Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ann Coulter’

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Venezuela’s Welfare Has Run Out. Now They Want Ours


Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 28, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/09/28/venezuelas-welfare-has-run-out-now-they-want-ours—p–n2613737/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Venezuela's Welfare Has Run Out. Now They Want Ours

Source: AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos

The massive news coverage of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ “political stunt” of sending 50 illegal aliens to Martha’s Vineyard reminds me of the media’s “political stunt” of referring to illegals as “legal asylum-seekers.”

Number one: They broke into our country. They’re illegal aliens. Number two: All asylum claims are frauds. Every single one.

Asylum is nothing but a conveyer belt to bring the worst people on Earth to our shores. You say you turned your own country into a hellhole? Fantastic! Come right in!

No one gets asylum from a well-run country. Why would we want to admit people who have demonstrated the wisdom, foresight and diligence to produce a functioning society? Rewards await only those who’ve participated in the creation of complete disaster zones. (Just think of what these great thinkers could do for our country!)

Take the Venezuelan illegal aliens whom DeSantis sent to Martha’s Vineyard. Biden’s press secretary and human kewpie doll, Karine Jean-Pierre, repeatedly referred to the briefly loved illegals as “people who are fleeing communism, who are fleeing hardship … desperate people — people who are trying to come here because they’re fleeing communism themselves.”

How did Venezuela become communist again?

As The Martha’s Vineyard Times explained (once the illegals were safely expelled and the island fumigated), Venezuela’s “humanitarian crisis” resulted from that country’s “complicated political and socioeconomic history.”

Actually, it’s not that complicated. Poor people in Venezuela voted for it. Oh boy, did they vote for it.

The ridiculous peasant Hugo Chavez promised Venezuela’s poor that he would take vengeance on the rich — “the squalid ones” — and give their stuff to the poor. Millions of poor people responded: YESSSSS!!!

Beginning in 1998, and five times after that, the poor came out in droves to support this clown. Fist pumping! Dancing in the streets! Red shirts as far as the eye could see!

As The New York Times described it, “To the adoring, impoverished masses who catapulted him to power, Hugo Chavez Frias is El Comandante, their protector and benefactor, the bold leader who will wipe out 40 years of inequality and corruption and redirect this country’s enormous oil wealth to better their lives.”

Chavez basically promised to deliver the Ta-Nehisi Coates “equity” agenda that’s so popular with the Democratic Party right now. The poor believed the rich were rich because they had stolen from the poor. Chavez vowed to take it back. It was sort of a 1619 Project for Venezuela.

As promised, Chavez proceeded to seize private businesses, farms (by 2011, he’d expropriated 6 million acres of farmland) and golf resorts, telling poor people to move onto the club greens.

Anybody want asylum yet? Nope!

Between 1998 and Chavez’s death in 2013 — whereupon he was promptly replaced with his handpicked successor, President Nicolas Maduro — Venezuela’s poor voted for him over and over and over again: in 1998 (80% public approval rating his first year in office), in 2000 (winning 60% of the vote), in 2004 (59% against recalling him), in 2006 (winning 63% of the vote), in 2009 (54% voted to make him president for life) and finally in 2012 (winning 55% of the vote).

Never has any public been polled more often and returned the same resounding answer.

Well, they’re not fist-pumping anymore. Instead, Venezuela’s poor are claiming they “deserve” to access America’s generous welfare state.

Twenty years of Chavez’s Diversity, Inclusion and Equity (DIE!) produced this: “a country whose economy has collapsed … malnutrition and disease are soaring [and m]illions have emigrated to escape the grind of finding enough to eat, of living without reliable electricity or tap water,” as Bloomberg News put it in 2019.

Venezuela is sitting on the largest oil reserves in the world, and the communists still couldn’t get it to work.

Who could have seen that coming??? Oh, anyone with two functioning brain cells. There were little hints, like Chavez promising his very first year in office “to follow the path of Fidel,” and describing Cuba as “a sea of happiness, social justice and true peace.”

Millions of Venezuela’s poor thought that sounded just peachy, and the rest did nothing. They act as if this 100% predictable catastrophe was a natural disaster for which they bear no responsibility.

Yeah, I definitely want these people as my fellow citizens. They’ve shown solid judgment.

Now that their own choices have wrecked their country, they demand free admission into ours. Unless they’re professional baseball players, I’m not seeing what’s in it for us.

In the kewpie doll’s press conference proclaiming that these innocent little lambs “deserve better” (than being sent to a fabulous beach resort), she cheerfully listed the great heaping portions of welfare being ladled out to Hispanics:

“[O]ur administration has delivered billions of dollars in loans to Hispanic small businesses, expanded the child tax credit to provide help to millions of families and reduce Hispanic child poverty by more than 40%, expanded access to quality healthcare to thousands of Latino families … And thanks to President Biden’s student loan debt relief program, almost half of Latino students with federal loans will see their debts forgiven.”

The Democratic Party is cribbing Chavez’s lines. And it will work, because the same people who fell for it last time will be voting for it here.

To be sure, the Venezuelan “asylum-seekers” aren’t any worse than other members of that illustrious group. If (when) they are granted asylum, these poor decision-makers will join:

— Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bombers (sometimes, they’re persecuted for a reason);

— Ibragim Todashev, who, along with Tamerlan, slit the throats of three Jewish men in Boston;

— Beatrice Munyenyezi, a genocidal Rwandan, who won asylum by lying about being a victim of the genocide, rather than a perpetrator.

Those are just a few of our standout asylum grantees. To be fair, the illegal Venezuelans haven’t killed anybody yet, as far as we know. They’re more like a homeless guy who shows up on your doorstep after a lifetime of bad choices and demands that you give him your house.

Perhaps, just this once, we should defer to the wisdom of our moral betters on Martha’s Vineyard and tell the Venezuelans: We love you! Now get the hell out.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Show Us the Way, Rich Liberals!


Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 21, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/09/21/show-us-the-way-rich-liberals—p–n2613429/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Show Us the Way, Rich Liberals!

Source: AP Photo/Steven Senne, File

It’s been awe-inspiring to see the bottomless generosity of Martha’s Vineyard residents after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sent them 50 illegal immigrants from Venezuela last week.

WE LOVE YOU, YOU’VE ENRICHED OUR LIVES, NOW GET THE F–K OUT OF HERE.

Unlike angry, white MAGA voters upset about their towns being flooded with illegals, Vineyard residents would LOVE to be sort of a — what’s the word? — “sanctuary” for illegals. Really, they would. But that won’t be possible.

As Lisa Belcastro, manager of the Vineyard’s homeless shelter, succinctly put it: “We are definitely supplying them with a lot of love … They need to be off island.” The illegals “need” to hustle off because “Their immigration appointments are not here.” (Are their appointments in the Trump-supporting working-class town they were bussed to?)

In any event, GREAT NEWS, LISA! Nearly half of released illegals don’t appear for their hearings anyway. And guess what? There are absolutely no consequences. (A dozen anti-American websites claim that vast, gigantic numbers of illegals show up for their hearings, but they’re counting illegals who are being held in detention.)

On NPR, Vineyard radio host Eve Zuckoff also began with a testimonial about how “the community rallied”! But unfortunately, “there isn’t the infrastructure.” What do these great humanitarians imagine dirt-poor towns in south Texas have in terms of “infrastructure”?

Every single objection Vineyard residents have raised against the illegals being allowed to stay is precisely what ordinary Americans — not privileged enough to live in Martha’s Vineyard — have been screaming from the rooftops for 30 years. Those 50 illegals represent less than a millionth of the “enrichment” that’s already been foisted on the rest of America. (They’re 1/100,000th of the illegals admitted just under Biden.)

Vastly poorer towns have been forced to turn nearly their entire annual budgets over to feeding, housing, educating — and incarcerating — great heaping portions of third-worlders, while douchebags in places like Martha’s Vineyard (88% white; 3.7% black and 1.7% Hispanic) preen about their higher morality.

For 20 years, hospitals on the Mexican border have been spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year caring for illegals — some of whom are driven directly to American hospitals by Mexican ambulancesI have nine kids all with an ailment that they call diseaso expensivo back in Xochitl. And I heard something about free cable?

In 2002, a small community hospital in Arizona serving the Tohono O’odham Nation alone was spending $1.5 million a year treating illegals.

With some border hospitals devoting two-thirds of their entire operating budgets to illegals, forcing them to reduce staff, increase rates and cut back services, how about Martha’s Vineyard pony up a little of its budget on their beloved illegals?

Nah, they’ll just pat themselves on the back for proclaiming the island a “sanctuary city” before teeing off at the Mink Meadows Golf Club. Why? Because they’re better than you.

In case ordinary Americans weren’t enraged enough about bossy illegals and the hypocritical elites who enable them, the 50 Venezuelans sent to the Vineyard are suing Gov. DeSantis for the indignity of being flown to a wealthy resort town. (Maybe the media shouldn’t have spent the last week raving about how fabulously the illegals were being treated in the Vineyard — at least until they had to get the hell out.)

The Venezuelans are demanding $75,000 per illegal, which should go over well with Americans living on $40,000 a year, already taxed to support the tens of millions of poverty-stricken third-worlders living in our country.

But my gosh, the Venezuelans assimilated to America quickly! They break into our country and, Week One: Oy, my back! My back!

Similarly, the 100,000 Somalis in Minnesota assimilated with amazing speed to scamming our welfare system. The land of Walter Mondale and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” is now the land of 100,000 Somalis, helpfully moved there by our State department beginning in the 1990s. In short order, clean, high-trust, homogeneous Minnesota became a hotbed of crime, terrorism and welfare fraud.

But surely this is small price to pay to rescue our fellow human beings from the horrors of Somalia! What’s that? You say the “refugees” are vacationing in Somalia? Help! Help! Get me out of here! Also, I’ll be needing a government check to fund my trip back to Somalia every winter.

Yes, these desperate “refugees” are cheerfully visiting friends and relatives in the country where they allegedly fear for their very lives! We only found out they were vacationing in Somalia because they asked for a break on their government-subsidized rent while they were away. (Request approved!)

Of course, they weren’t all going back to Somalia. Some were going to Syria to fight for the Islamic State. A 2015 House Homeland Security Committee report found that Minnesota contributed the most foreign fighters to ISIS of any state. Two of every four Somali-Minnesotans intercepted at New York’s JFK airport on route to an ISIS training camp had used federal financial-aid funds to pay for their travel.

This week, the Daily Mail reports that “Minnesotans” stole more than a quarter-BILLION dollars in pandemic relief funds from the U.S. taxpayer, for such pandemic-related needs as 20 cars, 40 properties, guns, cryptocurrency, a week at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas and dozens of luxury items. And this is interesting: also a luxury apartment in Kenya.

The pandemic thieves appear to consist of one white woman and 46 Somalis:

— Aimee Marie Bock

— Abdikerm Abdelahi Eidleh

— Salim Ahmed Said

— Abdulkadir Nur Salah

— Ahmed Sharif Omar-Hashim

— Abdi Nur Salah

— Abdihakim Ali Ahmed

— Ahmed Mohamed Artan

— Abdikadir Ainanshe Mohamud

— Abdinasir Mahamed Abshir

— Asad Mohamed Abshir

— Hamdi Hussein Omar

— Ahmed Abdullahi Ghedi

— Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed

— Abdiaziz Shafii Farah

— Mohamed Jama Ismail

— Mahad Ibrahim

— Abdimajid Mohamed Nur

— Said Shafii Farah

— Abdiwahab Maalim Aftin

— Mukhtar Mohamed Shariff

— Hayat Mohamed Nur

— Qamar Ahmed Hassan

— Sahra Mohamed Nur

— Abdiwahab Ahmed Mohamud

— Filsan Mumin Hassan

— Guhaad Hashi Said

— Abdullahe Nur Jesow

— Abdul Abubakar Ali

— Yusuf Bashir Ali

— Haji Osman Salad

— Fahad Nur

— Anab Artan Awad

— Sharmarke Issa

— Farhiya Mohamud

— Liban Yasin Alishire

— Ahmed Yasin Ali

— Khadar Jigre Adan

— Sharmake Jama

— Ayan Jama

— Asha Jama

— Fartun Jama

— Mustafa Jama

— Zamzam Jama

— Bekam Addissu Merdassa

— Hadith Yusuf Ahmed

— Hanna Marekegn

Your loss, Martha’s Vineyard!

Note to Gov. DeSantis: Keep the flights going. Never stop. And in about three years, remember the words “immigration fraud” and “repatriation.”

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Fetterman’s Murderous Campaign Aides: How It Really Happened


Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 14, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/09/14/fettermans-murderous-campaign-aides-how-it-really-happened—p–n2613113/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Fetterman's Murderous Campaign Aides: How It Really Happened

Source: AP Photo/Rebecca Droke

Dr. Mehmet Oz, Republican Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, recently attacked his opponent, the ridiculous Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, for a pro-criminal record that would embarrass George Soros. Specifically, he criticized Fetterman for employing as aides on his campaign Dennis and Lee Horton, who spent 27 years in prison for a horrific armed robbery murder.

Drunk on his own self-righteousness, Fetterman sanctimoniously responded: “Does Dr. Oz believe that the wrongfully convicted should die in prison?” He added that the brothers “spent 27 years in prison for a crime they didn’t commit.”

Members of the media, who fervently believe our prisons are just bursting at the seams with completely innocent men, didn’t need to hear more. Suddenly, the entire media-big tech-entertainment conglomerate was screaming at Oz: HOW DARE YOU, YOU MORALLY BANKRUPT DOUCHEBAG! THESE TWO MEN WERE PROVED INNOCENT!

Were they now?

Here’s how the media tells “the actual story,” as somberly delivered by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, who majored in “Easily Fooled” studies at Brown University:

“According to brothers Dennis and Lee Horton [and who would know better?], on Memorial Day 1993, they were out for a joyride when they picked up their friend, a guy named Robert Leaf.

“What they did not know was that Leaf had just murdered Samuel Alemo and was currently being pursued by the police [sketch that scene for me, Chris]. They were pulled over and all three men were arrested.

“The police involved with the case were accused of using a whole host of problematic tactics during the investigation [yes, they were “accused” — accusations laughed out of court by Democratic judges]; eyewitnesses changed their story [they did not] after prosecutors tried to pin the crime on all three of them — the Hortons as well.

“And the district attorney’s case file, which was not made available till 2018 [I think we know why, Larry Krasner!], included a note stating Leaf is the shooter and a police note indicating Leaf acknowledged his role — all seeming to clear the Hortons. [total B.S.]

The Horton brothers, who are black, refused a plea agreement because they said they didn’t want to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit.”

Below, I have edited Hayes’ description to include only those parts that are relevant and actually true:

“on Memorial Day 1993 …

“a guy named Robert Leaf

“They were … pulled over and all three men were arrested.

“The Horton brothers … are black.”

Luckily for people interested in knowing the truth — a group that decidedly does not include Chris Hayes — the Horton brothers spent their years in prison clogging up the courts with frivolous appeals, so it’s possible to find out how these innocent lambs were somehow convicted of A CRIME THEY DIDN’T COMMIT!

In dismissing their most recent appeal, here’s how the Pennsylvania Superior Court summarized the “evidence adduced at trial” — that is, evidence presented in open court, supported by physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, subjected to cross-examination, and believed by 12 members of a jury:

“On May 31, 1993, [Dennis Horton], his brother Lee Horton (‘Lee’), and a co-conspirator Robert Leaf (‘Leaf’) robbed Filito’s Bar located at 5th Street and Hunting Park Avenue.

“During the course of the robbery, [Dennis Horton], who was carrying a rifle, shot Samuel Alemo multiple times. Alemo later died from his gunshot wounds. [Dennis Horton] also shot Luz Archella and her daughter Luz Martinez, injuring both. Leaf brandished what appeared to be a black pistol while Lee took money from bar patrons. After leaving the bar, the three men fled in a blue automobile.

“A passerby was able to supply police with a description of the vehicle and a partial license plate number. A radio call was sent out, which included a description of the three assailants, their vehicle, and the last four digits of the license plate. A police officer observed the vehicle a short time later only a mile from the crime scene, and placed [Dennis Horton] and his companions under arrest.

“Police recovered a .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle from the backseat of the car, as well as a black pellet gun under the front passenger seat. Ballistics testing identified the rifle as the same weapon used during the robbery at Filito’s. [Horton], Lee, and Leaf … were taken to the hospital where Martinez and her daughter, as well as another bar patron, Miguel DeJesus, identified them as the robbers.”

(The judges, incidentally, were all Democrats, including the only black woman on the 38-member appellate court, who subscribes to the theory that prison is “The New Jim Crow.”)

As you can see right away, one problem with the media’s version of events is: What the hell happened to the other two guys?

This was a daytime robbery of a bar, where two of the perpetrators walked around, taking the patrons’ wallets at gunpoint — not a nighttime mugging witnessed from 20 yards away. The victims had plenty of time to observe the perps. However much criminal defense lawyers attack eyewitness testimony, the patrons certainly knew it was three guys, not one; that they were black, not white; and they were male, not female.

But more important, right after the murdering thieves sped off, a passerby called the police with a description of the car, including four of six numbers from the license plate. Within minutes, that very car was stopped by the police a mile from the bar. And you’ll never guess what they found in that car … three black guys and a recently fired rifle!

Explain, again, how the Horton brothers happened to be in that car?

Right after their arrest, all three men were positively identified at the hospital by the people they’d shot at earlier that day. But even without that identification, again: They were caught in the getaway car, mere minutes after the crime.

So if I understand it correctly, the media’s theory of the crime is as follows:

Immediately after the robbery — and I mean immediately! — Leaf told his REAL accomplices: I’ve got a fantastic idea! You guys get out of the car. I know these two brothers — the Hortons — who look exactly like you and I’m pretty sure are wearing the exact same clothes. Also, their car is identical to yours and — you’ll never believe this — their license plate number is only off by two digits. I’ll just call them to come pick me up and wait here by the side of the road with the long-barreled — and easy to conceal! — rifle we just fired — OH CRAP! IT’S THE POLICE!

Look, it would be one thing if Fetterman defended his yearslong PR campaign on behalf of the murdering Horton brothers by saying, They’ve served long enough! Everybody deserves a second chance. I would disagree, especially because the brothers continue to deny their guilt — but in that case, at least Fetterman would only be a gullible fool, and not a despicable, bald-faced liar.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Teen Girl Enthusiasms: Twitching, Cutting, and Trans


Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 31, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/08/31/teen-girl-enthusiasms-twitching-cutting-and-trans—p–n2612508/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Teen Girl Enthusiasms: Twitching, Cutting, and Trans

Source: AP Photo/Robin Rayne

    Remember the twitching girls in upstate New York?

    About a decade ago, more than a dozen teen girls, crazed with puberty and hormones, developed a weird medical condition. Despite the utter scientific implausibility of their alleged illness, the mania soon spread to other girls at their school. And then it all just disappeared, giving us a road map for dealing with teenaged girls today, who demand the right to mutilate their sexual organs and inject themselves with infertility-inducing drugs.

    We’ll get back to the twitching girls. First a political point.

    At brunch this weekend, a couple remarked, with some irritation, that in any gathering of Republicans, everybody always starts talking about transgenders. Evidently, it’s not just Republicans. The same topic was vexing Democrats at brunch the next day. The couple’s point was: STOP TALKING ABOUT TEENAGE TRANSGENDERS!

    On the other hand, any politician with three functioning brain cells will hear the same story and think, The electorate is inflamed! I better start talking about transgenders! It’s nothing big, just the greatest medical malpractice in history currently being perpetrated on America’s youth.

    All I needed to know about the transgender craze was that, in a massive survey of parents of transitioning teens, 92% were women, 71% had a bachelor’s or graduate degree, 86% favored gay marriage and 91% were white.

    I’m dying to hear about the biological pathway of a medical condition that afflicts almost exclusively the offspring of liberal white women. (Silver lining: On breaks from talking about their transitioning daughters, the mothers can compare “long-haul COVID” symptoms.)

    The adolescent transgenders themselves were 83% girls (by which I mean “female,” that mysterious life-form unidentifiable by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson).

    These delicate creatures — hormones flooding their bodies, social acceptance more important than life itself — have launched any number of interesting societal phenomena through the years:

    — the Salem witch trials (look up Ann Putnam Jr.);

    — anorexia nervosa (females are three times more likely to have anorexia than males);

    — cutting (girls are three times more likely to engage in cutting than boys);

    — cavalcades of prescription drugs that shouldn’t be given to any human being, least of all a teenager (teen girls are about twice as likely to be on antidepressants as teen boys); and now …

    — transgenderism. (In the past decade, the number of girls seeking to transition has gone up by about 5,500%, compared to 1,500% for boys, according to the Tavistock Centre, the U.K.’s only gender identity clinic for teens.)

    A Nexis search reveals that the word “transgender” was practically nonexistent in The New York Times until fairly recently. In the past 18 months, the Times has mentioned transgenders 2,784 times. You have to wonder how the Salem witch trials got rolling without the Times’ active encouragement.

    But let’s get back to the twitching girls.

    In 2012, the Times published a long magazine article about a rash of teenage girls in Le Roy, New York, having nonepileptic seizures — twitching, arms flailing, head jerking, uncontrollable humming, guttural noises, fainting, tics and so on.

    The Tourette’s-like seizures first occurred in a cheerleader, spread to several members of the team, then leapt to a dozen other female classmates. But, oddly, this absolutely genuine medical condition barely affected the boys, staff or teachers at the school. (Only one boy and one teacher acquired the symptoms.)

    This raised no suspicions among the mothers, who carried on at town meetings, screaming at school officials, “I’m done listening to you. You need to do something!”

    Experts tested the water, the playing fields, the air, the abandoned manufacturing plants. The girls underwent extensive neurological testing. Erin Brockovich even sent a team to test the dirt at the school (despite the fact that she’d turned out to be completely wrong about the purported “cancer cluster” that made her famous).

    The girls and their mothers appeared on “The Today Show” and the “Dr. Phil” show. CNN sent a team of experts to investigate.

    In the end, there was nothing wrong with the girls. Everyone moved on. The tics went away.

    Which, it turns out, is the only way these estrogen-fueled panics ever end. The Times cited famed epidemiologists, local neurologists and feminist writers all making the exact same point: The worst thing to do when facing a psychogenic outbreak is give it attention and support. Feminist literary critic Elaine Showalter, for example, listed three prerequisites to a mass hysteria: “physician-enthusiasts and theorists; unhappy and vulnerable patients; and supportive cultural environments.”

    Luckily for the girls of Le Roy, they were ordinary kids in an ordinary town, not the new victim on the block, much less the little darlings of the upper crust. If they’d been students at The Brearley School in New York City, they’d be thrashing about in wheelchairs to this day.

    Fight Racism: Lock Up Criminals, Even Black Ones


    Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 24, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/08/24/fight-racism-lock-up-criminals-even-black-ones—p–n2612210/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    Fight Racism: Lock Up Criminals, Even Black Ones

    Source: AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews

    This is a cautionary tale for all Americans, both white and black.

    Last Sunday, a college couple, 22-year-old Adam Simjee and his 20-year-old girlfriend, Mikayla Paulus, were driving through Talladega National Forest when they were flagged down by a black woman having car trouble. If I tell you the good Samaritans may have been National Review readers, you can probably guess that one of them ended up dead.

    As they were trying to fix the car, the woman, Yasmine Hider, pointed a gun at them and demanded they walk into the woods and hand over their phones and wallets. At some point, Simjee pulled out his own gun and started firing at Hider, wounding her. She shot back, killing him.

    The reason I suspect the couple were National Review readers is that the “good Samaritan” ruse was one of the bullet points in John Derbyshire’s famous “The Talk: Nonblack Version,” which got him fired from National Review in 2012 — standing athwart history and mewling, “Please like me, liberals.”

    Derbyshire hadn’t even published the piece in NR.

    He was responding to a spate of lachrymose accounts of black parents describing “The Talk” they have to give their sons, instructing them to be super polite to police officers — smile and say, “Yes, sir” — lest the officer shoot them to death for no reason whatsoever. (Ask any police officer, and they will tell you black arrestees, to a man, are the politest people you will ever meet.)

    In the piece, Derbyshire issued exhortations about treating black people with “the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen,” but then listed “some unusual circumstances,” requiring extra vigilance due to “considerations of personal safety.”

    The “personal safety” rules concerned only complete strangers. His point was that when you have no other information to go on, you have to rely on statistics.

    Derbyshire’s Rule 10 (h) was: “Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.” He appended links to stories like the one that began this column.

    Here are a few other examples from a general Nexis search for “good Samaritan w/s shoot! or kill! w/s car”:

    — March 2021: “Boyfriend, 27, who ‘shot dead good Samaritan who stopped to help his girlfriend after her car broke down’ is indicted for murder”

    — January 2020: “Motorist accused of fatally shooting good Samaritan after St. Paul crash is found incompetent to stand trial”

    — August 2017: “Four strippers with broken down car fatally shoot good Samaritan in the back after he stopped to help them change a tire that HE paid for”

    — August 2016: “Good Samaritan shot to death after helping teens pull SUV out of ditch”

    Feel free to look them up, but I’ll save you the trouble and tell you: All the perps were black. National Review: DO NOT WARN OUR READERS ABOUT THE “CAR TROUBLE” SCAM!

    Derbyshire did warn his readers, so NR editor Rich Lowry dumped him, denouncing the piece as “nasty and indefensible.”

    Not good enough! Slate magazine’s William Saletan thundered, complaining that Lowry had not attacked the “ugly,” “racist” column with sufficient ferocity. He, Saletan, would proceed to explain “what Derbyshire got wrong.” Whereupon he demonstrated that he has no idea what the words “statistical” or “averages” mean — much less the phrase “[when] you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences.”

    Thus, his central complaint was: “Derbyshire thinks his data warrant his conclusions. But all his data references include the crucial term ‘mean’ or ‘average.’ They don’t tell you about the person walking toward you. They tell you what you can assess about the probability of danger when the only information you have is color.”

    Yes, exactly, you complete moron. That’s the point, subtly indicated by Derbyshire stating that he was referring only to those occasions when you don’t have any other information about a person. (Do black parents giving “The Talk” remind their sons not to make assumptions about any particular cop walking toward them?)

    Back in the halcyon days of Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, we had one other fact to guide us: Criminals were in prison. Unfortunately for black people, a small percentage of their community commit a boatload of crime. But as long as criminals went to prison, New Yorkers could pass black men with little concern because if they were criminals, they’d most likely be locked up, not standing on a subway platform next to you.

    Not anymore. Now, the criminals are out among us. There’s no possible way to evaluate a stranger, except the statistics. E.g.: Blacks, who make up about 20% of New York’s population, commit more than 70% of the shootings. In Los Angeles, blacks are only 8% of the population, but commit nearly half of the murders.

    Suddenly, New Yorkers, Los Angelinos and anyone else living under Democratic control are behaving like the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who once remarked that when he heard footsteps on the street behind him, he would, “look around and see it’s somebody white and feel relieved.” He made that statement in 1993 — the very year Giuliani was elected mayor, before proceeding to drive down crime rates and liberate black people from dangerous neighborhoods, as well as from suspicious looks.

    This is the cautionary note for black people. The Democrats’ Free All Criminals policies have hurt black people in myriad ways — mostly by getting thousands more of them robbed, assaulted and killed each year — but also in other, more subtle ways, like this.

    As Senate candidate Blake Masters of Arizona said — and the media lied about — it is blacks, frankly, who suffer the most when criminals aren’t locked up. And the Democrats don’t care.

    The FBI Wing of BLM


    Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 17, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/08/17/the-fbi-wing-of-blm—p–n2611919/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    The FBI Wing of BLM

    Source: AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File

    Republicans, can you stop screaming like hyenas at every little indignity suffered by our former president? Donald Trump wouldn’t lift a finger to help you.

    Yes, it was asinine for the FBI to stage a raid on Mar-a-Lago when we all know the only documents Trump wanted were his letters and photos with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. (North Korea has nukes. See? “Nuclear documents.”) Trump needs those for his scrapbook, to accompany the photos of him with Kim Kardashian, Mark Zuckerberg and Sean Hannity.

    Still, the raid isn’t going to affect your life. It barely affected Trump’s. He was golfing in New Jersey at the time.

    You want to be mad at the FBI? This is why you should be angry. Rather than fight crime, the agency has turned itself into the wingman for “Defund the Police.” That could get you and your family killed.

    Consider how they treated the cops in Louisville, Kentucky, who risked their lives trying to serve a search warrant on a major fentanyl dealer’s moll, Breonna Taylor, on March 13, 2020. The true story was discussed in last week’s column, as well as my Dec. 16, 2020, column.

    Here’s the rest of the story, as told by Sgt. John Mattingly in his book, “12 Seconds in the Dark.”

    In the spring of 2020, as the defenseless officers were being smeared — by Oprah, LeBron James, Cardi B., Beyonce, Common, Kim Kardashian, Alicia Keys, Demi Lovato, Ellen DeGeneres, Amy Schumer, Ice Cube, Diddy, Kamala Harris, the entire MSNBC on-air talent, and on and on — a confidential informant revealed that a hit had been put on the officers by two black motorcycle clubs, No Haterz and STR8 RYDERZ.

    And here’s something random: Breonna’s mother was dating the president of one of the clubs.

    A few weeks later, the ATF received information that the club’s Chicago chapter would be driving to Louisville that weekend to kill the officers. The targeted cops were given security and a description of the cars and motorcycles coming for them.

    What happened next would force the officers to flee and live in hiding for the rest of their lives, thanks to the inaction of the FBI.

    Here’s how Sgt. Mattingly describes it: “On May 31, 2020, I was told the FBI corroborated two separate threats from different sources. We received a call at 10 p.m. asking us to pack our bags and leave our house. We had to sell our house that we lived in for six weeks and have been in ‘hiding’ ever since.”

    It seems a $50,000 bounty had been put on the heads of the officers. Breonna’s birthday would have been that Friday. As part of the balloon release celebrating the occasion, the organizers wanted to “have something to celebrate.” To wit: Dead cops.

    At least the FBI had the officers’ backs! No, I’m sorry, the FBI — Trump’s FBI — sided with the guys who’d put a bounty on the cops’ heads. The agency dropped the case after a remarkably short 2 1/2 weeks, announcing — implausibly — that the informant was “unreliable.”

    Well, he’d proven reliable in the past. The informant was, even then, being used in another active case. And of course, no one at FBI headquarters had bothered talking to him. But so desperate was the FBI to close the case that it was willing to blow up one of its own informants: Once ruled “unreliable,” a source can never be used in another federal case.

    Mattingly says the FBI refused to investigate credible threats on the officers’ lives because of the “optics” of “going after a mother in a nationally sensitive case.” Shouldn’t it be the reverse: The FBI must investigate because Breonna’s mother was affiliated with a club planning to murder the cops whom she blamed for her daughter’s death? (In fact, Breonna died because her good pal Kenneth Walker shot at the police. Ironically, a no-knock warrant — the officers knocked and yelled, “POLICE!” — would have saved her life.)

    Local FBI agents in Louisville were enraged. Asked what the targeted cops were supposed to do, the FBI bosses said: “Tell them to relocate.” Two weeks later, Mattingly had to watch as the FBI sent 15 agents to investigate a racist rope in Bubba Wallace’s stall at NASCAR.

    Right-wingers, save your breath defending the most disloyal man alive. Do something useful and get a job at the FBI. Just be sure to put “BLM” on your resume! The next Republican president (Ron DeSantis) is going to need a lot of help.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Merrick Garland Is a Lunatic


    Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 10, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/08/10/merrick-garland-is-a-lunatic—p–n2611583/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    Merrick Garland Is a Lunatic

    Source: AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

    Let’s hope Merrick Garland’s search of Mar-a-Lago is based on more evidence than his indictment of the Louisville, Kentucky, police officers involved in the raid on Breonna Taylor’s house.

    That passive construction I just used — “involved in the raid on,” instead of “who raided” — is not sloppy writing: It’s the facts. The officers who actually shot Taylor have not been charged, apparently on the flimsy grounds that they were being shot at when they fired.

    Instead, our lunatic attorney general has indicted officers who prepared the affidavit used to obtain the warrant to search Taylor’s home. In the words of the indictment, the affidavit “contained information that was false, misleading and out-of-date … and the officers lacked probable cause for the search.”

    Further, the indictment also alleges that the officers knew they were providing false information.

    Breonna Taylor, you will recall, was the moll for drug dealer Jamarcus Glover, one of Louisville’s biggest suppliers of cocaine and fentanyl, and therefore by definition a murderer. On March 13, 2020, the police executed simultaneous search warrants on two of his “trap houses” as well as the home of his bagwoman, Breonna.

    At Taylor’s house, police announced themselves and got no response. They announced themselves again; no response. They announced themselves again; no response. Finally, they used a battering ram to enter. Almost immediately, an officer was shot.

    The man with Taylor, Kenneth Walker, claims he shot at the officers because he thought the guys pounding on the front door and yelling “POLICE!” were home invaders. Skeptics will say that’s implausible, but it is now treated as hard fact in such solid, reliable news sources as The New York Times.

    The officers returned fire and hit Taylor, who had the misfortune to be standing next to her boyfriend as he was shooting at the police. Riots ensued. Taylor’s family got $12 million.

    Kentucky’s criminal prosecution of the one officer charged ended in an acquittal. With last week’s suit, the federal government is now bringing its own criminal charges against the police — in a sane world, this would be double jeopardy — alleging that the affidavit for a search warrant was based on information that was knowingly “false, misleading and out-of-date.”

    Specifically, the feds say the following claims were false:

    1. Glover and Taylor had an “ongoing connection”;

    2. Glover used Taylor’s address as his residence;

    3. Glover received packages at Taylor’s address.

    While it can be murky determining the precise relationship status and residence of a drug dealer, especially when he works out of three trap houses and has multiple girlfriends, those three claims are not false. They are “true.”

    The cops didn’t lie; the indictment does.

    1. Did Glover and Taylor have an “ongoing connection”?

    Their relationship dates back to at least 2016, when Taylor loaned Glover her rental car, only to have the police show up at her door to ask about the dead body in the trunk. The dead man turned out to be the brother of one of Glover’s criminal confederates.

    But that was four years before the raid! Surely, Breonna wised up after the body-in-the-trunk incident and dumped Jamarcus like a hot potato. Right?

    Nope! Taylor continued bonding Glover out of jail through his many arrests from 2016 to 2020. He called Taylor from jail at least 26 times during those four years — that can be proven — including on Jan. 3, 2020, three months before the raids. During that call from January 2020, the two talk about sleeping together and exchange “I love you’s.”

    On Jan. 2, 2020, police installed a pole camera to observe one of the crack houses in response to numerous violent assaults in the area. The very day the camera went up, Taylor’s car was seen pulling up to the house, dropping off Glover. On Feb. 13, 2020, Taylor drove him there again, and while waiting for him, got out of her car, in full view of the camera.

    GPS tracking showed his car driving to Taylor’s house six times in January 2020 alone.

    But this is a dry recitation of police evidence. Glover’s baby mama (not Breonna) is more colorful. In a recorded jailhouse phone call the day after the shooting, she told him: “This b*tch (Breonna) where she’s been with you, since you ain’t been over at my house … the same day you post a picture I guess she post a video, you knew it because she said what’s up she was in the bed with you, you kissing all over her.”

    Glover repeatedly assures the irate baby mama that Breonna just kept his money for him — and that thousands of dollars were still at her house.

    Now, where in the world would the police get the idea that Glover and Taylor had some sort of “ongoing connection”? It’s a puzzlement.

    2. Did Glover use Taylor’s address as his “residence”?

    Again, what constituted Glover’s “residence” is a bit of a philosophical question because, in the words of his baby mama, “You bounce back and forth between these btches.”

    But he had to give the bank an address. He gave them Taylor’s — as confirmed by the police with subpoenaed bank records they obtained on Feb. 24, 2020, mere weeks before the raids. He also had to give police a phone number when he filed a complaint in February about his car being towed. He gave them Breonna’s number.

    To the extent that a major coke dealer with a string of ladies has any fixed address, Glover’s address was Taylor’s house.

    3. Did Glover receive packages at Taylor’s residence?

    This one’s the easiest to answer. The police had photos of Glover carrying a USPS package from her house on Jan. 16, 2020. His car pulls up, he walks into her house empty-handed, then emerges carrying the USPS package. (Whereupon, he drove directly to a trap house.)

    The hilarious part of this charge is that according to the indictment, it is based on the word of U.S. Postal Inspector Tony Gooden, who has been giving interviews all over, saying that in January 2020, his office investigated whether any “potentially suspicious packages” were being sent to Taylor’s house. But after a thorough investigation, he reported, nope, no suspicious packages!

    That search must have been exhaustive!

    Even the lawyer representing Taylor’s family wasn’t stupid enough to deny the packages. Amid a blizzard of fanciful claims about Taylor and Glover’s relationship — They’d broken up years ago! They barely stayed in touch! — the lawyer admitted that Taylor “accepted packages” for Glover.

    Yeah, we know. There are pictures. The only people who don’t know are the Louisville postal inspector and the attorney general of the United States.

    This fall, the Democrats will try to convince you that they support the police. Why, look at how well we treated the cop who shot Ashli Babbitt! Never forget that this is the party that spent 2 1/2 years — and counting! — trying to destroy Louisville police officers for risking their lives to take down a major drug ring.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Actually, Our Culture Is Better


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 27, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/07/27/actually-our-culture-is-better—p–n2610901/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, WhatDidYouSay.org.

    I see the pro-abortion crowd is still bragging about their “10-year-old rape victim,” lamenting that the poor kid had to travel all the way from Ohio to Indiana to get the abortion. They make it sound like a trek from Iran to Iraq in the 13th century.

    I don’t expect coastal liberals to know this, but Ohio is next to Indiana. The drive from the child’s home in Columbus, Ohio, to the abortionist in Indianapolis takes 2.5 hours. The cost of the gas was probably a greater trauma for the family than the trip.

    But as long as they’re going to keep talking about how hard it is to get an abortion in Ohio, I’m going to keep talking about how hard it is to assimilate the third world to first-world norms about women and children.

    Child rape, gang rape, incest — it’s been a long time since we’ve seen much of that in the United States. Of course, there are lots of things we thought had been abolished a hundred years ago that our immigration policies are bringing back.

    Indeed, the precise reasons people doubted “10-year-old rape victim” (until we found out the rapist was an illegal immigrant from Guatemala) were:

    1) We grew up in America, where such crimes were freakishly rare;

    2) We are being systematically lied to about the new cultures being brought in by mass third-world immigration.

    In its treatment of women, America is rare even among Western nations.

    Toward the end of “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville attributes “the unusual prosperity and growing strength” of America to “the superiority of their women.”

    This admirable creature, he said, was the product of Protestantism combined with self-government and the spirit of freedom. “Amongst almost all Protestant nations young women are far more the mistresses of their own actions than they are in Catholic countries. … [S]he has scarcely ceased to be a child when she already thinks for herself, speaks with freedom, and acts on her own impulse.”

    Cut to: The mother of the 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio adamantly defending her child’s rapist.

    Women rallying around the menfolk — who are rapists — is something else that’s new to Americans. But such behavior is disturbingly well-known to police and prosecutors who deal with large immigrant populations.

    “Hispanic rape victims are unlikely to report victimization to the police because in their families the male is the head of the household, and women are subordinate to men,” criminal justice professor Shana L. Maier writes in her book “Rape, Victims and Investigations: Experiences and Perceptions of Law Enforcement Officers Responding to Reported Rapes.”

    She continues: “Because maintaining the honor of the family is important, Hispanics and Latinos are more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to blame the victim. The victim, not the perpetrator, is blamed for bringing dishonor to the family.”

    With the media actively covering up the crimes of immigrants, it may take a while to notice, ladies, but American men were the best you ever had it.

    Let’s check in with de Tocqueville again. “[A]lthough a European frequently affects to be the slave of woman,” he wrote, “it may be seen that he never sincerely thinks her his equal. In the United States men seldom compliment women, but they daily show how much they esteem them.”

    And he was comparing America to Europe — forget primitive tribesmen.

    After your government undertook a massive program to relocate the Hmong people from Laos to Minnesota (and elsewhere in the U.S.), local law enforcement and medical authorities began to notice a striking upsurge in gang rape and forced prostitution. At one St. Paul clinic, a pediatric nurse calculated that Hmong girls were about six times more likely than other victims to have been raped by five or more people.

    But their families blame the child rape victims. “In Hmong culture,” the Associated Press matter-of-factly explained, “a girl who loses her virginity before marriage may be looked down upon by her own relatives, even if she is forcibly raped.”

    Thus, one Hmong mother’s response to her 12-year-old daughter being gang-raped by at least 10 men (also Hmong, of course) was not to call the police. To the contrary, when the girl limped home after an especially brutal episode, her mother said to her: “You’re just a little slut.”

    This is their CULTURE.

    Our culture sparkles and gleams, even compared to advanced European democracies, as noted by de Tocqueville. Among the interesting facts about America, he cited was this: “In America a young unmarried woman may, alone and without fear, undertake a long journey.”

    Not anymore, ladies! Sorry, but the rich needed cheap labor and the Democrats needed voters.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: ‘Ohio Man’ Rapes 10-Year-Old


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 20, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/07/20/ohio-man-rapes-10yearold—p–n2610564/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    'Ohio Man' Rapes 10-Year-Old

    Source: AP Manual Upload

    I, for one, am tickled pink that our ruling class has finally come out against child rape. This is something new. For several decades now, the position of government officials, both political parties, think tanks, the Bush family, district attorneys and the entire media has been: We’re going to foist primitive, peasant cultures on America and then lie to the public about how this is changing our country.

    We recently found out about one big way that third-world immigrants are enriching us. Soon after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the media began talking nonstop about a “10-year-old rape victim” who couldn’t get an abortion in Ohio and had to travel to Indiana. The “10-year-old rape victim” was discussed on a loop on MSNBC and even made it into a speech by President Joe Biden.

    But then, a bunch of spoilsports started questioning whether “10-year-old rape victim” existed. The attorney general of Ohio said on July 12 he had no evidence of a 10-year-old rape victim, despite the reporting of such a crime being mandatory.

    With their backs against the wall, the pro-abortion crowd broke longstanding strictures against mentioning the rapey-ness of our “New Americans” by producing the rapist: Gerson Fuentes, 27, an illegal alien from Guatemala.

    Oh, now I see.

    The abortion ladies thought they could get away with revealing the child rape victim, while refusing to reveal the child rape perpetrator. When that failed, they wantonly defied the rest of their coalition and told the truth about one of the Democrats’ pets, an illegal immigrant.

    Once the pro-abortion crowd identified the rapist, nothing about the story was surprising. It has all the earmarks of an immigrant child rape:

    The crime is particularly vile — CHECK!

    The raping had been going on for some time — CHECK!

    The mother defended her daughter’s rapist — CHECK!

    The rapist is shocked that anyone thinks he did anything wrong — CHECK!

    Luckily, I am Johnny on the Spot when it comes to immigrant child-rapists, having included nearly 100 such cases in my book “Adios, America!” — as well as the sensational, flood-the-zone news coverage the U.S. media devote to criminal immigrants. (Sarcasm.)

    As far as I know, there’s only one group in the country trying to keep a running tally of immigrant child rapes: North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement (NCFire.info). Here’s NCFire’s list of illegal immigrant child rapists in North Carolina, so far this year.

    2022 Monthly Child Rapes by Illegal Aliens:

    6. June 2022: 20 illegal aliens arrested for 42 child rape/child sexual assault charges

    5. May 2022: 18 illegal aliens arrested for 42 child rape/child sexual assault charges

    4. April 2022: 19 illegal aliens arrested for 72 child rape/child sexual assault charges

    3. March 2022: 30 illegal aliens arrested for 110 child rape/child sexual assault charges

    2. February 2022: 27 illegal aliens arrested for 84 child rape/child sexual assault charges

    1. January 2022: 18 illegal aliens arrested for 96 child rape/child sexual assault charges

    Again, that’s only in a single state. And only when the immigrant is illegal.

    WHY DOESN’T THE PUBLIC KNOW ABOUT THIS?

    Unfortunately, our media are too busy reporting on apocryphal gang rapes by the Duke lacrosse team and “frat boys” at the University of Virginia to bother mentioning the epidemic of child rape by immigrants from peasant cultures pouring into our country by the million.

    How far into the stories about UVA and Duke did you have to read to find out that the (falsely) accused rapists were “privileged white men”?

    By contrast, whenever the media deign to mention an immigrant rapist, the story will appear in — at most — one local newspaper. Further, both the heinous nature of the crime and the immigration status of the rapist will be hidden. (How about a news report on the Duke lacrosse case, appearing exclusively in the local paper at the bottom of page A-18, titled, “Area Men Arrested.”)

    In 2013, an illegal alien from Guatemala, German Rolando Vicente-Sapon, was convicted of kidnapping his 16-year-old cousin, transporting her to the U.S. (also illegally), and holding her as his sex slave for years.

    Only one newspaper in the country reported the story: the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

    Quiz: Was the headline —

    “Illegal Alien Sentenced for Incest, Child Rape, Kidnapping and Sex Slavery,” OR

    “Man Guilty in Case of Human Smuggling”?

    I think you know the answer.

    There’s no question that the national media would never have breathed a word about the Fuentes case — but for the doubters. So, a big shoutout to the feminists for putting abortion-on-demand above open borders. If only politicians cared as much about our country as pro-choicers do about abortion.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: What Liberals Get Wrong About the Second Amendment


    Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 06, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/07/06/what-liberals-get-wrong-about-the-second-amendment—p–n2609860/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    What Liberals Get Wrong About the Second Amendment

    Source: AP Photo/Wilson Ring

    Must we really respond to the “musket” argument again?

    Apparently so. It’s all the rage among Democrats right now.

    New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (Democrat) and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (Democrat) both think it’s quite brilliant to claim that, if we care what the framers of the Constitution meant, then the Second Amendment applies only to “muskets”!

    In The New York Times, a couple of professors (Democrats, but you knew that) asked: “Is a modern AR-15-style rifle relevantly similar to a Colonial musket? In what ways?” They liked their argument so much, the op-ed was titled, “A Supreme Court Head-Scratcher: Is a Colonial Musket ‘Analogous’ to an AR-15?

    [Frantically waving my hand]: Yes, professors, it’s exactly analogous.

    The Second Amendment does not refer to “muskets”; it refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” “Bear” means to carry, so any handheld firearm carried by the military can be carried by the people. Just as the musket was once carried by our military, the AR-15 is a handheld arm (technically, the less powerful version of the automatic M-16) carried by our military today. As soon as the U.S. military goes back to muskets, then muskets it is!

    But I’m not here to refute idiotic arguments. These guys may as well claim that the First Amendment protects only speech delivered in pamphlets and sermons, but nothing communicated on television, the internet, or with poster boards and Magic Markers.

    The Second Amendment is nearly the only prescriptive policy in a document that liberals have been trying to pump their nutty ideas into for 50 years. Unfortunately for them, there’s nothing in the Constitution about a right to dance naked in strip clubs, contraception, marriage or sticking a fork in a baby’s head.

    But on the right to bear arms, our Delphic framers were nearly Tolstoyian with their explosion of words: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (An earlier draft of the amendment specifically defined “militia” as “composed of the body of the people,” but was rejected as redundant.)

    In the boldest affirmation of their worldview, the framers announced our natural, God-given right to self-defense — against the government, against criminals, and against assailants the government can’t or won’t stop. Free people prepared to defend themselves are the nucleus of the republic. It’s the most beautiful thing in the whole Constitution. Here, at last, the Founding Fathers told us something specific they want us to do: Teach the boys to shoot.

    The “right to bear muskets” crowd — protected by taxpayer-supported armed guards, or cordoned off from the public by phalanxes of security officers in the lobby of, for example, NBC’s television studios in Rockefeller Center, before they return to their homes in crime-free, lily-white neighborhoods — tell us to focus on the freakishly rare mass shooting.

    The highest estimates of mass shootings — including by gang warfare, drive-bys, drug wars and domestic murder-suicides — put the number of deaths at under 400 per year, or approximately the same number of Americans who drown in swimming pools every year. Four hundred, out of more than 20,000 murders annually.

    Which is why, despite the media’s best effort to terrify suburban moms about weirdos shooting at crowds, nearly half of Americans prefer self-reliance to the government taking away our guns and promising to protect us.

    In 2020, the Year of Our Floyd, gun sales went through the roof. The previous high for gun sales was in 2016, with about 16 million guns sold. But in 2020, as BLM tore through our cities, Americans bought 22.8 million guns. The following year saw the second-highest record for gun sales, at 19.9 million purchases.

    By now, 44% of Americans report living in a gun-owning household. Thirty-two percent say they personally own a gun.

    As much as I’d like to institutionalize the crazies — for their sake, as well as ours — the risks from bad faith actors at present are too high. With anti-gun zealots on the rampage and the U.S. attorney general siccing the FBI on parents who complain at local school board meetings, the most likely result would be marijuana-crazed schizophrenics continuing about their days unmolested, while gun owners get locked up.

    In any event, it appears that the lunatics aren’t heavily armed, anyway. Here’s a demographic breakdown of gun ownership in 2022, according to Gallup:

    Republicans 50%

    Democrats 18%

    Conservatives 45% (Oddly, Gallup calls them “self-identified conservatives,” as if Gallup would never use this cruel epithet without consent of the accused.)

    Liberals 15%

    Men 45%

    Women 19%

    Southerners 40%

    Eastern residents 21%

    Gallup left out one category. The subgroup most likely to own a whole buttload of guns, but not admit it: gang members and other recidivist felons protected by George Gascon and other Soros D.A.s.

    Being a rational people, Americans are more worried about those guys than the random rifle-bearing psycho in a woman’s dress.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: What Liberals Get Wrong About the Second Amendment


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 06, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/07/06/what-liberals-get-wrong-about-the-second-amendment—p–n2609860/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    What Liberals Get Wrong About the Second Amendment

    Source: AP Photo/Wilson Ring

    Must we really respond to the “musket” argument again?

    Apparently so. It’s all the rage among Democrats right now.

    New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (Democrat) and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (Democrat) both think it’s quite brilliant to claim that, if we care what the framers of the Constitution meant, then the Second Amendment applies only to “muskets”!

    In The New York Times, a couple of professors (Democrats, but you knew that) asked: “Is a modern AR-15-style rifle relevantly similar to a Colonial musket? In what ways?” They liked their argument so much, the op-ed was titled, “A Supreme Court Head-Scratcher: Is a Colonial Musket ‘Analogous’ to an AR-15?

    [Frantically waving my hand]: Yes, professors, it’s exactly analogous.

    The Second Amendment does not refer to “muskets”; it refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” “Bear” means to carry, so any handheld firearm carried by the military can be carried by the people. Just as the musket was once carried by our military, the AR-15 is a handheld arm (technically, the less powerful version of the automatic M-16) carried by our military today. As soon as the U.S. military goes back to muskets, then muskets it is!

    But I’m not here to refute idiotic arguments. These guys may as well claim that the First Amendment protects only speech delivered in pamphlets and sermons, but nothing communicated on television, the internet, or with poster boards and Magic Markers.

    The Second Amendment is nearly the only prescriptive policy in a document that liberals have been trying to pump their nutty ideas into for 50 years. Unfortunately for them, there’s nothing in the Constitution about a right to dance naked in strip clubs, contraception, marriage or sticking a fork in a baby’s head.

    But on the right to bear arms, our Delphic framers were nearly Tolstoyian with their explosion of words: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (An earlier draft of the amendment specifically defined “militia” as “composed of the body of the people,” but was rejected as redundant.)

    In the boldest affirmation of their worldview, the framers announced our natural, God-given right to self-defense — against the government, against criminals, and against assailants the government can’t or won’t stop. Free people prepared to defend themselves are the nucleus of the republic. It’s the most beautiful thing in the whole Constitution. Here, at last, the Founding Fathers told us something specific they want us to do: Teach the boys to shoot.

    The “right to bear muskets” crowd — protected by taxpayer-supported armed guards, or cordoned off from the public by phalanxes of security officers in the lobby of, for example, NBC’s television studios in Rockefeller Center, before they return to their homes in crime-free, lily-white neighborhoods — tell us to focus on the freakishly rare mass shooting.

    The highest estimates of mass shootings — including by gang warfare, drive-bys, drug wars and domestic murder-suicides — put the number of deaths at under 400 per year, or approximately the same number of Americans who drown in swimming pools every year. Four hundred, out of more than 20,000 murders annually.

    Which is why, despite the media’s best effort to terrify suburban moms about weirdos shooting at crowds, nearly half of Americans prefer self-reliance to the government taking away our guns and promising to protect us.

    In 2020, the Year of Our Floyd, gun sales went through the roof. The previous high for gun sales was in 2016, with about 16 million guns sold. But in 2020, as BLM tore through our cities, Americans bought 22.8 million guns. The following year saw the second-highest record for gun sales, at 19.9 million purchases.

    By now, 44% of Americans report living in a gun-owning household. Thirty-two percent say they personally own a gun.

    As much as I’d like to institutionalize the crazies — for their sake, as well as ours — the risks from bad faith actors at present are too high. With anti-gun zealots on the rampage and the U.S. attorney general siccing the FBI on parents who complain at local school board meetings, the most likely result would be marijuana-crazed schizophrenics continuing about their days unmolested, while gun owners get locked up.

    In any event, it appears that the lunatics aren’t heavily armed, anyway. Here’s a demographic breakdown of gun ownership in 2022, according to Gallup:

    Republicans 50%

    Democrats 18%

    Conservatives 45% (Oddly, Gallup calls them “self-identified conservatives,” as if Gallup would never use this cruel epithet without consent of the accused.)

    Liberals 15%

    Men 45%

    Women 19%

    Southerners 40%

    Eastern residents 21%

    Gallup left out one category. The subgroup most likely to own a whole buttload of guns, but not admit it: gang members and other recidivist felons protected by George Gascon and other Soros D.A.s.

    Being a rational people, Americans are more worried about those guys than the random rifle-bearing psycho in a woman’s dress.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: California’s Homelessness Magnates


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jun 08, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/06/08/californias-homelessness-magnates—p–n2608452/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    California's Homelessness Magnates

    Well, that didn’t last long. Chesa Boudin, the “progressive” district attorney of San Francisco, was recalled in a landslide election on Tuesday. Evidently, even that city’s progressive voters finally got tired of replacing their car windshields. (On the upside, once out of office, Boudin can keep prosecuting as many criminals as he did while in office.)

    Quiz for Republicans:

    In a shocking upset, the most liberal city in the nation just voted to recall a pro-criminal D.A.

    Q: Should you be dedicating your time to:

    — Ukraine

    — Tax cuts

    — Abortion

    — Crime

    [Sen. Lindsey Graham frantically waving his hand: UKRAINE!]

    Crime is primarily a state and local issue, but there are some things the federal government can do. How about auditing the “homelessness” industry for fraud, graft and corruption? (And the drug rehab industry, while you’re at it.) In the last decade, homeless “advocacy” seems to have displaced Hollywood as the most well-compensated and glamorous industry in California.

    Michael Shellenberger’s 2021 book, “San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities,” details how progressives are foisting drug-addicted mental patients on an unsuspecting public. The problem is less the homeless — the drug-addicted mental patients you will always have with you — and more the well-healed liberals getting rich off the homelessness racket.

    He begins by quoting all manner of homeless “advocates” — i.e., people who make money off of homelessness — such as Dr. Margot Kushel of the University of California-San Francisco (UCSF), who insists that homelessness has NOTHING to do with drugs or mental illness. “We’ve always known,” Kushel said, “that most homelessness is a result, pure and simple, of poverty.”

    A lot of valuable information comes from sentences that begin with “we’ve always known.”

    Convinced of the truth of this preposterous maxim, San Francisco has been doling out billions of dollars to solve homelessness, by providing the homeless — or as we are now commanded to call them, “our unhoused neighbors” — with shelter, food and massive cash payments.

    Also free needles! Because homelessness is just a matter of being poor, as “we’ve always known.”

    On the other hand …

    In 2004, nearly 5,000 homeless people were offered housing by then-Mayor Gavin Newsom. Only 131 accepted.

    And because, as Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of excellence — isn’t that the quote? — San Francisco just keeps trying the same thing. Under a different mayor, about 15 years later, 150 vagrants were removed from a homeless encampment and offered free housing. Eight accepted.

    But that makes no sense! Homeless advocates assured us our unhoused neighbors are just like you and me, except they can’t afford the rent.

    Another possible cause of homelessness is hinted at in a recent Harvard University study of chronically homeless people in Boston who were given permanent housing. After following the group for 14 years, last year the researchers released their results: 86% of their subjects were beset by the “tri-morbidity” of mental illness, substance abuse and medical illness. After 10 years, only 12% were still housed. Forty-five percent died before the completion of the study.

    Similarly, in 2019, San Francisco’s health department found that fully half of the city’s homeless population — currently housed or not — are both mentally ill and drug addicts. About 1,600 of the city’s estimated 8,035 homeless “frequently used emergency psychiatric services.”

    The pernicious — but profitable! — idea that homelessness is caused by poverty has led the city to lavish unimaginable aid on the “poor.” In straight cash welfare, SF offers $588 a month to the poor — and that doesn’t include $192 in food stamps. Compare that to Los Angeles, where the maximum cash payment to the poor is $221, or New York City, where it’s $183.

    That $780 a month in cash and food stamps doesn’t include all the free stuff given to the homeless through cutout agencies, like churches and nonprofits, funded by taxpayer dollars and tax-deductible “charitable” donations.

    Tom Wolf, a formerly homeless drug addict, said that, thanks to all of San Francisco’s giveaways, he was able to spend his entire general assistance payment on heroin. Which San Francisco also helps out with, giving away 6 million free needles to drug addicts every year. That’s more than New York City dispenses — with a population 10 times larger.

    As a result, drug overdose is the leading cause of death among the homeless in San Francisco.

    The mother of a drug-addicted, homeless young man told Shellenberger that he describes San Francisco as “Pleasure Island” in the movie “Pinocchio”:

    “On one side of the street are people giving you food and clean needles. On the other side of the street are all the drug dealers. It’s like getting all the candy and treats that you think you want. You think you’re having fun. But little by little it’s taking away your humanity and turning you into something you were never meant to be, like how the kids start turning into donkeys in ‘Pinocchio,’ and then end up trapped and in cages.”

    What kind of sick society would do this to people?

    One possible answer: a society that rewards money-grubbing narcissists with no concern for their fellow man, masquerading as giants of compassion. There’s a ton of money to be made in the helping-the-homeless business. As the formerly homeless Wolf told Shellenberger, “[The homeless nonprofits’] whole intention is to keep more people in this cycle because they’re getting money for it.”

    Say, whatever happened with UCSF’s Kushel — of the “we’ve always known” metric? In 2019, she was the lucky recipient of a $30 million grant from San Francisco billionaire Marc Benioff (Salesforce founder) to study homelessness.

    Gosh, they’re virtuous.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: They’re Replacing YOU, Black America


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: May 25, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/05/25/theyre-replacing-you-black-america—p–n2607812/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, WhatDidYouSay.org.

    They're Replacing YOU, Black America

    Source: AP Photo/Matt Rourke

    Liberals are screwing over African Americans again, sublimely confident that whatever they do, Democrats will never get less than 90% of the black vote.

    In the Buffalo, New York, mass shooting 10 days ago, 18-year-old Payton S. Gendron drove 200 miles to a grocery store jam-packed with the descendants of American slaves and gunned down as many people as he could. But instead of this being an anti-black thing, the media have decided, no, it’s an anti-immigrant thing, based on the shooter’s belief in the “great replacement theory,” which holds that elites are deliberately replacing historic Americans with immigrants.

    Trust us, it’s all in his “manifesto” — and no, you can’t see it. What? You don’t trust the media to tell you the truth about the shooter’s motive?

    Still, I can’t help but notice that the shooter seemed really intent on killing black people. He drove 3 1/2 hours from Conklin, New York, to get to a city with remarkably few immigrants. Only 10% of Buffalo is foreign-born. But it’s 35% black.

    Much closer to Conklin than Buffalo is, for example, Middletown, New York, which is 39% Hispanic and 16% foreign-born. In about half the time it took to get to Buffalo, he also could have driven to Utica, New York, which is 22% foreign-born. And he would have cut his driving time by more than an hour if he’d gone to Schenectady, New York, 17% foreign born.

    So why are the media insisting that the killer hated immigrants, when it kinda looks like he mainly hated blacks?

    For one thing, midterm elections are coming, and voters are poised to have a say on the fabulous things Biden’s done to our border.

    Oh, you think we should have a border? What — do you believe in REPLACEMENT?

    Moreover, Hispanics have begun to show a slight — very slight — willingness to vote for Republicans, coinciding with the Democratic Party’s enthusiastic embrace of Black Lives Matter, and thus, black criminality. (It turns out Latinos are generally opposed to getting beaten up and having their money stolen.)

    Finally, of course, there’s the fact that Democrats know there’s nothing, absolutely nothing, that will stop black people from voting for them.

    Now they’re just showing off. Yeah, Buffalo was a racist shooting — but watch this: We’re going to make it about immigrants, and we’ll STILL get the black vote!

    After years of the media trying to turn every single event into proof that white people hate African Americans, at last there’s a monstrous crime where even skeptics say, Yeah, this one was totally about a white guy who hates black people. But the media decided that this week, they needed to juice the immigrant vote.

    The madness, the wild upside-down insanity of the media pushing the “great replacement theory” as the motive for the Buffalo shooting, is this: If anyone’s being replaced by immigrants, it’s black people.

    Black people have always been here! Heard of the 1619 Project? The thesis and details may be comically false, but it is a plain fact that blacks have been here since 1619. Historic America is not a monolithically white country; it is a biracial country — black and white — and remained so for two centuries, until Teddy Kennedy decided to change it with his 1965 immigration act.

    Of the two racial groups that formed 99% of America from the 1600s to the mid-1970s, which one do you think is getting the short end of the stick? The white working class isn’t popping champagne corks over mass immigration, but black people get absolutely nothing out of it.

    Rich people, mostly whites, are making out like bandits. Endless low-skilled immigration has finally solved “the servant problem.” By now, so many hardworking Latinos have come in that virtually every upper-middle-class white person has a maid, a nanny and a gardener.

    It’s low-wage workers — mostly black men — whose wages have been annihilated by competition from the cheap labor being dumped on the country. Not only have working-class wages gone into the toilet, but a lot of jobs are totally off-limits to black people — because they don’t speak Spanish or Chinese or Tagalog.

    For decades now, black professors, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and ordinary African Americans have been pointing out how immigration hurts them. Democrats don’t care.

    And that’s the story of how an unequivocally anti-black mass murder became a crime against immigrants.

    More on the real “replacement” next week.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Here Are the Nutcases Who Believe in ‘Replacement’


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: May 18, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/05/18/here-are-the-nutcases-who-believe-in-replacement—p–n2607478/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    Here Are the Nutcases Who Believe in 'Replacement'

    Source: AP Photo/Moises Castillo

    The “Great Replacement Theory” (GRT) has taken the media by storm! It seems that the white racist who shot up a grocery store full of black people last weekend cited GRT in his 180-page “manifesto.”

    First of all, journalists need to understand that GRT is only a theory taught in advanced law school seminars. It is not something designed for indoctrination of mass audiences of young people.

    So what is GRT? The New York Times describes it thus:

    “[T]he notion that Western elites, sometimes manipulated by Jews, want to ‘replace’ and disempower white Americans.” (You want a conspiracy theory about a secretive cabal of Jews? Check out the Times’ series of articles on “neoconservatives” back in the early 2000s.)

    But then — just as every argument about abortion suddenly becomes an argument about contraception — a few paragraphs later, the crackpot theory jumps from a Jewish cabal replacing whites with blacks … to the idea that Democrats are using immigration “for electoral gains.”

    Wow, that is nuts! Where’d anybody get that idea?

    Oh yeah — from liberals.

    Here’s Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy in 1998:

    “The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”

    (Well, sure, if you want to totally overlook skirt-chasing and pill-popping.)

    Then in 2002, Democrats Ruy Teixeira and John Judis wrote “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” arguing that demographic changes, mostly by immigration, were putting Democrats on a glide path to an insuperable majority. After Obama’s reelection in 2012, Teixeira crowed in The Atlantic (which was then a magazine that people read, as opposed to a billionaire widow’s charity) that “ten years farther down this road,” Obama lost the white vote outright, but won the election with the minority vote — African-Americans (93-6), Hispanics (71-27) and Asian-Americans (73-26).

    A year later, the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein began touting the “Coalition of the Ascendant,” gloating that Democrats didn’t need blue-collar whites anymore. Woo hoo! Obama “lost more than three-fifths of noncollege whites and whites older than 45.” But who cares? He crushed with “minorities (a combined 80%).”

    “Adios, Reagan Democrats,” he says gleefully.

    Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg’s 2019 book, “RIP GOP,” explains the coming death of the Republican Party as a result of … sucking up to Wall Street? Pushing pointless wars? Endlessly cutting taxes? NO! The GOP’s demise would come from the fact that “our country is hurtling toward a New America that is ever more racially and culturally diverse … more immigrant and foreign born.”

    And these were the genteel, nonthreatening descriptions of how immigration was consigning white voters to the Aztec graveyard of history.

    On MSNBC, they’re constantly sneering about “old white men” and celebrating the “browning of America.” A group called Battleground Texas boasts about flipping that deep red state to the Democrats — simply by getting more Hispanics to vote. Blogs are giddily titled, “The Irrelevant South” (“the traditional white South — socially and economically conservative — is no longer relevant in national politics”). MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid tweets that she is “giddy” watching “all the bitter old white guys” as Ketanji Brown Jackson “makes history.”

    This week, the media’s leading expert on the crazies who believe in replacement theory is Tim Wise, popping up on both MSNBC and CNN to psychoanalyze the white “racists.” He’s been quoted, cited or praised dozens of times in The New York Times. This isn’t some fringe character, despite appearances.

    In 2010, Wise wrote an “Open Letter to the White Right” that began:

    “For all y’all rich folks, enjoy that champagne, or whatever fancy ass Scotch you drink.

    “And for y’all a bit lower on the economic scale, enjoy your Pabst Blue Ribbon, or whatever shitty ass beer you favor …

    “Because your time is limited.

    “Real damned limited.”

    Guess why! Wise explained:

    “It is math.”

    Wait, isn’t math racist? But moving on …

    “Because you’re on the endangered list.

    “And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.

    “In 40 years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave It to Beaver …”

    Have you ever noticed how obsessed liberals are with “Leave It to Beaver”?

    “It’s OK. Because in about 40 years, half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it.

    “Nothing, Senor Tancredo.”

    After several more paragraphs of mocking white people, Wise ended with this stirring conclusion:

    “We just have to be patient.

    “And wait for you to pass into that good night, first politically, and then, well …

    “Do you hear it?

    “The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently?

    “Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.”

    To Wise, the best way to kill the antisemitic trope of Jewish elites waging war against whites is to be a Jewish elite waging war against whites.

    I don’t know about the Jewish cabal version of GRT, but as for liberals using immigration to bring in more Democratic voters, as Maya Angelou said, “When people show you who they are, believe them.”

    Speaking of theories involving Jewish cabals …

    The New York Times on neoconservatives, Aug. 4, 2003:

    “For the past few weeks, U.S. President George W. Bush has been surrounded by a secretive circle of advisers and public relations experts, giving rise to all kinds of conspiracy theories and debates. It’s been said that the group’s idol is German Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss.”

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Dems Speak Out on Roe! Release the COVID Variants!


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: May 11, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/05/11/dems-speak-out-on-roe-release-the-covid-variants—p–n2607103/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    Dems Speak Out on Roe! Release the COVID Variants!

    Source: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

    I guess Democrats realized that having feminist harpies fan out across the airwaves to shriek about the vital importance of aborting babies wasn’t helping, because we all woke up Monday morning to …

    A NEW SURGE OF CORONAVIRUS!

    Maybe that will distract the dingbats. They probably all think they have “long-haul COVID.”

    In response to the Supreme Court’s leaked draft opinion returning abortion to the states, Hillary Clinton said: “Any American who says, ‘Look, I’m not a woman, this doesn’t affect me. I’m not Black, that doesn’t affect me. I’m not gay, that doesn’t affect me’ — once you allow this kind of extreme power to take hold, you have no idea who they will come for next.”

    On the other hand …

    1) Women themselves don’t seem to view abortion as a “women’s rights” issue — in fact, a lot of polls show women more opposed to abortion than men. Nobody’s wondering, for example, how Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted.

    2) The “extreme power” Hillary’s talking about is: Letting people vote.

    3) Idea! Maybe wait for what comes next to talk about what comes next.

    Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., tweeted: “The Republicans won’t stop with banning abortion. They want to ban interracial marriage. Do you want to save that? Well, then you should probably vote.”

    Yes — doubtless in an opinion written by Clarence Thomas.

    Always on top of things, President Joe Biden’s response to the abortion opinion was to talk about … gay kids being thrown out of school. “What happens,” the advanced dementia patient asked, “if you have states change the law saying that children who are LGBTQ can’t be in classrooms with other children?”

    Wha …?

    Why does every liberal argument about allowing Americans to vote on abortion immediately veer off into apocalyptic warnings about something else entirely? I’m beginning to suspect abortion is not as beloved as liberals claim it is. As Biden wrote in his 2007 book, “Promises to Keep”: “If we tried to make this a referendum on abortion rights … we’d lose.”

    And yet, we keep being hectored about the runaway popularity of Roe v. Wade. Apparently, poll respondents just don’t want feminists to yell at them. Yes, absolutely, Roe is great. I don’t hate women, please leave me alone.

    According to The New York Times — and I don’t think they’re exaggerating the opposition to abortion — two-thirds of Americans oppose abortion after the first trimester. That’s 12 weeks. The Mississippi abortion law that’s going to turn women into birthing machines bans abortion after 15 weeks.

    Also inadvertently admitted in the Times: What percentage of abortions do you think take place after the first trimester? Answer: 8%.

    That’s what the termagants are shrieking about? The 8% of abortions opposed by a substantial majority of Americans? No wonder they keep changing the subject to black people.

    The winner of the most clinically insane response to the draft opinion is Amanda Taub of The New York Times. She explained that opposition to abortion is a sneaky way of opposing … women in the workforce? Contraception? Secularists?

    Nope. Desegregation!

    Taub begins with the counterfactual proposition that evangelicals don’t really care about abortion. (Because, c’mon, who would care about that?)

    Her evidence: “It is hard to imagine now, but at the time Roe v. Wade was decided, in 1973, abortion was not a major issue for the American right, or even for evangelical Christians. …”

    Hmmm, why might that be? Maybe it’s because, until Roe, abortion was a crime in almost every state in the Union. Three-quarters of the states banned abortion at every stage of pregnancy. All this is admitted in the Roe opinion itself.

    As Justice Samuel Alito’s draft puts it:

    “Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Zero. None. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe was handed down, no federal or state court had recognized such a right.”

    Hey, Amanda! It is hard to imagine, but matricide isn’t a major issue for the American right, either. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court suddenly discovers a “constitutional right” to kill your mother, I would expect that to change

    But the sleuth Taub presses on:

    “The shift [to pro-life] was not spurred by abortion itself, but by desegregation. After the Supreme Court ordered schools in the South to desegregate, many white parents pulled their children from public schools and sent them to all-white private schools … the I.R.S. revoked those schools’ tax-exempt status, provoking widespread anger among white evangelical Christians and catalyzing their new role as a powerful conservative force in American politics.”

    I’m sure the creation of private religious academies had nothing to do with the court banning prayer in the public schools, then banning prohibitions on teaching Darwinism and sex ed. Why would Christians care about any of that?

    By the way, where did this champion of desegregation go to high school? ANSWER: Amanda Taub went to a university “lab” school that is only 5% black in a town that is 18% black.

    The gigantic hypocrite concludes: “Publicly opposing desegregation was not really socially acceptable or palatable to a broader coalition. But opposing abortion was.”

    Whereas the Taubs relied on admissions testing and grades to ensure their daughter went to a segregated school.

    Democratic Party: Get these lunatics away from the media!

    But how? We don’t have anything —

    Any new variants out there?

    Guess what, America? CORONAVIRUS IS BACK!

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Alito Will Save Lives, Not Biden


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: May 04, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/05/04/alito-will-save-lives-not-biden—p–n2606784/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, WhatDidYouSay.org.

    Alito Will Save Lives, Not Biden

    Source: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

    When the draft Supreme Court opinion overruling “Roe v. Wade” leaked on Monday, my first thought was: WHY COULDN’T THEY WAIT UNTIL NEXT YEAR? (“Roe” is in quotes because Planned Parenthood v. Casey already overruled Roe, but “Roe” is still used to describe the nonexistent right to abortion.)

    Yes, it’s human life we’re talking about. Millions of babies are killed in their mothers’ wombs each year — it’s a massacre. On the other hand, I thought, ending late-terms might end the midterms.

    But then I read Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion and was intellectually offended all over again by the idea that one of our precious constitutional rights, enshrined in a founding document, is the right to kill an unborn baby. Anyone complaining about the decision should be required to cite the exact parts Alito got wrong. Be specific. And keep in mind, no important discussion of constitutional law has ever begun with the words, “My vagina …”

    The Nation magazine’s Elie Mystal took a stab at it by completely misstating Alito’s argument, then saying, “the Founding Fathers were racist, misogynist jerkfaces.” (I was planning on writing a scholarly and nuanced treatise on the framers, but Mystal just stole my title!)

    I also noticed that, outside of the media, no one seems especially bothered by the decision. Or to have noticed it. In groups of liberal women, apolitical women, black and Puerto Rican women, no one is talking about the case.

    They’re probably right. The end of a court-managed “constitutional” right to abortion isn’t going to produce the Roemageddon Democrats are predicting.

    More than half of the country already lives in states where abortion will always be legal, subsidized and sacralized. For those who don’t, Harvard should set up an abortion scholarship program. Instead of spending $100 million “investigating” slavery, the university could buy bus tickets for girls who need to go to another state for an abortion.

    The Mississippi law being upheld in this case — contrary to everything I’ve heard on MSNBC — is shockingly reasonable.

    It states:

    “Except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.”

    The Mississippi legislature provided a series of factual findings:

    • at eight weeks gestational age the “unborn human being begins to move in the womb”;
    • at nine weeks “all basic physiological functions are present”;
    • at 10 weeks “vital organs begin to function,” and “hair, fingernails, and toenails begin to form”;
    • at 11 weeks “an unborn human being’s diaphragm is developing,” and he or she “may move about freely in the womb;” and
    • at 12 weeks the “unborn human being” has “taken on the human form in all relevant respects.”

    After 15 weeks, the legislature found, most abortions involve crushing and tearing the fetus apart.

    Laws should always err on the side against the decision-maker, and the decision-maker on the length of gestation is going to be the abortionist. (Which is also why “rape” and “incest” exceptions swallow the whole law. By the way, whatever happened to the morning-after pill?)

    So we’re really talking about four to five months.

    That’s not enough time? Give me a break, you freaks. I don’t think voters are going to say, Ukraine, inflation, the border, crime, transgenders in kindergarten — OH MY GOD, I CAN ONLY GET AN ABORTION FOR FOUR MONTHS???

    Some states will surely roll back the right to abortion more than 15 weeks. Oh well. The abortion ladies will have to travel to other states the same way gunners do now to practice their marksmanship, shoppers do to get plastic bags, or breathers do to take off their masks.

    With a patchwork of laws, we’ll be able to see which regulations do best at reducing abortion, illegitimacy (which soared in lockstep with the legalization of abortion), venereal diseases, suicides and false claims of rape when women are pressured into having sex, undeterred by the risk of pregnancy. We’ll call it “federalism.”

    Watching MSNBC’s reaction also reminded me that everybody hates the feminists. The ladies couldn’t even keep the “#MeToo” movement going. How long did that last? Fifteen minutes? And a lot of the cases were egregious. But a month later, transgenders were canceling J.K. Rowling and women’s sports.

    Now they’re hysterically babbling about the court banning contraceptioninterracial marriages and requiring forced sterilizations. I guess they don’t think their arguments about the abortion ruling are particularly strong, so they have to warn about scary rulings to come.

    Finally, President Joe Biden has put Vice President Kamala Harris in charge of the response to this decision. Previously, she was put in charge of the border, and then Ukraine. Any day now, we’ll find out she was in charge of the Challenger space shuttle.

    Maybe I’m just in a cheery mood, what with the imminent conclusion to this hideous chapter in U.S history. Who knows? Let’s wait nine months and see.

    I have only two absolutely definite predictions flowing from the leak of the abortion opinion:

    1) Liberals are about to start claiming that black people not only are incapable of getting IDs to vote, but are also incapable of knowing that they’ve been pregnant for four months. (And then: NIGHTMARE! THEY’LL HAVE TO GET A BUS TO NEW YORK OR CALIFORNIA!)

    2) As for the leaker, if the perp turns out to be a conservative who was trying to pressure Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Neil Gorsuch, he will be ruined for life. If he turns out to be a clerk for one of the liberals, he will get a book contract and a regular spot on MSNBC.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Dem Nightmare: What if the War Ends Before November?


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 16, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/03/16/dem-nightmare-what-if-the-war-ends-before-november—p–n2604665/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    Dem Nightmare: What if the War Ends Before November?

    Source: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

    Great news for Joe Biden. After months of abysmal public approval numbers, President Biden’s favorability among registered voters has soared by 2 points to 45%! And all he had to do was bring us to the brink of World War III.

    The media are thrilled with the possibility of nuclear war with Russia. Catastrophes are terrific for ratings, and flood-the-zone coverage of a war between two faraway countries that has almost zero effect on the lives of most Americans allows journalists to act like deep-think, geopolitical strategists (after having quickly looked up “Ukraine” on Wikipedia).

    They dragged out the COVID panic porn for two straight years. By now, the only people still interested in pandemic updates are hysterical liberal women in Manhattan claiming to have “long-haul COVID.”

    The national pastime has segued seamlessly from watching TV anchors cry on TV about the coronavirus to watching TV anchors cry on TV about the fate of Ukrainian children.

    Of course, when American kids are murdered expressly as a result of our own government’s policies, the journalism protocol is: No crying, no coverage.

    There will be no tears for the 5-year-old Florida girl killed in October when an illegal alien from Guatemala, Ernesto Lopez Morales, tanked up on six 32-ounce beers, then plowed into the little girl and her mother as he was driving to get more beer.

    Nor for Texas teenager Adrienne Sophia Exum, killed instantly one Sunday afternoon in 2020 when Heriberto Fuerte-Padilla, an illegal alien from Mexico, smashed into the car she was driving, then fled the scene. There’s even some news: The Biden administration announced that Fuerte-Padilla will not be deported.

    And there will be no weeping for the still-unidentified mother and daughter, aged 59 and 22, killed last December when a human smuggler (a “U.S. citizen,” aka “anchor baby”) carrying six illegals across the border into Texas, sped through a stop sign and T-boned the pair.

    I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, but the media’s obsessive focus on Ukraine is terrific for the interests of the Democratic Party. Recall that, in his 2012 book, “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind,” then-UCLA professor Tim Groseclose demonstrated that media bias alone costs Republicans about 8 to 10 percentage points in elections.

    And that was 2012. One can only imagine what it is in post-Trump 2022. If only we could return to the junior varsity media bias of 2012!

    Until the war in Ukraine, the Democrats were facing midterms after having spent the previous two years mandating masks and an endless series of vaccinations — even for the vaccinated or previously infected.

    Democrats flung open the border to illegal alien murderers, drug dealers, gang members and welfare recipients.

    Democratic district attorneys have turned city after city into feces-smeared murdertopias that make Charles Bronson’s “Death Wish” look like “The Sound of Music.”

    These days, the left’s main casus belli is teaching little kids about anal sex, transgenders and the inherent evil of white people.

    What could even Stalin’s media do with that record?

    Option 1) Implement a collective mind wipe, perhaps through an electromagnetic pulse, to erase voters’ memory of everything that’s happened since Joe Biden was sworn in.

    Option 2) WAR! (Someplace in the world that’s not here.)

    What crisis at our border? We’re reporting on a WAR.

    How can you talk about murder rates when CHILDREN ARE DYING IN UKRAINE?

    What vaccine mandates? COVID is over. Now we’re talking about war!

    Everything bad that’s happening is Putin’s fault! He’s like Hitler!

    Talk about Russian collusion! Putin gave Trump Facebook ads; he’s giving Biden a military invasion.

    By now, the media have whipped the public into such a frenzy over Ukraine that a majority of Americans want the U.S. to start shooting down Russian planes, starting World War III with nuclear armed power.

    A small price to pay for Democratic dominance.

    But much like American military interventions around the globe, things don’t always go as planned.

    The Democrats’ media helpers might want to recall President George H.W. Bush’s 89% favorable rating in 1991 — the highest presidential job approval rating then on record, according to Gallup.

    Those astronomical numbers came as a result of the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, when we went to war with Saddam Hussein because he had invaded neighboring Kuwait — violating that nation’s sacred sovereignty! — and proceeded to commit unspeakable war crimes, including using poison gas. The first week of that war, Bush’s poll numbers shot from 64% to 82%.

    Republicans had a lock on the next year’s presidential contest. No serious Democrats were willing to challenge him, and the party ended up with a horny hick from Arkansas as their nominee.

    And then it all collapsed. By Election Day 1992, Bush’s public approval rating was down to a pathetic 34%. The h*rny hick won the election, and Bush became an embarrassing one-term president.

    On the military side, at least the Middle East was finally at peace. We never heard a peep out of Hussein again. Wait — what happened?

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Do These Black Lives Matter to L.A.’s Idiot D.A.?


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 09, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/03/09/do-these-black-lives-matter-to-las-idiot-da—p–n2604354/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    Do These Black Lives Matter to L.A.'s Idiot D.A.?

    Source: Bryan Chan/County of Los Angeles via AP

    Hey, whatever happened to that story about Sandra Shells? She was the 70-year-old nurse killed by one of Los Angeles’ many “unhoused” individuals (drug-addicted psychopaths) while she waited for a bus at 5:15 in the morning in January, on her way to her job at the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center.

    A homeless guy, Kerry Bell, walked up to Shells and punched her in the face, knocking her to the ground and fracturing her skull. She died of her injuries three days later.

    Her life mattered more even than, say, George Floyd’s — and I can prove it.

    1) Shells was a hardworking nurse, remembered as “kind, compassionate and giving” and a favorite of patients.

    2) There is no evidence that she’d ever committed a home invasion robbery on a woman in Texas, pistol-whipped the woman and put a gun to her abdomen.

    3) She was not a meth addict.

    4) She did not have a long rap sheet, including selling cocaine, selling crack and theft.

    5) She was merely standing at a bus stop — not, for example, resisting arrest after passing a counterfeit bill and having the police called on her.

    But no one even knows her name, much less runs around erecting sacramental altars to her. To the contrary, news about this vicious assault on a kindly nurse was purged from all media outlets approximately 10 minutes after it happened. The police haven’t even released her assailant’s mug shot. Only after extensive searching online can you find the arrest report for Bell. “Race: B.”

    It doesn’t matter to me, but it does to some of you, so I’ll mention that the victim’s race was also “B.”

    If you can’t remember Shells’ name, then please remember this name: George Gascon, the district attorney entirely responsible for the explosion of murders, stabbings and smash-and-grab robberies in Los Angeles. So many, in fact, that the sickening murder of an elderly nurse isn’t considered especially newsworthy.

    There’s an effort underway to recall Gascon — a George Soros-sponsored D.A. Coincidentally, there’s also an effort to recall San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin, another George Soros-sponsored D.A. “George Soros-sponsored D.A.” is shorthand for “This man will empty the prisons of berserk savages to prey on you and your loved ones.”

    Which happens to be the official policy of the Democratic Party. Pay no attention to the windbaggery of President Biden’s recent Oh My God, Midterms Are Coming speech — I mean, State of the Union address — where he said, “The answer is not to defund the police. The answer is to fund the police!” Has he met his vice president? Kamala Harris endorsed Gascon.

    Gascon’s response to the bloodbath he’s unleashed on the City of Angels is to announce: “In many ways, we cannot prosecute our way out of social inequalities, income inequalities, the unhoused, the desperation that we have.”

    What does the “in many ways” do in that sentence? I know English isn’t Gascon’s first language, but I can’t make heads or tails of the “in many ways.”

    Nor, come to think of it, the rest of the sentence. Is it a prosecutor’s job to reduce “social” and “income” inequalities? How about inequalities in work ethic, mathematical skills, good looks, athletic ability, comedic talent and empathetic understanding?

    While it’s nice that the Los Angeles D.A. has made the amazing discovery that people are different, if he thinks it’s his duty to make all people the same, he may have a misunderstood the job description of a D.A.

    As for Gascon’s apparent goal of eliminating “the desperation that we have,” the main cause of “desperation” among Los Angelinos right now is George Gascon. If he really wants to do something about “the desperation,” he should resign.

    Gascon is either very, very stupid or thinks the public is stupid, and his incomprehensible verbiage will persuade them that the last thing he should be doing is prosecuting criminals.

    How’s this for desperation? The fabulously wealthy Clarence and Jacqueline Avant, a legendary music producer and his ex-model wife, felt they had to hire a private security guard for their $7 million Beverly Hills home. Late last year, they’d also voted with their neighbors to hire guards to patrol their pricey Trousdale Estates neighborhood.

    Days before the neighborhood patrol began, Aariel Maynor, a felon on parole despite a long list of priors (assault, robbery and grand theft) snuck past the Avants’ private guard at the front door, smashed a sliding glass door in the back, and burst in on the very much awake Mrs. Avant, a night owl, as her husband slept in their bedroom.

    Maynor promptly blew her away with an AR-15 rifle. Hearing the gunfire, the private guard rushed in and Maynor shot at him, too, missing. He fled, but was captured about an hour later, after accidentally shooting himself in the foot while burglarizing a house seven miles away.

    Mrs. Avant’s life mattered — even more than some other celebrated lives you may have heard of.

    My proof:

    1) She was the “pillar of that family,” as a friend put it.

    2) She was a generous donor to local causes, such as the Neighbors of Watts and the South Central Community Child Care Center.

    3) She was not a meth addict or violent ex-con who’d put a gun to a woman’s stomach, or passed a counterfeit bill in Minneapolis, then resisted arrest.

    4) For my liberal readers: Mrs. Avant was an African-American.

    But far from a national rending of garments, as we saw in tribute to Saint George, the response to Mrs. Avant’s murder was this: The D.A. promptly sent out a fundraising letter, making a heartfelt plea on behalf of armed criminals like the sociopath who killed her.

    Gascon’s letter urged the passage of a law that would end sentence enhancements for crimes committed with a firearm. Such “sentence enhancements,” Gascon claimed, “have never been shown to reduce the rate of crime, and excessive sentence enhancements can actually drive up re-offense.”

    Really? Can I see the study? Pro-crime zealots just make this crap up. Studies show that imprisoning criminals actually INCREASES crime.

    It’s bad enough to have dangerous psychos out on the street, threatening our lives because there’s something wrong with their brains. The least we can expect is that they aren’t D.A.s.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Stop Talking About Ukraine, Republicans!


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 23, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/02/23/stop-talking-about-ukraine-republicans—p–n2603708/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    Stop Talking About Ukraine, Republicans!

    Source: AP Photo/Andriy Dubchak

    Amid the media’s 24/7 UKRAINE UPDATES, perhaps some enterprising journalist could write an article explaining how our esteem for that country’s borders benefits a single American — other than President Joe Biden.

    Our own border has become a transmission belt for the third world, bringing in rapists, murderers, future welfare recipients and left-wing activists. The Democratic Party’s brilliant policy of defunding the police and emptying the prisons has, oddly enough, led to a breathtaking surge in violent crime. Our schools have been taken over by lunatics who teach white kids that they are evil — and probably transsexual. Inflation has hit a 40-year high.

    U.S. media: Whither Ukraine?

    Midterms must be coming!

    In 2020, Democratic data scientist David Shor advised his party: “Talk about the issues [voters] are with us on, and try really hard not to talk about the issues where we disagree. Which, in practice, means not talking about immigration.” (Emphasis mine.) After the election, he said that the main way the media’s COVID hysteria hurt Donald Trump was by preventing anyone from “talking about Hunter Biden or immigration.”

    Evidently, the only issue where voters don’t vehemently disagree with Democrats this year is the precise border of a country they’d never given a moment’s thought to until five minutes ago.

    What Republicans should be doing: talking about the issues Democrats are trying to avoid.

    What Republicans are doing: talking about Ukraine.

    Whenever you see any media talking about Ukraine, your Pavlovian response should be, Oh, I see. They don’t want me to think about immigration or crime.

    It’s not only the Democrats drawing benefits from the media’s sudden Ukraine obsession. There’s also the military-industrial complex.

    President Dwight Eisenhower led Allied troops in World War II, but in his farewell address from the White House, he warned of the “unwarranted influence” on the government by “the military-industrial complex.” In the 60 years since, these bloodsuckers have been bleeding our country dry, solely to make themselves rich.

    As Americans discovered to their dismay when the pandemic hit, we can’t make our own masks, pharmaceuticals or aspirin. We can’t make our own computer chips, razors, bicycles, toys, sneakers, Levi’s jeans and on and on and on. But boy, do we make weapons! In our ruling class’s ideal country, there will be nothing but defense contractors, Black Lives Matter activists and Latin American gardeners.

    Just five companies receive the lion’s share of taxpayer money for “defense” weaponry. In 2020, the U.S taxpayer doled out $75 billion to Lockheed Martin, $28 billion to Raytheon, $22 billion to General Dynamics, $22 billion to Boeing and $20 billion to Northrop Grumman. Since 2001, these five companies alone have cost the taxpayer $2.1 trillion.

    To put this in perspective, the annual budget of the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development is a little more than $50 billion. (And we should zero-out that whole budget, too.) During the COVID pandemic, when the government ordered people not to work, the entire supplemental food budget was about $70 billion.

    Ronald Reagan’s victory in the Cold War should have been a sad day at Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing. Instead, it was the beginning of endless paydays. Today, the American taxpayer spends more on “defense” than during the Reagan buildup that crushed the USSR; more than during the Vietnam War, more even than the War on Terror after 9/11.

    Worse, we’ve added a “think-tank industrial complex” — an army of useless, camera-ready blowhards to explain why our incessant meddling around the globe is always in America’s “vital national security interest.”

    Why does NATO still exist? This alliance was the West’s response to Soviet aggression during the Cold War. Once the USSR collapsed (thanks to Reagan) and the Warsaw Pact disbanded, that should have been the end of it. Instead, we keep adding countries to the alliance — with a requirement of admission being that they buy their weapons from American defense contractors.

    Everyone acknowledges that Vladimir Putin’s main concern is that Ukraine will be asked to join NATO. How about, as a compromise, the U.S. will pull out of NATO? (Another of Trump’s broken promises.)

    Nope! Can’t shut down this utterly anachronistic organization, requiring America to defend the likes of Latvia, should some other pipsqueak nation violate its precious borders. (Why isn’t Latvia down in Texas right now, defending our borders?)

    Far from unwinding NATO, our country’s leaders are constantly trying to expand it, thus increasing the odds that Americans will be forced to go to war over some other country’s sacred sovereignty. Pointless wars are the lifeblood of defense contractors! We pay the price and defense contractors get the money.

    (Ike should be on Mount Rushmore for his “military-industrial complex” speech.)

    This year, the worshipful reverence for Ukraine’s borders has the added bonus of blocking Americans from thinking about immigration and crime. Republicans ought to be talking their heads off about the unprecedented crisis at our border, Afghan “refugees” raping little kids in our country, illegal aliens hauling meth and fentanyl into our country, rampant shoplifting, carjacking and assaults destroying neighborhoods in our country.

    Luckily, the GOP is too smart to fall for the media’s latest subject-changer.

    Oh, wait —

    @newtgingrich: “The Biden Administration talks and Putin acts. This is such a clear replay of Chamberlain trying to deal with Hitler that it is more than a little frightening. Putin is pushing day by day and has no fear of NATO because he has no fear of the United States or its President.”

    GOP 2022 Contract With America: “Putin’s like Hitler.”


    Stop Talking About Ukraine, Republicans!

    Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 23, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/02/23/stop-talking-about-ukraine-republicans—p–n2603708/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    Stop Talking About Ukraine, Republicans!

    Source: AP Photo/Andriy Dubchak

    Amid the media’s 24/7 UKRAINE UPDATES, perhaps some enterprising journalist could write an article explaining how our esteem for that country’s borders benefits a single American — other than President Joe Biden.

    Our own border has become a transmission belt for the third world, bringing in rapists, murderers, future welfare recipients and left-wing activists. The Democratic Party’s brilliant policy of defunding the police and emptying the prisons has, oddly enough, led to a breathtaking surge in violent crime. Our schools have been taken over by lunatics who teach white kids that they are evil — and probably transsexual. Inflation has hit a 40-year high.

    U.S. media: Whither Ukraine?

    Midterms must be coming!

    In 2020, Democratic data scientist David Shor advised his party: “Talk about the issues [voters] are with us on, and try really hard not to talk about the issues where we disagree. Which, in practice, means not talking about immigration.” (Emphasis mine.) After the election, he said that the main way the media’s COVID hysteria hurt Donald Trump was by preventing anyone from “talking about Hunter Biden or immigration.”

    Evidently, the only issue where voters don’t vehemently disagree with Democrats this year is the precise border of a country they’d never given a moment’s thought to until five minutes ago.

    What Republicans should be doing: talking about the issues Democrats are trying to avoid.

    What Republicans are doing: talking about Ukraine.

    Whenever you see any media talking about Ukraine, your Pavlovian response should be, Oh, I see. They don’t want me to think about immigration or crime.

    It’s not only the Democrats drawing benefits from the media’s sudden Ukraine obsession. There’s also the military-industrial complex.

    President Dwight Eisenhower led Allied troops in World War II, but in his farewell address from the White House, he warned of the “unwarranted influence” on the government by “the military-industrial complex.” In the 60 years since, these bloodsuckers have been bleeding our country dry, solely to make themselves rich.

    As Americans discovered to their dismay when the pandemic hit, we can’t make our own masks, pharmaceuticals or aspirin. We can’t make our own computer chips, razors, bicycles, toys, sneakers, Levi’s jeans and on and on and on. But boy, do we make weapons! In our ruling class’s ideal country, there will be nothing but defense contractors, Black Lives Matter activists and Latin American gardeners.

    Just five companies receive the lion’s share of taxpayer money for “defense” weaponry. In 2020, the U.S taxpayer doled out $75 billion to Lockheed Martin, $28 billion to Raytheon, $22 billion to General Dynamics, $22 billion to Boeing and $20 billion to Northrop Grumman. Since 2001, these five companies alone have cost the taxpayer $2.1 trillion.

    To put this in perspective, the annual budget of the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development is a little more than $50 billion. (And we should zero-out that whole budget, too.) During the COVID pandemic, when the government ordered people not to work, the entire supplemental food budget was about $70 billion.

    Ronald Reagan’s victory in the Cold War should have been a sad day at Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing. Instead, it was the beginning of endless paydays. Today, the American taxpayer spends more on “defense” than during the Reagan buildup that crushed the USSR; more than during the Vietnam War, more even than the War on Terror after 9/11.

    Worse, we’ve added a “think-tank industrial complex” — an army of useless, camera-ready blowhards to explain why our incessant meddling around the globe is always in America’s “vital national security interest.”

    Why does NATO still exist? This alliance was the West’s response to Soviet aggression during the Cold War. Once the USSR collapsed (thanks to Reagan) and the Warsaw Pact disbanded, that should have been the end of it. Instead, we keep adding countries to the alliance — with a requirement of admission being that they buy their weapons from American defense contractors.

    Everyone acknowledges that Vladimir Putin’s main concern is that Ukraine will be asked to join NATO. How about, as a compromise, the U.S. will pull out of NATO? (Another of Trump’s broken promises.)

    Nope! Can’t shut down this utterly anachronistic organization, requiring America to defend the likes of Latvia, should some other pipsqueak nation violate its precious borders. (Why isn’t Latvia down in Texas right now, defending our borders?)

    Far from unwinding NATO, our country’s leaders are constantly trying to expand it, thus increasing the odds that Americans will be forced to go to war over some other country’s sacred sovereignty. Pointless wars are the lifeblood of defense contractors! We pay the price and defense contractors get the money.

    (Ike should be on Mount Rushmore for his “military-industrial complex” speech.)

    This year, the worshipful reverence for Ukraine’s borders has the added bonus of blocking Americans from thinking about immigration and crime. Republicans ought to be talking their heads off about the unprecedented crisis at our border, Afghan “refugees” raping little kids in our country, illegal aliens hauling meth and fentanyl into our country, rampant shoplifting, carjacking and assaults destroying neighborhoods in our country.

    Luckily, the GOP is too smart to fall for the media’s latest subject-changer.

    Oh, wait —

    @newtgingrich: “The Biden Administration talks and Putin acts. This is such a clear replay of Chamberlain trying to deal with Hitler that it is more than a little frightening. Putin is pushing day by day and has no fear of NATO because he has no fear of the United States or its President.”

    GOP 2022 Contract With America: “Putin’s like Hitler.”

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Have At ‘Em, Antifa! The New Free Speech


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 16, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/02/16/have-at-em-antifa-the-new-free-speech—p–n2603402/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    Have At 'Em, Antifa! The New Free Speech

    Source: AP Photo/Gillian Flaccus

    In 2017, as fear and loathing of Donald Trump seized the nation, a U.S. mayor got a four-star resort to cancel a conservative conference by threatening to withdraw police and fire protection.

    With all the media blubbering about “attempts to DESTROY our democracy” and violations of “constitutional norms,” it’s remarkable that this Howitzer blast to the First Amendment has received barely any attention, much less the front-page coverage it deserves, not even from the conservative press.

    The banned conference, you see, was about immigration.

    Wow, our elites really don’t want Americans thinking about immigration! (Remember, kids: It’s a right-wing conspiracy theory — and racist, to boot! — to think that liberals are using mass immigration to change the country.)

    The sponsor of the conference was VDARE, a long-standing immigration website espousing ideas that are basically identical to Trump’s 2016 immigration promises — both before he made them and after he broke them. The main difference is that the arguments on VDARE are expressed in proper English, and the writers actually believe what they say.

    As the 2016 election demonstrated, these ideas are quite popular with a certain segment of voters. Not everyone, just enough to elect a president no one thought could ever be elected, who was loathed by the media, and who was outspent 2-to-1.

    Named for Virginia Dare, the first European born on U.S soil, VDARE promotes the novel idea that U.S. immigration policy should benefit Americans. (Obviously, that includes white, Hispanic, Asian and black Americans — whom, by the way, mass immigration hurts the most.) Naturally, therefore, it has been designated a “white supremacist” website by the country’s largest hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    Four months after VDARE signed a contract to hold its annual conference at the Cheyenne Mountain Resort in Colorado Springs, the local mayor, John Suthers — nominee for the Liz Cheney Profiles in Courage Award! — issued a public announcement accusing VDARE of engaging in “hate speech” and urging the resort to cancel (OK, whatever), but also vowing to deny “any support or resources to this event” if the resort honored the contract.

    Hey Antifa, in case anybody’s interested — if you firebomb this conference, we won’t be sending any firetrucks. And if you want to attack the attendees, there won’t be any police showing up to stop you.

    The next day, the resort canceled the contract and, per the agreement, paid a kill fee. VDARE sued the mayor, alleging a violation of its First Amendment rights.

    Here’s the frightening part: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (one Obama judge and two G.W. Bush judges; one dissent) found for the mayor on the grounds that it’s possible that the resort canceled NOT because the mayor announced that there would be no police or fire protection, but because of … CHARLOTTESVILLE!

    Which VDARE had nothing to do with. (Again, VDARE is an immigration website, not a street protest organization.)

    If the Supreme Court does not agree to take up this case and brutally slap down the 10th Circuit, “free speech” will be officially limited to speech acceptable to Antifa, working hand-in-hand with liberal mayors and governors.

    I have long maintained that the left never truly cared about free speech. They merely pretended to in order to protect the people they actually supported: communists and pornographers. That was the sort of “speech” that used to get banned.

    But today, the speech that gets banned includes statements like: There are only two genders; Maybe we shouldn’t defund the police; Affirmative action is unjust; Masks don’t work — No they work! No, they don’t work! Also, apparently, speech asserting that mass immigration has not been an unalloyed good for our country, contributing to our prosperity, cohesiveness and happiness.

    One of Justice William Brennan’s hallowed quotes is: “[T]he government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Those stirring words were in defense of flag-burning. And here’s a famous one from Justice William O. Douglas: “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.” That was about communists.

    But ever since conservative speech became the target of censors, liberals adore governmental suppression of speech. (The one, lone exception that proves the rule: Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU and author of “HATE: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship.”)

    As the 10th Circuit explained, conservative speakers should have no expectation of police and fire protection. Specifically, the majority opinion declared: “What VDARE wanted, it had no right to demand — municipal resources to monitor a private entity’s private event.” (Monitor? How about “That the city not refuse to send police officers and firetrucks”?)

    So I guess we can forget that sonorous horse crap about the First Amendment protecting ideas that “society finds … offensive or disagreeable.” The left’s new model is a public-private partnership to prohibit speech unacceptable to Joy Ann Reid.

    Henceforth, blue states and cities will be free to shut down conservative speakers, MAGA meetings, Daughters of the American Revolution gatherings or anti-mask protests. Some jackass mayor will claim that the conservatives are threatening to engage in “hate speech” and deny them police and fire protection (then sit back and wait for the accolades from the media).

    With midterms approaching, conservatives are feeling giddy. Everything the left holds dear — open borders, “racial equity,” Defund the Police, critical race theory — is toxic to voters. Woo hoo! We’re winning!

    Not so fast, patriots. While you fist-pump, liberals are busy institutionalizing the censorship of conservatives throughout the nation. You want to talk about “institutional bias”? How about the systemic bias against any ideas unacceptable to progressives being baked into American society?

    If the Supreme Court fails to overturn the outrageous opinion in VDARE Foundation v. City of Colorado Springs, free speech’s gravestone will read: “Bedrock principle of a nation; 1791-2022.”

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: DeSantis Shocker: It’s Not OK to Hate Whites


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jan 26, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/01/26/desantis-shocker-its-not-ok-to-hate-whites—p–n2602426/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.com.

    DeSantis Shocker: It's Not OK to Hate Whites

    Source: AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack

    Gov. Ron DeSantis is pushing a bill through the Florida legislature to put a stop to the modern pedagogy of making little girls cry because they’re white. The bill, called “Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act (WOKE),” prohibits classroom instruction that contradicts these concepts:

    “No race is inherently superior to another race”;

    “An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex”;

    “An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.”

    The left has been having a sneer-fest over the proposed law, howling that it protects “white people” from feeling “uncomfortable.” SNOWFLAKES!

    E.g.:

    “A bill pushed by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis that would prohibit public schools and private businesses from making white people feel ‘discomfort’ when they teach students or train employees about discrimination in the nation’s past …” — The Associated Press (emphasis added)

    “The right likes to talk so much about, you know, snowflakes. It seems like they may be raising snowflakes because if they think people are going to be uncomfortable by the actual facts — facts are uncomfortable.” — CNN’s Don Lemon

    “Ron DeSantis and his GOP allies are pushing a bill … that would prohibit public schools [from making] white people squirm. Those poor, wittle babies.

    “Their feelings are hurting. Some poor, wittle white people are uncomfortable about the hundreds of years of racism and hate that built this nation.” — Laura Washington, Chicago Sun-Times

    (Saving the best for last …)

    “[H]e’s trying to make it illegal, Governor Ron DeSantis, to teach history that would make white people uncomfortable. Does that law include saying you can’t make black people feel uncomfortable or indigenous people? The history of indigenous and African Americans could make one uncomfortable? Is that illegal too, or is it just white people?” — MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid

    To know the answer to Joy Ann’s question, you’d have to actually read the bill. Or an article about the bill. Or commentary on an article about the bill. Joy Ann Reid: highly literate and well-informed Harvard graduate. But, duh: A bill prohibiting the teaching of race hatred will primarily prevent the teaching of white hatred for the simple reason that it’s the only race we’re allowed to hate. Not merely allowed to hate, but taught to hate, encouraged to hate, paid to hate.

    We’re now entering the sixth decade of open, widespread, official discrimination against white people on the basis of their race. Even the Asians suing Harvard dare not stress the humungous advantage given to blacks and Hispanics. No, their beef is about white applicants getting preferential treatment over Asians.

    This is odd, to say the least. According to the plaintiffs’ own expert witness, an Asian with a 25% chance of admission to Harvard would increase his chances to 36% if he were white — but to 77% if Hispanic, and to 95% if black. Asians sure have assimilated to our culture!

    Everybody’s copacetic with the idea that universities discriminate against white people — in abject defiance of the clear language of our civil rights laws. They have done so, loud and proud, at least since 1973, when Allan Bakke was rejected from the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, because he was white. In fact, no one under the age of 50 has ever lived in an America where universities and other elite institutions have not discriminated against whites. Three generations of hating whites are enough.

    School districts around the country teach white children that they were born racist and assign books like, Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness,” that portrays “whiteness” as a contract with Satan.

    So yes, a race-neutral law that prohibits teaching race hatred will, in practice, prohibit teaching hatred of whites because that’s the only race-hate that’s taught.

    Liberals jeer at whites who object to this constant disparagement, calling them “poor, wittle babies.” Does the left have any self-awareness at all?

    6-year-old girl is a total pussy if she can’t take a little abuse for being white — at a school her parents are paying for. But our entire country has been turned upside down for the past half-century to prevent any other race from experiencing a fleeting moment of discomfort.

    Historic Confederate statues are torn down and melted; newspapers refuse to identify the race of criminals — or even show photos of the arrestees; the Oscars will not consider a movie for Best Picture that does not have 30% non-whites. Otherwise, black people might feel uncomfortable.

    Professor Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania Law School is routinely threatened with suspension or firing from her tenured position for stating facts about black students’ performance. Her remarks make black people feel uncomfortable.

    Hey, where’s the rush to review Charles Murray’s recent book “Facing Reality” about black crime and I.Q.? Nope, might make black people uncomfortable.

    A few years ago, Kansas City officials were advised not to impose a curfew in response to the violent mobs of black teenagers descending on a shopping plaza because, as the black mayor said, it would “make a lot of black kids angry.” His remark inspired the title of Colin Flaherty’s book about black crime, “Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry” — a book that is currently banned from Amazon. It might make black people uncomfortable.

    Anti-whiteness books are flooding the grade schools, but you aren’t allowed to spend your own money to purchase books on Amazon that make some people “uncomfortable.” Not only Flaherty’s book, but:

    — Ryan Anderson’s “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment” — might make transgenders uncomfortable.

    — Jared Taylor’s “If We Do Nothing,” as well as two books he contributed to: “Race Against Time” and “Face to Face With Race” — might make black people uncomfortable.

    — The Kindle edition of the widely praised 1973 dystopian novel by French author Jean Raspail, “Camp of the Saints” — might make third worlders uncomfortable.

    — David Cole’s rollicking autobiography, “Republican Party Animal” — makes Debra Messing uncomfortable.

    The FBI allowed the 9/11 attack to happen by blowing off an Arizona agent’s warning that a lot of Arabs were enrolled in flight school. Three thousand Americans had to die because noticing Arabs in flight school might make some people uncomfortable.

    Last week, a Muslim terrorist, Malik Faisal Akram, seized a Texas synagogue and held four hostages for 10 hours. The media universally identified Akram as: “British man.” He didn’t even call himself “British”! A week later, the Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt went on MSNBC and tried to suggest “Republicans” were responsible for the attack. The truth might make Muslims uncomfortable.

    A virus that originated in China cannot be called anything with “China” in the name. That might make Asians uncomfortable.

    Before we go, here’s another “actual fact,” as Don Lemon put it, and “facts are uncomfortable” (especially for the black Harvard grad on MSNBC who can’t read a bill): By Harvard’s own admission, nearly 60% of the black students it admits are there only because they are black.

    It’s so great that liberals have finally turned against snowflakes so we can discuss “actual facts” again!

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: The Message in the Polls: Trump’s Done


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jan 19, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/01/19/the-message-in-the-polls-trumps-done—p–n2602080

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org/

    The Message in the Polls: Trump's Done

    Source: AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin

    Our media are obsessed with Donald Trump, but Trump’s obsessed with Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. For months now, Trump’s been playing the aging silent film star Norma Desmond in “Sunset Boulevard” to DeSantis’ younger, prettier Betty Schaefer.

    Amid the hourly, annoying group emails to Trump’s list — “YOU are one of my TOP supporters!” — there was one from Roger Stone on Nov. 2, 2021, denouncing DeSantis.

    The insults sounded a lot like what Trump used to say about Stone: “Ron’s own piss-poor campaign …,” “without really delivering on his Trump-like rhetoric …,” “Governor DeSantis has failed …” and so on.

    The title of this diatribe was: “WILL RON DESANTIS TAKE THE PLEDGE?” Can you guess what “the pledge” is? That is correct: not to challenge Trump for president in 2024.

    Only because it was “from” Stone, a smart guy who sadly prostrated himself on the altar of Trump, did I open it. Then, I shook my head and deleted it.

    Evidently, others on the Trump email list responded with more rancor.

    One week later, Stone sent out a follow-up email frantically backpedaling, noting that “many” recipients of his recent email were “surprised” by his attacks on DeSantis. The crow-eating letter ended by pleading with Stone’s critics to “Please take a moment to read what I have actually said …”

    That must’ve been some blowback!

    No one wants Trump. He’s fading faster than Sarah Palin did — and she was second place on a losing presidential ticket. In case you don’t remember, for three years following that loss, Palin was packing stadiums with tens of thousands of Trump-like fans.

    But by 2011, even she — a far smarter politician than Trump who did not spend her time whining about the last election, wallowing in self-pity or endorsing candidates because they once said something nice about her golf course — had faded. She was fun, but Republicans were starting to think seriously about the 2012 presidential election.

    Trump is already two years ahead of Palin’s fade-out schedule. After his petulant endorsements this year deliver loss after loss in midterm elections that ought to be a blowout landslide for the GOP, he’ll be as popular as former Missouri Rep. Todd Akin.

    As many Republicans will bitterly recall, Trump has already lost two Senate seats for Republicans in the 2021 Georgia runoffs. So far this year, he’s on track to lose — at least — another Senate race in Georgia, as well as the governor’s mansion.

    Sure, thousands of people show up to his heavily advertised rallies, but they’re all the exact same people. His die-hard fans — or, as he calls them, “future Trump University students” — are like Deadheads, following him from venue to venue, dressing up in wild costumes and listening to the same songs.

    Some conservatives who would never again vote for Trump wear MAGA hats, but that’s just an identity badge, like liberals wearing masks. Trump happens to be the last Republican president, and the media lose their minds over him. Wearing a “Trump” hat is the most efficient way to say, “Screw you, media.”

    This is why the media’s neurotic fixation on Trump is baffling to normal people. TV hosts keep telling us that Trump is wildly popular — the 2024 nomination is his for the asking! — but facts on the ground suggest otherwise.

    It turns out the media are using a sleight of hand to claim that Trump is popular with Republicans.

    Nate Silver’s respected website fivethirtyeight recently announced: “Republicans remain loyal to Trump even after Jan. 6 attack,” citing a poll that shows Trump’s approval among Republicans at nearly 80%.

    But there’s a lot more to the story. The poll allows readers to view Trump’s approval not only among all voters (-14%) but among specific subgroups of all voters: men, women, Blacks, Hispanics and whites, as well as any combination of these demographic subgroups. And get this: Trump doesn’t have as much as 25% net approval among any subgroup — other than “Republicans.”

    Females have a negative 24% net favorable opinion of Trump. OK, fine, women don’t like him. Show me “men.” Men have a negative 3% net favorable opinion of Trump. That’s pretty much a full set. Who’s left?

    I tried whites — the base of the Republican Party (and the demographic that decides every election, despite the unshakable beliefs of GOP donors). Whites have a meager 4% net favorable opinion of Trump.

    We’re running out of demographics that might like Trump.

    Maybe it was that massive Hispanic vote for Trump that I’ve been hearing so much about! Hispanics: negative 44% net favorable for Trump. Blacks? Negative 85% net favorable.

    White men? Fourteen percent net favorable opinion of Trump. (That’s not even going to win you Alabama, Republicans.)

    Non-college graduates? Negative 12% net favorable.

    How about non-college-educated white men? The beating heart of the Trump base is only 23% net favorable toward Trump.

    So how is it possible that 77% of “Republicans” — net — have a favorable opinion of Trump? There’s no other subgroup of the electorate that has even a third of that.

    The only explanation is that an awful lot of Republicans are now calling themselves “Independents.”

    Huh. Why might that be?

    Maybe it’s because, day in, day out, the media tell us that the GOP is “the Party of Trump”! Apparently, this has led a lot of Republicans to conclude that they must not be Republicans, after all. (At least, among the Republicans contacted by these pollsters. I assume they didn’t have any respondents in Florida, where “Republican” has a much more favorable connotation.)

    Thanks to the media’s lies, the only people calling themselves “Republicans” these days are the Trump die-hards. In other words, the blockbuster conclusion of this poll is: Trump die-hards like Trump!

    Yes — and they’re the only ones who do. While Trump fanatics are indeed fanatical, everyone else is sick and tired of his nonsense.

    Give voters a populist conservative who’s not a conman and a liar and they’ll be “Republicans” again. No wonder Trump hates DeSantis.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: The Great Epstein Cover-Up, Part 2


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jan 12, 2022

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/01/12/the-great-epstein-coverup-part-2—p–n2601773/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, WhatDidYouSay.org.

    The Great Epstein Cover-Up, Part 2

    Source: AP Photo/Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office, File

    Last week, we reviewed our ruling class’s strange lack of interest in Jeffrey Epstein’s child molestation ring, in which so many of them played a part. The media cover-up is second only to the government cover-up, with prosecutors delivering loss after loss in cases they’ve been forced to bring (by the police and the public) against the child molester.

    This week, we’ll look at the government’s long record of zealously trying NOT to unravel the case.

    Barry Krischer was the first prosecutor to let Epstein off for child molestation. The local police presented then-Palm Beach state attorney Krischer with bales of evidence. They had affidavits from dozens of witnesses: girls abused by the pederast, the women who recruited them, the butler who cleaned up sex toys after the “massages,” as well as records of Epstein’s molestation appointments, one delayed because of a victim’s “soccer practice.”

    Pretty much everything we know today about Epstein’s sex ring was unearthed by the Palm Beach Police back in 2005 and handed to Krischer on a silver platter.

    Five underage girls had given police sworn statements that Epstein had sexually abused them, backed by 17 other witnesses, but when Krischer brought the case to the grand jury, weirdly, he allowed only one of the girls to testify — and then attacked her on the stand! (Epstein’s attorneys had helpfully provided Krischer’s office with the girl’s posts on MySpace, where she talked about boys and drinking, the little harlot.)

    According to an extensive review by The Palm Beach Post, most of Krischer’s 2,800-page investigative file on the case consists of dirt against the teens — and against the police — given to him by Epstein’s lawyers. (Thanks, Epstein attorneys! Do we owe you anything?)

    The grand jurors, who’d been meticulously kept in the dark by Krischer, ended up voting only for a single charge of “solicitation of prostitution” against Epstein in 2006. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years’ probation. No jail time, no record as a sex offender — no criminal record whatsoever.

    According to Nexis, only one newspaper, The Palm Beach Post, reported at the time — or ever — that Palm Beach prosecutor Krischer gave Epstein probation for his years of child abuse.

    Epstein’s friends claimed he was the victim of a crusade by Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter, whom they called a “born-again nutcase.” Apparently, anyone who thinks prison is appropriate for the mastermind of a massive child sex ring has gotta be “born-again.” (How does he feel about teenage girls talking about boys and drinking?) In fact, there’s no evidence that Reiter is even a Christian — other than the fact that he’s never won an award from the ADL.

    (In 2018, the Anti-Defamation League gave a “Jurisprudence Award” to … Barry Krischer! The award praised him for “exemplifying the principles upon which the Anti-Defamation League was founded.” Hey, Jonathan Greenblatt, was Harvey Weinstein out of town?)

    At that point, the enraged Palm Beach chief of police took his evidence to a completely separate law enforcement agency — the federal government, even though these were mostly state crimes. U.S. attorney Alex Acosta proceeded to make a deal with Epstein — with Krischer essentially operating as Epstein’s defense counsel — resulting in a plea only slightly tougher than Krischer’s pat on the head.

    According to journalist Vicky Ward, Acosta later defended this sweetheart deal to the Trump transition team, explaining: “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence‘ and to leave it alone.”

    Most recently, the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York brought a gentle prosecution against Epstein’s pimp and fellow child molester, Ghislaine Maxwell. Federal prosecutors called a mere four girls who claimed to have been recruited and/or abused by Maxwell. They could have put dozens of her victims on the stand.

    Most notably, the Southern District did not call the star witness, Virginia Giuffre, who has openly named the rich and powerful men she says these creeps forced her to have sex with, including Prince Andrew, former Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, former New Mexico governor and presidential candidate Bill Richardson, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, French model scout Jean-Luc Brunel, and the hedge fund billionaire Glenn Dubin, among others.

    (Times of London, Jan. 9, 2022: “Alan Dershowitz asked Donald Trump to grant Ghislaine Maxwell a preemptive pardon.”)

    Immediately after the Southern District accidentally won five guilty verdicts against Maxwell, the prosecutors quietly revealed that, weeks earlier, they’d dismissed all charges against the prison guards who failed to check on Epstein for more than eight hours the night he allegedly committed suicide — despite an explicit directive that they check on him every 30 minutes.

    Not to brag but …

    July 25, 2019, 1:05 a.m.: @AnnCoulter Dear Bureau of Prisons: Please get Jeffrey Epstein to a super Max prison pronto, or the people who want him dead will make sure we never know the truth. ACT NOW!

    Aug. 10, 2019: Epstein found dead in his cell.

    The feds not only did not move Epstein to a super-maximum security prison as some observers recommended, but they also did this:

    — The day before Epstein died, he was taken off suicide watch.

    — Against orders, his cellmate transferred elsewhere, leaving Epstein completely alone in his cell.

    — All the cameras on Epstein’s floor were mysteriously broken.

    — Even the footage of his earlier suicide attempt had been mistakenly erased and the backup footage destroyed “as a result of technical errors,” according to assistant U.S. attorneys Jason Swergold and Maurene Comey.

    How many times can they use the “we’re completely incompetent” defense? (Hey, does anybody know if this case implicates rich people?)

    Maxwell’s brother soon announced to the press — and to anyone else who might be interested! — that his sister was no snitch. She wouldn’t rat out any of Epstein’s fellow child molesters in exchange for a lighter sentence.

    Maxwell is facing up to 65 years in prison, and her brother has just admitted she can name names. Hello? SDNY? Any thoughts about applying some pressure?

    Unfortunately, these are the same prosecutors who just did everything in their power to blow the case against her. My prediction of their next conversation with Maxwell: This is our last offer: 30 hours of community service — and we’re not kidding! OK, 20 hours. Damn — you’re one tough negotiator.

    Most strange, the ink wasn’t dry on the guilty verdicts before one of the jurors ran to the press and announced that he’d lied on his juror questionnaire. Although he’d denied ever having been sexually molested, he had been! Not only that, but — hoo boy — did his experience with sex abuse sway the jurors during deliberations!

    The defense immediately moved for a mistrial and the chatty juror moved to a villa in the south of France he’s just inherited from an unknown relative. OK, the second part isn’t true (that I know of), but are you kidding me??

    Are prosecutors even investigating any contact between Maxwell’s representatives and the jurors? Will he be tried for perjury?

    However this ends, once it’s over, we’ll never hear about Epstein again — unlike, say, Jan. 6, which we will never stop hearing about. If America got to vote, which story do you think they would find more interesting?

    Which story is more important? Doesn’t the public have a right to know how big Epstein’s sex/blackmail club was, who among America’s ruling elite were compromised, and to what end?

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: The Daunte Wright NYT Readers Don’t Know


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Dec 22, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/12/22/the-daunte-wright-nyt-readers-dont-know—p–n2600991/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    The Daunte Wright NYT Readers Don't Know

    Source: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer

    They’re doing it again. The New York Times is aggressively hiding relevant facts on a matter of public interest simply in order to promote the narrative of black victimhood.

    OK, we didn’t get away with it last time, but we probably will this time. Let’s try!

    Daunte Wright is the half-black man fatally shot by a police officer in Minnesota earlier this year. According to Nexis, he has appeared in well over 100 articles in the Times. But one thing Times readers will never be told is that Wright was facing criminal charges for trying to choke a woman to death while robbing her at gunpoint. They will also never hear about the lawsuit accusing Wright and an accomplice of shooting a guy during a carjacking.

    In a bold departure from customary practice, the Times did make two passing references to another lawsuit claiming Wright shot a guy in the head, permanently disabling him, but in both cases, quickly added: “The lawsuit offers no direct evidence tying Mr. Wright to the shooting.”

    And those are just the crimes he’s accused of committing lately, during the brief year and a half since he turned 18 and was no longer treated as a juvenile.

    When it comes to Wright’s legal problems, the Times didn’t even pull its usual trick of putting all the interesting information in paragraph 20. These grisly allegations, as set forth in police reports and lawsuits, have been completely, 100% censored from the Newspaper of Record.

    This isn’t a genteel refusal to “put the victim on trial.” Wright’s short but exciting criminal record is highly relevant to the convulsions this country has been going through since George Floyd’s death at the hands of the police in 2020 — convulsions painstakingly fostered by the Times.

    Contrary to the media’s black victimhood narrative, there’s a very good reason Wright was in a position to be confronted by the police and in a way that most people are not.

    In addition to allegedly committing a slew of gun crimes before the age of 20 (based on only one year and six months of public records), Wright was stopped for driving with expired license plate tags. He didn’t have car insurance. He also didn’t have a driver’s license. (And yes, white people are busted for these infractions all the time.)

    When the officers ran his name, they discovered that Wright was driving on a suspended license, there was a restraining order against him, and a bench warrant for his arrest on a weapons charge. They had no choice: They had to arrest him. But as one officer began to handcuff him, Wright resisted, jumped back in his car and was about to flee — along with an officer trapped in the passenger window, trying to get control of the gears.

    That’s when Wright got shot.

    In other words, this case isn’t exactly a primo example of “Driving While Black.” That’s why The New York Times hides all the pertinent facts.

    For example, last week, the Times finally — glancingly — mentioned Wright’s lack of a driver’s license and insurance. (That’s if you don’t count a recent article about how Minnesota laws adversely affect minorities — “even regulations about driver’s licenses and renewal of tags.”)

    On the other hand, the Times has run 16 articles about Wright’s … air freshener! (E.g.: “How a Common Air Freshener Can Result in a High-Stakes Traffic Stop”). That 16 more than all its articles on Hunter Biden’s laptop!

    What is the Times talking about? It seems that, immediately after the shooting, Wright’s mother told the media that he’d been stopped merely for having an air freshener hanging from his rearview mirror — AND NOW HE WAS DEAD!

    That’s completely untrue, but it’s the story the Times is going with. No new information will be allowed to penetrate the paper’s BLM cocoon.

    Times reporters must have heard about the armed robbery/choking incident, because they’ve repeatedly quoted Wright’s accomplice in the crime, Emajay Driver. On April 13Nov. 30Dec. 8 and Dec. 17 the Times ran some version of this quote:

    “‘He loved to make people laugh,’ said Emajay Driver, a friend of Mr. Wright. ‘He was just great to be around. There was never a dull moment.'”

    And that’s all we get from Mr. Driver.

    New York Times: Say, we saw that police report about you and Daunte nearly choking a woman to death while committing an armed robbery. So naturally, we have to ask: Do you by any chance have any heartwarming stories about him?

    Somewhat more important than Daunte’s love of laughter are the details of that incident, given at length in America’s Greatest Newspaper, the U.K.’s Daily Mail.

    On Dec. 1, 2019, Wright and Driver crashed at the apartment of a 20-year-old woman they’d been partying with. The next morning, the woman’s roommate went out to get $820 in rent money, handed it to her, then left for work.

    Just before the attack, Wright locked himself in the victim’s bathroom for a noticeably long time in order to make videos of himself with a gun, and to empty a bottle of hand sanitizer onto his gun. (Daunte, with his simple, trusting nature, apparently believed an urban legend that sanitizer “blocks” fingerprints.)

    Minutes later, as the three of them were exiting the apartment, Wright suddenly blocked the door, pointed the gun at the woman’s head, saying, “Give me the f-ing money. I know you have it.” (Me to The New York Times: Give us the f-ing facts. We know you have them.)

    She refused, asking “Are you serious?” Wright barked, “We’re not playing around,” and grabbed her by the neck, choking her, as she dropped to her knees, with the gun in his other hand still pointed at her head. “You look into his eyes,” the victim later said, “and it’s so evil.”

    Next, he tried ripping her shirt open to get the money, perhaps having seen her hiding it in her bra earlier. She screamed, and Wright began choking her again. (As Wright’s accomplice so poignantly said, there was never a dull moment with this guy.)

    Finally, Wright and Driver ran off, hopping into a white Cadillac that was waiting for them.

    They were arrested five days later. Driver pleaded guilty to first-degree aggravated robbery, his second felony conviction. He was facing 20 years in prison, but only got probation, leading some to speculate that he’d made a deal to testify against Wright.

    Again: The Times hasn’t printed a single detail of Wright’s give-me-the-f-ing-money robbery attempt. Or the lawsuit about the carjacking. In one of more than 100 articles, there were two brief mentions of his shooting a guy in the head.

    As for the trial of Kim Potter, the officer who shot Wright, neither the prosecution nor defense disputes that it was a mistake, that she thought she was holding her Taser. Several officers, and the defense’s use-of-force expert, testified that Potter would have been fully justified in shooting Wright in order to protect the other officer from being dragged by the car.

    But Wright “loved to make people laugh.” That’s all the Times wants you to know.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: The Fauci Who Cried Wolf


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Dec 08, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/12/08/the-fauci-who-cried-wolf—p–n2600336/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org

    Wow, the opposition press isn’t what it used to be!

    In a Sunday interview with “The Sexiest Man Alive,” Anthony Fauci, CNN’s Jake Tapper played a clip of Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., criticizing Fauci for keeping the public in a state of raw panic over COVID.

    Johnson: “Fauci did the exact same thing with AIDS. He overhyped it. He created all kinds of fear, saying it could affect the entire population, when it couldn’t. And he’s doing — he’s using the exact same playbook for COVID.”

    At that point, the anchor is supposed to say something like, “Dr. Fauci?” and let him respond. But CNN apparently thinks Fauci is too delicate a flower to answer an attack all by his lonesome.

    So, before turning it over to the interviewee, Tapper blathered: “Obviously, that’s a bizarre and false assertion. President George W. Bush gave you the Presidential Medal of Freedom because of your leadership in the AIDS crisis. But I did want to give you an opportunity to respond.” (I guess this is how you apply for Chris Cuomo’s job at CNN.)

    At that point, Fauci merely had to join Tapper in sneering at the senator: “Jake, how do you respond to something as preposterous as that?”

    Thank you, Dr. Fauci for that penetrating response. Next up on CNN …

    Actually, Fauci then went on to use the Hillary Benghazi defense: HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME WHEN PEOPLE DIED!!!

    He said: “Overhyping AIDS? It’s killed over 750,000 Americans and 36 million people worldwide. How do you overhype that? Overhyping COVID? It’s already killed 780,000 Americans and over 5 million people worldwide. So, I don’t have any clue of what he’s talking about.”

    That would have been a fantastic answer if Sen. Johnson had questioned whether anyone had ever died from AIDS or COVID. Unfortunately, he didn’t do that. Rather, he accused Fauci of overhyping the risk of COVID, terrifying everyone — as he did with AIDS — instead of concentrating protections on high-risk groups.

    Overhyping car accidents? Cars have killed over 3.6 million Americans and multiple millions of people worldwide. How do you overhype that?

    Yes, but you recommended that people drive blindfolded.

    Long after it was clear that COVID was dangerous nearly exclusively for older people and the obese, Fauci lied, just as he once lied about AIDS being a risk for heterosexuals long after it became clear that it was almost entirely a problem for gay men and intravenous drug users.

    Instead of devoting massive resources to shutting down bathhouses and shooting galleries to stop the spread of AIDS, and blanketing older Americans with protections in the case of COVID, Fauci repeatedly claimed that everyone was at risk.

    This isn’t a matter of It’s a new virus! No one knew anything! I knew the high-risk groups back in March 2020. (bit.ly/3oBu8Et)

    It seems that Fauci believes in “science” — except when he needs to terrify heterosexuals in the cause of destigmatizing gays, or frighten the entire population so as not to stigmatize the elderly and obese.

    AIDS first appeared in 1981 in gay communities in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Two years later, 72% of cases involved gay men, and 90% of the non-homosexual AIDS victims were intravenous drug users. Most of the rest were children born to AIDS-infected mothers or victims of AIDS-tainted blood transfusions.

    This wasn’t a big secret. According to CDC, by June 1983, out of 1,552 AIDS victims, only 37 were not gay men, drug users, hemophiliacs or Haitians. Frontline doctors actually dealing with AIDS patients were assuring the public, “The average person has nothing to be concerned about,” as a New York cardiologist told The Associated Press. (Then, as now, you can trust your doctor; you can’t trust “public health authorities.”)

    But Fauci was out there, alarming the entire population about the odds of contracting AIDS. In April 1983, he said: “As the months go by, we see more and more groups … AIDS is creeping out of well-defined epidemiological confines.”

    A month later, he wrote: “The finding of AIDS in infants and children who are household contacts of patients with AIDS … has enormous implications with regard to ultimate transmissibility of this syndrome.” (This was based on a study of eight infants in Newark, New Jersey — who may or may not have had AIDS, in households with people who also may or may not have had AIDS. So it was a solid study.)

    By 1985 — four years after AIDS first appeared — 73% of the cases were in gay men, 17% in intravenous drug users, 3% in Haitians, 2.2% in those who’d received blood, and 1% in sexual partners of AIDS patients. Less than 4% didn’t fit into one of these categories.

    With zero cases of proven heterosexual transmission, in February 1985, Fauci said, “Am I worried about [heterosexual transmission]? Yes.”

    By 1987, only 4% of AIDS cases could possibly be attributed to heterosexual contact — and half of those were in Africans and Haitians.

    And yet, here was Fauci in March 1987, still babbling about the risk of AIDS to heterosexuals. Asked if AIDS could be transmitted to men by vaginal intercourse, he answered, “Absolutely.” He actually warned the public about French kissing: “[H]ealth officials have to presume that it is possible to transmit the virus by exchange of saliva in deep kissing.”

    If some of these quotes sound familiar, I cited a few of them in that March 2020 column, at a time when “public health authorities,” cable news hosts and the president were demanding nationwide lockdowns.

    Today, Fauci is doing the exact same thing with COVID, treating teenagers as if they face as much danger as people in their 70s, despite the latter having a 300 times greater chance of dying from COVID than those under 20. For young people who contract COVID, the chances of dying are less than the risk of dying from sunstroke over the course of their entire lives. Even for those in their 30s, the odds are about the same as their lifetime risk of dying by choking on food.

    If he’s ever interviewed by a serious journalist, perhaps Fauci could explain why his idea of “science” is about avoiding stigmatizing certain groups, and not about saving lives.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Media Gone Wild (Over Trump!)


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Oct 20, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/10/20/media-gone-wild-over-trump—p–n2597771/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    Media Gone Wild (Over Trump!)

    Source: AP Photo/Ben Gray

    If you really, really miss Donald Trump, MSNBC may just be for you! Biden is cratering, fuel prices are skyrocketing (hey, anybody seen Greta Thunberg?), hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are pouring across our border, and the murder rate keeps hitting historic highs. But the establishment media can’t stop talking about TRUMP.

    So for my friends in the media, here are a few thoughts on your Trump obsession.

    Rep. Liz Cheney, daughter of Dr. Evil, has become an unlikely hero among the Can’t-Get-Enough-Trump media — because she can’t stop talking about Trump either.

    Cheney says:

    — Jan. 6 was dumb (true: As David Cole says, “What was supposed to happen?”);

    — Trump is hurting the GOP (true: He endorsed Stacey Abrams and says his voters won’t come out in 2022 and ’24 if Republicans don’t make the “Presidential Election Fraud of 2020” their No. 1 issue); and

    — Trump is lying about the Arizona recount (also true).

    But then she had to add: Oh, and now I’m for gay marriage! Isn’t Bush the greatest?

    Is there a political party for people who think Jan. 6 was dumb, notice that we don’t have a wall, and can read an election report, but still say Bush is a male bimbo and pretty much everything liberals said about him was true?

    “Trumpism Without Trump” is the winning formula. We’re keeping the policies, but getting rid of the 8-year-old.

    The main lesson out of the Arizona election hand recount a few weeks ago isn’t about the election at all. It’s that media misinformation is a serious problem in a democracy.

    We got some very confusing messaging on the results of the recount. First, there were headlines all over saying it resulted in Biden winning again. I didn’t really care one way or another, except then Trump started going around claiming that the hand recount clearly showed … HE WON!

    It’s a simple yes-or-no question: Did Trump win Arizona or didn’t he?

    This turned out to be an epistemological puzzle. You see, both sides are gigantic liars, so whom to believe?

    In this instance, the media were telling the truth, because the truth favored them, and Trump was lying, because it didn’t favor him.

    But thanks, media, for so debasing yourselves with idiotic lies over the past five years — e.g., Russian collusion, the “Access Hollywood” tape, Trump’s remarks on Charlottesville — that I had to look up a basic fact question for myself because I simply couldn’t trust you.

    Trump lost Arizona. The hand recount was conducted by a hardcore conservative Christian, Doug Logan, famed for his integrity, and who was, therefore, viciously attacked by liberals. The recount was ordered up by Trump Republicans in the Arizona legislature. It was paid for by Trump supporters.

    If you don’t believe Logan, right-wingers, you won’t believe anyone, except the guy who promised to build a wall; bring manufacturing home; and end anchor babies, the carried interest loophole and the war in Afghanistan — but didn’t do any of those things.

    Logan’s hand recount of the ballots resulted in Biden receiving 99 more votes and Trump receiving 261 fewer votes. The report is here in black and white.

    When Trump says, We have conclusively proven that we won, he’s just doing the salesman thing he always does, telling you that a used car is a fantastic deal, an amazing car, runs like a top!

    But the transmission just fell out.

    I’m telling you, it’s a humdinger!

    Yeah, and we have a big, beautiful wall. Thousands and thousands of miles.

    File this under: At Least He Was Thinking of Us, Briefly.

    The New York Times reported this week:

    Trump’s Pentagon Chief Quashed Idea to Send 250,000 Troops to the Border

    “Top national security aides to former President Trump also talked him out of launching military raids against drug cartels inside Mexico.”

    Typical Trump. He talks a good game, then one person raises an objection and he says, OK, I’ll just tell my supporters I wanted to do it.

    Of course, the Times’ take is: Isn’t he awful? Yes, New York Times, because he didn’t do it. Not because he said he would.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Gray Lives Matter


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 15, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/09/15/gray-lives-matter—p–n2595963/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

    Gray Lives Matter

    Source: AP Photo/Steve Helber

    My ancestors were Presbyterian abolitionists who fought on the Union side, but I get really ticked off when imbeciles take a sledgehammer to my country’s history.

    Last week, with self-satisfied glee, savages tore down the 14-foot statue of Robert E. Lee designed by the French sculptor Antonin Mercie and installed in 1890 on land deeded to the state — in return for a promise that the Commonwealth of Virginia “will hold said Statue and pedestal and Circle of ground perpetually sacred to the Monumental purpose to which they have been devoted and that she will faithfully guard it and affectionately protect it.”

    But Virginia’s supreme court ruled that the state had a “free speech” right to violate the deed. On that theory, no contract can ever be enforced. I have a free speech right to say that I will NOT deliver 20 pounds of bananas!

    It’s not just “Southerners” who revere Lee, as his Wikipedia page implies. Franklin Delano Roosevelt called Lee “one of our greatest American Christians and one of our greatest American gentlemen.” Dwight Eisenhower said Lee was “noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.” Even Ulysses S. Grant called him “the acknowledged ablest general in the Confederate army.”

    The son — not grandson — of a hero of the American Revolution, Lee graduated second in his class at West Point, then distinguished himself in the Mexican-American War. Lee’s reputation was so great that President Lincoln asked him to take command of the Union forces against the South. But Lee was a Virginian and felt compelled to take Virginia’s side, so he resigned from the U.S. Army.

    (For my illiterate readers and anyone who gets his news from MSNBC: That makes Lee the opposite of a “traitor.” A traitor is someone who pretends to be on your side, while secretly working with the enemy, not someone who loudly announces, I quit. My friends and I are leaving.)

    Among his accomplishments, there’s also the minor fact that Lee saved the country. Immediately after a bitter, bloody civil war, pitting brother against brother — four of Mary Lincoln’s five brothers fought for the Confederacy — the landscape littered with the dead, Lee ensured that the South would accept defeat.

    When Lee surrendered at Appomattox, he was at the height of his powers, idolized throughout the South. The president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, wanted to fight on, telling his officers, “I think we can whip the enemy yet, if our people will turn out.”

    But Lee, not Davis, held the hearts of his countrymen. When one of Lee’s own officers urged him to lead a guerilla war against the North, Lee remonstrated, “as a Christian people, there is now but one course to pursue. We must accept the situation; these men must go home and plant a crop, and we must proceed to build up our country on a new basis.”

    He could easily have pulled a Trump and told his supporters, We got screwed! Take to the hills! They would have followed. Hundreds of thousands more lives would have been lost. The country might never have recovered.

    But Lee said no, it ends now.

    In his biography of Grant, Ron Chernow says the Union general believed that “had Lee resisted surrender and encouraged his army to wage guerrilla warfare, it would have spawned infinite trouble. … Such was Lee’s unrivaled stature that his acceptance of defeat reconciled many diehard rebels to follow his example.”

    Thanks to Lee, we became a functioning country again within about 15 years, instead of becoming Serbia, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Rwanda and on and on and on.

    After Lee’s surrender, Union soldiers saluted their defeated foes. Erstwhile warring officers embraced one another. One Confederate officer said: “Great God, thought I to myself, how my heart swells out to such a magnanimous touch of humanity! Why do men fight who were born to be brothers?” When told of Lee’s surrender, Lincoln ordered the Union band to play “Dixie.” Years later, Grant spoke of his deep affection for Lee’s army, second only to that for his own men.

    Never has a civil war ended with such love between the former enemies. That’s our history, our country, our war — North and South, black and white.

    The vandalizing of American history has absolutely nothing to do with black people or slavery. Lots of historical figures had slaves. Not only American heroes like Washington and Jefferson, but Kamala Harris’ ancestors — according to her own father. Barack Obama is the only president who might be descended from slave traders, a particularly repellent group, inasmuch as Kenya was a major player in the slave trade.

    How about these white saviors demand a box on their Ivy League admission forms: “If admitted to Harvard, would you be willing to give up your place to a black person?” That will NEVER happen. Instead, we get: I went out and courageously defaced a Confederate statue! Because some things are more important than my personal comfort.

    No, the moving force behind this frenzied destruction of American history isn’t black people suddenly offended by monuments that have been around for a century; it’s pushy newcomers, bitter that their ancestors had nothing to do with the creation of this country. After other people’s ancestors carved a nation out of the wilderness, they just kind of showed up. Now they go around obliterating anything that reminds them that this country was up and running long before they got here.

    America’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, titles its report on Confederate symbols “Whose Heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy.” Yes, exactly, it’s not their heritage, so it must be destroyed. My ancestors fought on the Union side, but they were involved, and it matters to me.

    MSNBC’s smirking Chris Hayes can get weepy about some ancient Roman ruin, and Rachel Maddow about a building in Warsaw, but I care about my history. These savages are smashing and graffitiing my antiquities.

    How would they like it if we took a sledgehammer to “Piss Christ”?

    Ann Coulter Op-ed” 9/11


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 08, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/09/08/911—p–n2595560/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    9/11

    Source: AP Photo/Richard Drew, File

    In honor of the 20-year marker of the 9/11 attacks, I thought I’d run excerpts from a few of my post-9/11 columns.

    One point I politely refrained from making 20 years ago: Why was the president of the United States reading “The Pet Goat” to a class of second-graders at the moment our nation was attacked?

    I think the “Attack France” column (Dec. 20, 2001) holds up well, mostly because I’d rather be bringing in hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen right now than hundreds of thousands of Afghans. (Who knew the golden ticket to U.S. citizenship was being the country that hosted Osama bin Laden?)

    But that column didn’t make the cut. In 2007, the magnificent Gallic made Nicolas Sarkozy the new president of France, and now we’re friends again.

    Finally, for the sub-literate: After the defeat of Japan in World War II, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, leader of the occupation, put out a call to American Christians: “Send missionaries and Bibles!” Thousands of missionaries poured in. The same thing happened after the Korean War, with greater success than in Japan.

    On this point, there was surprising unanimity. Even President Truman agreed with his nemesis MacArthur, who said: “[Democracy] will endure when it rests firmly on the Christian conception of the individual and society.”

    Today, not even a Republican would say that. Good luck, America!

    — “This Is War,” Sept. 12, 2001

    [T]he nation has been invaded by a fanatical, murderous cult. And we welcome them. We are so good and so pure we would never engage in discriminatory racial or “religious” profiling. People who want our country destroyed live here, work for our airlines, and are submitted to the exact same airport shakedown as a lumberman from Idaho. This would be like having the Wehrmacht immigrate to America and work for our airlines during World War II. Except the Wehrmacht was not so bloodthirsty.

    “All of our lives” don’t need to change, as they keep prattling on TV. Every single time there is a terrorist attack — or a plane crashes because of pilot error — Americans allow their rights to be contracted for no purpose whatsoever.

    The airport kabuki theater of magnetometers, asinine questions about whether passengers “packed their own bags” … somehow allowed over a dozen armed hijackers to board four American planes almost simultaneously on Bloody Tuesday. Did those fabulous security procedures stop a single hijacker anyplace in America that day?

    Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac.

    We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.

    — “Future Widows of America: Write Your Congressman,” Sept. 27, 2001

    After the World Trade Center was bombed by Islamic fundamentalists in 1993, the country quickly chalked it up to a zany one-time attack and five minutes later decided we were all safe again. We weren’t. We aren’t now …

    Congress has authority to pass a law tomorrow requiring aliens from suspect countries to leave. As far as the Constitution is concerned, aliens, which is to say non-citizens, are here at this country’s pleasure …

    [T]he very nature of the enemy is that they have infiltrated this country and pass themselves off as law-abiding, peaceful immigrants. Their modus operandi is to smuggle mass murderers to our shores. But the country refuses to respond rationally. Rather, Congress is busily contemplating a series of “anti-terrorism” measures most notable for their utter irrelevance to the threat. …

    Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., has proposed that we take the aggressive step of asking aliens in the country to register periodically with the government so we know where they are. That’s already the law in Germany. Several of the hijackers in this attack lived in Hamburg, and they obediently complied.

    The mastermind of the most vicious terrorist attack in the history of the world, Mohamed Atta, was in Florida on a “vocational status” visa — in order to attend flight school. Let’s say Atta had registered. Now what, Joe?

    — “Build Them Back,” June 7, 2002

    The reason liberals prefer a park to luminous skyscrapers [on the site of the World Trade Center] is that they are not angry. Liberals express sympathy for the victims, but they’re not angry. Instead of longing to crush and humiliate the enemy, they believe true patriotism consists of redoubled efforts to expand the welfare state.https://a7dc841daceec5d9069484a50746f032.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html#xpc=sf-gdn-exp-3&p=https%3A//townhall.com

    Sen. Hillary Clinton proposed a school for the World Trade Center site and Sen. Charles Schumer, a park. Yeah, that’ll show ’em!

    Meanwhile, the construction workers clearing away the rubble vowed they would work without pay to rebuild the World Trade Center. Of course, now that we have 14 cows, that shouldn’t be necessary. (In a genuinely touching story, a tiny cow-herding village in Kenya only recently got word of the attack on America and, this week, made a special present of 14 cows to the United States.)

    The attack on the World Trade Center ripped America’s soul not only for the thousands of lives it snuffed out. Even if the towers had been empty, the destruction of those buildings would have been heart-wrenching. Skyscrapers are the hallmark of civilization, monuments to human brilliance and creativity. …

    Mohamed Atta loathed skyscrapers. Newsweek reported that he viewed the emergence of tall buildings in Egypt as an odious surrender to Western values. The most fitting memorial to the victims of the World Trade Center attack is to build the most breathtaking skyscraper in the world on top of Mohamed Atta’s corpse.https://a7dc841daceec5d9069484a50746f032.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html#xpc=sf-gdn-exp-4&p=https%3A//townhall.com

    — “This Whistleblower They Like,” June 13, 2002

    In their enthusiasm to bash the Bush administration for its handling of the war — which Democrats consider an annoying distraction from the real business of government, which is redistributing income — the left has embraced FBI agent Coleen Rowley as a modern Joan of Arc …

    [T]he gravamen of Rowley’s 13-page memo is essentially that FBI headquarters botched the Zacarias Moussaoui case (the 20th hijacker) by refusing to racially profile Muslims. …

    [Specifically] she condemned FBI brass for refusing to authorize a search warrant for Moussaoui based on the following information: 1) he refused to consent to a search of his computer; 2) he was in flight school; 3) he had overstayed his visa; and 4) he was a Muslim.

    Let’s see, which of these factors constitutes probable cause?

    — Refusal to consent to a search? It is your right to refuse. Any other rule would allow cops to bootstrap their way into a warrant. “Hi, Zacarias, may we search your computer? No? That’s suspicious! Grounds for a warrant!” I don’t think so.

    — In flight school? NO.

    — Overstayed visa? NO.

    — Is a Muslim? NOT ALLOWED. …

    I happen to agree with her, but liberals don’t. So how did Rowley become the left’s new Norma Rae? … FBI headquarters rebuffed Rowley’s callous insensitivity to Muslims and denied a warrant request to search Moussaoui’s computer — and thus failed to uncover the Sept. 11 plot.

    The FBI allowed thousands of Americans to be slaughtered on the altar of political correctness. What more could liberals ask for?

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Teaching Psycho Flintstones About Women’s Equality


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 25, 2021

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    Teaching Psycho Flinstones About Women's Equality

    Source: AP Photo/Khwaja Tawfiq Sediqi

    The universal panning of President Biden’s decision to finally leave Afghanistan is the mirror image of the one time the media loved Trump. Remember that joyous occasion? It was when he bombed Syria two months after taking office. Here’s a sampling of the mash-notes to Trump for sending 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles to strike a country 6,000 miles away from us.

    The New York Post: “A New Sheriff in Town: Trump’s Strike on Syria”

    New York Daily News: “KICK IN THE ASSAD! U.S. blitzes Syria with missiles to avenge atrocity.”

    The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof: “Trump Was Right to Strike Syria.”

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York: “[It was] the right thing to do.”

    And of course, MSNBC’s Brian Williams famously soliloquized the attack on his TV show that night, saying: “We see these beautiful pictures at night from the decks of these two U.S. Navy vessels in the eastern Mediterranean,” adding “I am tempted to quote the great Leonard Cohen: ‘I am guided by the beauty of our weapons.'”

    The very Europeans who are so testy right now about Biden’s decision to end a war, were thrilled with Trump for bombing a country that posed no conceivable threat to us. France, Italy, Israel and the U.K. all sent their hearty support!

    That’s quite a contrast from the remarks this week from former prime minister Tony Blair about Biden’s ending a war: “tragic, dangerous and unnecessary.”

    I was, and remain, more pro-Afghanistan war and Iraq war than Donald Rumsfeld, but not so we could hang out for 20 years and teach them to respect transgenders.

    Unfortunately, once we’d accomplished everything that could possibly be accomplished in Afghanistan, the war became a joint venture of the neocons and the feminists. Instead of punishing anyone who’d had a pleasant countenance upon seeing the World Trade Center collapse, our new mission became: Bring gender studies and gay rights to a Stone Age culture!

    Now the media has put Biden on notice: If one Afghan girl gets below B+ in women’s studies, we’re going back in!

    How did Afghans become our special charity case? Why not Burkina Faso? Twelve-year-old girls are regularly married off to men 65 or 70 years old in that paragon of modern living. Also in Niger, Sudan, Tanzania, Zambia and any number of barbaric societies around the globe.

    No one weeps for those little girls.

    (It may not be favoritism: The prodigious amount of child rape around the world is barely mentioned by the various international organizations on women’s rights because the fanatics writing the reports see no meaningful difference between official, widespread child-rape and men disrespecting their wives’ professions.)

    There are loads of primitive hellholes we could make our 51st state. We’ve picked Afghanistan because that’s the country that harbored Osama bin Laden. CONGRATULATIONS, AFGHANISTAN! YOU WON THE LOTTO!

    Now, all of America is supposed to be torn up about what one warring tribe will do to another warring tribe, in a country that’s been at war, more or less, for centuries.

    They like it that way! Afghanistan consists of a medieval tribal society resistant to change. That’s their raison d’etre. Even under the helpful tutelage of American troops, our dear Afghan allies would not stop raping little boys. Naturally, given our obsession with cultural diversity, U.S. servicemen who objected to the buggery were cashiered out of the military.

    More than a year before the 9/11 attacks, an article in The New Yorker quoted Afghans boasting, “In the nineteenth century, we beat the British more than once. In the twentieth century, we beat the Russians. In the twenty-first, if we have to, we’ll beat the Americans!”

    They just want to be left alone (something a lot of Americans dearly wish our leaders would let us do).

    We’re hearing horror stories about women having to be covered when they leave their homes now that the Taliban is back in charge. Yeah, that’s Sharia law. According to a Pew poll a few years ago, 99% of Afghans — including women — say they want to live under Sharia law.

    Afghans were totally down with women’s lib as long as we were bringing them cool stuff, like airplanes, buildings, toilets and electricity, which we did — or you did, taxpayer, to the tune of about a trillion dollars. Now we’ve left and they’ve happily gone back to their old ways.

    In all other contexts, we sacralize ancient cultures. We blush to our toes recalling our ancestors’ earlier attempts at “civilizing” American Indians by bringing them clothes, schools and Christianity. Today, we exhort them: Be yourselves!

    As long as we’re not forcing something icky on primitive cultures, like Christianity, but, rather, something healthy, like gender-feminism, well, then … “We don’t want to fight but by Jingo if we do, / We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the money too!”

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Joe vs. The Swamp


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 18, 2021

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org

    Joe vs. The Swamp

    Source: AP Photo/Susan Walsh

    President Biden ended the war in Afghanistan earlier this week, fulfilling the broken promises of the last three presidents, whereupon both the liberal and conservative media rose up as one to shout: “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!”

    This is a blow to our national security! Al Qaeda is rising! A disaster! A catastrophe! Biden went against the advice of the “foreign policy establishment”!

    And that was just Fox News.

    MSNBC and CNN were even harsher, striking a new tone from networks that, heretofore, have found nothing to criticize about Joe Biden.

    Under his masterful leadership, our nation’s murder rate has reached breathtaking heights. Despite being handed a miracle vaccine, Biden has made a mess of COVID, unfathomably returning us to masking and shutdowns, as if completely unaware: There’s a vaccine for that, Mr. President. The border is a calamity, with hundreds of thousands of foreign marauders entering our country every month — bringing exotic new COVID variants with them.

    MSNBC and CNN: Isn’t he the greatest?

    But end the endless war? Suddenly, liberals found a Biden policy worthy of attack.

    Hourly, there are fresh wails about our precious “Afghan allies”! We must save the translators who “risked their lives to help us!” What will happen to women under the Taliban! Afghanistan could become a “training ground” for terrorists! What about the Afghan Gender Studies programs?

    The voice of moderation, Gen. Barry McCaffrey told MSNBC’S Brian Williams — I quote: “There’s another good argument, we should have stayed there with 35,000 NATO forces for the next 50 years if required.”

    Fifty years. You want to see the “Swamp”? It’s out in full force this week!

    Former President Bush told the press he watched the withdrawal with “deep sadness” — then demanded that we bring as many Afghans here as possible.

    Obama was unavailable for comment this week, as he was partying with Beyonce, but back in 2011, after killing Osama bin Laden, he announced that the troops would be home by Christmas.

    President Trump, that weathervane of popular opinion, tweeted — one month before the election — quote: “BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME.”

    Now Biden has done it. It’s our country’s good fortune that our president is too senile to be outmaneuvered by the generals as Bush, Obama and Trump were.

    At this rate, maybe he’ll build the wall. (Fox News hosts of the future: Walls don’t work! What about the Emma Lazarus poem!)

    On Monday, Biden gave the best presidential address in recent memory — a full-throated, America-First statement of our interests. “I want to remind everyone,” he began, “how we got here and what America’s interests are in Afghanistan.”

    That seemed to bring some conservatives back to reality. They must have overheard themselves talking and realized, Wait, I’m against permanent war! But they had to come up with some reason to be against Biden, so they temporized, Of course we want the war to end, we’re just upset at how he did it!

    Oh, give it up, conservatives.

    1) How smoothly did you expect the withdrawal of American troops from a country of warlords, brigands and pedophiles to go?

    2) Our military brass, upstanding folks like Gen. Mark “I Want to Understand White Rage” Milley, may be incapable of creating the most minimal fighting force given $1 trillion and 20 years. On the other hand, they are fully equipped to create colossal fiascos — say, making the withdrawal as messy and embarrassing as possible, so that no one will ever try to end this war again.

    But for maximum brain-deadery, nothing beats the liberal media’s incessant bleating about our moral obligation to Afghans who “risked their lives to help us!”

    There seems to be some confusion about who was helping whom here. Our “Afghan allies” were not helping us. The Taliban weren’t in Iowa. We were helping them.

    This is like demanding that firemen who’ve just rescued people from a burning building go back and make them dinner. These people stepped out of their windows onto a ladder, risking their lives to help YOU!

    There’s no reason to bring any Afghans here — much less the 100,000 Biden’s talking about. (So is Trump! Hey, Trumpsters! Ready to move on from this big phony yet?)

    We’ve already brought about 50,000 translators to the U.S. and, as Daniel Greenfield points out on Frontpage.com, the maximum number of troops we ever had in Afghanistan was 100,000. That’s one translator for every two troops.

    Did every Afghan spend a week as an American translator?

    With a war that’s lasted 20 years, it’s easy to forget, but our dear “Afghan allies” weren’t oodles of help. The war would have been over and Osama bin Laden dead by Christmas 2001 — except our “Afghan allies” were bribed by Al Qaeda to let bin Laden slip out the Tora Bora mountains and into Pakistan.

    Remember? It was a big point in the 2004 election, raised by both John Kerry and John Edwards during the debates.

    Sen. Kerry: “Osama bin Laden attacked us. … And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora … we didn’t use the best-trained troops in the world to go kill the world’s No. 1 criminal and terrorist. [Bush] outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side, fighting against us. … That’s the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains.”

    Here’s Bush’s response: “Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us.” That’s it. The end. If Kerry hadn’t been such a sissy-boy gigolo, he would have won that election.

    At least bringing the Stone Age peasants here defeats one objection of the forever-war crowd. They claim that because of our withdrawal, Afghanistan will become a training ground for terrorists.

    No worries on that count. With 100,000 “translators,” each of their four wives, 14 children and innumerable uncles and cousins all coming here, Al Qaeda’s next training ground will be America.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: DACA: Degenerate Arsonists? Come Aboard!


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 11, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/08/11/daca-degenerate-arsonists-come-aboard—p–n2594006/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    DACA: Degenerate Arsonists? Come Aboard!

    Source: AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

    The New York Times recently ran an indignant article on the Department of Justice’s arrest of two fugitives in Mexico who were accused of involvement in a mostly peaceful arson during the #BLM protests in the Twin Cities last year. As the Times described it: “One night in the Twin Cities, shortly after the killing of George Floyd, someone set a fire in a Goodwill.”

    Why would law enforcement authorities be so obsessed with such a minor offense? “To fellow protesters,” the Times explained, “it’s part of an extreme crackdown on those who most fervently demonstrated against America’s criminal justice system.”

    A former FBI agent, Michael German — now working for the anti-police Brennan Center for Justice — confirmed that former Attorney General William Barr’s Department of Justice had pursued BLM protesters “very aggressively,” adding, “It wouldn’t surprise me that this case would have been a high-priority one.” (Do any FBI agents support law enforcement?)

    Luckily, that’s changed under President Biden!

    Whereas the Times was upset that the perps were caught, my takeaway from the story was: HECKUVA JOB, IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES!

    It seems our arsonist heroes are Jose Angel Felan Jr., a Mexican immigrant with multiple felony convictions, and his accomplice, Mena Dyaha Yousif, an Iraqi generously taken in by this country as a child because of a war in her own country. (Of course, our government won’t just come out and tell us when criminals are immigrants, but the Felan family’s specialization in transporting illegal aliens across the border is a pretty good hint.)

    Although the Times wasn’t overly prolix about the arsons, Felan didn’t just light up a Goodwill store. He also started blazes at a school for disadvantaged youth and an Asian-owned black hair products store — establishments that practically scream “White Supremacy Power Structure”!

    Jin Lim, owner of the black hair products store, described the effect of the “fervent” protests on his business: “Completely destroyed.” Insurance covered only 60% of the property damage.

    But who cares about Lim? Certainly no one at the Times.

    Inexplicably, U.S. law enforcement refused to let bygones be bygones, and tracked the fire-bugs to Mexico, finally arresting them in February.

    Felan’s criminal record (slipped in around paragraph 2,000 of the Times article) includes “a drug possession charge when he was 18 that led to an almost seven-year prison sentence …”

    Hold it right there! Seven years for a first offense, at the tender age of 18? That’s not a run-of-the-mill drug case.

    He also went to prison for, among other things, “transporting undocumented immigrants near the Mexican border.” Perhaps someday, those “undocumented immigrants” will also fervently protest racial injustice by setting fire to businesses in minority neighborhoods!

    To quote the motto of the school Felan torched: “Unity Through Diversity!”

    After fleeing from Minnesota to Texas, our model immigrants were assisted in their getaway by Felan’s family. According to law enforcement, Felan’s mother switched cars with the perps, allowing them to evade authorities. Then his brother, also previously convicted of transporting illegals, helped get them across the border to Mexico.

    Again: Bang-up job, U.S. immigration authorities! Of all 158 million people who want to immigrate to the U.S., you guys let in an entire family of criminals.

    But it was not the failure of our immigration system that got the Times’ goat. Nor the culprits’ wanton destruction of a poor neighborhood or flight from justice. It was that facial recognition technology might, in theory, have led to the fugitives’ capture.

    That was the whole point of this 3,200-word article: The arrest of criminal immigrants in Mexico “exposed a growing system of global surveillance.”

    By “global surveillance,” the Times means “cameras.” It’s one thing to have cameras recording cops 24/7, but when cameras are used to catch criminals, well, gentlemen, we’re looking at a civil rights case.

    Except it turns out, no cameras were used to catch these Dreamers. It was a tip to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that led to their capture, for which the AFT paid out a $20,000 reward.

    But high-tech cameras might have helped nab the accused felons — and isn’t that just awful? You don’t have to take the Times’ word for it! Adam Schwartz, attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said: “It’s very upsetting.”

    In the Times’ ideal world, we bring other countries’ criminals here, they commit felonies with abandon, and as long as they make it out of the country without getting caught, they’re home free!

    In my ideal world, we stop bringing other countries’ criminals here.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: The Vaccine Karens


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 28, 2021 5:24 PM

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/07/28/the-vaccine-karens—p–n2593262/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    The Vaccine Karens

    Source: AP Photo/Marta Lavandier

    If I weren’t already staunchly pro-vaccination, the vaccine zealots would turn me against the COVID shot. The proof that they’re practicing religion and not science is their refusal to acknowledge the great heaping hunks of immunity a person gets from natural infection.

    Obviously, you don’t want to contract COVID just to get all that boffo immunity, but lots of people have already been infected, so why can’t we count them the same as vaccinated?

    The current research — and that’s all we have for the vaccines, too — indicates that natural immunity is not as good as vaccine immunity — it’s better! Study after study keeps finding that the previously infected have stronger, broader and longer-lasting immunity than people who’ve received the vaccine.

    When the vaccinated, with their pipsqueak immunity, stop browbeating the already-infected, I’ll believe this is something other than a cult.

    Why is the only proof of virtue — I mean, “Trusting the Science(TM) — a vaccination card and not a positive COVID test? Why don’t sports teams, concert halls and foreign countries accept proof of prior infection the same way they accept proof of vaccination?

    Nope. Your prior infection is no good here! We are accepting ONLY vaccination cards.

    Whatever that impulse is based on, it’s not “science.”

    Despite earlier reports showing that antibodies declined rapidly after infection, in May of this year, scientists at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, released a study showing that “robust” antibodies were still present at least 11 months after infection. (France accepts proof of prior infection not older than six months. If they trust the science, they’ll soon be accepting prior infection for a year.)

    Then in June, the Cleveland Clinic produced a gigantic, perfectly controlled study finding that people who’d already had COVID received no benefit from vaccination.

    The clinic had tested its 52,238 employees throughout 2020. At one point or another, 2,579 tested positive. By mid-December, 46% of the recovered COVID patients had taken the vaccine, but more than half (54%) had not.

    Five months later, none of the previously infected had been re-infected — including the 1,359 who did not take the vaccine. (Among clinic employees who were vaccinated, but not previously infected, 15 got COVID.)

    The authors concluded: “Our study … provid[es] direct evidence that vaccination does not add protection to those who were previously infected.”

    Great news, right?

    NO! This was terrible news for the vaccination Karens! Their position is: Everyone must get the vaccine. Even if you live alone on a mountaintop and eat leaves and beetles to survive, even if you’re a burbling infant, even if you’ve had COVID, YOU MUST GET THE VACCINATION!

    In short order, the Cleveland Clinic was bullied into submission. The authors of the report issued what sounded like a retraction, but, on closer examination, was just a lot of airy nonsense.

    E.g.: “This is still a new virus and more research is needed. …”

    Duh. Same for the studies showing how fantastic the COVID vaccines are.

    “It is important to keep in mind that this study was conducted in a population that was younger and healthier than the general population. …”

    This study SUCKS. It only applies to the entire working-age population of the U.S.!

    “In addition, we do not know how long the immune system will protect itself against re-infection after COVID-19. …”

    Ditto for the vaccine.

    “It is safe to receive the COVID-19 vaccine even if you have previously tested positive …”

    Presumably, it’s also “safe” to use Gwyneth Paltrow’s healing crystals if you have previously tested positive. The question is: Do you need to?

    ” … and we recommend all those who are eligible receive it.”

    Perhaps, someday, there will be a study establishing that the previously infected should get the vaccine, but your study didn’t, Cleveland Clinic. Everyone knows you’re only telling the previously infected to get vaccinated so the loons will leave you alone.

    Just this week, a study out of the Emory University Vaccine Center, led by “world renowned immunologist” (as he is known) Rafi Ahmed, found “durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection.” And get this: The researchers also found that a natural COVID infection protects against a range of other coronaviruses, too.

    What’s so impressive about these studies is that they are going against the woke mob. After a year of seeing scientists and scientific journals irredeemably corrupted, any study that won’t be cited in Teen Vogue carries extra credibility. Worse, the results support Sen. Rand Paul! Nobody’s going to lie about that.

    This isn’t just a matter of policy not catching up to the science. The vaccine Karens positively disdain the previously infected. Instead of being treated like the superhumans that they are, recovered COVID patients are scorned, treated like smokers or AIDS victims. (No, sorry — the latter were revered as “angels.”) We’re simultaneously told that COVID is WILDLY contagious and … it’s your own damn fault for not wearing a mask, socially distancing or getting a vaccine.

    The dismissal of people who’ve developed their own antibodies springs from the same totalitarian mindset of gun control activists: You cannot protect yourself! Your body cannot protect you! Only the government can protect you. Or, as Mussolini said: “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

    This abject refusal to acknowledge the existence of natural immunity proves that the vaccine Karens don’t care about the health of their fellow human beings. They just want to boss us around.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: What’s Dumber Than CRT? CNN


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 21, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/07/21/whats-dumber-than-crt-cnn—p–n2592908/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org..

    What's Dumber Than CRT? CNN

    Source: AP Photo/Ron Harris

    As we discussed last week, “critical race theory” is a subtle philosophical construct where the answer to everything is: THAT’S RACIST! Teachers hawking this glop are being defended by their journalist allies, who sneer that CRT critics are too stupid to understand the nuances of the theory. The Aristotelian ideal of this sneer was Elle Reeve‘s “special report” for CNN — pre-taped to eliminate any danger of Elle being contradicted by someone smarter, such as a 10-year-old.

    CNN’s Brianna Keilar introduced the segment by asking her: “Do these vocal opponents of critical race theory actually understand fully what it is?”

    (That’s what’s known as a “rhetorical question,” kids!)

    Elle: “No.” [Bored] “And why should they? It’s an academic theory taught mostly at the grad student level. But what they think it means is teaching white kids that all white people are bad and racist. And so, of course they’re afraid of that.”

    They’re afraid!!! Wait — remind me: Who’s banning books, again? Who’s flipping out about “microaggressions”? Who’s demanding that Big Tech censor people? Who’s demanding “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” from speech they don’t like?

    Parents aren’t “afraid”; they’re incensed. They’re paying the salaries of people who spend all day telling their kids that America is racist. (Elle didn’t give that explanation. Perhaps it frightens her.)

    The “vocal opponents” of CRT who “don’t actually understand fully what it is” seem to be mostly billionaire investment bankers — at least judging by the articles in the Daily Mail. Elle’s conclusion: A “theory” that consists of going around shouting “RACISM!” is too complex for those guys to understand.

    The format of Elle’s pre-taped report consisted of her interviewing opponents of CRT … then nailing them with her brilliant comebacks! Except even with CNN doing the editing, the CRT opponents sounded perfectly reasonable, while Elle’s comebacks kept revealing her yawning stupidity.

    Early in Elle’s report, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is shown saying, “Critical race theory says America’s fundamentally racist.” What a dope!

    About 60 seconds later, Elle deferentially asks a hijab-wearing high school teacher to explain CRT. The teacher exclaims: “Race and racism is literally the building blocks of this country!” (Were I the editor of Elle’s piece, I think I would have cut that part of her answer.)

    Next, Elle talks to a parent fighting CRT, who says: “Don’t force on our kids a particular worldview. Taking a wide brush and painting this country as structurally racist, it’s insane … it’s a lie.”

    To this, Elle patronizingly informs the parent that America’s racism “isn’t distant history.” Her evidence of contemporary racism? “In the ’90s, the crime bill gave much more severe sentencing to crack cocaine versus powder cocaine simply because black people were perceived as doing crack cocaine and white people weren’t …”

    HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS? The reason crack penalties were so severe is because the Congressional Black Caucus demanded it. (And as long as I’m correcting Elle’s false facts, the crack penalties were passed in 1986 and 1988, not “in the 1990s.”)

    Black churches, black leaders and black members of Congress were enraged by what the crack epidemic was doing to their neighborhoods. A 1986 New York Times article reported on “all-night vigils” held by the leaders of 60 black churches, who called the crack epidemic “a new form of genocide.” Urban League President John Jacob railed against communities “held hostage by crack dealers,” saying “drugs kill more blacks than the (Ku Klux) Klan ever did.” Running for president in 1988, Jesse Jackson spoke of the scourge of crack cocaine and told a cheering crowd, “When I become president, the drug pusher is in trouble.”

    White supremacists — right, Elle?

    This has been patiently explained roughly 1 million times. But why bother knowing stuff when smug arrogance is good enough for CNN?

    Elle’s next big “gotcha” was even more embarrassing, if that is possible. She rolled out the old chestnut about blacks being considered “three-fifths” of a human being in our Constitution. Yes, she really did that.

    Here’s her exchange with a college Republican:

    COLLEGE REPUBLICAN: To paint the country as an inherently racist country from its founding I think is dangerous.

    REEVE: The three-fifths compromise is written into the Constitution in which slaves are counted as three-fifths of a person.

    SCORE!

    How can you be in journalism and have no idea what the three-fifths clause means? No research is involved, Elle! Just read it.

    The three-fifths clause means exactly the opposite of what Elle thinks it means. This was not a general statement on the slaves’ humanity: It was about congressional apportionment. The slave states wanted to count slaves as full “persons” in order to increase the number of their representatives in Congress.

    If you adored slavery, you’d want the Constitution to count each slave as a full person — as 20 people! The slaves still couldn’t vote, but their slave masters would get more votes in Congress. It’s the same idea behind California’s demand that illegal aliens be counted when determining that state’s congressional apportionment.

    I can’t even believe there’s anyone in America who needed that explained again. (Next time, I’ll just say: Get a home-schooler to explain it to you, Elle.)

    It must have been embarrassing for everyone at CNN to watch this bimbo misstating well-known facts in a network “special report” that was supposed to show what cretins CRT critics are.

    So how did the CNN hosts react? They were gobsmacked by the genius of Elle’s report!

    JOHN BERMAN: That was so great.

    KEILAR: Right?

    BERMAN: I mean, that was just so great, and just the way the questions are asked. Just by asking simple questions you revealed so much. I mean, that was just fantastic.

    ELLE: Thank you.

    My idea of hell is being condescended to by an idiot, forever and ever, with no respite. In other words, watching CNN.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Critical Race Theory Is a Complex — Oh, Who Are We Kidding?


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 14, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/07/14/critical-race-theory-is-a-complex–oh-who-are-we-kidding—p–n2592557/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org..

    Critical Race Theory Is a Complex -- Oh, Who Are We Kidding?

    Source: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File

    One of the unintended consequences of teachers using COVID to refuse to do their jobs in 2020 is that their students suddenly had to take classes remotely — within earshot of Dad. A mother at a fancy New York City private school told me that the wokeness curriculum was nothing new, but mothers never made a fuss about it. Then the fathers overheard their kids’ remote classes — and all hell broke loose.

    Now that the teachers’ anti-white agenda has been exposed (thank you, fathers of America!), the left is spinning a series of increasingly hilarious defenses of “critical race theory,” which is just a more boring version of the left’s usual hatred of Western civilization.

    Their current position is that they simply can’t discuss CRT with you because it’s too complex and can only be understood by high-level graduate students after years of study.

    Paul Begala on CNN: “It’s a graduate-level construct.”

    CNN’s Anderson Cooper: “It started in the ’70s, as I understand, in sort of academic circles, law schools.”

    “Dr.” Ibram Kendi — who is a “doctor” in the same sense that Jill Biden is — explaining his position on CRT:

    “I’m not a legal scholar. So I wasn’t trained on critical race theory. I’m a historian. … Critical race theory is taught in law schools. I didn’t attend law school, which is where critical race theory is taught.”

    Oh, cut the crap. The “theory” is: Everything is based on racism.

    The preposterous conceit that CRT rises above the level of a child yelling “THAT’S RACIST!” has the advantage of allowing liberals to refuse to debate it.

    Here’s MSNBC’s Joy Reid dismissing Christopher Rufo, a Manhattan Institute scholar, brought on her show putatively to debate CRT: “Are you like an expert in race or racial history? Are you a lawyer? Are you a legal scholar? Is that part of your background?”

    How else could Rufo possibly understand a “theory” that says:

    America is racist!

    Criminal law is racist!

    Policing is racist!

    Arrests are racist!

    Incarceration is racist!

    Standardized tests are racist!

    Mortgages are racist!

    Oh my gosh, how am I ever going to master this complex theory? I thought the quantum field theory of subatomic particle forces was tough, but THIS? I guess I’ll be hitting the books tonight.

    CRT is like the Monty Python sketch, “Anne Elk’s Theory on Brontosauruses“:

    Anne Elk: “My theory, that belongs to me, is as follows … (throat clearing) This is how it goes … (clears throat) The next thing I’m going to say is my theory. (clears throat) Ready?”

    Presenter: (whimpers)

    Anne Elk: “My Theory, by A. Elk (Miss). This theory goes as follows and begins now …

    “All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine and belongs to me, and I own it and what it is, too.”

    Presenter: “That’s it, is it?”

    CRT advocates talk in hushed tones about where the “theory” was “invented,” like they’re describing the apple falling on Newton’s head.

    In fact, CRT grew out of black student protests in the 1970s, forcing universities to hire more black professors. That’s literally how the father of critical race theory, Derrick Bell, got his job. Black students protested the lack of black professors, so Bell was given a professorship at Harvard Law School.

    How’d you like to be hired by the (then) premier university in the world, not based on the excellence of your scholarship, but because of students threatening to burn the campus down? Instead of being embarrassed and hoping no one ever asked how he got his job, Bell rationalized his hiring by accusing Harvard of … well, I’d tell you, but it’s too complex for you to understand. On the other hand, I don’t know how else to convey the intricacies of this deeply intellectual theorem, except to just state it:

    Bell accused Harvard of … RACISM!

    And thus a new academic discipline was born. (I guess all the new hires had to teach something.)

    The idea that our country is steeped in white supremacy is laughable. Most of what built this country had nothing to do with race — conquering the West, the invention of electricity, the telephone, the automobile, airplanes and steamboats, bringing drinking water to Manhattan, smashing the Nazi war machine and on and on and on.

    I’m sorry, Black America, but all this was happening with or without you.

    Yes, slavery was an abomination, the worst thing that ever happened within the borders of the United States. But there are whole vast areas of the American economy that didn’t have anything to do with slavery.

    In fact and to the contrary, the slave economy had turned the South into a backwater. If the South had won the Civil War, not only would slavery have continued, but half the country would have had a primitive third world economy.

    No need to feel bad about it. The main players in America’s explosive growth weren’t women, immigrants, Hispanics or Asians, either. Somehow we got over it. On the plus side, we get to live in the best country in the world.

    Jealousy and obsessive self-regard are not the stuff of an intellectual movement. The daily denunciation of white men is more akin to the tantrum of a 4-year-old.

    Which, by the way, is exactly how liberals think of black Americans. If there were an international symbol for liberals, it would be one adult patting another on the head. Otherwise, liberals would just come out and say: CRT’s not a theory! It isn’t complex, it isn’t interesting, and it isn’t true. (Also: We think you’re capable of getting a voter ID.) Instead, liberals coo to the CRT devotees, It IS your birthday every day!

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: NYT: Why Are All These Racist Losers So Angry?


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 07, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/07/07/nyt-why-are-all-these-racist-losers-so-angry—p–n2592192/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    NYT: Why Are All These Racist Losers So Angry?

    Source: AP Photo/Richard Drew

    Today we’ll talk about how to write the classic New York Times column, using Thomas Edsall’s recent “Trumpism Without Borders” as our example. It must have taken him about 40 minutes to write it.

    Edsall blames the populist movements sweeping the globe on the same ills that “led to a right-wing takeover of the federal government by Donald Trump.” To wit: “anti-immigrant fervor, political tribalism, racism, ethnic tension, authoritarianism and inequality.” Fascism awaits us unless we keep importing low-skilled immigrants and shipping jobs abroad!

    For someone worried about the erosion of “democratic norms,” maybe Edsall shouldn’t be referring to the outcome of a free and fair U.S. presidential election as a “right-wing takeover of the federal government.” We had an election, pal.

    But ever since the 2016 election, there’s been a frisson of viciousness to the elites’ usual contempt for ordinary Americans. Never mind that Trump ended up betraying his voters. The establishment is appalled that the issues he ran on were popular. Five years later, they still sputter in rage, unable to comprehend why Jeb or Hillary didn’t end up in the White House.

    To explain this calamity, Edsall rolls out all the Timesian cliches about losers being upset about losing. He calls this the “ubiquity of loss,” as if we’re talking about a natural phenomenon, like beach erosion.

    Trump voters, he says, are people who are angry about:

    — their inability to achieve “a standard of living as high as that of their parents,”

    — “the decline of the gender pay gap … and other types of loss relative to women,” and

    — losing “employment and earnings to China and other countries.”

    Edsall acts as if these things are immutable laws of physics. Actually, they result from the deliberate policy choices of our ruling class to benefit some Americans to the detriment of others.

    Specific policy decisions were made to import an endless stream of low-skilled workers. Employers got boatloads of cheap labor, while ordinary Americans saw their wages plummet.

    Oh, and if we’re pretending to care about “democratic norms,” Americans have voted for less immigration over and over and over again. If anyone in the establishment gives a crap about “democratic norms,” then why do they keep foisting more immigration on us?

    Specific policy decisions were made to explicitly discriminate against white men in order to give jobs to women, simply because they were women.

    I give you Kamala Harris (Biden’s one job requirement for his VP: must be a woman of color); every police chief in the nation (save a couple of black men); and Kara Hultgreen (who died when she crashed a $38 million F-14 after being continuously promoted despite repeated training failures, because the Navy wanted a female fighter pilot).

    What crybabies! These guys resent losing jobs because of abject discrimination against them. Koo-koo! Koo-koo!

    Specific policy decisions were made to gut our country’s manufacturing base. Globalist bankers got rich, and the working class got the shaft.

    The destruction of American manufacturing wasn’t, as Edsall claims, a consequence of “trade.” (Who’s buying our stuff?) International agreements forcing Americans to compete with dollar-an-hour third worlders were a gift to Big Business and Wall Street. They get a larger share of a much smaller pie. Sure, our country overall will make $30, instead of $100. But the 1 percent will get $29 instead of $20!

    We don’t need Thomas Edsall to psychoanalyze Trump voters in order to understand what happened in 2016. We were at DEFCON 1 as a nation. (And thanks to Trump’s betrayal, we still are.)

    After 20 years, people began to notice: The elites really do hate us. They really are going to ship our jobs abroad. They really are going to replace us with cheap foreign labor. They really are going to let in hordes of illegals. They really are going to bail out Wall Street and preserve their sleazy tax loopholes.

    Faced with a choice between the toxic left and country club Republicans, when a complete psychotic came down the escalator, people thought, He might just mean it! (That was a miscalculation.)

    The elites screw over ordinary Americans, then to salve their consciences, they call the poor saps “racists.” They get to maintain a system that benefits only them — and at the same time feel morally superior to the people whose lives they’ve ruined. It’s win-win all around!

    Americans don’t care about “the gender pay gap,” climate change or international institutions. They deserve what’s coming to them!

    Love,

    The New York Times

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Dems: Don’t Defund the Police. Break Them!


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jun 30, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/06/30/dems-dont-defund-the-police-break-them—p–n2591860/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org..

    Dems: Don't Defund the Police. Break Them!

    Source: AP Photo/Jeff Roberson

    In the left’s ongoing war on the police, their plan to strip cops of qualified immunity is among the most preposterous. The sole objective is to jam up cops and make them more passive.

    Qualified immunity means a police officer can’t be sued for violating someone’s constitutional rights unless those rights are “clearly established.” Officers can still be fired. They can still be disciplined. And they can still be criminally prosecuted. They just can’t be sued by every lowlife they arrest.

    Liberals act as if qualified immunity is some extra-special benefit bestowed only on police, unheard of in any other line of work. Michigan’s power-mad Attorney General Dana Nessel says, “We’re not asking that police officers even be held to a higher standard than other professions, just to the same standard as other professions.”

    How about you, Dana? Can you be sued?

    No, but that’s different.

    Indeed, the Michigan attorney general doesn’t have mere “qualified immunity” from civil suits: She has absolute immunity. Unlike police officers, even if Nessel violates clearly established constitutional rights, she cannot be sued.

    If Nessel is so hot to hold police “just to the same standard as other professions,” how about holding them to the standard she’s held to? Why does she get bonus immunity?

    If anything, it should be the reverse. Who’s more likely to be up-to-date on “clearly established” law? A state attorney general who went to law school and sits around all day, thinking deep legal thoughts — or a beat cop?

    In fact, throughout the criminal justice system, it’s always the lawyers who get “absolute immunity” — judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys. Only the guys on the street, having to make split-second decisions while battling lunatics, can ever be sued for violating someone’s constitutional rights.

    Liberals aren’t harping about qualified immunity for police because they believe all government employees should be subject to civil rights lawsuits. This is a laser-focused attack on cops. If they can’t defund them, liberals at least want the police broken as a force. They remember how Rudy Giuliani cleaned up New York City in the ’90s and think: NEVER AGAIN.

    As long as they brought it up, if anyone deserves to be stripped of immunity, it’s prosecutors. They went to law school. They allegedly represent “the people.” They’ve got enormous power and, lately, they are the greatest threat to the public’s liberty and safety.

    How about allowing San Francisco business owners to sue the laughably unqualified, George Soros-sponsored DA, Chesa Boudin? Instead of prosecuting crime — technically, his job — he decided not to prosecute crime. As night follows day — or crime follows Soros DAs — local stores were emptied of their inventory by carefree shoplifters carting away loot in laundry bags and shopping carts.

    Same with the other Soros-backed DAs in Philadelphia, Los Angeles and elsewhere.

    How about allowing Harvey Weinstein’s #MeToo victims to sue New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance? Back in 2015, after heroic policemen staged a sting on the Hollywood mogul, obtaining an audiotape of Weinstein virtually confessing to sexual assault, Vance refused to prosecute. (On the other hand, he did get a sizable campaign contribution from Weinstein’s lawyer!)

    Vance’s corrupt decision to let Weinstein skate allowed the corpulent beast to continue his predations for another few years. He’d be molesting aspiring starlets to this day if it weren’t for Ronan Farrow’s expose.

    How about judges who let criminals go free, enabling their subsequent violence — with no accountability to victims?

    In the 1990s, a Carter-appointed judge imposed a prison cap on Philadelphia. Within an 18-month period, released prisoners had been re-arrested for 79 murders, 90 rapes, 701 burglaries, 959 robberies, 1,113 assaults, 2,215 drug offenses and 2,748 thefts, according to a study by professor John Dilulio, then at Princeton.

    People’s lives were destroyed because of Judge Norma Shapiro. But could the victims sue? Nope! As a judge, Shapiro had absolute immunity from lawsuits over the inevitable consequences of her rulings.

    And why stop at the justice system? All government employees have some form of immunity. What about social workers who allow kids under their care to be chained to radiators, starved, burned or beaten to death?

    Remember James Holmes, who shot up a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado? A couple of months before his massacre, he was rambling on about his homicidal fantasies to a social worker and a state psychiatrist. They did nothing to warn the public, though the psychiatrist was terrified enough of Holmes to make sure his university access card was deactivated, so he couldn’t get at her.

    Weeks later, Holmes opened fire in the movie theater, killing 12 and wounding 58.

    These state employees had ample time to cogitate on Holmes’ threats. Compare that to a police officer, making a life-or-death decision in subduing a complete stranger.

    Ironically, if cops were stripped of their qualified immunity, an officer who got rough with Holmes while arresting him after his mass murder could be sued — but the psychiatrist and social worker who’d listened as Holmes revealed his homicidal urges before his mass murder could not be.

    How about teachers? Forget suing them — liberals want teachers who molest kids to be unfireable.

    New York City famously warehoused pervert teachers in “rubber rooms.” They couldn’t be around students (on account of having sexually assaulted them), but they also couldn’t be fired. One teacher collected $1.7 million by showing up to “work” in the rubber room for 20 years, his annual salary soaring to $131,881 for doing nothing.

    Rather than eliminating the limited immunity accorded police officers, we should be making other government employees play by the same rules as cops: qualified immunity — and the possibility of being fired. As AG Nessel would say, just like other professions.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Don’t Stop at Juneteenth!


    Ann Coulter

    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jun 23, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/06/23/dont-stop-at-juneteenth—p–n2591486/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    Don't Stop at Juneteenth!

    Source: AP Photo/Evan Vucci

    Happy Juneteenth! I hope you all had a lovely week celebrating the nation’s newest federal holiday, which commemorates the end of slavery throughout the Confederacy.

    How could you not? The media was chock-a-block with commentators telling us what a fantastic, transformative event for our nation this was. But the media ignored the best part of all!

    What Juneteenth commemorates is not technically the abolition of slavery, but the notification thereof to a particular group of slaves.

    Although President Lincoln officially ended slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, it wasn’t until two years later, on June 19, 1865, that the slaves of Galveston, Texas, got the news, when Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger rode into town and issued a series of proclamations announcing that the hideous institution had been abolished and, henceforth, slaves would be considered hired labor.

    This takes Juneteenth to a whole new level. Think of all the new federal holidays we could create using Juneteenth as our template! (Anyone who’s dealt with the federal government knows that those workers well deserve another paid day off.) We just need horsemen to ride around the country, correcting the errors of those who falsely believe something bad about America.

    Thus, for example, next month we should have some bright young fellow gallop up to a BLM rally, Gen. Granger-style, dismount and announce:

    I come with good news! Systemic racism no longer exists! It was done away with by the 1964 Civil Rights Act and parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act! Any victims of racism today can demand remedies in federal court!

    And with a hardy “Hi-De-Ho,” our hero would ride off to the next BLM rally, as the march participants disband and hold a celebratory brunch. The date would be remembered each year as the Julyteenth holiday.

    Then in August, we’ll send men on horseback to MSNBC with this proclamation:

    Trump isn’t going to run for president again! Republicans aren’t afraid of him! They don’t kiss his ring half as much as Democrats kiss Al Sharpton’s ring and parts posterior. As soon as you guys denounce Sharpton, they’ll denounce Trump. Please calm down.

    It’s not the fault of MSNBC that they operate on this glaring misconception. Not unlike the slaves, they’ve been kept in the dark, fed lies by people in whom they placed their trust: reporters. The day they learn the truth should live forever in history as Augusteenth — and, of course, federal workers would get that day off, too.

    Next, we’ll need some volunteers to saddle up and head over to The New York Times building to proclaim:

    Good news, New York Times! Your repeated claim that 1 in 5 women will be the victim of rape is FALSE!

    First, my friends, all “in their lifetimes” statistics are a scam. They make any crime sound rampant. More than 8 out of 10 Americans will be the victim of a violent crime “in their lifetimes,” and 9.9 of 10 will be a victim of personal theft “in their lifetimes.”

    Second: Even by this ridiculous measure, it’s not “1 in 5.” According to an extensive study by Obama’s Department of Justice examining 18 years of data, 1 in 10 women will be raped “in their lifetimes.” About 2 in 10 will be robbed and 4 in 10 will be injured during a robbery.

    Third: The annual rate of rape victimization isn’t close to “1 in 5.” Instead, it’s 1.75 per thousand raped each year.

    Fourth: This is including rapes that never happened, but are threatened or attempted.

    Isn’t that terrific news, New York Times? Instead of 1 in 5 women succumbing to the awful crime of rape this year, fewer than 1.75 per thousand will be!

    Let’s call this holiday Septemberteenth, to commemorate the joyful day Times reporters realized they are not living in a dystopian world of sexual predators. Cheers will erupt! (Some from federal workers.)

    In October, our ersatz Gen. Granger and his trusty steed will ride south to the Capitol and proclaim:

    I come bearing good news: No one’s vote is being “suppressed”! It’s a bait and switch! Last year’s preposterous voting rules were instituted because of COVID-19! Remember? They told us: IT’S A WORLDWIDE PANDEMIC! WE MUST ALLOW UNIVERSAL EARLY VOTING, NO IDENTIFICATION AND MAIL-IN BALLOTS! DO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO DIE? We can go back to pre-pandemic voting rules without fear of returning to the dark days of Jim Crow! Now, if some of you would be kind enough to give my trusty steed some water?

    The late-breaking discovery that Republicans aren’t “suppressing the vote” might be called Octoberteenth.

    The slaves of Galveston were understandably ecstatic to be freed of the yoke of slavery — as no doubt will be the misinformed BLM protesters, New York Times reporters and other recipients of our horsemen’s good news. Think of their unbridled joy to be free of these false notions about America! They will shout to the heavens, giving thanks to the bounty of this land, their joy surpassed only by that of federal workers.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: The John Lewis Act Is the Dems’ Path to Permanent Power


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jun 16, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/06/16/the-john-lewis-act-is-the-dems-path-to-permanent-power—p–n2591101/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org..

    The John Lewis Act Is the Dems' Path to Permanent Power

    Source: AP Photo/Chuck Burton, File

    The official position of Fox News is that the Democrats’ John Lewis vote-stealing bill is “narrower” than the Democrats’ “For the People” vote-stealing bill. (This will be an exhibit in my museum titled, “Stupid People Can Never Help Your Cause.”)

    Yes, it’s “narrower” in the sense of being 1 MILLION times worse. The John Lewis bill will do everything the “For the People” bill does — and so much more! They just don’t tell us what, exactly. The language of the bill is full of anodyne, uplifting language about equal voting participation — but the details will be turned over to left-wing zealots at the Department of Justice, suddenly empowered to enforce voting rules so insane that no elected official would dare vote for them.

    Inasmuch as nearly every congressional Democrat is fine with the provisions in the “For the People” bill — which are ludicrous — imagine how much worse the “You Can’t Blame Me” bill is.

    It will be faceless bureaucrats at the Department of Justice who give meaning to the happy words in the John Lewis bill. Federal government employees — i.e., the people actually making the rules — cannot be voted out of office. (Or fired — this is government work.) Indeed, these are people who could never be elected to any office on account of their repellent political views and, often, repellent physical appearance.

    This is how Democrats impose fascistic rules on the citizenry without ever having to cast a dangerous vote: They write laws with vague statements of high principle, then dump the actual rule-making onto a government agency, where refugees from the ACLU issue edicts outlawing private property, due process, free speech and honest elections.

    Recall:

    — It wasn’t elected members of Congress who ordered a nice Idaho couple to halt work on their home because it was allegedly on a protected wetland (in the middle of a subdivision with many other homes). That was environmentalist wackos at the EPA.

    — It wasn’t elected members of Congress who required universities to deny basic due process rights to students accused of rape. That was feminist loons at the Department of Education.

    — It wasn’t elected members of Congress who directed Obama’s IRS to target groups with “tea party” or “patriots” in their names. That was liberal ideologue Lois Lerner and other civil service functionaries.

    The lunatics at these agencies look like Reason Personified compared to the DOJ’s voting rights attorneys.

    In 2013, author Charlotte Allen described one fair-minded DOJ staffer, whose job it was to rewrite state voting laws:

    “On the morning of January 21, [2013] just before President Obama’s second inauguration, Rep. Paul Ryan … was roundly booed by the gathered crowd as he left the Capitol to attend the ceremonies …. Within minutes Daniel J. Freeman, a young career trial lawyer with the Voting Section of the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division … took credit in a Facebook post for instigating the anti-Ryan derision.”

    1. Paul Ryan? Pencil-necked, open borders, Never-Trump Paul Ryan? That’s the guy who got Freeman so riled up?

    2. The obnoxious Freeman is no longer a young career trial lawyer at the DOJ. Now he’s a senior career trial lawyer at the DOJ.

    Among the innovations dreamed up by fanatics like Freeman, Arizona was informed it could not ask for identification from people delivering more than 10 early ballots. Nothing fishy about that!

    Arizona’s voting laws were subject to federal oversight because of its well-known history as a slave state and avid practitioner of Jim Crow. (I may have to check my notes on that.)

    Actually, Arizona was bossed around by liberal activists at the DOJ for 40 years because back in 1972, it didn’t have bilingual ballots. Those weren’t instituted until 1974. They may as well have donned white hoods and burned crosses!

    Oddly, Mississippi’s election laws were also subject to approval by the DOJ — despite the fact that blacks already voted at far higher rates than whites in that state. By contrast, Massachusetts did not require oversight of its voting laws, although in that fancy liberal state, black people voted at far lower rates than whites.

    It’s almost as if only red states have their voting laws nitpicked by left-wing lawyers in Washington. I wonder if that would help Democrats win presidential elections?

    Ironically, meaning totally predictably, the original 1965 Voting Rights Act was necessary because Democrats were trying to prevent black people from voting. Today, Democrats are using these new “voting rights” bills to ensure that 110% of black people vote, even if they are convicted felons, don’t live in the state, didn’t actually fill out a ballot or are dead.

    It wasn’t until 2013 that the Supreme Court mercifully overturned key portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. (Citing the overwhelming Senate vote for the wonderfully named Voting Rights Act, Justice Antonin Scalia remarked at oral argument: “This is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress.”)

    While it’s great that ideologues like Dan Freeman had their wings clipped by the Court, the previous 40 years of their harassment tells you what they want to do. The John Lewis voting rights bill will put them back in the saddle!

    States will be ordered to keep dead voters on the rolls, give violent felons the right to vote and jettison any voter I.D. requirements. (Interestingly, even after all the media demagoguery, black people still overwhelmingly support voter I.D. laws.)

    There’s no disincentive to government lawyers pursuing frivolous cases to the end of the Earth. Even if they eventually lose, they don’t have to worry about court costs or legal fees. They don’t pay ’em. You do.

    The “For the People” voting rights bill is the floor of what these petty bureaucrats will require. Those are the bare-minimum “voting rights” that will be imposed on the states by the DOJ. That’s the level of absurdity Democrats are willing to vote for in plain sight. What great ideas does Dan Freeman have that even Democrats couldn’t endorse on the record?

    What is the voting “rights” equivalent of the EPA’s relentless persecution of homeowners, the Duke lacrosse case or the IRS’s abuse of power? Because that’s what the John Lewis voting rights bill will deliver.


    Voting Rights: It’s ‘Racist’ Not to Let Democrats Cheat

    Ann Coulter | Posted: Jun 09, 2021

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/06/09/voting-rights-its-racist-not-to-let-democrats-cheat—p–n2590760/

    Voting Rights: It's 'Racist' Not to Let Democrats Cheat

    Source: AP Photo/Evan Vucci

    Why aren’t Republicans screaming from the rooftops about the Democrats’ plans to change voting rules to give themselves an advantage? Their sleazy election bills, HR 1, the “For the People Act,” and HR 4, the “John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,” are intended to help Democrats win majorities in both houses of Congress, at which point they will ignore Republicans entirely, end the filibuster, and pass everything in AOC’s Dream Journal — amnesty, gun control, a wealth tax, and a rainbows and unicorns energy bill.

    So it’s kind of important for Republicans to kill these bills in the crib. It shouldn’t be hard. All they have to do is tell people what’s in them.

    Are Republicans counting on Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., to save them? The GOP defeated Hillary Care in the 1990s far more decisively … then it came roaring back a few years later as Obamacare.

    Currently, Manchin opposes the For the People bill, but supports the even more execrable John Lewis bill. Both will completely rewrite state election laws to favor Democrats, but at least For the People will be done by Congress. The John Lewis bill will give unelected bureaucrats at the Justice Department vast power to impose voting rules on the states. Based on previous such exercises of unaccountable power, 10-year-olds will soon have the right to vote. (See Title IX.)

    Unless Republicans agree to ludicrous voting rules that give Democrats a partisan advantage, they’re racist. That’s the full argument. Republicans are trying to “suppress the vote” of black and brown people! John Lewis risked his life for the right to vote!

    If that’s why Republicans don’t want to talk about these bills, they better get used to it. They’re going to be called “racist” a lot more if that’s all it takes to stifle the opposition.

    Of course, Democrats’ own voters respond to John Lewis’ touching story by saying, Good for him, but — when is the election again? Tuesday? Yeah, that’s not going to be convenient for me.

    And that’s the nub of the problem. The Democrats have a lot of what we call “unmotivated voters.” Risk their lives to vote? They won’t risk missing a couple hours of TV.

    These are people who don’t pay attention to the news (that’s why they’re Democrats); don’t speak English (that’s why they’re Democrats); or don’t have a fully developed pre-frontal cortex because they’re under the age of 26 (that’s why they’re Democrats). And so on.

    Consequently, Democrats have to mobilize armies of volunteers to carry their voters on gurneys to the polls on Election Day.

    Wouldn’t it be easier if they had a few months to get their voters to the polls? What if their voters didn’t have to show up at all?

    Why, yes! That would be much easier.

    This is why the For the People bill mandates universal mail-in voting. Asking people to show up to vote is a dirty trick to “rig our democracy,” according to the left-wing group Indivisible. Litter the countryside with mail-in ballots months before an election — or you’re a Nazi.

    In fact, apart from a worldwide pandemic, there’s no reason for mail-in voting. Studies show it increases voter turnout only modestly. But mail-in voting sure presents a lot of opportunities for fraud! It’s almost like Democrats consider that a feature, not a bug.

    The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Election Data and Science Lab cited two main avenues for mail-in ballot fraud:

    — “First, the ballot is cast outside the public eye, and thus the opportunities for coercion and voter impersonation are greater.”

    In other words, instead of filling out a secret ballot in the presence of election officials, you will be out and about, at home, at the office, at the ballpark with your ballot, able to prove to others how you voted — to impress them, or perhaps because you’re being paid or threatened. And that’s assuming it’s you holding the ballot.

    — “Second, the transmission path for [mail-in] ballots is not as secure as traditional in-person ballots. These concerns relate both to ballots being intercepted and ballots being requested without the voter’s permission.”

    Not to worry! The Democrats deal with the possibility of imposters requesting mail-in ballots by … prohibiting the states from requesting voter I.D.

    Huh, that’s odd. If you wanted to ensure that only eligible voters are voting, wouldn’t you want to — oh wait, I see.

    Liberals will not rest until convicted felons — a key Democratic constituency — are fully participating members of our democracy. Or at least have ballots that can be filled out for them.

    Unfortunately, some of our more unenlightened states believe that a person who has been convicted of violating society’s laws should be denied the right to choose who writes them. The For the People bill fixes that by forcing states to give felons the right to vote.

    Speaking of felons, the For the People Act requires states to automatically register people to vote whenever they provide information to state agencies, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, public universities, and, off the top of my head, state welfare bureaucracies, unemployment offices and prison facilities.

    That’s a lot of ballots for Democratic volunteers to mine!

    In 1994, in response to the stalking and murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer by a crazed fan who got her address through the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Congress passed the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, prohibiting state DMVs from releasing personal information to the public. One of the main sponsors was Sen. Barbara Boxer, who recited case after case of women stalked, harassed, raped and killed by men who had tracked their victims with information provided by the DMV.

    With the automatic voter registration in the For the People bill, federal law would require states to release that information. Simply by getting a driver’s license or unemployment benefits, your name, address and phone number would be available to your stalker through the voting rolls. (Also to bill collectors, parole officers, process servers, etc.) Voter registration lists are publicly available for electioneering purposes.

    The Democrats’ “voting rights” bill is a stalkers’ delight. But at least no one will have his vote “suppressed” by having to engage in the monstrously difficult task of registering to vote or showing up on Election Day. Your choice, America: A few pesky stalkers kill their victims, or Democrats call you “racist.”

    AnnCoulter Op-ed” Why Is Ancestry.com Protecting White Serial Killers?


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jun 02, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/06/02/why-is-ancestrycom-protecting-white-serial-killers—p–n2590390

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

    Why Is Ancestry.com Protecting White Serial Killers?

    Source: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File

    This week, The New York Times reported on new laws in Maryland and Montana that restrict law enforcement’s use of genealogy databases to catch serial killers. (Maryland I can understand, but Montana? Has someone kidnapped Gov. Greg Gianforte?)

    Some of the largest DNA databases — Ancestry, 23andMe and Helix — already refuse to share their databases with the police without a court order.

    I’m sorry, but why? What is their argument? Ancestry doesn’t want to lose the business of skittish serial killers?

    Everyone agrees that these pro-criminal rules were a direct response to the “controversy” of law enforcement catching the Golden State Killer in 2018.

    Yes, it’s apparently controversial that the monster who terrorized California for decades, killing at least 13 people and raping dozens of women, was finally captured — with 100% accuracy — thanks to brilliant detective work and the miracle of DNA.

    Sheriff’s investigator Paul Holes and FBI lawyer Steve Kramer created a fake profile on GEDmatch using DNA from a rape kit of one of the Golden State Killer’s victims. This produced distant relatives of the rapist, allowing them to build a family tree, leading to Joseph James DeAngelo, then living in a Sacramento suburb. Officers began surveilling DeAngelo, collected his DNA from a car door and discarded tissue and — bingo! — it matched the Golden State Killer’s semen sample.

    My entire life I’ve had to listen to liberals wail about all the “innocent” people on death row. (There is no credible evidence that any innocent person has been executed in this country since at least 1945.) They pretended to be against murder, just deeply horrified by the idea that we might execute “the wrong man.”

    Now we have the technology to make identifications that are infallible — and liberals say we can’t use it because of their concern about maintaining the serial killer’s privacy.

    As put by The Hill — since you won’t believe me otherwise:

    “Questions intensified after law enforcement officials in California used an ancestry database to help identify the Golden State Killer, a serial killer and rapist who eluded authorities for decades.”

    Yeah, that sucks. The white ex-cop — catch that, #BLM? — who tortured and raped women while their partners were forced to listen in the next room, then made obscene phone calls to his victims, was finally captured after a 40-year search, whereupon: “Questions intensified.”

    WHAT “QUESTIONS”? My only questions are:

    1) When are the triumphant awards dinners?; and

    2) Will #BLM be taking the side of a white cop in this one case?

    The Hill continued:

    “Following the controversy [of catching a serial killer — for liberals, that’s controversial], the largest ancestry companies said they wouldn’t allow police to access their databases without a warrant.”

    What on earth, Ancestry? It’s more important that the ACLU likes you than that a majority of Americans do?

    How about taking a poll of your members? Should we allow law enforcement to submit DNA into our database to solve rapes and murders without the necessity of obtaining a court order first?

    “Yes” would be a 90% winner, and the other 10% would be ACLU types suddenly signing up just to vote. Even criminals would say, Yeah, for a killer, sure, that’s fine. Only a few law professors and, of course, the Times’ Charles Blow, would be against it, which is formidable competition, but I still think we can win this baby!

    The objections to allowing police access to genealogical websites consist of vague invocations of “privacy.” University of Maryland law professor Natalie Ram [Email her] for example, told the Times that law enforcement’s use of genealogical databases was “chilling, concerning and privacy-invasive.”

    Many people find serial killers breaking into their homes, tying them up and raping them to be “chilling, concerning and privacy-invasive,” so we seem to be at an impasse.

    As with the Golden State Killer, the majority of criminals captured through these databases are going to be white. (Good news for “Forensic Files”!) Don’t be fooled by Ancestry’s woke television ads: The vast majority of their members are white. Israeli researchers estimate that public genealogy databases can now identify 60% of all people of European descent.

    Is Ancestry trying to protect white killers? They’re OK with innocent black men being arrested, while the actual white murderers remain hidden in their database? Have we finally found the beating heart of white supremacy in America?

    Or are they just sniveling cowards? Let me guess: Some small group of fanatics wrote a bunch of letters to Ancestry and law enforcement didn’t.

    OK, let’s add up the letters … 28 from law professors who oppose allowing law enforcement to use our databases, and no letters in support.

    [Ancestry wets pants.]

    Law enforcement officers wouldn’t be scrolling through personal genetic information. Indeed, they can’t view information about specific individuals at all. They submit a DNA profile and, if there’s a match to a criminal, an alarm goes off. Nothing comes back unless there’s a hit.

    There’s an easy solution to any privacy concerns. If you don’t want the police finding you through a genealogical database, don’t leave your DNA at a crime scene.

    But some jackass Democratic lobbyist formed the Coalition for Genetic Data Protection and bullied Ancestry, 23andMe and Helix into withholding their databases from law enforcement without a warrant, adding a pointless obstacle to bringing killers to justice.

    Steve Haro [Email him], executive director of the coalition: Hey, congratulate me! I just hamstrung the police in their ability to catch the provably guilty!

    If Democrats really gave a crap about privacy, how about a “coalition” to prevent businesses from selling our names and addresses to third parties? How about prohibiting Google, Facebook and Apple from spying on us? Can we start there, rather than blocking law enforcement from using genealogical websites to catch criminals with 100%, absolute, dead-on accuracy?

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: ‘Florida Woman’ Saner Than Media


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: May 26, 2021 4:15 PM

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/05/26/florida-woman-saner-than-media—p–n2590056

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org

    l'Florida Woman' Saner Than Media

    Source: AP Photo/Gerald HerbertTrending

    Last week, we discussed Rebekah Jones, the crazy lady who wrote a 342-page telenovela about her ex-lover, Garrett Sweeterman, then went on to fame and fortune by claiming Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was faking his state’s spectacularly low COVID numbers.

    Before the media turned Jones into their next Erin Brockovich, they might have done 10 seconds of Googling to find out that Jones’ past includes stalkingbattery on a police officer, repeated incarcerations, an institutionalization, an ankle monitor, a restraining order and court-ordered medication. And that’s long before the DeSantis administration hired her as a web designer.

    These infractions are contained not only in police reports and court filings, but in her prolix manifesto about her ex-lover that she herself posted all over the internet. Jones seems to think it’s a point in her favor that during Florida State University’s investigation of her obsessive behavior toward her former student, “Garrett didn’t even bother bringing any evidence — no copies of texts or calls … I brought more than 200 pages worth.”

    That sounds normal.

    Even after multiple demands that she stay away from Sweeterman, the still-married Jones writes:

    Did you know that I would have given anything, truly anything to make things right between us?

    Did it matter to you at all that I loved you?

    Did it, Garrett?

    If the genders were reversed, Jones’ obsession with a former student would be a movie on “Lifetime: TV for Women.”

    Instead, she attacked DeSantis and became Forbes magazine’s “Technology Person of the Year,” Fortune magazine’s “40-Under-40” in health care, and cable news’s go-to source for dirt on the DeSantis administration.

    No TV personality lavished more attention on Jones than MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, featuring her on his show on Dec. 8, Dec. 9, Dec. 16 and Dec. 22, 2020. As is common at MSNBC, O’Donnell jumped on the horse and rode off into the sunset without a map, directions or a compass.

    In the first of his blockbuster reports, O’Donnell used a law enforcement raid on Jones’ home for one of his anti-police screeds, informing viewers that they were about to see a video of “outrageous conduct by American police officers” — and I have this hot MILF on my show to talk about it. If she wants, I’ll take her on my sailboat.

    The MSNBC host scoffed at the basis for the raid, saying: “They were going after the person who sent what they considered, I suppose, some criminally dangerous text.” Ho ho ho. Jones — or at least her lawyer — knows damn well that the charge is serious, which is why, to this day, she stoutly denies sending the text.

    According to the search warrant affidavit, six months after Jones was fired by the Florida Department of Health, she hacked into the state’s medical emergency notification system from her home computer, obtained the private information of thousands of people, and sent out a mass text, pleading: “it’s time to speak up before another 17,000 people are dead. You know this is wrong,” and so on. She signed the deranged missive as if it were an official communique from Florida Department of Health.

    Comcast determined that the text came from Jones’ Tallahassee home. Perhaps in addition to cuckolding him, she plans to pin the hacking felony on her husband. (Then she could run off with Garrett!)

    On the day of the raid, as infinitely patient law enforcement officers banged on Jones’ front door for 22 minutes, she was inside, setting up a video camera. Donations to her GoFundMe page must have been flagging.

    O’Donnell introduced her video, saying: “What you’re about to see is almost as bad as American policing gets.”

    What we see is Jones (finally) opening the door and exiting the house. An officer enters, unholsters his gun, and calls out for anyone else in the house to come downstairs. In other words, standard operating procedure for executing a search warrant.

    Although no one is pointing a gun at anyone, Jones can be heard in the background screaming, “He just pointed a gun at my children!”

    This is classic hysterical woman behavior.

    YOU’RE HURTING ME! STOP HITTING ME!

    I’m not touching you. I’m 7 feet away.

    But O’Donnell and the rest of the media repeatedly played Jones’ video while informing viewers that it showed something it plainly did not: officers “pointing” guns at Jones and her children.

    “The only thing that could have made this worse,” O’Donnell said, “is if one of those recklessly aimed guns killed someone in that house. If one of those guns aimed at Rebekah Jones’ children fired.”

    O’Donnell on the Zapruder film: As you can see in frame 187, President Kennedy is firing at Lee Harvey Oswald from the convertible.

    Jones is like the white woman captured on video in Central Park, calling 911 on a black male birdwatcher. As he calmly speaks to her from 20 yards away, she shrieks to the dispatcher, “An African American man… [is] threatening myself and my dog.”

    O’Donnell voiceover: The only thing that could have made this worse is if the birdwatcher had killed the woman.

    My voiceover for the entire American media: As you can see, they are liars.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Only in Florida: Crazed Woman Stalks Governor


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: May 19, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/05/19/only-in-florida-crazed-woman-stalks-governor—p–n2589734/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

    Only in Florida: Crazed Woman Stalks Governor

    Source: AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee

    In another Very Florida story, a woman with a colorful criminal history has spent the last year collecting media accolades and a half-million dollars in donations by accusing the Republican governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, of fudging the state’s COVID numbers.

    Rebekah Jones, website designer (not “scientist,” as the media insistently claim), falsely accused DeSantis of doing what Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York actually was doing with the COVID numbers. From the extensive media coverage, I figured maybe the DeSantis administration was taking advantage of gray areas to make the state’s record look as good as possible. Not as bad as what Cuomo was doing, but something.

    Nope! This whole story was the fantasy of a crazed stalker, as explained in detail by Christina Pushaw in Human Events and Charles Cook in National Review.

    I forgot my own admonition that you can’t believe anything the media say.

    The canonization of Rebekah Jones is only the latest example of the press latching onto any lunatic who attacks a Republican. Remember Bill Burkett? (CBS’s deranged source for the fake Bush Air National Guard story.) Jamie Leigh Jones? (Falsely claimed she was gang-raped in Iraq by Halliburton employees.) How about media star and Democratic presidential hopeful Michael Avenatti? (He was going to vanquish Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh with Stormy Daniels and Julie Swetnick, until his criminal past caught up with him.)

    Hey, whatever happened to Haven Monahan?

    Contrary to Jones’ allegations, she could not have been asked to falsify Florida COVID numbers, for the simple reason that she didn’t generate the numbers. She designed and updated the state’s website using data given to her by actual epidemiologists, but had no role in the collection of the information and no earthly idea what it should be.

    On the other hand, she did:

    — expose people’s private information;

    — block a colleague from accessing the site;

    — use the Florida emergency notification system to send out a deranged message pushing her personal conspiracy theory — something she staunchly denies despite overwhelming forensic evidence; and

    — defame an accomplished black woman scientist as “the most corrupt, lying, incompetent and ignorant person that could be ever be (sic) put in charge.” (In this one instance, the media decided to give a pass to someone insulting a black person.)

    As is probably true of many esteemed scientists, Jones had an illegitimate child in her junior year of college and, in 2016, as a graduate student at Louisiana State University, was charged with two counts of battery on a police officer.

    But it wasn’t until she got to Florida that Jones really hit her stride. In 2017, then in her late 20s and an instructor at Florida State University, the married Jones had an affair with a student, Garrett Sweeterman.

    She then penned a graphic 342-page essay on their relationship — written while she was married to the world’s most tolerant husband. Hello, honey! I’m home. I’ll be in the study for the next two hours working on that Penthouse Letter about my extramarital affair.

    Jones has claimed that Sweeterman is the father of her 2-year-old child, but two days before he was to provide his DNA, her paternity suit against him was dismissed. (Only the hard-hearted would suggest she is a loon trying to entrap the kid into marriage because she prefers him to her husband.)

    The manifesto reads like something a nitwit 13-year-old girl would write, giving a play-by-play description of their sexual encounters, followed by Sweeterman’s repeated attempts to break up with her, which she calls his “mind games.” Anyone reading her manifesto can see that her great love affair was nothing but a booty call for him.

    In short order, Jones was stalking Sweeterman, destroying his property and posting naked photos of him online — as well as sending revenge porn to his mother and employer. Despite Sweeterman’s restraining order against her, in addition to a court order directing her to stay away from campus, Jones would show up unannounced at his classes, just to “talk.” (They always just want to “talk.”)

    In Jones’ own telling, by October 2017, Sweeterman was repeatedly texting her things like, “I can’t see you … I don’t feel right about any of it. … YOU’RE MARRIED. You have a family.”

    His mother blocked Jones’ texts. His sister replied to one of her texts, saying, “I don’t know who the f– you are or what the f– you want but you better stay the f- away from my family. Delete my number and delete my families number you f-ing bitch.”

    After all this, Jones showed up at one of Sweeterman’s classes and they screamed at each other; then she drove to his house that night, he came out and they screamed at each other again. Sweeterman walked away from her and got in his car, saying, “I’m leaving.” She hopped into the passenger seat. He went back inside. His roommates came out and told her to leave.

    Still sitting in his car, Jones asks herself: “Was I supposed to leave? Was that the end of our conversation? Was that the end of us?”

    Jones’ ongoing hysterics resulted in criminal charges against her for vandalizing Sweeterman’s car, robbery and stalking. She was fired by the university, jailed at least three times and committed to a mental institution.

    This is the “scientist” who was lionized by, among others, CNNMSNBCNPRThe Guardian and Cosmopolitan.

    The smearing of DeSantis would be outrageous even if Jones were a rational human with an impeccable past, but she is not. DeSantis steered Florida through the pandemic with 30% fewer COVID deaths than New York, despite having a larger population and a lot more old people.

    But journalists couldn’t be bothered to bring up Cuomo’s killing old people and cooking the books because they were too busy talking about his lats. Instead, our watchdog media attacked the governor with the best record on COVID, who was being stalked by a crazy woman.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: I Will Not Be Scienced!


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: May 12, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/05/12/i-will-not-be-scienced—p–n2589343/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, AND WhatDidYouSay.org

    I Will Not Be Scienced!

    Source: AP Photo/Alex BrandonTrending

    After a year of being browbeaten by “the scientists” not to wear a mask, to wear a mask, to wear double masks, to get vaccinated and still wear a mask, our analytic overlords are still no closer to determining the tiny little issue of where this virus came from.

    Recently, the widely respected science writer Nicholas Wade published an article in Medium pushing the idea that — contrary to what “the scientists” assured us — COVID-19 might have come from the Wuhan virology lab, not the wet markets.

    According to Wade, the virologists attacking the lab theory were claiming scientific certainty for something unknowable, and at least one of them has a gigantic conflict of interest. Even at a time when “TRUST THE SCIENCE!” has become a liberal mating call, I’m shocked at the deceptions of these guys.

    Wade cites two groups as leading the attack on the lab theory.

    Kristian G. Andersen, [Tweet him] a professor of immunology and microbiology at the Scripps Research Institute in California, was the lead author of a paper published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, claiming: “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”

    Talk about influential — not only did The New York Times cite Andersen, but I did!

    Now, a year later, Wade says, “Dr. Andersen and his colleagues were assuring their readers of something they could not know.” While Andersen claimed that two of the virus’s characteristics couldn’t be made in a lab, Wade describes exactly how they could be.

    The second group of experts denouncing the lab theory was led by Peter Daszak, [Tweet him] the president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak got two dozen other scientists to sign a letter to The Lancet that portentously declared: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” Scientists, the letter said, “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.”

    Well! No uncertainty there!

    But Wade notes that Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance had helped fund the Wuhan lab.

    I have a problem when a guy with a financial and reputational stake in a lab organizes a group of scientists to say, It’s absolutely not from the lab!!! Daszak’s letter concluded with what only the deeply cynical might suggest was a lie: “We declare no competing interests.”

    In response to the obvious question, “Why didn’t any other scientists speak up?” Wade says: “Perhaps because in today’s universities speech can be very costly. Careers can be destroyed for stepping out of line. Any virologist who challenges the community’s declared view risks having his next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency.”

    If we could give them a truth serum, I wonder what these experts would say about transgendersIQ, the COVID shutdowns and any number of pressing social issues we’re all supposed to shut up about because of “science.”

    And of course there was the fact that Trump had floated the lab theory. Before a liberal will answer any question, he needs to know:

    1) Has Trump ever offered an opinion on this?

    2) What is the 180-degree opposite position?

    Wade claims to have no preference for one theory over another — he’s just laying out the facts! But it’s pretty clear that he is coming down on the side of the lab theory.

    He doesn’t mention that 27 of the original 41 Chinese people who contracted COVID-19 had been to the Wuhan wet market, known the world over for its delectable porcupine anus and snake innards. Several other carriers were family members of those infected there. By contrast, no one from the Wuhan lab appears to have been infected.

    No, Wade’s argument is a purely scientific one. Not my bailiwick. But I can see when experts disagree, and, oh my gosh, do they disagree!

    One of Wade’s main points is that COVID-19 is the only coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. (You don’t need to know what it is — substitute the words “chocolate bunny.”) “So,” Wade concludes, “it’s hard to explain how the [COVID] virus picked up its furin cleavage site naturally.”

    Last month, the World Health Organization released a major report on the origin of the coronavirus, so I checked to see what its scientists said about this “furin cleavage.” They say COVID-19’s “furin cleavage” is, in fact, like that in another bat coronavirus, RmYN02, “providing evidence that such insertion events occur naturally in animals.”

    I can’t evaluate the science, but I can line up words, and those conclusions don’t match. In fact, they are direct opposites.

    Like you, I’m inclined to believe Wade over the WHO, but that’s not the point. Do you see how absurd this is, trying to ascertain a scientific fact as if we’re assessing the credibility of witnesses in a sexual harassment case? Well, he lied about the lingerie, but she seems to have been stalking him …

    We’re talking about SCIENCE, our new religion! Wear a mask — it’s “SCIENCE”! There’s no such thing as race — it’s “SCIENCE“! Global warming is incinerating our planet — it’s SCIENCE! The mere invocation of “SCIENCE” is used to slam the door on any argument.

    This week on MSNBC, a host actually said, “There are no bad apples at the CDC.” Every hour of every day, I have to hear about the “bad apples” in policing. But at the CDC? Nope! They’re SCIENTISTS.

    Whether the virus that destroyed the world economy and has already killed more than 3 million people came from a Chinese lab or a Chinese wet market, or a Chinese restaurant on the Upper West Side (unlikely), it’s China’s fault. What is mind-boggling about Wade’s article is the overweening and baseless pomposity of our high priests of SCIENCE.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Thanks, Derek Chauvin Jurors! You’re Safe Now. We Aren’t.


    Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Apr 21, 2021 | https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/04/21/thanks-jurors-youre-safe-now-we-arent—p–n2588347

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

    Thanks, Derek Chauvin Jurors! You’re Safe Now. We Aren’t.

    Source: Court TV via AP, Pool

    To watch the hours of celebratory fist-pumping from government officials and black activists after the guilty verdicts against police officer Derek Chauvin this week, you’d think Minnesota had just won the NCAA tournament. One man is dead and another will be spending up to 40 years in prison. How about Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison show a little dignity, with something like: “We had the trial; we’ve got a verdict; I’m not taking any questions”?

    Nope! We got a one-hour spirit rally for the championship team. The key was teamwork. Our guys practiced every night — staying even after the gym had closed! We couldn’t have done it without the fans.

    There wasn’t this much triumphalism when Ted Bundy was convicted! He murdered 30 women, escaped from jail twice, and killed again before finally being brought to trial. We didn’t have hours of gloating after they got the Green River Killer, and it took 20 years to catch him.

    Maybe we’ve gotten less decorous in the past few decades. But how about celebrating the conviction of a gangbanger who killed an 8-year-old girl in a drive-by? Would the media be as giddy about that? Not likely. Wild celebrations are in order only for the railroading of a cop.

    The prosecutors must feel great! All it took was threatening the jurors with riots and personal destruction to get the verdict they wanted. Real Ciceros, these guys.

    Chauvin was forced to flee his home last year, which naturally had been vandalized, requiring constant police presence. Barricades have recently been erected around the home of officer Kim Potter, who accidentally shot escaping violent gun offender Daunte Wright last week.

    The day before Chauvin’s case went to the jury, a defense witness — a witness! — had his former home in California vandalized with pigs’ blood and a pig’s head. So I’m sure the jurors reached their verdict purely based on the evidence, after a careful weighing of both sides in the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

    We’re told that this is only the beginning, big changes are in the air. Does that mean every case against a cop will come with threats of mob violence?

    Here’s one big change in policing that will come out of the Chauvin trial: No longer will police use the least amount of force on vulnerable individuals, like George Floyd. From here on out, the safety of the perp will take a back seat to avoiding unflattering cellphone videos. A key point brought out at trial was this: As soon as Chauvin arrived on the scene, he would have been within his rights to use a Taser or stun gun on Floyd. The prosecution’s use-of-force experts agreed! Chauvin employed a less aggressive restraint that looked worse to bystanders. Big mistake.

    By now, surely, all law enforcement officers realize that their one overriding concern must always be the optics, not the reality. Unlike other public servants, police have to do their jobs while under the watchful eye of cellphone cameras. What matters is how things appear to idiot onlookers.

    Heart disease is rampant in the African American community. Combine that with drug use and behavioral problems — and there are a lot more George Floyds out there waiting to happen. According to the medical examiner, it was the stress of being restrained — combined with Floyd’s heart condition and massive amount of fentanyl in his system — that killed him. If lying on the ground was too much stress on Floyd’s heart, how about 50,000 volts of electricity? Again, according to the state’s use-of-force experts, that would have been A-OK.

    Got a resisting arrestee? Zap him with the stun gun and heave him in the back of the police van. Whatever happens after that, at least you won’t have a chubby EMT screaming at you and taking videos.

    True, Floyd stood a better chance of going on living by NOT being zapped with a stun gun. On the other hand, Chauvin stood a better chance of staying out of prison if he’d just gotten Floyd in the police van, pronto.

    Nice work, Minnesota!

    The other big change coming down the pike is that we are headed back to the 1960s in terms of crime. Already, 2020 marked the largest year-to-year increase in murders in the history of the country. In Minneapolis alone, the murder rate doubled. Get ready for a lot more violent crime, emboldened criminals and less aggressive police. To the unwitting citizens of Minnesota who will soon have their lives snuffed out, just remember: The jurors were worried about their own personal security. It was your life or theirs, and they decided the better part of valor was to sacrifice yours.

    Their motto: I regret that I have only dozens of other people’s lives to give for my virtue.

    Ann Coulter OP-ED: Derek Chauvin, Human Sacrifice


    Ann Coulter

    Commentary by Ann Coulter |Posted: Mar 31, 2021

    Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/03/31/derek-chauvin-human-sacrifice—p–n2587224/

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

    Derek Chauvin, Human Sacrifice

    Source: AP Photo/Craig Mitchelldyer  

    In modern America, we periodically offer up white men as human sacrifices to the PC gods. Among our benefactions: Jake Gardner, Kyle Rittenhouse, Darren Wilson, the Duke lacrosse players, University of Virginia fraternity members, Stacey Koon and Mark Fuhrman.

    The rest of us just keep our heads down and pray we won’t be next.

    At least the Duke and UVA human offerings were sufficiently upper-crust to have a few journalists and lawyers defending them. But policemen, bar owners, military veterans and a Midwest teenager? Definitely not our crowd, darling.

    Currently, Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is on trial for killing George Floyd by kneeling on his neck, as it appeared in cellphone videos. You may remember something about this: It’s why America had to burn in 2020.

    But the chief medical examiner’s report establishes that, however else Floyd died, it wasn’t from Chauvin’s knee. Oopsie! I guess it wasn’t absolutely essential that our country go through eight months of lootingriots and mostly peaceful arsons.

    In lieu of citing some B.S. media “fact check,” I shall quote directly from the autopsy report by the Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner, Andrew Baker:

    “No life-threatening injuries identified —

    “A. No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae

    “B. No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal structures

    “C. No scalp soft tissue, skull, or brain injuries

    “D. No chest wall soft tissue injuries, rib fractures (other than a single rib fracture from CPR), vertebral column injuries, or visceral injuries

    “E. Incision and subcutaneous dissection of posterior and lateral neck, shoulders, back, flanks, and buttocks negative for occult trauma”

    In short: No bloodshot eyes and no trauma to any part of Floyd’s neck.

    And yet, day after day, prosecutors, witnesses and the media tell us that Chauvin “squeezed the life out of” Floyd. The medical evidence establishes that whatever else caused his death, it was NOT asphyxiation.

    That’s the entire case against Officer Chauvin! But the howling mob isn’t giving up its holy religious observance because of one dork in a lab coat. The sun might not rise! The city of Minneapolis could be wiped out! Wait — that might actually happen.

    The medical examiner also found that Floyd had enough fentanyl in his system — I don’t want to say “to kill a horse,” because that would be a cliche. But it would be enough to bump off an entire team of Budweiser Clydesdales. In technical medical jargon:

    “A. Blood drug and novel psychoactive substances screens:

    “1. Fentanyl 11 ng/mL”

    That’s just the first few words of the “Toxicology” section. Also listed are norfentanyl, 4-ANPP, methamphetamine, cannabinoids, amphetamines, morphine and so on.

    But the 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl is rather important, inasmuch as the chief medical examiner called this “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances,” saying, “deaths have been certified with levels of 3.”

    Three. But George Floyd went up to 11.

    Naturally, Baker was quick to add, “I am not saying this killed him.” Please don’t throw me to the woke gods! Leave me to my test tubes! (And you thought lawyers were craven.)

    I have a feeling we’re about to see another example of the left not accepting science.

    In addition to liberals refusing to accept the science of:

    — DNA (the O.J. trial)

    — AIDS (we’re still waiting for that big heterosexual outbreak!)

    — Cancer clusters and breast implants (billions of dollars wasted and companies destroyed because of the left’s adherence to junk science)

    — I.Q. (just watch the reaction to my mentioning this hate-science) …

    … we can now add “pharmacology”!

    You mean to say that just by sticking a syringe in someone’s arm you can tell if he’s been taking drugs? That’s a lot of mumbo-jumbo, just like the moon landing.

    This trial is a total sham, but the entire power of the state, the media, the left-wing shock troops and the country’s finest legal talent is being deployed against Derek Chauvin.

    In addition to Minnesota’s top prosecutor, the state has hired Neal Katyal, former solicitor general of the United States — an unheard-of maneuver in a case that doesn’t involve some highly technical specialty, like antitrust. A slew of lawyers are working pro bono for the prosecutor — also unheard of. The state has unlimited resources to pursue Chauvin.

    Against this, Chauvin has one lone defense attorney, Eric “Atticus Finch” Nelson. The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association’s legal defense fund will put up to $1 million toward his defense, and Nelson can talk to the other rotating attorneys whom the fund employs. But unless they’re working pro bono, too, $1 million runs out pretty fast.

    The legal mismatch in the O.J. Simpson case wasn’t this one-sided.

    In the middle of jury selection, the city of Minneapolis announced an eye-popping civil settlement of $27 million with the family of George Floyd. Liberals are still denouncing Richard Nixon for a 1970 speech in which he inadvertently described defendant Charles Manson as someone who was “guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders” — leading to demands for a mistrial.

    What does a $27 million settlement with the family of the alleged victim say?

    Black residents of Minneapolis are threatening to burn the place down if Chauvin isn’t convicted — and the only reason anyone thinks a jury could possibly return a guilty verdict is that they believe them.

    In the darkest days of Jim Crow, the entire country never ganged up on a single individual like this.

    Please, gods of wokeness, we ask that his human sacrifice be acceptable!

    Throw another virgin into the volcano.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Asian Women Are Too Damn Hot!


    Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 24, 2021

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
    Asian Women Are Too Damn Hot!

    Source: Sanja Bucko/Warner Bros. Entertainment via AP

    Does anyone else find it odd that so many Asian activists reacted to the mass murder of (mostly) Asian women last week by talking about how smoking hot they are?

    I was at law school when I first noticed the phenomenon of liberal women pretending to be outraged as a cover for bragging. Average-to-ugly girls would work up feigned indignation about how a guy had “sexually harassed” them that day, then launch into a 20-minute retelling of some compliment they’d received. A man talked to me! I think he likes me … Let’s see, how do I work this into conversation for the rest of the week?

    But it’s a peculiar reaction to mass murder.

    Now that a white supremacist mass shooter (check that, turns out he was a radical Islamic Syrian refugee!) has committed a different mass murder in Boulder, Colorado, will we see hippies on TV, denouncing the assumption that Birkenstock-wearers are all sex gods?

    No, of course not! Only liberals would think an appropriate response to an infamous crime is to talk about how sexually desirable they are. Liberalism makes everybody stupid.

    Thus, for days after the fatal shooting of six Asians and two whites at massage-cum-sex spas in Atlanta, Asian activists and professors blanketed the airwaves to demand that white men STOP treating them like sex objects — whom they fantasize about, they want, they covet. Newspapers were chock-a-block with first-person accounts of Asian women being salivated over by white men.

    Christine Liwag Dixon modestly began her tale of oppression for The Washington Post’s “The Lily”: “When I was 16, a boy I thought was my friend said, ‘I can’t figure you out. Asian girls are either smart or hot. But you’re both.'” She’s older and married now, but still cherishes this comment from high school.

    Amid her recitation of other compliments she’d received over the course of a lifetime — some stupid, some vulgar, and some, I’d wager, completely fictional — Liwag Dixon remarked, “It no longer surprises me, but it still hurts.”

    Well, naturally. Who wouldn’t be hurt to be called both smart AND hot?

    Among the distressing compliments detailed by Liwag Dixon, she reports that she was often called “exotic.” (I will NOT link to the scene in “NewsRadio,” where Beth explains the meaning of words like “cute,” “beautiful” and “exotic.”

    Professors of color were prepared with scholarly opinions about how tantalizing Asian women are. Elaine Kim, professor emeritus in Asian American studies at the University of California, Berkeley, told the Associated Press that the Atlanta shooter probably had “an addiction to fantasies about Asian women as sex objects.”

    However that may be, these particular spas were known as fronts for prostitution, which may also have put the idea of sex in the shooter’s head.

    Another Berkeley professor, Catherine Ceniza Choy (Ethnic Studies), conveyed that the shooting “echoes a long-running stereotype that Asian women are immoral and hypersexual.” Ellen Wu, a history professor at Indiana University, confirmed that “from the moment Asian women began to migrate to the U.S., they were targets of hypersexualization.”

    It all had a familiar ring …

    HEY! Anybody remember the Duke lacrosse rape hoax?

    Before the gang rape of a black stripper was exposed as a complete fraud — though well after three white families had their pockets emptied and their names dragged through the mud — an enormous amount of the commentary centered on white men’s lascivious interest in black women. (So of course the gang rape had to be true!)

    The Duke lacrosse case “fed the stereotype that black women are hypersexual and readily available,” as the Associated Press put it. The article quoted a number of black coeds on how white guys just can’t keep their hands off African American ladies:

    “The young black women can almost finish each other’s stories.

    “They go to a party, a concert, a nightclub. Twenty-somethings of all colors are flirting and dancing. And then it happens.

    “Inevitably, a woman says, a white man asks her to dance erotically while he watches. Or he grabs her rear end. Or asks for sex, in graphic detail, without bothering to ask her name.”

    A black Duke coed, Audrey Christopher, complained to the Durham Indy that “at one of the quad parties, it was me and another black female friend, and these white guys immediately told us how they liked hanging out with black girls because white girls are sheltered and we’re more free …”

    Again, the professors of color weighed in. Rebecca Hall (Surprise! Also Berkeley) said of the Duke gang-rape charges, a “black woman is somebody who has excess sexuality … it’s excess sexuality that white men are entitled to.” Duke professor Mark Anthony Neal said: “The message that men get about black women is these are women that are available to them, that they have easy access and their sole purpose is to serve their pleasure.”

    To the extent that their argument isn’t simply that black women are hot, hot, hot, but that white men feel entitled to pillage black bodies, that’s not borne out by the data. According to FBI crime statistics, approximately 15,000 to 30,000 white women are raped by black men every year, while, on average, zero black women are raped by white men. (The department uses “0” to denote fewer than 10 victims.)

    Nor, of course, was the rapacious white male theory supported by the facts of the very case they were discussing.

    We don’t have a lot of women mass shooters, so it’s hard to flip the script. But maybe, in the future, whenever a white man is falsely accused of rape (Steven Pagonesthe Duke lacrosse players, a fraternity at the University of Virginia) or murder (Darren WilsonJake Gardner, Staten Island police officers), white men should fan out across the airwaves to talk about how damn sexy they are.

    Until then, I’m begging you, white men, please, for the love of God, STOP turning liberal women into your sexual fantasies!!!

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: Rule by Left-Wing Lunatics


    Commentary by Ann Coulter  Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 10, 2021

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

    A governing principle of the Democratic Party is to ask, “Who is in the dock?” before deciding whether to enforce the law.

    As we have seen throughout the last year of antifa/BLM riots, in blue states, it’s now legal to commit arson, attempted murder, assault on a law enforcement officer and destruction of property — provided the perp is antifa or antifa-friendly. Andy Ngo’s smash bestseller “Unmasked” gives chapter and verse on antifa’s shocking violence untouched by criminal penalty.

    On the other hand, if you’re a conservative, don’t commit a misdemeanor in a blue state. Proud Boys, Capitol Hill protesters, police and other presumed Trump supporters are getting more prison time than actual murderers for minor infractions. Even a couple of personal injury lawyers (liberals) are being criminally prosecuted in St. Louis for brandishing guns at violent looters coming toward their home. The rioters, you see, were BLM protesters.

    In all these cases, local Democratic officials gleefully announce that they are locking up “white supremacists.”

    Prepare yourself for a lot of witch-trial hysteria in the upcoming trials of Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis and the Capitol Hill trespassers in Washington, D.C. We’ve already seen it with the Proud Boys in New York City.

    In a nation of laws, a crime is a crime, and it shouldn’t matter whether it’s committed by Mother Teresa or Charles Manson, but, as long as they brought it up, OF COURSE THE PROUD BOYS AREN’T “WHITE SUPREMACISTS”!

    The organization is a tongue-in-cheek men’s group, promoting masculinity and Western civilization in humorous ways. Most of what they tell members is healthy: Get out of your apartment, work out, get a girlfriend and don’t masturbate. Further aside that it annoys me to have to make: There are African Americans, American Indians, immigrants and loads of Mexicans in the Proud Boys. Pretty crappy membership drive for a “hate group.”

    At least in the witch trials of the Middle Ages, you could prove you weren’t a witch by drowning after being tied up and heaved into a nearby body of water. Today, the “white supremacist” hex is indelible. The accusation is the proof. And once accused, stay out of the blue states, or you might end up in prison.

    In 2018, the night before Proud Boys founder, Gavin McInnes, was scheduled to give a speech at the Metropolitan Republican Club on the Upper East Side of New York, antifa smashed the windows of the historic club with a brick, glued the lock, and spray-painted the anarchist “A” on the front door of the club’s townhouse, along with a threat that this destruction was “merely a beginning.” All that’s legal, too — provided it’s done by antifa.

    The day of the speech, 80 masked antifa goons showed up at the club to attack attendees — women and children, young and old. But unfortunately for antifa, the event was being protected by the Proud Boys. McInnes’ speech went off without a hitch, and no attendees were injured at the event.

    When it was over, New York police officers directed the Proud Boys to Park Avenue, and sent antifa in the opposite direction to Lexington. The Proud Boys followed orders, but a gang of six masked antifa circled around from Lexington over to Park to confront them, including, in antifa’s manly way, throwing a bottle of urine at them.

    Two Proud Boys proceeded to kick six antifa butt.

    The same thing happened a few blocks south. Again disobeying the police, another group of antifa cut over to Park Avenue to fight with the Proud Boys. They, too, received a solid ass-kicking.

    So who was arrested? Ten Proud Boys and not one antifa. Oh darn. We couldn’t catch them. (Hey, NYPD! Send the Proud Boys next time.)

    The police did manage to arrest three antifa thugs who followed one speech attendee leaving the event, punched him and stole his backpack. But it turns out that’s also legal in New York. The antifa were arrested for the violent attack … then immediately released with no charges.

    The governor and attorney general of New York, the New York City mayor and a slew of council members rushed to social media to denounce the Proud Boys for “hate” and vow to prosecute them — for protecting Upper East Side Republicans who went to a speech. McInnes is funny, and if there’s one thing leftists cannot abide, it’s a sense of humor.

    Gov. Andrew Cuomo tweeted: “Hate cannot and will not be tolerated in New York,” along with a brain-dead article from Buzzfeed News titled, “Members of a Far-Right Men’s Group Violently Beat Up Protesters and Weren’t Arrested. New York Police Won’t Say Why.” They’re WHITE, aren’t they? No? Well, they’re REPUBLICANS. Arrest them!

    The prosecution had no victims and no evidence of injury. But two Proud Boys, John Kinsman and Max Hare, now sit in a New York state prison, sentenced to four years, after being convicted of attempted assault and attempted gang assault — for defending themselves from antifa, who showed up at conservative event, then disobeyed the police and stalked the Proud Boys. It wasn’t the Proud Boys disrupting an antifa event, and it wasn’t the Proud Boys defying the police to confront antifa.

    Yes, you are correct: This was the same district attorney, Cyrus Vance, who allowed Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein to rape and molest young girls in his jurisdiction for years and years. But those guys were major Democratic donors, so no harm, no foul.

    A third Proud Boy was headed to trial along with Kinsman and Hare — until the prosecution noticed he was East Indian and his presence would have hurt the narrative that Proud Boys are “white supremacists.”

    Just no one mention Kinsman’s black wife and children. (And thus Democrats deprived three more black children of a father during their formative years.)

    Much of the testimony elicited by the prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, concerned the defendants’ non-PC beliefs, e.g.: Kinsman’s support for guns, his opposition to antifa, and his attendance at a “fake news” protest outside CNN. Steinglass actually presented evidence of McInnes’ jokes from his comedy show. Inappropriate laughter in a blue state will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!

    What on earth does any of that have to do with whether Kinsman and Hare committed a crime at Park Avenue and 82nd on Oct. 12, 2018?

    Nothing. In the blue states, there is no rule of law, only rule by left-wing lunatics.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: NYT: Was He Innocent? ANSWER: No.


    Commentary by Ann Coulter  Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 17, 2021

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

    NYT: Was He Innocent? ANSWER: No.

    Source: AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews

    Trending

    Here is this week’s installment of “The New York Times is ALWAYS lying about criminals (and probably everything else).”

    The Times desperately wants you to believe that there are actual cases of innocent people being put to death in America. Their current poster boy for the cause is Sedley Alley, executed in 2006. But the Criminal Lobby is hoping a post-mortem DNA test — on evidence that has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence — will allow them to howl that an INNOCENT man was executed!

    I knew nothing about this case, but I knew the Times’ description of the facts was a lie. How did I know?

    1) No jury would have convicted a man, much less sentenced him to death, much less had that sentence repeatedly upheld, on such a flimsy record; and

    2) There is no credible evidence that a single innocent person has been put to death in this country for at least 75 years.

    Here are the facts the about the Criminal Lobby’s latest baby seal.

    On the night of July 11, 1985, two Marines from a naval base in Millington, Tennessee, reported a possible kidnapping after they heard a female jogger screaming, “Don’t touch me!” “Leave me alone!” They ran in her direction, but just as they got close, a station wagon peeled off the side of the road. A gate guard also reported seeing a station wagon, which he said was being driven by a man constraining a woman.

    All three witnesses described the car as a late-model green or brown Ford or Mercury station wagon with wood paneling, Kentucky tags and a loud muffler.

    Alley, who owned a dark green 1972 Mercury station wagon with wood paneling and a Kentucky license plate, was brought in for questioning at 1 a.m. that night. The Marines who’d reported the kidnapping identified Alley’s vehicle as the one they’d seen, both by sight and by the roar of the muffler.

    But Alley and his wife gave a satisfactory explanation for their whereabouts and were released.

    At 6 a.m. on July 12, the body of 19-year-old Marine Lance Cpl. Suzanne Collins was found in a nearby park. Alley was arrested and promptly confessed to murdering her — claiming it was an “accident.”

    He told his wife, “Yes, I killed the gal at … Orgill Park.”

    In his lengthy, tape-recorded confession, Alley tried to soft-pedal his barbaric crime, claiming he’d hit Collins with his car by accident, and only decided to savagely beat her to death because, as he was driving her to the hospital, she threatened to turn him into the police.

    Alley then took investigators to the precise spot where he’d murdered Collins and even showed them the tree where he’d broken off the branch that he’d jammed inside of her.

    At trial, Alley admitted he did it, but pleaded insanity. The jury didn’t buy it, convicted him and sentenced him to death.

    Here is what the Times’ Emily Bazelon tells that paper’s clueless readers about Alley’s case:

         “[T]wo Marines … reported crossing paths with Lance Corporal Collins while she was running. They said that moments after they saw her, they dodged a brown station wagon with a blue license plate … [L]aw enforcement officers stopped Sedley Alley, then 29. He was driving a dark green station wagon with a blue plate.”

    Times readers are led to believe that although witnesses said it was a BROWN station wagon, Tennessee yokels picked up a guy in a GREEN station wagon!

    Except that’s not true. The BOLO alert (“be on the lookout”) put out by the Naval Investigation Service identified a “a brown or green Ford or Mercury station wagon with woodgrain on the sides.”

    Bazelon:

         “When the investigators began interrogating him, Mr. Alley, who had been drinking, denied knowing anything about Lance Corporal Collins and asked for a lawyer. But 12 hours later, he signed a statement confessing to the murder.”

    Times’ readers are supposed to think these backwoods Nazis interrogated Alley without a lawyer for 12 hours until he confessed!

    In fact, the only reason he signed a statement “12 hours later” was that, after being questioned the night of the crime, he was sent home. Alley wasn’t arrested until after Collins’ body was discovered the next day, whereupon he quickly confessed.

    Bazelon:

         “Mr. Alley’s admission, which he later said was false and coerced …”

    Yes, “later” in the sense of “20 years later.” For two decades, Alley never denied he’d murdered Collins. He only recalled that his confession was “coerced” in 2004, when he was trying to delay the hangman’s noose.

    Bazelon:

    “But the location he gave for the collision didn’t line up with the witness accounts.”

    There were no “witness accounts” for “the collision” for the simple reason that there was no collision. “My car hit her by accident” was Alley’s attempt to mitigate his barbarous crime.

    You know what else, Emily? His car wasn’t seen driving in the direction of the hospital, either!

    Somehow, his lies not matching the facts is supposed to be a point in Alley’s favor.

    Bazelon:

         “[Alley’s confession] did not match the physical evidence. … He said he … stabbed her with a screwdriver and killed her with a tree branch. … And the autopsy report showed that Lance Corporal Collins was not hit by a car nor stabbed with a screwdriver.”

    Again: There was no collision.

    I’m not sure what Bazelon’s point is about the screwdriver and the tree branch, but here’s the evidence presented at trial:

    “The pathologist, Dr. James Bell, testified that the cause of death was multiple injuries, [many] of which could have been fatal. … He testified that the injuries to the skull could have been inflicted by the rounded end of defendant’s screwdriver that was found near the scene … He identified the tree branch that was inserted into the victim’s body. It measured 31 inches in length and had been inserted into the body more than once, to a depth of twenty inches …”

    Bazelon:

         “Tire tracks found at the crime scene didn’t match Mr. Alley’s car, shoe prints didn’t match his shoes, and a third witness who saw a man with a station wagon, close to where Lance Corporal Collins was killed, described someone who was several inches shorter than Mr. Alley, with a different hair color.”

    Times readers are perfectly prepared to believe that a jury of toothless hicks looked at evidence overwhelmingly clearing Alley and convicted him anyway.

    But that didn’t happen, because having seen the evidence for themselves, Alley and his lawyer decided his best course was to admit he did it and plead insanity. All this alleged evidence is post-hoc nonsense invented by defense lawyers that has not been admitted under the rules of evidence, has not been subjected to cross-examination, and would not prove his innocence.

    Seventy-five years and counting with no credible evidence that a single innocent person has been put to death in America.

    Ann Coulter Op-ed: My Nation-Unifying Impeachment Solution


    Commentary by Ann Coulter  Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 10, 2021

    The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

    My Nation-Unifying Impeachment Solution

    Source: AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    Senate Republicans should offer to convict Donald Trump in return for Democrats agreeing to fund the wall. Trump is not going to run again anyway. In four years, he will be as viable a presidential candidate as Hillary was in 2020. You wouldn’t have guessed that, either, from all the gnashing of teeth about the MOST QUALIFIED WOMAN EVER TO SEEK THE PRESIDENCY immediately after she lost. 

    The reason elected Republicans, Fox News, OAN, Newsmax and a hundred talk radio hosts are terrified of supporting conviction is that they don’t want to look like Mitt Romney and incur the wrath of the Trump base (whatever remains of it).

    Trading conviction for a wall solves that. It will remind Trump loyalists that he betrayed them on his central campaign promise, and also will actually fulfill that promise.

    Democrats, if they have half a brain, will leap at the offer. They are about to destroy Biden’s presidency by defining themselves — as The New York Times’ Frank Bruni put it — as “antonyms to Trump.” Trump was for a wall. Ipso facto, Democrats are for open borders.

    Trump was lying, liberals! Even President Obama was for border security. Great socialist hope Bernie Sanders has denounced open borders as a gift to the Koch brothers.

    They don’t care. Trump supporters wanted a wall, so we’re going to punish them by throwing open the border!

    If Biden continues with his tsunami of open border executive orders: 1) COVID-19 cases will multiply, as untested, unvaccinated third-worlders pour in at breakneck speed; 2) Black and Hispanic unemployment will go through the roof; and 3) crime — already reaching mind-blowing proportions — will become as potent a political issue as it has ever been.

    Good luck in 2022, Democrats!

    But if Democrats were to trade wall funding for the holy grail of a Trump conviction, they could save Biden’s presidency, humiliate Trump, and explain to their nut base, We know, we know — walls don’t work — but we had to trade it to convict Trump! Aren’t you happy?

    It’s win-win-win all around.

    Sitting on a nation-unifying idea like that, I never should have tuned into the impeachment trial. I knew the Democrats would somehow manage to turn me against conviction. I’m still not pro-Trump — that’s a tall order. But could Democrats please ease up on the hysterical weeping?

    The president is not supposed to be organizing protests at all, much less against his own vice president. Isn’t that enough? You don’t need to juice up the story, Democrats.

    Impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin:

    “All around me, people were calling their wives and their husbands, their loved ones to say goodbye ….

    “[My] kids, hiding under the desk, placing what they thought were their final texts and whispered phone calls to say their goodbyes. They thought they were going to die.”

    Yes, being forced to listen to the Trump “shaman” gas on about organic food could have annihilated legions!

    Trump is a selfish, ignorant child. But he is not responsible for the reactions of neurotic liberals.

    It would be as if Raskin’s neighbor smashed into his parked car, then drove off. Raskin has a perfectly good case without having to wail, I WAS AFRAID HE WOULD COME TO MY HOUSE AND MURDER MY ENTIRE FAMILY!

    Raskin’s most precious argument was this:

    “Of all the terrible, brutal things I saw … watching someone use an American flagpole, the flag still on it, to spear and pummel one of our police officers ruthlessly, mercilessly, tortured by a pole with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life.”

    First, give me a break, Democrats, pretending to give a crap about the American flag.

    Second: “Tortured”?

    Impeachment managers apparently used a thesaurus to write their speeches:

    Siri, give me a synonym for “poke” or “strike.”

    Siri: jab, punch, prod, thrust, wallop … TORTURE.

    Really?

    Yup, it’s right there in Roget’s!

    Curiously, even the teary-eyed Raskin didn’t allege that Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by the protesters, a claim being made hourly on MSNBC.

    Raskin: “People died that day. Officers ended up with head damage and brain damage. People’s eyes were gouged. One officer had a heart attack. One officer lost three fingers that day. Two officers have taken their own lives.”

    Jeremy Bash, later that day on MSNBC: “They killed a cop, Nicole!”

    If Officer Sicknick’s death truly resulted from injuries sustained at the hands of the mob, it would be the case in chief against the protesters. (We’re not counting heart attacks, much less suicides that occurred days, or weeks, later.) But no one in the media has been able to scare up a single eyewitness to the attack on Brian Sicknick?

    Unlike defund-the-police liberals, I actually am heartbroken about the death of a Trump-supporting law enforcement officer.

    But the media are lying about his death. First, they claimed he was hit on the head with a fire extinguisher. Then they said he was dragged into the crowd and beaten. All that is known for sure is that after Sicknick returned to headquarters, he collapsed and later died.

    Last week, CNN nonchalantly inserted this into a story on Officer Sicknick: “Medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true.”

    There’s no hope for our media, who are irredeemable liars. But there’s still a chance for everyone else to come out a winner here! Trade conviction for a wall, Republicans.

    Tag Cloud

    %d bloggers like this: