Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ann Coulter’

The Ann Coulter Letter: “Fake News Autopsy”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2018/10/18/fake-news-autopsy/

Whenever Donald Trump talks about fake news, there are howls of indignation from the establishment media. We’re told that the very mention of “fake news” is a direct attack on our democracy, that the alternative is “darkness,” that it led to the dismemberment and murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and that, yes, every once in a while there might be a typo, but if you mean the media intentionally report false information, that is dangerous demagoguery.

I present CNN’s Ana Cabrera.

On Sunday night, Cabrera launched a premeditated, vicious, racist lie about President Trump, then proceeded to discuss the false story with a black guest, primed to analyze the fake news.

We’ll slow down the replay in order to follow the ball, so you can see every handoff in the creation of fake news.

A few weeks ago, when Judge Brett Kavanaugh was facing 30-year-old, completely uncorroborated accusations of sexual assault based on recovered memories in order to block his Supreme Court appointment, Trump said, “It’s a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of.”

This statement was quoted by numerous news outlets, including CNN: “Trump says it’s ‘a very scary time for young men in America,’” Jeremy Diamond, Oct. 2.

Cabrera rewrote the president’s quote, telling CNN viewers that Trump had said: “WHITE men have a lot to fear right now.”

How did “white” get slipped in there?

If this were merely a mistake, there are lots of words in the English language that might have been inserted instead of “white.” Why not “radial tire”? Why not “hangnail”? Why not the words “virtuoso” or “champagne”?

Dictionaries are heavy with all of the words that might have been inserted if this were an accident. How could the word “white” inadvertently get slipped into a Trump quote?

CNN intentionally told an ugly lie about the most incendiary issue roiling the nation: race. It wasn’t a lie about Trump’s position on tax policy, North Korea or school vouchers. The network deliberately pushed a racism narrative calculated to incite racial hatred that could get someone killed. 

Like a professional jewel thief swiping a Cartier watch so deftly that the guard doesn’t notice, Cabrera launched the lie during a segment that began: “People are talking about a string of recent incidents with racial undertones.”

“People are talking about” is how opinion journalism masquerades as news. What topics aren’t “people talking about”?

People are talking about CNN head Jeff Zucker’s split from his wife after 21 years.

People are talking about Chris Cuomo’s behavior at the CNN Christmas party.

People are talking about how Ana Cabrera got her job.

Cabrera then presented two stories about white people falsely accusing black people of doing things they hadn’t done — which was ironic, inasmuch as Cabrera was about to falsely accuse Trump of doing something he hadn’t done.

After a brief word from a black guest, professor Marc Lamont Hill, who said our world is “still shot through with white supremacy,” Cabrera told the lie about Trump:

“President Trump and his son, Don Jr., said this week, white men have a lot to fear right now.”

(His son said no such thing either.)

Cabrera then ran a clip of “Saturday Night Live” comedian Michael Che’s “take” on the nonexistent quote, in which he injected race into the president’s remarks, calling Trump a “white dude.”

Che: “Come on. Old, rich white dude telling us it’s a scary time in America? That is pure comedy.”

(The absence of a punchline was covered with, “That is pure comedy,” meaning, “Please laugh now!”)

At this point in the program, the lie about Trump transformed into actual presidential policy. Cabrera asked Hill, “Why do you think that is Trump’s strategy?

Hill went off on the fictional Trump quote, talking about the president’s “racial tribalism.” Again, this was about a Trump statement that had absolutely nothing to do with race — until CNN made it so.

“It stokes white fear,” Hill continued, “saying that it’s a scary time to be a white man because you get accused of something that you didn’t do”as CNN was accusing Trump of something he didn’t do.

Goebbels would be proud!

If this were an error, it would have been quickly corrected before the first commercial break. It was not corrected because it’s not a mistake; it’s a political strategy. CNN invents fake news to push an ugly narrative about the president’s “racial tribalism.”

That’s why an entire news segment was prepared around the fake quote, with an invited guest asked to comment on something Trump never said.

To those of you with jobs and busy lives, clip this column and keep it in your wallet so you are prepared the next time someone scoffs at Trump’s denunciation of fake news.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “GOP Needs Update to Dems’ UFC Cage Match Rules”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

It’s time to update the GOP’s Marquess of Queensbury Rules.

If you saw Ruth Bader Ginsburg at Brett Kavanaugh’s swearing-in ceremony, you know that we may need to fill her seat in about 4 1/2 minutes. Naturally, I hope she lives to be 300 — although parenthetically, it seems she already has.

The confirmation hearings for Kavanaugh made Robert Bork’s hearings look like a day at the beach. At least liberals only lied about Bork’s judicial philosophy. They didn’t accuse him of being Ted Bundy. The next nomination hearing will make Kavanaugh’s look like an ice cream social. Just because it didn’t work this time doesn’t mean Republicans’ work is done. They have to make sure this never happens again.

Democrats are already pushing the idea that Kavanaugh’s confirmation was somehow illegitimate because of the shoddy FBI investigation. Liberals’ beef is that the FBI neglected to interview Kavanaugh’s former Yale classmates, who dispute his characterization of precisely how big a drinker he was in college.

I wouldn’t say he was a belligerent drunk, but more of an obstreperous drunk.

No, no! I would say he was a mild drunk with periods of obstreperousness.

This is not the stuff of perjury prosecutions.

Of course, if true, it’s HUGE. Kavanaugh’s demeanor when drunk in college sounds nearly as awful as liberals’ behavior when sober — obnoxious, aggressive and argumentative. I refer you to the recent antics we’ve seen on Capitol Hill, as well as anywhere Ted Cruz stops in for a bite.

Since none of the FBI’s latest report on Kavanaugh has leaked, the one thing we can be sure of is that the agents turned up nothing unfavorable on him. Except for a colonoscopy, I think we’re done with Kavanaugh.

It’s the accusers who have skirted investigation. Even Republicans have moved on. He’s on the court, so who cares if Kavanaugh was falsely accused of “rape” in front of his little girls?

That’s what everyone thought when the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players were proved innocent and the D.A. was disbarred. Why go after the accuser? Hasn’t she suffered enough?

Crystal Mangum was not prosecuted for falsely charging she was gang-raped. And see? No harm, no foul! She went on to live a happy and productive — oh, wait! The next time we heard about Mangum was when she stabbed her boyfriend to death.

On reflection, it certainly seems possible that Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick was not being completely, 100 percent honest in her sworn statements about repeatedly attending high school parties in the 1980s, when she was a college student, where underage girls were drugged and gang-raped.

Deborah Ramirez’s three-decade-old, unsubstantiated, recovered memory of a drunken Kavanaugh exposing himself as a college freshman is the sort of charge that makes feminists laugh! (I know that from reading Gloria Steinem’s explanation in The New York Times that Gov. Bill Clinton summoning a female underling to his hotel room, dropping his pants and saying, “Kiss it!” did not rise to the level of sexual harassment. He took “no” for an answer!)

Perhaps Republicans could get Steinem to explain under oath why it’s acceptable for a sitting governor to do what is disqualifying for a drunk college freshman to do.

While no one would question the word of a living saint like Christine Blasey Ford, some parts of her testimony demand the clarity that can be obtained only in a formal legal proceeding — such as her trauma-induced need for two front doors (when the second front door seems clearly attached to a rental apartment); her fear of flying (but only when it will delay a confirmation hearing); and her claim that she never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph (contradicted by her ex-live-in boyfriend); among other things.

Pretending they are the wronged ones, liberals keep yipping about Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. They believe any attack on Kavanaugh was justified after the dirty trick pulled by Republicans on Garland.

The Republicans’ refusal to hold hearings on Garland has been called an “unprecedented obstruction” (MSNBC’s Chris Hayes), a “violation of traditions in norms” (Hayes again), an “insult and injury” (Sen. Cory Booker) and “remarkable and unprecedented” (MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow). The GOP’s treatment of Garland showed their “hypocrisy on Brett Kavanaugh” (MSNBC’s Ari Melber).

The truth is apparently a big secret, inasmuch as even Republicans aren’t saying it. You’ll read it here for the first time.

The Republicans’ wily, underhanded, double-dealing trick with Garland was this: Win a majority of seats in the U.S. Senate! I know liberals won’t read the Constitution, but can they do math? Garland didn’t have the votes.

Republicans had 54 seats and, in 2016, Senate rules still required 60 votes for Supreme Court appointments. Democrats would have needed 14 Republican senators to switch sides to confirm a Democratic president’s nominee.

There was no way that was happening. A Republican Senate simply wasn’t going to give “consent” to any Democratic nominee eight months before a presidential election — even an election that everyone thought Hillary was going to win. The Constitution says “advice and consent,” not “advice and rubber-stamp.”

There was nothing “unprecedented” about a Republican Senate rejecting a Democratic nominee — other than the fact that Republicans were the ones doing it. Democrats do it all the time.

That’s how we got Justice Anthony Kennedy — whom Kavanaugh replaced: A Democratic Senate rejected Reagan nominee Robert Bork. That’s also how we got Harry Blackmun, author of the ridiculously lawless Roe v. Wade: A Democratic Senate rejected Richard Nixon’s previous nominees Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell.

It would have been a waste of time and only humiliated Garland to hold hearings. At least Republicans didn’t accuse him of gang rape.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “No More Mr. White Guy”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

“They know the optics of 11 white men questioning Dr. Ford … will be so harmful and so damaging to the GOP.” — Areva Martin, CNN legal analyst

“They understand that you have all of these white men who would be questioning this woman … the optics of it would look terrible.” — Gloria Borger, CNN chief political analyst

“Women across this nation should be outraged at what these white men senators are doing to this woman.” — Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif.

“There has been some discussion of the GOP senators who happened to all be … white men.” — Jim Sciutto, CNN correspondent

“What troubles me is now there are … they’re all white men.” — Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan, on CNN

“You’re seeing on display a metaphor for what this party is, which is basically ignorant white men.” — “Morning Joe” contributor Donny Deutsch

“All these white men … stumbling all over themselves asking her, you know, aggressive and obnoxious questions.” — Asha Rangappa, CNN analyst

“What are those — that collection of old white men going to do?” — Cynthia Alksne, MSNBC contributor

“If she testifies in front of the Judiciary Committee, where 11 members are white men …” — Susan Del Percio, Republican political strategist, on MSNBC

“Once again, it will be all white men on the Republican side of the Judiciary Committee.” — CNN anchor Poppy Harlow

“The optics for Republicans are going to be really tricky … You’ve got all white men on the Republican side here …” — Julie Pace, Washington bureau chief for The Associated Press, on CNN

The Republicans, it happens to be 11 white men still on that side.” — CNN host John Berman

“The Republicans, it is 11 white men, talk to me about how you think the tone inside this hearing on Monday will be perceived?” — Berman, a few minutes later

“On the Republican side, all 11 are white men.” — Berman, again, same show, several minutes later

“What hasn’t changed is the number of white men questioning, certainly, on the Republican side.” — Dana Bash, CNN chief political correspondent

“The Republican side on the Senate Judiciary Committee is all white men …” — Irin Carmon, senior correspondent for New York Magazine, on MSNBC

“Only this crowd of clueless old white guys …” — The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin on Twitter

Let me begin by saying these commentators are making a brilliant and totally ORIGINAL point, the plain truth of which is outshone only by, as I’ve said, its sheer no-one-has-ever-made-that-observation-before-ness.

As the Supreme Court confirmation hearing resumes this week for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, it’s clear that the Republicans are simply too white to get the job done. I suggest the Republicans sign up some outside help, the way baseball teams make late-season acquisitions of pitchers and designated hitters for the playoffs.

Some suggestions (note: not all of the following individuals are Republicans, but none has any partisan profile that I am aware of):

1. The Rev. Al Sharpton (Tawana Brawley affair demonstrates that he believes women).

2. Bill Cosby (extensive, up-close experience with victims of sexual assault, albeit from a rapist’s, rather than a “rapee’s” perspective).

3. Keith Ellison (likely good rapport with committee Democrats; has own transportation to Capitol Building).

4. Matias Reyes (would undoubtedly throw himself into committee’s work as pleasant change of pace from prison).

5. Sorry, I don’t remember the gentleman’s name, but that guy who kidnapped and raped the Columbia student, poured bleach on her and Krazy-Glued her lips shut. (This one is sort of a “wild card,” I admit; he could be absolutely great, or, judging by his history of poor impulse control, he could be too emotionally unstable to handle the committee’s important work; definitely a Person of Color, though; that I’m sure about.)

6. Alton Maddox, attorney for black youth hired by Jewish landlord to slash a model’s face because she refused to date him. Maddox pioneered novel “she’s a manipulative slut who had it coming” defense. (Close relationship with the Rev. Sharpton a definite plus.)

7. Lakireddy Bali Reddy, entrepreneurial Indian immigrant with strong experience with underage rape victims, having brought little girls to the U.S. purchased from their poverty-stricken parents in India as his private sex slaves. (His presence may bring Asha Rangappa on board.)

Seriously, if feminists want to make the point that only female senators have any business conducting these hearings, they have a logical point, albeit an idiotic one.

Of course, the last time feminists bet big on women being certain allies in the fight against misogyny, they were the women of the O.J. jury.

Still, I get the logic of demanding women interlocutors.

But what is the thinking behind snickering at “white men” judging an accusation of sexual assault? Chuck Grassley is a big rapist?

You can be for rape or against it — I happen to be against it — but the idea that alleged sexual assault survivors need the loving care of black, Indian or Hispanic men to judge their stories flies in the face of crime statistics from around the globe.

In the history of the world, there has never been a more pacific, less rapey creature than the white male of Western European descent.

I realize it gives The New York Times’ editorial board (recent acquisition: Sarah Jeong) warm feelings every time someone throws in the word “white” as an intensifier, denoting extra hatefulness, but really, guys, it’s getting old.

Can we please, for the love of God, drop the painfully trite, mind-numbing cliche about “white men,” as if somehow their whiteness makes evil even eviler?

Ann Coulter Letter: “Haven Monahan To Testify In Kavanaugh Hearings”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2018/09/19/haven-monahan-to-testify-in-kavanaugh-hearings/

If this is what the left pulls against a sweet nerd like Brett Kavanaugh, I can’t wait for the hearings to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Observers of the passing scene were not surprised that the same lunatics screaming that Kavanaugh is going to impose “The Handmaid’s Tale” on America also announced that he had committed attempted rape and murder in high school.

His accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, remembered this in a therapy session 30-plus years after the alleged incident — coincidentally, at the exact moment Kavanaugh was all over the news as Mitt Romney’s likely Supreme Court nominee.

She doesn’t remember the time or place of the assault, told no one for 30 years and has no evidence or corroboration. Maybe the party was at Haven Monahan’s house. (He was the instigator of the fraternity gang rape reported in Rolling Stone, which never happened and — luckily for Monahan! — who doesn’t exist. Otherwise, he was in BIG trouble.)

But the psychology professor at Palo Alto University — who recently signed a letter denouncing President Trump’s border policies (thank you, Attorney General Sessions!) — says a teenaged Kavanaugh threw her on a bed at a party and began groping her, trying to take off her clothes.

Here’s the kicker: “I thought he might inadvertently kill me.”

We went pretty quickly from drunken teenaged groping to manslaughter.

This is always my favorite part of any feminist claim: The leap from “he used a bad word” to “HE ADMITTED COMMITTING SEXUAL ASSAULT!” (That’s what the media lyingly said about Trump’s remarks on the “Access Hollywood” tape, as detailed in Chapter Two of my new book, “Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind.”)

Kavanaugh emphatically denies that anything of the sort ever occurred at any party, but feminists are already off on, Maybe he’s one of these sick people who rapes corpses!

It’s also great how the media act as if attempted rape was perfectly acceptable in America, until we were educated by the #MeToo movement. No, the breakthrough of the #MeToo movement was that it was finally acceptable to call out liberal sexual predators.

Until recently, it was OK to rape and even murder girls — but only if your name was “Clinton,” “Kennedy” or “Weinstein,” et al. Then Hillary lost, and Teddy was dead, so there was no point in ferociously protecting the Democrats’ rapists any longer.

Thus, for example, The New York Times defended Blasey Ford’s failure to tell anyone about the alleged groping/manslaughter for 30 years, claiming things were different in the 1980s. “More likely,” the editorial explained, “a girl in the early 1980s would have blamed herself than report it.”

As proof, the Times linked to a Washington Post article citing the Times’ own treatment of a Kennedy victim. After Patricia Bowman accused William Kennedy Smith of rape, the Times “reported on her speeding tickets, partying in adulthood and even dredged up an unnamed woman who claimed Bowman showed a ‘little wild streak’ in high school.”

So the Times’ defense of the decades-old, therapy-induced recovered memory by Kavanaugh’s accuser is, Look at the way we abused a Kennedy accuser! We were horrible to her! OK, New York Times, you win.

Most hilarious is the media’s insistence that Kavanaugh’s accuser is putting herself at enormous risk by coming forward. Oh, cut the crap, media. In terms of press coverage, no one alive would prefer to be Kavanaugh than his accuser. Everywhere you look, someone is praising the “survivor” for her stunning, unprecedented courage as she viciously tries to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination.

True, accuse a Clinton, a Kennedy or a Weinstein (et al), and you’ll be treated like dirt. You’ll get the Patricia Bowman treatment. Paula Jones was smeared and laughed at for three years, until Stuart Taylor’s 15,000-word article defending her in the American Lawyer. (That took courage.)

But accuse the elitist white male Duke lacrosse team, Haven Monahan or a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court, and you can upgrade to a much better university and spend the rest of your life being showered with awards, fellowships, honorary degrees, media appearances and so on. Look up “Anita Hill.”

And, boy, was Hill right about Clarence Thomas! (Honorary white male.) He got confirmed, and now he issues conservative rulings. We warned you.

Following days of the entire media demanding that the victim (by which they mean the accuser) be allowed to tell her story, it turns out she’d really rather not. Blasey Ford spent an eternity deciding whether to accept the Senate’s invitation to testify, finally announcing on Tuesday night that she would appear only after a thorough and complete FBI investigation.

Tell me what an “investigation” of this matter involves. Do agents go door to door in Montgomery County, Maryland, asking everyone who went to high school in the early 1980s if they remember going to some kind of party?

Second: IT’S NEVER THE VICTIM WHO NEEDS AN INVESTIGATION! She knows what her story is. It’s the accused who wants an investigation to know exactly what he’s accused of.

Blasey Ford already knows what she thinks happened. I’ve been waiting my whole life to unburden myself about that night in 1981, 1982 or 1983 in a dark bedroom. Well, I’m not sure if it was a bedroom, but it definitely had a door. And a ceiling and a floor-ish kind of thing. And walls — I know I was surrounded by walls. I remember thinking, “OH MY GOSH, I’M IN A CLOSED SPACE!” On one hand, walls keep me warm, but that’s also why I’ve never enjoyed sex.

The only reason for the professor to insist upon an “investigation” is to delay having to give her story under oath until she knows what can be proved — and what can be disproved.

Of course, the main purpose of an “investigation” is to give the media time to browbeat Republicans into withdrawing Kavanaugh’s name and doing the honorable thing by nominating someone more suitable. Someone like Asia Argento.

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.

 

 

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: