Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ann Coulter’

Ann Coulter OPED: Antifa’s A Laugh Riot – Until It Comes For You!


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 01, 2020 6:55 PM

Antifa's A Laugh Riot – Until It Comes For You!

Source: AP Photo/Gillian Flaccus

I wonder if Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Shapiro, Charles Murray and Heather MacDonald are reacting to these antifa riots the same way I am.

I mean, not that anyone of us would enjoy the sight of reporters being trapped, chased through the streets and physically assaulted by antifa goons. Or liberal Democrats having to defend their homes with guns in Saint Louis, MO. Or the president hiding in the White House bunker as antifa lays waste to Lafayette Park. Or the mayor of Seattle WA, finally shutting down the CHAZ “summer of love” when the mob came to her house.

They’re all “peaceful protesters”until they come near you.

Imagine that instead of being a president, mayor or reporter in the vicinity of mentally unbalanced, historically illiterate, thuggishly violent lunatics … imagine that you, personally, are the window they want to smash.

Now you know what it’s like to be a conservative trying to give a speech on a college campus today. (Thanks for all the help, guys!)

Neither the conservative media nor elected Republicans gave a crap about the left-wing paramilitary force that’s been mobilizing since Trump’s election.

Through it all, conservatives stuck their heads in the sand and rationalized insane liberal violence. It was the path of least resistance — and also a smart business move. Cowards could pitch themselves as the “reasonable” ones, then sit back and watch as their more popular conservative competitors were deplatformed, shadow-banned and outright canceled.

Over and over again, conservatives made excuses for doing nothing. They told themselves:

It’s only Milo — he’s shocking, not the kind of nuanced conservative thinker I am.

It’s only Gavin McInnes and his “Proud Boys” — he’s funny, whereas I am aggressively humorless, so I’m safe.

It’s only Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray — they write about crime rates and I.Q. I steer well clear of any topic that might trigger liberals!

And thus were the most interesting and popular personalities on the right scrubbed from the public square by violent, low-I.Q. criminals. How tiny is the circle of speech and behavior you’ve permitted yourselves, conservatives?

Now, hordes of these cretins have taken control of the streets, and the only pushback is the president cowering in the White House, tweeting “LAW & ORDER!” Yes, Churchill retreated to a basement, too — in Whitehall, where he planned a war that saved the world. He didn’t tweet out “HITLER! BAD!”

For 3 1/2 years, antifa was never punished for anything it did. To the contrary, they were praised. Private citizens who fought back were defamed as “white supremacists” and imprisoned.

Hundreds of masked antifa traveled interstate to riot at Trump’s inauguration, breaking windows, assaulting Trump supporters, burning stretch limousines and smashing the windows of SUVs — including Larry King’s! As a result, more than 200 of the rioters were placed under “arrest,” (a police technique in use at the time). Prosecutors had mounds of evidence, including video, undercover agents and law enforcement witnesses.

But D.C. judges Lynn Leibovitz and Robert E. Morin made sure almost all charges were dropped. Only one rioter, facing 70 years for felony rioting and assault on a cop, served any time in prison. Judge Leibovitz suspended all but four months of his sentence.

No congressional push to impeach the antifa-friendly judges, no separate federal prosecutions of the out-of-state rioters, no segments about this outrage on Fox News.

When Yiannopoulos was to speak at Berkeley in February 2017, 1,500 protesters, including more than 100 antifa, set fires, smashed windows and threw rocks. In reaction to this, Berkeley punished Milo and canceled the speech. (Not to brag, but 2,000 antifa tried to shut down my Berkeley speech last fall but it went off without a hitch! This was mostly thanks to the Bay Area Proud Boys. Hahaha, antifa!)

There was only one arrest. Soon, Milo was completely deplatformed and disinvited by the toothless, collaborationist CPAC.

President Trump responded to the Berkeley riots by sending in the National Guard to protect free speech at a public university. JUST KIDDING! He tweeted: “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view — NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” … and then of course did nothing. Positively Churchillian!

That was at least better than Sens. Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio, who praised antifa for raining violence on protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017. The senators called the masked psychotics anti-fascist, apparently unaware that by “fascist,” antifa means them.

Can anyone remember what that protest was about? Oh yes, the tearing down of a Confederate statue.

No punishment. Heaps of praise. Lesson learned.

In 2018, the night before Vice magazine founder McInnes gave a speech at the Metropolitan Republican Club on the Upper East Side, antifa smashed the club’s historic windows and spray-painted the anarchist “A” on the front door. Sadly for antifa, when they showed up to shut down the event the next day, they were met by McInnes’ Proud Boys — a multiracial social club for patriotic men who don’t mind a good scrap.

The speech went off, the attendees were protected, and the Proud Boys walked away. But antifa loons circled back for a sneak attack, hurling a bottle of urine at the Proud Boys. Although well outnumbered, the Proud Boys proceeded to kick skinny antifa butt. (Only the antifa girls are fat.)

Guess who was prosecuted? The Proud Boys — by Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance Jr., the same guy who allowed Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein to wantonly rape women and girls in his jurisdiction, year after year.

Two Proud Boys are sitting in prison right now, sentenced to four years for fighting back. McInnes himself was thrown off every social media platform and forced to announce that he was stepping down from the Proud Boys.

Not one antifa was even arrested. NYPD: Oh darn. We couldn’t catch them. (Hey — maybe send the Proud Boys next time!)

But I’m sure you’ve heard all about it on Fox News and other conservative — oh no, wait, you haven’t heard about this from anyone. Democrats used our majestic system of justice to shield antifa from any private citizen who fights back. Not one elected Republican, including our bad-ass president, lifted a finger to defend McInnes and the Proud Boys.

Conservative sunshine patriots said to themselves: Those guys have tattoos! They like to fight! I’m a “constitutional conservative”!

The left has been laying the groundwork for this anarchist takeover for a long time. But even they must be amazed that the conservative response was to roll over and play dead. Except maybe they’re not playing.

Ann Coulter: ‘Woke Corporate America’ Is ‘Our Number One Enemy’


Reported by ROBERT KRAYCHIK |

URL of the originating web site: https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/06/25/ann-coulter-woke-corporate-america-is-our-number-one-enemy/

Ann Coulter / AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

“[Republicans] suck up to the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson [and] woke corporate America, which is our enemy,” Coulter said. “Our number one enemy probably is not even the universities or the social justice morons running around on college campus. It really is corporate America, but Republicans just have it in their heads, ‘Ooo, it’s capitalism. We support corporations.’”

LISTEN:

Coulter predicted an acceleration of political censorship on the Internet, including social media deplatforming and domain deregistration, as November’s elections near.

“I have been predicting for years that the Internet is too free,” Coulter said. “We can communicate with one another. We can get information that the New York Times, MSNBC, and CNN simply will not report. They’ve got to shut down the internet to conservatives, and what better time to do it than the year of Trump’s reelection.”

Coulter warned, “As the election gets closer, there are going to be more and more soldiers falling … Where are Republicans on this?”

Internet censorship is a matter of free speech and expression, Coulter held. “That’s what was so great about the internet,” she said. “Even the nutty stuff, it was the Wild West and this is the idea behind free speech, that the truth will rise.”

Coulter added, “They’re not worried about people being misinformed. Nobody gets misinformed except by MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, ABC, CBS. What they’re worrying about is people being persuaded, and their argument is that anything they disagree with is hurtful, is hate speech, and it must be stopped.”

Democrats are courting political forces beyond their control, assessed Coulter, referring to rioters, looters, and vandals operating amid recent unrest following the death of George Floyd.

Coulter said, “You can’t call the mob off, ‘Okay, boys. It’s November 4th. We’ve defeated Trump. Now everybody settle down.’ That doesn’t happen. You’ve unleashed this beast, and there’s no one there to stop it.”

Breitbart News Tonight broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot channel 125 weeknights from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern or 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific.

Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.

Ann Coulter OPED: Great Moments in Racism: The Dash Cam Tapes


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Posted: Jun 24, 2020 5:15 PM

Great Moments in Racism: The Dash Cam Tapes

Source: AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo

If you were watching MSNBC last Sunday, you may have seen Imani Perry, professor of African-American studies at Princeton University, and wondered, as I did, Why do I know that name?

Professor Perry’s delightfully original point was that we need to “think in serious contemplative ways about the depth of American inequality.”

So perhaps we know her from her incisive commentary! I certainly haven’t heard anyone talk about American inequality. It really made me think. But then I suddenly realized it’s that Imani Perry! The one who nearly destroyed a policeman’s life by falsely accusing him of racism!

Back in February 2016, Perry launched a series of tweets, alleging the following:

— She was “arrested in Princeton Township for a single parking ticket three years ago.”

— She was cuffed — FOR A PARKING TICKET — and not allowed to make a phone call “so that someone would know where I was.”

“I was afraid,” she wrote. “Many women who look like me have a much more frightening end to such arrests.”

Oh my gosh, she could have been killed!

— She was “working to move from being shaken to renewing my commitment to the struggle against racism & carcerality.”

Naturally, her story became instant international news. The president of Princeton leapt to her defense, firing off a letter to the chief of police, demanding an investigation. (I know Perry is a professor, but you’d think that, by now, more people would say, Let’s wait for the facts.)

Perry attributed the universal acceptance of her story to her “small build” and her association with “elite universities” such as Princeton.

Just a thought, but it might also be because she’s black.

The Princeton police spent several days investigating before finally releasing the dashcam footage. I’m hoping they dragged it out to allow public outrage to reach maximum velocity.

Perry wasn’t arrested “for a single parking ticket three years ago.” After being stopped for going 67 mph in a 45 mph speed zone, officers ran her name and discovered her license had been suspended. She was arrested for driving with a suspended license.

The officer was almost comically polite to the professor. He gently explained to Perry that because of her suspended license, “What you’re going to have to do is come with us, it’s $130, so if you have that money we’ll be able to post and we’ll be able to get you right back out.” He offered to drop her at the university, saying, “You really shouldn’t be driving because of your suspended license.”

He informed her that police are required to cuff anyone being transported to the station and assured her that no one would have to know. As for not being allowed to make a phone call, he clearly told her that once they got to the station, “You can make as many phone calls and texts as you want.”

A policeman was kind to her, so Perry turned around and accused him of racism, secure in the knowledge that no one would dare challenge whatever she said. It would have been firing offense for him, but not for her. She is still gainfully employed as a Princeton professor — and a sought-after guest on MSNBC and NPR! (It must be because of her “small build.”)

There are dozens of these cases. Tweet me your favorites!

Here’s another, from one of our blessed immigrants, Minati Roychoudhuri, professor at Capital Community College in Connecticut. (Really! That’s not one of my proposed new names for Yale, currently named for a slave trader.)

In 2015, Roychoudhuri (B.A., M.A., Utkal University, India) wrote a letter to the commissioner of public safety, as well as “the Senator and Legislator of my constituency” (she teaches English), claiming a policeman had racially profiled her.

Her letter said: “The officer did not give me any reason as to why had stopped me. His asking if I could speak English shows that he had racially profiled me and was not able to give me a concrete reason for stopping me. Further, the officer had checked ‘Hispanic’ in the race category in the infraction ticket.”

The professor also noted that, “I teach about diversity and the negative impact of racial profiling, I have now become a target of the same insidious behavior! It is easy to connect the dots with the nationwide racial profiling which has led to serious consequences.”

(It’s such a boon to have immigrants teaching about the horrors of “racial profiling” in America because we can’t get anyone to do that!)

Then police released the dashcam footage.

Below are relevant portions from the transcript. I didn’t include the part where the officer asked Roychoudhuri if she spoke English because he never did that. It was a bald-faced lie.

Officer: Hi ma’am, do you know why I’m stopping you today?

Roychoudhuri: No.

Officer: OK. There’s that big gore area with white lines painted across it and you cut in front of it, in front of me, thinking it’s a lane or something. You have to wait until it’s a dotted white line. License and registration.…

Officer: Ma’am. So I wrote you the infraction for that improper lane change that you did.

Roychoudhuri: Please, you know, I probably crossed over there, and that’s why I did it. … Obviously I did that. … My (record) is absolutely clean.

Officer: OK. So I wrote you an infraction for that improper lane change that you did.

Roychoudhuri: OK.

Officer: The answer date is on the front of it and the instructions are on the back of it.

Roychoudhuri: Wait, what?

Officer: It’s a mail-in infraction. All you have to do is mail in, either a check or money order, and mail it in.

Roychoudhuri: OK.

Officer: All right.

Roychoudhuri: Thank you.

Guess who’s still teaching at Capital Community College and paid by Connecticut taxpayers? Our sacramental immigrant!

(NOTE TO MSNBC: Roychoudhuri would make another excellent guest to discuss racism in America.)

After the 2014 killing of Mike Brown in Ferguson, Missouri — a justified killing according to everyone, including Obama’s Department of Justice — the big demand was that police be required to wear bodycams.

OOPS!

That was a miscalculation. Turns out body cameras are the best thing that ever happened to cops. Which reminds me: The public has still not seen the bodycam footage from the officers arresting George Floyd, explaining how he ended up on the ground.

Maybe we should wait for the facts.

Ann Coulter OPED: Yale Has to Go!


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Jun 17, 2020 6:00 PM

Yale Has to Go!

Source: AP Photo/Beth J. Harpaz

The Democratic Party is being forced into taking ridiculous positions by its insane base. Defund the police! Dishonor the flag! Throw Christopher Columbus in a lake!

What a wonderful gift! All Republicans have to do is take the other side. Make themselves the alternative to madness. Instead, Trump and the Republicans have decided they’re going to be “Democrats Lite.”

I’ll let others berate Republicans for doing nothing about the rioting, the arsons, the beatings, the corporate and social media canceling. This column will address the GOP’s moronitude in response to attacks on the destruction of Confederate monuments. Works of art are being destroyed by Maoist vandals who have no idea what they’re doing.

Literally no idea.

Quick! Who was Fort Bragg named after? What did he do? Do you even know his first name? When you have to Google the guy on a statue to figure out who he is, maybe it’s not really the daily humiliation you claim it is.

At this point, the military bases are famous in their own right. No one hears “Fort Hood” and thinks of Gen. John Bell Hood. Fort Bragg, home of the 82nd Airborne, is many orders of magnitude more famous than Gen. Braxton Bragg. It would be like demanding President John F. Kennedy change his name because his namesake, John Fitzgerald, was a corrupt Boston mayor.

Most obviously, the Democratic Party is going to have to change its name. You want an institution that represents slavery? Confederate politicians were all Democrats, Democrats created Jim Crow, and the founder of the party was a slave holder. (The Republican Party was founded to end slavery.)

Speaking of repellant Democrats, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said on the Senate floor this week that the United States “didn’t inherit slavery from anybody. We created it.”

This is the most ignorant statement ever made on the Senate floor. (And that’s saying something!)

Every society has had slavery; it existed long before America did, including by American Indians (though they preferred torturing their captives to death, inasmuch as few of the natives farmed or built things). From 1530 to 1780, at least a million Europeans were kidnapped by African Muslims and forced into slavery. The vast majority were starved or beaten to death.

In fact, unless we’re counting the Democrats’ wearing kente cloth last week, slavery is the only African institution ever adopted by this country. Portuguese — not Americans — brought the first slaves to Jamestown in 1619 (The New York Times’ favorite episode of American history!). We, are, however, the only country that fought a war to end slavery.

Isn’t slavery bad enough? No, Kaine has to make it extra bad by calling slavery an American invention. A U.S. senator committed a blood libel against his own country.

Anything to say, Republicans? Even Obama would have corrected this boob.

The BLM fanboys complain that other countries don’t honor the losing side in their civil wars. Yes, exactly — that’s why their wars never end.

Myanmar has been in a civil war since 1948. Israel’s been fighting Palestinians since 1948. The Kurds and Turks have been fighting for half a century. At last count, there are two civil wars going on in the Philippines, and at least three in India.

America concluded its civil war by dominating and subjugating the losers, but also honoring their bravery.

Even before the war, the South was eons behind the North in industrial development. If the entire country had been the South, America never would have become the richest, most advanced nation on Earth. (And that’s how slaves built America!) After the war, it was like a third world country. On the other hand, Southerners could take justifiable pride in what everyone agrees was a better class of general and soldier.

At Appomattox, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant allowed Gen. Robert E. Lee to keep his sword. As Lee mounted his horse to leave, Grant saluted him. After announcing the South’s surrender at the White House, President Lincoln ordered the band to play “Dixie.” It was an amazing way to end a civil war.

My ancestors were abolitionists who fought for the Union, but you don’t have to be a Southerner to care about Confederate monuments. I can’t help but notice that the people trying to obliterate our history are not part of that history.

Not that long ago, nearly all Americans had pre-Civil War ancestors. Not anymore! Recent immigrants, by which I mean people who arrived after 1865, think the country started with them. They find it hilarious to destroy anything that happened before they got here.

Talk about cultural imperialism!

What about the black Revolutionary heroes, like Crispus Attucks and Phillis Wheatley? Nope, you can forget about foundational black Americans, too. The first two centuries of our nation’s history are canceled. Why would that interest someone from Pune, India, Mogadishu, Somalia, or Bangkok, Thailand? (That would be Kshama Sawant, socialist Seattle city council member, Democrat; Rep. Ilhan Omar, Democrat; U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Democrat.)

Corporate plunderers, globalists, the wolf of Wall Street, 8 million “diversity” jobs (that go to Indians, not the descendants of American slaves, as intended) — that’s the America they revere.

The new arrivals are fine with Red Guards going into cemeteries, ripping up symbols of our heritage. Just don’t dare lay a finger on their privately owned Rothkos!

What do the Republicans say? No problem! Senate Leader Mitch McConnell says he’s “OK” with changing the names of military bases. Trump tweets narcissistic bluster.

How about a bill withholding all federal funds from Yale University until it changes its name? The school’s namesake, Elihu Yale, was not only a slave owner, but a slave trader. Quite a dilemma for the little snots who attend and teach there! It will be tremendously damaging to their brand. After all, true sublimity for a Social Justice Warrior is virtue signaling and advertising their high SAT scores at the same time.

If you refuse to fight, Republicans, don’t you at least want to have some fun?

Ann Coulter OPED: Why You No Longer Recognize Your Country


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Jun 10, 2020 5:38 PM

Why You No Longer Recognize Your Country

Source: AP Photo/Frank Augstein

Mass looting throughout the nation. Police precincts burned to the ground. Murdered cops. A historic church in Lafayette Park set on fire. Video after horrifying video of innocent Americans being beaten senseless by gangs of thugs, as one political party demands: “DEFUND THE POLICE!”

Everyone is saying it: I no longer recognize my country.

You don’t recognize your country because it’s not the same country. What you’re seeing is the third-world hellhole the left has been quietly assembling for us since 1970. Minnesota, the crucible of the riots, has gone from having 2.6% foreign-born in 1990 to nearly 10% foreign-born today — and that’s not including their children or illegals.

Instead of liberal but non-rioting Scandinavians and Germans, the new immigrants are overwhelmingly African, Asian and Hispanic. In fact, Minnesota now has a much larger proportion of Asian and African immigrants than the nation as a whole. Although the state has always leaned Democratic, thanks to its German and Scandinavian immigrants (Ben Franklin was right about them), the Norsemen elected Walter Mondale. Recent immigrants elected Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Hey, Republicans! Tell me again that immigration is just a “single issue.”

America’s first encounter with anarchist mobs trying to wreck our country came with the last wave of immigrants at the turn of the 20th century. Back then, most Americans liked America. So we had no trouble cracking down on the people who would destroy us. Seven of the eight anarchists behind the Haymarket riot in 1886 were sentenced to death (two of those sentences were commuted to life in prison by the governor), one to 15 years in prison.

A few decades later, Attorney General Mitchell Palmer put an end to the nonsense by arresting and deporting more than 500 leftist immigrants. For the next century, these satanic meddlers were out in the cold. It’s not in the Anglo-Saxon character either to give or take orders. The anarchist agitating was wasted on us. Even the most hard-luck Americans had no patience with communists.

America was unusual that way. Everywhere else in the world, the backbone of the Communist Party — at least at first — is the working class. But to its eternal embarrassment, the American left was bereft of working-class members. Luckily for them, our post-1965 immigration policies gave them a major infusion of the third world’s working class.

Communist and anarchist groups are still — as always — top-heavy with recent immigrants, community college professors, unbalanced women and fatherless soy boys. But it used to be that voters were repelled by these freaks. Not anymore! California went from being the state that gave us Ronald Reagan (smashed the Berkeley riots) and Richard Nixon (president during Kent State) to the state of Gov. Gavin Newsom (celebrated Black Lives Matter mural on the mall outside the capitol) and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (took a knee at a BLM protest).

How did that devolution happen?

Answer: immigration. When Reagan was elected governor of California, the state was 77% white. Today, whites are a minority at 37%.

You wonder why Democrats are always crowing about how the “blacks and the browns” are voting for them? Another way of putting it is: White voters are the only ones who will ever, in a million years, give a majority of their votes to a Republican. But the immigration of vast numbers of non-whites from dysfunctional cultures is just a “single issue.”

Yes, Newsom and Garcetti are white Americans — and they’re very sorry about that. But who elected them? The same ethnic groups that elected Hugo Chavez, Evita Peron, fought for Mao and wept fake bitter tears over Kim Jong Il’s death. (You can watch here.)

They’re the same ethnic groups that elected Omar, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and New York City Mayor Bill Di Blasio — mostly Asians and Hispanics brought in since the 1970s for the purpose of voting for Democrats (and also cleaning their homes and doing computer programming for less!).

Di Blasio, who distinguished himself during the riots, won 96% of the black vote, 87% of the Hispanic vote, 70% of the Asian vote and only 54% of the white vote. Tell me immigration is a “single issue,” again, Republicans.

Becoming more third world is going to mean a lot more protests. It’s how third worlders express themselves — along with Molotov cocktails, as New York City police found out last week.

When Congress proposed cracking down on illegal immigration in 2006, half a million illegals lined the streets of L.A. to protest. During the L.A. riots after the Rodney King verdict, more than half of those arrested were Hispanic.

We don’t have the figures for the current, ongoing nationwide riots, but a Loyola-Marymount professor recently gushed to The New York Times that compared to the Rodney King riots, these have been “truly multicultural.” If we ever find out, I’ll lay even odds that a lot of the looters standing by with empty suitcases outside the luxury stores were our immigrant fraudsters, otherwise employed stealing billions of dollars from Medicare, Social Security and food stamp programs.

Conservatives think they’re so clever to point out that all of the cities being turned into war zones are run by Democrats. Yes, that’s true. On the other hand, your country is burning. Might you want to give 10 seconds of thought to how to prevent even more cities — and states — from falling under these pernicious leaders?

No, no, immigration is just a “single issue”! Let’s get back to “Obamagate”! How about another pro-life march? Whither Iran? We need school choice now! Why do you carry on so about the wall? Immigration is just “one issue.” Yes, it’s the one issue that is going to make you lose every other issue, forever.

Ann Coulter OPED: On the Other Hand, There’s Rodney King


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Posted: Jun 03, 2020 5:45 PM

On the Other Hand, There's Rodney King

Source: AP Photo/Steve Helber

Why is this case the one inciting mass protests? Ninety-nine percent of the country is denouncing the Minneapolis police in the most damnable terms possible over the death of George Floyd. The 99% are demanding that the 1% “hear their voices”?

The arrest certainly looks awful. Everything is going along relatively peacefully as Floyd is walked to a police van, then there’s some commotion out of sight of the camera — and suddenly you see Floyd pinned to the ground, an officer’s knee on his neck. How did that happen?

One reason some of us are waiting for all the facts is that we suspect the media may not be extra scrupulous in cases that give them the opportunity to wail about “systemic racism.”

It turns out, for example, Floyd didn’t die of asphyxiation. According to the Hennepin County medical examiner’s report cited in the criminal complaint charging Officer Derek Chauvin with murder, he died of a heart attack. The autopsy also found Floyd had fentanyl in his system, had recently used methamphetamine, had coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. Two weeks ago, this would have been another COVID-19 death.

According to Nexis, these official autopsy findings have not been reported at all on MSNBC and only briefly — to be explained away — on CNN. (The family’s private autopsy concluding Floyd’s death was caused by strangulation has been widely reported.)

It could still be murder, but the “I can’t breathe” slogans aren’t quite accurate. Aw, they’ve already made their protest signs, and we’d have to re-do the chyrons — does it really matter?

There also hasn’t been loads of reporting on Floyd’s five years in prison for armed robbery. I know the guy has just died, and he seemed to have turned his life around, but the media isn’t holding a memorial service. They’re supposed to be reporting news. How about an interview with Floyd’s victims? Wouldn’t that be a newsy segment?

Again, according to Nexis, Floyd’s armed robbery conviction has been fleetingly mentioned only once on ABC News and once on Fox News.

The other reason some of us are waiting for all the facts can be summed up with two words: Rodney King.

That arrest looked pretty bad, too. The jury forewoman on the first trial said that when she saw the King video on television, “I was revulsed. … I thought they were hitting that poor man too hard and too long.” But at the trial a year later, she got to see the 13 seconds of video that had been deliberately edited out by the media: the 6-foot-4, 240-pound King rising like a phoenix and charging at one of the officers.

The video that played on an endless loop on TV showed only the tail end of the encounter, when officers were whacking King with their batons. In fact, however, the beating was the officers’ last resort for subduing King, who’d just led them on a high-speed car chase, at times reaching speeds of up to 115 mph, drawing several police cars and a police helicopter.

Once stopped, King’s two (black) passengers exited the car and got on the ground, as instructed. They went home without a scratch that night. But King leapt out and began dancing and babbling, crouching, kneeling, laughing and waving to the police helicopter overhead. Both the officers and King’s passengers believed he was high on angel dust.

The senior officer, Sgt. Stacey Koon, ordered the officers to back away and holster their guns. He didn’t want to risk a fatal encounter. Four officers tried swarming King — he threw them off his back like rag dolls. A dart from a Taser gun did nothing. Then another — also nothing. King lunged at an officer and got hit with a baton, but kept on raging. The police were running out of options that would allow everyone to stay alive. That’s when three officers began hitting King with their metal batons, under the supervision of Sgt. Koon. If King moved, they whacked him. Finally, they managed to double-cuff him — the procedure for suspects on PCP — and put him in an ambulance to the hospital.

When Sgt. Koon first heard that the arrest had been captured on video, he was ecstatic. “This is great!” he said. “They got it on tape! Now we’ll have a live, in-the-field film to show police recruits. It can be a real-life example of how to use escalating force properly.”

Not only the jurors, but nearly everyone who saw the first trial ended up supporting the acquittal, including Roger Parloff, a liberal legal reporter who sat through most of the trial for the American Lawyer, and Lou Cannon, who covered it for The Washington Post. The renowned (black) economist Walter Williams was shocked by “the news media’s dereliction and deception” in their editing of the tape.

All this is detailed in my book “Mugged,” but at the time, the public knew none of it, thanks to our activist media.

The endlessly played Rodney King video hid the same part of Floyd’s arrest that’s being withheld today. Doesn’t anyone else wonder how Floyd ended up on the ground? Where are those videos?

Nah, it’s much easier — and cost-free! — to Speak Truth to the 1%.

Ann Coulter OPED: Coronavirus Doesn’t Just Kill People – It’s White!


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: May 20, 2020 6:35 PM

Coronavirus Doesn't Just Kill People - It's White!

Source: Darren McGee/Office of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo via AP

I guess now it’s OK to identify viruses by where they came from. Lately, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been calling COVID-19 the “European virus” 1 million times per press conference.

Here’s Cuomo at a single briefing last week: “… the virus that had attacked us from Europe … the virus came from Europe … the virus was coming from Europe … New York is where the European flights were coming in … Virus came from Europe … we had this European virus attack us … we had people coming from Europe bringing the virus.”

So “European virus” it is!

Who cares? It’s like referring to Muhammed the terrorist as “British man.” Verdict: true, but misleading. No one, not even the freaks at The New York Times, testy with Trump for calling it the “China virus,” disputes that “COVID-19” originated in China.

Yes, the virus carriers who infected New Yorkers arrived on planes from Milan, but they were infected by travelers from China.

Where did it come from before Europe?

I don’t know. I’ve lost my notes. Why do you ask?

To call it the “European virus” simply refers to the last transmitter. Chris Cuomo, the governor’s brother, got coronavirus, then infected his wife and son. He was the proximate cause of his family’s infections, just as people flying to JFK from Europe were the proximate cause of the coronavirus infections in New York.

How about we start calling it the “Chris Cuomo virus”?

But New York Times writers were all atwitter about the governor’s stroke of genius in calling it “the European virus.” “[H]is current spin,” Gail Collins wrote, “seems like a smart approach.”

Please come up with some way for us to blame this virus on white people!

You’re thinking, “It can’t be that stupid.” Oh yes, it can! It is not possible to exaggerate the obsession these people have with identity politics.

That’s why the media decided to make Russia — not China or Saudi Arabia — the center of their lunatic conspiracy theory on Trump. The whole story was imaginary, so they could have chosen any country in the world. Why Russia?

Hillary got right to the point, calling Vladimir Putin “the leader of an authoritarian, white-supremacist and xenophobic movement.” She said Trump “seems to want to be like Putin, a white authoritarian leader who could put down dissenters …”

Are there any non-white authoritarians in the world? Any at all? Yes, but for the left, “white” is nothing but an evil intensifier, a verbal MSG.

The New York Times decided to officially brand itself an anti-white site by defiantly keeping writer Sarah Jeong on staff, despite a long record of lovely tweets like these:

“#cancelwhitepeople.”

“Dumb–s f—ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

“White people have stopped breeding. You’ll all go extinct soon. This was my plan all along.”

“Are white people genetically disposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?”

“oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”

(One mistake old white men made was fighting and dying to liberate South Koreans like Ms. Jeong. So that’s on them. Score one for Ms. Jeong.)

There is ecstasy throughout media-land whenever …

1ST REFUGEE ELECTED TO CITY COUNCIL

It’s as if we’ve had this problem forever with superior refugee talent being shut out of U.S. elections. Wait — didn’t they just get here? No matter. Journalists wet themselves with their feelings of virtue whenever they can stick a finger in the eye of historic white (and black) America.

Triumphant news stories about hardscrabble refugees winning elections are always chock-a-block with tales of the “racism” that had to be overcome to achieve these “historic” victories.

E.g.:

“Racist trolls targeted a Somali refugee’s campaign. She still managed to pull off a historic victory.” — The Washington Post

“‘It’s mindblowing’: historic wins for two Somali-Americans amid ugly smears” — The Guardian

A candidate for political office got some mean tweets. Oh my gosh — that’s never happened before in the history of politics!

The only actual racism on display — that can be attached to a name — is usually from the refugees themselves. Safiya Khalid, the FIRST SOMALI REFUGEE elected to the Lewiston, Maine, city council, for example, told the Post her desire to run “came from watching city leadership remain stubbornly white.”

So yes, the reason liberals are swooning over Gov. Cuomo’s ingenious decision to call COVID-19 the “European virus” is because that makes the virus white. (Yuck!) The only way we could ever get liberals to call a new disease the “China virus” is if it originated in Africa, then migrated to China.

Ann Coulter OPED: Liberal Privilege in Two Tweets


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Posted: May 13, 2020 4:45 PM

Liberal Privilege in Two Tweets

Source: AP Photo/Richard Vogel

This week, we’ll look at two tweets that encapsulate everything that’s wrong with the “white privilege” narrative consuming our nation. The Twitter account @nowthisnews posted a video of shutdown protesters yelling at police in California, Colorado and Michigan with the heading: What would happen if protesters of color acted this way to police?

Audra McDonald (@AudraEqualityMc) responded: “We’d all have been shot dead. Next question.”

Unless Ms. McDonald is a time-traveler from 1965, I can’t imagine what she’s talking about. Was she at the Sharpeville Massacre? McDonald is an actress, and therefore I assume an idiot, but her profoundly ignorant tweet was enthusiastically endorsed by MSNBC talking heads and, at last count, had more than 16,000 “likes” and thousands of retweets.

Are they talking about Ferguson, Missouri, where cops stood by during the 2014 riots and politely watched the city burn? In response to the police shooting of Michael Brown — a shooting that both the grand jury and Eric Holder’s Justice Department found was justified — mostly black protesters raged off and on for months, torching dozens of buildings, shooting at responding firemen, looting stores and throwing rocks at the police. And yet — miraculously! — no protesters were “shot dead.” No protesters were even arrested, unless they committed felonies in open view of the police.

To the contrary, two policemen were shot by a black protester.

It was the same thing at Black Lives Matter protests across the nation — in Baltimore, Oakland, Dallas, Baton Rouge and so on. Cops stood mutely, as water was dumped on them, their patrol cars were set on fire, rocks were hurled at them and protesters screamed obscenities in their faces. Their marching orders: Do nothing unless you see a crime being committed in front of you — and not always even then.

We’ve had Al Sharpton protests in New York City for decades. No protesters shot dead. In fact, I can’t think of a single protest in the 21st century by black people, or by white people, that police have responded to with violence.

When was the last time? You have to go back to the Democratic National Convention protests of 1968 — and those protesters were white. If we’re including the National Guard, there was Kent State in 1970 — also white protesters. The most recent black protest that was met with police violence was Selma, 1965.

Can we restrict wild generalizations about the police to things that have happened in our lifetimes? If you can produce examples of black people being billy-clubbed merely for protesting, we’d all love to see them. We’re looking for something more recent than 1965.

What would happen if protesters of color acted this way to police?

Audra McDonald: “We’d all have been shot dead. Next question.”

Why not, “They’d bring back slavery. Next question”? It’s just as insane.

Facts don’t matter because the “white privilege” craze is just a fashion statement. What opinions do I need to have to be fashionable? I’m so busy, I go to a lot of dinner parties. Could you fix me up with some opinions? Absolutely! You want to talk about “white privilege,” “racist cops” and “systemic racism” — using these phrases will get you wild applause.

Liberals are so mesmerized by racism fantasies that they don’t look at their own evidence. The video posted by @nowthisnews shows white protesters expressing their opinions volubly at the police. If the protesters were black, these would be called “peaceful protests.”

In one clip, a white guy shows up at a Denver rally with a holstered gun. Then you see the cops handcuffing him. The end. Explain to me how that’s an example of “white privilege.” I think it’s more an illustration of “white protester being subjected to the operation of the law.”

LIBERALSIt’s a white male with a gun! Nuff said.

JUDGE: Did you look at this tape, counselor? Meet me in chambers. I’m trying to help you. This is defense evidence.

The mass delusion about “white privilege” and “systemic racism” has real-world consequences. At a BLM protest in Dallas in July 2016, a black man furious about “racist” police murdered five white policemen in cold blood, wounded seven more and held the city hostage for hours. That year, BLM-inspired activists also murdered three police officers in Baton Rouge and two in New York City.

Everyone’s already forgotten about those racist murders. (Admittedly it was four long years ago, not nearly as recent as 1965.)

Even at the time, the Democratic Party couldn’t support the assassinated officers without eulogizing Black Lives Matter. Days after the Dallas slaughter, President Obama invited Black Lives Matter representatives to the White House. Hillary Clinton went to CNN to give her considered response to the bloodbath in Dallas. Ignoring the dead officers, she cited a string of recent police shootings, pledged to “go after systemic racism, which is a reality” and called on “white people, like myself, to put ourselves in the shoes of those African-American families who fear every time their children go somewhere.”

This, as the corpses of five white policemen lay in a Dallas morgue, basking in their “white privilege.” Or as Ms. McDonald would say, “Shot dead. Next question.”

Ann Coulter OPED: Lab Theory of Wuhan Virus Cooked Up in a Neocon Lab


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: May 06, 2020 6:40 PM

Lab Theory of Wuhan Virus Cooked Up in a Neocon Lab

Source: AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

Just because the media say something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not true. In the case of Trump’s claim that COVID-19 originated in a Wuhan lab — or as I call it, the All Cultures Are the Same! Theory — the media are probably right.

Granted, whatever the truth is, it will somehow become an argument for more immigration and more war. Still, the lab theory sounds a lot like what we were told before going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to liberate the poor Afghans and Iraqis from their vile leaders! They’re just like us! Then it turned out the Iraqis were shooting at our guys, as well as one another, and the Afghans were pederasts. Twenty years later, we’re still there and not much has changed. They weren’t just like us.

The Chinese aren’t just like us. Cultural differences are a more likely explanation for the Wuhan flu pandemic than a simple lab accident.

Here are some of the clues:

1) Chinese people eat bats, dogs, civet cats and live octopuses, as well as a variety of endangered species, which are sold at wet markets, jam-packed with wildlife being slaughtered on site in breathtakingly unsanitary conditions. Among the “high-risk” behaviors at wet markets cited by the National Institutes of Health, shoppers “[blow] the cloacae of chickens” to “examine their healthiness.” (Look it up.)

2) At least a half-dozen other animal-to-human viruses have come from the wet markets.

3) Scientists have been warning us for decades: THE NEXT VIRAL PANDEMIC WILL COME FROM THE CHINESE WET MARKETS! That doesn’t prove that this particular virus came from the wet markets, but it doesn’t sound like a case for Jessica Fletcher.

4) A lot has been made of the fact that there’s a biosafety level-4 super laboratory in Wuhan that just happens to study bats, the original incubator of this coronavirus. More ominously, last year, the lab was cited by the U.S. for safety violations.

On the other hand …

a) Any lab studying coronaviruses is going to be studying bats, the source of a vast number of viruses, including the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome virus (SARS), the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome virus (MERS), the Marburg, Nipah and Hendra viruses and the Ebola virus.

b) Any lab studying deadly viruses is going to have safety violations. (Just a few years ago, the U.S. military accidentally shipped live anthrax samples to nine labs in the U.S. and a military base in South Korea.)

c) For 20 years, coronaviruses have emerged from Chinese wet markets. Maybe this coronavirus came from a lab accident! (There’s a bio lab nearby.)

For 20 years, nooses showing up on college campuses have been hoaxes intended to raise “awareness” of racism. Maybe this time it’s an actual racist! (There’s a fraternity nearby.)

For 20 years, Muslims have staged spectacular terrorist attacks on the West. Maybe 9/11 was the Israelis! (What about the dancing Israelis?)

5) The lab theory places great stock in the fact that bats were not for sale at the wet market in Wuhan. But the coronavirus didn’t jump from bats directly to humans. Like SARS, MERS and the bird flu (H5N1), it migrated from bats to some other exotic animal, and then to humans. Based on a genetic analysis, the intermediate animal in the Wuhan virus is believed to be the pangolin.

Guess what was for sale at the Wuhan wet market? Pangolins! (“Traditional Chinese medicine” teaches that pangolin scales can cure a score of ailments, from impotence to arthritis.)

6) Western scientists who have examined the Wuhan coronavirus say it’s “improbable” that the virus “emerged through laboratory manipulation” rather than natural selection. Kristian Andersen, director of Infectious Disease Genomics at the Scripps Research Institute, for example, notes that that “the genetic data irrefutably show that [the Wuhan virus] is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.”

7) Twenty-seven of the original 41 Chinese people who came down with COVID-19 had been to the Wuhan wet market. Several others were family members of those infected at the wet market.

8) New diseases are constantly being attributed to mad scientists whipping something up in their laboratories — AIDS, Lyme disease and Ebola, to name a few. Louis Farrakhan and Spike Lee were big proponents of the idea that AIDS was made in a government lab just outside Virginia.

No matter how much you hate the media, conservatives, you don’t want to sound like those guys.

Finally, we don’t need a crackpot. It Escaped From a Lab! theory to blame the Chinese for this pandemic. They allowed these disease-ridden wet markets to continue, year after year, pandemic after pandemic, putting the entire planet at risk. 

We also don’t need another war to “liberate” the Chinese from their Communist masters. (I note that the primary advocates of the lab theory are Permanent War devotees Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Sen. Tom Cotton.)

We just need to shut down the wet markets, shut down the border and bring our manufacturing home.

All cultures are not alike.

Ann Coulter OPED: Q&A on the Wuhan Virus


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Posted: Apr 29, 2020 4:30 PM

Q&A on the Wuhan Virus

Source: Shen Bohan/Xinhua via AP

As you can well imagine, my mailbox has been overflowing with questions about the coronavirus from precisely ZERO readers. So I decided to write my own questions. I know this is what you would be asking if you were not standing in line, outside, 6 feet apart, to purchase a quart of milk.

What do you think of the media’s coverage of the Wuhan virus? It’s like a nonstop “War of the Worlds” broadcast, which in 1938 panicked more than a million Americans into believing Martians had landed in New Jersey, sending people fleeing to the mountains, loading their shotguns and barricading their homes. And that was a single radio broadcast!

Today we have nearly all of media — which I notice are doing fantastically well during the crisis — terrifying the public about an apparently indestructible, omnipresent virus. 

You don’t think the China virus is as dangerous as they say? Well, it is a virus capable of eliminating all human life, which would be bad, but not all bad because then you’d never have to see another TV commercial with some company saying they consider you “family.”

So you think it’s safe to start lifting the stay-at-home orders?

Of course. I ask again: What was the purpose of telling everyone to stay home? Aren’t we all Wuhan-free now? More than 90 percent of the country has been self-quarantining for more than a month. Either we had it and didn’t know it, or never had it at all. But in any event we don’t have it now. Or was that whole stay-at-home mandate just for fun?

What about threats of a resurgence?

Luckily the hospitals are half-empty, waiting for the gusher of coronavirus patients.

So we do nothing?

No, not at all, but now that 90 percent of us are Wuhan-free, these are the only things we need to do:

1) A real immigration moratorium, like this country had from 1924 to 1965. (I’d also recommend that the other 49 states shut down flights from New York, but I’ll leave that up to them);

2) Concentrate all protections on the elderly/immunocompromised;

3) No more handshaking, and liberal use of surgical masks in confined spaces.

Other than that, WE’RE DONE NOW.

But we know virtually nothing about this virus: why it kills, what stops it, how it’s transmitted.

Actually, we know one very important thing: By total serendipity, the Wuhan virus mostly kills people over the age of 70. Nearly 80 percent of all coronavirus deaths in the U.S. are of people over 70 years old.

What about Italy?

About 80 percent of the dead were over 70.

That sounds a little callous.

Not at all. It’s a stroke of good luck! We’d be lucky if the virus targeted any specific group — the nearsighted, left-handers, golfers — because that would allow us to concentrate protections on that one group.

But it’s doubly good news because the Wuhan targets people who are mostly out of the workforce anyway. And we already have their names and addresses! How about the feds send a box of masks along with Social Security checks every month?

How will you get Democratic governors to go along with that?

Liberals can triple down on all their fascist stuff — as long as it’s limited to the vulnerable.

Over 65? You need a note from the governor to leave your home!

Fine! But let the rest of us get back to work.

Why haven’t they done this already?

Because that wouldn’t have the effect of wrecking the economy before the election.

Apart from the election, why would the media want to impoverish the nation?

1) Reporting on disasters is fun!

2) Their ratings are terrific — and, of course, they’re still being paid.

3) Liberals enjoy controlling people, especially with enragingly nonsensical rules.

I thought Trump was the authoritarian!

No, he’s the lazy, narcissistic blowhard. Liberals are the authoritarians.

The shutdown is airport security for the whole country. Nineteen Muslim immigrants flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and suddenly little old ladies from Oklahoma had to be goosed at airports. We have to be safe!

A horrible Chinese virus sweeps the planet, which is devastating to older people but virtually harmless to the young — and the entire country has to be shut down. We have to be safe!

What about polls showing a majority of Americans want to keep the restrictions in place?

The media have frightened gullible suburban woman into a state of hysteria. (Talk about whipping up your ignorant base!) Kids could basically mainline coronavirus and they’d be fine. But soccer moms don’t want their kids going back to school.

Whether it’s rational or not, people aren’t going to go out like they used to.

My entire life, liberals have said, “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.” “Don’t like pornography? Don’t look at it.” And so on.

I say: “Don’t want to leave your home? Don’t leave your home!”

So you recommend going out again?

Sure, what’s the worst that could happen? Sure, you could die, but you probably won’t.

Ann Coulter OPED: Trump and China: A Love Story


Commentary By Ann CoulterAnn Coulter Posted: Apr 22, 2020 3:45 PM

Trump and China: A Love Story

Source: Xie Huanchi/Xinhua via AP

Liberals claim to be appalled that Trump didn’t issue his stay-at-home protocols for the Wuhan virus back in January or early February. What do you think the media’s reaction would have been if Trump had started babbling about a viral pandemic in the middle of his impeachment trial?

Let’s see. On Jan. 28, Trump released his long-awaited “Middle East Peace Plan,” which was immediately denounced by everyone except Jared Kushner and Sheldon Adelson. Still, the last 1 million Middle East Peace Plans led to tons of think pieces, analyses and arguments.

Here’s how Trump’s “Peace Plan” was reported:

“Tonight, impeached and indicted. Seems like a good time for a distraction: Their plan for peace in the Middle East.” — Becky Anderson, CNN, Jan. 28, 2020

“The Trump administration has dubbed it the deal of the century. Critics see it as a PR stunt to distract from Trump’s impeachment.” — Michele Kelemen, NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Jan. 28, 2020

“Many analysts and supporters of a two-state solution to the [Middle East] conflict have called the promised rollout of the plan this week a distraction from Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial.” — The New York Times, Jan. 25, 2020

There are plenty of reasons to attack Trump for the virus sweeping our country, but the media are mad at him for not doing something that would have been absurd: shutting down the country when there wasn’t a single Wuhan flu death in the nation and the media had barely mentioned it.

In fact, the first time most news consumers heard about the latest Chinese coronavirus was when liberals attacked Trump for shutting down travel from China at the end of January.

The Times responded with an op-ed titled, “Who Says It’s Not Safe to Travel to China?” bemoaning “xenophobic rhetoric and the building of walls.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders mocked the ban at a CNN town hall debate, saying, “I don’t know you have to stop travel from China,” but Trump likes “to build walls … to separate us from other people.”
Politico cited “a growing chorus of public health experts” who warned that the China travel ban could “stigmatiz[e] people of Asian descent.”
The Nation magazine reported that the risk to Americans from the Wuhan coronavirus was “low” and accused Trump of playing to “well-worn, racist tropes that depict Chinese people as dirty and disease-carrying.”

So go screw yourselves, media.

On the other hand, Trump does deserve a lot of the blame for the Wuhan virus by keeping — wait, checking my notes — NONE of his promises on China. This, the media will never mention.

During the campaign, Trump sure talked a good game. He said, “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country.” He vowed to put tariffs on their goods and bring manufacturing home.

Then he got elected, and Jared Kushner, Gary Cohn and Trump’s other salt-of-the-earth advisers told him tariffs were a bad idea. So he imposed no tariffs for two long years and, today, almost all our pharmaceuticals, face masks and other crucial supplies are still being made in China.

On the bright side, China fast-tracked all of Ivanka’s trademarks!

Trump has allowed hundreds of thousands of Chinese students to keep attending American universities. He can’t stop gushing about the H-1B workers. In 2018, Trump tweeted a warm welcome to H1-B visa holders, promising them “a path to citizenship” and heaping praise on these “talented and highly skilled people” taking American jobs.

Norman Matloff, University of California, Davis, computer science professor recently wrote:

“Here is something you won’t read elsewhere: Silicon Valley leads the SF Bay Area in COVID-19 cases — leads by FAR ….

“Silicon Valley, of course, is home to very large numbers of immigrant engineers from China, who have the means to make frequent trips to China to visit family, especially during Chinese New Year, when the virus started to spread like mad within China and started to do so in the U.S.”

As we now know, the first two Wuhan flu deaths in America were in … Silicon Valley.

“Birth tourism” has also continued apace under Trump, with tens of thousands of pregnant Chinese ladies flying to America every year for the sole purpose of giving birth to an anchor baby, who will then be used to bring the whole family here.

There’s one way to stop it, and Trump could do it tomorrow. Sign an executive order ending the anchor baby scam. Not say he’s going to sign it, as he does whenever he wants to gin up the base. Actually sign it.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that the children born to illegal aliens or tourists are citizens, for the simple reason that that would be insane. The 14th amendment is about slavery, as the court has repeatedly held, not Chinese birth tourists or pregnant Mexicans.

But he won’t do it. Ivanka needs her trademarks — and Goldman might give Jared a job! Sorry about that Wuhan flu, America.

This Weeks Ann Coulter OPED: Liberalism, Like the Wuhan Virus, Will Never Die


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Posted: Apr 15, 2020 3:45 PM

Liberalism, Like the Wuhan Virus, Will Never Die

Source: AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

The media are outraged that President Trump is talking about re-opening the country, following their previous position that he sure was taking his sweet time at opening up the country. Fortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s death forecasts from the Wuhan coronavirus have shrunk from 1.7 million Americans in mid-March; to 100,000 to 200,000 two weeks ago, provided there were massive suppression efforts; to — most recently — 60,000.

Every week, it seems, we’re another two weeks away from the “apex.”

According to a model recently published in The New York Times, if Trump had issued social distancing guidelines just two weeks earlier — on March 2, rather than March 16 — instead of 60,000 Americans dying from the Chinese coronavirus (projected!), only 6,000 would have died. If that’s what a two-week quarantine would have done, then how about a four-week quarantine?

By the end of the month, 90% of the country will have been shut down, quarantined and socially distancing for FOUR WEEKS. A majority of Americans have already been under these self-isolation rules for three weeks. (And most of the rest live in rural communities 16 miles from one another.)

Two weeks is the magic number. Test positive for the Wuhan: self-quarantine for two weeks. Come into contact with someone who has it: self-quarantine for two weeks. Traveling from New York, New Jersey or Connecticut: self-quarantine for two weeks.

With cold and flu viruses, people develop symptoms after just five days. But to be extra safe, we’re assuming the Wuhan virus can be transmitted for a full two weeks after contact.

After two weeks, you’re either sick or the infection has passed through you with no symptoms. Again: It’s been three. Does social distancing work or doesn’t it?

After four weeks of self-isolation, won’t 90% of the country be Wuhan-free? Or are we in a sci-fi movie with a virus that can live forever without a host?

For the tiny percentage of the country not in self-isolation for the past three weeks, either because they are essential workers or because they are screw-offs, let’s add them to the “vulnerable” list. Everyone take special precautions around doctors, nurses, grocery store employees and people who don’t follow orders — just as we do around the elderly and immunocompromised.

By May 1, even most of the slackers will have worked through the Wuhan. There haven’t been any large gatherings for them to attend, and almost everyone else has been staying 6 feet away from them. They’ve had a month to infect one another and either live or die.

In any event, unless all the claims about social distancing are nonsense, then a ONE-MONTH nationwide quarantine should have killed off the Wuhan in 90% of us, allowing a return to mostly normal life. (It goes without saying that Trump’s travel bans will have to remain in place.)

I notice that the same people telling Americans they must remain at home indefinitely were indignant about closing bathhouses in response to the AIDS epidemic. Back then, the media and all gays except Randy Shilts said: How dare you ask us to shut down the bathhouses! They’re part of gay culture. It would be like asking Catholics to stop visiting the Sistine Chapel!

But putting the entire country under stay-at-home orders? No problem.

Another liberal about-face since the AIDS era gives me an idea for how to re-open the country.

Liberals are furious with Trump for expressing optimism about the experimental drug hydroxychloroquine. When it came to AIDS, the gay community’s successful campaign to compel the FDA to allow “compassionate” use of unapproved drugs was a civil rights milestone on the order of Selma.

In a 1990 editorial, for example, The New York Times praised the “educated and articulate” gay spokesmen for bringing about “changes in the traditional methods of testing drugs,” adding that the new procedures were “a compassionate response to AIDS sufferers.”

By contrast, today the media are absolutely ghoulish in their hope for hydroxychloroquine to fail. The drug is approved for malaria patients, so it’s “safe”; it’s simply not approved specifically to treat the Chinese virus. The reason for the media’s hostility to hydroxychloroquine is obvious: Trump expressed enthusiasm for the treatment, so liberals are required to take the opposite position.

It’s just like the Democrats’ recent infatuation with open borders. Until Trump, nearly every Democrat was for — or claimed to be for — border security, deporting criminal aliens and ending the anchor baby scam. 

But as the Times’ Frank Bruni said, Democrats are “defining themselves as antonyms to Trump.” Why else, he wondered, would Democrats push policies like open borders, “which won’t go down well with many of the voters the party needs”?

Perhaps we could use this liberal neurosis to our advantage. To re-open the country, we need Trump to come out against it.

Ann Coulter OPED: I’ll Have the Chicken Testicle Soup – Hold the Deadly Virus


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Apr 08, 2020 5:45 PM

I'll Have the Chicken Testicle Soup - Hold the Deadly Virus

Source: AP Photo

It’s probably a coincidence, but I notice that as businesses go under, jobs are lost, careers are ended and trillions of dollars are drained from the economy, the people most avidly pushing the coronavirus panic are doing quite well.

No politician or government official has taken a salary cut. To the contrary, dusty bureaucrats now find the entire country transfixed by their every utterance. Cable news hosts still make millions of dollars — and now they get to work from home!

Annoyingly, though, journalists can’t seem to relay the basic elements of a news story: who, what, where and why.

First, who’s dying? It appears to be mostly the old, people with specific medical conditions and vapers.

To be sure, that’s not as important as daily updates on Chris Cuomo’s personal battle with the coronavirus, but it might be kind of important to the 17 million Americans who’ve been thrown out of work, many of whom are not elderly, immunocompromised or vapers.

Second, the “what.” What exactly constitutes a “coronavirus death”?

It turns out a person with Stage 4 lung cancer and a bullet through the heart will be counted as a “coronavirus death” if he also tested positive for the disease, OR merely exhibited symptoms associated with it (symptoms that are coextensive with the flu and pneumonia).

We’re told that, if anything, coronavirus deaths are being under-counted because the numbers don’t include those who die of it at home.

If so, then the death count also excludes those who die at home of other things, like heart attacks and poisonings. Many of these people might have survived — except they were too scared to go to a hospital or couldn’t find an EMT to take them there, per current edicts.

The “where” is: Where did the virus originate, and where did it first land in this country?

Despite the media’s best efforts — DON’T CALL IT THE “CHINESE VIRUS”! — people know that the virus began at a wet market in China.

But where did it start in this country? Washington state was the site of our very first case. Washington state is also 9.3% Asian. Even now, it has eight times more coronavirus cases per capita than neighboring Oregon (4.8% Asian).

Could it be that Chinese-Americans have more contact with the epicenter of this plague than other Americans? As the left always lectures us, BELIEVE THE SCIENCE!

The virus next leapt to New York (9% Asian) and New Jersey (10% Asian). The worst-hit borough of Manhattan is Queens. Guess which borough has the most Asians? Elmhurst Hospital in Queens is the worst-hit hospital in the nation. Elmhurst neighborhood: 50% Asian.

Notice a pattern? While it’s true that “viruses don’t have nationalities!” — and thank you very much for pointing that out, media! — the carriers of viruses do have nationalities.

Arguably, Trump had a reason to shut down travel from China other than “hysteria, xenophobia and fear-mongering,” as Joe Biden claimed in a tweet on Feb. 1.

Of course, once it’s here, it’s here and can spread all over. Still, compare New York and New Jersey to, say, Montana and West Virginia.

Chinese virus deaths, so far, by population:

— New York (9% Asian): 29 per 100,000

— New Jersey (10% Asian): 13 per 100,000

— Montana (0.9% Asian): 0.6 per 100,000

— West Virginia (0.8% Asian): 0.2 per 100,000

Then there’s California, which alone among the four states with the highest Asian populations has relatively few coronavirus cases, probably due to its warm climate and little public transportation, among other things. In those respects, California is a lot like Texas — which has about a third as many Asians and also about a third as many coronavirus deaths (1.1 per 100,000 in California, compared to 0.71 per 100,000 in Texas).

MEDIA: Oh, why does it matter?

OK, OK, you’re right. But isn’t the prevalence of the coronavirus in states with high Asian populations at least as interesting as this recent article in The New York Times magazine?

Story summary:

Man with severe asthma gets coronavirus, has low-grade fever for approximately 10 days with muscle pain, nausea and fatigue, develops walking pneumonia per X-ray (no clinical evidence) …

Recovers.

The End.

Finally, why? Why do we have to deal with this virus at all?

The media would prefer if you would stop asking this question, but Americans who didn’t have to die are dead because of Wall Street’s decision to merge our economy with the Chinese, who have unusual eating habits.

The Chinese eat wolf pups. But eating dog wasn’t weird enough. It didn’t give them a frisson of freakishness. They also eat bats, snakes and chicken testicles.

Husband: Oh, honey, golden retriever again?

[Kids groan]

Mom: Not tonight! For a special treat, we’re having chicken testicles!

Kids: Aw, you’re the best mom ever!

Tigers and rhinos are the most endangered species on Earth because Chinese people think rhinoceros horns and tiger penises can cure impotence. The Caspian, Bali and Javan tigers are already extinct because of this charming folk remedy.

Recently added to the endangered species list is the cute, cartoonish pangolin, the most trafficked animal is the world. Unfortunately, the pangolin’s scales are believed to cure any number of ailments, according to traditional Chinese medicine.

Where’s PETA?

The media are too busy covering for China. At least the Chinese aren’t white.

Although, it occurs to me that, despite America’s terrible toxic whiteness, one way our culture is superior to others is that we don’t believe lunatic nonsense that wipes out entire species or launches viral pandemics on the world.

Now back to Chris Cuomo’s riveting battle with the coronavirus.

Ann Coulter OPED: The Bill for Globalism Has Arrived


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Posted: Apr 01, 2020 4:15 PM

The Bill for Globalism Has Arrived

Source: Yan Yan/Xinhua via AP

When the after-action report on the current pandemic is being prepared, I’m going to ask the guy with the notepad to write down: “China” and “globalists.”

Those words won’t be on Trump’s list. He can’t stop gushing about how much he respects China and the American companies that have outsourced jobs there. Even as China withholds vital medical supplies, he refuses to end our suicidal dependence on them. His one slight annoyance with China is that it lied about the Wuhan virus, allowing the disease to explode across the globe.

I have a longer list of complaints, beginning with the fact that they eat bats. The resulting pandemic now raging through our country would be bad enough, but our new crisis is a shortage of medical equipment. Too bad we shipped all our manufacturing to China! Not to worry, surely China wouldn’t disrupt the sacred “global supply chain.”

Oops. China is stockpiling masks and ventilators.

And there’s more good news! China makes more than 90% of our antibiotics, vitamin C, ibuprofen and hydrocortisone, 70% of acetaminophen, and 40% to 45% of heparin, according to The New York Times. The last American penicillin plant closed more than 15 years ago. In early March, the Chinese government ominously warned that if China stopped exporting drugs, “the United States would sink into the hell of a novel coronavirus epidemic.”

For decades, people like Trump’s trade director Peter Navarro have warned us that something like this would happen someday. But we were condescendingly told, This is capital seeking the most efficient market! And, anyway, if China screws with us, we’ll just make it ourselves.

Really? With broken-down buildings, a dispossessed workforce and no machinery? Unfashionable working-class people in the industrial Midwest were discarded long ago. They may as well have had “obsolete” stamped on their foreheads. But I notice that you, Wall Street, made a lot of money off of globalization.

Oh, did I? I didn’t notice!

What happened to your vaunted concern for China’s human rights violations — the Uyghurs, the Falun Gong, Tibet, child labor?

You should see my place in the Hamptons!

Even before China gave us this latest viral disease — not to be confused with H1N1, Asian flu, SARS and bird flu, also from China — one of the most frequent questions about Amazon products was: “Is this made in China?”

Obviously, a lot of consumers would happily pay more to know that something is made in the USA — or at least not in China. We’d like to support our fellow Americans. We also prefer products that don’t kill the family pet, instantly fall apart or risk being embargoed during a viral pandemic.

How about that search refinement, Amazon? “Made in USA — including constituent parts” or “0% Chinese.” I’d wager these would be more popular than the hundreds of other search parameters, such as star ratings, price, manufacturer, “prime,” calories, gluten-free and so on.

Not a chance. The globalists are making a lot of money selling us crappy products, manufactured in a culturally backward, totalitarian regime with zero quality control and absolutely no interest in the well-being of our country. Why hasn’t Trump seized on this nightmare of the New World Order to fulfill a campaign promise and bring manufacturing home? Where are the massive tariffs on Chinese goods and the “Buy American” programs? How about telling Ivanka, No, you are not going to make it even more expensive for companies to hire Americans with this ridiculous Paid Family Medical Leave Act! In fact, we’re going to seek the repeal of all laws that create jobs only for trial lawyers.

Even a lot of the American companies we’re so proud of for stepping up to make masks in this crisis … are making them in China. (New York Times, March 13, 2020: “A General Motors joint venture in southwestern China built 20 of its own mask-making machines and began bulk production.”)

Trump’s reaction? Flatter China so they’ll keep buying our soybeans. Maybe they’ll throw Jared some business!

Nearly a month ago, The New York Times reported that Trump was “preparing an executive order, which could be released in the coming days,” requiring the federal government to buy American-made pharmaceuticals. It apparently went into the same file as that executive order on anchor babies. We’re still waiting.

Navarro had the executive order ready to go, but then dozens of pharmaceutical companies lobbied against it, arguing that “a diverse pharmaceutical supply chain is precisely what enables the industry to respond quickly and make adjustments in its supply chain sourcing during natural emergencies and global public health crises.”

China: If we cut you off, America, you’ll be in hell.

The Big Pharma lobbyists also noted that Trump’s (idle) threat for America to make its own drugs “could run afoul of commitments it made under the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement.”

NO! WE CAN’T VIOLATE THE WTO’S GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT!

Trump is the president of the United States. Either he is responsible for a monstrous virus arriving on our shores and destroying our economy — or China is. I expected the media to say, “Trump!” I didn’t expect Trump to agree.

Ann Coulter OPED: Cheap TVS, Expensive Flu


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 18, 2020 4:40 PM

Cheap TVS, Expensive Flu

Source: AP Photo/Dake Kang

Thanks to “globalism” — i.e., cheap goods from China — we’ve gotten many wondrous things, for example:

— Toothpaste on American shelves made with a poison found in antifreeze;

— Toxic Chinese drywall installed in about 100,000 U.S. homes, emitting noxious fumes that destroyed electrical wiring and metal fixtures and sickened homeowners. Replacement of the drywall, pipes and wiring cost Americans billions of dollars.

— Hundreds, possibly thousands, of American dogs killed by melamine-laced Chinese dog food in 2007.

— The loss of about 200,000 beautiful maple trees lining the streets of small New England towns, eaten by Asian long-horned beetles that arrived on Chinese cargo ships in 1996. The U.S. taxpayer spends hundreds of millions of dollars to eradicate the repeated outbreaks that continue to this day, despite promises from the Chinese to do better.

— Viral pandemics — H1N1 (from China), bird flu (from China), SARS (from China) and now the Wuhan virus (from China).

Is it really worth paying $3 for a T-shirt at Walmart, rather than $9? The precise reason Chinese goods are so cheap is that they skip the crucial quality-control step.

damage report

LET’S GET ONE THING STRAIGHT: THE CHINESE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!

Well, like most animal-to-human viruses, this one did originate in China and then spread across the globe when Chinese tourists infected people in other countries.

As described by Melinda Liu in Smithsonian Magazine, the Chinese wet markets, “often poorly ventilated, with multiple species jammed together — create ideal conditions for spreading disease through shared water utensils or airborne droplets of blood and other secretions.”

This 2017 article was titled: “Is China Ground Zero for a Future Pandemic?”

When the pandemic arrived, at least the World Health Organization leapt to action. First step: Find a cure? Develop a vaccine? Demand protections for the elderly?

NO!

WHO officials got together and worked on coming up with a new name for the “Wuhan virus” that sounded less Asian.

Next, the WHO put out a “Fact Sheet” to ensure that those with Kung Flu would not be stigmatized. It instructed:

“DO — talk about people ‘acquiring’ or ‘contracting’ #COVID-19.

“DON’T — talk about people ‘transmitting COVID-19,’ ‘infecting others’ or “spreading the virus’ as it implies intentional transmission & assigns blame.”

As fear of the Chinese virus spread, Gloria Allred brought a lawsuit against a Los Angeles school for sending an Asian student to the school nurse after he coughed in class.

Americans are cowering in their homes. Airlines, restaurants, beaches, ski resorts, professional sports, colleges and stores have been shut down. But we must never violate the fundamental civil right of an Asian to cough in class and refuse to see the nurse!

The New York Times has also been on the racism beat, with these pressing stories:

As Chinese Grapple With a New Illness, an Old Stigma Is Revived

An Outbreak of Racist Sentiment as Coronavirus Reaches Australia

As Coronavirus Spreads, So Does Anti-Chinese Sentiment

And there’s more!

Virus Fuels Anti-Chinese Sentiment Overseas

Coronavirus Outbreak Risks Reviving Stigma for China

Wait – here’s another:

For a Chinese Traveler, Even Paradise Comes With Prejudice

A few weeks ago — before a trillion dollars in wealth was destroyed by the coronavirus panic and we learned the real disease was racism — everyone, including the Times, admitted that the virus was brought to Italy by two Chinese tourists.

“[T]here had not yet been any confirmed cases in Italy,” the Times reported, until Jan. 30, “when the government announced the first two cases.” The scientific director of an infectious diseases hospital in Rome identified them: “two Chinese tourists visiting Rome.”

The Times buried this fact in an article perversely titled: “Cruise Passengers Are Held at Italian Port in False Alarm Over Coronavirus.” On one hand, a bunch of cruise passengers were inconvenienced for 12 hours; on the other hand, a viral pandemic that could kill millions was introduced to Italy. You write the headline.

Lombardy is the Italian region most devastated by the Wuhan virus. As far back as 2003, a Library of Congress report cited Lombardy as having the highest concentration of Chinese immigrants in Italy. Our media refuses to tell us this fact today — or any day.

No hard feelings, but why not relieve people’s minds? West Virginians who have no contact with anyone visiting from China can rest easy! No need to stockpile toilet paper.

While we’re at it, when will the media and the “medical community” get around to informing Americans that this latest Chinese pandemic poses little danger to anyone under 70 without certain chronic medical conditions?

Italy has been ravaged by the Wuhan virus, but the average age of the dead is 81.

According to the dire estimates of the Imperial College of London — whose assessment we are following — excepting those with underlying medical conditions, the new coronavirus is far less deadly than the seasonal flu to anyone under 60 years old. It’s no worse than the 2017-18 flu season for those in their 60s. But it’s five to 10 times more deadly than the regular flu for those in their 70s and 80s, respectively.

We ought to surround old folks homes with the National Guard and call it a day. It would probably save more lives and wouldn’t destroy the economy. But there’s no time to think about saving lives. The important thing is to stamp out the idea that a virus that originated in China has anything to do China.

please likeand share and leave a comment

This Weeks Ann Coulter OPED: Bernie Is Still Trump’s Nightmare


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 04, 2020 4:00 PM

Bernie Is Still Trump's Nightmare

Source: AP Photo/Charles Krupa

The Democrats’ sudden discovery of 77-year-old éminence grise Joe Biden has the electric feeling of Republicans settling on George H.W. Bush in 1992. (The Iowa Republican Party actually canceled the caucuses that year so as not to embarrass President Bush.)
 
It’s Democrats convincing themselves in 2004 that John Kerry was the “safe” choice. 
 
Proposed Biden campaign slogan: OK, I Guess He’ll Do.
 
This is good news for Trump. Bernie Sanders is his greatest nightmare.
 
True, the media, the donors and the Democratic Party are convinced that Sanders is a sure loser — just as, four years ago, Fox News, the donors and the Republican Party knew that Trump was a sure loser.  
What made both Trump and Sanders unique in their respective primaries was their voluble opposition to Wall Street, war and immigration. I’m beginning to suspect that Americans hate Wall Street, hate war and hate mass, low-wage immigration.
 
I take no position on these preferences. I am simply stating facts.
 
Recall that, in 2016, Trump and Sanders were the only presidential candidates opposed to the mass importation of low-wage workers immiserating our working class. Sadly, they both moved left on the issue at about the same time: Bernie when he went from being a Socialist to a Democrat, and Trump when he went from the campaign to the White House.
 
On war, Sanders is certainly consistent. Good war, bad war, necessary war, stupid war — he’s against ’em all! As he recently tweeted about Trump’s assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, raising the prospect of war with Iran: “I was right about Vietnam. I was right about Iraq. I will do everything in my power to prevent a war with Iran. I apologize to no one.”
 
At this moment in time, 20 years into a war without end in Afghanistan — unless Trump really does end it in the fourth year of his presidency — with foreign policy experts constantly demanding military intervention against some faraway tribe, Sanders’ anti-war sentiments are a balm to the country’s weary soul.

Four years ago, Bernie probably beat Hillary Clinton — minus the finagling of the Democratic National Committee — by slogging her for her Iraq War vote. Also, four years ago, Trump destroyed Jeb! Bush during a debate in the most pro-military state in the union, South Carolina, by calling the Iraq War a “big, fat mistake” and saying Jeb!’s brother had “lied” us into it. The media heralded this as another Trump gaffe, “his riskiest departure from the party line,” as Fortune magazine put it. A week later, Trump swept the South Carolina primary, walking away with all 50 delegates.
 
Trump bragged so much about his opposition to the Iraq War that media “fact-checkers” worked overtime to prove that he was an Iraq War supporter. I think they were wrong and Trump was right, but the point is: Both Trump (the candidate) and the media knew that the anti-war position was wildly popular with voters. Then Trump became president, and the only people working overtime on his war stance became his own voters, constantly on edge that he’s about to start a war with Syria or Iran.
 
Sanders has also shown remarkable consistency in his contempt for Wall Street. (There’s a reason poor Mike Bloomberg was running.) To great acclaim, Sanders says things like, “The billionaire class is scared and they should be scared.” He vows to break up banks and impose a wealth tax. “We’re prepared to be their worst nightmare,” he says.
 
Similarly, back when he was running, Trump alone among Republicans kept harping about the absurd carried interest tax break that allows hedge fund managers (and private equity and venture capital managers) to pay a tax rate of 20 percent on their income, rather than the 39.6 percent the rest of us pay. Trump complained endlessly about the loophole, saying, “the hedge fund guys are getting away with murder.” He said some of these people “are making a tremendous amount of money and paying virtually no tax, and I think it’s unfair.”  
Clueless as ever, a shocked New York Times reported: “Defying Republican political gravity, after his heresy of proposing a tax increase, Mr. Trump’s popularity among Republicans rose.”
 
The sad ending to this story is that then Trump became president and hired half of Goldman Sachs. More Goldman Sachs employees work in the Trump administration than worked for Presidents Obama and Bush combined.
 
Gary Cohn, one of these patriotic, salt-of-the-earth Goldman guys, told Trump not to eliminate the carried interest loophole, so he didn’t. And Warren Buffett continues to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.
 
Maybe a Fidel-admiring revolutionary was never the best champion of even the most popular ideas — just as a vulgar reality TV star wasn’t. Maybe Bernie is dead. But the universal popularity of hating Wall Street, war and immigration will never die.
 
It could be that a “safe” choice is all the Democrats need. But I think Trump just dodged a bullet.

Nolte: Cenk Uygur Exposes Media’s ‘Biden Is Still Sharp’ Gaslighting Campaign


Reported by John Nolte | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/05/nolte-cenk-uygur-exposes-medias-biden-is-still-sharp-gaslighting-campaign/

PLAYA VISTA, CA – MAY 09: Cenk Uygur attends the Young Turks celebration of 1 billion views at YouTube LA on May 9, 2013 in Playa Vista, California. (Photo by Joe Scarnici/Getty Images for The Young Turks) 

Young Turks founder and co-host Cenk Uygur fears the ongoing media cover-up of Joe Biden’s mental decline will ensure Donald Trump’s reelection.

In the wake of Biden’s shocking Super Tuesday comeback, Uygur, a passionate Bernie Sanders supporter, lashed out at the establishment media, not only for covering up what he describes as Biden’s “lies, lies, lies,” but the fact that Biden is “either near senile, or actually senile.”

“Biden is either near senile, or actually senile. Watch any of the tapes. Biden lies non-stop. He’s going to get caught,” Ugyur told his online audience, adding, “Okay, the media is covering for him, but they’re not going to be able to cover when the Republicans come for him, and when Trump comes for him.”

Uygur cited a specific example, Biden’s utterly bizarre claim he had been arrested in South Africa 30 years ago to show his support for Nelson Mandela. On at least three occasions in the days leading up to Super Tuesday, Sanders told this lie.

“Joe Biden did not get arrested with Nelson Mandela,” Uygur accurately pointed out. “Who makes up a lie like that? An incredibly stupid person makes up a lie like that; an incredibly immoral person makes up a lie like that.”

In some places, Uygur’s monologue is being characterized as a meltdown, but it’s really not. He’s obviously frustrated over Bernie’s loss, especially after being so certain the Jurassic Marxist had it in the bag, but he’s not melting down, just passionate and frustrated.

Watch for yourself:

Here are some of the highlights:

I know the progressive base and I know the establishment, and I know we’re going to go to war, and a war like you’ve never seen because progressives online are not going to go quietly… They’re not going to be like, “Oh, Joe Biden’s senile, we’ll let it go.”

Joe Biden did not get arrested with Nelson Mandela. Who makes up a lie like that? An incredibly stupid person makes up a lie like that; an incredibly immoral person makes up a lie like that.

Biden is not going to beat Trump. Biden is either near senile or actually senile. Watch any of the tapes. Biden lies non-stop. He’s going to get caught. Okay, the media is covering for him, but they’re not going to be able to cover when the Republicans come for him and when Trump comes for him. He’s not going to beat Trump. The establishment candidate is less likely to beat Trump anyway. We just had 2016, the establishment candidate lost to a doofus like Trump.

And now, here we go, an establishment candidate that is far worse, with his mental faculties under question… And you’re going to run that guy against Trump?

This is a rare moment — or maybe the first ever — where Uygur and conservative writer Ann Coulter agree.

During her appearance on Tuesday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight, author of Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind said, “The media will protect Biden in a way that no Republican with that level of senile dementia that Biden has could run for president.”

“The media is a powerful force,” she added. “They’ll cover it up, they won’t show us those. There is Twitter and Breitbart to get those things out.”

Biden has always been one to put his foot in his mouth. Nevertheless, there is no question he is not the man he was during his vice presidential days. He’s physically frail, mentally frail, and there has even been a notable decline over the course of the Democrat primary.

Running for president is exhausting, and I suspect Trump intends to do what he did to Hillary Clinton, which is to work his 2020 opponent — be it 77-year-old Biden, or 78-year-old Bernie — into the ground.

The media can try to cover up Biden’s cognitive decline, or try to spin it as something charming about good ol’ Uncle Joe, but the media world is an entirely different place now. It’s no longer 2008, where the media can cover up Barack Obama’s troubling racial past, or 2012 where they can cover up a Benghazi. The media bent over backwards in threes to cover up Hillary Clinton’s 2016 health issues — and that cover up failed.

What’s more, nothing changes the fact that when Biden is up on that stage, be it at a debate or rally, it’s just him and him alone, and as we have seen over the past few months, this almost always results in disaster.

Keep the following in mind…

One of the reasons Biden sailed through Super Tuesday was the lack of media focus on him the weeks prior. He’d been written off for dead, no one was paying much attention, so the troubling pileup of brain freezes he suffered during those crucial days — including the fantasy about being arrested — got almost no attention.

That all changes now.

And if he wins the primary, the spotlight will intensify even more, as will Trump’s fearlessness when it comes to capitalizing on Biden’s decline. And if the fake news media don’t want to cover it — New Media and social media will be happy to step in. 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

Ann Coulter’s OPED: Bernie Is Still Trump’s Nightmare


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 04, 2020 4:00 PM

Bernie Is Still Trump's Nightmare

Source: AP Photo/Charles Krupa

The Democrats’ sudden discovery of 77-year-old éminence grise Joe Biden has the electric feeling of Republicans settling on George H.W. Bush in 1992. (The Iowa Republican Party actually canceled the caucuses that year so as not to embarrass President Bush.) 

It’s Democrats convincing themselves in 2004 that John Kerry was the “safe” choice.
 
Proposed Biden campaign slogan: OK, I Guess He’ll Do.
 
This is good news for Trump. Bernie Sanders is his greatest nightmare.
 
True, the media, the donors and the Democratic Party are convinced that Sanders is a sure loser — just as, four years ago, Fox News, the donors and the Republican Party knew that Trump was a sure loser.  
What made both Trump and Sanders unique in their respective primaries was their voluble opposition to Wall Street, war and immigration. I’m beginning to suspect that Americans hate Wall Street, hate war and hate mass, low-wage immigration.
 
I take no position on these preferences. I am simply stating facts.
 
Recall that, in 2016, Trump and Sanders were the only presidential candidates opposed to the mass importation of low-wage workers immiserating our working class. Sadly, they both moved left on the issue at about the same time: Bernie when he went from being a Socialist to a Democrat, and Trump when he went from the campaign to the White House.
 
On war, Sanders is certainly consistent. Good war, bad war, necessary war, stupid war — he’s against ’em all!  
As he recently tweeted about Trump’s assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, raising the prospect of war with Iran: “I was right about Vietnam. I was right about Iraq. I will do everything in my power to prevent a war with Iran. I apologize to no one.”
 
At this moment in time, 20 years into a war without end in Afghanistan — unless Trump really does end it in the fourth year of his presidency — with foreign policy experts constantly demanding military intervention against some faraway tribe, Sanders’ anti-war sentiments are a balm to the country’s weary soul.

Four years ago, Bernie probably beat Hillary Clinton — minus the finagling of the Democratic National Committee — by slogging her for her Iraq War vote. 
 
Also, four years ago, Trump destroyed Jeb! Bush during a debate in the most pro-military state in the union, South Carolina, by calling the Iraq War a “big, fat mistake” and saying Jeb!’s brother had “lied” us into it. The media heralded this as another Trump gaffe, “his riskiest departure from the party line,” as Fortune magazine put it. A week later, Trump swept the South Carolina primary, walking away with all 50 delegates.
 
Trump bragged so much about his opposition to the Iraq War that media “fact-checkers” worked overtime to prove that he was an Iraq War supporter. I think they were wrong and Trump was right, but the point is: Both Trump (the candidate) and the media knew that the anti-war position was wildly popular with voters.
 
Then Trump became president, and the only people working overtime on his war stance became his own voters, constantly on edge that he’s about to start a war with Syria or Iran.
 
Sanders has also shown remarkable consistency in his contempt for Wall Street. (There’s a reason poor Mike Bloomberg was running.)
 
To great acclaim, Sanders says things like, “The billionaire class is scared and they should be scared.” He vows to break up banks and impose a wealth tax. “We’re prepared to be their worst nightmare,” he says.
 
Similarly, back when he was running, Trump alone among Republicans kept harping about the absurd carried interest tax break that allows hedge fund managers (and private equity and venture capital managers) to pay a tax rate of 20 percent on their income, rather than the 39.6 percent the rest of us pay. Trump complained endlessly about the loophole, saying, “the hedge fund guys are getting away with murder.” He said some of these people “are making a tremendous amount of money and paying virtually no tax, and I think it’s unfair.”
 
Clueless as ever, a shocked New York Times reported: “Defying Republican political gravity, after his heresy of proposing a tax increase, Mr. Trump’s popularity among Republicans rose.” The sad ending to this story is that then Trump became president and hired half of Goldman Sachs. More Goldman Sachs employees work in the Trump administration than worked for Presidents Obama and Bush combined.  
Gary Cohn, one of these patriotic, salt-of-the-earth Goldman guys, told Trump not to eliminate the carried interest loophole, so he didn’t. And Warren Buffett continues to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.
 
Maybe a Fidel-admiring revolutionary was never the best champion of even the most popular ideas — just as a vulgar reality TV star wasn’t. Maybe Bernie is dead. But the universal popularity of hating Wall Street, war and immigration will never die.
 
It could be that a “safe” choice is all the Democrats need. But I think Trump just dodged a bullet.

Ann Coulter OPED: Harpooning the Toxic Whale


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 26, 2020 3:10 PM

Harpooning the Toxic Whale

Source: AP Photo/Richard Drew

You might not have heard — because Trump is still president, so MSNBC and CNN were required to give hair-on-fire coverage of some mundane action he’s taken this week — but on Monday, Harvey Weinstein was convicted of rape and a criminal sexual act. I have some random thoughts on the case and the whole #MeToo movement. Apologies in advance that this has nothing to do with Donald Trump, Dictator.

1) Every time I hear about Weinstein’s predations, I wonder how many waitresses, real estate agents and housewives in Los Angeles might be celebrated actresses today, except that when Weinstein barged out of the bathroom stark naked and lunged at them, they fled the room and didn’t look back.

Our media are so infantile. Can’t we agree that Weinstein is a psychopathic scumbag without calling the witnesses against him “heroes”? The true heroes are the girls whose names we don’t know — not the ones who were grossed out by the pig, but had sex with him anyway, then sent him emoji-filled, suck-up emails because they wanted to be “stars.”

True, we know there are some, like Gwyneth Paltrow, who turned him down flat, so kudos to her and to Brad Pitt, who accosted Weinstein afterward and told him, “If you ever make her feel uncomfortable again, I’ll kill you.”

Not to take away from that magnificent episode, but Paltrow is Hollywood royalty (the daughter of director-producer Bruce Paltrow and actress Blythe Danner), and her boyfriend at the time was an A-list actor. Still: heroes.

But how many actresses — whom we’re supposed to envy and read about their skin care regimes and Hollywood Hills homes and how they were ugly ducklings as children (they all say that) — are really no different from the average L.A. waitress, except they were willing to have sex with Harvey Weinstein or some similarly hideous beast?

Definitely keep getting your political opinions from them, America.

2) After the verdict, I looked at the list of movies Weinstein produced. There are nearly 200, maybe more. I have zero interest in seeing any of them, and the ones I’ve so much as started were terrible — except the three or four by Quentin Tarantino and one called “Benefit of the Doubt,” which sounds good.

Weinstein’s talent wasn’t in producing movies; it was in staging aggressive campaigns with the Oscars judges.

But let’s be generous and say 10 of Weinstein’s movies were great.

That’s worse than the music industry’s practice — pre-iTunes — of selling $20 albums or CDs that had one, maybe two good songs. One good to 12 bad, versus 10 good to 200 bad. My main takeaway from the Weinstein trial is that I’m so glad there’s Amazon Prime and Netflix now, so pushy freaks can’t get rich producing schlock that the public hates.

3) There was fleeting coverage of the Weinstein case on Monday immediately after the verdict came in, with a bank of microphones set up outside the courthouse in anticipation of the defense lawyers making a statement.

They’re the interesting ones here. Will they appeal? What do they expect from the upcoming trial against Weinstein in Los Angeles? Also, considering who the defendant was, they did pretty well. News cameras were focused on the empty microphones, as TV anchors chit-chatted with guests, one eye on the courthouse door. On MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell interrupted her guest when she thought she caught a glimpse of defense attorney Donna Rotunno. False alarm! — back to the guest. Finally, Rotunno emerged, headed toward the microphones — and guess who leapt in front of her and got there first? GUESS!

No, not Michael Avenatti.

Gloria Allred, who proceeded to recite a lot of boilerplate about the accusers being “heroes” and speaking “their truth.” (She did not say: “We know Weinstein was horrible because he hired my daughter to attack his accusers.”)

Hilariously, Rotunno just kept walking, while TV viewers everywhere wishes a lightning bolt would strike Allred.

4) In light of the plague of white men, it’s notable that the majority demographic on the Weinstein jury was this hated group. The jury was composed of two white women, two black women, one black/Hispanic woman; one black man; and seven white men.

Despite Weinstein’s repulsiveness, the case was far from a slam-dunk. Luckily, white men have not yet adopted the modern propensity to view the world as an Identity Group cage match. I would wager that it never occurred to a single white man on the jury to think: We can’t send a white man to prison!

5) Also relevant to the white male pestilence infecting America: If we’d cut off immigration around 1880, certainly by 1850, there would be hardly any #MeToo cases at all. (I can’t think of a single #MeToo perpetrator of founding American stock — i.e., the group that gets blamed for everything.) We need way better assimilation programs.

6) There was one notable exception to the media’s refusal to budge off their 24-7 Trump Is an Authoritarian Monster coverage on the day of the Weinstein verdict: the Kobe Bryant memorial! All news was interrupted for hours and hours of live coverage of the Kobe event. No mention of Kobe’s rape case.

Ann Coulter OPED: Honey, We Molested the Kids!


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 19, 2020

Honey, We Molested the Kids!

Source: Rick Egan/The Salt Lake Tribune via AP, file

HEADLINE: Boy Scouts Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the Face of Thousands of Child Abuse Allegations

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have long been on the left’s hate list. Any organization that has the temerity to train young men in the virtues of integrity, patriotism and self-reliance is putting itself on the fighting side of liberals! 
At the 2000 Democratic National Convention, a little group of Boy Scouts took the stage as part of the opening ceremony — and were promptly booed by the delegates.

For decades, the BSA has fended off lawsuits demanding that they embrace the holy trinity of G’s: girls, gays and godless atheists. (If only it had occurred to the plaintiffs to start their own organizations! They could have given them names like “The Girl Scouts.”) 

Why would any liberal want to join an organization that was, according to them, sexist, Bible-thumping and bigoted? They didn’t. The lawsuits were kill shots. 

For the left, what’s not to hate about the Boy Scouts? Their oath is: “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”

Nearly 200 NASA astronauts were Boy Scouts. The great outdoorsman, Teddy Roosevelt, was such a BSA booster than he was made the one and only “Chief Scout Citizen,” a scout for life.

A Louis Harris & Associates study in 1996 found that men who had been scouts placed a higher value on honesty than those who had not.

But now the lawsuits have killed them. Congratulations, Democrats, The New York Times and corporate America. (I hope all their future employees steal from them, after being raised on “Grand Theft Auto” instead of the Boy Scout oath.)

From the beginning, BSA has had to deal with child molesters eagerly signing up to go camping with 13-year-old boys in isolated areas away from all observation. Within a decade of its 1910 founding, the BSA began keeping internal files on “ineligible” scouting volunteers, known as “the perversion files.” Scout leaders were not to be alone with boys and, starting in 1988, all adult applicants were subjected to aggressive background screening. The organization promptly removed any scout leaders based on mere suspicion and alerted law enforcement in about a third of the cases.

Nonetheless, between 1970 and 1991, up to .04% of Boy Scouts may have been molested. That’s about 2,000 out of several million boys. Given all of this, what sort of escaped mental patient would demand that the Boy Scouts admit openly gay scout leaders?

Yes, we know most gays aren’t child molesters. How could we not? It’s part of our secular catechism, along with the one about most Muslims not being terrorists and most immigrants not being criminals. But men who molest boys are a small slice — infinitesimal really! — within a larger category known as “gay.” It’s not two totally different things, like an architect and a dentist. Some men like blondes. Some like brunettes. But they’re all within the category of “heterosexual.” No parent is going to send their young sons camping alone in the woods with an openly gay man for the same reason they wouldn’t send their adolescent daughters to be alone in the woods with an openly heterosexual man. 

And now the BSA has been whiplashed into bankruptcy by liberals demanding, on one hand, that the scouts allow gays to be troop leaders and, on the other hand, filing lawsuits accusing the scouts of not taking strong enough measures to prevent gay troop leaders from molesting boys.

Couldn’t liberals get together and decide for themselves whether the Boy Scouts should have been more aggressive in preventing child molestation — or less? For their defense witnesses, the Boy Scouts should call New York Times editors, Democratic politicians and corporate CEOs.

Back in 1980, when a gay guy lost his lawsuit against BSA for dropping him as a scout leader, Wells Fargo, the United Way of San Francisco, Levi Strauss and the Bank of America cut off funding to the organization. San Francisco and Oakland schools prohibited the scouts from using their facilities on weekdays. 

After the Supreme Court’s disturbingly narrow 5-4 decision in 2000 holding that the Boy Scouts could not be forced to admit gay scout leaders, the Times denounced the decision in an editorial, calling the court’s ruling “one of its lowest moments of the term.” The following month, the Times’ “ethicist,” Randy Cohen, advised a reader to pull her son out of the Cub Scouts, saying it was “the ethical thing to do.” The “ethicist” explained: “Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals.”

Also in response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Chase Manhattan Bank, Textron Inc. and dozens more United Way chapters withdrew millions of dollars in contributions. More cities dropped their support of the Boy Scouts.

In his pre-Super Bowl TV interview in 2013, President Barack Obama was still harping on the Boy Scouts’ refusal to allow gay scoutmasters: “Gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does.”

On CNN, host Carol Costello haughtily informed a guest opposed to gay scoutmasters, “Well, I’ll just say that the American Psychological Association has studied the issue that you just mentioned. Homosexuals aren’t any more likely to molest kids than straight men.”

The defense rests.

Throughout the left’s 30-year assault on the Boy Scouts for discriminating against gays, the Catholic Church was embroiled in its own molestation crisis. More than 80% of the molester priests were accused of victimizing teenage boys. Instead of saying, “Oh — I see what the Boy Scouts are doing,” liberals responded to the gay sex-abuse crisis in the priesthood by blaming … celibacy! Isn’t it a thought crime to question whether sexual preference is determined at birth? But liberals not only believed gayness was the result of an adult lifestyle choice — celibacy — but they knew how to “cure” it: Allow priests to marry!

Since the one thing we know is that men molesting boys has nothing to do with being gay, I guess this time it’s camping that causes sodomy.

Ann Coulter OPED: Stop Apologizing for Saving Black Lives


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 12, 2020 4:30 PM

Stop Apologizing for Saving Black Lives

Source: AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File

Idiot conservatives were doing the idiot thing this week, screaming “racism!” in response to an old tape of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg defending stop-and-frisk, one of the policies that drove New York City murder rates down to Mayberry levels. They weren’t being ironic.

In the 2015 tape, Bloomberg makes the blindingly obvious point that if “95% of murders and murder victims are young male minorities” — as is true in New York City — then police should be questioning about 95% young male minorities.

To stop crime, he said, you “put a lot of cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods.”

Bloomberg further explained that frisking young black and brown men for minor crimes is how you keep guns off the streets generally: “And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them. And then they start, they say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to get caught.’ So they don’t bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home.”

Does anyone with a functioning frontal lobe disagree with this? By pursuing the wacky idea of having cops frisk kids in high-crime areas for minor offenses like turnstile jumping, Mayor Rudy Giuliani cut the murder rate from more than 2,000 per year to about 600. No one thought it could possibly go any lower — and then Bloomberg got murders down to an unfathomable 300 or so per year.

Giuliani and Bloomberg did more for young minorities than all living Democrats combined. In New York City alone, at least 20,000 more black men are alive today than would be under the genius crime-fighting ideas of prior administrations (and The New York Times).

Unless liberal elites are pursuing a secret plan to reduce the black population by allowing young black men to kill one another (that would make a great movie by Jordan Peele!), stop-and-frisk is nothing to apologize for.

Well, guess what? Bloomberg apologized for it. He began his presidential campaign with a repudiation of his signature accomplishment in order to please a handful of black activists and a lot of white liberals. For that, he deserves the contempt of all men of good will.

Why not attack him for the gutless apology? Is Bloomberg sorry for saving so many black lives? Does becoming a Democrat make basic math incomprehensible? Is he a pandering coward? Can we trust anything he says?

But small-bore conservatives did what they always do: Give up winning a war in order to land a quick blow in a skirmish. They called Bloomberg’s earlier, logically insuperable point “RACIST!” Great, so now conservatives are adopting the absolute worst aspect of liberalism — calling everything “racist.”

As I wrote in 2016, when the media were going through their quadrennial demand that the Republican candidate for president “disavow” David Duke, these “racism” orgies never have anything to do with black people. It’s part of the Fabulous White People competition, where black people are the chips. 
If anything, the urge to call other people “racist” has only gotten stronger since then, so I’ll quote myself:

“Sad people with meaningless lives [are] suddenly empowered to condemn other people. I beat you in blacks yesterday; I’m going to beat you in women today. This is what makes them feel superior to other people, especially other white people. It’s not about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; it’s just a self-actualization movement for people with emotional issues.”

Why are conservatives leaping into this game? For the teeny-tiny pleasure of taking a cheap shot at Bloomberg, they are endorsing the idea that anyone who 1) grasps basic math and 2) is opposed to gun crime is a “racist.”

Our entire public dialogue will soon be nothing but white people calling one another “racist,” as if we’re trapped in an eternal Democratic presidential debate.

At the New Hampshire debate last Friday night, Tom Steyer — hedge fund manager and Hero to Black People Everywhere — kept hammering Joe Biden about some “racist” remark made by South Carolina State Sen. Dick Harpootlian, a Biden supporter.

“One of the leaders of Joe Biden’s South Carolina campaign,” Steyer said, “made racist remarks about someone associated with our campaign.” Steyer then repeatedly called on Biden to “disavow” the remark and the man who made it. “Be on the right side,” he implored.

The story: Harpootlian had tweeted that another South Carolina Democrat, state legislator Jerry Govan, flipped his support from Biden to Steyer after being paid “almost $50,000” by the Steyer campaign. Calling Steyer “Mr. Moneybags,” Harpootlian concluded, “This is what happens when billionaires get involved … They don’t have to persuade anybody, they just buy them.”

I’ve assembled a panel of black judges to rule on Harpootlian’s racism, and their response is: Keep reading. Get to the racism part.

Nope, that’s it! Govan is black, so pointing out that Steyer paid him $50,000 and got his endorsement is “racist.”

I would have gone with “anti-Semitic” myself, but what do I know? I guess I’ll check with the conservative “racism” fighters!

Ann Coulter OPED: Is There a Market Where I Can Short Liberals?


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 05, 2020 4:50 PM

Is There a Market Where I Can Short Liberals?

Source: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

It’s been a great week! In Iowa, the party that claims to be devoted to “science” and “technology” demonstrated that it couldn’t count to 10. Trump delivered a triumphant State of the Union address, highlighting all he’s done to make America great again — and attacking previous administrations for failing to do so. It was such a bravura performance that when he was finished, Speaker Nancy Pelosi childishly tore up his speech from the podium in a shocking breach of decorum.

Hours after the president’s address, he was scheduled to be “acquitted” in the Senate impeachment trial — if that’s the right word for a dismissal of the most absurd charges ever brought against a chief executive. After weeks of scurrilous accusations against him being made on the Senate floor, Trump’s job approval rating in Gallup polling has soared to 49 percent, the highest it’s been since he took office. He should ask Pelosi to impeach him again.

And the week is young! We should cap it off with something fun. For your gloating pleasure, let’s take a stroll down memory lane.

Liberals know nothing, but always express themselves with great bravado and certainty. These are people who claim to know exactly what the temperature will be a decade from now, but have trouble with what will happen next week. Their confident predictions are as useless as bill of impeachment or an Iowa vote count.

THE ECONOMY: As you’ve probably heard, the economy is booming under President Trump. Unemployment has fallen to historic lows, more than 7 million jobs have been created, and the stock market keeps setting new records.

“In preparation for a completely unpredictable Trump presidency, I sold all stocks in my kids’ education accounts today. I urge u to do same.” — Kurt Eichenwald on Twitter, Sept. 26, 2016

“[Trump’s] statements reveal a deep ignorance of economics … He promotes magical thinking and conspiracy theories over sober assessments of feasible economic policy options. … If elected, he poses a unique danger … to the prosperity of the country. For these reasons, we strongly recommend that you do not vote for Donald Trump.”— 790 economists, the week before the 2016 election. The esteemed signatories included a dozen Harvard professors and a slew of Nobel Prize winners, such as Angus Deaton of Princeton, Oliver Hart and Eric Maskin of Harvard, and Kenneth J. Arrow of Stanford, as well as four others evidently not interesting enough to be mentioned in articles about the letter. 

“It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? … [A] first-pass answer is never. … So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight.”— The New York Times’ Paul Krugman, Election Night 2016

THE MUSLIM BAN: On June 26, 2018, the United States Supreme Court upheld Trump’s “Muslim ban,” in an opinion that simply cited the law:

“By its plain language, Section 1182(f) [of the Immigration and Nationality Act] grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States. … It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry … whose entry to suspend … for how long … and on what conditions.

“The Proclamation falls well within this comprehensive delegation. The sole prerequisite set forth in S1182(f) is that the President ‘find[]’ that the entry of the covered aliens ‘would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.'” …

“[Y]our Muslim ban is unconstitutional.” — The New York Times’ Paul Krugman, Feb. 13, 2017

Ann Coulter OPED: Fully Automatic Media


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Jan 29, 2020 4:30 PM

Fully Automatic Media / Source: AP Photo/Sarah Rankin

The tedium of the impeachment trial has at least allowed me to catch up on my reading. Apparently, there was a peaceful gun rights rally in Virginia last week that had the media in a panic.

Today, I will explain how their hysteria about the gun rally is directly related to their hysteria about the Russians throwing the 2016 election with Facebook ads — or, as MSNBC’s Brian Williams put it, using Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to turn Americans against one another, psychological and information warfare, that didn’t stop with the election.”

First, the moral panic on guns:

“Virginia’s capital braces for gun-rights rally” — The Associated Press
“New fears tied to a pro-gun rally that’s scheduled in Virginia” — NBC News
“A gun rights rally in Richmond on MLK Day has people fearing a repeat of Charlottesville” — Richmond Times Dispatch

As we have come to expect, the “newspaper of record,” The New York Times, bested them all:

“Virginia Capital on Edge as F.B.I. Arrests Suspected Neo-Nazis Before Gun Rally”

Wow — neo-Nazis! Wait, what did the arrest of “neo-Nazis” have to do with the Virginia gun rally?

Not a thing, it turns out.

The FBI had arrested three white guys with guns in another state the week before the rally. One of the men was an illegal alien from Canada. Three of the four charges against the men had to do with his immigration status.

What does the arrest of an illegal alien and his accomplices in Maryland have to do with a gun rally in Virginia? As the Times explained, “Although the charges were not directly linked to the Richmond rally, law enforcement officials said the three men had discussed attending it.”

Here’s an idea for you, New York Times. Every time an African American is arrested for some infamous crime, cite that arrest in a headline claiming that people are “on edge” about a coming NAACP convention — or maybe a meeting of black scientists.

“Virginia Capital on Edge as F.B.I. Arrests R. Kelly Before NAACP Convention” (Just say Kelly had “discussed attending it”!)

The media are liars, and they know they’re liars. We’ve been having gun rights rallies forever, and they’ve never turned into murderous bacchanals. How about some flood-the-zone coverage of Big Foot sightings?

If journalists were serious about alerting the public to events that are likely to result in violence, they should check out the West Indian Carnival parade in New York.

The Wikipedia entry on the parade has a special listing for “incidents,” which I have fact-checked and edited for brevity:

— In 2003, a man was fatally shot and another was stabbed in the neck.
— In 2005, one man was shot and killed along the parade route.
— In 2006, one man was shot and another was stabbed.
— At the 2007 parade, a man was shot twice in the leg.
— In 2011, there was one murder, three stabbings and numerous shootings, including of a policeman.
— In 2012, two people were fatally stabbed; two others were shot.
— In 2013, several shootings killed two and wounded three.
— In 2015, at a pre-parade celebration, there was one fatal stabbing and one fatal shooting, when an aide to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Carey Gabay, was shot in the head. He died eight days later.
— In 2016, during pre-parade celebrations, four people were shot, two fatally, and two more were stabbed.

Under the bloodcurdling headline, “Playing and Swaying to Caribbean Rhythms,” the Times mentioned a few other incidents. In 2004, a man was stabbed and a woman was run over by a float. In 1999, two young children were killed by floats, and one man was killed by a sound truck.

Ann Coulter OPED: Impeachment Week: It’s OK to Be Bored; Not OK to Be White


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Jan 22, 2020 3:30 PM

URL of the original posting site: https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2020/01/22/impeachment-week-its-ok-to-be-bored-not-ok-to-be-white—p–n2559957

Impeachment Week: It's OK to Be Bored; Not OK to Be White

Source: AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

It’s weeks like this that make me wish I had a job and didn’t have to stay home watching TV. With the impeachment nonsense dragging into its 56th month, I have some random observations, only a few of which have anything to do with impeachment.

1) As tempting as it must be for Republican senators to make a headlong rush to the TV cameras at the conclusion of the day’s festivities, they would be well advised to say this, and only this, each night:

Here are the vital issues the United States Congress did NOT address today:

— Repairing our highways, bridges and border with a major infrastructure bill.

— Ensuring that all Americans can get jobs by cutting off the deluge of cheap foreign labor.

— Providing the public with quality services by not inviting the rest of the world to come partake of government benefits meant for Americans.

— Fixing the disaster of Obamacare, so that all Americans have access to quality health care (by activating the same mechanisms that give them quality food, housing and iPhones: the free market, contract law and occasional government subsidies).

— Passing a bill to defund all the pointless, expensive military deployments around the globe, so we can FINALLY address the hellfires in our own hemisphere.

— Ending the opioid crisis by declaring war on Mexican drug cartels and building a wall.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should attach electrodes to the testicles of every Republican and blast him the moment he (OR SHE!) diverges from the script.

2) The person I really feel sorry for is Nancy Pelosi. I assume she’s weeping uncontrollably as she watches her chances of holding the speakership dwindle every time Jerry Nadler waddles to the mic. True, you “go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want,” as Donald Rumsfeld said, but surely there are more telegenic Democrats than Nadler and Adam Schiff.

3) Every day since forever, The New York Times has run a column about how white people are getting on African Americans’ last nerve.

On Monday of this week, it was “How Much Racism Do You Face Every Day?”

Average for black teenager: 5x a day.

Example: Hearing about a family member who experiences something they described as racial discrimination.

And here’s one from Tuesday, titled: “How to Convince a White Realtor You’re Middle Class; Black people expend daily energy to counteract racial stereotypes and get fair treatment.”

The examples included a white real estate agent asking a slatternly attired black woman if she could afford a specific house, and a black woman claiming she was required to sign a “no party” pledge before checking into a Portland, Oregon, Marriott.

Also since forever, whites have been trying not to offend. Thus, on the same day as the racial stereotypes column, the Times ran an article about white Iowa voters terrified of picking a Democratic nominee whom black people won’t like.

It’s useless. No matter how hard they try, whites just can’t stop offending black people with their damned “microaggressions.”

My thought is, anyone of any race can commit “microaggressions” against people of other races. What we all should endeavor to do is avoid macro-aggressions — you know, little things like murder, rape, assault and carjacking.

4) Last week, 20-foot-tall letters appeared on the side of a barn in Southport, England, spelling out the phrase: “IT’S OK TO BE WHITE.” British papers went on red alert, denouncing the “[r]acist and anti-ethnic graffiti” that “[s]hocked” and “appalled” residents.

We understand and deeply apologize for such monstrous racism. Would any of these variants pass legal muster?

— It might be acceptable to be white, but we’re not sure, we’ll get back to you.

— While it is certainly never OK to be white, we hope you will accept our deepest apology.

— Whiteness is not for everybody, but to say it’s ‘OK’ to be white is not who we are.

If none of these are acceptable, please rest assured, we don’t mean to offend. Apologies all around! We’re all staying late at the office to figure this out. Food is being sent in as we speak …

At least we won’t have to watch impeachment news.

Ann Coulter: CNN and Fox News Report on the Rise of Hitler


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Jan 08, 2020 5:12 PM

CNN and Fox News Report on the Rise of Hitler / Source: AP Photo/Muhammad Sajjad

While listening to news reports of what a monstrous threat Iran is, I’ve been wracking my brain to think of a single terrorist attack in this country committed by an Iranian. If there is one, now would be a good time to mention it! But I can’t find any.

Nor any child rapes, Medicare frauds, heroin dealing or general anti-social behavior making life in America such a pleasure these days.

Even the 9/11 report could tie Iran to the attacks only on the thin reed of several hijackers passing through Iran on their way to the U.S. — where our customs officials welcomed all 19 of them with open arms.

Thirteen of the 19 terrorists had been given Florida drivers’ licenses. If we’re going back to 9/11, maybe Trump should consider dropping a drone on Jeb Bush.

To get killed by an Iranian — or even to be harassed by an Iranian — you have to go the Middle East.

Breaking News: Unrest in the Middle East!

Why is the solution to this problem always to gather up our best young men … and send them to the Middle East?

President George W. Bush tried to pacify that region of the world with the Iraq War. We see how well that worked.

By 2016, Americans were so sick of pointless Middle Eastern wars that even Trump’s ham-handed attacks on President Bush, saying he had “lied” about weapons of mass destruction, led to Trump’s landslide victory in the most hawkish state of the union: South Carolina.

But today, Americans are sitting at home being scared out of their wits by news reports of the “threat” Iran poses to their children, their homes, their commute to work, their very lives.

They can rest easy. It’s more likely that Mars will attack, and we didn’t just kill a Martian general.

Just in terms of American Lives Snuffed Out, the greatest threat to our country, hands down, comes from Mexico. Doesn’t “national security” have something to do with keeping Americans alive?

Mexican heroin killed at least 14,000 Americans last year. Mexican fentanyl and methamphetamine killed about 10,000 to 14,000. Hispanic drunk drivers — Mexicans or other Hispanics given safe passage to the U.S. through Mexico — kill about 3,000 Americans every year.

That’s not to mention the random murders, the Kate Steinles, the cartel and gang killings, and even the occasional mass murder committed by Mexicans in the U.S. (Look up Eduardo Sencion and Salvador Tapia.)

Number of Americans killed in their own country every year by Iranians: 0 that I know of.

Number of Americans killed in their own country every year by Mexicans: 30,000, by conservative estimate.

Can we get a little news coverage of that? Perhaps a short segment, now and then, on the undeclared war right here in our own hemisphere?

No, instead of ever mentioning the unprecedented transformation of our country from the most successful, prosperous nation on Earth to another failed Latin American state, we get nightly updates on Libya, ISIS, Syria and now Iran.

Summary: Wretched, violent primitives are sitting on mounds of oil, which, fortunately, we don’t need anymore, so this is of no interest to you, America.

Cable news networks lure liberals and conservatives into taking opposing sides of conflicts that have less bearing on our lives than one day of illegal immigration.

If Fox News and CNN had been broadcasting from Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, this is how I imagine they’d alert the public to the rising danger of Adolf Hitler:

— January 1933: Hitler appointed chancellor; the Reichstag begins process of transforming Weimar Republic into Nazi Germany.

FOX NEWS HEADLINE: PERU DEFENDS AMAZON RAINFOREST FROM COLOMBIA; MEDIA MELTDOWN OVER PERU’S FIRST LADY

CNN HEADLINE: COLOMBIA DEFENDS AMAZON RAINFOREST FROM PERU; POLL: MOST FOX VIEWERS CAN’T FIND COLOMBIA ON A MAP

— 1933-1939: Hitler reoccupies the Rhineland in violation of the Versailles Treaty, unifies with Austria and annexes parts of Czechoslovakia.

FOX NEWS HEADLINE: BOLIVIA ATTACKS PARAGUAY IN GRAN CHACO REGION

CNN HEADLINE: PARAGUAY ATTACKS BOLIVIA IN GRAN CHACO REGION

— 1939: Hitler invades Poland.

FOX NEWS HEADLINE: CNN REFUSES TO APOLOGIZE FOR FALSE REPORTING ABOUT CHACO WAR

CNN HEADLINE: FOX NEWS HOST LOST IN GRAN CHACO REGION

After 9/11, we went to war with two countries on the other side of the globe, spending trillions of dollars and sacrificing thousands of our greatest Americans because (mostly Saudi) immigrants killed 3,000 Americans. U.S. servicemen and women are still dying to avenge this single mass murder from two decades ago.

Mexico kills at least 10 times that many Americans every year.

Why on Earth are our media –- and our president –- consumed with “Whither Iran?” when hundreds of Americans are dying every day at the hands of the country sitting right next door?

Ann Coulter: Happy Kwanzaa! The Holiday Brought to You By the FBI


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Dec 24, 2019 12:01 AM

Happy Kwanzaa! The Holiday Brought to You By the FBI / Source: Pat West/Detroit Free Press via AP

Kwanzaa, celebrated exclusively by white liberals, is a fake holiday invented in 1966 by black radical/FBI stooge Ron Karenga — aka Dr. Maulana Karenga, founder of United Slaves, the violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural gibberish that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga’s United Slaves.

In what was ultimately a foolish gambit, during the madness of the ’60s, the FBI encouraged the most extreme black nationalist organizations in order to discredit and split the left. The more preposterous the group, the better. (It’s the same function MSNBC serves today.)

By that criterion, Karenga’s United Slaves was perfect.

Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of the ’60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. Although some of their most high-profile leaders were drug dealers and murderers, they did not seek armed revolution.

Those were the precepts of Karenga’s United Slaves. The United Slaves were proto-fascists, walking around in dashikis, gunning down Black Panthers and adopting invented “African” names. (I will not be shooting any Black Panthers this week because I am Kwanzaa-reform, and we are not that observant.)

It’s as if David Duke invented a holiday called “Anglika,” which he based on the philosophy of “Mein Kampf” — and clueless public schoolteachers began celebrating the made-up, racist holiday.

In the category of the-gentleman-doth-protest-too-much, back in the ’70s, Karenga was quick to criticize Nigerian newspapers that claimed that certain American black radicals were CIA operatives.

Now we know the truth: The FBI fueled the bloody rivalry between the Panthers and United Slaves. In the annals of the American ’60s, Karenga was the Father Gapon, stooge of the czarist police. Whether Karenga was a willing FBI dupe, or just a dupe, remains unclear.

But the left has forgotten the FBI’s tacit encouragement of this murderous black nationalist cult founded by the father of Kwanzaa.

In one barbarous outburst, Karenga’s United Slaves shot two Black Panthers to death on the UCLA campus: Al “Bunchy” Carter and John Huggins. Karenga himself served time — a useful stepping-stone for his current position as the chair of the Africana Studies Department at California State University at Long Beach.

(Speaking of which, the cheap labor lobby certainly was right about how the GOP could easily win over “socially conservative” minorities. Look at how California has swung decisively to the right since whites became a minority there. Good luck winning California now, Democrats!)

Back to the esteemed Cal State professor: Karenga’s invented holiday is a nutty blend of schmaltzy ’60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism. The seven principles of Kwanzaa are the very same seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another invention of The Worst Generation.

In 1974, Patty Hearst, kidnap victim-cum-SLA revolutionary, famously posed next to the banner of her alleged captors, a seven-headed cobra. Each snakehead stood for one of the SLA’s revolutionary principles: Umoja, Kujichagulia, Ujima, Ujamaa, Nia, Kuumba and Imani. These are the exact same seven “principles” of Kwanzaa, or “Kawaida,” as Karenga calls them. (And here’s something interesting: Kawaida, Kwanzaa and Kuumba are also the only three Kardashian sisters not to have their own shows on the E! network.)

Kwanzaa praises collectivism in every possible area of life. It takes a village to raise a police snitch.

When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy underlying Kwanzaa, from “classical Marxism,” he essentially said that, under Kawaida, we also hate whites.

While taking the “best of early Chinese and Cuban socialism” (is that the mass murder, the imprisonment of homosexuals or the forced labor?), Karenga said Kawaida practitioners believe one’s racial identity “determines life conditions, life chances and self-understanding.”

There’s an inclusive philosophy for you!

Sing to “Jingle Bells”:

Kwanzaa bells, dashikis sell

Whitey has to pay;

Burning, shooting, oh what fun

On this made-up holiday!

Kwanzaa emerged not from Africa, but from the FBI’s COINTELPRO. It is a holiday celebrated exclusively by idiot white liberals. Black people celebrate Christmas.

Merry Christmas, fellow Christians!

Ann Coulter Opinion: Article I: Remove This Beast From My Sight!


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Dec 18, 2019 6:04 PM

Article I: Remove This Beast From My Sight!

President Donald Trump / Source: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

In the history of politics, there is no precedent for the media’s entire focus to be on undoing the last presidential election. True, the left has wanted to impeach every Republican president, but at least they used to wait a decent interval between the inauguration and concocting some preposterous “impeachable offense.”

With Trump, it’s never been about anything he’s done. It’s him they can’t stand. The technical grounds for their impeachment is: REMOVE THIS MONSTER FROM MY SIGHT!

The left has gone from “literally shaking” on election night 2016, to “literally shaking” at Trump firing the FBI director (a.k.a. “his employee”), to “literally shaking” at Trump engaging in foreign policy.

On cable news, they’re still talking about Trump’s “Russia, if you’re listening” joke.

U.S. media: Proud not to get a joke.

The media pretend the president engaging in standard foreign policy is a big constitutional crisis. It is, but not the way they mean.

As explained in the seminal book on impeachment, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton,” impeachment is not for policy disputes. That’s why, in any five-minute span on cable TV, you will hear someone say that James Madison expressly rejected “maladministration” as a ground for impeachment at the Constitutional Convention. Otherwise, he said, “so vague a term” would mean the president could serve only at “the pleasure of the Senate.”

This isn’t a random quote, selectively plucked from the convention notes. It’s the entire point of our country.

In Great Britain, impeachments were used as a weapon against a king whose veto Parliament could not override. Impeachment was often the only way members of Parliament could express themselves on policy matters. They couldn’t block the king’s policies, but they could impeach his ministers for giving him “bad advice.”

As history buffs will recall, we fought a revolution to get rid of the king. No king — and Congress has plenty of tools for stymieing a president’s agenda and pushing their own, such as that thing that’s completely slipped their minds: enacting legislation.

Moreover, the president, unlike a king, would not govern by divine right, but by the consent of the people. Staging impeachments over policy disagreements is a logical absurdity under our Constitution.

Worse, the Democrats are impeaching Trump over his foreign policy, nearly the exclusive province of the commander in chief.

To be extra clear that they don’t care about the Constitution — much less the Founding Fathers, whom they keep solemnly invoking — the Democrats’ second article of impeachment against Trump is for “obstruction of Congress.” That is pretty much his job. How about impeaching a president for ordering a surprise military attack or appointing members of his Cabinet?

The Constitution gives each of the three branches devices to oppose the others. Congress can issue subpoenas, and the president can claim executive privilege. Then a court — probably the Supreme Court — will decide who wins.

Democrats have spent three years doing nothing but trying to obstruct the president. They’re indignant, scribbling up articles of impeachment, because he refuses to help them obstruct him.

The Supreme Court just took a case that will decide whether Trump can “obstruct” a House Committee from subpoenaing his financial records. So now it’s not just the executive branch, but the judicial branch, that’s obstructing the almighty, shall-not-be-defied legislative branch. I guess the House will have to impeach the Supreme Court, too.

At least they’re not wasting time passing any laws. That will save us the embarrassment of the House impeaching the president for vetoing a bill.

In an attempt to prove the wide acceptance of their insane ideas about impeachment, the media keep telling us that, as Mike Murphy put it, “if it was a secret vote, 30 Republican senators would vote to impeach Trump.” (In his defense, Murphy also thought Jeb! was going to be president.)

Murphy’s non-disprovable smear has been repeated all over — by E.J. Dionne at a Brookings Institute forum, on cable news shows, and in several articles in The New York Times just in the last week.

This drop-the-mic charge is one of most cynical and anti-democratic arguments you will ever hear. It’s rolled out as if it’s argument for impeachment, when in fact it’s an argument against.

The “secret vote” claim is the precise reason these people should never be anywhere near power — not even with a White House tour group. They think a presidential phone call should be broadcast on Netflix, but a senator should only vote in private, like having sexual relations.

I’m to vote in full view of the public? Oh, how awful!

Yes, I’m quite certain that most politicians would love to do things differently — if only they could be rid of the pesky rabble looking over their shoulders. I just didn’t think they’d be stupid enough to admit it.

Ann Coulter OPINION: Are Facts White Nationalist?


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Dec 04, 2019 4:00 PM

Are Facts White Nationalist?

Source: peterspiro/iStock/Getty Images Plus

I gather it would be proof positive of “white nationalism” to point out that the only group discriminated against in college admissions is white people. We’ve heard a lot about discrimination against Asians lately, which reminds me: Asians are SO lucky they’re not white! Otherwise, America’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, would be churning out reports on the worrying rise in Asian Supremacy.

In fact, however, a recent study by Georgetown University (probably White Nationalist), funded by the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation (presumed hate group), found that if colleges admitted students based solely on SAT scores, every single ethnic group would decline, except one: whites.

Yes, even fewer Asian students would be admitted on an SAT-only admission standard. (I presume this is because Asians have better GPAs than white students.)

Obviously, this was NOT the purpose of the study. I’m pretty sure it was supposed to ferret out some small pocket of racism that had somehow passed undenounced. But when the only race being discriminated against turned out to be whites, the study was locked in a lead casket and dropped to the bottom of the sea.

This isn’t a new phenomenon: The New York Times was writing about it 30 years ago. In the late 1980s, whites were about 62 percent of California’s high school graduates, but constituted only 45 percent of those admitted to its universities. As a university official told the Times, “Whites are the only group underrepresented.”

Today, the Times would be tracking down that official to make sure he was fired.

The lie of “white privilege” is treated as an implacable fact throughout our cultural institutions, no matter how manifestly absurd it is. Thus, in the discredited book “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” authors Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly act as if a half-Puerto Rican girl entering Yale in the 1980s deserves a place in the civil rights pantheon along with the Little Rock Nine.

[If it seems like that is the only New York Times article I’ve read this year, it practically is. Every counterfactual, hateful, lunatic impulse of the left was contained in that single book excerpt, so it’s all you need.]

The authors write: “Yale in the 1980s was in the early stages of integrating more minority students into its historically privileged white male population. The college had admitted its first black student in the 1850s, but by [Debbie] Ramirez’s time there, people of color comprised less than a fifth of the student body.”

How many POCs do Pogrebin and Kelly think should have been at Yale? According to the U.S. Census, the country barely reached 20 percent minority by the end of the 1980s. By miraculous coincidence, the ethnic composition of the Yale student body matched the country exactly. It’s almost as if the university was basing admissions on strict ethnic quotas!

It’s said that every generation thinks it invented sex. I say, every generation thinks it invented race and gender consciousness. Pogrebin and Kelly claim that “college campuses of the 1980s had yet to be galvanized by the identity and sexual politics that course through today’s cultural debates.”

Were they both in a coma in the 1980s?

In 1987, the year Ramirez and Kavanaugh graduated from Yale, Jesse Jackson led hundreds of protesters in a march on Stanford University chanting “Hey hey ho ho! Western Civ has got to go!”

The following year, the Times reported on a decades-long assault on the accepted canon of great literature as merely the choices of “elitist” “white men.”

Throughout the period that the authors imagine Yale was wall-to-wall white privilege, our media produced daily “Racism Updates,” leading to Joe Sobran’s parody of a New York Times headline: Earthquake Destroys New York; Women and Minorities Hit Hardest.

If Ramirez had applied to Yale Law School after college, she would have had a five times better chance of being admitted than a white applicant like Kavanaugh — simply because she had one Puerto Rican parent.

Talk about privilege!

This is based on a massive study of law school admissions in the 1990s conducted by Linda F. Wightman — again, intended to prove the opposite of what it actually did prove. Her study fell into the hands of Stephan Thernstrom, who analyzed the data, and his results were published in the New York University Law Review in 1998. (WHITE SUPREMACISTS, ALL!)

With the same grades and scores, Puerto Ricans were 5.3 times more likely to be admitted to a top-tier law school like Yale than a white applicant. Every ethnic group except whites got a boost — African Americans, Asians, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and “Other Hispanic.” The more prestigious the law school, the stronger the preferences.

To every color in the rainbow coalition: YOU’RE NOT BLACK! Affirmative action is supposed to be for the descendants of American slaves. See? We owe them something. Nobody else. Without the legacy of slavery, affirmative action is just institutionalized anti-white racism. By now, race discrimination against whites is de rigueur. Forget being embarrassed, this is race discrimination with attitude. And it’s all justified by the nonsensical phrase: “white privilege.”

If you mention it — citing such white nationalist front groups as Georgetown University, the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation, The New York Times and the New York University Law Review — you, too, could be a white nationalist.

Ann Coulter OPINION: Thanksgiving for Dummies…Sorry, I Mean College Professors


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Nov 27, 2019 3:45 PM

URL of the original posting site: https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2019/11/27/thanksgiving-for-dummies–sorry-i-mean-college-professors—p–n2557177

Thanksgiving for Dummies…Sorry, I Mean College Professors | Source: AP Photo/Steven Senne

As every contemporary school child knows, the first Thanksgiving took place in 1621, when our Pilgrim forefathers took a break from slaughtering Indigenous Peoples to invite them to dinner and infect them with smallpox, before embarking on their mission to fry the planet so that the world would end on Jan. 22, 2031. (Copyright: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)

Consider this description of the Pilgrims’ treatment of the Indigenous Peoples:

“They were the worst of conquerors. Inordinate pride, the lust of blood and dominion, were the mainsprings of their warfare; and their victories were strained with every excess of savage passion.”

You’ve probably guessed — unless you are an American college student — that that’s not a description of the Pilgrims’ treatment of Indigenous Peoples at all. It is a description of some Indigenous Peoples’ treatment of other Indigenous Peoples, provided by Francis Parkman, the world’s foremost Indian scholar.

It was Indians, not Pilgrims, who let out the “Mohawk war-cry” that made the blood run cold.

This is why the Wampanoag had a lot to celebrate that first Thanksgiving. They were delighted to have such excellent (European) allies against the terroristic Iroquois and Narragansett.

The Pilgrims also had much to be thankful for. Of more than 100 passengers aboard the Mayflower, only 44 survived the first winter, felled by scurvy, malnutrition and the bitter cold. Even the ones who made it did so largely thanks to the friendly Wampanoag, who shared their food with the Europeans and taught them how to till the land.

The Puritans, who came soon thereafter, so loved their Indian compatriots that the great missionary John Eliot translated sermons for the Algonquians in their own language. Indeed, the very first Bible printed in the Western Hemisphere was Eliot’s Massachusett-language Bible, published in 1663, titled “Mamusse Wunneetupanatamwe Up-Biblum God.”

(For those interested in Coulter arcana, Eliot was an assistant of Rev. Thomas Hooker, the same Puritan minister that my ancestors followed to the New World.)

The warm relations between Pilgrims and the (mostly) gentle Algonquins doesn’t fit the White Man Bad thesis that is the entire point of all history taught in America today. In fact, as any sane, reasonable person can probably surmise: Some white men were kind, and some were cruel. Some Indians were neighborly — and some were bloodthirsty killers.

Parkman describes a typical Iroquois celebration that would cap off a war raid on their fellow Indigenous Peoples:

“The village was alive with sudden commotion, and snatching sticks and stones, knives and hatchets, men, women and children, yelling like fiends let loose, swarmed out of the narrow portal, to visit upon the captives a foretaste of the deadlier torments in store for them …. [W]ith brandished torch and firebrand, the frenzied multitude closed around their victim. The pen shrinks to write, the heart sickens to conceive, the fierceness of [the captive’s] agony … The work was done, the blackened trunk was flung to the dogs, and, with clamorous shouts and hootings, the murderers sought to drive away the spirit of their victim.”

The Iroquois, he writes, “reckoned these barbarities among their most exquisite enjoyments.”

[ASIDE: Compare Parkman’s thrilling passage to droning cliches like, “While America’s indigenous population at large is underrepresented in politics and popular culture, Native women are even more marginalized” (a current Harvard offering), and you’ll understand why the kids don’t like to read anymore.]

And here’s an Iroquois practice that university professors might want to steal and ascribe to the White Man — don’t worry, your students aren’t bright enough to figure out that you’re lying to them.

After killing “a sufficient number of captives,” Parkman says, the Iroquois “spared the lives of the remainder, and adopted them as members of their confederated tribes, separating wives from husbands, and children from parents, and distributing them among different villages, in order that old ties and associations might be more completely broken up.” JUST LIKE TRUMP!!!

Here’s one for the Womyn’s Studies Department: Having completely conquered the Lenape, the Iroquois humiliated the survivors by making them take women’s names.

Before the first European stepped off Mayflower, the Iroquois’ genocidal wars against their fellow Indians had already depopulated large parts of New England. Their murderous raids had scattered the farming tribes in all directions, often to their demise. “Northern New Hampshire, the whole of Vermont and Western Massachusetts had no human tenants but the roving hunter or prowling warrior,” Parkman writes.

The irony of the moron’s version of Thanksgiving is that the brave and honorable attributes of the American Indian are drained from all the PC stories. In the made-up history, Indians are only pathetic.

By contrast, the true story told by Parkman shows both the savagery and superstition, but also the courage and honor. Thus, for example, the Hurons “held it disgraceful to turn from the face of an enemy when the fortunes of the fight were adverse.” As the Indian captive of the Iroquois was being tortured alive, Parkman reports, he raises his voice in “scorn and defiance.” How’s that for machismo?

That’s the reason we name our sports teams and military armaments after Indians. It’s a tribute to their honor, intelligence and bravery. It’s why Americans love to boast of having Indian blood — even when it’s not true (and not only in order to land a professorship at Harvard).

But that’s not the image the left wants for Indians. Oh, no. They want to re-brand Indians as loser victims, in need of liberals’ tender ministrations.

Real Americans honor Indians and also honor the courageous Pilgrim settlers who brought Christian civilization to a continent, a miraculous union that we celebrate on this wonderful holiday. Happy Thanksgiving!

OPINION: How to Get Into Harvard Without Good S.A.T. Scores!


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Nov 13, 2019 4:50 PM

How to Get Into Harvard Without Good S.A.T. Scores!

Harvard/Source: AP Photo/Charles Krupa

If you’re looking for a shortcut to get your kid into a prestigious college, but your little one doesn’t have high enough cheekbones to claim to be an Indian, consider the petal-strewn path of the newly elected San Francisco district attorney, Chesa Boudin.

Chesa’s sparkling credentials are: He is the son of celebrated cop-killers Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert! That was enough to win him admission to Yale, Oxford and Yale Law School.

His mother consciously parlayed her way to success by becoming a violent revolutionary after realizing that she wasn’t going to set the world on fire with her SAT and LSAT scores.

Poor Kathy couldn’t get into Oberlin — and then she couldn’t get into Yale Law. She was terrified of “losing her place” as her father Leonard Boudin’s “most cherished offspring,” as Susan Braudy put it in her book, Family Circle: The Boudins and the Aristocracy of the Left. (All this is covered in lascivious detail in my book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.)

By contrast, Kathy’s brother, Michael — the Republican — had nearly perfect board scores, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College, went on to Harvard Law School, worked for a white-shoe law firm, then took a top position in the Reagan administration. Today, he is a federal appeals court judge, appointed by the first President Bush.

The only thing Kathy could do to impress her father — and our nation’s elite institutions — was to become a domestic terrorist.

It worked. Her parents showily displayed Kathy’s motorcycle helmet from her participation in the “Days of Rage” in Chicago. Jean Boudin’s “pride in her aristocratic position on the left,” Braudy writes, made her “the match of any Palm Beach hostess.”

In addition to the “Days of Rage,” which left a Democratic politician paralyzed, Kathy was part of the Weather Underground brain trust that blew up a Greenwich Village townhouse in 1970, killing three of the radicals. The bomb they were building was intended to kill servicemen and their dates at a Fort Dix dance. With body parts flying and walls collapsing around her, Kathy made it out of the house one step ahead of the police.

Again, Kathy’s parents were delighted with the townhouse bombing. Her mother had always envied the owners for their wealth, anyway. Her father thought seeing his daughter on FBI “wanted” posters was “good for his legend.”

As luck would have it, going underground after the townhouse explosion finally gave Kathy an excuse to get a nose job. She also dyed her hair bright red, mimicking Bernadine Dohrn, born Bernadine Ohrnstein. (These revolutionaries would engage in sex orgies to “smash monogamy,” but one convention the gritty radicals adhered to was the WASP ideal of beauty and gentrified names.)

The only thing that terrified Kathy, Braudy says, was that “if stripped of her glamorous and dramatic revolutionary attachments and subterfuges, she would be the dullest person in Leonard’s circle of admirers. … She would be a woman, no longer young, whose work was waiting tables and cleaning houses.”

In fact, that’s exactly what she was. While Kathy and David play-acted being on the run, the FBI wasn’t even looking for them anymore. A newspaper in Wisconsin published David Gilbert’s whereabouts and — OH MY GOSH … nothing happened. “No one arrested him,” Braudy writes; the “authorities weren’t interested in him.”

It was time for drastic action. Those LSAT scores weren’t going to bury themselves. So in 1981, Kathy conspired with violent drug-addicted members of the Black Liberation Army to rob a Brinks armored truck in Rockland County, New York. They wanted drug money and she wanted fame.

At the Nanuet Mall, her BLA co-conspirators murdered Brinks guard Peter Paige and wounded two others, then hopped in the getaway truck being driven by Kathy and David.

The truck was stopped by the police minutes later, but 38-year-old Kathy emerged from the truck’s cab, playing an innocent housewife, frightened by all the guns. She begged the perplexed police to lower their weapons. No sooner were their firearms holstered than six BLA members leapt out, guns blazing. They instantly killed the force’s only black officer, Waverly Brown. Sergeant Edward O’Grady died a few hours later on the operating table.

She’d done it. Kathy was a bona fide success! In jail, she received a string of celebrity visitors and fawning journalists. There would be documentaries, glorious write-ups, Oscar nominations and poetry awards.

After decades of recounting her sufferings since the robbery that left Brown dead, Kathy was told that Brown’s son still attended the memorial service held for his father and Sgt. O’Grady at 4 p.m. every Oct. 20.

“Really?” Kathy said. “I never knew the guy had a son.”

According to our betters, that’s an “idealist.”

She was granted parole in 2003 — supported by none other than William F. Buckley. (The elites circle the wagons!) Soon she was a professor at Columbia University and director of the school’s Center for Justice.

These status-obsessed Yale rejects became “radicals” in order to win a lifetime of good press and cushy academic positions unavailable to them any other way.

Look at David Hogg, rejected from a half-dozen non-elite schools, only to be accepted by Harvard — all for raising his scrawny little arm in a preposterous one-arm salute after a speech denouncing the National Rifle Association. True, Hogg’s SAT score (1270) was far below that of the average Harvard student (1484). It was even below that of recruited athletes at Harvard (1297). But he had turned himself into a left-wing activist just in the nick of time. Harvard here I come!

The two “idealists” who raised Chesa Boudin were William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. On account of putting a bomb in the Pentagon, Ayers became a distinguished professor of education and senior university scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago. For praising the Manson family and leading a group of protesters in a little ditty that mocked the government official paralyzed during the “Days of Rage” rampage, Dohrn was made a professor at Northwestern University School of Law.

Another leftist celebrity, Susan Rosenberg, had conspired to kill cops, blow up buildings and rob a Brinks truck; she was sentenced to 58 years in prison for felony murder and possession of more than 700 pounds of explosives. She was pardoned by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.

A couple years later, Rosenberg was offered a teaching position at Hamilton College. Apart from her fondness for bombs and cop-killing, Rosenberg’s credentials consisted of: a master’s degree in writing from a correspondence course in prison.

Oh, by the way, when Kathy Boudin was finally arrested after the Brinks robbery, the police searching her Morningside Drive apartment found, amid the food stamps and welfare forms, Kathy’s application to New York University Law School.

It’s one thing to say a person shouldn’t be punished for the sins of his parents. But America’s elite institutions treat cop-killing — even merely being the child of cop-killers — as the equivalent of being a star athlete or getting double-800s on your SATs.

Say, instead of forcing taxpayers to take on the burden of student debt, how about letting the colleges eat their own student loans?

California Dems Show Us the Future. Run For Your Lives.


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Nov 06, 2019 4:30 PM

California Governor Gavin Newsom, California Dems Show Us the Future. Run For Your Lives. Source: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

In this column, I will prove that Democrats:

1) Don’t care about “Russians,” (Ukrainians?) or anyone else interfering with our democracy; and

2) they also don’t give a crap about guns.

Let’s begin by looking at the Democrats’ Platonic ideal of a democracy: California!

California is wholly controlled by the Democratic Party. The governor is a Democrat. The lieutenant governor is a Democrat. The attorney general, secretary of state and treasurer are Democrats. All these positions have been held by Democrats since the governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger (who was a Democrat). The state Senate is just under two-thirds Democratic, while the assembly is more than two-thirds Democratic. Both U.S. senators are Democrats, as are 46 of 53 members of Congress.

And what a paradise they’ve created! For the last several years, with a direct pipeline to the fifth-largest treasury on the planet, California has been waging war on decent people in favor of drug addicts, the mentally ill, criminals, the homeless and transgenders.

In the last century, every great thing started in California: surfing, jeans, Disneyland, tax revolts, McDonald’s, movies, car culture, the Grateful Dead, right on red turns, Merle Haggard, skateboarding, Apple computer and the last two elected Republican presidents not named “Bush.”

Big political movements used to begin in California. Proposition 13’s cap on property taxes led to President Ronald Reagan and a nationwide tax revolt. Proposition 209’s ban on affirmative action was followed by Supreme Court rulings restricting the government’s ability to discriminate on the basis of race. California’s anti-crime rebellion, including a massive prison expansion and the voters’ removal of liberal lunatic Rose Bird from the state’s highest court, foreshadowed an anti-crime pushback across the country.

These days, the only California-originated idea to sweep the nation is: banning plastic straws. The state is a calamity. Its optimism and vigor are gone. Instead of “The Golden State,” California is now “The Human Excrement State.”

Let’s just pray that California is no longer a window into our future.

People are leaving the state in droves — and more than half of those who remain say they’d like to leave, according to a survey published in The San Francisco Gate earlier this year.

In every census but one, since California has been a state — from 1850 right up to 2010 — its population grew so much that the state added congressional seats. The only exception was in 1920, when the congressional delegation remained static, but then the state added nine new seats in 1930.

After the last census in 2010, California’s congressional delegation was unchanged. With the 2020 census, it’s expected to lose at least one seat and possibly two, according to Public Policy Institute of California. (If the federal government followed the Constitution and counted only citizens, it would lose a lot more than that.)

It takes single-minded fanaticism to wreck California. Within the borders of a single state, you can visit Yosemite, the Pacific Ocean, Death Valley, redwood forests, the snow-capped Sierras and the pastoral vineyards of Napa and Sonoma, and go to the beach on Christmas Day.

But starting with Gray Davis’ refusal in 1999 to appeal an activist judge’s announcement that it was “unconstitutional” for taxpayers not to give welfare to illegal immigrants — an initiative that had passed overwhelmingly just a few years earlier — California’s elected officials began an all-out war on its own citizens.

Democrats are worried about “Russians” interfering with our elections? California Democrats simply ignore elections.

The most clear-cut evidence that Democrats do not care about democracy is Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent decision to halt the death penalty (unless administered by an illegal alien, as in the case of Kate Steinle). I doubt any other state’s voters have been more emphatic about their support for the death penalty than Californians, voting for it in statewide initiatives in 1972, 1978, 2012 and again in 2016 — just three years ago. But earlier this year, Gov. Newsom flagrantly disregarded the voters’ repeated endorsement of capital sentences and single-handedly imposed a moratorium on the death penalty.

Forget Facebook ads. Who cares if Russians hack into our voting machines and change the vote totals? Democrats are going to ignore the results anyway. Their vaunted concern for the sanctity of our elections is so much horse crap.

It’s the same with guns. This September, during a fiery debate on guns, the left demanded “red-flag laws” to take guns away from citizens after having their politics, their writings, their previous exercise of free speech examined on a granular level by bureaucrats empowered to revise the Bill of Rights. In the middle of that debate, Gov. Newsom commuted the sentences of 21 convicted felons — almost all of whom were serving lengthy terms for murder or attempted murder with a gun.

And get this: Newsom specifically cited the unfairness of enhancing a criminal’s sentence merely because he used a gun when committing a crime. 

Innocent people walking the street right now — playing basketball, eating at vegan restaurants, going bowling — better enjoy themselves. Some number of them will soon have their lives snuffed out because of the governor’s willful decision to begin the process of releasing people who have already committed violence with guns. Liberals don’t care about guns in the hands of violent criminals. They’re coming after the guns of conservatives.

We’re horrified by people who commit violence with firearms. They’re horrified by people who haven’t committed any violence and never will — but who engage in speech displeasing to Democrats.

Like a magician revealing his trick, the governor of California provided the proof, making it absolutely clear that Democrats don’t give a fig for democracy and aren’t disturbed in the slightest by gun violence.

Ann Coulter Opinion: Please, Please More Democratic Debates!


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Oct 16, 2019 5:15 PM

Beto at the debate | Source: AP Photo/John Minchillo

With all the rancor in politics these days, the CNN/New York Times Democratic debate on Tuesday night delivered a rare moment of comity: Twelve Democrats agreed, apparently without compensation, to appear in a Donald Trump ad.
Other points on which the Democrats came together in peace and harmony:
— Trump should be impeached.
— Abortion is great.
— Obamacare sucks.

At least we’re all finally agreed on Obamacare! Obamacare has given us a system — to quote Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont — “which is dysfunctional, which is cruel, 87 million uninsured, 30,000 people dying every single year, 500,000 people going bankrupt for one reason, they came down with cancer.” None of the Democrats disagreed with Sanders’ description of health care in American today, although they have slightly different solutions. I don’t mean to be rude, but I thought Obamacare was supposed to fix health care.

Millions of us were thrown off our health insurance plans by Obamacare, and now I find out that it didn’t even make things better for anyone else. The government intervenes, everything goes to hell, then Democrats cite the hell they created to demand another massive government intervention.

The motto of all socialist schemes should be: “This time, it will be different.”

The Democrats’ universal answer to the drug problem — which is actually a “Mexico Is on Our Border” problem — is to say they’d go after the pharmaceutical companies and then, in the next breath, demand that we legalize drugs.

In the midst of their crusading anger at the pharmaceutical companies, not one Democrat mentioned Purdue Pharma. You know — the primary culprit in the prescription drug epidemic, at least according to dozens of state attorneys general and hundreds of private lawsuits accusing the company of aggressively marketing OxyContin and hiding its addictive nature?

The Democrats are furious with pharmaceutical companies, “wealthy corporations” (Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s phrase) and “the rich” (any guy with an alarm clock). But not with a specific multibillion-dollar company that makes OxyContin, and the kazillionaire family that owns it, the Sacklers.

Speaking of which, last year, Beverly Sackler, the recently deceased matriarch of the company, made political contributions to both Sen. Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.

Some poor medical researcher working to find a cure for cancer will have to pay — but the Sacklers get off scot-free.

Another big policy disagreement concerned guns, specifically: Do we allow people to turn in their guns voluntarily or should the government confiscate them?

As with liberals’ comical inability to tell an AK-47 from a semiautomatic, the gun facts flying around Tuesday night were not always well-researched. Beto O’Rourke said, “This is a country that loses 40,000 of our fellow Americans every year to gun violence.” Wow. Not even close. According to the CDC, the number was less than 15,000 in 2017.

To liven things up, at one point, a smug Pete Buttigieg snapped at O’Rourke, “And I don’t need lessons from you on courage, political or personal.” This was in response to remarks not at all about Buttigieg’s courage. That’s gonna get old, fast.

Vice President Joe Biden bragged that he was “the only one on this stage who has taken on the NRA and beat them, and beat them twice. We were able to get assault weapons off the streets …”

Yes, and in direct response to that assault weapons ban opposed by the NRA, Republicans swept Congress in the very next election, winning control of the House for the first time in nearly half a century.

If you weren’t alive that glorious autumn evening in 1994, it was better than the November 2016 election. All night, there was breaking news, as one powerhouse Democrat after another lost his seat to a Republican. Every 15 minutes the GOP would set some new, jaw-dropping record. Thomas Foley, D-Wash., became the first speaker of the House to lose his election in 134 years. Republicans marched through the South like William Tecumseh Sherman, finishing off the “southern Democrats.” Tennessee went all red, with Republicans replacing the Democratic governor and two Democratic senators — including the Senate seat previously held by Vice President Al Gore. Not one Republican incumbent lost his seat.

Please, Joe, promise to “beat” the NRA again!

BUTTIGIEG: “No, this is really important, OK? On guns, we are this close to an assault weapons ban.”

This message was approved by Trump 2020.

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

Opinion: Luckily, Dems Never Have ‘Personal, Political’ Motives


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Oct 10, 2019 9:30 AM

Luckily, Dems Never Have ‘Personal, Political’ Motives | Source: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Today we will answer the question: May a president ask a foreign country to investigate corruption if it serves his “personal, political” interests? The “personal, political” angle is the last gasp of the impeachment hysterics. (I’m looking at you, Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio), Susan Collins (Maine), Mitt Romney (Utah) and Ben Sasse (Nebraska).)

Yes, Donald Trump is, technically, “president,” and, yes, former Vice President Joe Biden used his government position to withhold foreign aid until the president of Ukraine fired a prosecutor looking into a company paying Biden’s drug addict son millions of dollars for mysterious reasons. But, the impeachment fanatics assert, by asking a foreign leader to assist in an otherwise legitimate corruption investigation, Trump has committed a monstrous crime — because he was pursuing a “personal political interest.” To wit: Trump was trying to harm his political opponent, Joe Biden.

Apart from the blindingly obvious fact that you can’t commit crimes and then escape justice simply by running for president, Democrats take official government action for “personal, political” reasons all the time. Frequently, they do so for the sole purpose of harming their political opponents.

President Barack Obama’s IRS investigated and harassed conservative groups for years, using the most fearsome arm of the government to punish political enemies — for personal, political reasons. Then his Department of Justice refused to prosecute the corrupt officials, which, I believe, was again for — yes, it was personal, political reasons.

How about the Obama administration’s endless investigations of Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson? As was obvious from the outset, Officer Wilson had done absolutely nothing wrong when he fatally shot Mike Brown — something even Obama’s corrupt, subpoena-defying attorney general, Eric Holder, had to concede after reviewing all the evidence.

Those massive Department of Justice investigations were undertaken to gin up the Democratic base in order to help Hillary, who proceeded to honor Mike Brown’s mother on stage at the Democratic National Convention.

In the most perfect example of a president demanding investigations for no other purpose than serving a “personal, political” interest, in 1999, when Hillary was gearing up to run for the Senate from New York against Mayor Rudy Giuliani, President Bill Clinton (her husband) launched investigation after investigation into the crown jewel of the Giuliani administration, the NYPD.

In 1999, as the NYPD was virtually eliminating crime in New York City, there were a grand total of 11 fatal shootings by police officers. That’s 0.28 fatal shootings for every 1,000 officers.

In Washington, D.C., that year, there were four times as many fatal police shootings — 1.14 per 1,000 cops. In Houston, the number was 1.68. In San Diego, it was 4.36.

In the end, Giuliani withdrew from the race to treat his prostate cancer, but when President Clinton was demanding these investigations, Rudy was crushing Hillary both in the polls and in political contributions.

Speaking of whom, Hillary used her position as secretary of state to overthrow Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi, leading to the murder of a U.S. ambassador and several other Americans in Benghazi, as well as creating the refugee crisis currently engulfing Western Europe — all for her own personal, political reasons.

As was dramatically revealed in Hillary’s email exchanges with her unofficial adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, her motive for deposing Qaddafi was to display her foreign policy chops, apart from that lunkhead Obama, who was, as Blumenthal sneered, “intent on seizing defeat from the jaws of victory.”

Blumenthal egged on Hillary to keep the pressure on Qaddafi, promising her a major political win. When Qaddafi was ousted, Blumenthal exulted: “First, brava! You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. … You are vindicated.”

Soon thereafter, Qaddafi was beaten to death in the desert by rebels who posted graphic video of the murder online. Cackling with delight at the initial reports, Hillary positioned herself alongside Julius Caesar: “We came. We saw. He died.”

Most obviously, the Obama administration’s entire illegal FBI surveillance of the Trump campaign was undertaken for personal, political purposes. We’ve been waiting for three years to hear some legitimate reason for the FBI’s surveillance of the Trump campaign. At this point, I think it’s fair to say, we’re not getting one.

The Obama administration spent millions of dollars and millions of man-hours on a purely political investigation to hurt Trump and help elect Hillary.

As long as you mention it, the House Democrats’ investigation of Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian president has been undertaken for personal political reasons, too. So was Biden’s withholding of a $1 billion check from the president of Ukraine to protect his son’s sleazy business deal.

We can play the “personal, political motive” game all day long!

At least when Republicans do it, the Middle East doesn’t explode in jihadist fury, the crime rate doesn’t skyrocket, people don’t die or lose their livelihoods — and there’s real corruption being exposed.

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

You Ask a Lot of Questions for a President


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Oct 02, 2019 4:12 PM

You Ask a Lot of Questions for a President | Source: AP Photo/Evan Vucci

This column will explain the impeachment farce in two minutes. By the end, you will thank the media for demanding the release of Trump’s phone calls with the presidents of Ukraine and Australia.

What the phone transcripts demonstrate is that — unlike the typical Republican — Trump is not a let-bygones-be-bygones sort. He intends to find out who turned the FBI into a Hillary super PAC, using the powers of the nation’s “premiere law enforcement agency” (according to them) to take out a presidential candidate, and then a president.

The whole picture becomes clear when you have the timeline.

Instead of the FBI just admitting that it launched the Russia probe to help elect Hillary, the agency has given us a scrolling series of excuses for this partisan attack. The FBI’s first claim was that it was merely investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s email servers. As part of that effort, it was, naturally, obligated to spy on the Trump campaign.

Then we found out that the John le Carre theory of Hillary’s defeat was based exclusively on the word of a single cybersecurity firm. Yes, the FBI was SO frantic about the DNC’s servers … that it didn’t bother examining them itself. I repeat: The FBI never touched the DNC’s servers.

And who did? CrowdStrike. Who was CrowdStrike? A Ukrainian-backed cybersecurity firm.

That’s why Trump asked the Ukrainian president about CrowdStrike –- the company behind the first of the FBI’s many excuses for spying on Trump.

On Jan. 10, 2017 — before Trump was even inaugurated — FBI Director James Comey breathed new life into the Russian collusion story by leaking news about the infamous Russian “dossier.”

Hurray! The media were ecstatic. For the next 10 months, we got breathless reports about how this very important, totally credible, deeply concerning dossier might force Trump out of the White House! <

E.g.:

— “I remember pretty distinctly that you supported President Trump’s criticism of this dossier … Do you want to dial back that criticism now?” — CNN’s Kate Bolduan to former Rep. Pete Hoekstra, April 19, 2017
— “If the dossier is now about to be publicly defended and explained and backed up, I mean, that’s conceivably the whole ball game.” — MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Aug. 23, 2017

This rather important datum was coughed up not by the media, but only in response to a court order. Good work, “watchdog media”! Nothing gets past you guys.

Suddenly the dossier wasn’t important at all. Where did Republicans get that idea?

At this point, the FBI had to scramble to come up with an all-new explanation for why the bureau had put more than 100 agents — according to NBC News’ Ken Dilanian –- on an investigation of a presidential candidate. (Luckily, the bureau had lots of time, having already vanquished international terrorism.)

Within a matter of days, on Oct. 30, the media was bristling with the news that the real reason the FBI put G-Men on the Trump campaign was: George Papadopoulos.

(Don’t stop reading! The sun is about come out and all will be clear.)

Up until Oct. 24, the media had barely mentioned the young campaign aide. But starting on Oct. 30, Papadopoulos became the lynchpin of the whole Trump-Russia conspiracy. It was a heavy lift. Papadopoulos had only met Trump once and, as The New York Times admitted, was “so green that he listed Model United Nations in his qualifications.”

A few months later, in December 2017, the Russian collusion fairy tale took a hit when texts from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page showed FBI operatives at the heart of the so-called “investigation” vowing to use federal law enforcement resources to “stop” Trump.

The FBI began frantically pumping up the Papadopoulos angle, telling the Times that it was their gob-smacking discovery in the summer of 2016 that Papadopoulos may have had “inside information” about Russia “hacking” the DNC’s email that was a “driving factor” in the bureau’s opening of the Russia-Trump investigation.

So THAT’S why the nation’s No. 1 law enforcement agency had 100 agents investigating the Trump campaign! It sure took them a long time to come up with a reason.

Pending results from Trump’s phone call with the Australian president, Papadopoulos remains the FBI’s current excuse for an “investigation” that wasted four years, millions of dollars and, in the end, turned up nada.

The story was, in the summer of 2016, Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom Alexander Downer contacted the FBI claiming that Papadopoulos had admitted to him during a night of drinking that he knew the Russians had Hillary’s emails. Two months later, Wikileaks began posting the DNC’s emails!

HOW ELSE CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT, UNLESS TRUMP WAS COLLUDING WITH RUSSIA?

I can explain it.

When Papadopoulos was blabbing to the Australian about the Russians having Hillary’s emails, everyone was talking about the Russians having Hillary’s emails — CNN, The Guardian, even ABC’s “The View.” (See Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind.) Papadopoulos’ “source” probably read it in The New York Times.

Perhaps Downer is always completely oblivious to international news. Perhaps he spends too much time drinking with 28-year-olds.

Trump’s phone call with the president of Australia, released this week, suggests that we just might get to the bottom of the big Alexander Downer tipoff — the FBI’s latest cover story.

Now you know why all of official Washington, D.C., is screaming: IMPEACH! They don’t want you to find out that America’s “premiere law enforcement agency” tried to throw a presidential election and destroy a presidency.

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

The Transcript We Really Want to See


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 25, 2019 7:04 PM

The Transcript We Really Want to See | Joe and Hunter Biden | Source: AP Photo/Nick Wass

Editor’s note: The following column contains graphic language.

The transcript of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky is yet another illustration of the rule: Never ask a question you don’t know the answer to.

But on the basis of one drama queen’s overreaction to a rumor she’d heard about what was said on a phone call she didn’t hear (I’m assuming the whistleblower is Christine Blasey Ford), the Democrats have launched impeachment proceedings against the president.

I guess they figured it’s easier than flying to South Dakota with picks and chisels and carving Trump into Mount Rushmore. But it will have the same effect.

Now that the transcript has been released, it’s The New York Times that doesn’t want anyone to see it.

The transcript I’d like to see is the one of Nancy Pelosi reading the Trump transcript. 

F@@@@@@CK! Whose f***ing idea was it to demand this goddamn transcript?
F@CK!
F@@CK!
F@@@CK!

The absolute worst version for Trump — i.e. the one being repeated non-stop on MSNBC — is that he did exactly what Obama and Biden were doing to Ukraine: intimidating an ally into giving us something in exchange for the foreign aid we were giving them.

Biden himself bragged about getting Ukraine’s prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold a big fat check from them.

The Democrats’ argument is: No, no, no! When WE were pressuring Ukraine, we were doing it for good! Don’t you understand? We’re good; they’re bad.

The other reason the media are going to have to bury this transcript is that Trump brought up a few items that the media have been hoping the public would never find out about.

Trump said: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”

Well, that’s something the media haven’t mentioned before. Ninety-nine percent of Americans will be hearing about the funny business with Biden’s son, Hunter, for the first time with the release of this transcript.

Why did Vice President Biden order the Ukrainian president to fire the prosecutor investigating the Ukrainian company paying his son millions of dollars? Are Democrats claiming that this company was clean as a whistle and it was an absolute OUTRAGE that it was being investigated?

The second issue the media does not want anyone to think about is CrowdStrike.

What is CrowdStrike, you ask? That is the cybersecurity firm that is the sole source of the claim that the Russians hacked the DNC’s emails — which launched the conspiracy theories that tied our country in knots for the past three years.

The Russian collusion story was originally hatched by Hillary Clinton in the summer of 2016 to cover up the utter corruption revealed by the dump of Democratic National Committee emails on Wikileaks. As was her practice whenever a scandal threatened to engulf her, Hillary rushed out and told the press to investigate something else.

And “the great story” about the DNC email hack wasn’t about a “vast right-wing conspiracy” — as she claimed when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. No, this time, it was a vast Russian conspiracy!

At the time, the entire media laughed at Hillary’s Russian conspiracy nonsense — The New York Times, New York Newsday, the Los Angeles Times and so on. But then Trump won the election, and suddenly the Russia conspiracy seemed totally believable. What else could explain how Americans could put this boob in the White House?

The subsequent three years of breathless Russia coverage was based entirely on the word of one cybersecurity firm, CrowdStrike, that the DNC’s emails had been hacked by Russia.

Recall that the DNC wouldn’t allow the FBI or any other U.S. government official anywhere near its computers. That’s precisely why so many cybersecurity experts doubted that it was the Russians: The FBI was never allowed to perform its own investigation.

CrowdStrike was founded by Ukrainian Dmitri Alperovitch (now an American citizen apparently — because who isn’t?) and funded by the fanatically anti-Russian Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk Foundation.

Talk about interfering with our democracy! Alperovitch and Pinchuk sent one political party and nine-tenths of the American media off on a wild goose chase into Russian collusion that, after years of accusations, investigations and embarrassing conspiracy-mongering … turned up goose eggs.

The entire Russian insanity was launched by a couple of Ukrainians. I think a lot of us would like to get to the bottom of that.

This is why Trump said to President Zelensky: “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

(How’d you like to be the Ukrainian translator for a Trump conversation?)

Trump has been justly criticized for hiring his daughter and son-in-law at the White House. But at least when he pressures a foreign leader for a favor, it’s to investigate corruption, not to get a prosecutor off his son’s back. Maybe Biden’s son was guilty, maybe he was innocent. But it is a fact that Joe Biden held up foreign aid to a desperately needy ally in exchange for their halting prosecution that implicated his son. It’s not Trump’s fault that Biden is now running for president.

I’ll give the Democrats this: They’ve gotten so good at trying to remove Trump from office that, instead of three years, their insane accusations blow up in their faces within a week.

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

Ann Coulter Alert: Mass Incarceration Saved Black America


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 11, 2019 5:28 PM

Mass Incarceration Saved Black America / Source: LightFieldStudios/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Brooklyn hipsters blithely go about their business, completely unaware that their trendy neighborhoods were war zones in the 1970s, 1980s — and well into the 1990s. Walking those streets meant you were taking your life into your hands.

Thanks to Republicans’ aggressive law-and-order policies, today, most U.S. cities are astonishingly safe. Crime is at its lowest level in decades. Life is possible again!

But Joe Biden, the leading Democratic candidate for president, is said to be hurt by the fact that, as The New York Times puts it, “he championed the 1994 crime bill that many experts now associate with mass incarceration.”

Point One: What’s the matter with “mass incarceration”?

Are we supposed to stop incarcerating people who commit crimes? Is that the argument? If there are hundreds of innocent people in prison, why do liberals keep giving us the fake sob stories — the cases they lie about, forcing me to look up the facts, as illustrated in several of my recent columns?

Point Two: By “many experts,” the Times means “raving lunatics we keep on speed-dial for when we need a quote we agree with.

In fact, the only theory by which Biden’s crime bill — technically the “Clinton Crime Bill” — attacked crime was by ushering in the first Republican Congress in 40 years, as a result of including the “assault weapons” ban in the bill.

In the very next election, just two months after the bill was signed, long-serving Democrats lost their seats, one after another after another.

Apart from that, the 1994 Crime Bill didn’t do much. There was “midnight basketball”; the “Violence Against Women Act” (feminist nonsense, later held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court); loads of pointless federal funding for local law enforcement; innumerable death penalties added for capital offenses committed on this or that federal property; and the aforementioned “assault weapons ban,” or “Gift From God to the GOP.”

But Biden and Clinton were at least savvy enough to know that Democrats had to try to steal the crime issue from Republicans, even if only with meaningless gestures.

As with all the left’s insane ideas, they’re packaging this as an attack on “racism.” Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, for a reminder of who bears the brunt of cretinous liberal crime policies.

In the late 1980s, it was the Congressional Black Caucus that was demanding tougher policies in the war on drugs. At a three-day Congressional Black Caucus Legislative Weekend in September 1989, Rep. Charlie Rangel held hearing after hearing on the devastation crack cocaine was raining on the black community.

The CBC being Democrats, the gist of the hearing was to attack President George H.W. Bush … for not fighting the war on drugs with sufficient ferocity. Thus, Rev. Jesse Jackson testified:

“(P)resident Bush’s plan … greatly underestimates the military arsenals and viciousness of the drug lords and pushers who not only have deadly firepower from AK-47s to Uzis, superior to the weapons of the police, they have a reckless attitude and no respect for human life. …

“(Drug) pushers are terrorists. Those who consume drugs are engaged in treason against themselves, their families and their communities. …

“We demand a right to volunteer in the army — (audience applause) — to fight a war on drugs.”

Throughout the 1980s, The New York Times was full of reports about the scourge of crack cocaine in neighborhoods “where Americans — especially minorities — do worst.”

There were stories of dealers preying on “poor blacks” who “coughed up enough $5 bills” for a vial of crack; an account of two little girls in the Bronx, children of crack-addicted mothers, “resorting to prostitution and falling prey to a (65-year-old) neighborhood man for $5 or $10”; and reports of dealers who “offered two-for-one deals and ‘Mother’s Day’ specials timed to coincide with the arrival of welfare checks.”

A Washington Post-ABC News Poll, taken after President Bush gave a speech in 1989 announcing his “War on Drugs,” showed that 68% of black respondents approved of his plan — or six times as many as voted for him. While only about half of white respondents characterized drugs as a “crisis” in their neighborhoods, two-thirds of African Americans did.

And then, in 1993, Rudy Giuliani became mayor of New York and saved the “ungovernable city.” By the end of his two terms in office, murders in the city — mostly blacks killing other blacks — had been slashed from about 2,500 a year to 900. With subsequent mayors continuing his policies, whether with enthusiasm or out of fear of the voters, the murder rate has continued to fall.

Thousands of black people are alive today who otherwise would not be because of Giuliani’s tough-on-crime policies. As the Rev. Calvin Butts, pastor of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church, put it, without Giuliani, “we would have been overrun.”

If Jordan Peele wants a new idea for a conspiracy movie involving race, how about this one: Powerful liberals conspire to kill off black Americans and replace them with Mexicans by pushing lenient crime policies that put violent criminals into black neighborhoods, while simultaneously demanding open-borders immigration policies.

He can pick up some script ideas this Thursday, at the third Democratic presidential debate.

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

Ann Coulter: Could I Get All That Illegal ‘To Go’?


Commentary by Ann Coulter | posted: Aug 28, 2019 6:10 PM

Could I Get All That Illegal ‘To Go’? / Source: AP Photo/John Bazemore

As we head into the long Labor Day weekend, here are two tips to make your holiday even more cheerful. 

First: Remember to watch out for drunk driving illegal aliens!

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a report after report showing that Hispanics are wildly overrepresented in drunk driving accidents (but also contribute so much to our cultural life, musical heritage and landscape!).

Or, as the Huffington Post puts it: “Latinos At Greater Risk of Dying From Driving While Intoxicated.” They’re victims of the drunk driving epidemic! German Concentration Camp Guards At Greater Risk of Dying From Accidental Inhalation of Zyklon B.

One NHTSA report elaborated on the inebriated Latino driver problem:

“The authors found that some Latino parents actively promoted drinking among their sons as a sign of masculinity or machismo. (A focus group) indicated drinking among Hispanics might be motivated by the need to prove their manhood within the Latino culture: ‘Everyone thinks they can handle alcohol, especially men.’ … ‘A lot of Hispanics think that way. It’s the macho male and the woman gives in to the man. Machismo causes this behavior.’”

The report also stated, “Mexican-American DWI offenders vastly overestimated the number of drinks required to make them unsafe drivers (eight to 10 drinks).”

It’s unclear if the NHTSA’s methodology took into account the effects of Cinco de Mayo.

Naturally, it would be outrageous to conclude from this that drunk driving is the national sport of Mexico. However, last year alone, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported 80,730 illegals for drunk driving, the majority of them Mexicans.

As the Houston Chronicle delicately put it a few years ago: “Young Hispanic men not getting message about drinking, driving.” crashing, burning, their ashes being spread across Cuernavaca …

Thanks to its proximity to Mexico, Texas leads the nation in fatal drunk driving accidents, including those involving a blood alcohol content of 0.15 or greater — nearly double the legal limit. In 2014, young Latinos were responsible for about one-third of all DUI accidents in Houston — 535 — though they made up only 8 percent of the population.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell sneered at President Trump’s June 2018 meeting with family members of Americans killed by illegals, saying most of their dead kids were killed in traffic accidents. As if that doesn’t count.

Yeah, that must have been rough, some real Brian Williams stuff there. But Don Rosenberg finding out his 25-year-old son had been run over, backed over and then run over again by an illegal alien — well, that’s just a “traffic accident.”

Our media have no idea who Don Rosenberg is, and no interest in finding out. Their concern for “children” is limited to the ones they can exploit to get their way on illegal immigration. They wail about “children separated from their parents,” but it would be a dream come true for the “Angel Mom” parents if their kids were merely separated from them for six months — or six years! — if only they could see them again, ever.

You know what else is kind of traumatic? Being wedged into the false panel of a truck with a breathing tube before traversing hundreds of miles of rough terrain to make it to the U.S. border. These parents did that to their kids.

The New York Times, too, nonchalantly mentioned that the kids of some of the families at Trump’s White House meeting “died in car accidents.” They just died. Car accidents happen all the time.

Yes, traffic accidents can be caused by anyone — especially a sh*t-faced illegal going 80 miles per hour on a residential street. Internet scams happen all the time, so, let’s take in more Nigerians!

The point is, these particular drunk drivers never should have been here in the first place.

Tricia Taylor didn’t die, but the 18-year-old had to have her legs amputated almost to the hip after a drunk driving illegal alien from El Salvador swerved his car onto a sidewalk in Pontiac, Michigan, and rammed her against the wall. It was a miracle that she lived, suffering through multiple surgeries and a lifetime of pain medications. At Jose Carcamo’s sentencing, Taylor said, “What you give him won’t come close to the sentence he gave me for the rest of my life.”

D.J. and Wendy Corcoran began 2019 by burying their 22-year-old son, Pierce, senselessly killed when a 44-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, Francisco Eduardo Franco-Cambrany, swerved headfirst across a double yellow line, straight into oncoming traffic. Echoing the media, Alexander De La Espriella tweeted of Pierce’s horrible death, “Accidents happen, by anyone to anyone … ” — as quoted in the Knoxville News. At least we didn’t have to hear about the great tacos this time.

Six-year-old Annie Cumpston was walking hand-in-hand with her mother in 2003, after attending the Ringling Brothers Circus in Baltimore with her family, when a drunk Mexican plowed into the crosswalk, killing the little girl. The intoxicated illegal, Guillermo Diaz-Lopez, fled the scene, dragging a pedestrian on his truck, and was finally apprehended while trying to break through a police barrier.

Today, you can visit “Annie’s Playground,” a beautiful 60,000-square-foot wonderland built in the victim’s honor in Fallston, Maryland — at least until Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris demand its demolition to show their support for “undocumented immigrants.”

Second friendly holiday tip: Always remember — diversity is a strength!

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

Ann Coulter Alert: Why the New York Times Is Unreformable and Must Die


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 21, 2019 4:00 PM

Why the New York Times Is Unreformable and Must Die Source: AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

Even before The New York Times launched its “All Slavery, All the Time” project, no one could accuse that paper of skimping on its race coverage, particularly stories about black males killed by white(ish) police officers.

Here’s one you haven’t heard about. I happened upon it by sheer accident.

Antwon Rose II was a 17-year-old boy shot by an East Pittsburgh police officer in June 2018 after he bolted from a jitney car that had been stopped by the officer. The Times published about a half-dozen stories on Antwon Rose — or as the Times calls him, “Antwon, who was unarmed.”

After the officer was acquitted on all charges in March of this year, the Times ran an article by Adeel Hassan on the verdict.

Here’s what you would learn from the Times:

— Antwon was unarmed.

— Antwon “was in his high school’s honors program.”

— Antwon “played basketball and the saxophone.”

— Antwon “volunteered for a local charity.”

— In 2016, Antwon wrote a poem titled, “I Am Not What You Think!” which included these lines:

I see mothers bury their sons

I want my Mom to never feel that pain.

— A policeman stopped the gold Chevy Cruze Antwon “was riding in” because it “matched the description” of a car “involved” in a drive-by shooting minutes earlier.

— The jury consisted of nine whites and three African Americans.

If you read the Times piece, all you would know is that an honor student who loved his mom…was KILLED for the crime of riding in a car similar to one that had just been used in a crime.

Wow. Just wow.

Here are some of the facts the Times left out:

— The gold Chevy Cruze Antwon fled did not merely “match the description of” a car used in a drive-by shooting: It was the car used in the drive-by shooting, as proved by surveillance video posted online days after the shooting and shown to the jury.

— The video shows 13 shots being fired from the back seat of that exact car, with — according to the prosecutor — Antwon riding in the front seat.

— The backseat passenger, Zaijuan Hester, later pleaded guilty to the drive-by shooting.

— One of the victims of the drive-by shooting told police it was Antwon who shot him. “The beef was between me and him,” William Ross told a Pennsylvania State Police officer. “That car came by, he shot me, I ran to the store.”

— The jitney driver told police that, right before the shooting started, he heard the backseat passenger ask, “Is that him?”

— The gun used in the drive-by was recovered in the back seat of the car.

— A stolen gun was found under Antwon’s seat, an empty magazine in Antwon’s pants pocket, and there was gunpowder residue on Antwon’s hands.

— The car stopped by the officer was riddled with bullet holes.

— The jury that unanimously acquitted the officer was led by an African American foreman, who stoutly defended the verdict.

None of that made it into the Times story on the trial’s conclusion.

I’m glad that Antwon did charity work, but isn’t it rather more important that he had participated in a drive-by shooting of two other black guys 13 minutes before being stopped by a police officer?

That’s not conjecture or speculation. Hassan wasn’t writing about the case the day after the shooting. These are facts that were presented in court and copiously reported by the local media — even in the British press.

Normal Person to The New York Times: Why did you say the car “matched the description” of the car used in a drive-by shooting — but not say that it WAS the car used in the drive-by shooting?

NYT: I’m sorry, who are you and do you have a press pass?

Normal Person: You didn’t mention that a stolen gun was found under Antwon’s seat and a matching cartridge in Antwon’s pocket???

NYT: We only have so much space and I needed room for Antwon’s poem.

Normal Person: You didn’t have space to say that gun residue was found on Antwon’s hands?

NYT: I could have run more of the poem. It was a good poem.

Normal Person: Or that one of the victims of the drive-by said Antwon was the one who shot him?

NYT: The officer didn’t know that.

Normal Person: Did the officer know about Antwon’s A.P. classes? It goes to the likelihood of his behavior being perceived as threatening. The officer could certainly see that the car’s back window had been shot out.

NYT: You’re a white supremacist and white nationalist and, yes, I know they’re different, but you’re both.

There’s no reason to think this isn’t standard operating procedure at the Times. The editors can’t say, OK, OK, that one got past us! 

The Times has told wild lies about the racist shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri (false), the racist arrest of Freddie Gray in Baltimore (false), the racist shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida (false), the racist gang-rape of a black stripper by a Duke lacrosse team (false) and so on.

Antwon Rose’s shooting wasn’t even a flood-the-zone, hair-on-fire story. But the Times lied about it, too.

This is a newspaper that cannot be trusted on anything touching on race. They’re liars and ideologues, not reporters and editors.

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

Ann Coulter Alert: What the El Paso Shooter Learned from Immigrants


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 14, 2019 4:15 PM

What the El Paso Shooter Learned from Immigrants Source: AP Photo/Andres Leighton

I know who filled the El Paso mass shooter’s head with murderous thoughts! Contrary to the conclusions of The New York Times’ Jeremy Peters, it wasn’t me and other conservatives. Peters says we caused Patrick Crusius’ monstrous shooting spree by calling illegal immigrants streaming across our border “invaders.” It seems that Crusius’ “manifesto” also called illegal aliens “invaders.” You see? We used the word “invaders” — and so did he! CHECKMATE!

I could say it’s the Times that inspired Crusius’ slaughter, inasmuch as other parts of his manifesto complained about “the increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right.” But I’m bigger than that, New York Times.

(Also, Peters, you lied about my quote, and you know it. I was not proposing that we shoot illegals at the border. I was pointing out the idiocy of Trump’s sending troops there at all, when they are not going to shoot anyone — in lieu of the simple, elegant and entirely nonviolent solution of the wall which I, and 62 million other Americans, voted for.)

Actually, there’s another much more obvious source of Crusius’ noxious beliefs than conservative commentators — or even the hateful New York Times. The shooter’s primary motive was, as he put it, to “(defend) my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.” So he had an ethnic reason and a territorial reason.

Who is constantly bragging about their ethnic group? Who makes territorial claims on America on behalf of their ethnic group?

Crusius’ manifesto included lots of chauvinistic boasting about his people, saying his family had been here a long time “and America is the better for it, so I claim the right to reside here by manifest destiny, for myself, my cousins and uncles and children.”

He also had some nasty remarks about immigrants, saying they had “despoiled” his homeland, making it “unsafe and unlivable.”

No, wait — my mistake! That wasn’t Crusius at all. He said nothing about the virtues of his own ethnic group.

I was quoting Indian immigrant Suketu Mehta’s column in The Washington Post earlier this month, titled, “I Am an Uppity Immigrant. Don’t Expect Me To Be ‘Grateful.'” Mehta, who is — you’d never guess! — a professor, droned on about the superiority of his ethnic group, claiming dibs on America for his entire extended family. He raged about the wrongs done to his native country by the United States, as well as to the homelands of Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. Apparently, that’s why they all moved here. To nag us to death.

Chicano university professors and student groups speak of “reconquista,” claiming ownership of the entire American Southwest, which they call “Aztlan.” This is based on the idea that it was once occupied by the ancient Aztecs, and Mexicans are descended from the Aztecs. (Who wouldn’t want to be related to enthusiastic practitioners of human sacrifice?)

“This was our land,” Armando Navarro told the Los Angeles Times in 2006, exulting at the “re-Mexicanization” of much of American territory — or as he calls it, “Occupied Aztlan.” He gloated that “a new majority is forming. Everything will change. The White House will be within our reach. We might have to change the name to the Brown House.”

Navarro was not speaking from his jail cell after being arrested for a hate crime. He was speaking from his cushy office as chairman of the Ethnic Studies Department at the University of California, Riverside.

Similarly, Roberto Rodriguez, University of Wisconsin professor (!), told the Times: “Mexicans can never be alien because we are native people. We are part of a civilization that never went away. We all belong here.”

I suppose it would be impolitic to point out that, with last names like Navarro and Rodriquez, the one thing we know is that these guys are descended from Spanish conquistador rapists.

The student group MEChA — Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan — was formed 50 years ago with the claim that “Aztlan (i.e. the entire Southwest) belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans.” There are Mexican activist groups with names like “Mexicans Without Borders” and “La Raza,” or “The Race.” (Motto: “Por la raza todo, fuera de la raza nada” — “For the race, everything; outside the race, nothing.”)

During the periodic eruptions of illegal immigrants in California, mobs of illegals wave the Mexican flag, fly the U.S. flag upside down and chant crowd-pleasers like, “Who are you calling ‘immigrant,’ pilgrim?”

When the “re-Mexicanization” of California was just getting underway back in the 1990s, Los Angeles City Council member Mike Hernandez gave a rousing speech to Hispanic activists, saying: “We are Mexicans. Mexico, some of us say, is the country this land used to belong to! In Los Angeles, there are 900,000 non-citizens. Everybody in Los Angeles should be eligible to vote.” 

These attitudes were the driving force behind the El Paso killer’s mass murder. The New York Times doesn’t have any objections when immigrants talk this way. Is it wrong — or is the Times on the other team?

In any event, thanks to immigrants, all Americans are learning the vital importance of ethnic chauvinism and territorial sovereignty for your own ethnic group. The epitaph on the El Paso Walmart mass shooting should be: Diversity is a strength! 

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

Ann Coulter Letter: Mueller Has a Reputation…


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 24, 2019 4:50 PM

URL of the original posting site: https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2019/07/24/mueller-has-a-reputation—p–n2550571

Mueller Has a Reputation...

Source: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

It is apparently part of Robert Mueller’s contract with the media that he must always be described as “honorable” and a “lifelong Republican.” (After this week, we can add “dazed and confused” to his appellation.)

If it matters that Mueller is a “lifelong Republican,” then I guess it matters that he hired a team of left-wing zealots. Of the 17 lawyers in Mueller’s office, 14 are registered Democrats. Not one is a registered Republican. In total, they have donated more than $60,000 to Democratic candidates.

Congressman Steve Chabot listed the Democratic political activism of nine of Mueller’s staff attorneys at a December 2017 House hearing.

Here are a few from Chabot’s list:

— Kyle Freeny contributed to both Obama campaigns and to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
— Andrew Goldstein donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns.
— Elizabeth Prelogar contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.
— Jeannie Rhee donated $16,000 to Democrats, contributed $5,400 to the Clinton campaign — and represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits.
— Andrew Weissmann contributed $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee, $2,300 to the Obama campaign and $2,300 to the Clinton Campaign.

None had donated to the Trump campaign.

The media brushed off the conspicuous anti-Trump bias in Mueller’s office with platitudes about how prosecutors are, “allowed to have political opinions,” as Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assured the public that their “views are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office.”

Obviously, no one believes this — otherwise “lifelong Republican” wouldn’t be spot-welded to Mueller’s name.

In a fiery rebuke at the hearings this week, Mueller denounced complaints about all the diehard Democrats on his legal team, saying, “I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done.”

No kidding. He’s been director of the FBI. He’s been acting U.S. deputy attorney general. He’s been a U.S. attorney. He’s never been an independent counsel investigating the president before.

But lawyers on a special counsel’s investigation of the president of the United States aren’t supposed to be hungry. They’re supposed to be fair.

As for Mueller being “honorable,” Steven Hatfill and the late Sen. Ted Stevens might beg to differ.

After the 2001 anthrax attacks, the FBI, under Director Mueller’s close supervision, spent SEVEN YEARS pursuing Hatfill, a U.S. Army biodefense researcher. Year after year, the real culprit went about his life undisturbed — until he committed suicide when, at last, the FBI zeroed in on him.

Mueller was deeply involved in the anthrax investigation, recruiting the lead investigator on the case and working “in lockstep” with him, according to a book on the case, “The Mirage Man” by David Willman.

During this multi-year investigation of the wrong man, Mueller assured Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as two U.S. senators that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer. Presciently, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz asked then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey if he was sure Hatfill wasn’t another Richard Jewell, an innocent man who, a few years earlier, had been publicly identified by the FBI as the main Olympic bombing suspect. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain that it was Hatfill.”

Recommended

Good Riddance To Bob Mueller

Kurt Schlichter

The hounding of Steven Hatfill finally ended in 2008, with the bureau paying the poor man millions of dollars. In open court, a federal judge, Reggie B. Walton, assailed Mueller’s FBI for its handling of the case. Far from apologizing, the director stoutly defended the bureau’s relentless pursuit of the blameless Hatfill, saying: “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation.” He said it would be incorrect “to say there were mistakes.”

Maybe he can use that line to defend the similarly monomaniacal zealots he put on the Russia investigation.

Eight days before the 2008 elections, the government convicted Sen. Stevens of failing to properly report gifts on his Senate financial forms. The longest-serving Republican in Senate history lost his re-election by less than 2 percent of the vote.

Months later — too late for Stevens’ political career — Obama Attorney General Eric Holder moved for a dismissal of all charges against Stevens after discovering that the government had failed to turn over crucial exculpatory evidence. The trial judge not only threw out the charges, but angrily ordered an independent counsel to investigate the investigators.

Unlike the disastrous Hatfill case, the extent of Mueller’s oversight of the Stevens investigation is less clear. Was he aware of the bureau’s malicious pursuit of a sitting U.S. senator on the eve of his re-election? Either he was, which is awful, or he wasn’t — which is worse.

In addition to “honorable,” another way of describing Mueller is: “Too Corrupt for Eric Holder.” 

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

The Ann Coulter Letter: When the MSM Say Someone Is in Prison for a Minor Drug Crime, They’re Always Lying


Commentary Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 17, 2019 3:08 PM

When the MSM Say Someone Is in Prison for a Minor Drug Crime, They’re Always Lying

Source: JANIFEST/iStock/Getty Images Plus

 
 Over the weekend, NBC News investigative reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell appeared on MSNBC’s “Kasie DC” to tell the story of Bill Underwood, loving parent and prison mentor, who has already spent nearly 30 years in prison for a nonviolent drug crime.
 
 Caldwell reported:
 
 “William Underwood, now 65 years old, was sentenced to life in prison without parole for a nonviolent drug-related crime. It was his first felony, but in the middle of the tough-on-crime era, the judge showed no leniency. With no hope of ever walking free again, Underwood has made the best of his time in prison, mentoring others and staying devoted to his children and grandchildren, as (his daughter) Ebony fights for his release.”
 
 Another black body in prison for mere possession of a joint!
 
 Actually, no one is in prison anywhere for possession of a joint, except in the pea-brain fantasies of chubby college coeds everywhere. We don’t have the prison space.
 
 NBC’s Caldwell interviewed Underwood, noting how “for 30 years from inside prison walls, he still tried to be a father first.” The poor man concurred, saying, “That’s all I was ever taught, you know? Children first, first, foremost. That’s what I try to emulate.”
 
 Can it be long before Ivanka pops up, lobbying for his release?
 
Despite what I’m sure was an exhaustive investigation, I was suspicious of Caldwell’s characterization of Underwood’s crime. My rule is: If you’re not telling me why someone was sentenced to life in prison, there’s probably a reason you’re not telling me.
 
 All we got from Caldwell was: Here’s this great father behind bars; He just got caught up in something, we’re really not sure what it was — and here’s his daughter, Ebony, to tell us what a terrific father he is.

Considering that she’s arguing for Underwood’s immediate release into the general public, it seems odd that Caldwell doesn’t know what he’s in prison for, nor does she have the slightest interest in finding out.
 
 Maybe at NBC they don’t have access to the internet. But I do! I spent a full 60 seconds doing a Nexis search on William Underwood.
 
 Here are some excerpts from a Newsday article on Underwood’s conviction, dated Jan. 10, 1990:
 
 “A rock band manager was convicted yesterday as the head of a vicious Harlem drug gang that prosecutors said carried out six murders, including the controversial slaying of a witness in 1983.”
 
 Caldwell didn’t bother to mention Underwood’s SIX MURDERS?

NBC: We don’t have room for everything. These stories are only so long.
 
 “William Underwood, 36, faces up to life in prison without parole for his conviction in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on charges of racketeering and operating a continuing criminal enterprise — the so-called federal narcotics ‘kingpin’ law.”
 
 It’s weird that Caldwell never managed to turn up the fact that he was convicted of being the kingpin of a drug empire, distributing heroin throughout Harlem in the 1980s. “Yes, your honor, I was convicted of operating a CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE — but it’s my first offense.”
 
 “A federal jury found him guilty of heading the murderous and now-broken Vigilantes drug gang … known for extraordinary violence. All told, police say, it may have killed as many as 23 people.”
 
 I feel like Caldwell may not have gone the extra mile in researching this story.
 
 The evidence against Underwood included the testimony of 50 witnesses, undercover video-recordings and confessions of Vigilante gang members — which is especially impressive, considering that he ordered the murder of witnesses preparing to testify against him. (I guess he couldn’t kill all 50.) In addition to killing witnesses, Underwood’s outfit killed customers, members of rival drug gangs and innocent passersby.
 
 In a 1988 article titled, “Brutal Drug Gangs Wage War of Terror in Upper Manhattan,” The New York Times reported that Underwood’s heroin operation was “considered by law-enforcement experts to be the most dangerous drug gang in Harlem.” All told, the gangs were “believed to be responsible for as many as 523 slayings in upper Manhattan in the last five years.”
 
 That’s lots of black bodies.
 
 Having completely lied about these crimes – deliberately withholding this information is lying — NBC then brought out Sen. Cory Booker as the lonely voice of sanity in the Kafka-esque nightmare that is Underwood’s life.
 
 Booker, who is running for president, has introduced legislation that would allow anyone in prison for more than 10 years, such as Underwood, to petition for release — thus, requiring the state to prove its case all over again.
 
 But sadly, Caldwell said, “Booker has an uphill battle on passing the bill.”
 
 She asked Booker the question on everyone’s mind: “If you are president and this legislation has not passed before then, would you offer clemency to someone like William Underwood?”
 
 Booker responded: “Hell yes, hell yes. I told you, it should disturb all of us that there are people like Mr. Underwood in prison.”
 
 What’s disturbs all of us is that this guy is running for president and clearly — we hope! — hasn’t looked into Underwood’s case.
 
 This is the left’s famous two-step on criminal punishment:
 
 1. Oppose the death penalty on the grounds that “life in prison without possibility of parole” is just as good;
 
 2. Wait a few years for all the witnesses to die or move away, and then demand the convict’s release on the basis of absolutely no information about his crime.
 
 William Underwood was tried and convicted of being the kingpin of a bloody drug empire that terrorized Harlem throughout the 1980s. Thanks to federal prosecutions wrapping up operations like Underwood’s, now there are coffee shops, restaurants and multi-million-dollar brownstones in Harlem.
 
 But if you’re an investigative reporter for NBC or a Democratic presidential candidate and don’t check the facts, his case goes in the “life imprisonment for a single joint” file.
 
 Just remember: Whenever you read about a guy in prison for a “nonviolent drug-related crime,” they’re lying. 

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

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.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: White Supremacists Ate My Homework


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

By finally returning to the issue that won him the election, President Trump once again has a winning hand. That’s why we’re hearing so much about “white supremacy” this week. Liberals lie all the time, but when they know they’re vulnerable they lie even more than all the time. They’re vulnerable on immigration. Even heroic, nonstop lying doesn’t help — as CNN has discovered.

So, naturally, the media have turned to their larger project of relentlessly trying to discredit conservatives as “white supremacists.” Unfortunately for them, apart from a few crackpots — whom I assume exist in a country of 320 million people — there are no “white supremacists.” There were white supremacists 50 years ago, and they were all Democrats. (See my book Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama.)

Today, “white supremacy” is nothing but a comfortable fantasy the left developed to explain its sick preoccupation with white people. Talk about a manufactured crisis! The same people who love to snicker about Fox News viewers worrying about Sharia law sweeping the country are convinced that mythical “white supremacists” are hiding under every bed.

The whole concept is bogus. In my life, I’ve encountered a number of white people — some of them are my best friends. I’ve never heard any of them suggest that whites should rule over other races. None of them has argued that a substandard white person should get a job over a more competent person just because he’s white — you know, what every other group openly advocates for itself.

There is a whole swath of journalists who have decided that instead of investigating relevant news, they will spend their time doing oppo-research on prominent conservatives, hoping against hope to call them “racists.” If the facts don’t fit, they’ll make them up. The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd once famously imagined a Republican congressman calling Obama “boy.”

This week, Newsweek’s Nina Burleigh (“I’d be happy to give (Bill Clinton) a b—job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal”) casually asked to interview me about “white identity politics.” I have nothing to do with “white identity politics.” I don’t know anyone who knows anyone who even knows what that means. (Nor do I know anyone who’s seen a copy of Newsweek in at least a decade.) When will we get around to talking about the media’s actual hatred of whites?

Last year, The New York Times hired Sarah Jeong, a Korean journalist who has posted such venomous anti-white tweets as:

“White men are bullshit.”

“(F)**k white women lol.”

“White people have stopped breeding. (Y)ou’ll all go extinct soon. (T)hat was my plan all along.”

“Dumbass f**king white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

“#CancelWhitePeople.”

“Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?”

“(O)h man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”

There’s no question but that such racist attacks would never be tolerated toward any other group. Jeong never apologized and happily took her seat on the Times’ editorial board.

Our cultural institutions regard the statement “It’s okay to be white” as hate speech. Colleges instigate investigations whenever signs with that phrase appear on campus. Second-graders in this country are being indoctrinated into “white privilege” ideology.

Eventually people get tired of the left’s fixation on “white people” -– the gratuitous dumping on Western civilization, the incessant sneering about “old white men,” and the nonsense about “white privilege,” as if every white person knows every other white person and is greased into jobs and promotions.

But if you ever respond to the hate by noting that the contributions from the parts of the world loathed by The New York Times dwarf the contributions of other cultures, they threaten you. Any references to white male accomplishments are merely defensive.

Consider the current Gillette ad, “We Believe: The Best Men Can Be” (after the board of directors rejected the more accurate title, “ANNOUNCEMENT TO SHAREHOLDERS: WE’RE FOLDING THE COMPANY”). The ad shows only white men harassing women — and being corrected by minority men.

As long as they brought it up, every culture in the universe is galaxies more misogynistic than Western European culture. The ad should have been titled, Hey, white America, you’ve got to stop doing the things that everyone BUT you does.

When other groups talk about themselves, they instantly go to: We rock, we’re awesome! Only the descendants of white Western Europeans are not allowed to be proud of their culture.

There is still casual racism, and that should be quickly and severely condemned. Iowa Rep. Steve King, for example, was fanatically obsessed with vindicating a white defendant accused of, first, murdering a half-Pakistani woman, and, second, falsely accusing a Congolese man of the murder.

Except King never did that. Newsweek’s Burleigh did, writing an entire book in defense of alabaster-white Amanda Knox, after she was convicted of the brutal murder of her half-Pakistani roommate — later overturned — and also convicted of falsely accusing an innocent Congolese man of the crime, for which she served four years.

Liberals could never, in a million years, survive the standards of “racism” applied to conservatives. Even famed defense attorney Alan Dershowitz said that the only reason journalists defended “Foxy Knoxy” was that “she’s pretty and she doesn’t look like she did it and Americans care about what people look like. She’s the all-American young woman and we don’t care about the evidence.”

If you want to know about white supremacy, Nina, interview yourself. After that, maybe you can learn your maid’s name.

I’m getting back to the subject you desperately don’t want to discuss: How uncontrolled low-skilled immigration is slaughtering our working class — white, black and brown.

Newest Ann Coulter Letter: “Please, No More ‘Border Security'”



Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jan 02, 2019 4:19 PM

Please, No More ‘Border Security’

The media are trying to convince Trump that if he abandons the wall, he’ll be a statesman, so that as soon as he folds, they can start making fun of him as an untrustworthy liar.

Everyone knows that we can never have a secure border without an impermeable barrier — something like a wall — across all of it. The Democrats know it, the voters know it, and the millions of illegals hurtling toward our border like cannonballs know it.

The Democrats’ latest idea is to call a wall “immoral, ineffective and expensive.”

If they think a wall is “immoral,” then they’re admitting it’s effective. An ineffective wall would merely be a place for illegals to stop and get a little shade before continuing their march into the United States.

Democrats’ backup argument is to cite — every four minutes on MSNBC — Trump’s claim that Mexico would pay for the wall. We’re all baffled by Trump not having already taxed remittances to Mexico to pay for the wall (100 percent within the president’s authority under various banking regulations), but if we’re going to start listing the promises Trump hasn’t kept, this is going to be a long column.

In point of fact, however, he never said Mexico would pre-pay. We can tax remittances anytime.

To keep the Third World masses flowing across our un-walled border, the media are demanding that Trump agree to nonspecific “border security.” It’s like ordering a Starbucks and instead of getting a coffee, you’re told to have more “pep.” Now move along. Here’s your change. 

Would liberals accept such airy statements of intent in lieu of clear legal commands for any of the things they care about? (Not to be confused with “our country,” which they do not care about.)

Instead of EPA emissions standards, with specific parts per million of pollutants allowed into lakes and rivers, how about a law promoting “enhanced appreciation of God’s bounty”? Emissions standards are immoral and ineffective!

Nearly every Republican presidential candidate tried to con voters with these meaningless catchphrases about “border security.”  Here are The Des Moines Register’s summaries of some of the candidates’ positions on immigration a few weeks before the 2016 Iowa caucus: 

Jeb Bush: “has called for enhanced border security.” 

Marco Rubio: “proposes … improved security on the border.” 

John Kasich: “believes border security should be strengthened.” 

Chris Christie: “urges … using technology to improve border surveillance …” 

Rand Paul: “would secure the border immediately.” 

Carly Fiorina: “would secure the border, which she says requires only money and manpower.” 

They all lost. 

The guy who won: “Trump has said many illegal immigrants are rapists and are bringing drugs and crime to the United States. He has called for building a wall along the southern border, and has said he would make Mexico pay for it. He said he would immediately terminate President Barack Obama’s ‘illegal executive order on immigration.'” 

Trump got more votes than any other Republican in the history of presidential primaries. No one was falling for “border security” then, and they aren’t now. But instead of doing what he said and building a wall, Trump has hired people who don’t even grasp that the point is to make it unattractive to break into our country. 

On ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, Trump’s head of Customs and Border Protection, Kevin McAleenan, announced plans to give illegal alien kids free medical care at the border: “What we’ve done immediately, (Homeland Security) Secretary (Kirstjen) Nielsen and I have directed that we do medical checks of children 17 and under as they come into our process.” 

Apparently, our working class is rolling in so much free health care that now our country is diverting medical resources to treat other countries’ sick kids. 

McAleenan boasted that we — that’s you, taxpayer — will be providing “doctors, physician assistants, paramedics to do an initial intake check so that we know if a child is healthy as they arrive at the border and then make sure they can get medical care if they need it.” 


Luckily, this won’t hurt any Americans because the doctors they’re sending to the border are not currently treating any U.S. citizens. Oh wait! This just in: They will be taken away from sick Americans! 

(Possible 2020 Trump campaign bumper sticker: I voted for a wall and all I got was free checkups for illegals.

Doctors aren’t like the Petroleum Reserve. We don’t keep them cryogenically frozen, waiting to be unfrozen so they can treat illegals demanding free medical care as the price of hating us. If we rush doctors to the border, they are being rushed away from Americans who need medical care. 

How about Democrats compile a list, by name, of the Americans they would like not to see their doctors anymore? 

As a result of this boundless compassion for anyone who is not an American, how many more sick kids are going be dragged by their parents across hundreds of miles of desert just to see an American doctor? 

Mexican cartel member to poverty-stricken Latin American:

Before setting off on this caravan, I want you to know that when you get to the border your kids will be held up for a medical check. And if they find anything wrong, your child will be given First World medical treatment. Also, you won’t be allowed to pay. I just want you to understand what you’re getting into before you join this caravan.

And when those kids die, Secretary Nielsen can demand more free medical care for illegals breaking into our country. Instead of having a wall, we’ll have a series of interlocking charity hospitals on the border treating the poor of the world before crossing into a country that didn’t ask for them and doesn’t want them. 

Sorry, America. You lose again.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: