Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ann Coulter’

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

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: