Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ann Coulter’

Newest Ann Coulter Letter: “Please, No More ‘Border Security'”



Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jan 02, 2019 4:19 PM

Please, No More ‘Border Security’

The media are trying to convince Trump that if he abandons the wall, he’ll be a statesman, so that as soon as he folds, they can start making fun of him as an untrustworthy liar.

Everyone knows that we can never have a secure border without an impermeable barrier — something like a wall — across all of it. The Democrats know it, the voters know it, and the millions of illegals hurtling toward our border like cannonballs know it.

The Democrats’ latest idea is to call a wall “immoral, ineffective and expensive.”

If they think a wall is “immoral,” then they’re admitting it’s effective. An ineffective wall would merely be a place for illegals to stop and get a little shade before continuing their march into the United States.

Democrats’ backup argument is to cite — every four minutes on MSNBC — Trump’s claim that Mexico would pay for the wall. We’re all baffled by Trump not having already taxed remittances to Mexico to pay for the wall (100 percent within the president’s authority under various banking regulations), but if we’re going to start listing the promises Trump hasn’t kept, this is going to be a long column.

In point of fact, however, he never said Mexico would pre-pay. We can tax remittances anytime.

To keep the Third World masses flowing across our un-walled border, the media are demanding that Trump agree to nonspecific “border security.” It’s like ordering a Starbucks and instead of getting a coffee, you’re told to have more “pep.” Now move along. Here’s your change. 

Would liberals accept such airy statements of intent in lieu of clear legal commands for any of the things they care about? (Not to be confused with “our country,” which they do not care about.)

Instead of EPA emissions standards, with specific parts per million of pollutants allowed into lakes and rivers, how about a law promoting “enhanced appreciation of God’s bounty”? Emissions standards are immoral and ineffective!

Nearly every Republican presidential candidate tried to con voters with these meaningless catchphrases about “border security.”  Here are The Des Moines Register’s summaries of some of the candidates’ positions on immigration a few weeks before the 2016 Iowa caucus: 

Jeb Bush: “has called for enhanced border security.” 

Marco Rubio: “proposes … improved security on the border.” 

John Kasich: “believes border security should be strengthened.” 

Chris Christie: “urges … using technology to improve border surveillance …” 

Rand Paul: “would secure the border immediately.” 

Carly Fiorina: “would secure the border, which she says requires only money and manpower.” 

They all lost. 

The guy who won: “Trump has said many illegal immigrants are rapists and are bringing drugs and crime to the United States. He has called for building a wall along the southern border, and has said he would make Mexico pay for it. He said he would immediately terminate President Barack Obama’s ‘illegal executive order on immigration.'” 

Trump got more votes than any other Republican in the history of presidential primaries. No one was falling for “border security” then, and they aren’t now. But instead of doing what he said and building a wall, Trump has hired people who don’t even grasp that the point is to make it unattractive to break into our country. 

On ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, Trump’s head of Customs and Border Protection, Kevin McAleenan, announced plans to give illegal alien kids free medical care at the border: “What we’ve done immediately, (Homeland Security) Secretary (Kirstjen) Nielsen and I have directed that we do medical checks of children 17 and under as they come into our process.” 

Apparently, our working class is rolling in so much free health care that now our country is diverting medical resources to treat other countries’ sick kids. 

McAleenan boasted that we — that’s you, taxpayer — will be providing “doctors, physician assistants, paramedics to do an initial intake check so that we know if a child is healthy as they arrive at the border and then make sure they can get medical care if they need it.” 


Luckily, this won’t hurt any Americans because the doctors they’re sending to the border are not currently treating any U.S. citizens. Oh wait! This just in: They will be taken away from sick Americans! 

(Possible 2020 Trump campaign bumper sticker: I voted for a wall and all I got was free checkups for illegals.

Doctors aren’t like the Petroleum Reserve. We don’t keep them cryogenically frozen, waiting to be unfrozen so they can treat illegals demanding free medical care as the price of hating us. If we rush doctors to the border, they are being rushed away from Americans who need medical care. 

How about Democrats compile a list, by name, of the Americans they would like not to see their doctors anymore? 

As a result of this boundless compassion for anyone who is not an American, how many more sick kids are going be dragged by their parents across hundreds of miles of desert just to see an American doctor? 

Mexican cartel member to poverty-stricken Latin American:

Before setting off on this caravan, I want you to know that when you get to the border your kids will be held up for a medical check. And if they find anything wrong, your child will be given First World medical treatment. Also, you won’t be allowed to pay. I just want you to understand what you’re getting into before you join this caravan.

And when those kids die, Secretary Nielsen can demand more free medical care for illegals breaking into our country. Instead of having a wall, we’ll have a series of interlocking charity hospitals on the border treating the poor of the world before crossing into a country that didn’t ask for them and doesn’t want them. 

Sorry, America. You lose again.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: Bush’s Finest 30 Seconds: The Willie Horton Ad



Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Dec 05, 2018 4:30 PM

Bush's Finest 30 Seconds: The Willie Horton Ad
The press in America is even worse than we imagine. We sense that they’re biased and stunningly incompetent. They are those things, but so much more. Our media’s version of the news is mathematically and precisely the opposite of the truth. 
 The death and burial of George H.W. Bush is only the latest example.
 
 In the puffery and revisionism that accompany funerals, the man who gave us David Souter, an unnecessary war, tax hikes he promised not to impose and the Americans With Disabilities Act (aka The Destruction of Small Libraries Throughout New England Act) has been elevated to saint like status.
 
 But the one incident the media decided to excoriate Bush for was, in fact, his finest moment: the Willie Horton ad.
 
 If we let the media get away with this, they will have once again redefined what constitutes acceptable discourse in America and cemented the notion that our political process should never be soiled by such a campaign ad — the one thing Bush got right in his entire public career.
 
 Far from representing the “low road,” the Willie Horton ad was the greatest campaign commercial in political history. The ad was the reason we have political campaigns: It clearly and forcefully highlighted the two presidential candidates’ diametrically opposed views on an issue of vital national importance.
 
 Bush’s opponent, Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, had championed a self-evidently insane criminal justice program that provided prison furloughs to first-degree murderers.
 
 One of the murderers let out under Dukakis’ program was a career violent criminal, Willie Horton. In 1974, Horton sliced up a 17-year-old convenience store clerk, Joey Fournier, in Lawrence, Massachusetts, after Fournier had already handed over all the money. He then stuffed the boy’s corpse in a garbage can. That wasn’t Horton’s first offense: Years earlier, he’d been convicted of attempted murder for stabbing a man in South Carolina. No sane person would have allowed Horton to take a breath of free air again.
 
 Horton was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, which was the maximum possible penalty, inasmuch as Gov. Dukakis had vetoed the death penalty. The whole idea of sentencing first-degree murderers to life without parole is that they are never supposed to be let out of prison. But under the weekend furlough program lustily promoted by Dukakis, Horton was released.
 
 On April 3, 1987, months after running away from his most recent furlough, Horton broke into the Maryland home of Cliff Barnes and his fiancée, Angela Miller, and waited for them to return. When Barnes got home, Horton lunged at him, dragged him to the basement, tied him up, and spent hours torturing him, slashing him and jamming a pistol butt in his mouth and eyes. He told Barnes he planned to hang him and watch him die. Five hours later, Barnes’ fiancée came home. Horton left Barnes bound and gagged in the basement, went upstairs and repeatedly raped and beat Miller, as Barnes listened helplessly from the basement.
 
 Twelve hours after he had first encountered Horton, Barnes managed to escape. When Horton realized Barnes was gone, he stole the couple’s car and led police on a high-speed chase before finally being captured — again.
 
 The Maryland judge who sentenced Horton refused to send him back to Massachusetts, saying: “I’m not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released.” The following year, Michael Dukakis offered himself up to be president of the United States.
 
 Dukakis was directly responsible for Horton’s release — as well as the release of hundreds of other murderers, many of whom went on to commit similarly heinous crimes. Even Dukakis’ own Democratic legislature in liberal Massachusetts had tried to reverse a state Supreme Court decision granting furloughs to first-degree murderers. But the Greek homunculus vetoed the bill.
 
 When Horton’s survivors Barnes and Miller tried to meet with Dukakis after their ordeal to ask him to rescind the furlough policy, he refused to see them, arrogantly announcing, “I don’t see any particular value in meeting with people.” This marked the first time the media supported a politician’s refusal to meet with victims of one of his policies.
 
 What could be more central to a presidential campaign than an ad highlighting how Bush would handle criminal justice issues versus how the elected governor of Massachusetts was at that moment handling them? Liberals’ response was to accuse Republicans of racism because Horton was black, knowing full well that the GOP would have given everything it owned for him to have been white. But it was too important an issue to ignore just because the poster-boy for Dukakis’ insane crime policies happened to be black.
 
 Bush’s ad was so “racist” it never even showed Horton’s picture. Instead, white male actors were shown passing through the “revolving door” of criminal justice.
 
 (An independent group unconnected to the Bush campaign produced an ad seen by 16 people showing Horton — appalling the press by using his mug shot, rather than his First Communion photo as prescribed by The New York Times’ standards and ethics policy for black criminals.)
 
 Liberals smugly cite Bush campaign manager Lee Atwater’s deathbed apology for the Horton ad. Yes, he hoped for a nice obituary and didn’t want his kids teased at school, so he said whatever his captors wanted him to say. (By the way, it didn’t work.)
 
 Just like Atwater, the reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize for her articles on Horton disavowed her own reporting, after going through the media’s re-education camp. You don’t have the right to “apologize” for something you did that’s not factually incorrect.
 
 The Horton ad was the highest, best form of political campaigning, serving to illustrate stark differences between the candidates on an important policy issue. People should have won awards for that ad. Instead, it became one of the stops on the left’s Via Dolorosa of Racism. Idiot Republicans are ashamed of it, thinking the best response is to say: Al Gore brought up Horton first!
Yammering morons don’t have any argument against the ad, other than feigned outrage. You’re seriously defending the Willie Horton ad?! Yes I am! It demonstrated that Michael Dukakis should have never been anywhere near a position of power, least of all, the presidency. What’s your argument against it? 

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Trump’s Great Wall Becomes Trump’s Great Stall”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

For those of us who were ecstatic the night Donald Trump was elected president, who watch election night videos over and over again, it used to be easy to defend him against the charge that he is just a BS-ing con man who would say anything to get elected.

It’s getting harder.

Trump was our last chance. But he’s spent two years not building the wall, not deporting illegals — “INCREDIBLE KIDS!” — and not ending the anchor baby scam. Within 10 seconds of Trump’s leaving office, there will be no evidence that he was ever president. Laws will be changed, executive orders rescinded, treaties re-written and courts packed. Trump will leave no legacy at all. Only a wall is forever.

We had no choice. No one else was promising to save America.

“On day one, we will begin working on an impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful southern border wall. We will use the best technology, including above- and below-ground sensors, that’s the tunnels. Remember that: above and below. Towers, aerial surveillance and manpower to supplement the wall, find and dislocate tunnels and keep out criminal cartels …” — Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump

But then he signed a spending bill expressly prohibiting him from building any part of the wall.

“I will never sign another bill like this again. I’m not going to do it again.” — President Trump, after signing a spending bill that blocked any funding for a wall.

Today, eight months later, Trump is about to sign another spending bill that will give him no money for the wall. Anyone want to bet me that he won’t? So much for the world’s greatest negotiator.

Donald Trump is the commander in chief. He doesn’t need Congress’ approval to defend the nation’s borders. But as long as his excuse for not building the wall is that Congress hasn’t appropriated money for it, why on earth would he sign a spending bill that doesn’t give it to him?

There is no tomorrow on this. Republicans are about to lose the House. It’s now or never. We didn’t need someone to tell us how hard it is to get anything done in Washington. We knew that. That’s why we hired a builder. We didn’t care what Trump’s position on the lira was. We didn’t care about Syria. We were just looking for the best contractor we could find so we would finally get a wall.

If we were talking about a golf course in Scotland, I think Trump could figure out how to get it done.

But instead of winning, we’re getting whining. We’re told it’s Congress’ fault for not giving Trump money to build the wall! The ACLU will sue! A judge will stop him! Blame Paul Ryan! (Possible Trump epitaph: Chuck wouldn’t let me!)

President Reagan bombed Libya in retaliation for two U.S. serviceman being killed by a bomb in a West Berlin discotheque — TWO! But Trump thinks he needs the preapproval of Congress, the ACLU and a district court judge in Hawaii to do something about tens of thousands of Americans being killed every year by illegal alien heroin dealers, drunk drivers and straight-up murderers.

Reagan invaded Grenada because the country was becoming a Soviet client state. No Grenadian threatened to touch a hair on any American’s head. One wonders what Reagan’s reaction would have been to someone telling him, YOU CAN’T DO THAT! THE ACLU WILL SUE! If Reagan had Trump’s advisers, we’d be speaking Russian.

The ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the other anti-American groups opposing Trump on immigration were the very same groups that opposed Reagan. They would have been happy if the U.S.S.R. had nuked this country. Sadly for them, Reagan kept his promises, and we won the Cold War. So now the back-up plan is to destroy our country by flooding it with the Third World.

We needed Reagan and got P.T. Barnum instead.

Evidently, Trump knew he could bomb an innocent country based on false information about the Syrian government using nerve gas in April 2018. (Actual reason: Ivanka cried.) No less than the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons spent months testing the bodies allegedly killed by nerve gas. Conclusion: No nerve gas.

But we’re supposed to believe that Trump doesn’t realize that he’s also allowed to defend the citizens of this country. Does he know he’s president?

Even if noted constitutional law scholar Jared Kushner has convinced Trump that he needs congressional approval before he’s allowed to repel invaders at our border — but doesn’t need Congress to bomb an innocent country because Ivanka cried — the president could order the troops to invade Mexico and build the wall 10 yards in.

But all we get are bombastic tweets and useless half-measures. The conservative media have been excitedly reporting that Obama put illegal alien kids in cages too! Obama used tear gas on the invaders too! Yes, exactly — and none of that worked. That’s why we voted for the guy who promised to build a wall.

Unlike the president, we knew that the deluge of poor people flooding our country would never stop until we had an impenetrable border. And whatever happened to that executive order on anchor babies? Is Trump “trying” to sign that, too? Maybe he got writer’s cramp.

Trump also promised to deport illegals — even the ones Democrats have given cute names to.

We’re always talking about ‘Dreamers’ for other people. I want the children that are growing up in the United States to be dreamers also. They’re not dreaming right now.” — Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump

“The executive order (on “Dreamers”) gets rescinded.” — Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump

Is it Paul Ryan’s fault that Trump did a 180 on “Dreamers,” called them “INCREDIBLE KIDS” and tried to give them amnesty?

Every day that Trump does not keep his promises on immigration, thousands of immigrants turn 18 and start block voting for the Democrats, while thousands of traditional Americans die off. Florida and Texas are about five years away from turning solid blue. Trump was our last chance. After this, the country is never going to elect a Republican president again.

So the next time you watch one of those election night videos, remember: If Trump doesn’t keep his immigration promises, Hillary might as well have won.

Trump will leave no legacy whatsoever. Without a wall, he will only be remembered as a small cartoon figure who briefly inflamed and amused the rabble.

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.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: