Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ann Coulter’

Was Thomas Jefferson On The Duke Lacrosse Team?


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 03, 2019 6:15 PM

While tearing down everything that’s great about our country, the left has always permitted us to celebrate patriotic holidays. But this year, on the week that we commemorate the unveiling of the Declaration of Independence, Nike yanked a Betsy Ross tribute sneaker off the market because the American flag didn’t sit well with Colin Kaepernick.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is telling wild, provable lies about America’s border agents.

This Fourth of July, let’s look at the tactics used by the left to blacken the reputations of American heroes. To wit, the lie that the principal author of the declaration, Thomas Jefferson, fathered a child with his slave, Sally Hemings.

The charge was first leveled in 1802 by a muckraking, racist, alcoholic journalist, James Callender, who had served prison time for his particular brand of journalism. He had tried to blackmail Jefferson into appointing him postmaster at Richmond. When that failed, Callender retaliated by publicly accusing Jefferson of fathering the first-born son of Sally Hemings — or, as the charming Callender described her, “a slut as common as the pavement.”

No serious historian ever believed Callender’s defamation — not Dumas Malone, Merrill Peterson, Douglass Adair or John Chester Miller. Not one. Their reasoning was that there was absolutely no evidence to support the theory and plenty to contradict it.

The Jefferson-Hemings myth was revived by feminists trying to elevate the role of women in history. Modern pedagogy requires that no period of our past be taught without turning it into a lecture on racism, sexism or homophobia.

Fawn M. Brodie got the ball rolling with her 1974 book, “Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History,” which used Freudian analysis to prove Jefferson kept Hemings as his concubine and fathered all six of her children.

Brodie’s book was followed by Barbara Chase-Riboud’s 1979 novel “Sally Hemings,” a work that imagines Hemings’ interior life. When CBS announced plans to make a miniseries out of the novel, Jefferson scholars exploded, denouncing the project as a preposterous lie. The miniseries was canceled.

Finally, a female law professor, Annette Gordon-Reed, wrote “Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy,” which accused professional historians of racism for refusing to defer to the “oral history” of Hemings’ descendants.

She said “racism,” so the historians shut up.

In 1998, a retired pathologist, Dr. Eugene Foster, performed a DNA test on the Y-chromosomes of living male descendants of Sally Hemings, as well as those from Jefferson’s paternal uncle. The Y-chromosome is passed from male to male, so, if the story were true, Hemings’ male descendants ought to have the Y-chromosome of the Jefferson male bloodline.

Foster’s study did establish that Hemings’ last-born son, Eston, was the son of some Jefferson male, but could not possibly say whether that was Thomas Jefferson or any of the other 25 adult male Jeffersons living in Virginia at the time, eight of them at or near Monticello.

For Eston to be Jefferson’s son, we have to believe that five years after being falsely accused of fathering a child with Hemings, Jefferson decided, What the heck? I may be president of the United States, but I should prove Callender’s slander true by fathering a child with my slave!

It would be as if five years after the Duke lacrosse hoax, one of the falsely accused players went out and actually raped a stripper — in fact, the same stripper.

Nonetheless, Nature magazine titled its article on the study “Jefferson Fathered Slave’s Last Child.” Hundreds of newspapers rushed to print with the lie, e.g.:

“Study: Jefferson, Slave Had Baby” — Associated Press Online, Nov. 1, 1998

“DNA Study Shows Jefferson Fathered His Slave’s Child” — Los Angeles Times, Nov. 1, 1998

“Jefferson Exposed” — Boston Globe, Nov. 3, 1998

Two months after these false “findings” had been broadcast from every news outlet where English is spoken, Foster admitted that the DNA had not proved Jefferson fathered any children by Sally Hemings, merely that he could have fathered one child. Only eight newspapers mentioned the retraction.

The science alone puts the odds of Thomas Jefferson fathering Eston at less than 15% — less than 4%, if all living Jefferson males are considered, not just the ones at Monticello.

All other known facts about Jefferson make it far less probable still.

There are no letters, diaries or records supporting the idea that Jefferson was intimate with Hemings, and quite a bit of written documentation to refute it, including Jefferson’s views on miscegenation and his failure to free Hemings in his will, despite freeing several other slaves.

In private letters, Jefferson denounced Callender’s claim — a denial made more credible by his admission to a sexual indiscretion that would have been more shameful at the time: his youthful seduction of a friend’s wife.

None of the private correspondence from anyone else living at Monticello credited the Hemings rumor, though several pointed to other likely suspects — specifically Jefferson’s brother, Randolph.

Eston was born in 1808, when Thomas Jefferson was 64 years old and in his second term as president. His brother Randolph was 52, and Randolph’s five sons were 17 to 24 years old. All of them were frequent visitors at Monticello.

While Jefferson was busy entertaining international visitors in the main house, Randolph would generally retire to the slave quarters to dance and fiddle. One slave, Isaac Granger Jefferson, described Randolph in his dictated memoirs thus: “Old Master’s brother, Mass Randall, was a mighty simple man: used to come out among black people, play the fiddle and dance half the night.”

There is not a single account of Thomas Jefferson frequenting slave quarters. Nor did Jefferson take any interest in Hemings’ children. Randolph did, teaching all of Hemings’ sons to play the fiddle.

Randolph was an unmarried widower when Eston was conceived. After Randolph remarried, Hemings had no more children.

In response to DNA proof that only one of Hemings’ children was related to any Jefferson male — and her firstborn son was definitely NOT fathered by any Jefferson — the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the Monticello Association and the National Genealogical Society promptly announced their official positions: Thomas Jefferson fathered all six of Hemings’ children! Guided tours of Monticello today include the provably false information that Jefferson fathered all of Hemings’ children.

So now you, at least, know the truth — not that it matters in the slightest. Happy Fourth of July!

Ann Coulter’s Latest Book Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind is available on Amazon

Free Felicity Huffman!


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 20, 2019 5:08 PM

Free Felicity Huffman!

Source: Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP

Jared Kushner’s father paid $2.5 million to get him into Harvard — and arranged for two of his beneficiary politicians, Sens. Ted Kennedy and Frank Lautenberg, to make calls on his offspring’s behalf.

“His GPA did not warrant it, his SAT scores did not warrant it,” a former administrator at Jared’s private high school told Daniel Golden, author of the 2006 book, The Price of Admission.

“There was no way anybody in the administrative office of the school thought he would on the merits get into Harvard.”

Welcome to the baby boom’s remaking of college admissions!

For decades, going to college was a matter of social class, not IQ, talent or merit. From 1900 to 1960, only a tiny percentage of Americans even went to college, about 2 to 5 percent until well after World War II.

It wasn’t until the ’60s that admission to college first began to be based on a universal standardized test, the Scholastic Aptitude Test. This fulfilled the dream of Harvard president James Conant, who believed that SAT-based admissions would redeem America’s promise of a classless society.

Recall that England’s law of primogeniture was one of the best things that ever happened to this country. If you are a small island nation and want to keep land from being chopped up every generation, it makes sense to mandate that entire estates be bequeathed to the first-born son. But that left a lot of smart second-, third- and fourth-born sons — not to mention daughters — out in the cold.

The talented, but screwed, Brits responded by hopping on boats, sailing across the ocean and creating America! In this country, status would be earned, not inherited.

But the meritocracy in college admissions lasted only 30 years — right up until the baby boomers had college-aged kids. Then it was over. The Worst Generation came along and decided that sending their kids to Harvard was the perfect accessory!

Today, literally every baby boomer I know who went to Harvard sends not one, not two, but all their kids to Harvard. (Except the ones whose kids didn’t want to go there.)

If you’ve read The Bell Curve you know that this is a statistical impossibility.

Sometimes spectacularly so. That’s how a lot of ordinary middle- and working-class kids with no social connections used to get into Harvard.

Now they’re out of luck.

Give or take a few slots, approximately half of the places in Harvard’s entering class are already taken by kids whose parents made big donations to the college — and/or campaign donations to politicians who can grease the skids, like Jared. The other half is made up of approved minorities — including the children of immigrants who arrived last Friday, but have to be admitted “to make up for the legacy of slavery.”

Sorry! No room for the son of a middle manager in Newton, Iowa, who got double 800s on his SATs.

It’s a striking fact that the great leveler, the SAT, didn’t come under relentless attack until the baby boomers’ kids were college-bound.

Throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, most of the news about the SAT concerned secretive College Board meetings to formulate the test, and public alarm when scores declined in a particular year.

No one questioned whether the test was an objective measure of native intelligence.

Only when little Billy’s SAT scores weren’t up to snuff did we start reading about the rank unfairness of standardized tests. Rich parents of dumb kids were indignant that a universal IQ test might allow the son of a dentist to get into an elite school over their own precious offspring.

Suddenly standardized tests were being denounced as meaningless and anxiety-producing. Using African-Americans as a false flag, the elites bashed the SAT as “culturally biased.” Don’t worry, hedge fund guys: Minorities are getting in, with or without high SAT scores.

Some colleges pretended to dump the SAT out of principle — when everyone knew they were dropping it because they were no longer attracting kids with decent SAT scores.

In response to the college cheating scandal, our Brahmins rail that “Spoiled rich kids can get tutors!” Didn’t seem to help their kids. Didn’t help Jared. Contrary to the marketing claims of the test prep companies, tutoring barely moves the needle on SAT scores.

When the whole thing is a scam, why shouldn’t parents pay finaglers to doctor SAT scores or sports photos? Who’s that unfair to? The Jared Kushners of the world who pretend they got in on merit?

It’s one thing for colleges to discount SAT scores in order to admit more descendants of American slaves — not to be confused with the Somali who arrived last week. But now that the baby boomers are running things, the SATs are irrelevant for pretty much everybody.

As Ilhan Omar would say, it’s all about the Benjamins.

Strip Kushner of his degree or stop picking on Felicity Huffman.

Media Magic: How a Democrat Pedophile Became a ‘Trump Scandal’


Commentary by: Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 06, 2019 6:17 PM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com of WhatDidYouSay.org.
Media Magic: How a Democrat Pedophile Became a 'Trump Scandal'

Source: AP Photo/Palm Beach Post, Uma Sanghvi, File

Strangely, the media have suddenly taken an intense interest in the case of pedophile and major Democratic donor Jeffrey Epstein.

In 2005, the Palm Beach police were told by the mother of a young girl in West Palm Beach that her daughter had been brought to the Democratic donor’s mansion and asked to have sex with him for money. This kicked off an intensive, one-year undercover investigation.

The police sifted through Epstein’s garbage and interviewed 17 witnesses, including the housemen, who told of sex toys and dildos left behind after the underage girls left. One of Epstein’s procurers, a 20-year-old local woman named Haley Robson, who was paid $200 for every teenaged girl she brought to Jeffrey, was cooperating with police, telling them she was like “Heidi Fleiss.” They obtained statements from five of Epstein’s young victims, who said they’d been paid $200 to $300 to engage in various sex acts with him. Police raided Epstein’s home, finding explicit photographs of teenaged girls, incriminating phone records — and one girl’s high school transcript.

But when the police chief brought this mountain of evidence to Palm Beach County’s Democratic prosecutor Barry Krischer, he punted, charging the Democrat child molester with only one count of soliciting prostitution — yes, the child victims were labeled “prostitutes” — and offered Epstein probation.

Perhaps Krischer was exhausted, having just spent three years hounding Rush Limbaugh for abusing back pain medication.

Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter exploded in rage. (Meanwhile, Epstein claimed to be the victim of an anti-Semitic conspiracy on Palm Beach.) Chief Reiter wrote an open letter to Krischer asking the Democrat to remove himself from the case. Then he turned to the Bush administration to seek justice against a Democratic donor/accused child rapist.

As stories go, a child sex case involving a Palm Beach billionaire was pretty big. It was covered in the British press, in Florida media, at The New York Post and at Fox News. Bill O’Reilly led with the story on his Fox News show. But CNN and MSNBC did not breathe a word about a Democratic prosecutor refusing to hold a Democratic child rapist accountable.

Epstein had given more than $145,000 to Democratic candidates and causes, including Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. He was a big Israel backer. Bill Clinton and Democratic activist Ron Burkle were frequent guests on Epstein’s private plane, dubbed the “Lolita Express.” And Krischer was a hero for his dogged pursuit of Rush Limbaugh! Why bring up all this unpleasantness?

Thanks to Chief Reiter, President Bush’s U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alex Acosta, did take the case, despite the fact that only Epstein’s child rapes on his plane, on his private island or with girls brought across state lines would make it a federal case.

As a result of the (Republican-led) federal investigation, Epstein was finally required to plead guilty to two state felony charges, accept a sentence of two years in prison, register as a sex offender, and pay restitution to his victims.

Still no coverage by MSNBC or CNN.

Inasmuch as Epstein was pleading guilty to a state charge, the matter of his confinement was out of the U.S. attorney’s hands. It was Democratic county prison officials — not the feds — who placed Epstein in a private wing of the county jail and allowed him to spend 12 hours a day, six days a week at his Palm Beach mansion throughout his 13-month “imprisonment.”

In 2014, the brilliant conservative lawyer Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards brought suit against the federal prosecutors for violating the Crime Victims’ Rights Act in the Epstein case.

As bad as the U.S. attorney’s office was, at least it did something. Democrat Krischer gave Epstein a walk. But no matter how appalling Krischer’s behavior was, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act only applies to federal prosecutions.

When Cassell and Edwards filed their case, they included the claims of various Epstein victims, who reported that the men at “Orgy Island,” where underage girls were being used as “sex slaves,” included Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew.

CNN gave extensive coverage to the celebrity-filled allegations, inviting Dershowitz on to defend himself and lavishing attention on the irrelevant prince. Amazingly, but characteristically, not once did CNN mention that Bill Clinton was named in the pleadings.

Only one show on MSNBC, “All In With Chris Hayes,” so much as acknowledged the bombshell case, also without letting on that Clinton had been named as a frequent Epstein guest by the child victims.

But recently, the very news outlets that spiked any news about this case for the past 13 years are suddenly hot on the trail of Jeffrey Epstein. Why the newfound sense of decency?

The answer is: Because they found a Trump connection. There’s a 2002 quote from Donald Trump saying nice things about Epstein and photographic proof that Epstein was one of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been to Mar-a-Lago. (There are rumors he has also been to the Grand Canyon and the Empire State Building.)

This is how the modern American media work: I’ll tell the same story that we’ve been frantically suppressing for a decade, connect it to Trump — and win a Pulitzer Prize!

Here is MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell describing Epstein a few weeks ago in a single segment:

“… a friend of Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein …

“… child sex trafficker and child rapist and friend of Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein …

“… a billionaire friend of Donald Trump’s …”

Epstein was a “friend” of Donald Trump’s the same way he is a “friend” of Pinch Sulzberger by virtue of reading The New York Times. He’s been to Trump’s club. (That is, until Trump barred him for propositioning the underage daughter of a member.)

But pay no attention to Jeffrey Epstein and his roster of Democratic enablers — this is a Trump scandal!

It seems that the U.S. attorney who oversaw the federal prosecution, Alex Acosta, is currently Trump’s Labor secretary. Trump didn’t know Acosta’s name during the Epstein prosecution, but liberals think they’ve unraveled Trump’s decade-long scheme to reward Acosta for being lenient on Epstein — aka “friend of Donald Trump’s.

The silver lining is that we finally have a way to make Hillary Clinton pay for her crimes. Trump has to appoint her to his Cabinet. Then we’ll see the entire American press corps chanting, “Lock her up!”

Ann Coulter Letter: Hush Little Porn Star, Don’t Say a Word


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 27, 2019 4:05 PM

Hush Little Porn Star, Don't Say a Word

If that’s the best he’s got, Trump should demand we hold the election this coming Tuesday.

Cohen was referring to Trump’s 2017 reimbursement of the $130,000 hush money he paid to porn star Stormy Daniels to stay quiet about her claim that she’d had sex with Trump, aka Cohen’s client — meaning much of Cohen’s testimony is barred by attorney-client privilege. But who cares about this sacred legal privilege? We’re trying to get Trump!

Neither the media nor Cohen seem to realize that Cohen wasn’t doing anything illegal when he paid the “hush money.” (Just because Trump thinks every Jewish lawyer is Roy Cohn doesn’t mean you have to, too, New York Times.)

Words like “hush money” and “porn star” make the payments sound unsavory — especially to The New York Times, known during the Clinton era as Defender of Inappropriate Presidential Sex — but there’s nothing criminal about paying money to suppress embarrassing information, even in the middle of a political campaign.

If it wasn’t illegal for Cohen to pay the hush money, it’s certainly not illegal for Trump to reimburse him for it. Cohen was, after all, Trump’s lawyer. He got reimbursed for a lot of things.

But we have to have days of hearings in hopes of establishing that Trump violated the campaign finance reporting requirements with these payments, in which case, OH MY GOSH, HE’D HAVE TO PAY A FINE.

I’d be more impressed if they got Trump on a jaywalking charge.

President Obama had to pay $375,000 in fines for actual campaign violations during his 2008 run, and I don’t think we needed 16 prosecutors, half of Congress and the entire media on the case.

The theory of Trump’s alleged campaign finance violation is that if you’re running for office, all normal life expenses suddenly become campaign-related. According to these neurotics, ANY money Trump or his companies spent during the campaign is a potential campaign finance expenditure.

Paying your gardeners is a campaign expense — because who would vote for a man who can’t even keep the hedges tidy at Mar-a-Lago? If Trump had gone to the hospital for an appendectomy — well, he got his appendix cut out because he feared that if he died of appendicitis, he wouldn’t get the nomination.

1) Trump, with his fine legal mind, knew he was violating the law; and

2) He authorized the payments only because he was running for office.

So prosecutors have a fantastic case, provided they can get Trump to admit on the stand, Oh no, I wasn’t worried that these allegations would hurt my brand at all. I didn’t care about what my grandkids or Melania would think. I had Cohen pay off a porn star for the sole purpose of misleading the public into voting for me on the basis of my character.

Such an argument would be absurd with anyone, but we’re talking about Donald Trump. He didn’t exactly hold himself out to the voting public as a moral paragon.

As voters were well aware, Trump’s been married three times, has appeared in Playboy videos, and was a fixture on the Howard Stern show for years, discussing breast sizes and ranking women’s looks. In the very first GOP debate, Fox News reminded viewers that Trump had called women “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.”

The reason the “Access Hollywood” tape failed so spectacularly was that Trump had never appealed to Americans based on his character.

To take a contrary example at random, off the top of my head: Sen. John Edwards’ presidential campaign was entirely premised on his boasting about how much he loved the poor and loved his cancer-stricken wife — and also loved his son, who died in a car accident and he’s never told anyone this story before …

About a year before Edwards was caught by a real newspaper, The National Enquirer, visiting his love child and mistress in the Beverly Hilton, Edwards droned on and on about the importance of marital fidelity to NBC’s Katie Couric. It was, he said, “fundamental to how you judge people and human character — whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you’ll stay with them.”

In order to preserve this utterly false image, Edwards arranged for his campaign donors to fork over nearly a million dollars to keep his baby mama happy and quiet. These were donors — not Edwards’ personal lawyer — who ponied up because they wanted him in the White House, and the money was being spent to protect the candidate’s completely bogus public image.

But when federal prosecutors brought a case against Edwards for failing to report these rather more obvious campaign expenditures, the government was nearly laughed out of court. The media ridiculed the entire prosecution and the jury acquitted, presumably on the grounds that, however much Edwards didn’t want voters to know about the affair, he also didn’t want his wife to know.

Trump won the presidency not because he touted himself as a man of character, but because he said he was someone who could get things done. Like build the wall. If you’re going to impeach him, impeach him for that.

More Political Cartoon INCORRECTNESS


This Week’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Who Benefits From Mass Immigration? Not You!”


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jan 30, 2019 5:02 PM

Who Benefits From Mass Immigration? Not You!
Assiduous readers of my columns know that I have frequently made the point that America’s immigration policies benefit only three groups of people: 1) rich Americans with a lot of employees, 2) the immigrants themselves, and 3) their grandmothers back in Chiapas.
The money illegal immigrants send out of the country doesn’t come from their low wages. It comes from the taxpayers, who are required to subsidize immigrants so that investment bankers can have cheap nannies. Yes, it is a problem that they couldn’t possibly live on what I pay them, but that’s where YOU come in, taxpayers!

When the rich merely have to pay Social Security taxes on their nannies, they quickly say, Oh, never mind, as we saw in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton’s first two female attorney general nominees had to withdraw because of the illegal aliens raising their kids, and we finally ended up with Janet Reno.

Zoe Baird, the first nominee caught up in Nannygate, promptly fired her illegal alien nanny and chauffeur, Lillian and Victor Corderos, who were deported.

That’s how much the rich love Latino immigrants! As Baird’s spokeswoman, Jamie Gorelick, said at the time: “I think it truly pains them that Lillian has had to pay this price. … They have true affection for her.”

She’s like family!

A cynic might wonder if the beneficiaries of mass Third-World immigration would be so altruistic toward the rest of the world if they were the ones being forced to compete with immigrant workers.

At a time when the working class could have been ginned up to oppose this dump of low-wage workers on the country, the unions lied to them and told them, Don’t worry! This will make the union stronger. Thirty years later, California construction workers who were making $45 an hour are now making $11 an hour.

The entire readership of The New York Times is immune from wage pressure like that. Our immigration policies strictly limit high-skilled immigration, ensuring that there will be no competition for jobs in the executive suite, while foisting a dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest competition on their employees.

The left has never had to defend the argument that everyone on the planet has a right to come to America, drive down wages, access welfare and force us to educate their children — because rich Republicans like the cheap labor, too.

Seeing what a fantastic deal mass immigration is for the rich, it’s easy to understand why they lie so much about it.
For example, the Cato Institute — funded by the Koch brothers — keeps producing “studies” claiming that immigrants are less likely to be on welfare than Americans. That’s at least counterintuitive.

We’re told day in and day out about the horrible lives of the poor asylum-seekers. They’ll starve if we send them back! Their children have all kinds of health problems, no medical care, no decent food, no roof over their heads! Their neighborhoods are hotbeds of wife-beaters, drugs, murder and gangs! And then: A financial burden to America? No … what makes you say that?

Even if it were true that fewer immigrants were accessing government assistance than American citizens, the number of immigrants who should be on welfare is, wait, checking my notes … yes: ZERO. Why would any country bring in people who immediately need our monetary support? In fact, bringing in poverty-stricken immigrants is a disaster for the welfare programs intended to help our fellow Americans. Fully half of all non-citizens in the United States are on at least one welfare program, according to the (very non-MAGA) Migration Policy Institute. 

The only purpose of these Cato “studies” are the headlines, which will be endlessly repeated throughout media without a moment’s reflection. Whether journalists are citing phony studies, phony polls or phony experts, every statement about immigration in the mainstream media is a lie. You always have to look for the trick. Cato’s welfare “studies,” for example, put welfare-receiving children of immigrants — legal and illegal — in the “American” column. This tells us nothing about the soundness of our immigration policy. If the immigrants’ kids need welfare, we’re not bringing in the right immigrants.

Even more preposterous, Cato counts Social Security and Medicare as “welfare.” This is money that was taken by force from working Americans for their entire lives, of which they will get a portion back upon reaching retirement age. Immigrants are collecting welfare that the older Americans didn’t collect when they were the same age. Wait until they retire. 

Of course Americans are more likely to be collecting Social Security and Medicare! I refer you to mass-immigration advocates’ usual sneer about white Americans being so much older than young, hardworking — and surprisingly cheap! — Latino immigrants. It’s so obvious that our immigration policies are bankrupting the nation’s welfare programs that I’ve often wondered if this was the intent of the libertarian Koch brothers all along. Burden the entire system until it blows up — and then we can finally return to pre-Great Society America! 

Someone needs to tell the plutocrats that their employees are voting, and they aren’t voting libertarian. Heard of Venezuela? Heard of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Heard of California?

The rich’s Third World employees — “natural Republicans,” we’re always told by The Wall Street Journal — turn out NOT to be huge fans of small government. That’s why, instead of being a libertarian paradise, California is a banana republic, running on fumes from Silicon Valley and Hollywood. 

As Lenin supposedly said, “Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” The rich know they want to pay their employees less, and they don’t know anything else.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Break Ground, Not Promises”


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jan 23, 2019 6:45 PM

Break Ground, Not Promises

Source: AP Photo/Daniel Ochoa de Olza

As days turned to weeks and weeks turned to months and months turned to years, and not 1 inch of the wall was built, the “3-D chess” crowd dwindled.  Sometimes Trump would concede he hadn’t built any part of the wall. Sometimes he would fib and claim it was being built. There’s no way to sugarcoat it: That was a lie.

Drug dealers, drunk drivers, criminals, welfare dependents and low-wage workers driving down American wages continued to flow across our border.  We are now past the midway point of Trump’s first term, maybe his only term. If Trump couldn’t come up with a legislative fix when he controlled both houses of Congress, he’s sure not going to now that he’s lost the House.

We are headed for another failed Republican presidency.

President George H.W. Bush promised, “Read my lips, no new taxes” — then raised taxes. President George W. Bush promised that America would not be “the world’s policeman” — then turned the United States into the world’s policeman.

Whether these promises weren’t kept out of bad faith, incompetence or changed minds is of no consequence. That will be a minor footnote for future historians to debate. All that matters is that it didn’t happen. That’s why Trump got elected.

But he still hasn’t started the wall.

By now, my erstwhile critics are getting the point. But I’m not sure the president is — a few weeks ago, he unfollowed me on Twitter. Trump seems to be mystified about what he needs to do to maintain the support of his most devoted backers. He’s saying the right things, isn’t he? He’s holding press conferences, giving Oval Office addresses and tweeting that he wants a wall.

Here’s what you haven’t done, Mr. President: You haven’t broken ground. You want your supporters back? BREAK GROUND TODAY.

You know those caravans marching north toward our border? They’re not giving speeches about how they’re coming north. They’re not tweeting about how they’re coming north. They’re not giving Oval Office addresses about how they’re coming north.

They’re coming north.

What you need to do today — not after the State of the Union address, not after the next GOP retreat, not after another meeting with the Democrats — is to start rolling construction trucks to the southern border.

When Obama wanted something done, he did it. After spending two years saying he didn’t have constitutional authority to amnesty Dreamers, he issued an executive order amnestying Dreamers.  Obama has a legacy — a terrible legacy, but a legacy nonetheless. We’re still living with that executive order today.

By contrast, Mr. President, you do have constitutional authority to defend the nation’s borders, as you have noted repeatedly. But you’ve chickened out. The only edifice you have built is constructed of tweets, press conferences and speeches.

Ironically, Obama was a man of action. The New York real estate tycoon is just a man of words.

Words don’t stop caravans. No one rushes to a caravan saying — WAIT! STOP! TRUMP IS ABOUT TO TWEET!

Are you sure you want to make a dangerous 700-mile journey through cartel-infested lands when you know that as soon as you get to the U.S. border, there could be a Donald Trump tweet awaiting you?

Obama assumed dictatorial powers, bypassing Congress to issue laws from the Oval Office. You would just be doing your job, Mr. President. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

The most fundamental responsibility of the U.S. president is to protect the nation’s sovereignty. It is not to ensure the safety of the Kurds or the Syrian Christians or Pakistani goat herders, but to ensure the safety and security of the American people. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

The Senate’s latest omnibus spending bill provides “not less than $15,000,000” for border security — in Pakistan. The border security of our own country has become a joke. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Yesterday people crossed our border who will kill Americans. Today there are people crossing our border who will kill Americans. And tomorrow there will be more people crossing our border who will kill Americans. BREAK GROUND TODAY.
 
It’s great that you met with the Clemson football team, but while you were doing that, people were crossing the border who will kill Americans. BREAK GROUND TODAY.
 
Countless presidents and presidential candidates have vowed to stop illegal immigration. Good intentions, bad intentions — it doesn’t matter. They didn’t keep their promises. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Fifty years from now, an American family will pile into the car to see the country and, while motoring by the Texas border, will slam on the brakes. Oh look, honey, here’s a historic site! They’ll blow the dust off a small plaque on a garden trellis that will read: “On this site, President Donald Trump built the impregnable southern border wall.”

Stanley, you have to step to the left — you’re blocking the whole thing!

There will be plenty of room in the Trump Presidential Library for the entire border wall, because the library will contain only two books, “The Art of the Deal,” and Trump’s follow-up book, “Never Mind.” BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Emergency powers or no emergency powers, on tomorrow night’s news we want to see helicopters circling the trucks headed to the border. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

They have a caravan; you have a caravan. They’re heading north; you head south. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Cost: People who don’t like you will continue not to like you. Benefit: Your legacy will be — He kept Americans alive who would otherwise be dead. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

We’ve heard your speeches. We know you understand the crisis, and you know what needs to be done. But none of that will mean anything if you don’t take action — not in a month, not in a week, but today. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: