Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ann Coulter’

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Everyone’s Urinating On The Dossier Now!”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

I was minding my own business reading about Bob Woodward, the GREATEST INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER IN THE HISTORY OF OUR REPUBLIC (as he will be the first to tell you), and came across this bit of genius from his book. According to The New York Times, Woodward is flabbergasted that former FBI Director James Comey released the Russian dossier, when he had the “airtight” report of 17 INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.

Woodward writes: “It would be as if I had reported and written one of the most serious, complex stories for The Washington Post that I had ever done, and then provided an appendix of unverified allegations. Oh, by the way, here is a to-do list for further reporting and we’re publishing it.”

You will know, if you have read a much better book about the Trump hysteria, “Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind,” that, eventually, this is what the Resistance says about every part of the Russian collusion story. Oh, that old yarn? Yeah, we hysterically oversold that one, but maybe you’d be interested in this other scandal we tried pushing a few months ago!

(Thus, according to the Times: “Woodward has never been a graceful writer, but the prose here is unusually wooden.”)

The Russian collusion story isn’t a story at all, but a constantly changing kaleidoscope with the same glass panes appearing, disappearing and then reappearing under the same headline: RUSSIAN COLLUSION PROVED! Each time, we’re supposed to pretend it’s an all-new “breaking news” story that hasn’t been disproved six times already.

Among the kaleidoscope panes are:

  • The Russia dossier!
  • Roger Stone tweeted something mean about John Podesta!
  • Jeff Sessions met with the Russian ambassador!
  • Carter Page went to Russia! (But unlike Bernie Sanders, NOT on his honeymoon — ed.)
  • George Papadopoulos talked about Hillary’s emails!
  • The GOP platform on Ukraine was changed!
  • Seventeen intelligence agencies say Russia hacked the DNC’s emails to help Trump!

Of all these, it was the dossier that dominated the news for most of Trump’s first year in office. Here was the proof that Trump was owned by the Russians. The dossier had to be true — it just had to be! Then, suddenly, 10 months later, that kaleidoscope pane completely disappeared. The dossier was an irrelevancy, a red herring, a conspiracy theory, a misnomer. Why do Republicans keep talking about the dossier?

Extra credit if you remember why the dossier got dropped like a hot potato in October 2017.

ANSWER: After lying to the public all year about the dossier being funded by a “Republican donor” — just a random concerned citizen! — a judge finally forced the media to cough up the truth: The dossier was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton — deviously, of course, using a law firm to pimp for her. The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee had paid $12 million for that dossier.

But during the 10 glorious months before we found out that the Russian dossier was nothing but Hillary’s oppo research, the media stamped their feet and demanded that we all swear to believe the dossier. They deny this now, but I have Nexis.

With every other proof of Russian collusion discredited (except the actual collusion by both Hillary and the FBI), now they’re apparently going back to the 17 INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES!

The 17 INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES gag is what liberals do whenever they have no evidence, no facts and no argument. They cite a surprisingly large, but meaningless, number.

  • Three thousand scientists agree there is man-made global warming! (On closer examination, most of the “scientists” are ACLU lawyers.)
  • President Trump has made 4,713 false or misleading claims! (Actually, only two: That bombing Syria was in America’s “national security interest” and “we’ve already started building the wall!”)

The allegedly “airtight” report of 17 INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES was not what anyone would call “airtight.” In fact, it was kind of the opposite of “airtight.” Scratch the part about “airtight.” It could more accurately be described as a “complete joke.”

Russian scholars scoffed at it, cyber-security experts said it was impossible to know who hacked the DNC, and intelligence veterans churlishly pointed out that the report contained not a speck of evidence. Until Trump won the election, even the media laughed at Hillary’s claim that Russia hacked the DNC to help Trump.

President Obama took the claim that Russia had hacked the DNC so seriously that he boldly told Vladimir Putin to — I quote — “cut it out.”

In lieu of evidence, the report merely asserts conclusions. It reads like a stiffly worded, bureaucratic version of Hillary’s talking points: We assess that president-elect Donald J. Trump has said degrading things about women in the past. We further assess that president-elect Trump will continue to develop capabilities to fat-shame women in the United States, judging from past practice and current efforts. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

Maybe it’s time for the Resistance to wheel out the one about Sessions meeting the Russian ambassador again.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Hall Monitor Nation”



Commentary by Ann Coulter  

Apart from building the wall, President Trump’s most important act as president so far was his attack on internet censorship this week.

The left controls all the cultural institutions — the establishment media, corporate America, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, public schools and universities. The only breach in their total dominion of the flow of information is the internet. So now they’re fixated like a laser beam on private citizens yammering to one another online.

Why can’t people accept the officially certified news as delivered by respected truth-tellers like Brian Williams, CNN and NBC — the network that censored Juanita Broaddrick and illegally leaked the “Access Hollywood” tape?

Liberals assessed the situation and correctly concluded: People are learning facts on the internet that we’ve been withholding from them, so now they don’t agree with us. We have to stop this.

The media relentlessly lied to the public about Hillary’s health, denouncing conservatives as “conspiracy theorists” for mentioning it. Then an alert citizen with an iPhone captured Hillary having to be carried to her car at the 9/11 memorial service in 2016.

Mainstream media outlets painted a cherubic picture of Michael Brown after he was fatally shot by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. He was a “gentle giant,” gunned down like a dog as he plaintively cried, “Hands up! Don’t shoot!”

HEY! Wait a second! How did that video get out of Brown manhandling a tiny Indian man while robbing a convenience store? That should have been suppressed like the Broaddrick interview!

Would we ever have known about Monica Lewinsky, but for the Drudge Report publishing the blockbuster story that Newsweek had killed?

Currently, the establishment media are in a rage that the public has found out about the modern genocide being waged against white South African farmers. ( https://whatdidyousay.org/2016/09/28/most-important-article-written-in-2016-when-america-becomes-south-africa/ (https://whatdidyousay.org/2018/07/23/dear-cnn-theres-a-white-genocide-going-on-in-south-africa-is-that-news/)

I can’t even blame them. If I were advising liberals, I’d say: You’ve got only one small breach in the wall of sound; you’ve got to ban conservative speech on the internet.

It’s not as if the left has ever shown any particular commitment to free speech. They love “transgressive” ideas and “controversial” speech — but only when they’re in the minority. As soon as they get control, no more free speech for you! Just look at the universities.

You might think that the exact same people wailing about Trump attacking the “free press” (fake news) would be too embarrassed to use their next breath to demand censorship on the internet. But that’s exactly what they’re doing.

On Sunday night, MSNBC host Kasie Hunt spent her entire interview with Facebook’s former chief information security officer Alex Stamos, demanding that Facebook go pedal-to-the-metal on censoring conservatives. It was left to defender of the reich Stamos to mumble something about not banning speech based on “content.”

Indignant that Alex Jones was allowed to “foment dissent on controversial topics online,” Kasie asked, “Did Facebook react too slowly to the Alex Jones issue? … Does Facebook have a responsibility to take on figures like this?”

Kasie then quoted Stamos back to himself, citing a memo in which he’d written: “We need to be willing to pick sides when there are clear moral or humanitarian issues.”

One “clear,” “moral,” “humanitarian issue” for Facebook — which according to Kasie isn’t doing enough censoring — is to prevent any criticism of caterwauling, protesting illegal aliens. (That sentence just violated Facebook’s Community Standards.)

Last May, I was notified by Facebook’s Julia Smekalina that “one of your posts was reported and found to be in violation of our Community Standards.”

Little Nazi block watchers are constantly reporting conservatives. They can’t just stop following people they don’t like. Liberals used to mock fundamentalist Christians, claiming they feared that someone, somewhere, may be happy. Now they’re the ones haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere, may disagree with them.

The offending post was from January, months earlier, when I retweeted John Binder’s story on Breitbart News headlined: “Illegal aliens who say they ‘deserve’ amnesty tell pro-amnesty Sen. Thom Tillis: ‘Fck this conservative! Fck this person!’”

Illegals screaming obscenities at a U.S. senator does not offend Facebook community standards. It was the comment added to the story by the pro-American immigration website, Vdare: “It would be so easy to just deport these parasites @realDonaldTrump. They hate you, they hate your supporters, they hate your party, they hate our country. Why not just enforce the law and send them home?”

(The reason I’m talking about “tweets” when it was Facebook that censored me is that I detest Facebook, so the only “posts” of mine that ever showed up there were my tweets, which used to transfer automatically. Now they don’t, so I’ll never go to Facebook again.)

Here is my full and complete exchange with Smekalina, defender of “Community Standards,” illustrating what a complete joy using Facebook is.

From: Ann Coulter:

Okay, you’ll have to tell me how to delete. nothing I click on offers the option of deleting. I wish you’d spend more time making facebook user friendly. Also, can you please tell me how it violates community standards to support enforcing the law? is the word “parasites” forbidden?

From: Julia Smekalina:

… yes, comparing immigrants to parasites is the specific portion in violation of our policies.

From: Ann Coulter:

It’s obviously NOT about “immigrants.” it’s about illegal immigrants, i.e. law breakers. is it a violation to call lawbreakers “parasites”?

I never heard from Julia again, but I gather she helpfully deleted the post for me. At the risk of bringing MSNBC’s hammer down on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, the tweet’s still available there.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Eyes on the Prize-Fighters”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

URL of the original posting site:http://humanevents.com/2018/08/15/eyes-on-the-prize-fighters/

The media wanted last August’s “Unite the Right” rallyin Charlottesville to be the next “Bridge to Selma,”an iconic civil rights moment honored by the entire country every year. All week, there were excited announcements of the coming anniversary this past Sunday.

Assured of fawning media coverage, thousands of leftists descended on Charlottesville and Washington, D.C., to march against nonexistent “Nazis.” But we haven’t heard so much about the anniversary since then.

Last year, President Trump blamed “both sides” for the bedlam at the rally to defend Confederate statues — sending the media into a moral panic. Naturally, Trump also denounced white supremacy, for anyone who missed it the first million times he did so. But the part of his remarks that sent a shock wave through the media was this:

“You had a group on one side, and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs — and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch. … Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. You look at both sides — I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either.”

BOTH SIDES? But “Antifa” is pure as the driven snow! They are anti-fascist! To blame “both sides” was to endorse fascism.

As Mitt Romney tweeted: “No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.”

Liddle Marco tweeted: “Very important for the nation to hear @potus describe events in #Charlottesville for what they are, a terror attack by #whitesupremacists.”

These tweets were sent about eight months after Antifa member and then-Drexel University professor George Ciccariello-Maher tweeted, “All I want for Christmas is white genocide,” and just four months after Antifa member Eric Clanton was going around Berkeley in a hoodie and face mask cracking a massive U-shaped bike lock on the heads of Trump supporters. He was a professor, too.

But according to the media, the entire Democratic Party and two-thirds of the Republican Party, only one side was to blame for the chaos and violence in Charlottesville last year. We were all agreed: Antifa are heroes. To condemn “both sides” was to cozy up to white supremacists.

This past weekend, we got to test that theory. With a few dozen white supremacists surrounded by a phalanx of cops and unable to instigate anything, and morally pure “Antifa” and their supporters swarming the streets, Charlottesville and D.C. should have been like a field of puppies.

EXPERIMENT RESULTS: Masked, black-clad Antifa violently attacked the police, journalists and random passersby. They destroyed reporters’ camera gear, hurled bottles and fireworks at cops and journalists, smashed cars and screamed obscenities.

Among the popular slogans being chanted by Romney and Rubio’s heroes were:

“F–K THE PIGS!”

“NO BORDER! NO WALL! NO USA AT ALL!”

“COPS AND KLAN GO HAND IN HAND!”

“ALL COPS ARE RACIST, YOU BETTER FACE IT!”

No hate there! Celebrating mass murder on a scale that dwarfs the (real) Nazis, the crowds waved hammer-and-sickle flags. They carried premade signs, such as:

“Behind Every Cop, a Klansman”

“Last Year They Came w/ Torches … This Year They Come w/ Badges”

“This system cannot be reformed, it must be OVERTHROWN!”

“America was NEVER Great!”

A random guy on Twitter with a few thousand followers, Landon Simms, tweeted on Sunday night:

“My grandfather is a 96-yr-old German. When seeing Antifa videos, he shakes his head and says; ‘We didn’t think it could happen in Germany either. These people (Antifa) act and sound like the NAZI party’s Sturmabteilung. Stop them now or you’ll regret it.’”

In short order, Simms’ tweet had gotten a Kardashian-level number of retweets, well surpassing CNN’s average viewership. (And you wonder why the left is fixated on ending free speech on the Internet.)

Simms’ grandfather didn’t see any of the antifa videos on TV – the media showed only antiseptic clips carefully washed of any untoward behavior. But videos were all over the Internet. (Again, you see why the left wants to shut down free speech on the internet.)

The Charlottesville anniversary invented by the media was a controlled experiment of Trump’s “both sides” remark. To test his theory, we removed one side entirely — the white supremacists.

It turns out that even with no “fascists” in sight, with networks and — more importantly — websites filming them, the self-proclaimed “anti-fascists” couldn’t contain their terrifying violence.

Trump was proved right, once again.

 

 

 

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Sarah Jeong Better Drive Carefully!”


Commentary by Ann Coulter

If you’re worried about the social media monopolies censoring speech, just be happy they can’t put you in prison.

Federal prosecutors are celebrating the one-year anniversary of the Charlottesville, Virginia, “Unite the Right” rally — isn’t this the “paper” anniversary? — by indicting James Fields for “hate.” Fields has already been charged with murder in state court. (I would think that “hate” would be subsumed by a murder charge.) But the federal “hate crimes” statute allows the feds to skirt the Constitution’s ban on double jeopardy — at least for certain kinds of “hate.”

— The stabbing of Yankel Rosenbaum by assailants yelling “Get the Jew!”: NOT a federal hate crime.

— The brutal kidnapping and murder of a young white couple in Knoxville, Tennessee, by black youths: NOT a federal hate crime.

— The torture of a mentally disabled kid in Chicago, by assailants saying “F— white people!” and “F— Trump!”: NOT a federal hate crime. (Curiously, none of the attackers was Sarah Jeong.)

— A white man killing a white woman by driving into a crowd of left-wing protesters: THAT’S a federal hate crime.

To make their case, prosecutors did a deep dive into Fields’ social media postings to prove that, yes, while he might have killed a white woman in this particular case, he’s still a racist.

The second paragraph of the indictment states:

“Prior to August 12, 2017, Defendant JAMES ALEX FIELDS JR. obtained multiple social media accounts, which he used to express his beliefs regarding race, national origin, religion and other topics. On these accounts, FIELDS expressed and promoted his belief that white people are superior to other races and peoples; expressed support of the social and racial policies of Adolf Hitler and Nazi-era Germany, including the Holocaust; and espoused violence against African Americans, Jewish people and members of other racial, ethnic and religious groups he perceived to be non-white. FIELDS also expressed these views directly in interactions with individuals known to him.”

GUILTY!

Wait — what? Again, Fields is a white man charged with murdering a white woman.

This is a prosecution of Fields for Bad Thought, utterly oblivious to not only the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause, but the free speech clause and also simple common sense. It’s like a parody of what serious people feared about criminalizing “hate.”

Contrary to common belief on college campuses, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. Pimply teenaged boys writing snotty remarks about blacks and Jews is every bit as constitutionally protected as an Asian girl on The New York Times’ editorial board writing snotty things about white men, although the latter pays better.

It turns out that hating the wrong people is a far graver crime than murder. (And hating the right people gets you a job at the Times!)

During his commission of one of the worst mass shootings in our history at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Omar Mateen made damn sure that no one would think he was a racist, explaining, “I don’t have a problem with black people,” adding, “You guys suffered enough.” Mass murderer? Yes, fine, he was that. But no one was going to call Omar Mateen a “racist.”

Similarly, the federal prosecutor in Fields’ case has charged the defendant with being something worse than a murderer — they say he’s a racist. What if he’s found not guilty of murder?

The state murder case seems pretty straightforward. There’s video of Fields’ car plowing into a crowd on the street in front of him, resulting in the death of Heather Heyer. The only question is whether he has a defense, such as that he has a medical condition, it was an accident, or he feared for his life. (For example, if someone was yelling, “There he is! Get the Jew!”)

Fields hit the gas pedal during an officially declared “State of Emergency,” with armed Antifa protesters swarming the streets. Footage online shows his car being surrounded and smashed with baseball bats seconds after the crash. Unless his defense lawyer is planning on intentionally throwing the case for the greater good, Fields seems to have a pretty decent argument that he was in fear for his life. History has shown that it’s a big mistake to stop your car for protesters. Sooner or later, you get pulled out and beaten to death or nearly so.

>> During the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, a group of teens surrounded a car 14 miles away, being driven by Zemir Begic, who was accompanied by his fiancee and a friend. Begic got out of the car and was immediately set upon by hammer-wielding teens. He died in the hospital a few hours later.

>> Reginald Denny stopped his truck in the middle of the L.A. riots — a justified “rebellion,” according to Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters — whereupon he was yanked from the cab and savagely beaten. As Denny’s body lay lifeless on the pavement, Damian Williams — Rep. Waters’ friend — dropped a huge slab of concrete directly on his head. Denny survived only thanks to Good Samaritan Bobby Green, but suffered permanent brain damage.

>> In 2013, bikers swarmed a banker, Alexian Lien, on New York City’s Henry Hudson Parkway as he was driving with his wife and 2-year-old daughter in their SUV. The bikers became angry after Lien’s wife threw a plum at them and repeatedly slowed down in front of him, forcing him to stop. Each time, Lien escaped by intentionally driving through the swarm of bikers, injuring many and paralyzing one for life. Lien wasn’t even prosecuted.

>> Days after the 2016 election, David Wilcox was driving in Chicago when a black sedan scraped the side of his car. He got out and was viciously beaten by youths, yelling at him for being a “Trump voter,” evidently because he was white. One of the disappointed Hillary voters got control of Wilcox’s car and dragged him through traffic at speeds of up to 70 mph. Wilcox freed himself by rolling into oncoming traffic. Miraculously, he survived.

Of course, what James Fields’ state of mind was right before he hit the gas pedal is of no consequence compared to his state of mind years earlier, when he was furiously typing hateful posts alone in his bedroom. He could be guilty of “hate.”

This Weel’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Central Park Rapists: Trump Was Right”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  

The city of New York released thousands of documents from the 1989 Central Park rape case last week, provoking more weeping and gnashing of teeth over Donald Trump’s full-page ads in four New York newspapers taken out soon after that attack with the headline:

“BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. 

“BRING BACK OUR POLICE!”

His ad never mentioned the Central Park rape, but talked about New York families — “White, Black, Hispanic and Asian” — unable to enjoy walks through the park at dusk. Of muggers and murderers, he said, “I no longer want to understand their anger. I want them to understand our anger. … They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.”

According to the media, the five convicted boys were INNOCENT — and Trump would have executed the poor lads! Apart from the “innocent” moniker, the rape victim miraculously survived, there was no murder, so this is nonsense.

But let’s look at how “innocent” they were.

On April 19, 1989, investment banker Trisha Meili went for a run through Central Park around 9 p.m., whereupon she was attacked by a wolf pack looking for a “white girl,” dragged 100 yards into the woods, stripped, beaten with a pipe and a brick, raped and left for dead. By the time the police found Meili, she’d lost three-quarters of her blood. Her case was initially assigned to the homicide unit of the D.A.’s office because none of her doctors thought she would make it through the night.

Of the 37 youths brought in for questioning about the multiple violent attacks in the park that night, only 10 were charged with a crime and only five for the rape of the jogger: Antron McCray, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson and Korey Wise. All five confessed — four on videotape with adult relatives present and one with a parent present, but not on videotape.

Two unanimous, multicultural juries convicted them, despite aggressive defense lawyers putting on their best case. But the media have a different method of judging guilt and innocence. They don’t look at irrelevant factors, such as evidence, but at relevant factors such as the race of the accused and the victim.

Unfortunately for Meili, she was guilty of white privilege, while her attackers belonged to the “people of color” Brahmin caste. So, after waiting an interminable 13 years, the media proclaimed that the five convicts had been “exonerated” by DNA evidence!

DNA evidence didn’t convict them, so it couldn’t exonerate them. This was a gang attack. It was always known that another rapist “got away,” as the prosecutor told the jury, and that none of the defendants’ DNA was found in the jogger’s cervix or on her sock — the only samples that were taken.

While it blows most people away to find out that none of the suspects’ DNA was found on Meili, the whole trick is that they’re looking at it through a modern lens. Today, these kids’ DNA would have been found all over the crime scene. But in 1989, DNA was a primitive science. The cops wouldn’t have even looked for such evidence back then.

The case was solved with other evidence — and there was a lot of it.

On the drive to the precinct, Raymond Santana blurted out, “I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman’s t–s.” The cops didn’t even know about a rape yet.

Yusef Salaam announced to the detective interviewing him, “I was there, but I didn’t rape her.” Even if true, under the law, anyone who participated in the attack on Meili is guilty of her rape.

Two of Korey Wise’s friends said that when they ran into him on the street the day after the attack, he told them the cops were after him. “You heard about that woman that was beat up and raped in the park last night? That was us!”

Taken to the scene of the crime by a detective and a prosecutor, he said, “Damn, damn, that’s a lot of blood. … I knew she was bleeding, but I didn’t know how bad she was. It was dark. I couldn’t see how much blood there was at night.”

Wise also told a detective that someone he thought was named “Rudy” stole the jogger’s Walkman and belt pouch. The jogger was still in a coma. The police did not know yet that a Walkman had been stolen from her.

Wise told a friend’s sister, Melody Jackson, that he didn’t rape the jogger; he “only held her legs down while Kevin (Richardson) f—ed her.” Jackson volunteered this information to the police, thinking it would help Wise.

The night of the attack, Richardson told an acquaintance, “We just raped somebody.” The crotch of his underwear was suspiciously stained with semen, grass stains, dirt and debris. Walking near the crime scene with a detective the next day, Richardson said, “This is where we got her … where the raping occurred.”

Santana and Richardson independently brought investigators to the precise location of the attack on the jogger.

Recall that, when all these statements were made, no one — not the police, the witnesses, the suspects, or their friends and acquaintances — knew whether Meili would emerge from her coma and be able to identify her attackers.

Sarah Burns, who co-wrote and co-directed the propaganda film “The Central Park Five” with her father (whose reputation she has now destroyed), waved away the defendants’ confessions — forget all the other evidence — in a 2016 New York Times op-ed, explaining: “The power imbalance in an interrogation room is extreme, especially when the suspects are young teenagers, afraid of the police and unfamiliar with the justice system or their rights.”

Burns has studied the trial transcripts so closely that she called the prosecutor by the wrong name in her op-ed. Far from trembling and afraid, as Burns imagines, the suspects were singing the rap song “Wild Thing” for hours in the precinct house, laughing and joking about raping the jogger. One of the attackers said, “It was fun.”

When a cop told Santana that he should have been out with a girlfriend rather than mugging people in Central Park, Santana responded, “I already got mines,” and laughed with another boy from the park. One of the youths arrested that night stated on videotape that he heard Santana and another boy laughing about “how they ‘made a woman bleed.’”

But none of that matters. Again, the victim was a privileged white woman (BAD!) and the perpetrators were youths of color (GOOD!). So the media lied and claimed the DNA evidence “exonerated” them.

This allegation was based on Matias Reyes’ confession to the attack. His DNA matched the unidentified DNA on the jogger — proving nothing, other than that he was the one who “got away.” He is also the “Rudy” who stole her Walkman, as Wise said at the time. Reyes admitted he took it. How did Wise know that?

A cellmate of Reyes claims he said that he heard a woman screaming in the park that night and ran to join in the rape.

The “exoneration” comes down to Reyes’ unsubstantiated claim that he acted alone. Years of careful investigation, videotaped confessions, witness statements, assembling evidence, trial by jury and repeated appeals — all that is nothing compared to the word of an upstanding citizen like Reyes, a violent psychopath who sexually assaulted his own mother and raped and murdered a pregnant woman while her children heard the attack through the bedroom door.

That’s the sum total of the “exoneration”: the word of a psycho.

Noticeably, Reyes faced absolutely no penalty for his confession — the statute of limitations had run out years earlier. Before he confessed, Reyes had been moved to Korey Wise’s cellblock. He requested a transfer on the grounds that he feared retaliation from Wise’s gang. All he had to do was confess — with no penalty — and announce that he acted alone. The Social Justice Warriors would take it from there.

Not even a monster’s self-serving “confession” can explain away the five attackers’ other crimes that night — vicious beatings that left one parkgoer unconscious and another permanently injured.

The SJW’s verdict: Award the criminals $41 million. Trump’s idea: Punish them. And you still can’t figure out how he became president.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Putin Is Killing Millions Of Americans”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

I don’t know what Trump said during that two hours when he met privately with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but like so many in the media, I know what I hope he said: Mr. Putin, I need you to publicly admit your complicity in our illegal alien problem.Only if Putin owns up to deploying a vast network of Russian assets to personally direct the movements of millions of illegal aliens across the Sonoran Desert, through dozens of checkpoints and into our country, in fulfillment of his master plan to attack America’s financial viability, national security and future prospects, will the media, the Democratic Party and corporate Republicans ever emerge from their stupor and admit that we have a huge problem on our southern border.

Illegal immigrants have killed multiple times more Americans than Russia has in its entire history — or could ever hope to kill, even with a well-placed nuclear bomb. But nothing will be done, unless we can prove Putin is behind it.

Our media and government want you to fixate on Russia’s annexation of Crimea as the big problem facing our country, hoping you’ll forget about the gaping hole on our border.

I haven’t counted to see how many Americans died as a result of Putin’s reacquiring Crimea — yes, I have! ZERO. Meanwhile, Mexican drug couriers kill more Americans every week than the Communist Soviet Union did when it shot down Korean flight 007 for flying into its airspace, almost starting a nuclear war.

Obsessing over irrelevant, unsolvable problems in remote parts of the globe is how liberals prove they are intellectuals. North Korea, Syria, Russia — that’s what you’re supposed to care about. Not your own country. Only Walmart shoppers care about their own country.

It would be as if in 1939, as the Nazi threat was looming, British newspapers discussed nothing but the bushfires in Victoria, Australia. How many died? Do they need our help? What shall we do? Where does the prime minister stand?

With Russia, liberals get an extra bonus of bludgeoning Trump over his nonexistent collusion with Russia — our greatest enemy since very, very recently.

At least no Democratic president ever publicly embraced a Russian dictator, while handing him all of Eastern Europe at Yalta, so the left’s conscience is clear!

Actually, no. Until all the Roosevelt statues come down, liberals need to settle down about Russia. At least Trump isn’t calling Putin “Uncle Vlad” and giving him one-third of Europe, as he is being advised by two Russian spies.

While I’m sure Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea were a grave threat to every man, woman and child in America, Putin should also be held to account for the rape and murder of thousands of Americans on our own soil every year, as a result of apparently unstoppable illegal immigration. (Who knew a wall was such an inconceivable engineering feat?)

Where else to lay the blame for this monstrous attack but on Putin, the most evil man since Hitler?

True, liberals have spent decades lobbying for a never-ending flow of illegal aliens. But that shouldn’t be a problem. They also spent decades defending Russian dictators. Abandoning every position they’ve ever held to attack Trump is standard operating procedure these days.

In addition to Trump’s not challenging Putin to a fistfight in Helsinki, the media have gone bananas over the fact that he cited the findings of our intelligence agencies — but then added that Putin denied the charges.

HE’S BELIEVING PUTIN OVER OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES? Moral equivalence! Treason! High crimes and misdemeanors! Kristallnacht! Trump might as well have trampled on a portrait of George Washington. (Or, since we’re talking about liberals, Stalin.)

But the way I remember it, elected Democrats — even Democratic candidates for president — have criticized our intelligence agencies pretty ferociously, particularly regarding the Iraq War.

The media turned that clown Joe Wilson into a national hero for ridiculing the findings of our intelligence agencies.

At the inception of the war, U.S. intelligence, British intelligence and the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Saddam Hussein had been seeking massive quantities of uranium from Niger.

But Joe Wilson was sent by his wife, a non-covert, paper-pushing CIA agent, on a trip to Niger, where he looked government officials directly in the eye and asked them: Did Saddam send envoys to this godforsaken country that has nothing to sell but uranium in order to buy uranium? Be honest! I have absolutely no way of knowing if you are lying, and powerful, nuclear-armed nations will be really mad at you if you say “yes.”

It was on the basis of this conversation that Wilson concluded, as he wrote in The New York Times: “I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”

Far from condemning this unpatriotic lout for crapping on our intelligence agencies, the media made him a star! Only a fool like George W. Bush would believe our inept intelligence agencies over the word of a government official from Niger.

So doing an about-face on a previous, long-held position is no problem for liberals, provided it serves the larger purpose of getting Trump. I don’t know if liberals have noticed, but trying to work the public into a white-hot rage over Putin’s annexation of Crimea hasn’t been wildly successful. Apart from the fact that who owns Crimea is of absolutely no conceivable national security interest to the United States, Crimea has been a part of Russia since forever. (Technically, since 1783 — when they took it from the Muslims, bless them.)

Google “Potemkin village.” The story is that an aide to Russian Empress Catherine II, Grigory Potemkin, tried to impress her with her newest territorial possession by setting up fake villages along their route through it. Dateline: Crimea, 1787.

The left needs something a little more consequential to make us mad at Russia — and illegal immigration is just the ticket! The only thing liberals care about is Russia, but the only thing most Americans care about is their own country.

The solution is staring us right in the face. Convince Putin to admit that he is responsible for the millions of foreign invaders sneaking into our country, depressing wages on a good day, and raping little girls and committing sickening murders on the bad days. In exchange, we’ll give Putin Bill Browder and George Soros.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Kavanaugh Threatens the Left’s Right to Cheat”


Commentary by Ann Coulter

The fact that the media responded to the nomination of a Supreme Court justice by obsessively covering Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Russia and NATO proves that Trump has checkmated them with Brett Kavanaugh.

Liberals know they can’t stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation, so they’d just as soon not hear any news about it at all. Please cheer us up with stories about Paul Manafort’s solitary confinement!

But there was one very peculiar reaction to the nomination. The nut wing of the Democratic Party instantly denounced Kavanaugh by claiming that his elevation to the high court would threaten all sorts of “rights.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted: “Our next justice should be a champion for protecting & advancing rights, not rolling them back — but Kavanaugh has a long history of demonstrating hostility toward defending the rights of everyday Americans.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted: “If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court it will have a profoundly negative effect on workers’ rights, women’s rights and voting rights for decades to come. We must do everything we can to stop this nomination.”

If only these guys could get themselves elected to some sort of legislative body, they could pass laws protecting these rights! Wait, I’m sorry. These are elected United States senators. Of all people, why are they carrying on about “rights”? If senators can’t protect these alleged “rights,” it can only be because most Americans do not agree that they should be “rights.”

That’s exactly why the left is so hysterical about the Supreme Court. They run to the courts to win their most unpopular policy ideas, gift-wrapped and handed to them as “constitutional rights.

What liberals call “rightsare legislative proposals that they can’t pass through normal democratic processes — at least outside of the states they’ve already flipped with immigration, like California.

Realizing how widely reviled their ideas are, several decades ago the left figured out a procedural scam to give them whatever they wanted without ever having to pass a law. Hey! You can’t review a Supreme Court decision!

Instead of persuading a majority of their fellow citizens, they’d need to persuade only five justices to invent any rights they pleased. They didn’t have to ask twice. Apparently, justices find it much funner to be all-powerful despots than boring technocrats interpreting written law.

Soon the court was creating “rights” promoting all the left’s favorite causes — abortion, criminals, busing, pornography, stamping out religion, forcing military academies to admit girls and so on.

There was nothing America could do about it.

OK, liberals, you cheated and got all your demented policy ideas declared “constitutional rights.” But it’s very strange having elected legislators act as if they are helpless serfs, with no capacity to protect “rights.”

It’s stranger still for politicians to pretend that these putative “rights” are supported by a majority of Americans. By definition, the majority does not support them. Otherwise, they’d already be protected by law and not by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s latest newsletter.

On MSNBC, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said people storming into the streets and making their voices heard about Kavanaugh is “the remarkable part about a democracy.

Actually, that isn’t democracy at all. Liberals don’t do well at democracy. Why don’t politicians run for office promising to ban the death penalty, spring criminals from prison or enshrine late-term abortion? Hmmm … I wonder why those “I (heart) partial-birth abortion!” T-shirts aren’t selling?

Unless the Constitution forbids it — and there are very few things proscribed by the Constitution — democracy entails persuading a majority of your fellow Americans or state citizens to support something, and then either putting it on the ballot or electing representatives who will write it into law — perhaps even a constitutional amendment.

Otherwise, these “rights” whereof you speak are no more real than the Beastie Boys’ assertion of THE RIGHT TO PARTEEEEEEEE!

Gay marriage, for example, was foisted on the country not through ballot initiatives, persuasion, public acceptance, lobbying or politicians winning elections by promising to legalize it. No, what happened was, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly discovered a right to gay marriage lurking in the state’s 223-year-old Constitution — written by the very religious John Adams. (Surprise!) After that, the people rose up and banned gay marriage in state after state, even in liberal bastions like Oregon and California. The year after the Massachusetts court’s remarkable discovery, gay marriage lost in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. Everywhere gay marriage was submitted to a popular vote, it lost. (Only one state’s voters briefly seemed to approve of gay marriage — Arizona, in 2006 — but that was evidently a problem with the wording of the initiative, because two years later, the voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.)

Inasmuch as allowing people to vote resulted in a resounding “NO!” on gay marriage, liberals ran back to the courts. Still, the public rebelled. The year after the Iowa Supreme Court concocted a right to gay marriage, voters recalled three of the court’s seven justices.

A handful of blue state legislatures passed gay marriage laws, but even in the Soviet Republic of New York, a gay marriage bill failed in 2009.

And then the U.S. Supreme Court decided that was quite enough democracy on the question of gay marriage! It turned out that — just like the Massachusetts Constitution — a gay marriage clause had been hiding in our Constitution all along!

Conservatives could never dream of victories like this from the judiciary. Even nine Antonin Scalias on the Supreme Court are never going to discover a “constitutional right” to a border wall, mass deportations, a flat tax, publicly funded churches and gun ranges, the “right” to smoke or to consume 24-ounce sugary sodas.

These are “constitutional rights” every bit as much as the alleged “constitutional rights” to abortion, pornography, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, the exclusionary rule and on and on and on.

The only rights conservatives ever seek under the Constitution are the ones that are written in black and white, such as the freedom of speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Mostly, we sit trembling, waiting to see what new nonexistent rights the court will impose on us, contravening everything we believe.

So when you hear liberals carrying on about all the “rights” threatened by Kavanaugh, remember that by “rights,” they mean “policy ideas so unpopular that we can’t pass a law creating such rights.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: