Pro-Polygamy.com ™

Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing
news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.

Click to order DVD
image
Order Your Pro-Polygamy Passport ™

Ann Coulter Supports Polygamy Rights or She is "Certifiable"

Date: Jun 17, 2011
Word Count: 1200 words
Cross-Reference: Ann Coulter, Ron Paul, limited government


After she first attacked the limited government solution for ending the marriage control debate, Coulter admitted that private individuals could indeed solve the rhetorical questions she raised against the solution.

Supposed   "conservative"   pundit,   Ann   Coulter,   insulted   GOP   Presidential   candidate   Ron   Paul   after   he   repeated   the   limited   government   solution   to   big   government   marriage   control.     She   even   went   so   far   as   to   call   such   support   as   "certifiable."      
 
At   the   Republican   Presidential   debate   on   June   13,   2011,   candidate   Ron   Paul   was   asked   for   his   position   on   a   federal   marriage   control   amendment.     He   answered   with   what   the   National   Polygamy   Rights   Movement   for   Consenting   Adults   has   proposed   for   years.   Namely,   Paul   said,   "The   federal   government   shouldn't   be   involved.   I   wouldn't   support   an   amendment.   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."     Paul's   reply   was   stated   so   exactly   as   if   National   Polygamy   Advocate,   Mark   Henkel,   was,   himself,   presenting   the   Polygamy   Rights   Win-Win   Solution   for   ending   the   marriage   control   debate. 
 
But   that   limited   government   solution   was   not   acceptable   for   the   supposed-to-be   "conservative"   Ann   Coulter.     On   June   15,   2011,   she   penned   a   big   government   diatribe   against   Paul,   titled,   "Get   Rid   of   Government   -   But   First   Make   Me   President."     Posing   as   a   limited   government   conservative,   she   instead   revealed   her   duplicitous   socialism.     Coulter   explained,   "'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."     Most   Republicans   would   say   that   Coulter   therewith   sounded   quite   like   Democrat   President   Obama! 
 
Coulter   then   started   her   attacks   against   Paul's   use   of   the   limited   government   solution   for   ending   the   marriage   control   debate.     Because   she   actually   had   no   genuinely   valid   argument   to   make,   she   opened   with   an   insult   in   profanity.     Coulter   declared   that   the   "Get   the   government   out   of   it"   answer   is   "a   chicken-s--t,   I-don't-want-to-upset-my-video-store-clerk-base   answer   when   it   comes   to   gay   marriage."     When   a   pundit   resorts   to   insulting,   un-publishable   profanity,   they   have   already   lost   the   argument. 
 
Coulter   then   launched   into   attack   mode,   but   not   with   conservative   arguments.     Rather,   she   used   the   liberal-tactic   of   big   government   arguments   and   solutions   to   oppose   Paul's   limited   government   response.   She   rhetorically   "asked"   how   adoption,   child   support,   child   custody,   company   health   care   plans,   "do   not   resuscitate"   authority,   inheritances   without   wills,   and   benefits   for   Social   Security   and   Medicare   would   be   handled   without   big   government   marriage   control.     Her   use   of   that   tactic   of   using   big   government   questions   to   scare   people   into   maintaining   the   big   governmental   status   quo   of   marriage   control   was   simply   taking   a   page   out   of   the   playbook   of   any   political   liberals   who   try   to   "justify"   any   other   big   government   program   or   law   that   is   suddenly   put   on   the   limited   government   chopping   block   for   abolition.     To   wit,   when   the   Republicans   sought   to   privatize   Social   Security   in   2005,   the   Democrats   used   this   exact   same   scare   tactic   so   as   to   "justify"   the   "need"   for   big   government   control   of   Social   Security. 
 
Coulter   immediately   followed   that   first   liberal-tactic   attack   with   a   second   attack.     She   railed   against   Paul   for   his   being   willing   to   work   through   the   weaning-process   of   getting   people's   dependence   off   of   Social   Security   and   Medicare.     Using   rhetoric   to   sound   like   a   conservative,   Coulter   even   correctly   identified   Social   Security   as   the   "Ponzi   Scheme"   that   true   conservatives   do   say   that   it   is.     But   to   Coulter,   immediately   privatizing   Social   Security   is   "more   important"   than   privatizing   marriage,   even   though   the   former   is   not   yet   politically   possible.   So,   she   used   the   second   tactic   to   absurdly   suggest   that   Paul   is   somehow   not   a   true   limited   government   supporter   after   all. 
 
Privatizing   Social   Security   had   been   attempted   in   2005   under   the   Republican   President   Bush   administration     and   Ron   Paul   had   supported   that   attempt.     Not   only   that,   but   during   that   failed   attempt,   true   conservative   pro-polygamists   were   also   reminding   the   GOP   of   how   that   privatizing   issue   applied   to   marriage   control   too.     On   March   11,   2005,   the   distribution   site,   Pro-Polygamy.com,   distributed   an   op-ed   to   the   media,   titled,   "Privatize   Both   Social   Security   and   Marriage."     Either   Coulter   is   grossly   uninformed   or   she   simply   neglected   to   actually   tell   the   truth   about   the   privatization   connection   between   Social   Security   and   marriage   control   among   true   conservatives. 
 
Either   way,   after   she   made   that   second   attack,   Ann   Coulter   then   turned   around   and   openly   contradicted   herself.     Addressing   all   the   scare   mongering   questions   she   had   previously   raised   against   the   limited   government   solution   for   privatizing   marriage,   she   actually   admitted,   "Some   of   those   legal   incidents   of   marriage   can   be   obtained   by   private   contract     such   as   the   right   to   inherit   and   make   medical   decisions."   And   then   further   on,   she   confessed   even   more   clearly,   "It's   true   that   eventually   -   theoretically   -   there   could   be   private   institutions   to   handle   many   of   these   matters." 
 
Thereby,   Ann   Coulter   admitted   that   all   of   her   previous   liberal-tactic   questions   against   the   limited   government   solution   for   ending   marriage   control   were   irrelevant.     Indeed,   her   confessed-admissions   exactly   express   what   consenting   adult   pro-polygamists   have   always   understood   about   the   Polygamy   Rights   Win-Win   Solution.     By   abolishing   government   marriage   control   for   unrelated   consenting   adults,   private   individuals   and   private   institutions   are   free   (from   big   government)   to   contract   and/or   solve   any   of   the   questions   she   "raised." 
 
But   then   Coulter   reversed   back   again,   to   make   her   attacks   even   worse,   and   disguising   government   marriage   control   with   the   socialist   label   of   "official   marriage."     Coulter   claimed,   "for   anyone   calling   himself   a   libertarian   to   put   eliminating   official   marriage   above   eliminating   Social   Security   and   Medicare   is   certifiable." 
 
Who   is   "certifiable?" 
 
Therewith,   she   hypocritically   "faulted"   Paul   for   being   "too   big   government"   on   Social   Security   as   her   justification   for   somehow   still   "needing"   big   government   for   marriage   control.   That's   right.   That's   what   she   just   said!   True   conservatives   everywhere   will   now   be   shaking   their   heads,   thinking   how   Democrat   President   Obama   could   not   have   declared   such   duplicitousness   more   openly   than   Coulter   just   did   there! 
 
Clearly,   conservatives   could   successfully   achieve   a   true   limited   government   solution   on   the   marriage   control   issue,   as   they   could   successfully   generate   real   political   support   even   from   some   Democrats   to   abolish   marriage   control   for   unrelated   consenting   adults.     But   the   same   likely   success   cannot   yet   be   said   for   trying   to   obtain   political   support   for   ending   government   control   of   Social   Security.     So,   in   Coulter's   apparent   insanity,   because   the   limited   government   solution   for   privatizing   Social   Security   cannot   yet   be   politically   achieved,   she   irrationally   thinks   that   that   justifies   not   working   to   achieve   the   politically-possible   limited   government   solution   which   actually   can   be   successfully   achieved   for   privatizing   marriage. 
 
But   rather   than   recognize   her   own   "certifiable"   insanity   and   duplicity,   she   resorted   back   to   yet   another   insult,   comparing   Ron   Paul   to   the   silliness   of   a   meat-eating   vegetarian.     If   that   analogy   compared   to   anyone,   it   is   to   Ann   Coulter   herself. 
 
Sane   conservatives   would   reject   such   insanity.   Limited   government   is   limited   government.     Coulter's   opposition   to   Social   Security   is   her   way   of   claiming   to   support   limited   government.     She   confessed   that   all   her   questions   about   privatizing   marriage   can   indeed   be   privately   solved   anyway.     Accordingly,   genuine   sanity   requires   Ann   Coulter   to   support   the   answer   that   Ron   Paul   gave   about   marriage   control.     And   that   means   Ann   Coulter   must   indeed   support   the   Polygamy   Rights   Win-Win   Solution   for   ending   the   marriage   debate:     to   abolish   all   big   government   marriage   control   for   unrelated   consenting   adults. 
 
Unless   of   course   -   using   her   own   word   -   Ann   Coulter   is   truly   "certifiable." 


###


Bibliographic URLs:

 
Ann Coulter: "Get Rid of Government -- But First Make Me President!" 
http://nation.foxnews.com/ann-coulter/2011/06/15/coulter-op-ed-get-rid-government-first-make-me-president 
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44209 
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=311469 
 
 
Kick Government Out of Marriage, Not Churches 
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0057 
 
 
Privatize Both Social Security and Marriage 
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0030 
 
 
 
[Reviewed for publication - Pro-Polygamy.com Review Board.] 




image
image
Click to order DVD

Latest Headlines

From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

2017 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 17th Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2017, UCAPs (unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters) are noting and celebrating "Polygamy Day 17" the seventeenth year of annual Polygamy Day ® celebrations.  


2017 Aug 07
Finding Polygamists 'Guilty of Polygamy' Pushes Canada Backwards
After anti-polygamy law deemed "constitutional" to criminalize in Canada, one lone judge finds two leaders of Bountiful group "guilty of polygamy," even as case involved only adult women and no other real crimes.


2017 Jun 25
Pro-Polygamists Glad that Fugitive Lyle Jeffs was Caught
"It's like dj vu all over again." Mark Henkel, National Polygamy Advocate and founder of the TruthBearer.org organization, responds to the news and is available to media for comment.


2017 Feb 01
Supreme Court Declined to Hear 'Sister Wives' Polygamy case
SCOTUS denied even hearing the Brown v. Buhman petition, letting the appeals court's reversal stand, not even hearing any of the pro-polygamy merits, and bringing the whole issue back to the status quo.


Read More
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

Subscribe

Media or Pro-Polygamists

© Copyright 2003 - 2018       ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
"Pro-Polygamy.com" is an exclusive legal Trademark of Pro-Polygamy.com ™.