values - "If you can find a better deal, take it!" by Ann Coulter

IF YOU CAN FIND A BETTER DEAL, TAKE IT!
by Ann Coulter, January 6, 2010

Someone mentioned Christianity on television recently and liberals reacted with their usual howls of rage and blinking incomprehension.

On a Fox News panel discussing Tiger Woods, Brit Hume said, perfectly accurately:

"The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Hume's words, being 100 percent factually correct, sent liberals into a tizzy of sputtering rage, once again illustrating liberals' copious ignorance of Christianity. (Also illustrating the words of the Bible: "How is it you do not understand me when I speak? It is because you cannot bear to listen to my words." John 8:43.)

In The Washington Post, Tom Shales demanded that Hume apologize, saying he had "dissed about half a billion Buddhists on the planet."

Is Buddhism about forgiveness? Because, if so, Buddhists had better start demanding corrections from every book, magazine article and blog posting ever written on the subject, which claims Buddhists don't believe in God, but try to become their own gods.

I can't imagine that anyone thinks Tiger's problem was that he didn't sufficiently think of himself as a god, especially after that final putt in the Arnold Palmer Invitational last year.

In light of Shales' warning Hume about "what people are saying" about him, I hope Hume's a Christian, but that's not apparent from his inarguable description of Christianity. Of course, given the reaction to his remarks, apparently one has to be a regular New Testament scholar to have so much as a passing familiarity with the basic concept of Christianity.

On MSNBC, David Shuster invoked the "separation of church and television" (a phrase that also doesn't appear in the Constitution), bitterly complaining that Hume had brought up Christianity "out-of-the-blue" on "a political talk show."

Why on earth would Hume mention religion while discussing a public figure who had fallen from grace and was in need of redemption and forgiveness? Boy, talk about coming out of left field!

What religion -- what topic -- induces this sort of babbling idiocy? (If liberals really want to keep people from hearing about God, they should give Him his own show on MSNBC.)

Most perplexing was columnist Dan Savage's indignant accusation that Hume was claiming that Christianity "offers the best deal -- it gives you the get-out-of-adultery-free card that other religions just can't."

In fact, that's exactly what Christianity does. It's the best deal in the universe. (I know it seems strange that a self-described atheist and "radical sex advice columnist faggot" like Savage would miss the central point of Christianity, but there it is.)

God sent his only son to get the crap beaten out of him, die for our sins and rise from the dead. If you believe that, you're in. Your sins are washed away from you -- sins even worse than adultery! -- because of the cross.

"He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross." Colossians 2:14.

Surely you remember the cross, liberals -- the symbol banned by ACLU lawsuits from public property throughout the land?

Christianity is simultaneously the easiest religion in the world and the hardest religion in the world.

In the no-frills, economy-class version, you don't need a church, a teacher, candles, incense, special food or clothing; you don't need to pass a test or prove yourself in any way. All you'll need is a Bible (in order to grasp the amazing deal you're getting) and probably a water baptism, though even that's disputed.

You can be washing the dishes or walking your dog or just sitting there minding your business hating Susan Sarandon and accept that God sent his only son to die for your sins and rise from the dead ... and you're in!

"Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9.

If you do that, every rotten, sinful thing you've ever done is gone from you. You're every bit as much a Christian as the pope or Billy Graham.

No fine print, no "your mileage may vary," no blackout dates. God ought to do a TV spot: "I'm God Almighty, and if you can find a better deal than the one I'm offering, take it."

The Gospel makes this point approximately 1,000 times. Here are a few examples at random:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23.

In a boiling rage, liberals constantly accuse Christians of being "judgmental." No, we're relieved.

Christianity is also the hardest religion in the world because, if you believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead, you have no choice but to give your life entirely over to Him. No more sexual promiscuity, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no killing inconvenient old people or unborn babies -- no doing what all the other kids do.

And no more caring what the world thinks of you -- because, as Jesus warned in a prophecy constantly fulfilled by liberals: The world will hate you.

With Christianity, your sins are forgiven, the slate is wiped clean and your eternal life is guaranteed through nothing you did yourself, even though you don't deserve it. It's the best deal in the universe.

Copyright 2009 Ann Coulter, Distributed by Universal UClick, 1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

Constitution Society: Founding Documents	Online Books	History Links	Quotations: American Values
TimeLine of: the Magna Carta	Declaration of Arbroath	History of: The US Bill of Rights	Constitution + more Amendments

A View From the Cemetery - Some things Never Change (1890)

From: lc Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009

All the rest of us are just posers compared to this guy!

Talk about "Honoring your life story today; Preserving it for the next 500 years"

A View Of News From the Cemetery

Nathaniel GRIGSBY.  Son of Reuben Davis GRIGSBY Sr. & Nancy BARKER.  Born 11, October 1811 in Nelson Co., KY.  Died 16, April 1890 in Attica, Harper Co., KS.  Buried in Attica, Harper Co., KS.  He was a Civil War veteran of the 2nd Lt. Co. G, 10th Indiana Cavalry.  He was a farmer. Nathaniel was a dear friend of Abraham Lincoln. After Lincoln moved to Illinois in 1830, Nathaniel moved with his father to Carroll Co., MO in 1855. In 1860, he was living in Norborne.  He wrote to Lincoln and received an appointment as a Republican Precinct Committee Man.  He placed Lincoln's name on the 1860 ballot.  All of Natty's neighbors were Southern sympathizers.  He had been talking about electing Lincoln for president in town.  One morning at about 2 or 3 a.m. a neighbor rode up and told Natty not to light any lights.  The neighbor wanted to warn him that his neighbors were planning to murder him and if he wanted to live he should be on his way. After the warning, Natty moved back to Spencer Co., IN where he and four of his five sons enlisted in Company C 10th IN Cavalry (Richmond Davis did not enlist).  Natty was named 2nd Lieutenant. The family apparently returned to Carroll Co., MO but in 1885 they moved to Harper Co., KS and settled on a farm in the extreme northwest corner of the county.  In 1890, they moved to Attica, KS. Nathaniel was buried in Attica. His tombstone reads as follows: (Front) N. Grigsby Died Apr 16 1890 Aged 78 Yrs 6 Mo 5 Days 2nd Lieut. Co. C 10th Ind. Cavy (Side)Went to school with Lincoln.  Brother to Aaron Grigsby who married Abe Lincoln's oldest sister.  Visited in White House. (Shown Side) Through this inscription I wish to enter my dying protest against what is called the Democratic Party.  I have watched it closely since the days of Jackson and know that all the misfortunes of our nation has come to it through this so-called party, therefore beware of this party of treason. Information copied from; http://www.angelfire.com/in2/kwitina/family/Grigsby.html source: http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/5066834/

..and this guy died over a hundred years ago!  Some things never change.
Birth: Nov. 11, 1811 - Death: Apr. 16, 1890 - Went to school with Lincoln, Brother to Arron Grigsby who married Abe Lincoln's oldest sister. Visited in White House. Burial: Attica Cemetery, Attica, Harper County, Kansas, USA

---

Would You or Your Company Like to Sponsor the Next Installment of "Liberal Lies About National Health Care"? See My Web Site for Details! Part 7

From: kd Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 From: Ann_Coulter@HumanEventsOnline.com

Would You or Your Company Like to Sponsor the Next Installment of 'Liberal Lies About National Health Care'?

See My Web Site for Details! Part 7
By Ann Coulter

source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=33877

(18) America's lower life expectancy compared to countries with socialist health care proves that their medical systems are superior.

President Obama has too much intellectual pride to make such a specious argument, so instead we have to keep hearing it from his half-wit supporters.

These Democrats are all over the map on where precisely Americans place in the life-expectancy rankings. We're 24th, according to Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Barbara Boxer; 42nd, according to Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell; 35th, according to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson; and 47th, according to Rep. Dennis Kucinich. So the U.S. may have less of a "life expectancy" problem than a "Democratic math competency" problem.

But also, as described in last week's column, the citizenry's health is not the same thing as the citizenry's health care system.
Besides America's high rate of infant mortality -- based on biology and lifestyle choices, not medical care -- Americans are also more likely to overeat or smoke than people in other developed nations. And the two biggest killers in the Western world are obesity and smoking.

Liberals shouldn't have to be reminded how fat Americans are, inasmuch as they are always chortling about it. A 2004 New York Times article leeringly quoted a foreign doctor, saying: "We Europeans, whenever we came to America, we always noticed the enormous number of obese people on the streets." I note that these are the same people who openly worship Michael Moore.
Somewhat surprisingly to those of us who have long admired France for its humanitarian smoking laws, until the mid-1980s, Americans had had the highest rate of smoking in the developed world. This makes patriotic Americans like me wonder if there's a way to get Michael Moore to start smoking. (You know, just to keep his weight down or whatever.)

To be fair, the French are still being exposed to large amounts of smoke due to all the cars being set on fire by Muslims.

In 2003, America led the world in smoking-related deaths among women -- followed by Hungary. Simply excluding all smoking-related deaths from the World Health Organization's comparison of life expectancies at age 50 in 20 developed nations would raise U.S. women's life expectancy from 17th to 7th place and lift American men from 14th to 9th place.

Americans are also more likely to die in military combat than the whimpering, pant-wetting cowards our military has spent the past 70 years defending -- I mean, than "our loyal European allies." This is a health risk Europeans have managed to protect themselves against by living in a world that contains the United States military.

These are risk factors that have nothing to do with the health care system. To evaluate the quality of our health care, you have to compare apples to apples by looking at outcomes for specific medical conditions.

Although the United States has a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer and diabetes compared to Europe -- because of lifestyle choices and genetics -- it also has better survival rates across the board for all these medical problems.

The most revealing international comparisons look at cancer survival rates, because of the universally extensive record-keeping for this disease.

A European study found that, compared to 18 European countries, the U.S. had strikingly higher five-year survival rates in all 12 cancers studied, except for one: stomach cancer. Even there, the survival rates were close -- and the difference was attributed to the location of the cancer in the stomach.

For all types of cancers, European men have only a 47.3 percent five-year survival rate, compared to 66.3 percent survival rate for American men. The greatest disparity was in prostate cancer, which American men are 28 percent more likely to survive than European men.

European women are only 55.8 percent likely to live five years after contracting any kind of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent for American women.

In five cancers -- breast, prostate, thyroid, testicular and skin melanoma -- American survival rates are higher than 90 percent. Europeans hit a 90 percent survival rate for only one of those -- testicular cancer.

Most disturbingly, many cancers in Europe are discovered only upon the victim's death -- twice as many as in the U.S. Consequently, the European study simply excluded cancers that were first noted on the death certificate, so as not to give the U.S. too great an advantage.

There are no national registries for heart disease, as there are for cancer, making survival-rate comparisons more difficult. But treatments can be measured and, again, Americans are far more likely to be on medication for heart disease and high cholesterol -- medications that extend the lives of millions, developed by those evil, profit-grubbing American drug companies.

To get to the comparison they like (America is not as good as Sweden!), liberals have to slip in the orange of "life expectancy," and hope no one will mention monster truck races, Krispy Kremes and Virginia Slims. As the old saying goes: Life doesn't last longer in socialist countries; it just feels like it.

---

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans" and most recently, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America.

To advertise in our e-letters or email list, please click here.

Human Events | One Massachusetts Avenue, NW | Washington, DC 20001

---

"Treason" author: Ann Coulter (2003), a book review (pre-o'who?, recommended reading)

Book Review: Treason By Scott Editor, November 2003 | More Book Reviews

Ann Coulter's third consecutive #1 New York Times bestseller, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, hits liberals hard on two fronts: first by accusing them of pandering to Stalin and one of the most brutal Communist regimes in human history, and being weak on the current war on terror.

The theme is that liberals have throughout history sided with the enemy, or at least, whichever side is against the United States.  Going against the strong currents of academia and the historians that have long established Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy as a negative force in America who "destroyed lives and reputations" through his infamous "witch hunts," Coulter does the unthinkable by audaciously defending the late senator who spent his entire career in the Senate outing either Communists or Soviet sympathizers working in a sensitive top-secret positions.

For decades McCarthy has been labeled a liar by the mainstream media, and Coulter gleefully reprints excerpts from the New York Times and Washington Post and other sources that regarded McCarthy as a plague.

Coulter's rebuttal is quite strong, however, thanks to a top-secret Army project that was declassified in 1995 called the Venona Project, a sequence of coded communications between the Soviets and the Americans that have long been accused by the House Un-American Activities Committee and ex-Communists like Whittaker Chambers.  McCarthy was hardly a player in exposing what was already known.

Thanks to Venona, it is now absolutely confirmed that Alger Hiss was a Soviet Spy, despite his prominence in the Truman administration (and he was convicted of perjury before McCarthy ever became a senator.)  Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, among many others, were guilty of treason.

"It is a fact that hundreds of agents of this blood-soaked ideology became top advisors to Democratic presidents ...Stalin's agents held top positions in the White House, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Army, and the OSS.  Because of Democrat incompetence and moral infirmity, all Americans lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation for half a century.  As Soviet spies passed nuclear technology to Stalin, President Roosevelt gave strict orders that the OSS engage in no espionage against the country ruled by his pal, Uncle Joe" (pg 34).

Yet for the last fifty years many in the media (and of course many liberals) touted the innocence of all those accused of being sympathetic to the Soviets - the Venona Project truly is damning and speaks for itself.  You can read many of transcriptions for yourself on the Internet.

So naturally the negative reaction to Coulter's book lacks substance.  Aside from the usual ad hominem attacks (it's a book by Coulter...who defends McCarthy...so it must obviously be bogus), her critics go for the only angle she allows them to hit on; the "liberals are bad" point.  Instead of rebutting the facts - such as the one of minor importance: McCarthy was right - Coulter's critics label Treason an anti-liberal "screed," saying its only purpose is to attack liberals.

Despite mass accusations, including one surprising criticism from ex-Leftist David Horowitz of FrontPageMag.com, Ms. Coulter does not label all liberals and Democrats traitors, nor accuse them all of being guilty of treason.

Horowitz's main problem with Treason is that Coulter lumps all liberals together accusing them of all being pro-Communists traitors.  And to be sure, the book opens: "Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason.  You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position.  Everyone says liberals love America, too.  No they don't.  Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy."

Certainly this opening paragraph would make any liberal fume in disgust, not allowing Coulter any room for the hyperbole that makes her such an entertaining read.  But let's not got lost in our emotions; Coulter never levels a blanket charge on all Democrats.

In his critique, Horowitz blasts Coulter for not recognizing the anti-Communist Democrats: "Is it the case that liberals like Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy sided with the enemy?  Of course not.  They were anti-Communists, hated by the left as “cold war liberals.”  And they were not alone.  There were many liberals – Scoop Jackson and Jeanne Kirkpatrick among them – who were just as worthy defenders of America and prosecutors of the anti-Communist cause."

Horowitz couldn't be any more correct, but next time he plans on criticizing a book it might serve him well to actually read it, for Coulter does not hide:  "There were, admittedly, a few rare and striking exceptions to the left's overall obtuseness to communist totalitarianism. The Democratic Party was certainly more patriotic then than it has become.  Throughout the sixties, the Democrats could still produce the occasional Scoop Jackson Democrat.  John F. Kennedy's pronouncements on communism could have been spoken by Joe McCarthy.  For all his flaws, Truman unquestionably loved his country.  He was a completely different breed from today's Democrats.  Through the years, there were various epiphanic moments creating yet more anti-communist Democrats.  The Stalin-Hitler pact, Alger Hiss' prothonotary warbler, information about the purges and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" – all these had their effect" (pg 11).

The middle chapters are a tribute to Coulter's favorite president of the last century, the great Ronald Reagan.  Dispelling any theories arguing the Cold War was won by anybody but Reagan, Coulter exhaustively recounts the days of the Reagan administration and how his did what the predecessors couldn't: bring the Soviet Union to a total collapse.

Sticking to the treason theme, Coulter charges liberals with opposing all anti-Communism measures and for sticking up for the Soviets (remember FDR called Stalin "Uncle Joe") at every turn.

Coulter wonders if there's a double standard looking back at the regimes of Hitler's Nazi Party and Stalin's Soviet Party.  "In 2003, the New York Times cheerfully announced the introduction of a new, 'lighthearted' journal about Communism.  This is an ideology responsible for nearly 100 million murders, or -- as the Times put it -- a 'divisive' ideology. How about a 'lighthearted' journal about suicide bombings or Nazism, also 'divisive' ideologies?  Or must an ideology commit ten times the number of murders of Hitler's Nazi Germany before liberals call it lighthearted" (pg 191?)

Perhaps more people would be willing to celebrate McCarthy today if he blew the whistle on Americans who were in bed with the Nazis instead of the Soviets.  According to Coulter, liberals by their nature have just been sympathetic to the Soviets and Communism ...and she provides plenty of evidence and footnotes to back it up.

Lastly Coulter defends the War on Terrorism, and as most know, she's a major proponent of the Iraq War.  Here one can debate the effectiveness of the Bush administration, as Coulter spends much of her book making the point that wars are won with Republican presidents and lost with Democrat presidents.  Mr. Bush is seriously in danger of breaking the cycle, even if Coulter would never accept it.

It may be too early in history to judge the success of the war on terrorism.  We've got a long way to go and I have always been one to reserve judgment.  Coulter herself was wise not to skulk or devote too many pages to the current war, because she knew it wouldn't be over with the release of her book.

However the story of the Cold War is complete, and Coulter does a convincing job correcting the record and the legacy of Senator McCarthy.  To be sure, I'm not necessarily defending the guy.  I understand he was bullish (as were his critics equally on him.)  He used dirty campaign tactics.  And Coulter defends the embellishment of his war record, though she argues it wasn't as embellished as liberals would have you believe.

The point is McCarthy was a human being, and an obviously flawed one.  But Coulter only wants to know one thing despite whatever you want to say about the man or his methods: "Were there Soviet spies in the State Department?"  Interestingly, no one has yet to offer a substantially rebuttal to Coulter's pro-McCarthy tome.  Sure, there are plenty of attacks on her, and her general belief that liberals "strike the position of treason," but it's a telling sign when they only thing of Coulter's you can attack is her vocabulary choice.

Like it or not, the Venona cables confirm it all, on top of what was already available such as the testimony from ex-Communists, and the mounting evidence Coulter presents in her book.  But it's the Venona Project that speaks for itself, and one must wonder why the media ignored the 1995 declassification of it.  On second thought, considering the case Treason makes against the mainstream media, no wondering is needed at all.

---