Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ann Coulter’

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


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Commentary by Ann Coulter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was nothing America could do about it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Happy Fourth of July, You Wonderful Country!”


Commentary by Ann Coulter 

It has become fashionable to equate the French and American Revolutions, but they share absolutely nothing beyond the word “revolution.” The American Revolution was a movement based on ideas, painstakingly argued by serious men in the process of creating what would become the freest, most prosperous nation in the history of the world. (Until Democrats decided to give it away to the Third World.)

The French Revolution was a revolt of the mob. It was the primogenitor of the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s storm troopers, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s slaughter and America’s periodic mob uprisings, from Shays’ Rebellion to the current attacks on White House employees and Trump supporters.

The French Revolution is the godless antithesis to the founding of America.

One rather important difference is that Americans did win freedom with their revolution and created a self-governing republic. France’s revolution consisted of pointless, bestial savagery, followed by another monarchy, followed by Napoleon’s dictatorship and then finally something resembling an actual republic 80 years later.

Both revolutions are said to have come from the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers, the American Revolution influenced by the writings of John Locke and the French Revolution informed by the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This is like saying presidents Reagan and Obama both drew on the ideas of 20th-century economists — Reagan on the writings of Milton Friedman and Obama on the writings of Paul Krugman.

Locke was concerned with private property rights. His idea was that the government should allow men to protect their property in courts of law, in lieu of each man being his own judge and executioner. Rousseau saw the government as the vessel to implement the “general will” and create a new man. Through power, the government would “force men to be free.”

As historian Roger Hancock summarized the theories of the French revolutionaries, they had no respect for humanity “except that which they proposed to create.” To liberate man, they would “reconstruct his very humanity to meet the demands of the general will.”

Liberals dearly wish our Founding Fathers were more like the godless French peasants, skipping around with human heads on pikes. But alas, our Founding Fathers were God-fearing descendants of Puritans and Presbyterians. (And one Catholic!) King George denounced the American Revolution as “a Presbyterian war.”

As Stephen Waldman writes in his definitive book on the subject, “Founding Faith,” the American Revolution was “powerfully shaped by the Great Awakening,an evangelical revival in the Colonies in the early 1700s, led by famous Puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards, among others. Aaron Burr, the third vice president of the United States, was Edwards’ grandson.

There are books of Christian sermons endorsing the revolution. The barbaric attacks on the church by the French revolutionaries would later appall Americans and British alike, even before the bloodletting began.

Americans celebrate the Fourth of July, the date our written demand for independence from Britain was released to the world.

The French celebrate Bastille Day, a day when a thousand armed Parisians stormed the Bastille and savagely murdered a half-dozen guards, defacing their corpses and sticking their heads on pikes — all in order to seize arms and gunpowder for more such tumults. It would be as if this country had a national holiday to celebrate the Ferguson riots.

Among the most famous quotes from the American Revolution is Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death!” Among the most famous quotes from the French Revolution is the Jacobins’ “Fraternity or death!” Or, as Jacobin Sebastien Nicolas de Chamfort satirized it: “Be my brother or I’ll kill you.”

Our revolutionary symbol is the Liberty Bell, rung to summon the citizens of Philadelphia to a public reading of the just-adopted Declaration of Independence.

The symbol of the French Revolution is the “National Razor” — the guillotine.

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, all died of natural causes in old age, with the exception of Button Gwinnett of Georgia, who was shot in a duel unrelated to the revolution.

Only one other founding father died of unnatural causes: Alexander Hamilton, who did not sign the Declaration of Independence. He died in a duel with Burr because as a Christian, Hamilton deemed it a greater sin to kill another man than to be killed. Before the duel, Hamilton vowed in writing not to shoot Burr.

President after president of our new nation died peacefully for 75 years, right up until Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865.

Meanwhile, all the leaders of the French Revolution died violently, guillotine by guillotine.

The Fourth of July also marks the death of two of our greatest Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who died on the same day, exactly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed.

We made it for nearly another 200 years. And then, for some reason, the Democrats decided to give our country away to the rest of the world.

Ann Coulter Letter for June 27, 2018: “Country Overboard! Women and Children Last!”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  

I’m still ticked off at him for not building the wall, but THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP, FOR POINTING OUT THAT MAXINE WATERS HAS A LOW I.Q.! And there’s more great news! Contrary to every single New York Times editorial and opinion piece on the president’s “Muslim ban,” this week, the Supreme Court upheld the ban.

Or, as a Times op-ed put it back on Jan. 27, 2017: “(T)he order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin. …” “Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal,” by David J. Bier, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

For your immigration news, New York Times, maybe stop thinking you’re getting “both sides” by going to open borders activists at the International Refugee Assistance Project and, for the opposing view, open borders activists at the Cato Institute.

Last week, in a column that does not misstate the facts and the law about immigration, I covered some typical asylum and refugee admissions to our country, including Beatrice Munyenyezi. She was the Rwandan who got into our country by claiming to be a victim of the genocide that killed nearly a million people, even though she had helped orchestrate it.

Munyenyezi wasn’t the only participant in the Rwandan genocide who’s gotten in as a victim and then been unmasked as a perpetrator. So far, nearly 400 Rwandans granted special refugee status have been convicted of lying on visa applications about their role in the genocide. Great job, U.S. refugee admissions officials!

Courts are dealing with so many genocidal Rwandans who came to America as “refugees” that just last Friday, a federal appeals court upheld the conviction of another one, Gervais “Ken” Ngombwa, who not only lied about his participation in the genocide, but also about his family relationships. (You can’t get anything past our State Department!)

Aside from our immigration authorities missing little things like the Rwandan genocide, what is the argument for taking in millions of people from backward cultures, hotbeds of real racism, pederasty, misogyny — as opposed to the “microaggressions” that are the bane of our culture?

It’s one thing to use quotas as a response to slavery and Jim Crow in our own country, but why do we have to have an immigration quota for “people who don’t live here, have never seen an indoor toilet, and rape little girls for sport”?

Liberals act as if they are striking a blow for feminism by importing desperate women from misogynistic cultures to America. But, even to the extent they’re telling the truth, the women aren’t always victims only. They’re often co-conspirators.

Remember the Baby Hope case? In 1991, a little girl’s unidentified body was found in an Igloo cooler alongside the Henry Hudson Parkway. Twenty-two years later, the New York City police finally solved the case: The perpetrator turned out to be Baby Hope’s illegal alien cousin from Mexico, who had raped and killed her when she was 4 years old.

And how had he escaped justice for 22 years? The girl’s mother and aunt, also illegals, helped orchestrate the cover-up. The aunt helped dispose of the body and the girl’s mother never said a peep, despite admitting that she suspected all along that the corpse in the cooler was her unreported, missing daughter.

Hmong girls in Minnesota are regularly gang raped by Hmong men, but the Hmong community — even the girls’ mothers — blame the rape victims, and the attacks go unreported. These aren’t cultures of strong women and criminal men. It’s more like criminal men and complicit women.

(One of the major articles reporting on the Hmong rape culture, helping diversify America, was Pam Louwagie and Dan Browning’s “Shamed Into Silence,” published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune in 2005. It used to be here: startribune.com/local/11594631.html. The detailed story won first place for In Depth Reporting from the Minnesota Society of Professional Journalists, but it seems to have disappeared from the Tribune’s website. Welcome to the Soviet Union!)

In San Francisco, we had the young Indian sex slaves of pederast Lakireddy Bali Reddy testifying on his behalf. Once he was finally busted — not by our fantastic “democracy dies in darkness” mainstream media, but by a local high school newspaper — we found out his child rape victims thought they deserved it. They could not be coaxed to testify against him. Some took the stand on his behalf. They were all given asylum. We didn’t change them; they just moved here, without altering their belief in human slavery or the caste system one iota.

Americans are told we have to understand that it’s part of their native cultures.

Exactly! It’s their culture. We’re not rescuing anybody; we’re bringing in diseased cultures. The alleged refugees don’t float above and apart from their societies. Feminists may see the world as the Boy team versus the Girl team, but in reality, it’s the Civilized team versus the Primitive team. Virtually every woman outside of the First World lives in an abusive society. We can’t take them all in.

How did violent, backward, misogynistic cultures become our problem? Did we take a vote and agree to be the world’s charity ward?

Democrats who claim to be defenders of the weak, the marginal and vulnerable are happy to toss our safe, functioning country aside — as long as they can wreck America (and get their housework done at the same time!). The left’s central political philosophy is based on resentment toward historical America.

They’re just like the feminists willing to forgive Bill Clinton for rape. Well, you know, taking in the totality of his contributions …Today, it’s: Who cares what kind of society we become — provided America is no more.

Primitive people will not stop trying to come here until America is no different from Calcutta. Then, liberals’ work will be done. And there will be no charity ward left for anyone to flee to.

That’s how much liberals care about women and children.

This Weeks Ann Coulter Letter: “Google ‘Internet,’ Media!”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2018/06/20/google-internet-media/

Journalists know absolutely nothing about immigration and refuse to learn, so when I cited the fraudulent “humanitarian” cases on TV Sunday night, I footnoted myself live on air, citing a New Yorker article as well as my book, “Adios, America,” which has nearly 100 pages of footnotes. That should make it easy for even the stupidest reporters.You haven’t met The Hill’s Jacqueline Thomsen! She was at a loss. The New Yorker? What’s that? Jacqueline thought and thought and thought, until her head hurt! Finally, she decided, as she wrote in The Hill, “It’s unclear what New Yorker article Coulter was referring to.”

Armed only with the information that there was an article in a tiny little publication known as “The New Yorker” about asylum applicants being coached on their fake asylum claims, how could an American reporter ever hope to locate “The Asylum Seeker” in the Aug. 1, 2011, New Yorker? Forget “Adios, America,” where it is cited, along with many, many other sources. I can’t read a BOOK, Thomsen thought to herself.

I Googled “New Yorker asylum,” and the article I was referring to came up as the third item in the list. Add “coaching” or “coached,” and it’s the very first item Google gives you. It took 3 seconds.

Thomsen: HOW DOES GOOGLE WORK, ANYWAY?

The New Yorker article begins with “Caroline,” an illegal alien from a middle-class family in Africa, who passed herself off to U.S. immigration authorities as a victim of rape and torture. As she admitted to The New Yorker, while giggling: “I have never been raped.” Fortunately, “Caroline had been tutored in how to act like a rape victim by her landlady in the Bronx, who hadn’t been raped, either, but had successfully applied for asylum.”

As she prepared to weep and lie through her interview with a very tough American immigration officer about her nonexistent torture and rape, Caroline said of the country she was lying her way into: “I don’t know why I didn’t just go back. They are racists and xenophobes here.”

Glad to have you, too, Caroline! (At least you’d make a better reporter than Thomsen.)Luckily, we have the very best government officials reviewing asylum applications. (Pasted on the window of one immigration official’s office was a cover from the official Cuban Communist newspaper.) Caroline’s completely apocryphal asylum application was, naturally, approved.

Our immigration officials are so thorough, so hard to fool, that they granted Beatrice Munyenyezi asylum and citizenship, allowing her and her kids to live off the U.S. taxpayers for 10 years before federal prosecutors noticed, Hey! Munyenyezi wasn’t a victim of the Rwandan genocide; she was a perpetrator! Munyenyezi had personally sentenced thousands of Rwandan women and children to death.

And now the poor murderess has been SEPARATED FROM HER CHILDREN!

Crack reporter Thomsen must have missed that story, too. For her reading pleasure, assuming she can read: Chris McGreal, “Rwandan woman stripped of U.S. citizenship after lying about genocide,” The Guardian, Feb. 22, 2013.

One asylum applicant written about in The New York Times claimed she was being persecuted in Russia because she was gay. She told her immigration lawyer, “I’m not gay at all. I don’t even like gay people.” (For ace Hill reporter Thomsen, who is hopelessly confused about “books” and “Google,” the cite is: Sam Dolnick, “Asylum Ploys Play Off News to Open Door,” The New York Times, July 12, 2011.)

Usually, frauds are only exposed when the asylum applicant makes the news. You’d think one of these times, an asylee would become famous and we’d find out: Hey, this person really was fleeing persecution!

Nope. The pattern is: They make the news; we find out their asylum applications were total frauds.

Here are a few:

Ramzi Yousef was the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Bojinka plot, as well as the nephew of 9/11 architect Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Poor Yousef almost didn’t make it through customs. Not only was his own passport of dubious provenance, but his traveling companion was carrying bomb manuals, car bombing videos — and instructions on how to lie to U.S. immigration inspectors. Yousef claimed asylum and was released into our country to execute the first WTC attack.

Sofitel hotel maid Nafissatou Diallo falsely accused the head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, of rape. She had been granted asylum after memorizing a tape given to her by an American immigration activist about being gang raped in Guinea. (For Jackie “How does Google work?” Thomsen: That’s from the same Times article cited above.)

Amadou Diallo was all over the news after being killed by four New York City police officers in 1999. Only because of that, we found that, in his asylum application, he had claimed his parents had been murdered by the Mauritanian government. APPROVED! In fact, Diallo was born into a prosperous Guinean family and his parents were alive and well — and looking for a settlement from New York taxpayers. (For super reporter Thomsen, you’ll find that story here: Alan Feuer, “$3 Million Deal in Police Killing of Diallo in ’99,” The New York Times, Jan. 7, 2004.)

America is the most generous country on Earth, but — as The New York Times’ John Tierney demonstrated 20 years ago — even denizens of the “nicest” town lose patience when the third panhandler asks them for money. (For reporters who couldn’t find their asses if you drew them a map: John Tierney, “Mean Streets,” The New York Times, May 12, 1996.)

Our country is being victimized by a network of con-artist foreigners and America-hating left-wingers passing out fake papers, fake stories and fake scripts to Third-Worlders, who lie about seeking “asylum” to get in on the American gravy train and wreck our country.

And that’s in normal times.

The crisis on the border today is no ordinary asylum fraud. It’s a political stunt by a left-wing organization, “Pueblo Sin Fronteras” — People Without Borders — which believes, as its name suggests, that the U.S.A. has no right to have a border. This group has very publicly marched hordes of Latin Americans through thousands of miles of another country to demand entry into our country. Pueblo Sin Fronteras’ monthlong trek has been so well publicized that everyone in the country knows about it — except, apparently, our media.

The New York Times describes the horror thus: “At some border crossings, migrants are being forced to wait for days or longer in Mexico.”

Wait. Why don’t they just stay in Mexico? Isn’t Mexico a fantastic country with ZERO rapists? If not, maybe we should build something at the border — I don’t know, maybe a wall?

Wall” is a one-syllable word, so even Jacqueline Thomsen can understand that.

Ann Coulter Letter: “Meanwhile, 10 Miles From The White House…”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  

Now that Trump has solved Northeast Asia’s problems, maybe he can get to a problem in our country — in fact, within 10 miles of the White House. For some reason, The Washington Post recently ran an article on something important — the MS-13 gang presence at a public school on the outskirts of our nation’s capital, William Wirt Middle School in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

The media’s usual approach to the diversity being inflicted on us is: Don’t report this! It’s better if no one knows. Maybe the left has decided it’s too late to do anything about the transformation of our country into a Third World hellhole, and Trump couldn’t stop it even if he wanted to.

The Post reported that, like many schools up and down the East Coast, MS-13 has turned Wirt into a battleground. There have been near-daily gang fights, rampant drug dealing, one reported rape, gang signs on the walls, one shooting — more in nearby schools — and teachers afraid to be alone with their students. At least two students are required to have security officers assigned to them, walking them from class to class and watching them during lunch hour, on account of MS-13 threatening to kill them.

How many different categories of immigrants require special law enforcement officers devoted to them? Thanks to mass Muslim immigration, the FBI has terrorist watch lists in ALL 50 STATES. That’s why whenever there’s a terrorist attack, the FBI says, Oh yeah, we were watching that guy. And now we have police bodyguards for kids at schools wherever “unaccompanied minors” have been dumped by our government.

In addition to the free school lunches, transportation, housing and health care to pay for all this wonderful diversity, immigrants are also massively ratcheting up law enforcement costs.

It would be enraging enough if bad things were happening to our country and the immigrants were paying for it. But we’re paying for it. Wait — you are offering to bring gang warfare, drug cartels and terrorism? We’ll go top dollar for that! Put your wallet away! Your money’s no good here!

Having made the odd decision to report factual information about immigration, The Washington Post was careful to include the gigantically irrelevant, painfully idiotic cliché: The “vast majority” of poor Latin Americans pouring into our country “enroll in school and stay out of trouble.”

Yes, and the vast majority of boa constrictors stay out of trouble too. Let’s put them in our schools! In fact, far fewer boa constrictors kill Americans each year than Latin American immigrants do. Less than one a year. And boa constrictors don’t undercut you at the construction site.

We never hear that “vast majority” argument about the policies that liberals like. The “vast majority” of gun owners never shoot up a school. The “vast majority” of smokers will never get lung cancer. The “vast majority” of Americans do not benefit from Wall Street profits.

Why are we subjecting ourselves to mass immigration at all?  Hey, everyone, let’s all get an HIV injection! Don’t worry, the vast majority of us won’t get AIDS!

We’re certainly not doing it to be nice to Hispanics. They’ve been polled and polled and polled, and it turns out they DON’T want more people being brought in to take their jobs and drive down wages. Recent immigrants probably don’t want their useless brother-in-law from Chiapas sleeping on the couch either.

In the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama’s Spanish language ads didn’t make a peep about immigration. Instead, he bragged about giving everyone free health care. (Sidebar: Unmentioned were the millions of people who lost their health care, thanks to all that free health care for immigrants.)

Less than two years ago, Republicans watched the most anti-immigrant politician in a century be elected president, with every major institution in America against him. Trump won more of the Hispanic vote than any Republican in a generation.

The Chamber of Commerce knows that Hispanics didn’t come here to have their wages driven down by an unending stream of unskilled workers just like themselves. Republicans and Democrats know it. The only people who don’t know it are Americans who don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings by opposing the constant importation of unskilled, poverty-stricken immigrants.

The reason for this transformation of our country, our culture and our politics is to flood the market with low-wage workers and Democratic voters. Obviously, those are losing arguments, so the beneficiaries of mass Third World immigration lie. They claim that anyone who doesn’t want to supply the rich with cheap labor must hate Hispanics.

Trump thought North Korea was hard? With immigration, we have all of the most influential forces in our culture on the same page. Immigration is a great unifier of the rich and powerful.

The rich are like sharks — all appetite, no brain. With their cheap labor voting 7-3 for the Democrats, it won’t be long until Democrats have a lock on government. What do you think they’ll do then, Business Roundtable? Answer: Make it impossible to do business. Google “California.”

With the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the Koch brothers’ incessant lobbying for more and more cheap labor, we see exactly what Lenin said about the capitalists: They will sell us the rope with which to hang them.

The rich don’t care. They can’t think beyond next quarter’s earnings.

This Week’s Ann Coulter Letter: “I Have a Dream … About Gay Wedding Cakes”


disclaimerCommentary by Ann Coulter  | 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2018/06/07/i-have-a-dream-about-gay-wedding-cakes/

The Supreme Court’s recent decision on whether a Christian baker can be forced to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage (no) arriving on the same day that Bill Clinton reared his syphilitic head on NBC’s “Today” reminded me how liberals always use black people as props.

Midway through the last century, bedrock legal principles about property rights and freedom of association were abrogated to deal with a specific, intractable problem: We could not get Democrats to stop discriminating against blacks. 

So Republicans, with very little Democratic help, passed a slew of laws saying: No, even though you own that restaurant, you cannot discriminate against black customers. And no, even though we are a free people, you cannot refuse to associate with black people in your clubs, universities or sports teams.

This should have been a one-time exception to the law for one specific group of people based on an emergency.

But Democrats, never wild about freedom in the first place, saw “civil rights” as a great gig. Instead of civil rights being used to remedy historic injuries done to a specific group of people, they’d use “civil rights” as a false flag for all their pet projects.

Just six years after passage of the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act, Democrats in New York had dropped black people from the equation and moved onto legalized abortion. State senator Manfred Ohrenstein of Manhattan explained why killing the unborn was a “right”: “It was the end of the civil rights era, and we viewed [abortion] as a civil right.”

In the 1991 case Kreimer v. Morristown, a Carter-appointed federal district judge, H. Lee Sarokin, ruled that a public library’s discrimination against smelly, frightening homeless people violated the equal protection clause because it had a “disparate impact” on people who refuse to bathe compared to those who bathe regularly. Three years later, President Clinton promoted him to an appellate judgeship. (The judge, not the homeless person.)

In 2007, then-governor Eliot Spitzer vowed that “New York state will continue to be a beacon of civil rights” — when proposing a state law that would guarantee access to late-term abortions.

In June 2012, The New York Times chirpily reported “gay rights the fastest-moving civil rights movement in our nation’s history”!

These days, you could be forgiven for not realizing that civil rights ever had anything to do with black people. According to Equal Opportunity Employment Commission statistics, for a least a decade, 65 percent of all “civil rights” claims have had absolutely nothing to do with race discrimination.

The gay wedding cake caper is only the most recent example of our majestic “civil rights.”

Instead of basing favored treatment under the law on a history of brutal and widespread injustice in America, liberals thought it should also be based on other forms of suffering, such as: being a woman, being a Muslim, wanting an abortion, having been born in Mexico, being a smelly homeless person stinking up the public library and — according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg this week — being a gay couple who wants to force a Christian to bake a cake for your wedding.

It must make blacks feel great being compared to daft women, smelly homeless people and bossy gays harassing a Christian baker.

And apes!

Princeton ethics professor Peter Singer compares black people to apes, citing the black liberation movement as a model for the liberation of apes. We must “extend to other species,” Singer says, “the basic principle of equality” that we extend “to all members of our own species.”

This wasn’t an Ambien-induced Twitter rant by a comedian. Singer wrote it, calmly and deliberately, in a book on “ethics.”

Still, I believe the greatest insult black Americans have had to endure from liberals was when they called Bill Clinton the “first black president.”

I notice that he was not the first black president when Democrats were singing Fleetwood Mac at his inauguration, nor when he was appointing the first woman attorney general or passing welfare reform. Only after Clinton was caught in the most humiliating sex scandal in U.S. history did he suddenly become “the first black president.” (Which is not true, according to Monica Lewinsky’s description of Clinton’s private parts.)

During the House impeachment hearings, Rep. Maxine Waters ferociously defended Clinton, saying, “I am here in the name of my slave ancestors.” She said she had woken up in the middle of the night, “with flashes of the struggles of my African ancestors for justice.”

What this had to do with Clinton perjuring himself about molesting a chubby Jewish White House intern was anyone’s guess.

Always the master of subtlety, as soon as the Lewinsky scandal broke, Clinton promptly invited the Rev. Jesse Jackson to the White House to “pray” with him. Two months later, he took off on an 11-day, six-nation $43 million trip to — guess where? Africa!

Haven’t black people suffered enough without this horny hick piggybacking on their oppression?

please likeand share and leave a comment

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: