Skip to comments.Ann Coulter: GET RID OF GOVERNMENT -- BUT FIRST MAKE ME PRESIDENT! (Ann Takes on Librarians)
Posted on 06/15/2011 2:22:25 PM PDT by Syncro
GET RID OF GOVERNMENT -- BUT FIRST MAKE ME PRESIDENT!June 15, 2011I consider all Republican debates time-fillers until New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie jumps in, but Monday night's debate did crystallize for me why I dislike libertarians. (Except one, who is a friend of mine and not crazy.)
They lure you in with talk of small government and then immediately start babbling about drug legalization or gay marriage.
"Get the government out of it" is a good and constitutionally correct answer to many questions, but it's not a one-size-fits-all answer to all questions.
It was a good answer, for example, when libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, was asked about government assistance to private enterprise and government involvement in the housing market.
But it's a chicken-s**t, I-don't-want-to-upset-my-video-store-clerk-base answer when it comes to gay marriage.
Asked about gay marriage, Paul said, in full:
"The federal government shouldn't be involved. I wouldn't support an amendment (prohibiting gay marriage). But let me suggest -- one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about. But then, get the government out of it. ... Why doesn't it go to the church? And why doesn't it go to the individuals? I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church."
If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? How are child support and child custody issues determined if the government doesn't recognize marriage? How about a private company's health care plans -- whom will those cover? Who has legal authority to issue "do not resuscitate" orders to doctors? (Of course, under Obamacare we won't be resuscitating anyone.)
Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person's Social Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you're divorced and able to remarry? Where would liberals get their phony statistics about most marriages ending in divorce?Read More »
In my book "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America," I make the case that liberals, and never conservatives, appeal to irrational mobs to attain power. There is, I now recall, one group of people who look like conservatives, but also appeal to the mob. They're called "libertarians."Read the rest at AnnCoulter.com
COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
I consider all Republican debates time-fillers until New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie jumps in, but Monday night's debate did crystallize for me why I dislike libertarians. (Except one, who is a friend of mine and not crazy.)She's still pushing Christie...not one who embraces the Tea Party Movement.
Ron Paul, although able to talk a good game, is a kook.
Ann Coulter, while not a kook, is a hottie with a brain.
And not a word about excerpting.
Yes, social conservatives know this; candidates would do well for themselves to learn what the Christian answers are to these questions.
Otherwise, Christians can’t vote for them in good conscience.
June 30  Meet Ann Coulter...here is Ann from a PREVIOUS  appearance here:
[NIXON LIBRARY: live broadcast on KABC. L.A. FReepers will be there!]:
Ann has remarkably little faith in the ancient and flexible traditions of contract and common law. She doesn’t mention it but she is also a zealous backer of the failed War on Drugs which is another “exception” to her support for liberty.
kook=someone you disagree with.
Whomever the privately owned adoption agency determines is suitable.
How are child support and child custody issues determined if the government doesn't recognize marriage?
How are they done regarding children of unmarried parents, Ann? This is what's known in the trade as a "red herring".
How about a private company's health care plans -- whom will those cover?
Whomever the private insurance company choses to, Ann. That's why they're called "private".
Who has legal authority to issue "do not resuscitate"
Anyone named in the Power of Attorney, Ann. That's who.
Any other dumb questions Ms. Coulter?
Not likin’ the Coulter there much, eh? ;) :)
I consider all Republican debates time-fillers until New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie jumps in...Well, Ann **almost** has it right!
That SHOULD, of course. read:
I consider all Republican debates time-fillers untilThere! Fixed it!!
New JerseyALASKA Gov. Chris ChristieSARAH PALIN jumps in...
It may not be the one-size-fits-all answer, but it is most certainly the de-facto answer if you believe in liberty. I will side with social conservatives over progressives 9 times out of 10. But I can promise you this, the rope that the progressives use to hang us all will be the one social conservatives helped weave.
I had a similar reaction when I heard Ron Paul’s statement.
At first it seems so reasonable—get the government out of it and let the church handle it. But it didn’t take me long to realize there are a lot of areas in life that would become pretty complicated if there was no legality to marriage.
And the more I thought about it, the more I thought Ron Paul’s “reasonable idea” opened up a big can of “unintended consequences” worms.
And the more I thought about it, I wondered if Ron Paul really thought about it beyond the sound bite. My guess is he didn’t.
But she says she won't be there?
But she will be here, 4:30 PM - 6:30 PM. One half hour after the other one ends.
Video of this event will not be available online.
Co-hosted by AM 630 WMAL
will be autographing copies of Demonic purchased at the event and answering audience questions
Liberals activate mobs, depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs. In her newest book, Demonic, Ann Coulter explains the peculiarities of liberals as standard groupthink behavior and posits that to understand mobs is to understand liberals.
Join us for this special book-signing opportunity!
I don’t think Ron Paul is a kook. I think he’s a dangerous muzzie-loving, jew-hating extremist (though he does talk a good talk on the domestic issues).
He just looks like a kook because, well, he looks and talks funny.
But he’s worse than a kook. Much, much worse.
- Book-Signing for Demonic by Ann Coulter Co-hosted by AM 630 WMAL Best-selling author Ann Coulter will be autographing copies of Demonic purchased at the event and answering audience questions Liberals activate mobs, depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs. In her newest book, Demonic, Ann Coulter explains the peculiarities of liberals as standard groupthink behavior and posits that to understand mobs is to understand liberals. Join us for this special book-signing opportunity!
- June 30 Meet Ann CoulterJune 12th, 2011 by Nixon Foundation Thursday June 30 7 pmLive Broadcast and Book SigningAttorney, commentator, and author of seven New York Times bestsellers, Ann Coulter, will co-host KABC Radios The John Philips Show live from the Nixon Librarys White House East Room on Thursday, June 30 at 7pm. During the broadcast, she will take questions from the audience and discuss her latest best seller Demonic: How The Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.
My wife is a Librarian. I’d put her in the ring against Coulter.
Any other dumb questions Ms. Coulter?I agree. She made a piss-poor case for a government standard in marriages.
But a case can be made.
It involves Western Civilization, Western values, and preventing the worst of all anti-Western cultural institutions: polygamy.
Gay marriage is the road to polygamy and the government has a role in preventing both.
“Ann Coulter, while not a kook, is a hottie with a brain.”
Atomic Annie has a brain ? Who’s gonna be her running mate ? Pinky ?!?
One would think that an author would appreciate librarians!
What, is she down on the Dewey Decimal System too?
Ann raises some definitely arguable questions that help crystallize the justifications for laws regarding marriage. I happen to agree with her. The issue that ignited her rant against libertarians was ‘gay marriage’. This is only an issue because homosexual activists have forced it by demanding (and occasionally receiving) legal authorization for two people of the same sex to marry, a concept that didn’t exist when marriage laws were enacted even if those practicing homosexual behaviors, did. That it exists, today, is problematic for most conservatives. Ann’s position that libertarians sidestep the controversy by claiming the government has no business having anything to do with marriage seems reasonable, unlike her fixation on New Jersey governor Chris Christie. Ann seems desperate to see Christie, a conservative on fiscal matters but relatively liberal on social issues, make a run for the GOP nomination for president, which I consider a foolish idea and one that seems odd for an intelligent, politically and socially conservative woman such as Ann Coulter.
And she excerpts her columns now, on her own site!
She shows no fear lol
...Didn't mind the "book talk" as she is on to promote her newest but the Chris Christie BS is too much, especially when he keeps saying he is not running.Bingo!
CHRIS CHRISTIE, not so much!
Ever the extremist, her.
She was corrected quite well by RonDog in this post:
To: SyncroI consider all Republican debates time-fillers until New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie jumps in...Well, Ann **almost** has it right!
That SHOULD, of course. read:I consider all Republican debates time-fillers untilThere! Fixed it!!
New JerseyALASKA Gov. Chris ChristieSARAH PALIN jumps in...MUCH BETTER!
Sometimes Ann REALLY irritates me. Sometimes she REALLY makes me laugh. THIS is one of the times she made me LAUGH!
The feds have placed their tentacles into every aspect of Americans lives.
Laws stacked on top of laws on top of regulation on top of laws.
So many taxing entities throughout all levels of government sucking the juice of life outta our economy and livelihoods.
Ron Paul says a bunch stuff I don't necessarily agree with, but he is the closest candidate to true constitutionalism as one can get.
Problem is, we've moved so far from the original mandates and limitations of the constitution, most Americans don't even recognize liberty as intended by the framers.
We have millions of citizens who hold dual citizenship with divided loyalties...that's if they hold any loyalty to the U.S. at all.
Sorry, but I'm absolutely fed up with the same ol politicians spewing a bunch of regurgitated nonsense for the American electorate to just swallow up and lick their fingers like a piece of greasy Kentucky Fried Chicken.
When will we ever wake up and smell the damn coffee?
I think so, Brain, but where will we find a duck and a hose at this hour?
Well-put on all counts.
But there are more obtuse Americans than there are gay Americans, so courts are going to be bulging with legal disputes among the unalert, who neglected to plan in advance and make private contracts resolving the many legal issues that are normally determined by a marriage contract.
Ann is right. The reason government licenses marriage is to streamline that common and contract law you refer to so that the courts aren't clogged up with "obtuse" Americans. It is a cheap and efficient legal convenience.
Not licensing it doesn't actually get the government out of marriage. You're just shifting the legal activity to the courts (and feeding the lawyers).
Ann, stop waterskiing near sharks.
Your books are great, and generally I'm a Coulter dittohead, but not this time.
All of the legal "problems" you raise to the "loss" of government marriage are straw men, and you know it.
As a lawyer, you are well aware that there's this thing called a "contract."
All we need is the acknowledgement by the government - through laws that compel it - that it must honor any marriage contract drafted between two people. That contract can be standardized, or not, an can address all of the issues you brought up.
You also know that government marriages are relatively new, and that most geneology in this country has to search church marriage documents past a certain historical time - like before WWII.
And as for whether two people want to be married by their tennis instructor, I guess that's none of your business, is it? You can denounce them, and your church can denounce them, and together you can refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of their marriage. Fine, knock yourself out.
But the contract between them is valid under the law.
And guess what? You don't have to give a damn about what they think of you, either.
Natural Rights - they're not just a good idea, they're the law.
Do they get to choose their weapons, mud or jello?
I assume the solution is some sort of state issued legal unions for hetero and homosexuals. If there has to be change, this would be the best route, IMO
Hmmm, they probably do like in bookstores...
Its also why gay activists don't want government out of the marriage business and don't just do a basic "sign a will/and give the partner power of attorney".
Some libertarians have proposed only allowed civil unions (recognized by the government) for straight and gay folks, while leaving "marriage" itself to whatever religious institution there is.
Gay activists are opposed to that too, they want the benefits of marriage and also the laziness of avoiding the issues of contract law and courts.
That is what a marriage license is; a state issued license recognizing the legal validity of a union.
Trying to take the government out of marriage is literally not possible since courts are an arm of the government.
I’m against recognizing gay marriage as a legal union because it think it opens the door to polygamy and even adult incest with it’s consenting adults bilge. Marriage is not about individuals, it is about civilization built through the biological family unit. Screw with that and you can stick a fork in Western Civilization.
Coulter hit the nail on the head on why I’m now a recovering Ron Paul supporter. This viewpoint infects almost everything Paul thinks (not that all his views are wrong, many of them are right, particularly economically). Just like liberals think corporations are the problem with everything, when they are really the solution, libertarians believe that the state is the problem with absolutely everything, even to the point of anarchism for many of the more doctrinaire libertarians (Ron Paul might be among them, I don’t know for sure on that count).
BTW, sane libertarians, like sane liberals, are conservatives who have been duped.
We don't need a moderate President, we need a Conservative President!
Government is too damn big, too damn intrusive, too damn expensive.”
And defining marriage between one man and one woman, as it has been done for millenia is NOT the problem, its the solution. Strong families are like antibodies for cultural dissolution and are a preventative to massive Govt.
All big Govt schemes involve the Govt REPLACING families. Comunists, nazis, leftist communes, etc. ALL replaced parental direction with Govt indoctrination.
Which is why destruction of families and family values is a biggies with the Left. Easier to shape minds with pesky parents out of the way. Easier to redefine values when you destroy moral values in law.
Libertarian chicken-s*** attitude on families and marriage is a big gift to the Left.
Bravo to Ann Coulter for pointing this out.
” Ron Paul says a bunch stuff I don’t necessarily agree with, but he is the closest candidate to true constitutionalism as one can get.” Maybe, but this agenda of upending marriage has NOTHING to do with upholding the Constitution. Hurting traditional marriage will hurt the Constitution.
Wrong. A license is the state assuming the authority over the existence of the union.
Under Natural Rights, the state doesn't have the authority to create, maintain or dissolve a marriage union. All it can do is accept the existence of the marriage contract between two human beings - a marriage contract made by them, not the state. If - and only if - that marriage contract violates a law somewhere, then, and only then, can the state challenge it's validity, and only to the extent that the law is violated.
What people don't understand is that the power of marriage doesn't exist in the state. It doesn't exist, and it never will. Because marriage is solely between human beings, before God, based on love. Under natural rights, those issues not not exist as powers of the state, and never can, and never will, because the state is, by definition, not human.
We live in a time when Americans have forgotten about natural rights - even conservatives. When they do think of them, they think they're some sort of way to organize rights the state should agree to. They are not. They are much, much bigger than that. They are an acknowledgement, by the Founders, that there are things that the state simply does not include, because it does not include it. Fish do not include bananas. Rain does not include computer source code. Automobiles do not include earthquake faults.
The state does not include marriage. Human beings alone, and the love they have for each other that backs their pledge to each other before God (or whatever they hold holy), is the power of marriage.
Giving the state the power of marriage is the abandonment of our very humanity itself.
I question anyone’s legitimacy who refers to themselves as a dittohead when showing their appreciation of anyone.
Natural rights? Yep, it's NOT natural for homosexuals to be married unless they marry someone of the opposite sex.
That's why it is a "natural" law.
No, they want to destroy the Institution of Marriage by polluting it with their perversionistic "life" (read death) style.
Yes it is. But it is NOT a marriage.