More like millions and it was NATURE at work - not 'a lack of health care'. Whether for good or for bad, we humans have abandoned nature for the purposes of our own vanity.

Or euthanizing the old ones based on cost-benefit formulas?

Thank-you. You've rested my case.

Resting comfortably at the bottom of the ocean encased in concrete.

You do like the labels... I'm guessing you have a sideline selling bumper stickers. Nothing I have ever said has suggested socialized medicine. On the contrary, I have emphasized private-sector solutions. As for interpreting your jokes, it's hard to separate the humor from your irrational rants...

"Don't let them immanentize the eschaton" so sayeth the soothsayer.

The system is NOT perfect. Here we have the insured paying for the uninsured. Has anyone ever looked at a hospital bill? Does anyone really think it will get better with government? Looking at socialized medicine in other countries is all anyone needs to know. Surgeries get rescheduled to the point where a patient can NO longer get treated. In some countries people are being euthanized.

Dave

Dear Ann,
There are some things I don't understand in your latest op-ed. For one, no state, and I mean NO state has any authority over workers in the Federal Government. Please check with your sources on the Veterans Administration about the thefts in the VA Hospital. It could very well have been a State VA hospital. After 25 years as a Federal employee I've seen people not only fired for much less but also go to the slammer. I've only had to fire one federal employee and it took officially 30 days but the fired employee chose to leave sooner. I don't know the veracity of the State governments but I've known and participated in firing of Federal employees.

The joke was the part that was separated and in parenthesis.

The irrational rant was the part that said the problem with people getting free care from public hosptials is that the hospital has no recourse. Do you know what recourse is?

ray may have a lucid day.....sometime....but don't count on it.

Ann is brilliant. I think I have some smarts too and I think Romney is THE best choice to beat Obama and restore America.

Maybe Ann learned something from the last election. I think she has it right. I don't think she is any less conservative, just even more serious about getting off this trainwreck which is Obama.

I agree with you 100% on the Union front and that Occupy stuff, my wife told me about occupy wallstreet and I am still not clear on what they are doing. Where I might differ is when it comes to National Security. Most people are not aware that a nation is only as strong as it's economic wealth. The continued offshoring of our work force along with the continued borrowing against our 15 trillion dollar debt, will end us up with not even having the ability to defend ourselves. Case in Point: StarKist tuna operated a processing plant in American Samoa. They were informed by our Government that they would now requier them to pay their workers mininum wage. Starkist packed their bags and moved to Indonesia! No disrespect intended, acording to your logic, we would have to be living like a third world nation in order for Manufacturing jobs to return to the United States?

A secessionist claiming the high ground on lucidity? Maybe if you had a leg to stand on, you woldn't feel the need to put in so many icons.

"In her book Slander, conservative commentator and pundit Ann Coulter called Newt Gingrich one of the most consequential politicians in the last century. Why would she make such a claim? What did he do that had such consequence?"

Thus Kevin Tharp writes in today's "American Thinker."

It is an awesome article, and once more makes me wonder what became of Ann Coulter?

That was before he was running against Romney the Great.

I've been reading Ann's columns regularly, and during recent weeks and months, I too have been somewhat curious of her enthusiasm for Mitt Romney. I can see why Romney might (key word: might) be the most electable Republican in the race; he appeals to more centrist independent voters. But, as I recall, so did John McCain in 2008, and he lost. After all, why should voters vote for a cheap imitation of a Democrat when they can vote for a real one? Republicans perform best when they field real conservatives as candidates, regardless of what the mainstream media and liberal elite may say.

So, where are the strong candidates that are reliably conservative? Let's see...
Mitt Romney: Moderate conservative (possibly RINO), former governor of bluest-of the-blue state of Massachusetts, may (according to Ann anyway) become more conservative once he's in the White House
Newt Gingrich: Accomplished former Speaker of the House, but a hypocrite in a number of respects (i.e. posed for ad with Pelosi, was having affair of his own during Monicagate, etc.)
Ron Paul: Interesting ideas on national security, more of a libertarian than a conservative, somewhat kooky at times
Rick Perry: Governor of Texas, somewhat clumsy speaker...hey wait, didn't we have this before...?
Rick Santorum: Strong social conservative (like many Catholics) but somewhat liberal on economics (ditto), basically a pro-life, pro-family version of Ted Kennedy

Not much to choose from. And what about some of the others who were contenders at one point?
Michelle Bachmann: Strong Tea Party credentials, but weak resume as yet (only a Congresswoman), not yet ready for prime time (try 2016 or 2020)
Jon Huntsman: Jon who?
Herman Cain: Good candidate, especially running against Obama, but damaged politically by media attacks
Sarah Palin: Charming down-to-earth governor of Alaska, where she is better off staying because down in the lower 48, she is all-too-easy fodder for the late-night comedians who would have TWICE as much of a field day with her as they did with Dan Quayle

Are there no more strong, electable conservative Republicans? Or was Ronald Reagan just a fluke?

Best line of the day: "Why would you nominate the guy who couldn't beat the guy who couldn't beat Obama?"
Newt Gingrich has it exactly right.

That takes a couple of seconds to settle in. Maybe it's better to point out he means Romney and McCain repsectively, for all those whose criticism of Gingrich includes a reference to his intelligence.

If I might, I don't understand the hypocrisy of having an affair. Gingrich never criticized Clinton for having countless affairs - as if Clinton was just a filanderer and was not a serial sexual assaulter or even a rapist. Nor was Clinton impeached for having an affair.

On impeachment: What were Gingrich's options?
First, an agent of the US Justice Department investigating Clinton announced very publicly that he wanted to proffer a report that he had discovered the President involved in perjury and obstruction to the House Judiciar Cmte., because he felt this was potentially evidence of impeachable offenses.
Should Gingrich have blocked that?

Then, the Judiciary Cmte., after reviewing the evidence, voted in favor of impeachment.
Should Gingrich have blocked that from coming up for a floor vote?

I am wide open on this one. When and how should Gingrich have put a stop to the process? And what would have been Republican and Conservative reaction to that?

Ewww....

I'm not suggesting he should have stopped the process; he did the right thing in letting it proceed. But the fact remains that he was secretly engaging in conduct similar to what Clinton had been doing and that many thought showed poor character. Even though there were additional legal issues in Clinton's case, I don't think that Gingrich's conduct should be excused or overlooked.

But your charge was he was a hypocrite.

And if I may, I don't think the accusers who spoke up during Clinton's Presidency - Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and Juanita Brodderick - reflect anything similar to what people speculate Gingrich was doing.