Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ann Coulter Letter’

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Whatever It Takes”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | Thursday Oct 4, 2018

10:41 AM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2018/10/04/whatever-it-takes/

The Democrats’ current position on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is: We cannot have someone addicted to beer on our highest court! What if a foreign power were to ply him with this nectar in a can? Talk about taking control of our government! Suppose they throw in a case of Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbier?

A bitter college roommate is going whole hog, wailing, He lied about being a beeraholic.

By the media’s account, Kavanaugh was a bounder, a brawler and a drunk. And yet he still managed to graduate at the top of his class, go to Yale, then to Yale Law and work in the highest positions in government. I am in awe of his manliness. Hemingway has nothing on this guy! He should be our president. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln after being told Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk, let’s find out what Kavanaugh drank and send a barrel of it to every college student.

At least the Democrats seem to have moved on from the Crazy Ladies Who Must Be Believed.

Kavanaugh’s first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, doesn’t remember the time or place of the alleged high school groping, and all four witnesses she named deny any memory of such a party.

Forcing our first one-week delay, we were told that the poor lady was so traumatized by being groped in high school that she couldn’t fly. It was the worst thing that ever happened to her, compelling her to do what any reasonable person would under the circumstances: Add a second front door to her house.

She was supposedly terrified of small spaces, and an airplane, one of her friends told CNN, “was the ultimate closed space where you cannot get away.”

Then we found out that Ford regularly jets off to Hawaii, Costa Rica, the South Pacific islands and French Polynesia … to go surfing, one of the most terrifying activities around.

It sounded like a joke. I was so shattered and broken, I could only go rock climbing in the Grand Tetons. After that, I’d repair to my room and curl up in a fetal position. Then I’d go rock climbing again.

An ex-boyfriend has come forward to say that in six years of dating Ford, she never mentioned a sexual assault, had no fear of flying, lived comfortably in a tiny home with only one front door, once coached a friend on how to take a polygraph, contrary to her sworn testimony — and also lied about stealing $600 from him.

Kavanaugh’s second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, jumped in to help, dusting off a memory of the nominee pulling a Bill Clinton on her as a freshman in college — but only after she spent a week huddled with her attorney, “assessing her memories” and calling classmates to ask if they thought it was true.

And did she have corroboration? She doesn’t need any! She’s a “survivor.” Even The New York Times — the newspaper that believed the Duke lacrosse rape case until about five minutes before the prosecutor was disbarred — said Ramirez didn’t have enough evidence to meet its standards.

His third accuser, our heroine Julie Swetnik, is the woman produced by porn lawyer Michael Avenatti. She claims that she repeatedly attended gang rape parties in the 1980s — and she saw Brett Kavanaugh there!

An ex-boyfriend says Swetnik once threatened to kill him and his unborn child; she had a restraining order taken out against her; was sued by an employer for engaging in “sexually offensive conduct,” making “false and retaliatory allegations” against co-workers and also lying about her educational background and work history.

A Democrat and Emmy-winning meteorologist wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee stating that, soon after he met Swetnik in the 1990s, she proposed group sex to him. Some years later, her own father told him to stay away, citing Swetnik’s psychological problems.

She is now the Democrats’ leading contender for 2020.

Poor Kate Snow of NBC News thought she had landed the interview of a lifetime when she sat down with Swetnik. Within about three questions, it became clear that she was talking to a lunatic. At that point, most of Snow’s energy went into hoping for a building-wide power failure to shut down the cameras.

Of the four witnesses Swetnik provided to NBC, whom she claimed would confirm her story, one denied knowing any Julie Swetnik, one was dead, and two did not respond to the network, perhaps wishing they were dead too. By the end of the interview, Snow’s purse was missing.

But the Democrats are energetic devils. They’ve been poring over Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook and exclaiming, He’s a beeraholic! With grim passion, they say, how dare you laugh at this? If he were a teetotaler, they’d say, We can’t have someone on the court who’s so nerdy. How can this weird aesthete sympathize with murderers and insider traders? They’ve already won a second week’s delay by having two deranged women scream at Sen. Jeff Flake in an elevator.

After wetting himself, Flake insisted on a seventh FBI investigation. For weeks, the Democrats have been demanding an investigation — of an incident without witnesses, on a date unknown at a place unknown — by saying, Oh, you big babies, the FBI investigation of Anita Hill only took three days!

The FBI wrapped up its investigation of Kavanaugh in a few days and then sat around wondering how long it had to wait before producing the report. So now the “it will only take three days” crowd are saying, Keep investigating! We don’t know how long the probe should be, but the minimum standards of decency require that it last at least until there’s a new president.

Whatever they find, they will argue in the alternative and just keep doing it and doing it. If Kavanaugh stepped on a bug, PETA activists would be screaming at Flake in an elevator. 

The Democrats have a pair of twos, but they expect Republicans to fold. Why? Because that’s what Republicans always do!

Unfortunately, this time, Kavanaugh’s supporters are not accepting surrender.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: Weinstein’s Pimps: Revenge Of The Ugly Girls


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | Wednesday Oct 18, 2017 5:08 PM

Liberalism is a sexual assault protection racket. Judging by the last week’s news coverage, EVERYONE in the liberal universe — Hollywood, the fashion industry, the media and Democratic politics — knew about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual predations and nearly all of them were covering it up.

Liberals circle the wagons to protect fellow liberals. All those sacrosanct laws about rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment are the fire ax behind a glass door: “Break in case of conservative.” Weinstein admitted as much by immediately responding to the accusations against him by offering to donate money to fight the National Rifle Association. (That’s not the thing we’re worried about being cocked and loaded, Harvey.)

According to Ronan Farrow’s comprehensive article in The New Yorker, “(m)ultiple sources” told him how Weinstein bragged that he could use his allies in the press to crush anyone who crossed him.

Longtime editor Tina Brown — ironically, one of Weinstein’s erstwhile clean-up gals — told Charlie Rose: “What I found really unsettling was how many journalists, frankly, were on his payroll. I mean, you know, Harvey would have everyone on his payroll. All the people at the (New York) Post and people in all the tabloids, people writing stuff, entertainment writers, gossip writers.”

I knew the gossip pages were written by PR agents, but I didn’t realize they were written by sexual predators, too. I was curious about exactly who was protecting Harvey and, luckily, I have a Nexis account. The full list would take me well over my word limit, so this column will focus on the tabloid most slavishly devoted to protecting Weinstein’s good name: the New York Post.

Farrow’s sources cited as their proof of how Weinstein could dirty up an accuser the coordinated tabloid attacks on Italian model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez after she reported Weinstein’s assault on her to the police in 2015. According to the detailed, heavily sourced and, apparently, 100 percent accurate account given by Farrow, 22-year-old Gutierrez met Weinstein at a Radio City Music Hall reception. The next day, Weinstein requested that Gutierrez come to his Tribeca office, “as soon as possible,” according to her agent. The moment she walked into his office, Farrow reports, Weinstein “began staring at her breasts, asking if they were real … then lunged at her, groping her breasts and attempting to put a hand up her skirt while she protested.”

Several things happened next.

No. 1:

As she was leaving, Weinstein offered Gutierrez tickets to his show “Finding Neverland” that night, saying he’d be there. But instead of using the tickets, Gutierrez went straight to “the nearest police station.” We know she didn’t attend the show because, when Weinstein called her later to complain that she hadn’t come, she happened to be sitting with Special Victims detectives, who recorded his call.

This is how the New York Post headlined Gutierrez’s non-attendance at “Finding Neverland”:

HARVEY ‘GROPE’ GAL’S BIG SHOW

Attended Weinstein’s Broadway play the day after accusing him (EXCLUSIVE)

— Mara Siegler, Jamie Schram, Emily Smith and Danika Fears, New York Post, April 1, 2015

The U.K.’s Daily Mail repeated the claim in its headline — citing the Post as its source: Harvey Weinstein model used the $227 ticket he gave her to see his Broadway show the day AFTER she alleged he groped her … ‘despite knowing he would be at the theater’

No. 2:

The next day, Gutierrez wore a police wire to a meeting with Weinstein at the Tribeca Grand Hotel. As she stood intransigently outside his hotel room, Weinstein implored her to come in, promising, “I’m not gonna do anything. I swear on my children.” Thanks to Farrow’s reporting, the taped conversation is now available everywhere.

Key exchange:

Gutierrez: Why yesterday you touch my breast?

Weinstein: Oh, please. I’m sorry. Just come on in. I’m used to that.

Gutierrez: You’re used to that?

Weinstein: Yes, come in.

Gutierrez: No, but I’m not used to that.

Weinstein: I won’t do it again.

Here’s the New York Post’s description of the meeting where Weinstein — according to his admission — grabbed Gutierrez’s breast:

SHE TRIED TO REEL & DEAL (EXCLUSIVE)

Squeezed Harvey for movie role

Stalled grope claim during talks

— Jamie Schram, New York Post, April 3, 2015

No. 3:

The police working the case believed they had more than enough evidence to prosecute Weinstein. Farrow quotes a detective who was actually “involved in the operation,” saying: “We had the evidence.” The source added, “It’s a case that made me angrier than I thought possible, and I have been on the force a long time.”

Another police source recently told The Daily Beast’s Michael Daly that they’ve convicted subway gropers on far less evidence.

Here is how the New York Post reported the police’s attitude toward the case at the time, quoting not officers “involved in the operation,” but random “law-enforcement sources”:

“Some law-enforcement sources say her allegations will be difficult to prove, since there were no cameras in Weinstein’s office. …

“‘There’s no physical evidence. In a nutshell, there’s no corroboration of her story.’”

— Mara Siegler, Jamie Schram, Emily Smith and Danika Fears, New York Post, April 1, 2015

No. 4:

The police sting capturing Weinstein’s admission was soon leaked to the press.

The U.K.’s Daily Mail came clean, announcing in its headline: “‘There’s no question he did it’: Harvey Weinstein ‘did not deny groping Italian model in phone sting set up by police’”

Even a radio station in Columbus, Indiana, reported on the police sting.

Not the New York Post! For the first time that week — the day newspapers around the world were bristling with news about Weinstein’s taped, incriminating comments — the Post had zero Harvey Weinstein news.

The Post did briefly mention the operation a few days later at the end of a Jamie Schram article, full of sneering about Gutierrez’s alleged attendance at Weinstein’s play after she was groped (she did not attend), and referring to the model’s “ties to disgraced former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.”

Gutierrez’s “ties” to Berlusconi consisted of her immediately reporting a Berlusconi orgy to the police. She was there, but had not participated.

No. 5:

About a week later, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. decided not to prosecute. The International Business Times reports that, soon thereafter, David Boies, an attorney for the Weinstein Company, contributed $10,000 to Vance’s political campaign. Boies and other Weinstein lawyers, including defense attorney Elkan Abramowitz, have donated a total of about $200,000 to Vance’s political campaigns.

As a police source recently told Daly, “When you say no after a week, it’s not usually over the facts.”

The New York Post’s headline on D.A. Vance’s decision not to prosecute:

It’s ‘grope’ fiction:

DA: No paw rap on Harv as doubts dog model

— Rebecca Rosenberg and Jamie Schram, New York Post, April 11, 2015

This story again repeated the false claim that Gutierrez “wasn’t upset enough by the alleged groping to surrender a primo seat for Weinstein’s new Broadway show — which she attended less than a day after the incident.”

In her interview, Tina Brown explained exactly how Weinstein controlled reporters: “If there was any stirring of a negative story, Harvey would offer them a book contract, a development deal, a consultancy, and they used to succumb. Journalists are often short of money, and they were also very star-struck with the world that Harvey offered, which was movies and Hollywood.”

So what DID the bitter gossip girls get? Did Mara Siegler, Jamie Schram, Danika Fears or Maria Wiesner end up with phony “consultancies,” “book contracts” or “movie options” with Weinstein’s companies? (Paging the IRS!)

The only other explanation is that the Weinstein-compliant scandal sheets illustrate the oldest primal urge, one even more basic than the compulsion that drove Weinstein: Ugly girls taking their revenge on pretty girls.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Last Weeks Ann Coulter Letter: Media Begging Us For Conspiracy Theories on Las Vegas


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | Wednesday Oct 11, 2017 6:38 PM

 

Now the media are just taunting us with their tall tales about Stephen Paddock, the alleged Las Vegas shooter. Reputedly serious news organizations are claiming that he made a living playing video poker. That’s like claiming someone made a living smoking crack.

The media are either doing PR for the gambling industry or they don’t want anyone considering the possibility that Paddock was using gambling to launder money.

NBC News reports, with a straight face: “Las Vegas gunman earned millions as a gambler.” A Los Angeles Times article is headlined, “In the solitary world of video poker, Stephen Paddock knew how to win.” The story says that Paddock’s gambling “was at least a steady income over a period of years.”

I don’t know all the ins and outs of Paddock’s life, but that’s a lie.

How do reporters imagine casino owners make a living? Any ideas on how all those glorious lobbies, lights, pools and fountains are paid for? How do they think Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn became billionaires if gambling is a winning proposition for people like Paddock — and therefore, by definition, a losing proposition for the casinos?

The media think about money the way Democrats do. They have absolutely no conception of where it originates. Those casino owners sure are generous! reporters think to themselves.

Economist Thomas Sowell is always ridiculing journalists for not understanding basic economics. It turns out, they don’t understand the spreadsheet of a lemonade stand.

The New York Times explained that the “top” video poker machines pay out 99.17 percent. That’s great that Paddock was only losing cents on the dollar (if true), but it’s still losing. The Times quickly explained that he could have more than made up his losses with all the “comps” — the free rooms, meals and “50-year-old port that costs $500 a glass,” as his brother Eric said.

Gamblers who are beating the house are not given $500 glasses of port. Refer to the profit/loss spreadsheet. And yet, according to his brother, Paddock was treated like royalty by the casinos. Which means he was losing.

Apart from outright theft, the only way to have an advantage over the casino is by card-counting. That’s not cheating and it doesn’t guarantee a win. It merely allows the gambler to make a more educated guess as each card is played, thereby tilting the odds ever so slightly in his favor. Still, if the casinos suspect a customer is counting cards, he will be promptly escorted off the premises.

And counting cards only helps with blackjack. Paddock’s game of choice was VIDEO POKER. That’s a computer! It’s programmed to ensure the house wins. Not all the time, but at least often enough to make casino owners multibillionaires. Anyone who plays video poker over an extended period of time will absolutely, 100 percent, by basic logic, end up a net loser.

So why are the media insistent that Paddock was getting rich by playing video poker?

I don’t know what happened — and, apparently, neither do the cops — but it’s kind of odd that we keep being told things that aren’t true about the Las Vegas massacre, from the basic timeline to this weird insistence that Paddock made a good living at gambling.

The most likely explanation is that the reporters and investigators are incompetent nitwits. But the changing facts from law enforcement and preposterous lies from the press aren’t doing a lot to tamp down alternative theories of the crime.

Among the questions not being asked by our wildly incurious media:

Why would Paddock unload 200 rounds into the hallway at a security guard who was checking on someone else’s room before beginning his massacre?

How can it possibly take eight days to figure out when the alleged shooter checked into the hotel?

Why was Paddock wearing gloves if he was about to commit suicide?

Have any other solitary mass shooters ever had girlfriends?

If Paddock wasn’t making money on video poker — and he wasn’t — why would he be cycling millions of dollars through a casino, turning every dollar into, at best, 99 cents?

Maybe Paddock enjoyed video poker. But if the allegedly serious media are going to keep telling us he was making a living doing it, they’re just begging us to say that losing a percent or two on millions of dollars doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy, but it does make sense as a money laundering operation.

And the probable illicit business requiring money to be laundered that leaps out at us in Paddock’s case is illegal gun sales. If true, it would not only explain the arsenal in his hotel room, but also raises the possibility of either an accomplice or different perpetrator altogether.

If this were a movie script, a terrorist would go to Paddock’s room on the pretense of buying guns, kill Paddock, commit the massacre, put his gunshot residue-covered gloves on Paddock’s dead hands and slip out of the room when the coast was clear.

According to the all-new timeline given by the Las Vegas police — pending a third revision — this is at least possible. The hallway was empty, except for a bleeding security guard down by the elevators, for at least two minutes after the shooting stopped. The stairwell was clear for more than half an hour. It also explains the gloves.

There’s no evidence for any of this, but on the other hand, there’s no evidence for the version the media are giving us. At least the movie script version doesn’t require us to pretend that Paddock was making “millions” from video poker.

 

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “No Amnesty Is a Good Amnesty”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | Wednesday Sep 13, 2017 5:07 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/09/13/no-amnesty-is-a-good-amnesty/?

Donald Trump is being told that amnesty for “Dreamers,” or DACA recipients, will only apply to a small, narrowly defined group of totally innocent, eminently deserving illegal immigrants, who were brought to this country “through no fault of their own” as “children.” (Children who are up to 36 years old.)

Every syllable of that claim is a lie, and I can prove it.

To see how DACA will actually work, let’s look at another extremely limited amnesty that was passed in 1986. Farmers wanted temporary guest-worker permits for their cheap labor, so that they could continue pretending that the Industrial Revolution never happened and refuse to mechanize. (And, boy, did that work! We haven’t heard a peep about “crops rotting in the fields” since then.)

The agricultural amnesty was supposed to apply to — at most — 350,000 illegal aliens. It would be available only to illegals who were currently in the country doing the back-breaking farm work that no American would do. Without them, crops would wither on the vine. They were saving us from starvation!

Talk about deserving. Are any Dreamers saving us from starvation?

But instead of guest-worker permits, then-Rep. Charles Schumer — from the lush farmland of Brooklyn — decided to grant full amnesty to any illegals who had done farm work for at least 90 days in the previous year. That’s pretty restrictive, isn’t it?

In the end, “up to 350,000 farm workers” turned into 1.3 million.

Oh well, what are you going to do? No use worrying — let’s just move forward and get all these people voter registration cards!

This innocent little amnesty for a small, clearly defined group of illegals quickly became amnesty for anyone who applied. The same thing will happen with any other amnesty, no matter how strictly the law is written. (And it won’t be written strictly.)

In the first few years of the agricultural amnesty, internal Immigration and Naturalization Service statistics showed that 888,637 legalization applications were fraudulent. According to immigration agents, “farm workers” stated in their interviews that cotton was purple or that they had pulled cherries from the ground.

Of the 888,637 fraudulent applications, guess how many our government approved. Answer: More than 800,000.

The agricultural amnesty was so carefully administered that not one, but TWO of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were in this country because of it. (More on that in another column.)

The main problem with the farm worker amnesty, the DACA amnesty or any amnesty is that everyone involved in the entire immigration apparatus is feverishly working, on the taxpayer’s dime, to transform this country into a Third World hellhole. Lawyers for La Raza and lawyers for the government both believe it is their mission to humiliate and destroy white Christian America. (Actually, this country is “biracial Christian America,” plus a few Amerindians and anyone else who assimilated to Western European culture.) There are multitudes of them, and they will never, ever stop.

Congress could pass a law granting amnesty to any 7-foot-tall, left-handed, red-headed illegal aliens from Lichtenstein — and hundreds of left-wing outfits would instantly set to work, demanding amnesty for witch doctors, cannibals, pederasts, terrorists and the rest of the multicultural universe that makes America so vibrant.

On the other side of the application process would be government immigration bureaucrats who either used to work at La Raza, or hope to in the future.

On the off chance that some particularly risible amnesty application is denied by a stodgy rules-follower in our immigration bureaucracy, that denial will be litigated before a federal judge in Hawaii, then appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

For two decades after the 1986 amnesty, the federal courts were tied up with dozens of class-action lawsuits brought on behalf of illegal aliens — regular illegal aliens, farm worker illegal aliens and still-in-Mexico illegal aliens — challenging every aspect of the law.

Is that how American tax dollars should be spent? On endless litigation, brought by America-hating activists on behalf of people who have no right to be in our country and decided by Democrat-appointed judges? (Who are also America-hating activists.)

And when their work is done, there will be a lot more Democrat-appointed judges because there will be a lot more Democrats.

Lawyers sued over everything — the absence of Creole interpreters, the requirement that illegals have proof of prior farm work and the rare denials of amnesty. Congress desperately tried passing laws that would prevent courts from hearing these cases — all to no avail. Left-wing lawyers just had to pick the right judge, and they won.

In 2005 — nearly 20 years after the 1986 amnesty — the Ninth Circuit was still granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who claimed they had been unfairly denied because they were not in the country for the first amnesty. Seriously.

No matter how the law is written, as long as anyone is eligible for amnesty, everybody’s getting amnesty.

President Trump is the last president who will ever have a chance to make the right decision on immigration. After this, it’s over. The boat will have sailed. If he succeeds, all the p@ssy-grabbing and Russia nonsense will burn off like a morning fog. He will be the president who saved the American nation, its character, its sovereignty, its core identity. But if he fails, Donald Trump will go down in history as the man who killed America.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: We Made Donald %#&@ Trump PRESIDENT — What Else Can We Do?


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | Thursday Sep 7, 2017 11:31 AM

 

Congress has tried to sneak through amnesties three times in a little more than a decade. Every time, the American people somehow found out — despite the best efforts of the press — rose up in a rage and killed the proposed bills.

In 2006, President Bush got the brilliant idea to push amnesty on the country. His party was wiped out the very next time voters could get to the polls.

Liberals like to claim that their brave opposition to the Iraq War led to the midterm slaughter, but, as I recall, they were against that war in the 2004 presidential election, too, and Bush won. An April 2006 Washington Post–ABC News poll — taken about a month after Bush launched his amnesty crusade — showed that more Americans approved of Bush’s handling of the Iraq War than approved of his handling of immigration. In nearly every poll on Bush’s handling of immigration that year, a huge majority of the public disapproved.

Three years ago, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his seat to an unknown economics professor, Dave Brat, by a whopping 55 percent to 45 percent, despite outspending Brat 40-to-1. It was the first time in history a member of leadership had lost a primary. (This despite Cantor being one of the “Young Guns”!) Brat had explicitly attacked Cantor for supporting amnesty.

Most spectacularly, last year, an utterly implausible presidential candidate crushed all his opponents — including the media — and won the White House by promising to deport illegals and build a wall.

The media imagine that President Trump’s deficiencies are an argument for not taking his positions seriously. Oh no — it’s just the reverse. The fact that Trump’s supporters implacably stick by him, through every horror, proves they are willing to put up with any lunacy if it means getting that agenda.

How many different ways can Americans express that they want a whole lot less immigration and absolutely no amnesties?

We already tried amnesty once. The 1986 amnesty under Reagan was supposed to be a one-time fix. We’d forgive the estimated 1 million illegal aliens living here and, in exchange, draconian measures would be imposed on any employer ever caught hiring an illegal again — up to a $10,000 fine per illegal and jail time for repeat offenders.

We never got the employer sanctions.

There weren’t 1 million illegals — it was 4 million.

It wasn’t a one-time fix. In another real-world example of “incentives,” the first amnesty led to a never-ending stream of illegals across our border, confident of getting in on the next amnesty. Today, there are at least 40 million illegals living in the U.S. (Eleven million is nonsense — they’ve been claiming that since the 1980s. See Adios, America)

And now, once again, politicians are lobbying for the exact same policy that was a complete failure last time. When it comes to immigration, it’s always Groundhog Day!

We’re told the DACA amnesty will apply only to a very small, discrete group of unbelievably fantastic illegals — who melt Ivanka’s heart by refilling her water glass at Cipriani with such alacrity!

Not only that, but there will be strict requirements on who qualifies for a DACA amnesty.

None of which will ever be enforced.

Congress has passed laws requiring that immigrants pay back taxes, learn English, not collect welfare and have good moral character. That’s not too onerous, right? It’s not like we’re requiring them to have any skills or talents that would be valuable to America.

Every single one of these requirements has been scuttled by immigration bureaucrats, federal judges and Democratic presidents. All of ’em. Our immigration bureaucracy is so dedicated to destroying America that it’s made citizens of thousands of convicted felons.

If you don’t understand how that could happen, you have no idea how much our cultural elites hate this country. Their governing philosophy is: Anyone we bring in is at least better than an American!

This nation is mind-bogglingly generous. But decades of lies make it impossible for even the most tender-hearted American to fall for this bait-and-switch one more time.

Every politician swears up and down that he wants a “secure border.” But then these same politicians go absolutely berserk when Trump says he wants to build a wall.

They say we’ll get enforcement right after the amnesty. That’s obviously absurd. When the tub is overflowing, water pouring out of the faucet, across the carpets, down the stairs, up the dining room walls, we don’t debate whether we’re going to dry clean the curtains or throw them out. We don’t argue about whether to use a mop or towels. FIRST: Turn off the water.

As long as both political parties stoutly refuse to build the wall, we know they are not serious about ever stopping illegal immigration. (Luckily, the Constitution gives the commander in chief full authority to protect our borders, with or without congressional approval.)

We know what happened after the Reagan amnesty. We know politicians and the media are lying to us. Why, some of the politicians who lied to us then are lying to us today, for example, Chuck Schumer.

No matter how innocent and lamblike a “Dreamer” they produce to tear at our heartstrings, it won’t work anymore. Decades of their perfidy has made sympathy impossible. It’s as if, night after night, Paul Ryan knocked on our door and asked us to take in one helpless orphan and, night after night, we crack open our door, only to be set upon by 30 armed felons with tire chains and brass knuckles.

At a certain point, Ryan might actually produce a sad orphan. Who knows? It’s theoretically possible. But we could not be faulted for not opening the door.

Politicians and the press are themselves responsible for thoroughly killing any human sympathy Americans may have had for illegal immigrants — even the “Dreamers” (whom Ivanka adores, but would die before sending her kids to a school jam-packed with them).

The only question is: Will anyone in Washington ever listen?

 

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: Trump Got Your Tongue, Media?


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Aug 9, 2017 5:39 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/08/09/trump-got-your-tongue-media/

The current issue of Newsweek (yes, it’s still in business!) has a picture of President Trump sitting in a recliner, with snacks and an iPad in his lap, pointing his TV remote at the viewer, blazoned with the headline, “Lazy Boy.”

Liberals only wish.

Last week, the president joined Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) to announce legislation that would make seminal changes to our immigration laws for the first time in more than half a century, profoundly affecting the entire country.

The media have chosen not to cover the RAISE Act (Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment). This bill is their worst nightmare.

Instead of admitting immigrants on the basis of often specious “family” ties, the bill would finally allow us to choose the immigrants we want, based on merit, with points granted for skills, English proficiency, advanced degrees, actual job offers and so on.

Most Americans have no idea that we have zero say about the vast majority of immigrants pouring into our country. Two-thirds of all legal immigrants get in not because we want them — or even because Mark Zuckerberg wants them — but under idiotic “family reunification” laws.

The most important provision of the RAISE Act would define “family” the way most Americans think of it: your spouse and minor children.

Unfortunately, that’s not how the Third World thinks of “family.” In tribal societies, “family” means the whole extended clan — adult siblings, elderly parents and brothers-in-law, plus all their adult siblings and elderly parents, and so on, ad infinitum.

Entire tribes of immigrants are able to bully their way in and, as legal immigrants, are immediately eligible for a whole panoply of government benefits. Suddenly, there’s no money left in the Social Security Trust Fund, and Speaker Paul Ryan is telling Americans they’re going to have to cut back.

At some point, American businesses are going to have to be told they can’t keep bringing in cheap foreign labor, changing the country and offloading the costs onto the taxpayer. But that’s not this discussion. Business owners want cheap workers — not the disabled parents of cheap workers.

In a sane world, merely introducing such an important bill — with the imprimatur of a president elected on his immigration stance — would force the media to finally discuss the subject they have been deliberately hiding from the public.

Has Trump personally endorsed any other legislation like this? He harangued congressional Republicans on Twitter to pass some Obamacare replacement, but he never endorsed a specific bill.

But, you see, there’s a reason the media don’t want to talk about immigration.

With a full public airing, Americans would finally understand why recent immigrants seem so different from earlier waves, why income inequality is approaching czarist Russia levels, why the suicide rate has skyrocketed among the working class, and why all our government benefits programs are headed toward bankruptcy.

As Stephen Miller, the president’s inestimable speechwriter, said, some legislative proposals “can only succeed in the dark of night” and some “can only succeed in the light of day.” This is a light-of-day bill.

So, naturally, the media refuse to mention it, except to accuse Miller of being a white nationalist for knowing hate-facts about the Emma Lazarus poem not being part of the original Statue of Liberty. (It’s the Statue of Liberty, not Statute of Liberty, media.)

They ignore this bill so they can get on to the important business of Trump’s tweets, who’s up and who’s down in the White House, and Russia, Russia, Russia.

According to my review of Nexis archives, there was only a single question about the RAISE Act on any of the Sunday morning shows: Chris Wallace’s last question to his very important Republican guest. Unfortunately, his very important Republican guest was amnesty-supporting nitwit Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who sniped about Trump employing foreign guest workers at Mar-a-Lago.

However that may be, guest workers have absolutely nothing to do with the RAISE Act, which, as Miller heroically tried to explain to clueless reporters, concerns only green-card holders, i.e., lawful permanent residents — not guest workers, not illegal aliens and not a poem Scotch-taped onto Lady Liberty in 1903.

At least the media aren’t deluded about the popularity of their position. Discussing immigration is a total loser for them. They know what they want is not supported by anyone.

Low-wage workers don’t want hundreds of thousands of low-skilled immigrants being dumped on the country every year. Employers don’t want the deadbeat cousins of their cheap workers. Americans on public assistance don’t want foreigners competing with them for benefits. Boneheaded Scandinavian communities that welcomed refugees don’t want to turn their entire town budgets over to various foreign tribes.

In a recent Numbers USA poll of voters in 10 swing states with vulnerable Democratic senators up for re-election next year, only 22 percent of respondents thought immigrants should be allowed by right to bring in “family” other than spouses and minor children.

Make the senators vote, Mr. President!

Donald Trump was elected president, beating the smartest, most qualified woman in the world, by proposing to put Americans first on immigration. This bill makes good on that promise.

There’s a reason the media won’t discuss it. If Trump were smart, he’d talk about nothing else.

Category:

Opinion, Political

Tagged with:

This Week’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Contract With Republicans”


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Aug 2, 2017 5:21 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/08/02/contract-with-republicans/

In 1994, after 40 years in the wilderness, Republicans swept both houses of Congress, running on Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America,” in which the GOP promised to hold votes on 10 popular policies in the first 100 days. They won, fulfilled the contract, and went on to control the House for more than a decade.

More recently, the country gave the GOP the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014 and the presidency in 2016. But we’re not seeing any difference. The GOP has become a ratchet, never reversing Democratic victories, but only confirming them with teeny-tiny alterations.

It’s time for the voters to issue a “Contract With Republicans.” Unless our elected representatives can complete these basic, simple tasks, we’re out. There will be no reason to care about the GOP, anymore.

Whether these objectives are accomplished by President Trump or a rhesus monkey, the Democrats, the Bull Moose Party or the U.S. Pirate Party — it will make no difference to us. We just need somebody to fulfill this contract in order to get our vote.

Here are our first three contract terms.

1) BUILD THE WALL

People said the chant, “Build the wall!” was mere shorthand for a whole slew of immigration policies, unified by the single idea of putting Americans’ interests if not “first,” then at least “above the interests of complete strangers to whom we owe absolutely nothing.” It was called a term of art, meaning we want to stop sacrificing the welfare of our nation on the altar of liberal idiocy.

“Build the wall” was said to entail: a Muslim ban, deporting illegals, ending unconstitutional sanctuary cities, ending Obama’s unconstitutional “executive amnesty,” a dead-stop to the refugee scam and a massive reduction in legal immigration.

Yes, it means all that. But it also means: Build the wall.

If this is done only for reasons of conservative ideology, in recognition of the fact that the United States is a sovereign nation, entitled to protect its homeland, that’s fine with me.

But I note in passing that, if I were a progressive constantly virtue-signaling on transgenders and refugees, and occasionally pretending to care about African-Americans, the very last thing I’d want to see is the continuing dump of low-wage workers on the country, undermining black fathers’ ability to earn a living, to stay married and to pass down savings and a work ethic to their children.

The great civil rights hero Barbara Jordan understood that. The fact that our current low-rent liberals are unable to rise to her level is all the proof we need of their uselessness.

Moreover, in the future, we will once again have presidents with a taste for fascist executive orders, purporting to grant “amnesty” to illegal aliens. We will continue to have bought-and-paid-for legislators, pushing cheap labor in return for campaign donations. In the blink of an eye, they can undo every part of Trump’s America First agenda on immigration, just as Obama undid our victory in Iraq.

A wall is the only part of Trump’s immigration reforms that will not be instantly reversed by the next Barack Obama or George Bush. Allowing border patrol agents to do their jobs is a policy that lasts only as long as Trump is president. A wall is forever.

2) SUPREME COURT

Republicans need to stop having their victories written in wet sand. During the campaign, Trump vowed to impose a Muslim ban if elected; both political parties hysterically denounced him; he won the election; issued a highly modified, temporary travel restriction from a handful of majority Muslim countries; and … a handful of carefully selected federal court judges announced that, during the Trump administration, they would be implementing immigration policy.

That’s why President Trump must appoint, and the Senate confirm, brilliant conservative judges, preferably in their 30s and with good EKGs, so that they can keep issuing opinions well into their 90s.

As long as they are sufficiently vetted to ensure we’re getting no David Souters or Harriet Miers — vettings even MORE exhaustive than the alleged rectal probes given to the San Bernardino terrorists before admitting them to commit mass murder — Supreme Court justices can have nearly the same permanence as the wall.

3) STOP WASTING MONEY AND PRECIOUS LIVES ON POINTLESS WARS

The left is way ahead of us on this one, already hard at work turning the greatest military in the world into taxpayer-funded adventures in lesbianism and transgenderism. (Sorry, taxpayers! We gave your Social Security to mental-case penis-choppers.)

Every recent war has been counterproductive at best. At worst, they have been meat-grinders for our bravest young men. Imagine that some small portion of the trillions of dollars poured into the endless — and ongoing! — war in Afghanistan had been used to build a 100,000-seat soccer stadium in Baghdad. And then imagine that we built 100 more just like it, right next to one another.

If we had taken a satellite photo of all those stadiums filled to capacity, the caption would be: “Not one American life is worth all the lives pictured here.”

That’s not anti-Arab. I’m sure they would feel exactly the same. I would respond, “Yes, of course, you’re right to feel that way.”

If we’re ever attacked, we should be prepared to unload our full arsenal. But it’s not our job to create functioning democracies in primitive rape-based societies around the globe.

Apart from an attack on U.S. soil by a foreign country, we are going to live our lives, go to work, celebrate the Fourth of July, and never bother learning the difference in Sunni and Shia Arabs. Once a decade, when we fleetingly remember Yemen or Saudi Arabia, we will hope they’re doing well, then get back to our lives — surrounded by a wall and living in a constitutional democracy, where our greatest young men aren’t continually sacrificed in pointless wars.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

This Weeks Ann Coulter Letter: Pretty White Australian Girls’ Lives Matter


disclaimerCommentary by Ann Coulter  | Thursday Jul 27, 2017 1:32 PM

As soon as the story broke about the Somali cop fatally shooting the pretty white Australian girl in Minneapolis, one of my Muslim fans emailed me a story:

“Re: Hunting in Kuwait as explanation why this Noor guy shot through the car 

“I remember being in Kuwait with the president of the investment bank I worked for. We were invited by one of our directors to hunt turtle doves. There were five of us in all and each had a 12-gauge shotgun.

“Instructions were: Only shoot straight and up; shotgun point in air resting on shoulders when not being used. That’s it. I was on the far left, and the fellow on the other end was a Syrian.

“Well, we were out there and no straggling turtle doves were migrating. A half-hour later, not one shot was fired. Then, two birds from a tree ahead darted out, between me and the houses on my left.

“We all looked, but the Syrian turned toward us and began shooting over our heads at the birds. The rest of us hit the ground. Even though our host took his gun away, I gave them mine and went back because, if there is a way to overreact, the Syrian would think it is natural and can’t even consider the consequences.

“You cannot place these people in a position of authority (for example with a gun in their hands). They will always shoot as a default reaction to anything that is instant. Neither training nor thinking can change their natures.

“And that is why he shot. He had a gun.”

Since then, we’ve found out that this is exactly why Officer Mohamed Noor shot the gentle yoga instructor walking toward the police car. He heard a loud noise — or as Powerline blog is calling it, “The Loud Noise Heard ‘Round the World.”

Noor shot from the passenger seat, killing Justine Damond, according to his partner, sitting at the wheel, who is presumably now deaf. Damond had called 911 to report what sounded like a rape in the alley behind her house, and was approaching the responding police car when she was shot.

As usually happens when Muslims attack, the press is consumed with worry about their mental state and well-being.

Sample Headlines:

Somalis on edge after Minneapolis cop named in fatal shooting — The Daily Herald (Everett, Washington), July 18, 2017

Somalis in Minneapolis on defensive after police shooting — St. Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota), July 21, 2017

Minneapolis shooting brings unwelcome attention to Somalis — Associated Press, July 22, 2017

There are nearly 2 billion Muslims in the world, amounting to a quarter of the world’s population, controlling 50 countries. The English-speaking world is about a fifth that size and constitutes a dwindling majority in about a half-dozen countries. But, somehow, no matter how the story is written, Muslims always get to play the victim, and Anglo-Saxons are cast as the aggressors.

That’s why a Somali cop’s fatal shooting of a pajama-clad Good Samaritan has gone directly into the “Be Nice to Muslims!” file, rather than the “Why Are All These Somalis Here?” file. (Answer: Because of an earlier mistake with excessive Scandinavian immigration.)

I can’t help noticing that it was precisely the “Be Nice to Muslims!” dictate that put this Somali nincompoop on the police force in the first place.

Among Noor’s evident errors the night he killed Justine:

1) Shooting from the passenger seat, the bullet whizzing inches past his partner’s face, through the driver’s side window;

2) Not turning his bodycam on when responding to a 911 call;

3) Shooting to kill because he heard a loud noise;

4) Believing that white women in America pose a threat to a policeman.

A few of the Weather Underground ladies were accomplices to cop-killings, 40 years ago, but even they weren’t lone white women cop-killers.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, women of any race committed about 10 percent of all murders from 1980 to 2008, and black people committed a majority of all murders. Other than a small child, it’s difficult to think of a demographic that poses less of a threat to a policeman in America than a 40-year-old white woman.

Noor’s African-American neighbor, Chris Miller, said he was shocked when he heard about Damond’s shooting — until he found out it was Noor. Miller told The Daily Telegraph (Australia) that his Somali neighbor was quick to anger and was always going off on women and children. “He is extremely nervous,” Miller said, “a little jumpy … he doesn’t really respect women, the least thing you say to him can set him off.”

Sounds perfect for a police officer!

May we see Officer Noor’s cadet exam? His training reports? Does anyone believe there is the slightest possibility that Noor was not rushed through the Police Academy so that the nice people of Minneapolis could feel good about themselves for having a real Somali on the police force?

Minnesota’s importation of these stone-age people is a completely self-inflicted wound. It’s as if the state decided to inject itself with Hepatitis C. Hey, you know what? We’re too white and pure. Everyone tie a vein off and give yourself a shot of hep C. We could learn from that!

With Somalis, you get all the social pathologies of Muslims and the American underclass rolled into one package. There’s the terrorism and pederasty — but also the criminality and joblessness!

At least with taxpayer-draining Mexican illegals, you can say, yes, but they provide the rich with such cheap labor! Someone, somewhere in America, gets a benefit. There is absolutely no benefit to the more than 100,000 Somalis brought in by Minnesota, except to feed the Scandinavian ethnomasochism, expressed as arrogant self-regard.

Gosh, they’re good people. R.I.P. Justine.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: The “Resistance” Goes Live-Fire


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Jun 14, 2017 6:13 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/06/14/the-resistance-goes-live-fire/

The explosion of violence against conservatives across the country is being intentionally ginned up by Democrats, reporters, TV hosts, late-night comedians and celebrities, who compete with one another to come up with the most vile epithets for Trump and his supporters. They go right up to the line, trying not to cross it, by, for example, vamping with a realistic photo of a decapitated Trump or calling the president a “piece of s—” while hosting a show on CNN. 

The media are orchestrating a bloodless coup, but they’re perfectly content to have their low-IQ shock troops pursue a bloody coup.

This week, one of the left’s foot soldiers gunned down Republican members of Congress and their staff while they were playing baseball in Virginia. Democratic Socialist James Hodgkinson was prevented from committing a mass murder only by the happenstance of a member of the Republican leadership being there, along with his 24-hour Capitol Police protection.

Remember when it was frightening for the losing party not to accept the results of an election? During the third debate, Trump refused to pre-emptively agree to the election results, saying he’d “look at it at the time.” The media responded in their usual laid-back style:

A ‘HORRIFYING’ REPUDIATION OF DEMOCRACY — The Washington Post, Oct. 20, 2016

DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY — Daily News (New York), Oct. 20, 2016 DANGER TO DEMOCRACY — The Dallas Morning News, Oct. 20, 2016

ONE SCARY MOMENT; IT ALL BOILED DOWN TO … DEMOCRACY — Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Oct. 21, 2016

“(Shock) spiked down the nation’s spinal column last night and today when the Republican nominee threatened that this little election thing you got there, this little democratic process you’ve got here, it’s nice, it’s fine, but he doesn’t necessarily plan on abiding by its decision when it comes to the presidency.” — Rachel Maddow, Oct. 20, 2016

“Trump’s answer on accepting the outcome of the vote is the most disgraceful statement by a presidential candidate in 160 years.” — Bret Stephens, then-deputy editorial page editor at The Wall Street Journal

“I guess we’re all going to have to wait until Nov. 9 to find out if we still have a country — if Donald Trump is in the mood for a peaceful transfer of power. Or if he’s going to wipe his fat a– with the Constitution.” — CBS’s Stephen Colbert, Oct. 19, 2016

“It’s unprecedented for a nominee of a major party to themselves signal that they would not accept — you know, respect the results of an election. We’ve never had that happen before. … This really presents a potentially difficult problem for governing …” — MSNBC’S Joy Reid, Oct. 22, 2016

“This is very dangerous stuff … would seriously impair our functioning as a democracy. … This is about as serious as it gets in the United States.” — CNN’s Peter Beinart, Oct. 20, 2016

“Obviously, it’s despicable for him to pretend that there’s any chance that he would not accept the results of this election; it would be — in 240 years you’ve never had anybody do it. …” — CNN’s Van Jones, Oct. 20, 2016

Then Trump won, and these very same hysterics refused to accept the results of the election.

Recently, Hillary announced her steadfast opposition to the winning candidate using a military term, saying she’d joined the “Resistance.”

Imagine if Trump lost and then announced that he’d joined the “RESISTANCE.” He’d be accused of trying to activate right-wing militias. Every dyspeptic glance at an immigrant would be reported as fascistic violence. But the media seem blithely unaware that the anti-Trump “Resistance” has been accompanied by nonstop militaristic violence from liberals.

When Trump ripped up our Constitution and jumped all over it by failing to concede the election three weeks in advance, CNN ran a segment on a single tweet from a random Trump supporter that mentioned the Second Amendment.

Carol Costello: “Still to come in the ‘Newsroom,’ some Trump supporters say they will refuse to accept a loss on Election Day, with one offering a threat of violence. We’ll talk about that next.”

In CNN’s most fevered dreams about a violent uprising of Trump supporters, they never could have conceived of the level of actual violence being perpetrated by Americans who refuse to accept Trump’s win. (See Hate Map.)

It began with Trump’s inauguration, when a leftist group plotted to pump a debilitating gas into one Trump inaugural ball, military families were assaulted upon leaving the Veterans’ Inaugural Ball, and attendees of other balls had water thrown on them.

Since then, masked, armed liberals around the country have formed military-style organizations to beat up conservatives. In liberal towns, the police are regularly ordered to stand down to allow the assaults to proceed unimpeded.

The media only declared a crisis when conservatives fought back, smashing the black-clad beta males. (“Battle for Berkeley!”)

There is more media coverage for conservatives’ “microaggressions” toward powerful minorities -– such as using the wrong pronoun — than there is for liberals’ physical attacks on conservatives, including macings, concussions and hospitalizations.

And now some nut Bernie Sanders-supporter confirms that it’s Republicans standing on a baseball field, before opening fire. In the media’s strategic reporting of the attempted slaughter, we were quickly told that the mass shooter was white, male and had used a gun. We were even told his name. (Because it was not “Mohammed.”) But the fact that Hodgkinson’s Facebook page featured a banner of Sanders and the words “Democratic Socialism explained in 3 words: ‘We the People’ Since 1776” apparently called for hours of meticulous fact-checking by our media.

Did reporters think they could keep that information from us forever?

The fake news insists that Trump’s White House is in “chaos.” No, the country is in chaos. But just like Kathy Griffin and her Trump decapitation performance art — the perpetrators turn around in doe-eyed innocence and blame Trump.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: All We Need Is Love … And Deportations


 

Commentary by Ann Coulter | Thursday Jun 8, 2017 10:33 AM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/06/08/all-we-need-is-love-and-deportations/

In Britain, as in the U.S., when an Islamic terrorist is said to be “known to law enforcement,” the translation is: “He is being actively ignored by law enforcement.”

After the latest terrorist attack in Britain — at least as of this writing — Prime Minister Theresa May bravely announced, “Enough is enough!”

What is the point of these macho proclamations after every terrorist attack? Nothing will be done to stop the next attack. Political correctness prohibits us from doing anything that might stop it.

Poland doesn’t admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. Japan doesn’t admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. The United Kingdom and the United States used to have very few Muslims: They used to have almost no terrorism. (One notable exception was chosen as the National Freedom Hero in this year’s Puerto Rican parade in New York!)

Notwithstanding the lovely Muslim shopkeeper who wouldn’t hurt a fly, everyone knows that with every tranche of peace-loving Muslims we bring in, we’re also getting some number of stone-cold killers.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair dumped millions of Third World Muslims on Britain to force “multiculturalism” on the country. Now Britons are living with the result. Since the 9/11 attack, every U.S. president has done the same. President Bush admitted Muslim immigrants at a faster pace after 9/11 than we had been doing before 9/11.

Whatever the 9/11 attackers intended to accomplish, I bet they didn’t expect that.

Now we can’t get rid of them. Under the rules of political correctness, Western countries are prohibited from even pausing our breakneck importation of Muslims, much less sending the recent arrivals home.

In defense of the poor saps responding to every terrorist attack with flowers, candles and hashtags, they have no ability to do anything else. Western leaders are in full possession of the tools to end Islamic terrorism in their own countries, just as their forebears once ended Nazi Stormtroopers.

Unable to summon the backbone to defeat the current enemy, the West is stuck constantly reliving that glorious time when they whipped the Nazis. In almost every Western country — except the one with an increasingly beleaguered First Amendment — it’s against the law to deny the Holocaust.

Are we really worried about a resurgence of Nazism? Isn’t Islamic terrorism a little higher on our “immediate problems” list? How about making it illegal to make statements in support of ISIS, al-Qaida, female genital mutilation, Sharia law or any act of terrorism?

The country with a First Amendment can’t do that — the most that amendment allows us to do is ban conservative speakers from every college campus in the nation.

But if our elected representatives really cared about stopping the next terrorist attack, instead of merely “watching” those on the “watch” list, they’d deport them.

To this day, we have a whole office at the Department of Justice dedicated to finding and deporting Nazis even without proof they personally committed crimes against Jews. But we can’t manage to deport hearty young Muslims who post love notes to ISIS on their Facebook pages.

If the Clinton administration had merely enforced laws on the books against an Afghani immigrant, Mir Seddique Mateen, and excluded him based on his arm-length list of terrorist affiliations, his son, Omar, wouldn’t have been around to slaughter 49 people at an Orlando nightclub last year.

If Secretary of State John Kerry, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson or anyone else in our vaunted immigration vetting system had done his job, Pakistani Tashfeen Malik never would have been admitted to this country to commit mass murder in San Bernardino a year after she arrived. Before being warmly welcomed by the U.S., Malik’s social media posts were bristling with hatred of America and enthusiasm for jihad.

We’re already paying a battery of FBI agents to follow every Muslim refugee around the country. When they find out that one of them lists his hobby as “jihad,” we need them to stop watching and start deporting.

Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, the rest of the useless GOP — and obviously every Democrat — have the blood of the next terrorist attack on their hands if they don’t make crystal clear that admiring remarks about Islamic terrorism is a deportable act.

But they won’t do it. That’s “not who we are,” as Ryan famously said.

True, most Muslims are peaceful. Guess what? Most Nazis were peaceful! We didn’t knock ourselves out to admit as many of them as we could, screening out only the Nazis convicted of mass murder.

Before we were even formally involved in World War II, the FBI was all over the German American Bund. No one worried about upsetting our German neighbors. (Perhaps because they knew these were Germans and wouldn’t start bombing things and shooting people.)

But today, our official position is: Let’s choose love so as not to scare our Muslim neighbors. Isn’t that precisely what we want to do? Facing an immobile government, two British men — by which I mean British men — were sentenced to PRISON for putting bacon on a mosque in Bristol last year. One died in prison just after Christmas, an ancient religious holiday recently replaced by Ramadan.

If we can’t look askance at Muslims without committing a hate crime, can’t we at least stop admitting ever more “refugees,” some percentage of whom are going to be terrorists and 100 percent of whom will consume massive amounts of government resources?

No, that’s “not who we are.”

Until any Western leader is willing to reduce the number of Muslims in our midst, could they spare us the big talk? “We surrender” would at least have the virtue of honesty.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: Every Time I Try To Be Mad At Trump, The Media Pull Me Back


Commentary by  Ann Coulter  | Wednesday May 17, 2017 3:22 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/05/17/every-time-i-try-to-be-mad-at-trump-the-media-pull-me-back/

Every time I try to be mad at Trump, the media reel me back in by launching some ridiculous, unprovoked attack. This time, it’s the fake news story about Trump “leaking” classified information to the Russkies.

The president can’t “leak” classified information: It’s his to declassify.

The big secret Trump allegedly revealed is that Muslims might try to blow up a plane with laptops. I already knew that. I read it in The New York Times.

The New York Times, March 22, 2017:

Devices Banned on Some Planes Over ISIS Fears

“Intelligence showing that the Islamic State is developing a bomb hidden in portable electronics spurred the United States and Britain on Tuesday to bar passengers from airports in a total of 10 Muslim-majority countries from carrying laptop computers … two senior American counterterrorism officials said. …”

This totally secret, Deep Throat-level information has been widely published in thousands of news outlets throughout the civilized world. There was yet another round of stories last week with the update that the U.S. is considering a laptop ban on flights from Europe as well.

Hey, you know what might make more sense than banning laptops? How about banning Muslims?

Bear with me here, I’m still working out the details, but I’m almost certain a federal judge in Hawaii can’t block a president’s temporary ban on Muslim immigration just because he’s testy with Trump over some campaign statements.

As Northwestern law professor Eugene Kontorovich explained in The Washington Post, courts have never examined a politician’s campaign statements for improper motive, because

1) campaigns are not part of the deliberative process; and

2) to start doing so would open the door to “examinations of the entire lives of political officials whose motives may be relevant to legal questions.”

Nonetheless, Kontorovich says, that is the legal argument being advanced against Trump’s travel ban: “Trump is a bigot, and thus his winning presidential campaign in fact impeaches him from exercising key constitutional and statutory powers, such as administering the immigration laws.”

To preserve their judicial coup, this Monday, the 9th Circuit sent out the geriatric ward to hear an appeal of the Hawaii judge’s absurd ruling. At their ages, there’s a good chance the judges will be dead by the time the Supreme Court overturns them.

Arguing against Trump’s exercise of his constitutional and statutory powers was first-generation American, Neal Katyal. (There are plenty of 10th-generation America-haters. You couldn’t get one of them to argue that we should end our country through mass immigration?)

At oral argument before the three wheezing gargoyles, Katyal announced that, before enforcing federal immigration laws passed by generations of Democrats and Republicans working together in Congress, the president of the United States is required to profess: “Islam is peace.”

There’s a new legal principle!

Asked by one of the crypt-keepers if Trump is the only president who would be prohibited from issuing this precise travel ban because of his statements about Muslims, the smarmy, preening, pretentious Katyal answered: “I think the most important point is, if you don’t say all these things, you never wind up with an executive order like this.”

As lawyers say: Nonresponsive!

But as long as we’re operating under these new rules for determining a U.S. president’s rights and responsibilities, how about looking at everything Trump has said about Muslims?

For example, may the courts consider this quote from September 2015?

Trump: “I love the Muslims. I think they are great people. … Would I consider putting a Muslim-American in my Cabinet? Oh, absolutely. No problem with that.”

Lawyers like Katyal aren’t telling the courts what Trump said; they’re telling courts their own crazy interpretations of what Trump said. No liberal is capable of accurately reporting Trump’s position because the left never understood his position in the first place. As Peter Thiel said, the media take Trump literally, but not seriously, while the people take him seriously, but not literally.

After the San Bernardino terrorist attacks in December 2015, Trump made the perfectly reasonable suggestion that we curtail our breakneck importation of Muslims, some of whom periodically erupt in murderous violence. The media concluded: TRUMP HATES MUSLIMS! Nothing Trump or anyone else said could persuade them otherwise.

Here’s what Trump actually said:

“What’s happened is, we’re out of control. We have no idea who’s coming into our country. We have no idea if they love us or if they hate us. … I have friends that are Muslims. They are great people. But they know we have a problem. They know we have a real problem. ‘Cause something is going on. And we can’t put up with it, folks. …

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. … Where the hatred comes from and why — we’ll have to determine, we’re going to have to figure it out. We have to figure it out. We can’t live like this. It’s going to get worse and worse. You’re going to have more World Trade Centers. …”

Throughout the campaign, Trump supporters tried in vain to explain the so-called “Muslim ban” to a hostile media dead set on interpreting everything out of Trump’s mouth in the ugliest possible way. For example, our general policy on Muslim immigration would be “No, thanks!” but there would be exceptions. So Charles Krauthammer can stop worrying about King Abdullah of Jordan.

In March, Trump supporter Andy Dean told a dense CNN anchor:

“He’s talking about the culture of Islam in the Middle East. … We love Muslims in America and they love us. Why? We have a great culture that respects women’s rights. … The thing about Muslims in the Middle East is they don’t respect women’s rights. If a woman wants to get a divorce in the Middle East, that woman could be killed. If you want to leave the religion of Islam in the Middle East, you can be killed. It’s very real.”

To the same blockhead anchor, Trump supporter Kayleigh McEnany had to fill in an edited quote the network had just shown of Trump:

“It’s important to know what happened 15 seconds later. Anderson Cooper said to him, ‘Are you speaking of radical Islam or are you speaking of Islam?’ He said radical; sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference, though. So he did say radical Islam. He said it repeatedly during his campaign. He said, ‘I have Muslim friends. I love the Muslim people.’ …”

One of Trump’s vast number of African-American supporters told HLN’s Drew Pinksy:

“I love what (Trump) is doing with the Muslims getting out of the country, because if they really knew what that was about — if they knew that that was about freedom. It was about freedom versus enslavement.”

He’s right. It’s not about religion. It’s not about nationality. It’s about hitting the pause button on bringing in radical Islam’s dysfunctional, misogynist, violent, exploding-airplane culture.

The voters understood Trump. (At least some of us did — barely enough of us to elect him president!) Liberals didn’t. But now the courts are blocking Trump’s exercise of presidential powers based on the left’s own idiotic misinterpretations of what he said.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

This Weeks Ann Coulter Letter: To Say, ‘Stop Raping Me!’ In English, Press ‘1’ Now


Commentary by  Ann Coulter | Wednesday May 10, 2017 4:23 PM

URL of the original postings site: http://humanevents.com/2017/05/10/to-say-stop-raping-me-in-english-press-1-now/

(Please be advised that some of the language in this column may be offensive to readers.)

** ** **

The same media that slavishly ignored the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl by two illegal immigrants in Rockville, Maryland, spent last week crowing about the prosecutor’s refusal to bring charges. It turns out that illegal aliens gang-raping a 14-year-old girl in a bathroom stall is not a statutory rape because … the girl had previously sent one of her assailants prurient text messages.

Somebody better tell the college campuses.

Columbia University’s Mattress Girl, Emma Sulkowicz, became an international cause celebre after alleging rape against a fellow student to whom she’d sent dozens of desperate and salacious messages — including, most memorably, “f–k me in the butt,” and “I wuv you so much.”

She’d also had consensual sex with him several times, only one of which she deemed “rape.”

Sulkowicz’s “f–k me in the butt” texts were no impediment to her becoming the face of silenced rape victims on campus. She was sympathetically profiled everywhere; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand invited her to Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address; and she dragged a mattress around campus with her as her senior thesis project …

“… a succinct and powerful performance piece …” — The New York Times

“… like ‘The Vagina Monologues,’ only more subtle …” — Ann Coulter

In its lavish coverage of our brave mattress-toting heroine, the Times reminded readers: “False reports of rape are rare, many experts say.” In fact, according to the FBI, there are more false rape claims than false reports of any other crime.

That’s why normal people like to look at the facts. For example, how long did it take the alleged victim to report the rape? How sophisticated is she? Is the story plausible? Did the accuser have any other motive to cry rape? And is there any record of her begging the suspect to sodomize her?

Mattress Girl waited seven months to report her rape — even then, only to college administrators, not the police. In the intervening months, she strenuously, albeit unsuccessfully, pursued a relationship with her alleged rapist.

Rolling Stone’s “Jackie” never reported her apocryphal rape, explaining to The Washington Post that after allegedly being violently gang-raped, she was “unaware of the resources available to her.” (Heard of 911?)

By contrast, the 14-year-old girl in Maryland emerged from the bathroom stall and immediately reported her rape to the police.

According to the police report, she had run into her friend, 17-year-old Jose Montano, and his friend, 18-year-old Henry Sanchez-Milian, in a school hallway. (The 17- and 18-year-olds are both in the 9th grade. We really are getting the best illegal immigrants!) She knew Montano, but not Sanchez-Milian. Montano hugged her, slapped her buttocks and asked her to have sex with both men.

She says she said no — something generally missing from the corpus of cases making up the “campus rape epidemic.”

Montano and Sanchez-Milian then forced her into a boys’ bathroom, according to the report, where she grabbed the bathroom sink to stop them from dragging her into a stall, repeatedly saying “no.” In the stall, the illegals took turns holding her down, as they penetrated her orally, vaginally and anally. As she was screaming, they yelled at one another in Spanish.

Although there was no hard evidence, like the victim dragging a mattress around for a year, police investigators did find blood and semen in the bathroom stall.

If even one story on the left’s via dolorosa of campus rape had allegations like these, the accuser would be on a postage stamp, have laws named after her, and she’d be the one giving the State of the Union address. She’d be having lunch with Lena Dunham, Emma Watson would play her in the movie, and Lady Gaga would write a song about her.

Instead, because the accused rapists (“Dreamers,” as I call them) are illegal aliens, the media want to submit their names for sainthood. The prosecutor, Montgomery County State’s Attorney John McCarthy, wants to know how short the 14-year-old’s skirt was.

McCarthy dropped rape charges against both suspects, reportedly on the grounds that the girl had previously sent nude photos of herself to Montano. This, the prosecutor interpreted as consent to have multi-orifice sex in a bathroom stall with him, as well as any of his friends.

Can we get the pre-consent-by-text rule written into college guidelines on sexual assault?

However risque her texts were, can’t a girl change her mind? Evidently, she thought it was rape when she emerged from the bathroom, inasmuch as she promptly notified authorities. Isn’t it possible she also thought it was rape as it was happening, an hour or so earlier?

Mattress Girl was old enough to attend college, vote and buy a mattress, but it was rude to mention her text requests for anal sex and previous romps with the alleged rapist. Only when the accused is an illegal do the victim’s X-rated texts become binding consent to all forms of sex with the illegal — plus his friends.

There’s also the fact that she’s 14 years old! Her alleged rapists are 17 and 18. Under about 700 years of Anglo-Saxon law, that’s statutory rape. (Statute of Westminster of 1275.) Apparently, diversity — in addition to being a “strength” — requires us to jettison our statutory rape laws.

This is the case the media are howling with glee about — demanding that President Trump apologize for even mentioning it. The New York Times and Washington Post both editorialized about Trump’s “reflexive immigrant-bashing” -– after first telling their readers about the alleged rape that neither paper had bothered reporting when it happened.

CNN — which also didn’t mention the Rockville case until charges were dropped — is in a state of high dudgeon at Trump for citing the rape. Erin Burnett announced: “Tonight, the White House not backing down, refusing to retract its comments on an alleged rape case used — that they used as an example of why the United States should crack down on illegal immigration.” Correspondent Ryan Nobles raged that White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer referred to what happened to the 14-year-old girl as “tragedies like this.”

“Tragedies!” This milquetoast, boring American girl got to experience diversity, up close — vaginally, anally and orally — AND THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY CALLS THAT A “TRAGEDY”?

In multicultural America, sexually active college coeds are treated like naive 14-year-old girls, while naive 14-year-old girls are treated like hardened hussies — depending on who the accused rapist is. A “frat boy,” an athlete (black or white) or a white male: Always guilty, no due process allowed. Illegal aliens: She was asking for it.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: Not Building the Wall IS a Government Shutdown


Commentary by  Ann Coulter  | Wednesday Apr 26, 2017 6:24 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/04/26/not-building-the-wall-is-a-government-shutdown/

Fake News’ question of the week: Will Trump risk a government shutdown over the wall?

The media flip back and forth on who’s to blame for a government shutdown depending on which branch is controlled by Republicans. But the “shutdown” hypothetical in this case is a trick question.

A failure to build the wall IS a government shutdown.

Of course it would be unfortunate if schoolchildren couldn’t visit national parks and welfare checks didn’t get mailed on time. But arranging White House tours isn’t the primary function of the government. The government’s No. 1 job is to protect the nation.

This has always been true, but it’s especially important at this moment in history, when we have drugs, gang members, diseases and terrorists pouring across our border. The failure of the government to close our border is the definition of a government shutdown.

This isn’t like other shutdowns. Democrats can’t wail about Republicans cutting Social Security or school lunches. They are willing to shut the government down because they don’t want borders.

Take that to the country!

As commander in chief, Trump doesn’t need Congress to build a wall. The Constitution charges him with defending the nation. Contrary to what you may have heard from various warmongers on TV and in Trump’s Cabinet, that means defending our borders — not Ukraine’s borders.

Building a wall is not only Trump’s constitutional duty, but it’s also massively popular.

Although Trump doesn’t need congressional approval for a wall, it was smart for him to demand a vote. Let the Democrats run for re-election on opposing the wall.

 

> Let Sen. Claire McCaskill explain to the parents of kids killed by illegals that she thought a wall was inhumane.

> Let Sen. Angus King say to the people of Maine that instead of a wall that would block heroin from pouring into our country, he thought a better plan was to sponsor a bunch of treatment centers for after your kid is already addicted.

> Let Sen. Chuck Schumer tell us why it’s OK for Israel to have a wall, but not us.

> Let open borders Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio tell African-Americans that it’s more important to help illegal aliens than to help black American teenagers, currently suffering a crippling unemployment rate.

Republicans are both corrupt and stupid, so it’s hard to tell which one animates their opposition to the wall. But the Democrats are bluffing. They’re trying to get the GOP to fold before they show us their pair of threes.

Now that Trump has capitulated on even asking for funding for a wall, the Democrats are on their knees saying, “Thank you, God! Thank you, God!”

No politician wants to have to explain a vote against the wall. What the Democrats want is for Trump to be stuck explaining why he didn’t build the wall.

Then it will be a bloodbath. Not only Trump, but also the entire GOP, is dead if he doesn’t build a wall. Republicans will be wiped out in the midterms, Democrats will have a 300-seat House majority, and Trump will have to come up with an excuse for why he’s not running for re-election.

The New York Times and MSNBC are not going to say, “We are so impressed with his growth in office, we’re going to drop all that nonsense about Russia and endorse the Republican ticket!”

No, at that point, Trump will be the worst of everything.

No one voted for Trump because of the “Access Hollywood” tape. They voted for him because of his issues; most prominently, his promise to build “a big beautiful wall.” And who’s going to pay for it? MEXICO!

You can’t say that at every campaign rally for 18 months and then not build a wall.

Do not imagine that a Trump double-cross on the wall will not destroy the Republican Party. Oh, we’ll get them back. No, you won’t. Trump wasn’t a distraction: He was the last chance to save the GOP.

Millions of Americans who hadn’t voted in 30 years came out in 2016 to vote for Trump. If he betrays them, they’ll say, “You see? I told you. They’re all crooks.”

No excuses will work. No fiery denunciations of the courts, the Democrats or La Raza will win them back, even if Trump comes up with demeaning Twitter names for them. It would be an epic betrayal — worse than Bush betraying voters on “no new taxes.” Worse than LBJ escalating the Vietnam War. There would be nothing like it in the history of politics.

He’s the commander in chief! He said he’d build a wall. If he can’t do that, Trump is finished, the Republican Party is finished, and the country is finished.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud