My girl Ann (Coulter)’s new book “Guilty” is amazing! Chapter 1 of said book is quite controversial, and do a quick YouTube search and you will find some uncomfortably spirited appearances on various shows, including The View. Oy, I needed some Tylenol after watching that one.
Anyway, what is Chapter 1? Coulter argues that a great deal of society’s ills can be traced back to single motherhood (by choice, my overly sensitive and easily offended liberal readers; not single motherhood resulting from divorce or death). I was eventually going to write a post on Coulter’s findings, but turns out the master herself writes about it in her current article:
Murder Spree by People Who Refuse to Ask For Directions
Ann Coulter| Wednesday, January 14, 2009
In a front-page article on Jan. 2 of this year, The New York Times took a brief respite from its ongoing canonization of Barack Obama and returned to its series on violent crimes committed by returning GIs, or as I call it: "U.S. Military, Psycho Killers."
The Treason Times’ banner series about Iraq and Afghanistan veterans accused of murder began in January last year but was quickly discontinued as readers noticed that the Times doggedly refused to provide any statistics comparing veteran murders with murders in any other group. […]
But as long as the Times has such a burning interest in the root causes of murder, how about considering the one factor more likely to create a murderer than any other? That is the topic we’re not allowed to discuss: single motherhood.
As I describe in my new book, "Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America," controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent. (The second strongest factor is owning a Dennis Kucinich bumper sticker.)
By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced.
A 1990 study by the left-wing Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime disappeared.
Various studies come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. A study cited in the far left-wing Village Voice found that children brought up in single-mother homes "are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home."
With new children being born, running away, dropping out of high school and committing murder every year, it’s not a static problem to analyze. But however the numbers are run, single motherhood is a societal nuclear bomb. […]
Think I’m being cruel? Imagine an America with 60 to 70 percent fewer juvenile delinquents, teenage births, teenage suicides and runaways, and you will appreciate what the sainted "single mothers" have accomplished.
Even in liberals’ fevered nightmares, predatory mortgage dealers, oil speculators and Ken Lay could never do as much harm to their fellow human beings as single mothers do to their own children, to say nothing of society at large.
But the Times won’t run that series because liberals adore single motherhood and the dissolution of traditional marriage in America. They detest the military, so they cite a few anecdotal examples of veterans who have committed murder and hope that no one asks for details.
Next, another one of my favorite conservo-gals Monica Crowly, gives legitimate criticism to the Golden Calf’s cabinet—inept, lackluster, corrupt, and the farthest thing from the “change” he kept promising.
The Worst Transition in The World
By Monica Crowley
The lamestream media has been busy tripping over itself to tout the virtual perfection of The Bama. Barack can do no wrong! He’s got mystical qualities that transcend humanity! His choices are inspired! His judgment, pure and impeccable!
Now, to the reality.
This guy has been presiding over what possibly could be the worst transition ever.
Consider his Cabinet selections:
For Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton. Girlfriend has more baggage than a transatlantic voyage, starting with her Better Half. She’s bringing all of her conflicts of interests (and Bubba’s) into a job working for a guy she thought—just 7 months ago—wasn’t ready for primetime. She’s also going along with a guy who opposed a war she supported. $60 million from the Middle East? Dubai? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? India? The Kazakh thugs? Rose Law Firm files? Whitewater? Chinese campaign contributions? Nationalizing health care? Lewinsky? Impeachment? Pilfering White House furniture? Removing the “W’s” from the computer keyboards? Anyone? Anyone?
For CIA: Leon Panetta. He’s a political hack who knows nothing about intelligence about to assume responsibility for intelligence in the middle of a war. Did he notice that Osama bin Laden issued a new challenge to The Bama today? I’ll bet bin Laden is really worried about Ace Ventura taking over the CIA.
For Attorney General: Eric Holder. This guy signed off on Clinton’s pardons of terrorists and helped to create the conditions for September 11 by maintaining the strict walls of no-communication between the FBI and the CIA. Somewhere in Waziristan, bin Laden giggles.
For Education Secretary: Arne Duncan. The former head of the Illinois Department of Education, his department spent $67,000 on cappuccino machines while failing to meet all of the federal mandates of No Child Left Behind.
For Chief of Staff: Rahm Emanuel. Up to his eyeballs in the pay-for-play scandal rocking Illinois.
For EPA: Carol Browner. Until very recently, she was a member of Socialist International. This is not a nightclub.
For Treasury Secretary: Tim Geithner. This guy hasn’t paid big chunks of his taxes since 2001 and didn’t know the immigration status of three members of his household staff.
For Commerce Secretary: Bill Richardson. He withdrew because he faces possible indictment in a New Mexico pay-for-play scandal.
Shady!
This is what happens when you can only go to the Clinton trough for “talent.”
If I were The Bama, I’d watch out for a certain frosted-blonde. Looks like she’s already running the show.
Finally, from today’s WSJ Opinion page, a no-holds-barred comparison between Bush and Clinton. Which president left office having made the world a safer place? According to author and professor Ruth Wisse, Bush by a long shot:
Which of our last two presidents made the world safer?
RUTH R. WISSE
As President George W. Bush prepares to leave office amid a media chorus of reproach and derision, there is at least one comparison with his predecessor that speaks greatly in his favor. Mr. Bush removed the most ruthless dictator of his day, Saddam Hussein, thereby offering Iraqi citizens the possibility of self-rule. Bill Clinton’s analogous achievement in the Middle East was to help install Yasser Arafat, the greatest terrorist of his day, as head of a proto-Palestinian state.
This is not how these events are generally perceived. The image that still looms in the public mind is that of President Clinton, peacemaker, standing between Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin in the Rose Garden on Sept. 13, 1993. With the best intentions, Mr. Clinton had worked hard for this peace agreement and would continue to strive for its success, hosting the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization at the White House more than any other foreign leader.
But the “peace process” almost immediately reversed its stated expectations. Emboldened by his diplomatic victory, Arafat adopted Islamist terminology and openly preached jihad. The casualties suffered by Israel in the years following the Oslo Accords exceeded those of previous decades, and dangers to Israel and the world have increased exponentially ever since. This so-called peace agreement rewarded terrorist methods as fail-safe instruments of modern warfare, and accelerated terrorist attacks on other democratic countries. Though Mr. Clinton did not foresee these consequences, his speech at the signing ceremony betrayed the self-deception on which the agreement was based.
Throughout the speech, Mr. Clinton invoked the significance of the “sliver of land between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea” to “Jews, Christians, and Muslims throughout the world.” He repeatedly linked the “descendants of Isaac and Ishmael,” and the “shared future shaped by the values of the Torah, the Koran, and the Bible,” as though their “memories and dreams” were all equivalent. But Judaism is quite unlike Islam. The Jews claim solely that “sliver of land” and accept their minority status among the nations. By contrast, Islam seeks religious and territorial hegemony, most especially in the Middle East.
Hence 21 countries descendant from Ishmael have denied the descendants of Isaac their ancestral home. This difference of political visions is precisely what propels the Arab war against Israel. [...]
The Oslo “peace accord” made the world more dangerous and subjected Palestinian Arabs to a rule of violence, corruption and intimidation. Arafat’s dictatorship has since been outmatched by an even more brutal Hamas regime that serves as the terrorist outpost of Iran. President Bush’s military intervention, by contrast, destroyed a terrorist state and made the world safer for its citizens.
Three brilliant articles by three brilliant women.
Recent Comments