Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ann Coulter’

This Week’s Ann Coulter Letter: How Delta Airlines Wrecked American Health Care


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Jul 19, 2017 5:59 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/07/19/how-delta-airlines-wrecked-american-health-care/

I think I’ve found the core problem with health care in America. And guess what? It involves Delta Airlines!

A few weeks ago, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow was going on and on about a “single insurance provider” that pays for 49 percent of all births, as well as full health care costs of almost 40 percent of all children in the United States. This single “insurer,” Maddow said, was the biggest “health insurance provider in the country by a mile.”

Maddow was talking about Medicaid, which, of course, is not “insurance” but “welfare.”

When we’re allowed to call things whatever we want in order to win an argument, there is a total breakdown in democratic politics, fair commerce and social interaction.

Thus, for example, until we get our terms straight, Americans will be forced to keep paying through the nose whenever they try to buy actual health insurance — because they aren’t buying health insurance; they’re paying for other people’s welfare. Washington will never be able to make it legal to sell real health insurance — because, if they try, the welfare recipients will mob congressional offices claiming that Republicans are murdering them.

There is no truth in any discussion of Obamacare. Currently, the most persistent lie is the claim that — according to scoring by the CBO! — 22 million Americans would “lose” their health insurance under the Senate health care bill. Turn on the TV right now and you’ll hear someone saying this.

“A new (CBO) budget score said 22 million more Americans would lose health coverage under this plan …”

— Poppy Harlow, CNN, June 27, 2017

“A score from the Congressional Budget Office … said the Republican bill to kill Obamacare would kick 22 million Americans off their health insurance.”

— Rachel Maddow, June 27, 2017

“The clock is ticking on the Senate health care bill as the CBO estimates 22 million people will lose their insurance.”

— Chris Hayes, June 26, 2017

HELLO? REPUBLICANS? ANY OF YOU GUYS WANT TO REBUT THAT? IT’S PRETTY EASY TO DO!

The actual CBO report says nothing of the sort. People citing the “22 million” figure didn’t read past the CBO’s headline-grabbing paragraph at the top of the “Summary” page.

In fact, the CBO merely estimates that — in the year 2026 — 22 million Americans who otherwise would have been forced by the Obamacare penalty to buy health insurance will choose not to buy insurance once the penalty is gone. By “people thrown off their health insurance,” liberals mean: “people who voluntarily decide not to have health insurance.” (More accurately, “people who choose not to prove to the government that they have health insurance.”)

To use the word “lose” here is absurd. It would be like saying that Nixon ending the draft meant that 50,000 American men would “lose” their military service. The poor lads would be forced to volunteer.

Last year, I chose to end my New York Times subscription. I wasn’t “thrown off” the Times’ subscriber list. In full possession of the facts, I made an informed decision that I no longer wanted to receive the Times — just as 22 million Americans (the CBO guesses) will make an informed decision in the year 2026 not to have health insurance, if given that option.

Redefining words like “insurance” and “lose” to mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean makes human conversation impossible. We can still grunt, howl and shiver when it’s cold, but we will no longer have the ability to communicate slightly more complex thoughts to one another.

The only solution is for the rest of us to impose a broken windows policy on the truth, demanding it in every walk of life. If liars continually get away with it, their lies will only become more preposterous and more enraging.

Illegal aliens are not “undocumented immigrants.” They’re not “immigrants” at all. Immigrants wait in line and jump through hoops to be here. They are invited, by us, to come. Illegals cut to the head of the line whenever the mood strikes them, without waiting for an invitation.

When you have a “reserved seat” on Delta, it means you expect to be given that seat and not have your ticket snatched from your hand, then moved to a worse seat — only to get abused on social media by an imperious corporation for talking about it on Twitter.

(Idea for new Delta motto: “If you like your seat, you can keep your seat!”)

This is why the “Seinfeld” exchange with a car rental company struck such a chord. It was about the infuriating result when words like “reservation” have no meaning:

Jerry: I don’t understand. I made a reservation. Do you have my reservation?

Rental car agent: Yes, we do. Unfortunately, we ran out of cars.

Jerry: But the reservation keeps the car here. That’s why you have the reservation.

Rental car agent: I know why we have reservations.

Jerry: I don’t think you do. If you did, I’d have a car. See, you know how to take the reservation, you just don’t know how to hold the reservation. And that’s really the most important part of the reservation: the holding. Anybody can just take them.

If we’re going to have any kind of civil society, we need to insist that words mean what they say.

“Health insurance”: A group of people pooling their money every month, in the event that one of them ends up with an expensive medical problem.

“Wall”: Wall.

“Republican”: Does not raise taxes, propose amnesty or appoint David Hackett Souter to the Supreme Court.

“Seat 3A”: The seat you were promised.

Unless the rest of us demand truth, the liars will be emboldened, their lies will snowball and nothing will ever work.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

This Weeks Ann Coulter Letter: GOP Rallies Behind Idiotic Bill


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Jul 12, 2017 6:06 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/07/12/gop-rallies-behind-idiotic-bill/

Republicans are about to do something very stupid. Using bribery, threats and cajolery, they intend to pass a catastrophically unpopular bill on a party-line vote.

GOP: Obamacare is unpopular, so let’s pass a new health care bill that’s even MORE unpopular.

Normal Person: Why would you do that?

GOP: No, you don’t understand. Obamacare is totally imploding, so if we pass this bill now, all its problems will be blamed on us!

Republicans would be better off doing nothing. They can survive the ridicule for running against Obamacare through four election cycles and then not repealing it. They cannot survive a bill that does nothing to fix the actual problems with Obamacare.

The only explanation for the GOP doing something so stupid and unpopular is that it’s all about tax cuts.

Why can’t we get it through their heads that we didn’t elect Trump to cut taxes? Forty-five percent of people don’t pay any federal income tax — and they voted for Trump! Taxes on high earners (or “Hillary voters”) are at a historic low.

Here’s a somewhat more important issue I’d like to submit for Republicans’ consideration: PEOPLE CAN’T BUY HEALTH INSURANCE THEY WANT, CAN’T SEE THE DOCTORS THEY WANT AND CAN’T AFFORD THEIR PREMIUMS AND DEDUCTIBLES.

How about allowing people the option of buying insurance that doesn’t cover sex change operations, gambling addictions, psychotherapy, liver transplants for illegal aliens and so on?

Instead of squandering this moment, Trump the businessman should seize it to trumpet the free market. This is a golden opportunity to give a speech explaining why, contrary to everything your professors told you, communism doesn’t work.

Liberals always promise us wondrous cost-saving government programs, and then, it turns out, none of the laws of physics support their exciting plans. Obamacare is crashing and burning — and Trump hasn’t done a thing to anyone’s health care. He can say, perfectly accurately, he was just standing there when the plane hit the ground.

To paraphrase Talleyrand, what Republicans are doing with Obamacare is worse than a crime; it’s a mistake.

What sets us apart from the rest of the world is freedom — free people, free markets, free minds. That is how America became the most prosperous nation in the world. There’s no genius that can compete with the genius of the free market.

Sentient adults are perfectly capable of making their own choices about what health insurance to buy, the same way they make choices about what food to buy. The whole key to fixing Obamacare is not to repeal it, but to allow the rest of us to buy insurance on the free market.

Right now, it’s illegal to sell an insurance plan that most people would like to buy. Instead, you have to buy plans that cover millions of things you don’t want and nothing that you do want — all in order to pay for other people’s health care.

It would be as if grocery stores were required to charge you $60 for a head of lettuce in order to fund the federal school lunch program.

It is a blood libel to say we don’t care about the old, sick and dispossessed.

Everyone has plenty of food in America, even without $60 heads of lettuce. That’s the free market! As Trump said, we will care for them better than they’ve ever been cared for before. But, first, the welfare cases have to be separated from the free market.

Proposed law: “Notwithstanding any other provision of federal or state law, it shall be lawful to purchase or sell any health insurance product in the United States of America.”

Skip the repeal — so there’s nothing for leftist ruffians to protest — and just give the rest of us the option of escaping Obamacare to buy health insurance the same way we buy everything else. Only a free market can guarantee good products at good prices.

Trump used to understand this! In the very first GOP debate, he said, “What I’d like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. … Get rid of the artificial lines and you will have yourself great plans. And then we have to take care of the people that can’t take care of themselves. And I will do that through a different system.”

The “lines around the states” were the 50 state insurance commissions determining which health plans could legally be sold in each state — mandating, for example, that every plan include coverage for acupuncturists, chiropractors, fertility treatments, speech pathologists and so on.

Instead of throwing off the shackles of these commissions and giving us a nationwide free market in health insurance, Obamacare imposed one enormous federal shackle.

As a result, “health insurance” under Obamacare isn’t insurance at all — it’s the government forcing us to pay for other people’s health care through ghastly insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays in exchange for highly limited health insurance for ourselves.

Trump ought to be using the flaming wreckage of Obamacare to illustrate what’s wrong with all Soviet five-year plans. It could be as iconic as Reagan’s Berlin Wall speech. Teenagers would vote Republican for the next 70 years — 80 or 90 years, if they could finally buy decent health insurance.

 

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

This Weeks Ann Coulter Letter: Immigrant Of The Week: Henry Bello (Obotetukudo)


Commentary by  Ann Coulter | Wednesday Jul 5, 2017 4:04 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/07/05/immigrant-of-the-week-henry-bello-obotetukudo/

Last Friday, Nigerian immigrant Henry Williams Obotetukudo, aka Henry Bello, opened fire with an AM-15 rifle at the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, killing one doctor and injuring a half-dozen others. I would prefer to leap right in and offer my ideas for stopping these immigrant shooting rampages, but first I’ll have to tell you the facts the media won’t.

The New York Times, still unaware there’s an internet, is trying to pass off the Nigerian as a Californian, the non-doctor as a doctor, and Mr. Obotetukudo as “Dr. Bello.”

In the Times’ major biographical profile of Bello the next day, he was described as a “sharp dresser from California.” The only other reference to the shooter’s provenance came several paragraphs later: “Dr. Bello lived in California off and on from 1991 until 2006.”

ABC News had reported on the day of the shooting that Bello was a “Nigerian national” — so the cat was already out of the bag, New York Times. Local New York station PIX11 also reported that he was a Nigerian. Even newspapers in Ohio knew that Bello was a Nigerian.

But as we go to print, the Times still has not identified Bello as a Nigerian immigrant. It issued a “correction,” but only to clarify the exact street of a homeless shelter where Bello had lived. No correction to the “California” bit.

Sadly, the Times didn’t allow any comments to the online version of its story, but CBS did. There were four comments, two about the incident (“rot in hell”) and two about CBS’s report:

“Where was Bello born?”

and:

“Where is he from? Where did he receive his medical degree? Worthless reporting.”

You’re not fooling anyone, media.

Having misled readers about Bello’s nationality, the Times professed utter bafflement about the shooter’s motive, saying it was “marked with as many questions as answers.”

If the Times simply reported facts, instead of strategically constructing news stories to protect favored groups, it might have noticed that there have been a LOT of mass shootings by certain types of immigrants.

There are mental illness shootings, gangland shootings, still-angry-about-the-divorce shootings and so on. Some immigrant murderers are mentally ill or criminals — thanks to our excellent and extremely rigorous vetting system! But there are enough like Mr. Obotetukudo to qualify as their own category: the Disappointed Immigrant mass shootings.

The usual elements are:

1) immigrants from wildly different cultures, who have

2) unrealistic expectations about what their lives should be like in the U.S., combined with

3) an inability to achieve success in the U.S., and

4) a failure to grasp our customs — often, even our language, typically marked by

5) a particular rage at women.

The same way girls from the Midwest come to New York City expecting to live like Carrie Bradshaw in “Sex and the City” (she was paying $700 a month for a $2,700 per month apartment, plus $40,000 on shoes), some immigrants seem to expect their lives in the U.S. to be like something out of “Dynasty.”

Bello, for example, declared bankruptcy in 2000 — from one of the priciest towns in the world, Santa Barbara, California. And he just kept failing. He was fired from the Bronx hospital. He lost his license as a “pharmacy technician.” (He was not a “doctor,” despite the media’s insistent reference to him as one.)

The Nigerian couldn’t even pull off being a fake doctor, sounding more like a character out of a comedy sketch. Co-workers described him as “very aggressive, talking loudly, threatening people.” Once he was arrested for fare-jumping — just like your trusted family physician. Recently, he’d been living in a homeless shelter.

His Third World approach to meeting women resulted in his being arrested in 2004 for lifting a 23-year-old woman off the ground in Greenwich Village, while trying to penetrate her through her underwear and saying “You’re coming with me.” Although initially charged with felony assault, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor — otherwise he might have been deported and America’s beautiful mosaic would be diminished.

Apart from the turnstile jumping, all of Bello’s arrests involve similarly rom-com, meet-cute scenarios. In 2003, he was arrested for kicking in an ex-girlfriend’s door at 5:10 in the morning. In 2009, he was charged, in separate incidents, with harassing women by trying to look up their skirts.

All this insanely inappropriate behavior would have continued ad infinitum, with American women being sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism, but, finally, the Unstoppable Force of Diversity met the Feminist Immovable Object: He was fired from the hospital for sexual harassment.

In his revenge shooting, he killed one doctor: a woman.

Bello blamed his firing on “racism and discrimination,” so at least he was capable of assimilating to the American custom of immigrants being constantly aggrieved.

Close observers will notice the same basic pattern over and over again. Immigrants from backward cultures develop extravagant expectations about their lives in America, fail to master the most rudimentary civic habits, and then erupt in shooting rampages when their lives aren’t turning out as planned.

One will find similar elements in the many, many immigrant mass murders —

Jiverly Wong (American Civic Association, Binghamton, New York);

Nigerian immigrant Peter Odighizuwa, (Appalachian School of Law);

Palestinian immigrant Ali Hassan Abu Kamal (Empire State Building),

Bosnian immigrant Sulejman Talovic (Trolley Square Mall, Salt Lake City);

Hmong immigrant Chai Soua Vang (hunters in Wisconsin);

Mexican immigrant Salvador Tapia (Windy City Core Supply);

Korean immigrant Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Poly Tech) and on and on.

Liberals have a mystical idea that we can pluck people from the most discordant cultures, put them in middle-class houses in the suburbs and then, magically, primitive tribesmen will be imbued with the core beliefs of our republic and civilization, developed over centuries.

Instead, we have Aztecs getting loaded up on Tecate and hopping behind the wheels of cars; Nigerians demanding to be called “doctor” while picking up women on the street and trying to drag them home; and Hmong responding to the concept of private property by wiping out a pack of Wisconsin hunters.

The New York Times might even help their Muslim friends by reporting the truth! Perhaps some Muslim mass murders — Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon and the Orlando nightclub, for example –- aren’t problems of Islam, at all. Maybe the problem is assimilation.

It would be a major step forward if the media would just stop lying to us. Until then, Times reporters can still be issued badges, but they shouldn’t be press badges.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: Even Trump Can’t Make Goldman Sachs Popular


Commentary by  Ann Coulter | Wednesday Jun 28, 2017 4:18 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/06/28/even-trump-cant-make-goldman-sachs-popular/

Having pulled off the monumental achievement of getting elected with zero help from Wall Street, President Trump is at risk of throwing it all away. He seems to be turning his White House over not only to liberal Democrats, but to the very type of liberal Democrats he railed against on the campaign trail.

It’s like voluntarily getting an AIDS transfusion.

Until Trump, voters had two choices: A Republican beholden to Wall Street or a Democrat beholden to Wall Street. But Wall Street despised Trump, and he despised them. This allowed him the luxury of denouncing both Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton for their ties to Goldman Sachs, especially Hillary’s six-figure “speeches” to that investment bank. Ninety percent of Wall Street’s money went to Hillary’s campaign. Wherever the other 10 percent went, it didn’t go to Trump.

What does that mean?

[Fox News’ Sean Hannity frantically waving his hand]: I know! I know! Since he owes them nothing and they’re universally reviled, he needs to turn the keys of the kingdom over to Wall Street bankers!

No, actually. It means that he should stay the hell away from them.

The Democrats, who are evil but not stupid, know what a gift it was for Trump to have had no Wall Street support. And they are already plotting to win Trump’s voters back.

A hand grenade has recently been tossed into Trump’s camp in the form of Stanley Greenberg’s mostly-overlooked report for Democracy Corps. Greenberg, the Yale professor-turned-Democratic pollster, has conducted extensive, in-depth interviews with the beating heart of Trump’s working-class support: the voters of Macomb County, Michigan, which went for Obama twice, but then flipped to Trump.

They were impossible to move. They love Trump, have no regrets about their vote, disbelieve the media and detest career politicians like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. They just “pray he keeps his promises and succeeds.”

However, one fact, and one fact only, shook their faith: when they were told that his Cabinet was “full of campaign donors, Goldman Sachs bankers (bailed out by the taxpayers) and people who use undocumented workers in their homes.”

Hearing that, these devoted Trump voters called him “two-faced,” a “puppet” and sadly remarked, “It’s going to be a lot of the same old garbage.”

Trump knows this. His guilty conscience propelled him to stray from his standard rally speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, last week, and go into what seemed like an endless soliloquy on his chief economic adviser, Goldman Sachs’ Gary Cohn. (Not to be confused with his Treasury Secretary, Goldman Sachs’ Steve Mnuchin, or his deputy national security adviser, Goldman Sachs’ Dina Powell. These are the people the media call the “grown-ups” in Trump’s administration.)

The Cedar Rapids crowd was thrilled to see Trump. They would have cheered his tie. They would have cheered the humidity. But his lengthy disquisition on Cohn? Crickets.

Touting (lifelong, and still today, liberal Democrat) Cohn’s “great, brilliant business mind,” Trump said, he wanted “a rich person to be in charge of the economy,” because “that’s the kind of thinking we want.”

Sean Hannity, bless his heart, has the zeal of the late Trump convert. He would endorse communism if Trump decided to implement the policies of “The Communist Manifesto.” (Which the GOP’s health care bill actually does!)

On his show last Thursday, he tried to get me to defend Trump’s “rich person” remarks about Cohn. I wish you could see the segment, but, unfortunately, Hannity decided no one would ever see it — NOT, I hasten to add, because he would ever censor criticism of Trump, but simply because he ran out of time. In a pre-taped interview. It was a time problem. (It may not be evident to most viewers, but three minutes MUST be left at the end of every Hannity show for Nerf ball throwing.)

With the zealotry of those who came late to the Trump party, Hannity fully endorsed Trump’s faith in Cohn, adding, “I never got a job from a poor man!”

Those of us who have been here for a while — unlike Cruz- and Rubio-supporting Hannity — know how to party responsibly. The best way we serve the people we admire is to tell them the truth. (Someday, no doubt, Nancy Pelosi will wish she had been surrounded by fewer Yes Men.)

The motto of we longtime Trump supporters is: NO TREATS FOR DOING NOTHING!

As I told Hannity (in the pre-taped, and later edited, interview): He’s also never gotten a job from Goldman Sachs. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross created jobs. Donald Trump created jobs. Goldman Sachs doesn’t create jobs. The geniuses of Goldman specialize in generating obscene salaries for themselves while helping send American jobs abroad.

Trump said he wanted rich people to do for the country what they had done for themselves. Here’s what Gary Cohn did for himself:

  • He oversaw the mortgage department at Goldman Sachs in the run-up to Wall Street blowing up the economy with the 2008 mortgage meltdown.
  • Under Cohn, Goldman’s role was especially egregious, as described in detail in a 600-page report issued by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations headed by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn and Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, after a two-year review.

As Goldman was furiously betting against worthless mortgages for its own account, it was hawking this toxic paper to its customers.

Goldman’s customers could be wiped out with no skin off Goldman’s back. But Goldman was doing the same with its trading partners, and the problem with scamming people on the other side of a bet is that, by winning, you might bankrupt them, and they can’t pay you back.

But that’s where you come in, taxpayer! To ensure that kazillionaires at Goldman recouped 100 cents on the dollar after the crash, taxpayer money was used to bail out the losers in these transactions — primarily AIG — so that they could pay back Goldman and other Wall Street banks in full.

It was the biggest taxpayer bailout of banks in U.S. history.

Is that what Gary Cohn is going to do for the economy? Scam the naive of, say, Canada, then ask for a taxpayer bailout from Mars?

As to rich people being “smart”: Kim Kardashian is rich. Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman is rich. Bernie Madoff was rich — as he surely tells the 300-pound, face-tattooed gangsters he now showers with. No one wants any of them advising Trump, either.

You could have heard this on Hannity, but, apparently, there was some sort of timing issue.

Category:

Opinion, Political

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: The “Resistance” Goes Live-Fire


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Jun 14, 2017 6:13 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/06/14/the-resistance-goes-live-fire/

The explosion of violence against conservatives across the country is being intentionally ginned up by Democrats, reporters, TV hosts, late-night comedians and celebrities, who compete with one another to come up with the most vile epithets for Trump and his supporters. They go right up to the line, trying not to cross it, by, for example, vamping with a realistic photo of a decapitated Trump or calling the president a “piece of s—” while hosting a show on CNN. 

The media are orchestrating a bloodless coup, but they’re perfectly content to have their low-IQ shock troops pursue a bloody coup.

This week, one of the left’s foot soldiers gunned down Republican members of Congress and their staff while they were playing baseball in Virginia. Democratic Socialist James Hodgkinson was prevented from committing a mass murder only by the happenstance of a member of the Republican leadership being there, along with his 24-hour Capitol Police protection.

Remember when it was frightening for the losing party not to accept the results of an election? During the third debate, Trump refused to pre-emptively agree to the election results, saying he’d “look at it at the time.” The media responded in their usual laid-back style:

A ‘HORRIFYING’ REPUDIATION OF DEMOCRACY — The Washington Post, Oct. 20, 2016

DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY — Daily News (New York), Oct. 20, 2016 DANGER TO DEMOCRACY — The Dallas Morning News, Oct. 20, 2016

ONE SCARY MOMENT; IT ALL BOILED DOWN TO … DEMOCRACY — Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Oct. 21, 2016

“(Shock) spiked down the nation’s spinal column last night and today when the Republican nominee threatened that this little election thing you got there, this little democratic process you’ve got here, it’s nice, it’s fine, but he doesn’t necessarily plan on abiding by its decision when it comes to the presidency.” — Rachel Maddow, Oct. 20, 2016

“Trump’s answer on accepting the outcome of the vote is the most disgraceful statement by a presidential candidate in 160 years.” — Bret Stephens, then-deputy editorial page editor at The Wall Street Journal

“I guess we’re all going to have to wait until Nov. 9 to find out if we still have a country — if Donald Trump is in the mood for a peaceful transfer of power. Or if he’s going to wipe his fat a– with the Constitution.” — CBS’s Stephen Colbert, Oct. 19, 2016

“It’s unprecedented for a nominee of a major party to themselves signal that they would not accept — you know, respect the results of an election. We’ve never had that happen before. … This really presents a potentially difficult problem for governing …” — MSNBC’S Joy Reid, Oct. 22, 2016

“This is very dangerous stuff … would seriously impair our functioning as a democracy. … This is about as serious as it gets in the United States.” — CNN’s Peter Beinart, Oct. 20, 2016

“Obviously, it’s despicable for him to pretend that there’s any chance that he would not accept the results of this election; it would be — in 240 years you’ve never had anybody do it. …” — CNN’s Van Jones, Oct. 20, 2016

Then Trump won, and these very same hysterics refused to accept the results of the election.

Recently, Hillary announced her steadfast opposition to the winning candidate using a military term, saying she’d joined the “Resistance.”

Imagine if Trump lost and then announced that he’d joined the “RESISTANCE.” He’d be accused of trying to activate right-wing militias. Every dyspeptic glance at an immigrant would be reported as fascistic violence. But the media seem blithely unaware that the anti-Trump “Resistance” has been accompanied by nonstop militaristic violence from liberals.

When Trump ripped up our Constitution and jumped all over it by failing to concede the election three weeks in advance, CNN ran a segment on a single tweet from a random Trump supporter that mentioned the Second Amendment.

Carol Costello: “Still to come in the ‘Newsroom,’ some Trump supporters say they will refuse to accept a loss on Election Day, with one offering a threat of violence. We’ll talk about that next.”

In CNN’s most fevered dreams about a violent uprising of Trump supporters, they never could have conceived of the level of actual violence being perpetrated by Americans who refuse to accept Trump’s win. (See Hate Map.)

It began with Trump’s inauguration, when a leftist group plotted to pump a debilitating gas into one Trump inaugural ball, military families were assaulted upon leaving the Veterans’ Inaugural Ball, and attendees of other balls had water thrown on them.

Since then, masked, armed liberals around the country have formed military-style organizations to beat up conservatives. In liberal towns, the police are regularly ordered to stand down to allow the assaults to proceed unimpeded.

The media only declared a crisis when conservatives fought back, smashing the black-clad beta males. (“Battle for Berkeley!”)

There is more media coverage for conservatives’ “microaggressions” toward powerful minorities -– such as using the wrong pronoun — than there is for liberals’ physical attacks on conservatives, including macings, concussions and hospitalizations.

And now some nut Bernie Sanders-supporter confirms that it’s Republicans standing on a baseball field, before opening fire. In the media’s strategic reporting of the attempted slaughter, we were quickly told that the mass shooter was white, male and had used a gun. We were even told his name. (Because it was not “Mohammed.”) But the fact that Hodgkinson’s Facebook page featured a banner of Sanders and the words “Democratic Socialism explained in 3 words: ‘We the People’ Since 1776” apparently called for hours of meticulous fact-checking by our media.

Did reporters think they could keep that information from us forever?

The fake news insists that Trump’s White House is in “chaos.” No, the country is in chaos. But just like Kathy Griffin and her Trump decapitation performance art — the perpetrators turn around in doe-eyed innocence and blame Trump.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: All We Need Is Love … And Deportations


 

Commentary by Ann Coulter | Thursday Jun 8, 2017 10:33 AM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/06/08/all-we-need-is-love-and-deportations/

In Britain, as in the U.S., when an Islamic terrorist is said to be “known to law enforcement,” the translation is: “He is being actively ignored by law enforcement.”

After the latest terrorist attack in Britain — at least as of this writing — Prime Minister Theresa May bravely announced, “Enough is enough!”

What is the point of these macho proclamations after every terrorist attack? Nothing will be done to stop the next attack. Political correctness prohibits us from doing anything that might stop it.

Poland doesn’t admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. Japan doesn’t admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. The United Kingdom and the United States used to have very few Muslims: They used to have almost no terrorism. (One notable exception was chosen as the National Freedom Hero in this year’s Puerto Rican parade in New York!)

Notwithstanding the lovely Muslim shopkeeper who wouldn’t hurt a fly, everyone knows that with every tranche of peace-loving Muslims we bring in, we’re also getting some number of stone-cold killers.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair dumped millions of Third World Muslims on Britain to force “multiculturalism” on the country. Now Britons are living with the result. Since the 9/11 attack, every U.S. president has done the same. President Bush admitted Muslim immigrants at a faster pace after 9/11 than we had been doing before 9/11.

Whatever the 9/11 attackers intended to accomplish, I bet they didn’t expect that.

Now we can’t get rid of them. Under the rules of political correctness, Western countries are prohibited from even pausing our breakneck importation of Muslims, much less sending the recent arrivals home.

In defense of the poor saps responding to every terrorist attack with flowers, candles and hashtags, they have no ability to do anything else. Western leaders are in full possession of the tools to end Islamic terrorism in their own countries, just as their forebears once ended Nazi Stormtroopers.

Unable to summon the backbone to defeat the current enemy, the West is stuck constantly reliving that glorious time when they whipped the Nazis. In almost every Western country — except the one with an increasingly beleaguered First Amendment — it’s against the law to deny the Holocaust.

Are we really worried about a resurgence of Nazism? Isn’t Islamic terrorism a little higher on our “immediate problems” list? How about making it illegal to make statements in support of ISIS, al-Qaida, female genital mutilation, Sharia law or any act of terrorism?

The country with a First Amendment can’t do that — the most that amendment allows us to do is ban conservative speakers from every college campus in the nation.

But if our elected representatives really cared about stopping the next terrorist attack, instead of merely “watching” those on the “watch” list, they’d deport them.

To this day, we have a whole office at the Department of Justice dedicated to finding and deporting Nazis even without proof they personally committed crimes against Jews. But we can’t manage to deport hearty young Muslims who post love notes to ISIS on their Facebook pages.

If the Clinton administration had merely enforced laws on the books against an Afghani immigrant, Mir Seddique Mateen, and excluded him based on his arm-length list of terrorist affiliations, his son, Omar, wouldn’t have been around to slaughter 49 people at an Orlando nightclub last year.

If Secretary of State John Kerry, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson or anyone else in our vaunted immigration vetting system had done his job, Pakistani Tashfeen Malik never would have been admitted to this country to commit mass murder in San Bernardino a year after she arrived. Before being warmly welcomed by the U.S., Malik’s social media posts were bristling with hatred of America and enthusiasm for jihad.

We’re already paying a battery of FBI agents to follow every Muslim refugee around the country. When they find out that one of them lists his hobby as “jihad,” we need them to stop watching and start deporting.

Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, the rest of the useless GOP — and obviously every Democrat — have the blood of the next terrorist attack on their hands if they don’t make crystal clear that admiring remarks about Islamic terrorism is a deportable act.

But they won’t do it. That’s “not who we are,” as Ryan famously said.

True, most Muslims are peaceful. Guess what? Most Nazis were peaceful! We didn’t knock ourselves out to admit as many of them as we could, screening out only the Nazis convicted of mass murder.

Before we were even formally involved in World War II, the FBI was all over the German American Bund. No one worried about upsetting our German neighbors. (Perhaps because they knew these were Germans and wouldn’t start bombing things and shooting people.)

But today, our official position is: Let’s choose love so as not to scare our Muslim neighbors. Isn’t that precisely what we want to do? Facing an immobile government, two British men — by which I mean British men — were sentenced to PRISON for putting bacon on a mosque in Bristol last year. One died in prison just after Christmas, an ancient religious holiday recently replaced by Ramadan.

If we can’t look askance at Muslims without committing a hate crime, can’t we at least stop admitting ever more “refugees,” some percentage of whom are going to be terrorists and 100 percent of whom will consume massive amounts of government resources?

No, that’s “not who we are.”

Until any Western leader is willing to reduce the number of Muslims in our midst, could they spare us the big talk? “We surrender” would at least have the virtue of honesty.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: PRESS BARKING (MAD) UP THE WRONG TREE


Commentary by Ann Coulter | May 31, 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-05-31.html
 

The American media are so obsessed with their own Russian collusion story that they can’t see the possibility of actual corruption right in front of their noses. It’s gotten to the point that Trump could start shooting reporters on the White House lawn and The New York Times’ headline would be: In Trump’s New Tack, Echoes of Russia.

In fairness to the media, this is all part of the liberal proclivity to embrace any conspiracy theory under the right conditions. There are random conservatives who might believe nutty things from time to time, but conspiracy-mongering is a plant that doesn’t fully bloom except in the soil of liberalism.

The psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that because freedom is terrifying, one way to escape the anxiety is to have a strong belief system, providing a central magnet for all the metal filings to coalesce around.

Liberals have no strong belief systems, only base impulses. This is why their passions must be corralled into conspiracy theories, to bring conformity to their lives. They hate Trump, so everything he does must be on orders from Moscow.

Meanwhile, it is a known fact that the FBI is looking at Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. It is a known fact that the Kushner family has used its connections to President Trump to drum up Chinese investors for the family’s real estate portfolio. It is a known fact that Jared is looking for investors in his 666 Fifth Avenue building, which is underwater. It is a known fact that Jared met with the Russian ambassador — as well as a representative of a state-owned Russian bank — during the transition. It is a known fact that he neglected to mention those meetings on his security clearance forms.

All of this is probably perfectly aboveboard. But if you weren’t insane, the blindingly obvious question would be: Why did Kushner meet with the head of a state-controlled Russian bank?

That’s not what our media want to know! Reporters see all those facts, put 2 and 2 together and ask: How does this advance the narrative that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign to steal the election from Hillary?

This is why the press blared alarmist headlines about Kushner’s attempt to set up a “back channel” with Russia, a fact as important and disturbing as the square footage of Jared’s office.

Liberals are desperate for anything sneaky with Russia because, unfortunately, there is still neither a coherent theory, nor any evidence, of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign to sway the election.

The argument is that Russia hacked John Podesta’s emails and turned them over to Wikileaks in order to reveal to American voters that the Democratic National Committee … conspired against Bernie Sanders! And that would have swung the election against Hillary because — well, actually, there’s no theory on how it was supposed to work, exactly, but liberals believe that trained Russian spymasters thought it was a capital idea.

Buttressing this crackpot theory, there is, helpfully, zero evidence. Despite the FBI investigating alleged Russian collusion for nearly one year now, there’s still not a speck of evidence that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign, only insinuations and dramatic headlines.

The FBI itself never investigated the DNC email leaks, but outsourced review of the Democrats’ servers to a cyber-security firm hired by the DNC. It raised no red flags with our Jacques Clouseau-like FBI that the DNC’s chosen investigator, CrowdStrike, is affiliated with a fanatically anti-Russian Ukrainian billionaire.

CrowdStrike’s smoking gun proving a Russian plot to elect Trump was the fact that the malware program used against the DNC was identical to a malware program used by the Russians to disable 80 percent of Ukraine’s howitzers in its war with Russian separatists in 2014. Except then it turned out that: a) Russia isn’t the only hacker with that malware; b) Ukraine’s howitzers hadn’t, in fact, been disabled; and c) Ukraine’s howitzer app had never even been hacked.

Other cyber-security firms scoffed at CrowdStrike’s report, explaining that the “Fancy Bear” malware allegedly found in the DNC hacks may have originated with Russia, but once Russia had used it, every hacker had it. As cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr explained to The Miami Herald, malware isn’t “a bomb or an artillery shell. (It) doesn’t detonate on impact and destroy itself.”

The study cited by CrowdStrike for its claim about the Ukrainian howitzers was written by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. But IISS has since explained that CrowdStrike misunderstood its report. True, Ukraine’s supply of howitzers was depleted. But that reduction occurred years earlier and had nothing to do with Russia.

Technical experts with Ukraine’s military further denied that their artillery app had ever been hacked, at all.
Weirdly, liberals cite the very absence of evidence to say: That’s why we need an investigation!

As long as we’re calling for investigations of any kook theory, how about an independent commission to investigate whether Sen. Chuck Schumer is a child molester? Schumer was Anthony Weiner’s mentor, which is already more evidence than the media have for their Russian collusion story.

True, I don’t have proof that Schumer is a child molester, but I just started this investigation! Was there collusion between Schumer and Weiner in the selection of the underage girl Weiner sexted with? Neither man has yet issued a full and convincing denial.

Obviously, the point of an independent investigation isn’t to find any actual wrongdoing. It’s to hurt Trump. But if that’s your objective, American media, as loath as I am to give you helpful suggestions, the wafer-thin evidence that exists all points to Kushner, not collusion.

COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: Every Time I Try To Be Mad At Trump, The Media Pull Me Back


Commentary by  Ann Coulter  | Wednesday May 17, 2017 3:22 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/05/17/every-time-i-try-to-be-mad-at-trump-the-media-pull-me-back/

Every time I try to be mad at Trump, the media reel me back in by launching some ridiculous, unprovoked attack. This time, it’s the fake news story about Trump “leaking” classified information to the Russkies.

The president can’t “leak” classified information: It’s his to declassify.

The big secret Trump allegedly revealed is that Muslims might try to blow up a plane with laptops. I already knew that. I read it in The New York Times.

The New York Times, March 22, 2017:

Devices Banned on Some Planes Over ISIS Fears

“Intelligence showing that the Islamic State is developing a bomb hidden in portable electronics spurred the United States and Britain on Tuesday to bar passengers from airports in a total of 10 Muslim-majority countries from carrying laptop computers … two senior American counterterrorism officials said. …”

This totally secret, Deep Throat-level information has been widely published in thousands of news outlets throughout the civilized world. There was yet another round of stories last week with the update that the U.S. is considering a laptop ban on flights from Europe as well.

Hey, you know what might make more sense than banning laptops? How about banning Muslims?

Bear with me here, I’m still working out the details, but I’m almost certain a federal judge in Hawaii can’t block a president’s temporary ban on Muslim immigration just because he’s testy with Trump over some campaign statements.

As Northwestern law professor Eugene Kontorovich explained in The Washington Post, courts have never examined a politician’s campaign statements for improper motive, because

1) campaigns are not part of the deliberative process; and

2) to start doing so would open the door to “examinations of the entire lives of political officials whose motives may be relevant to legal questions.”

Nonetheless, Kontorovich says, that is the legal argument being advanced against Trump’s travel ban: “Trump is a bigot, and thus his winning presidential campaign in fact impeaches him from exercising key constitutional and statutory powers, such as administering the immigration laws.”

To preserve their judicial coup, this Monday, the 9th Circuit sent out the geriatric ward to hear an appeal of the Hawaii judge’s absurd ruling. At their ages, there’s a good chance the judges will be dead by the time the Supreme Court overturns them.

Arguing against Trump’s exercise of his constitutional and statutory powers was first-generation American, Neal Katyal. (There are plenty of 10th-generation America-haters. You couldn’t get one of them to argue that we should end our country through mass immigration?)

At oral argument before the three wheezing gargoyles, Katyal announced that, before enforcing federal immigration laws passed by generations of Democrats and Republicans working together in Congress, the president of the United States is required to profess: “Islam is peace.”

There’s a new legal principle!

Asked by one of the crypt-keepers if Trump is the only president who would be prohibited from issuing this precise travel ban because of his statements about Muslims, the smarmy, preening, pretentious Katyal answered: “I think the most important point is, if you don’t say all these things, you never wind up with an executive order like this.”

As lawyers say: Nonresponsive!

But as long as we’re operating under these new rules for determining a U.S. president’s rights and responsibilities, how about looking at everything Trump has said about Muslims?

For example, may the courts consider this quote from September 2015?

Trump: “I love the Muslims. I think they are great people. … Would I consider putting a Muslim-American in my Cabinet? Oh, absolutely. No problem with that.”

Lawyers like Katyal aren’t telling the courts what Trump said; they’re telling courts their own crazy interpretations of what Trump said. No liberal is capable of accurately reporting Trump’s position because the left never understood his position in the first place. As Peter Thiel said, the media take Trump literally, but not seriously, while the people take him seriously, but not literally.

After the San Bernardino terrorist attacks in December 2015, Trump made the perfectly reasonable suggestion that we curtail our breakneck importation of Muslims, some of whom periodically erupt in murderous violence. The media concluded: TRUMP HATES MUSLIMS! Nothing Trump or anyone else said could persuade them otherwise.

Here’s what Trump actually said:

“What’s happened is, we’re out of control. We have no idea who’s coming into our country. We have no idea if they love us or if they hate us. … I have friends that are Muslims. They are great people. But they know we have a problem. They know we have a real problem. ‘Cause something is going on. And we can’t put up with it, folks. …

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. … Where the hatred comes from and why — we’ll have to determine, we’re going to have to figure it out. We have to figure it out. We can’t live like this. It’s going to get worse and worse. You’re going to have more World Trade Centers. …”

Throughout the campaign, Trump supporters tried in vain to explain the so-called “Muslim ban” to a hostile media dead set on interpreting everything out of Trump’s mouth in the ugliest possible way. For example, our general policy on Muslim immigration would be “No, thanks!” but there would be exceptions. So Charles Krauthammer can stop worrying about King Abdullah of Jordan.

In March, Trump supporter Andy Dean told a dense CNN anchor:

“He’s talking about the culture of Islam in the Middle East. … We love Muslims in America and they love us. Why? We have a great culture that respects women’s rights. … The thing about Muslims in the Middle East is they don’t respect women’s rights. If a woman wants to get a divorce in the Middle East, that woman could be killed. If you want to leave the religion of Islam in the Middle East, you can be killed. It’s very real.”

To the same blockhead anchor, Trump supporter Kayleigh McEnany had to fill in an edited quote the network had just shown of Trump:

“It’s important to know what happened 15 seconds later. Anderson Cooper said to him, ‘Are you speaking of radical Islam or are you speaking of Islam?’ He said radical; sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference, though. So he did say radical Islam. He said it repeatedly during his campaign. He said, ‘I have Muslim friends. I love the Muslim people.’ …”

One of Trump’s vast number of African-American supporters told HLN’s Drew Pinksy:

“I love what (Trump) is doing with the Muslims getting out of the country, because if they really knew what that was about — if they knew that that was about freedom. It was about freedom versus enslavement.”

He’s right. It’s not about religion. It’s not about nationality. It’s about hitting the pause button on bringing in radical Islam’s dysfunctional, misogynist, violent, exploding-airplane culture.

The voters understood Trump. (At least some of us did — barely enough of us to elect him president!) Liberals didn’t. But now the courts are blocking Trump’s exercise of presidential powers based on the left’s own idiotic misinterpretations of what he said.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

This Weeks Ann Coulter Letter: To Say, ‘Stop Raping Me!’ In English, Press ‘1’ Now


Commentary by  Ann Coulter | Wednesday May 10, 2017 4:23 PM

URL of the original postings site: http://humanevents.com/2017/05/10/to-say-stop-raping-me-in-english-press-1-now/

(Please be advised that some of the language in this column may be offensive to readers.)

** ** **

The same media that slavishly ignored the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl by two illegal immigrants in Rockville, Maryland, spent last week crowing about the prosecutor’s refusal to bring charges. It turns out that illegal aliens gang-raping a 14-year-old girl in a bathroom stall is not a statutory rape because … the girl had previously sent one of her assailants prurient text messages.

Somebody better tell the college campuses.

Columbia University’s Mattress Girl, Emma Sulkowicz, became an international cause celebre after alleging rape against a fellow student to whom she’d sent dozens of desperate and salacious messages — including, most memorably, “f–k me in the butt,” and “I wuv you so much.”

She’d also had consensual sex with him several times, only one of which she deemed “rape.”

Sulkowicz’s “f–k me in the butt” texts were no impediment to her becoming the face of silenced rape victims on campus. She was sympathetically profiled everywhere; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand invited her to Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address; and she dragged a mattress around campus with her as her senior thesis project …

“… a succinct and powerful performance piece …” — The New York Times

“… like ‘The Vagina Monologues,’ only more subtle …” — Ann Coulter

In its lavish coverage of our brave mattress-toting heroine, the Times reminded readers: “False reports of rape are rare, many experts say.” In fact, according to the FBI, there are more false rape claims than false reports of any other crime.

That’s why normal people like to look at the facts. For example, how long did it take the alleged victim to report the rape? How sophisticated is she? Is the story plausible? Did the accuser have any other motive to cry rape? And is there any record of her begging the suspect to sodomize her?

Mattress Girl waited seven months to report her rape — even then, only to college administrators, not the police. In the intervening months, she strenuously, albeit unsuccessfully, pursued a relationship with her alleged rapist.

Rolling Stone’s “Jackie” never reported her apocryphal rape, explaining to The Washington Post that after allegedly being violently gang-raped, she was “unaware of the resources available to her.” (Heard of 911?)

By contrast, the 14-year-old girl in Maryland emerged from the bathroom stall and immediately reported her rape to the police.

According to the police report, she had run into her friend, 17-year-old Jose Montano, and his friend, 18-year-old Henry Sanchez-Milian, in a school hallway. (The 17- and 18-year-olds are both in the 9th grade. We really are getting the best illegal immigrants!) She knew Montano, but not Sanchez-Milian. Montano hugged her, slapped her buttocks and asked her to have sex with both men.

She says she said no — something generally missing from the corpus of cases making up the “campus rape epidemic.”

Montano and Sanchez-Milian then forced her into a boys’ bathroom, according to the report, where she grabbed the bathroom sink to stop them from dragging her into a stall, repeatedly saying “no.” In the stall, the illegals took turns holding her down, as they penetrated her orally, vaginally and anally. As she was screaming, they yelled at one another in Spanish.

Although there was no hard evidence, like the victim dragging a mattress around for a year, police investigators did find blood and semen in the bathroom stall.

If even one story on the left’s via dolorosa of campus rape had allegations like these, the accuser would be on a postage stamp, have laws named after her, and she’d be the one giving the State of the Union address. She’d be having lunch with Lena Dunham, Emma Watson would play her in the movie, and Lady Gaga would write a song about her.

Instead, because the accused rapists (“Dreamers,” as I call them) are illegal aliens, the media want to submit their names for sainthood. The prosecutor, Montgomery County State’s Attorney John McCarthy, wants to know how short the 14-year-old’s skirt was.

McCarthy dropped rape charges against both suspects, reportedly on the grounds that the girl had previously sent nude photos of herself to Montano. This, the prosecutor interpreted as consent to have multi-orifice sex in a bathroom stall with him, as well as any of his friends.

Can we get the pre-consent-by-text rule written into college guidelines on sexual assault?

However risque her texts were, can’t a girl change her mind? Evidently, she thought it was rape when she emerged from the bathroom, inasmuch as she promptly notified authorities. Isn’t it possible she also thought it was rape as it was happening, an hour or so earlier?

Mattress Girl was old enough to attend college, vote and buy a mattress, but it was rude to mention her text requests for anal sex and previous romps with the alleged rapist. Only when the accused is an illegal do the victim’s X-rated texts become binding consent to all forms of sex with the illegal — plus his friends.

There’s also the fact that she’s 14 years old! Her alleged rapists are 17 and 18. Under about 700 years of Anglo-Saxon law, that’s statutory rape. (Statute of Westminster of 1275.) Apparently, diversity — in addition to being a “strength” — requires us to jettison our statutory rape laws.

This is the case the media are howling with glee about — demanding that President Trump apologize for even mentioning it. The New York Times and Washington Post both editorialized about Trump’s “reflexive immigrant-bashing” -– after first telling their readers about the alleged rape that neither paper had bothered reporting when it happened.

CNN — which also didn’t mention the Rockville case until charges were dropped — is in a state of high dudgeon at Trump for citing the rape. Erin Burnett announced: “Tonight, the White House not backing down, refusing to retract its comments on an alleged rape case used — that they used as an example of why the United States should crack down on illegal immigration.” Correspondent Ryan Nobles raged that White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer referred to what happened to the 14-year-old girl as “tragedies like this.”

“Tragedies!” This milquetoast, boring American girl got to experience diversity, up close — vaginally, anally and orally — AND THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY CALLS THAT A “TRAGEDY”?

In multicultural America, sexually active college coeds are treated like naive 14-year-old girls, while naive 14-year-old girls are treated like hardened hussies — depending on who the accused rapist is. A “frat boy,” an athlete (black or white) or a white male: Always guilty, no due process allowed. Illegal aliens: She was asking for it.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: Not Building the Wall IS a Government Shutdown


Commentary by  Ann Coulter  | Wednesday Apr 26, 2017 6:24 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/04/26/not-building-the-wall-is-a-government-shutdown/

Fake News’ question of the week: Will Trump risk a government shutdown over the wall?

The media flip back and forth on who’s to blame for a government shutdown depending on which branch is controlled by Republicans. But the “shutdown” hypothetical in this case is a trick question.

A failure to build the wall IS a government shutdown.

Of course it would be unfortunate if schoolchildren couldn’t visit national parks and welfare checks didn’t get mailed on time. But arranging White House tours isn’t the primary function of the government. The government’s No. 1 job is to protect the nation.

This has always been true, but it’s especially important at this moment in history, when we have drugs, gang members, diseases and terrorists pouring across our border. The failure of the government to close our border is the definition of a government shutdown.

This isn’t like other shutdowns. Democrats can’t wail about Republicans cutting Social Security or school lunches. They are willing to shut the government down because they don’t want borders.

Take that to the country!

As commander in chief, Trump doesn’t need Congress to build a wall. The Constitution charges him with defending the nation. Contrary to what you may have heard from various warmongers on TV and in Trump’s Cabinet, that means defending our borders — not Ukraine’s borders.

Building a wall is not only Trump’s constitutional duty, but it’s also massively popular.

Although Trump doesn’t need congressional approval for a wall, it was smart for him to demand a vote. Let the Democrats run for re-election on opposing the wall.

 

> Let Sen. Claire McCaskill explain to the parents of kids killed by illegals that she thought a wall was inhumane.

> Let Sen. Angus King say to the people of Maine that instead of a wall that would block heroin from pouring into our country, he thought a better plan was to sponsor a bunch of treatment centers for after your kid is already addicted.

> Let Sen. Chuck Schumer tell us why it’s OK for Israel to have a wall, but not us.

> Let open borders Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio tell African-Americans that it’s more important to help illegal aliens than to help black American teenagers, currently suffering a crippling unemployment rate.

Republicans are both corrupt and stupid, so it’s hard to tell which one animates their opposition to the wall. But the Democrats are bluffing. They’re trying to get the GOP to fold before they show us their pair of threes.

Now that Trump has capitulated on even asking for funding for a wall, the Democrats are on their knees saying, “Thank you, God! Thank you, God!”

No politician wants to have to explain a vote against the wall. What the Democrats want is for Trump to be stuck explaining why he didn’t build the wall.

Then it will be a bloodbath. Not only Trump, but also the entire GOP, is dead if he doesn’t build a wall. Republicans will be wiped out in the midterms, Democrats will have a 300-seat House majority, and Trump will have to come up with an excuse for why he’s not running for re-election.

The New York Times and MSNBC are not going to say, “We are so impressed with his growth in office, we’re going to drop all that nonsense about Russia and endorse the Republican ticket!”

No, at that point, Trump will be the worst of everything.

No one voted for Trump because of the “Access Hollywood” tape. They voted for him because of his issues; most prominently, his promise to build “a big beautiful wall.” And who’s going to pay for it? MEXICO!

You can’t say that at every campaign rally for 18 months and then not build a wall.

Do not imagine that a Trump double-cross on the wall will not destroy the Republican Party. Oh, we’ll get them back. No, you won’t. Trump wasn’t a distraction: He was the last chance to save the GOP.

Millions of Americans who hadn’t voted in 30 years came out in 2016 to vote for Trump. If he betrays them, they’ll say, “You see? I told you. They’re all crooks.”

No excuses will work. No fiery denunciations of the courts, the Democrats or La Raza will win them back, even if Trump comes up with demeaning Twitter names for them. It would be an epic betrayal — worse than Bush betraying voters on “no new taxes.” Worse than LBJ escalating the Vietnam War. There would be nothing like it in the history of politics.

He’s the commander in chief! He said he’d build a wall. If he can’t do that, Trump is finished, the Republican Party is finished, and the country is finished.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s TOW Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Mr. Trump, Tear Down This Wall!

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/04/27/mr-trump-tear-wall/#4JRYSEQv7mURKPoo.99

The Current tax code is a “Yhuge” obstacle to economic growth and prosperity. Trumps tax plan would “tear down this wall”.

Trump Tax Plan / Cartoon A.F. Branco ©2017.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

At A Campus Near You

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/04/27/at-a-campus-near-you/#B735kIQ7Y1W1eBiR.99

Ann Coulter will not speak at UC Berkeley. AntiFa (The Left) has again been successful in silencing the conservative voice.

Ann Coulter At Berkeley / Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud