-capacity mags put a predator like Loughner at a disadvantage because they are so long, unwieldy and difficult to conceal. This may be why the Tucson shooting appears to be the first spree killing involving a high-capacity magazine. It would have been easier for Loughner to bring two guns.

On the other hand, for a homeowner who is a poor marksman, a large-capacity clip could be a lifesaver.

But after every multiple murder, liberals come up with some crackpot idea to "do something" that invariably involves infringing on some aspect of our Second Amendment rights.

The ACLU won't let us put nuts in mental hospitals and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik wouldn't lock up Loughner even after he had broken the law several times.

In an open society that includes Sheriff Dumbnik and the ACLU, deranged individuals may explode into murder and mayhem now and then. The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur.

There's only one policy of any kind that has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the highly regarded economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not small. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

When there are no armed citizens to stop mass murderers, the killers are able to shoot unabated, even pausing to reload their weapons, until they get bored and stop. Some stop only when their trigger fingers develop carpal tunnel syndrome.

Consider just the school shootings -- popular sites for mass murder because so many schools are "gun-free zones." Or, as mass murderers call them, "free-fire zones."

At Columbine High School, two students killed 13 people before ending the carnage themselves by committing suicide. They didn't need high-capacity magazines because they were able to stop and reload.

At the Amish school shooting in 2006 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the deranged killer murdered five little girls and then committed suicide.

In 1998, two students in Craighead County, Arkansas, killed five people, including four little girls, before the killers decided to stop and attempt an escape.

And in 2007, a deranged student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech -- 30 of them in a very short period of time in one building. He didn't need high-capacity magazines because he had two guns and reloaded.

There was no one to stop him.

School shootings that have been halted were almost always stopped by the happenstance of an armed citizen on school property.

In 2002, an immigrant in Virginia started shooting his classmates at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy. Two of his classmates retrieved guns from their cars, forcing the killer to drop his weapon and allowing a third classmate to tackle him.

Three dead.

In Santee, Calif., in 2001, when a student began shooting his classmates, the school activated its "safe school plan" -- as the principal later told CNN -- by sending a "trained campus supervisor" to stop the killer.

Possibly not realizing that he was in a gun-free zone, the killer responded by shooting the trained campus supervisor three times. Fortunately, an armed off-duty San Diego policeman happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day. With a gun, he stopped the killer and held him at bay until more police could arrive.

Two dead.

In 1997, a student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., had already shot several people at his high school and was headed for the junior high school when assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman's head, ending the slaughter.

Two dead.

In 1998, a student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., started shooting, whereupon the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant and captured him for the police.

One dead.

See the pattern?

In response to Columbine, schools adopted "anti-bullying" policies; in response to Virginia Tech, eBay ceased selling magazines online; in response to the Tucson shooting, liberals want to ban the particular magazine Loughner used.

And then the next killer will come along with a different arsenal and a different motive, and the only way to stop him will be with an armed citizen with a gun.

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER

Friday, February 11, 2011

Out of Egyptian protests a new Obama doctrine is born

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/11/egyptian-protests-obama-doctrine


Out of Egyptian protests a new Obama doctrine is born

US president's decision to back revolt against Mubarak-led repression has implications for region's autocrats
Hosni Mubarak and Barack Obama in Washington
 
 
By backing the Egyptian protests, Barack Obama challenges not just Hosni Mubarak but the legitimacy of other autocrats in the region. Photograph: Jim Young/Reuters
 
Hosni Mubarak has still not grasped how fundamentally the old political order is changing in Egypt and the Arab world – but it seems Barack Obama has.

  Image by Nate Beeler

In a forceful statement after the Egyptian president's latest exercise in reality denial, Obama came off the fence following a fortnight of humming and hawing. If the choice is revolution or repression, democratic ideals and values or hard-nosed self-interest, then the US is officially on the side of the angels.

This dramatic shift could in time have a bigger impact on the Middle East than the Egyptian uprising. In sharply criticising the Cairo government's prevarications, demanding it respect universal values, and stressing that his administration stands shoulder to shoulder with the demonstrators in Tahrir Square, the US president dramatically changed the way his country does business in the region. This was, to all intents and purposes, the proclamation of an Obama doctrine.

His statement was about Egypt but has a far broader application. He said, in part: "The United States has been clear that we stand for a set of core principles. We believe the universal rights of the Egyptian people must be respected, and their aspirations must be met. We believe this transition must immediately demonstrate irreversible political change, and a negotiated path to democracy.

"To that end, we believe that the emergency law should be lifted. We believe that meaningful negotiations with the broad opposition and Egyptian civil society should address the key questions confronting Egypt's future: protecting the fundamental rights of all citizens; revising the constitution and other laws to demonstrate irreversible change; and jointly developing a clear roadmap to elections that are free and fair..."

He continued: "A new generation has emerged. They have made it clear that Egypt must reflect their hopes, fulfil their highest aspirations, and tap their boundless potential. In these difficult times, I know that the Egyptian people will persevere, and they must know that they will continue to have a friend in the United States of America."

The implications of this new doctrine, for that is how it must be viewed, are almost endless. The most obvious point is that since the US is backing the popular pro-democracy revolt in Egypt, it is bound in all conscience to do so elsewhere, as occasion demands.

This is a direct challenge not just to Mubarak and his old guard but to the legitimacy of the previously untouchable, US-allied autocrats of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the Gulf. Universal values are universal after all. So what goes in Egypt will logically go, too, in Algeria, Jordan and Yemen, to name just three countries where America has largely turned a blind eye to repression in pursuit of wider security and commercial interests.

The Obama doctrine implies readiness to intervene directly in a country's internal politics in support of broader principles. In this instance, his stinging criticism of Mubarak's failure to make "immediate, meaningful and sufficient" reforms was tantamount to a demand that he resign.

It also risks the alienation of regional rulers and the fracturing of old alliances that have sustained US and western European policy since the cold war. The Saudis had taken a dim view of the US president's undercutting of Mubarak; now they will wonder who might be next.

Israeli leaders, too, are alarmed. They never quite trusted Obama. And repression of the Arab masses by Arab autocrats suited them quite well for, by and large, the Arab street has always been more hostile to Israel than the Arab elites.

Israel, too, could hitherto pose as the region's only real democracy. But that moral advantage is slipping, along with long-held strategic and defensive preconceptions. This uncertainty might yet jolt Israeli leaders out of their obstructive complacency over Palestine. Obama just accelerated this uncharted process.
Events in Tunisia and then Egypt forced the US president down this road. But his speech in Cairo in 2009, about engaging and developing the Arab and Muslim spheres, showed he was not a reluctant traveller.
Halfway through his presidency, he is finally beginning to define his own distinctive and transformational approach, after initially accepting most of the old US foreign policy shibboleths. In Afghanistan, overly influenced by his generals, he bought into the old way of doing things. Now, burned by that experience, he is forging a different path.

This is not a return to the "liberal interventionism" of the Bush-Blair era. The Obama doctrine is not about brute force, but forceful beliefs. Even so, it is winning fans on the American right, as well as among Egyptians.
"We need a foreign policy that not only supports freedom in the abstract but is guided by long-range practical principles to achieve it," said columnist Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. Thus the US should "use its influence to help democrats everywhere throw off dictatorial rule" and do more to build institutions and strong systems of law and media freedom in transitional democracies, he said.


Image by Mike Lester

The US should not intervene directly in other countries' affairs unless it was "to help protect them against totalitarians, foreign and domestic", as in the cold war days of the Truman doctrine. By totalitarian, Krauthammer and similar thinkers mean Islamists of all complexions – for them, Islam is the new "red peril".

Obama is unlikely to embrace this definition. But in beginning to enunciate a foreign policy doctrine guided by clearly established democratic values and mutual respect, he may not only avoid more Egypt-style dilemmas, he may also be on his way to bridging the gulf between pragmatism and principle.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

HOPE, CHANGE AND 'INVEST'

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=407

HOPE, CHANGE AND 'INVEST'
January 26, 2011



I missed the middle section of Obama's State of the Union address when I took a break to read "War and Peace," but I gather he never got around to what I was hoping he'd say, which is: "What was I thinking?"

The national debt is $14 trillion, the Democrats won't stop spending, and President Nero gave us a long gaseous speech about his Stradivarius.

I feel so Southern whenever I watch a Democrat give a State of the Union address -- and not just because it makes me want to secede. Consternating the rest of the family, my Kentucky mother always talked back to the TV. I do it only when a Democrat is giving a speech.

And if liberals didn't like Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true," they should be really happy I wasn't in the House chamber Tuesday night.


All I kept hearing was, "Ann pays more." That's all I ever hear when Democrats start in with all that "investing."

Apparently the government will be "investing" in education, "investing" in technology, "investing" in roads and "investing" in lots and lots of government workers. Ann pays more, Ann pays more, Ann pays more.

Obama compared "investing" in education to our sending a man to the moon after the Russians launched Sputnik. Say, who was the president who recently gutted spending on NASA? Oh yes, that was Obama.


So he reminded us of the glory days of the space program, but now he's taking that money and funneling it to public school teachers. As the Democrats say: "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we hire another 10,000 public school teachers?"


Also, solar panels. Obama said the government was already "investing" in solar panels! That's a total relief. This must be how the president who brought us "Recovery Summer" is going to dig us out of the second Great Depression.

But I do wonder why no private lender considered solar panels a wise investment, forcing solar panel manufacturers to turn to the government for loans, followed by endless tax credits just to break even.

I guess people who work for the government are just smarter. We're so lucky to have them "investing" our money for us! Boy, egg must be on Warren Buffett's face!

Remember how massive government "investments" gave rise to the telephone, the light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, the personal computer ... OK, none of those.

But massive government expenditures did give us Amtrak and the TSA!

The only thing Obama vowed to cut were "earmarks." Yippee! The guy with the ears is against earmarks. Yes, the same president who quadrupled our deficit by giving money away to his UAW pals, Wall Street cronies and government workers is now lecturing us about earmarks. This is a bit like being scolded by Charlie Sheen for ordering a second wine cooler.

You knew it was bad when John McCain leapt up and enthusiastically applauded. The last time I saw McCain applaud Obama like that was when he debated him.

Obama said, "We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook."

And then the government outlawed Edison's great invention, made the Wright brothers' air travel insufferable, filed anti-trust charges against Microsoft and made cars too expensive to drive by prohibiting oil exploration, and right now -- at this very minute -- is desperately trying to regulate the Internet.

On the bright side, President Al Gore would have actually outlawed the cars in those driveways.

I especially enjoyed his pitch for high-speed trains where you "don't have to receive pat-downs." At least until one of those Muslims who is "part of our American family" blows one up -- at which point they'll be staffed with armies of genital-fondling, unionized TSA agents on the public dime.


Still, I can't wait for Obama's America. An America where I can use lightning-fast, high-speed Internet to file electronically for my unemployment benefits. Or better yet, I can ditch my old "oil-powered" car and take a "sunlight and water"-powered high-speed train to the unemployment office for a change.

And I hear CalTech is working on biofuels to power "Recovery Summer 2011."

The big laugh line was when Nero said mockingly, "I heard rumors that a few of you still have concerns about the health care law." That's called "60 percent of the American public." It's not a joke, and it's not funny.
Here's one: Hey, Obama! Guy walks into a bar in the Gaza Strip. The bartender says, "What'll you have?" But the guy is killed instantly when an Iranian-made CT-28 missile strikes the bar, also killing a woman and small child next door. Get it, Obama? HA HA!

Synthesizing Karl Marx and Ronald Reagan, Obama said the government will soon be taking over every aspect of our lives, and Republicans can't stop him -- but gosh, isn't America a great country! Teachers are great, we need to innovate, children are our future, we need paved roads, kids should do their homework, Labrador puppies are cute, I like apple pie, I (heart) Justin Bieber, and how about them Yankees! Now, here's your 2011 tax bill -- how would you like to pay for that?


Actually, I was glad to hear him say that "there isn't a person here" -- which presumably included Democrats -- who would live anyplace else.

Then why are they always trying to turn us into Western Europe?

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

MUD LIBEL

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=406

MUD LIBEL
January 19, 2011


The same people who had blamed Sarah Palin for the massacre at the Tucson Safeway and then taunted her for her "silence" were enraged when she responded.

Last Tuesday, the night before Palin responded, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann mocked Palin's silence throughout his show:

-- "And why is the ever self-promoting Miss Palin so quiet?"

-- "And it's quiet, isn't it?"

-- "It's too quiet."

-- "The silence is deafening from the great Northwest."

It was deemed an admission of guilt that she hadn't spoken about the Tucson shooting or denied the accusations that she had inspired the shooter.

The next day, Palin posted a video response, and Keith immediately attacked her for "the worst timed political statement ever." It's almost as if liberals would attack Palin whatever she did.

Olbermann sneered about Palin's use of the phrase "blood libel," scoffing, "This, to Sarah Palin, is analogous to what is happening to her." No, not only happening to her, but to all right-wingers, tea partiers, Republican politicians, and conservative radio and TV hosts -- all of whom have been accused of complicity in murder.

On the day of the Arizona massacre, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva blamed the "Palin express." The father of Gabrielle Giffords, one of the victims, blamed "the whole Tea Party." The sheriff of Pima County, Clarence Dupnik, who had failed to lock Loughner up despite repeated arrests and other contacts, blamed "the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business." (Dumbnik also said: "We're not convinced that he acted alone.")

A comment on Gawker the day of the attack said: "Palin ... you now have more than just elk blood on your hands."

The next day, New York Daily News columnist Michael Daly wrote, with stunning originality: "Palin may have the blood of more than some poor caribou on her hands." (See -- he changed "elk" to "caribou.")

In an especially prissy "Special Comment" the night of the shooting, Olbermann said that if Sarah Palin "does not repudiate her own part in amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics, she must be dismissed from politics." Ditto for Rep. Allen West, ex-candidate Sharron Angle, Rep. Giffords' opponent Jesse Kelly and "the Tea Party leaders."

In response to the Arizona shooting, the governor of Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee, banned state employees from going on talk radio, telling reporters he had been a victim of rhetorical violence himself, citing the title of one of my columns from four years ago: "They Shot the Wrong Lincoln."

In that four-year-old column, I supported Chafee's opponent in the Republican primary by pointing out that "the only person who hasn't figured out that Lincoln Chafee is a Democrat is Lincoln Chafee. As the expression goes, if Chafee switched parties, the average IQ on both sides of the aisle would go up."

My column got results: Chafee is no longer a Republican.

But the column did not produce my secret goal, which the governor has now exposed: That John Wilkes Booth return from the dead to stalk people named "Lincoln."

Yes, the governor of Rhode Island is afraid of 19th-century assassins. Whatever you do, Lincoln, don't look under the bed!

After it came out that the Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, was a liberal pothead who hated Christianity, laughed about aborted babies, never listened to talk radio, hated George Bush and cited "Mein Kampf" as one of his favorite books to annoy his Jewish mother, liberals suspended blaming "political rhetoric" for about two days. Then they went right back to blaming conservatives for the shooting.

The media continue to avoid giving any details and simply announce that Loughner was "anti-government," implying that he's your standard George Will conservative who believes Congress has offended the principles of federalism by encroaching on the states' authority under the Constitution.

In fact, Loughner's "anti-government" beliefs consist of: burning the American flag on video; denouncing our currency with the exclamation, "No! I won't trust in God!"; and wanting to kill cops.

His other big anti-government position is that he believes the government was behind 9/11 -- just like well-known tea partiers Rosie O'Donnell, Obama's "green jobs" czar Van Jones, Rehab habitue Charlie Sheen and left-wing historian Howard Zinn.

If we're looking for a rationale other than "Loughner was nuts," I think the more relevant facts about him are that he was an atheist who detested religion and religious people, made lots of references to satanic New Age "conscience dreaming" (sic) and was involved in the occult.

When a fellow participant on a UFO website wrote a lengthy response to Loughner's question about "what is wrong or right with the current date?" which included the subordinate clause, "a day in Christ is as a thousand years," Loughner fixated on that one line, railing, "I won't listen to that fictitious crap without the author. This is laughable to notice a gospel or writing related to Christ."

Shouldn't we at least bring Bill Maher in for questioning?

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER

Repaying Student Loans: What You Need to Know

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41459989/


Repaying Student Loans: What You Need to Know

Published: Monday, 7 Feb 2011 | 1:21 PM ET
Text Size
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • More Share



Suze Orman "The Suze Orman Show"
I hear from so many of you who are confused about how to deal with repaying your college loans. The best move you can make is to follow the advice of college financing expert Mark Kantrowitz, who runs the finaid.org website.
Mark has a great cheat-sheet on student loan repayment basics. A few highlights I want you to understand:
PRIVATE STUDENT LOANSYou can’t consolidate private loans with federal loans.
Don’t choose a long repayment term with a private loan. The standard repayment period is 20 years, but if you opt for a 30-year repayment schedule your monthly payments will only drop by 10 percent, yet your total loan costs over the life of the loan will be two-thirds higher than if you had stuck with the 20-year repayment term.
Even if you can’t keep up with the payments, remember that current federal law prohibits a bankruptcy court from discharging your debt. That is, your student loans—both federal and private-stay with you even after bankruptcy. (Some members of Congress want this rule to change; it’s a long shot these days given the mood in Washington, but you should let Senator Richard Durbin and Representative Danny Davis know that you hope they will reintroduce legislation they proposed that would permit private loans to be discharged in bankruptcy.)
Jupiterimages | Getty Images

Try to negotiate with a private lender. To be honest, this is yet another long shot. Private loan lenders have no obligation to work out a deal with you; and the fact is that just like with so many of our current mortgage problems, many private student loans were “securitized,” meaning that many individual loans were packaged together and sold to investors. That makes it even more complicated to try and win a more lenient repayment deal. Still, it always is worth making a good-faith effort to see if someone will listen and work with you.
FEDERAL STUDENT LOANSConsolidate all your federal loans through the government’s Direct Loan program.
Federal student loans offer a few different repayment options. Choose a repayment schedule that works for your circumstances. (Again, finaid.org is a great resource for researching your options.) For example, with the “income-based” repayment schedule what you owe each month is based on a formula tied to your discretionary income, not what you owe. That can make the payments more manageable. And typically, after 25 years, any unpaid balance on that loan will be forgiven, though the amount of the “forgiven” amount will be taxed as ordinary income.
Public-service employees can qualify for loan forgiveness. If you work for a 501(c)(3) you may be able to qualify for the public service loan forgiveness program which will cancel the remaining debt (including accrued but unpaid interest) after 10 years of full-time employment in a public service job. This 10-year forgiveness for public service will be tax free.
© 2011 CNBC.com

Sunday, February 6, 2011

LIBERALS SEEK BAN ON METAPHORS IN WAKE OF ARIZONA SHOOTING

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=405

LIBERALS SEEK BAN ON METAPHORS IN WAKE OF ARIZONA SHOOTING
January 12, 2011


After the monstrous shooting in Arizona last week, surely we can all agree that we've got to pass Obama's agenda immediately and stop using metaphors.

At least I think that's what the mainstream media are trying to tell me.

Liberals instantly leapt on the sickening massacre at a Tucson political event over the weekend to accuse tea partiers, Sarah Palin and all conservatives who talk out loud of being complicit in murder by inspiring the shooter, Jared Loughner.

Of course, to make their case, they first must demonstrate:

(a) Right-wingers have called for violence against anyone, especially conservative, pro-Second Amendment Democratic congresswomen;
(b) Loughner was listening to them; and
(c) Loughner was influenced by them.

They've proved none of this. In fact, it's nearly the opposite.

Needless to say, no conservative has called for violence against anyone. Nor has any conservative engaged in any "rhetoric" that was likely to lead to violence. Every putative example of "violent rhetoric" these squeamish liberals produce keeps being matched by an identical example from the Democrats.

Sarah Palin, for example, had a chart of congressional districts being targeted by Republicans. So did the Democratic Leadership Committee. Indeed, Democratic consultant Bob Beckel went on Fox News and said he invented the bull's-eye maps.

Similarly, every time liberals produce an example of military lingo from a Republican -- "we're going to target this district" -- Republicans produce five more from the Democrats.

President "whose asses to kick" Obama predicted "hand-to-hand combat" with his political opponents and has made such remarks as "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" -- making Obama the first American president to advocate gun fights since Andrew Jackson.

These are figures of speech known as "metaphors." (Do liberals know where we got the word "campaign"?)

It's not that both sides did something wrong; neither side did anything wrong. The drama queens need to settle down.

The winner of the most cretinous statement of 2011 -- and the list is now closed, so please hold your submissions -- is MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who on Monday night recalled Palin's statement, "We're not retreating, we're reloading," and said, I quote, "THAT'S not a metaphor."

Really, Chris? If that's not a metaphor, who did she shoot?

By blaming a mass killing on figures of speech, liberals sound as crazy as Loughner with his complaints about people's grammar. Maybe in lieu of dropping all metaphors, liberals should demand we ban metonyms so that tragedies like this will never happen again.

As for Loughner being influenced by tea partiers, Fox News and talk radio -- oops, another dead-end. According to all available evidence, Loughner is a liberal.

Every friend of Loughner who has characterized his politics has described him as liberal. Not one called him a conservative.

One friend says Loughner never listened to talk radio or watched the TV news. Throw in "never read books" and you have the dictionary definition of a liberal. Being completely uninformed is precisely how most liberals stay liberal.

According to voluminous Twitter postings on Saturday by one of Loughner's friends since high school, Caitie Parker, he was "left wing," "a political radical" "quite liberal" and "a pot head."

If any public figure influenced this guy, my money's on Bill Maher.

But liberals have been so determined to exploit this tragedy to geld conservatives, they have told calculated lies about Loughner's politics.

In the most bald-faced lie I have ever read in The New York Times -- which is saying something -- that paper implied Loughner is a pro-life zealot. This is the precise opposite of the truth.

Only because numerous other news outlets, including ABC News and The Associated Press, reported the exact same shocking incident in much greater detail -- and with direct quotes -- do we know that the Times' rendition was complete bunk.

ABC News reported: "One Pima Community College student, who had a poetry class with Loughner later in his college career, said he would often act 'wildly inappropriate.'

"'One day (Loughner) started making comments about terrorism and laughing about killing the baby,' classmate Don Coorough told ABC News, referring to a discussion about abortions. 'The rest of us were looking at him in shock ... I thought this young man was troubled.'

"Another classmate, Lydian Ali, recalled the incident as well.

"'A girl had written a poem about an abortion. It was very emotional and she was teary eyed and he said something about strapping a bomb to the fetus and making a baby bomber,' Ali said."

Here's the Times' version: "After another student read a poem about getting an abortion, Mr. Loughner compared the young woman to a 'terrorist for killing the baby.'"

So that's how the Times transformed Loughner from a sicko laughing about a dead fetus to a deadly earnest pro-life fanatic. (Never believe a news story written by Eric Lipton, Charlie Savage or Scott Shane of The New York Times -- or for simplicity, anything in the Times.)

I wouldn't have mentioned Loughner's far-left world view immediately after a tragedy like this, but now that liberals have opened the door by blaming Loughner's politics, they better brace themselves.

And when I say "brace themselves," I don't mean they need to actually strap themselves into a brace. That's a metaphor, Chris.

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER

Twitter

-view CSL mobile version -



Webring Translator Thingamajig