Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘op-ed’

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!”

Jason Whitlock Op-ed: Bill Maher and the left’s house of Trump cards teeters at the brink of collapse


Commentary by JASON WHITLOCK | August 23, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/whitlock-bill-maher-and-the-lefts-house-of-trump-cards-teeters-at-the-brink-of-collapse/

Bill Maher is lying. To his audience. And to himself.

He’s no longer a loyal Democrat. He’s anti-Trump. And his enthusiasm for Trump resistance is rapidly waning.

The liberal comedian’s HBO talk show, “Real Time with Bill Maher,” has turned into a weekly ray of hope for those of us praying America snaps out of its left-wing fascism revolution.

Every Friday night, it seems, Maher finds a way to trash the woke, and every Saturday morning across social media platforms, conservatives gleefully share his most recent rebuke of the left.

The latest episode of his show convinced me that Maher has been red-pilled and that former President Donald Trump is the sole reason Maher won’t admit it. Trump is the only thing holding together the Democratic Party. He fig-leafs progressive insanity.

On Friday, Maher opened his panel discussion addressing the Biden administration’s catastrophic handling of our withdrawal from Afghanistan. Maher trashed Trump and then declared that the former president couldn’t have made a bigger mess than the current one.

Panelist Jackie Calmes, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, vapidly responded:

“You know how you always say, ‘I can’t believe Trump did that.’ Nothing he did would make you think he’d hit bottom, and then … Well, it could be worse.”

That should be the slogan of the Democratic Party: “It could be worse.”

To his credit, Maher pushed back and demanded that Calmes explain how things could be worse. She had no answer. She backpedaled, claiming she wasn’t trying to defend the Biden administration.

The left is a house of Trump cards. Remove Trump and the progressive movement immediately collapses beneath the weight of its bulls**t. Remove Trump and the left can’t defend the authoritarian actions it’s taking to overhaul America’s cultural norms.

Without Trump, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter’s Jack Dorsey would be viewed as treasonous villains for their censorship of free speech. Trump resistance justifies infringement of the Constitution’s First Amendment. Big Tech, especially smartphones, has too much influence over American society. On Friday, Maher ended his show explaining the negative impact of our cellular devices. Maher understands that smartphones and social media apps are disconnecting and dividing us.

Trump resistance is the lone catalyst and justification for corporate media framing the events at the Capitol on Jan. 6 as an “insurrection.” The insurrection is the Big Lie. No one authentically believes you can overthrow the government with flagpoles, moose heads, and zip ties. The Taliban staged an insurrection in Afghanistan. Trump supporters staged an unruly, criminal protest that never reached the level of violence seen at a typical Antifa or Black Lives Matter protest.

Without Trump, the left would have to vigorously defend its contention that men can be “birthing people.” It would also be forced to defend allowing biological men to compete against women in sports.

Would America’s laissez-faire policy at our southern border exist without Trump? Our immigration policy makes no sense. It can’t be defended. It doesn’t serve the greater good of our country. It is as big a mess as Afghanistan. We’re allowing illegal immigrants to flood our country simply because doing so is anti-Trump.

Critical race theory depends on Trump resistance for legitimacy. It can’t survive scrutiny and analysis. On Friday, Maher and his interview guest, gay conservative writer Andrew Sullivan, mocked the New York Times 1619 Project and complained that the left has moved away from the goal of a color-blind society.

You should watch Friday’s show. It was amazing. Maher flirted with multiple third rails, including suggesting that vaccines and masks shouldn’t be regarded as a more important response to COVID than exercise, losing weight, and a healthy diet.

Watching Maher on Friday made me ponder what the world would be like if Trump abandoned politics. Would it hasten the collapse of the fascist left? If you removed the Trump card, would it force the fake leftists to confront the fraudulence of the rest of the progressives’ hand?

I believe, at this point, the majority of leftists are fake. Black people, the house pets of liberals, are required to hate Trump and all conservatives. Gangbangers and drug dealers command more respect in the black community than black Trump supporters.

There’s nearly as much pressure on white people. Who wants the baggage of being assumed racist for espousing conservative beliefs? Disavow Trump and supporting leftist policy protects you from accusations of homophobia, racism, and misogyny. Pretending to be a Democrat exempts you from being held accountable for any violations of political correctness. Late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel co-hosted “The Man Show” and performed in blackface. He’s in good standing. Meanwhile, “Jeopardy” just canceled its brand-new host because of things he said on a podcast no one listened to 10 years ago.

Maher recognizes this hypocrisy. And he likely knows that he would be canceled, too, if he didn’t keep up the charade of being a loyal Democrat and devout Trump hater.

Trump hate is the Democratic platform. It justifies Afghanistan, the border, 20 new genders, censorship, critical racism theory, mandating experimental vaccines, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Sometimes I think Trump has proven his point. He awakened the public to the swamp, the financial alliance among global corporations, political elites, and America’s adversaries.

Does he have more to offer? Or is he now an impediment, a blinding force that stops well-intentioned people from seeing the damage the other side is doing to America?

Could Trump save America by stepping aside and fully exposing the lunacy of the Left?

What I’m suggesting reminds me of the strategy that civil rights workers used to defeat segregationists. Bible-carrying men and women put on their Sunday-best clothes and let photographers and cameramen document the behavior of bigots. The images won the civil rights movement. Compelling liberals to defend their agenda without their trusty Trump card would unmask their wickedness.

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.

Jason Whitlock Op-ed: Whitlock: US Olympic relay failure exposes the bigger problem undermining the success of black men


Commentary by JASON WHITLOCK | August 05, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/whitlock-us-olympic-relay-failure-exposes-the-bigger-problem-undermining-the-success-of-black-men/

U.S. men’s 4 x 100 relay finishes sixth in qualifying heat. (Photo by David Ramos/Getty Images)

The Olympic 4 x 100 relay is racist. That’s the only logical explanation for the embarrassing performance of the United States men’s relay team last night and over the past two decades. We can’t do it. We certainly couldn’t do it last night. And we’ve struggled doing it for the past 20 years.

In a qualifying heat at the Tokyo Games, Team USA finished sixth, behind China, Canada, Italy, Germany, and Ghana. It’s impossible to make the relay final from sixth place in a heat. The United States won’t be winning any sort of medal in an event we absolutely dominated until the race turned racist after our 2000 title at the Sydney Games.

Up until 2004, Team USA had won the gold in 15 of the 20 4 x 100 relays held in Olympic history. We owned the track and virtually all the sprints. We flashed our God-given gifts, our work ethic, and our ability to work as a team for the greater good. It was a showcase of black American excellence. Bob Hayes, Jim Hines, Carl Lewis, and Maurice Greene took the baton symbolically handed to them by Jesse Owens and represented this country at the highest level.

Then something very disturbing happened at the 2004 Olympics. Systemic racism started easing its way into the event at the Athens Games. America finished second in Greece.

Ibram X. Kendi argues the systemic relay racism was always there. But it wasn’t until 2008 that black Twitter and ESPN pointed out that the Proud Boys, Trump supporters, and right-wing insurrectionists began manipulating the relay batons and the baton exchange zones. This manipulation made it impossible for black American men to excel in track and field’s premier relay event. America has not won a single medal in the relay since white bigots took control of the relay.

OK, I’m being sarcastic. Systemic racism has nothing to do with the two-decades-long failure of our once-dominant relay team. Systemic dysfunction actually explains the failure. What we witnessed last night is a symptom of a larger problem we in black America are loath to discuss. Rather than having uncomfortable conversations with white people, we need to have uncomfortable conversations amongst ourselves concerning the fact that black men don’t function well together. It’s obvious to everyone else. We’re the only people who refuse to talk about it. We just hope the Crips and Bloods get old and retire. We think our kids will learn to resolve conflict without resorting to violence when white liberals decide to teach us other options. If we ignore our dysfunction long enough, it will go away.

That kind of wishful thinking led to last night’s relay fiasco. What transpired last night surprised no one paying attention. It’s the equivalent of feigning disbelief on a Monday morning when you learn of how many black men or boys were gunned down over a weekend in Chicago, or Baltimore, or Indianapolis, or New York City. Black male dysfunction is expected.

Hours before the qualifying heat, the Washington Post published a long piece detailing the relay team’s baton issues. The piece was titled, “Medal or nothing: U.S. men’s sprinters have a handoff problem.” The story reads as prophecy.

Last night, U.S. sprinters Ronnie Baker and Fred Kerley struggled mightily to complete the second baton exchange. It took three attempts. By the time it was completed, Baker and Kerley were side by side and Kerley was at a relative standstill. Anchorman Cravon Gillespie briefly climbed to third place and then faded badly as he began to look around at his competitors. Reaction to the collapse was swift and angry.

“The USA team did everything wrong in the men’s relay,” Carl Lewis complained via Twitter. “The passing system is wrong, athletes running the wrong legs, and it was clear that there was no leadership. It was a total embarrassment, and completely unacceptable for a USA team to look worse than the AAU kids I saw.”

We got smoked by China. Not a Jamaican team led by Usain Bolt. China won the heat. Germany beat us. Ghana beat us. Ghana advanced to the final. Ghana apparently doesn’t give a damn about the Proud Boys and the insurrectionists. We can’t use COVID protocols as an excuse. All the other countries have had limited practices because of the pandemic. You can’t cover up 20 years of failure with excuses.

I know I keep making sarcastic jokes about racism. I’m doing it because the most damaging racism impacting black people today is the use of racism to eliminate accountability and responsibility for black men. Our sprinters are irresponsible because we fail to hold them accountable for their failure.

Black people across the globe immigrate to America and achieve their dreams because they embrace a far different mentality than what’s cultivated in black American culture. Black sprinters in Ghana, Jamaica, Canada, and everywhere else don’t have the kind of baton problems we have.

We can’t work together. What happened?

When you’re raised in family dysfunction, that dysfunction follows you for life, especially when you never acknowledge it, pretend it never existed, or believe it’s white people’s responsibility to address it or adjust to your dysfunction.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with black people. The problem is culture. We’ve embraced a culture that undermines our success. We’ve been programmed to believe our actions don’t really determine our destiny. The actions of white people are all that matter. This worldview eliminates accountability and empowers irresponsibility.

Re-watch the 4 X 100 relay qualifier. Maybe one member of the Chinese relay is good enough to make our relay team. But China smoked us. How? Why? It’s not talent. It’s culture. It’s an inability to set egos aside and work together in a cohesive fashion.

Let’s say white people pitted us against each other. Let’s say it started in slavery. No problem. I agree it happened. I also think it’s insanely foolish to expect white people to fix it. It’s not going to happen. It’s no different from a man breaking your leg in a fight and expecting him to do the rehabilitation. Only you can do the rehab.

Black men, we have a culture problem. What are we going to do about it?

Our silence is violence.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Parenthood Has Driven Our Policy Elite Mad


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 04, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/08/04/parenthood-has-driven-our-policy-elite-mad—p–n2593603/

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

Parenthood Has Driven Our Policy Elite Mad

Source: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

There’s a disturbing trend among post-Trump populists to think that just because they’ve rejected the old GOP ideas about tax cuts and permanent war, they should also reject standard GOP ideas about big government social engineering projects. Currently, the most embarrassing of the allegedly populist right-wing enthusiasms is the pro-natalist position. The idea, in a nutshell, is that family formation is good for society, so why not create government programs that encourage family formation?

The main way the government could do that is by eliminating 90 percent of itself, but that’s not in the cards. So instead, Sens. Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio, The New York Times’ Ross Douthat, and “Hillbilly Elegy” author J.D. Vance, among others, want to pay women to have children. Vance recently suggested giving parents extra votes for each of their children, which I’m hoping was just a brilliant satire of political pandering. A slew of populist-conservative male icons, like Gavin McInnes and Mike Cernovich, are constantly haranguing young men to “put a ring on it” and start popping out kids.

One is left with the strong impression that these marriage and child boosters are people who are sorry they got married and had kids, so they have to turn their life’s greatest regret into the equivalent of landing at Normandy.

Human reproduction doesn’t require a P.R. team. Who would think that activities humans have engaged in for millennia require government incentives, except the unhappily married or those who consider heterosexual sex a horrible drudgery?

What was the worst calamity ever to befall this country? Nope, not the 1965 immigration act, but that’s a good guess. Not World War II or 9/11, terrible though those were. Not even the Jan. 6 ATTACK ON THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF OUR COUNTRY — NAY! DEMOCRACY ITSELF!

It was the government paying women to have kids.

During the most destructive period in American history, the rollout of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs, the federal government thought it would be a peachy idea to pay women to have babies. You’ll never guess what happened next!

Lots and lots of women started having babies — at a clip that didn’t allow time for acquiring a husband first.

Within a decade, the world had gone to hell, taking the black family down with it. While many blamed the implosion of the black family on African customs, slavery, the Middle Passage, Jim Crow and so on, a black demographer at the Rockefeller Foundation, Erol Ricketts, looked at the evidence.

It turned out the black family was thriving until the What-Could-Go-Wrong? Great Society programs of the 1960s. Based on nearly a century of U.S. Census reports, Ricketts found that between 1890 and 1950, black Americans married at higher rates than whites. (You’ll find this and other amazing facts in “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama.”)

The marriage rate for black women fell below 70 percent for the first time in 1970.

Today, we’d hold ticker-tape parades if 70 percent of black kids were being raised in intact families.

Why do some conservatives think we should do more of the exact thing that destroyed the black family — and did a number on all American families? The opposite of “Establishment Republican” shouldn’t be “moron.”

We’re told that tax credits, payments, subsidies — extra votes! — for having kids is “pro-family.” You know what’s “pro-family”? Life is pro-family. Any government intervention repeals the natural consequences of life, and is, therefore, anti-family.

But if we’re too afraid to let life take its course and want a government program to give us happy families, how about 30-to-life for adultery and divorce? Sending out a government check to those who manage the amazing feat of human reproduction is simultaneously dysgenic and small-bore.

Back in the 1960s, conservatives could only predict disaster from these allegedly pro-child policies. By now, we’ve been running the experiment for more than a half-century. We’re living the disaster. Paying women to have kids actively destroys families, which I believe is the opposite of “pro-family.”

Incidentally, the “pro-family” line is the exact same con open-borders Republicans ran on Christian groups when promoting “family reunification” policies in the 1990s, allowing endless waves of immigrants’ extended families to relocate to the U.S. and outvote the Christians. Whenever you hear about some great new government program that’s “pro-family,” reach for your gun.

National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru claims that paying women to have kids is less a government intrusion than “a way of helping them to live out what they already want.” In surveys, it seems, American women say they want more kids than they ultimately end up having.

This is why researchers distinguish between “stated preference” and “revealed preference.” For example, I think the ideal number of times to have fish every week is: two. But the number of times I actually eat fish each week is: zero. Please, conservatives, don’t help me by subsidizing fish.

It is simply asserted that it’s a terrible thing for a nation’s birthrate to fall below replacement level. But the only concrete downside to a declining birthrate is that the Social Security system will collapse without a never-ending supply of younger workers to fund it. Apparently, the government lied to us about a Social Security Trust Fund, and now the till is dry, requiring a constant influx of withholding taxes to keep the system afloat.

That’s a great way to govern: Create a new government program to paper over the failure of an earlier government program!

As a matter of psychology, it’s probably true that a people who are pessimistic about the future of their country won’t be keen on having a lot of kids. But the solution to that is to fix the country, not to pay people to simulate one single behavioral characteristic of optimists.

Wallace B. Henley Op-ed: The dangerous lure of power in times like these


Commentary By Wallace B. Henley, Exclusive Columnist| Wednesday, August 04, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/voices/the-dangerous-lure-of-power-in-times-like-these.html/

Wallace Henley
Wallace Henley, former Senior Associate Pastor of 2nd Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. | Photo by Scott Belin

The present crisis in the United States is worse than most realize.

There is a troubling dynamic that works subtly in nations passing through critical eras: The more intense the crisis the greater the lure of power.

The dangers of our time loom on every horizon — spiritual, political, economic, social, cultural. We face in these times corruption in churches, pandemic, disintegration of society, ever-widening division in the nation, shattering of moral boundaries, dissolution of family, uncertain leadership, intensifying lawlessness, perversion of education … the list could go on. Add global threats squeezing in from every direction and an immigration crisis of unprecedented proportions.

“We have to do something about all this!” goes the urgent cry in governing institutions from the White House to the congressional house to the state house to the county seat to the city hall to the town hall.

And that’s when the lure of power and the loss of freedom begins creeping through the land.

Extreme measures are needed for extreme times goes the rationale. Of such panic dictatorships emerge, tyrannies arouse, and freedoms are lost.

Obviously, we need strong leadership in times like these. However, the stronger the leader the more important he or she understand the differences between power and authority.

George Washington got it.

John Adams wanted America’s chief executive to be called one of the following: His Highness, the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the Same, or His Elective Majesty, or even His Mightiness.

George Washington was concerned that Americans know they were not getting a monarch, but a leader who could be turned out at the will of the people, and who understood that he had not been elevated to office because he had a right to it, but because he was a servant of the people.

Washington was a no-frills person, and let it be known that “President of the United States” would be the title he and his successors would carry.

In our time, especially with the rise of the megachurch, there are in some places imperial pastors who are untouchable and deck themselves with lavish titles. They, as well as power-grabbing leaders in all spheres, understand the wiles of power but little about the biblical revelation concerning true authority:

  • Authority is granted from the higher to the lower; power is seized by the strongest
  • Authority is accountable to its transcendent source; power is accountable only to itself
  • Authority is sustained through loving relationship and service; power is sustained by raw strength
  • Authority leads through example and the free choice of those who are led; power controls through manipulation, intimidation, condemnation, domination.[1]

King Saul violated all these principles. During a strategic battle between Israel and the Philistines, Saul was at Gilgal, eagerly awaiting news of the outcome. Finally, his impatience took over. Saul arrogantly assumed that his position meant he could step into the office of Priest, which was occupied by Samuel. But Samuel was not present, and so Saul ordered the sacrifices. This hubristic presumptive action ultimately cost Saul his kingdom. (See 1 Samuel 13).

Our times certainly call for strong, decisive leadership. But the men and women in those roles must understand the ominous lure of power in dangerous periods.

Like Calvin Coolidge.

Just six years before Coolidge came to the presidency communists seized power in Russia. Western leftists watched eagerly for the implementation of socialism in the hopes that Europe and the United States would embrace or be forced into acceptance of the philosophy. (That effort goes on now).

Coolidge saw through it all. As a U.S. senator prior to becoming vice president and then president, Coolidge was called upon to help settle a bitter strike. Even after the issues were settled, he was concerned by the “violence and cynicism” he had noted on the part of the strikers.

In fact, “silent Cal” was “exasperated.” He wrote his stepmother a letter expressing concerns sharply relevant for today: “The leaders [of the strike] are socialists and anarchists, and they do not want anybody to work for wages. The trouble is not with the amount of wages; it is a small attempt to destroy all authority, whether of any church or government.”[2]

Coolidge was one of those enigmatic presidents who appear at the right time at the right place for right reasons. It was possible for people like Coolidge to rise to the presidency because of the nation’s core worldview.

G.K. Chesterton, the 20th century British journalist and author, was asked, “What is America?”

He replied that America is a nation with the soul of a church … the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed … set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence. …  It certainly does condemn anarchism, and it does also by inference condemn atheism, since it clearly names the Creator as the ultimate authority from whom these equal rights are derived.[3]

Therefore, “powers” can only be exercised under proper authority, flowing from God to the people, and through them to the government they choose, all “under God.” This is a major shift in governing style that had dominated six thousand years of recorded history.

It is vital in times of intense crisis that we and our leaders not forget the kind of nation we are and have been at our best in the worst of times.

That will save us from the lure of power and its distortions.

[1] I am indebted to Dudley Hall, an insightful Bible teacher and dear friend, for the four categories of control employed by raw power listed here.

[2] Shlaes, 115-116.

[3] Raymond T. Bond (ed.), The Man Who Was Chesterton (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1960), 125.

Wallace B. Henley’s fifty-year career has spanned newspaper journalism, government in both White House and Congress, the church, and academia. He is author or co-author of more than 20 books. He is a teaching pastor at Grace Church, the Woodlands, Texas.

For media inquiries, contact:  ChristianPost@pinkston.co

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!

Wallace B. Henley Op-ed: Re-imagining America: So, this is what it looks like? (pt 1)


Commentary By Wallace B. Henley, Exclusive Columnist | Wednesday, July 14, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/re-imagining-america-so-this-is-what-it-looks-like.html/

One day in the 1980s I drove along a frenetic Houston freeway listening to talk radio frenzy. Gabbers went over again and again how America Is changing for the worse.

Wallace Henley
Wallace Henley, former Senior Associate Pastor of 2nd Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. | Photo by Scott Belin

I was coming from a meeting where I had watched an in-your-face media presentation about the way our civilization is collapsing. And I wondered: When will be the climactic moment of this change—or “re-imagining” as some call it now?

More important: What will the new nation look like?

Mark Steyn, in a recent speech at Hillsdale College, pondered the same question. To some extent he answered it in the title of his speech: “Our Increasingly Unrecognizable Civilization”.

Steyn recalled a starry-eyed commencement speech John Kerry gave on the graduation circuit years ago. The former Vietnam veteran, presidential candidate, senator, and secretary of state told the students: “You are going to be the first generation to live in a borderless world.”

And therein lie some of the causative factors of America’s identity crisis.

Borders are definitive, be they sexual and moral boundaries, political or national borders, or the great spiritual wall denoting good from evil. Even the line of our profile distinguishes us from others.  

To paraphrase the Apostle Paul in his Second Letter to the Thessalonians, when the “restrainer” who establishes and sustains protective bulwarks is removed, lawlessness bursts in and wreaks havoc at its chaotic worst.

And so, the insanity of Portland, Minneapolis, Chicago, New York and other cities as mobs rampage while police departments are defunded, religion discredited, and voters keep electing the same people who build policy on the myth that the less restraint there is the better people will behave.

Intense change has been pressing in on America and the West for a long time. It starts out by degrees, then intensifies to what I called in one of my books, a “Globequake.”

One of the ways we mark the degrees of alteration in national identity is by contemplating the music of given eras.

Elvis became the image of change in America in the 1950s as the minstrel of the age. Back there in the pre-Elvis past was the big band music of the 1940s. Waiting behind the wall of the future were Peter, Paul, and Mary. And out there ahead of that trio was Bob Dylan, itching to tell us straight-out: “The Times, They Are A-Changin’.”

Bob Dylan was the hard-news guy, but Peter, Paul, and Mary were the romantic idealists… the dreamers who stirred us with the need to “re-imagine”—a word not part of the casual lingo of their time, but a buzzword now.

In the fullness of time came John Lennon, who put the “imagine”-word and concept right under our ears with his song, “Imagine.”

There he beckoned us to imagine a world of no heaven, hell, countries, religion, or possessions, among other things.

However, as we approached the 21st century I wondered if the “times” would continue to be ‘a-changin’, or would our nation and civilization reach the end toward which all those changes were moving us, like the Niagara River inevitably carrying everything to and over the Falls.

What would the “re-imagined” country look like? Everything Lennon wanted to get rid of constitutes a vital boundary. Unless there is some restraint, Lennon’s world would be in a state of perma-chaos—a hellish anti-civilization characterized by antinomianism, a hatred of law.

In fact, Jesus had long ago prophesied that the end-times would be characterized by the “increase” of lawlessness. (Matthew 24:12)

The Bible’s prophetic and historic passages reveal that the fundamental struggle in the fallen world is between chaos and cosmos.

Chaos is the goal of Lucifer. Its aim is de-creation, taking apart what God has put together. Critical Race Theory and similar exercises of the Woke movement show that dividing ethnic races and other categories of humanity constitute a major ploy in the fragmentation of human beings, separating people from God, themselves, and one another. Chaos is rending disorder, the ugly snarl of evil.

Cosmos is God’s order. But it is not the harsh mandate handed down by a cruel despot, or constricting legalism. Rather, as Romans 14:17 describes it, cosmos is the order of righteousness and justice, peace, and Spirit-given joy. It is the order manifested in the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. (Galatians 5:20-23).

Such beauty compels British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to call Christianity “a superb ethical system,” and to lament that he considers himself “as a kind of very very bad Christian.”

So how does the “re-imagined” America look after the rejection of this “superb ethical system” by elite establishments, and decades of manipulation, titillation, experimentation, and alteration?

Chaotic, that’s how.

“It is always hard to see the purpose in wilderness wanderings until after they are over,” wrote John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim’s Progress.

So, the big question now is this: “Is the ‘end’ near… or has the journey at least reached a point from which we can look back and see the whole of where we have been and a glance at the future towards which we are moving, and what we ought to do?

We will take a closer look at the nature of this chaos and its impact on us, our families, and institutions in Part II. In Part III we project what the future might hold, and, most important, the Bible’s guidance for us “pilgrims” (apologies to John Bunyan).

ABOUT THE COMMENTATOR:

Wallace B. Henley’s fifty-year career has spanned newspaper journalism, government in both White House and Congress, the church, and academia. He is author or co-author of more than 20 books. He is a teaching pastor at Grace Church, the Woodlands, Texas.

For media inquiries, contact:  ChristianPost@pinkston.co

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.


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.”

Jason Whitlock Op-ed: Faith conquers fear, powers the American dream, and fuels my Blaze Media project


Commentary by JASON WHITLOCK | June 08, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/whitlock-faith-conquers-fear-powers-the-american-dream-and-fuels-my-blaze-media-project/

In the absence of religious faith, fear reigns and freedom recedes.

Discerning the origin of the current, fear-based American social climate is not difficult. Don’t blame scientists in China for releasing the angst virus assaulting traditional American liberties. Blame the tech engineers operating in Silicon Valley laboratories. They invented the social media apps that amplify fear and empower “cancel culture,” the nuclear weapons dislodging America from its Judeo-Christian values.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter’s Jack Dorsey are Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Douglas S. MacArthur ending America’s 60-year culture war with an unparalleled bombing campaign. What started with President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society initiative is closing with repression of speech, corporate media propaganda, and an evisceration of America’s Judeo-Christian ethos.

Facebook and Twitter finished the mission of turning America secular, godless, and shamelessly immoral. The apps allegedly intended to bring us together have torn us apart. We should not be surprised. The apps urge self-worship, celebrity worship, and consumerism, which lead to hedonism, idolatry, and materialism. A secular society always produces chaos and division.

Photo courtesy Jason Whitlock

Branded as racists, Uncle Toms, coons, homophobes, transphobes, hypocrites, and misogynists, American Christians fear publicly identifying themselves by their faith. They’ve placed their political identity and racial identity above their religious identity. They’re conservatives. Or Republicans. Or nationalists, both white and black. Or libertarians. Or liberals. Or social justice activists. Or, worse, Trump supporters and Trump resisters.

They avoid saying the name that made John Brown and Frederick Douglass abolitionists, compelled Thomas Jefferson to write that “all men are created equal,” comforted Union soldiers during the Civil War, and inspired Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream. They avoid directly referring to the name that made America great in the first place, the name that forced us to overcome our superficial differences and transform those differences into our greatest strength.

Jesus.

He’s been canceled, crucified by a toxic secular culture that bullies His believers with threats to expose their sins on the Satan-con Valley social media platforms and/or the Satan-con Valley-catering corporate media outlets.

Photo courtesy Jason Whitlock. Jason Whitlock (left) and his brother James (right) sit together on Easter Sunday in 1974.

Fear is the enemy of truth, freedom, and the American dream.

I signed a contract to partner with Blaze Media on a digital media project dedicated to pushing back against the corporate-supported, systematic effort to undermine America through racial division and fear. I joined Blaze Media because I wanted to partner with people who wouldn’t look at me funny when I referred to Jesus as part of my journalistic worldview and platform. I joined Blaze Media because Glenn Beck smiled when I said Jesus is the only solution for what ails America, because Steve Deace wears his faith publicly, and so do Phil Robertson, Allie Beth Stuckey, and others.

I am not a sports journalist-turned-preacher. I’m not a finger-wagging hypocrite looking down on the people who don’t share my beliefs. I’m a sinner. I’m the same guy who wrote hilarious Pussy Galore columns for Fox Sports, the same guy who used to waste his time and money drinking and carousing inside the Spearmint Rhino in Las Vegas, Tootsie’s in Miami, Diamond Joe’s in Kansas City, and Magic City in Atlanta.

I’m someone who knows that in order for me to make better decisions — in all aspects of my life — I need Jesus. I’m someone who recognizes that any success I’ve achieved in a 30-year career is a byproduct of the values my grandmother, a tiny church in Indianapolis, my parents, and my siblings instilled in me as a young boy. My testimony is amazing. It’s further evidence of the power of faith and the availability of the American dream.

My brand and approach to journalism and broadcasting are fearless. My courage is rooted in faith.

Photo courtesy Jason Whitlock

Fear is destroying America. It locked us in our homes, forced us to cover our faces, and forbade us to worship together for more than a year. It stole freedoms we took for granted. It allowed Colin Kaepernick to polarize our national anthem. It turned rare incidents of deadly police misconduct into a fictional genocidal pandemic. It spawned race hoaxes and a generation of race-baiting grifters. It diminished sports’ ability to unify.

That’s why we are launching the Fearless platform, which will start with my show, “Fearless with Jason Whitlock,” and a second podcast showcasing my friendship with my right-hand man, “Uncle Jimmy” (Dodds), and will eventually include a Fearless writing vertical.

We’re going to fight back. We’re going to be the abolitionists of fear. From my new hometown of Nashville, Tennessee, we’re joining hands with Beck, Deace, Robertson, Mark Levin, Steven Crowder, Dave Rubin, Allie Beth Stuckey, and the rest of Blaze Media to stand as an example of what Americans can accomplish when we put our differences aside and work together.

On the surface, Fearless will look a little different from the rest of the Blaze Media family. But our love of country will be just as strong, our appreciation for this nation’s founding documents just as sincere, and our search for liberating truths just as intense.

The 400-year African American journey is this nation’s most compelling and powerful narrative. It’s proof the American dream is real and attainable. That’s why our adversaries abroad and within are perverting, manipulating, and weaponizing the African American narrative. Black Americans’ fight for freedom made the United States live up to the ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence — the equality of man and unalienable rights bestowed by our Creator.

Our relentless pursuit of freedom was the iron that sharpened American iron.

The Chinese Communist Party knows this. The revolutionaries in Satan-con Valley know this. The editors at the New York Times know this. The trained, self-described Marxists who founded Black Lives Matter know this.

In order to destroy America, you must cripple belief in the rags-to-riches American dream and the conviction that America is a force for good. Reshaping the African American narrative into a journey that damns this nation — rather than one that illuminates our unprecedented resolve to do better — hastens our decline.

The black journey fueled American exceptionalism. The elite architects of chaos cleverly and covertly attack this obvious truth.

“Black Twitter” is not an organic construct. It’s a social media algorithm designed to paint any truth-speaking public figure as a racist or a race traitor. The New York Times’ 1619 Project isn’t journalism. It’s the companion of academia’s virus, critical race theory, propaganda designed to foster racial animus and erode black patriotism. Black Lives Matter isn’t concerned with the welfare of black men. It’s a fundraising arm of the Democratic Party and a lobbyist for the LGBTQ agenda.

The racial conflict BLM, Antifa, and social media influencers promote smokescreens a far more insidious plot — the plot to cancel Jesus and impose a cultural Marxism on the United States. Global elites prefer China’s system of authoritarian governance and worker exploitation. Backers of the Great Reset and Build Back Better prefer that America function the way China does. Jesus and communism cannot coexist. Karl Marx, the father of Marxism and the proponent of communism, explained that in his political theory.

The racial smokescreen is working. We’re losing the faux race war and surrendering the freedoms that made America the envy of the world.

We’re losing because we’ve sidelined our best soldier — Jesus. The original combatants of the Civil War drew on Jesus as their primary power source. Have you ever studied the lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic?

Here’s my favorite passage:

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was borne across the sea
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me
As he died to make men holy let us die to make men free
His truth is marching on
Glory, glory hallelujah

Julia Ward Howe, a white abolitionist, wrote those words in 1861. The words spurred men to sacrifice their lives for the freedom of others. Mine eyes have seen the glory of what Americans can accomplish when we come together as one nation under God, when we conquer our fears.

Your sin does not nullify your Christianity. It justifies it. Let go of that fear. Your sins, no matter what they are, do not prohibit you from speaking truth, standing on biblical principles, and being heard.

The enemies of truth, the elites rewriting history and redefining American freedom, are not silent or scared. Their immorality (sin) emboldens them. Our sin silences us. Not any more. Not if I can help it.

The mission statement of the Fearless Project is simple: We’re a digital media platform dedicated to promoting a culture of fearlessness, free speech, truth-seeking, and American patriotism. We will accomplish our mission by critiquing, lampooning, and probing the events shaping conversations around sports, race, and popular culture.

You will not have to believe what I believe to enjoy and benefit from “Fearless.” That’s the gift of a Judeo-Christian culture. It works to ensure that non-believers receive the same opportunity to pursue their dreams as everyone else.

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: 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: 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.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: What Now?


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Nov 04, 2020 5:33 PM

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

What Now?

Source: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Trending

This may be the strangest election in history in that there is no evidence that any sizable group of people want Biden for president.

It’s his fourth time running for that office. This year, Biden lost three primaries in a row, coming in fourth in the Iowa caucus, fifth in New Hampshire a distant second in Nevada. At the end of February, he had accumulated a paltry 14 delegates — compared to 45 for Bernie Sanders and 26 for Pete Buttigieg.

Then James Clyburn said, Vote for Biden and African Americans in South Carolina voted for Biden. (Although the black vote is NOT monolithic, they decided to make an exception this one time and vote monolithically.)

Democrats never looked back.

Biden has nothing going for him — no constituency, no fanatical supporters, just a career in politics that stretches back 50 years.

Bill Clinton had Southern Democrats and baby boomers. Gore had the global warming zealots. George Bush had conservative Christians and Texans. Even Hillary had fanatical supporters. Remember the PUMAs (Party Unity My A$$)? How about the weeping loons at the Javits Center on election night 2016?

Will anyone weep that Biden lost? No, they’ll weep because Trump won. Yes, much of Trump’s vote hated Hillary, but surely at least 70 percent of them actually supported Trump. Ninety-nine percent of Biden’s vote is: “I Hate Trump.”

How did Joe Biden become the nominee? Because he was the candidate most acceptable to black people. Why? Because he was Obama’s vice president. There’s a coalition built on rock.

Combine the empty suit from Delaware with Kamala Harris, who was polling at about two percent among Democrats before she dropped out of the primaries. Harris added nothing to the ticket — except Biden’s ridiculously narrow, self-imposed requirement that his vice president be a woman of color.

Unfortunately for him, there just aren’t a lot of massively impressive black women who are elected Democrats right now. Barbara Jordan is dead. Shirley Chisholm is dead. Either of them would have been chosen over Kamala.

When Harris’ campaign crashed and burned, I thought I’d embarrassed myself by predicting she would be the Democrats’ 2020 presidential nominee back in 2016 before I’d ever heard her speak — before she’d even won her Senate race.

But on this, I was right: She strokes all the media’s erogenous zones.

— She’s got the Hollywood glamour!

Why, I think she’s even better looking than Michelle Obama! Not as gorgeous as Beyonce, but beauty like THAT only happens once a century.

(Harris will be in a dozen Vogue fashion shoots.)

— She’s so cool!

She wears sneakers, and cited Tupac as the “best rapper alive.” (Wait, what? Oh, we didn’t know Tupac was murdered in Las Vegas 20 years ago, either.)

— She’s presentable in Hollywood and the Hamptons.

Poor Al Sharpton has been lurking around for 30 years, but Kamala is someone we can invite to our apartments.

Harris isn’t a huge hit with the Democratic base. She’s a hit with the people who make decisions for the party. My prediction is redeemed.

If voters had been forced to focus on Harris, Trump would’ve won in a landslide. But this election was entirely a referendum on Trump. It’s irrelevant who he’s running against. Maybe if they had dug up Hitler to run against him other issues would have come up, but even that’s not a sure thing.

Harris sent out a tweet the day before the election saying, “There’s a big difference between equality and equity,” along with a video demanding that “we all end up at the same place.”

Is anyone listening? She’s not saying everyone should have an equal opportunity, but that everyone should get the same stuff.

Hello? Suburban women? Harris wants to move poor people next door to you whether they can afford the house or not. It’s as if Harris was running a test: Do people even care what we’re running on?

Democrats could come out for vivisection of little children. No one cares! A significant share of the electorate was voting for Anyone But Trump.

The media had whipped enough of the population into such a blind Trump hatred that the Democrats’ vetting process for Biden was: “What’s your name? OK, you’ll do.”

What happens if this bland, place-holding figurehead is sworn in as president? Assume on Jan 20th, Trump’s gone. Now what?

The media can’t blame the next black man killed by cops on Trump and they can’t turn off the coronavirus panic. Does the virus suddenly go away because someone new is in the White House? The toughest job for the media is going to be coming up with an excuse to put Trump on the front page once he’s gone.

Have they thought about what happens next?

Ann Coulter Letter: “How to Write a New York Times Op-Ed in Three Easy Steps”


waving flagAnn Coulter  | 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/09/02/how-to-write-a-new-york-times-op-ed-in-three-easy-steps/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

How to Write a New York Times Op-Ed in Three Easy Steps

Today we’ll talk about how to write a New York Times op-ed in 45 minutes or less. We all like labor-saving tips!The main point to keep in mind is that your op-ed is not intended to elucidate, educate or amuse. These are status pieces meant to strike a pose, signaling that you are a good person.After reading your op-ed, readers should feel the warm sensation of being superior to other people — those who don’t agree with you. The idea is to be in fashion. It’s all about attitude, heavy on eye-rolling.

 

(1) Psychoanalyze conservatives as paranoid and insecure.

Liberals — who, to a man, have been in psychoanalysis — enjoy putting people they disagree with on the operating table and performing a vivisection, as if conservatives are some lower life form. 

Thus, for example, an op-ed in this week’s Times by Arthur Goldwag was titled “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch.”

This should not be confused with Justin A. Frank’s 2004 book, “Bush on the Couch,” offering a detailed diagnosis of Bush’s alleged mental disorders.

Nor should it be confused with a column that went up on Daily Kos the day after I wrote this column, psychoanalyzing me. (I’m just glad I snubbed the guy in high school.)

Goldwag explained: “Mr. Trump’s angry certainty …”

Let’s pause right here. I am obsessed with Donald Trump. I wish I could cancel my book tour and just lie in bed watching his speeches all day long. I’m like a lovesick teenager studying Justin Bieber videos. And I’ve never seen Trump look angry.

(Goldwag continued) ” … that immigrants and other losers are destroying the country while the cultural elites that look down on him stand by and do nothing resonates strongly with the less-educated, lower-income whites who appear to be his base.”

Yes, Trump’s base are “less-educated.” This is as opposed to Democratic voters, who couldn’t figure out how to fill in a Florida ballot in 2000.

True, writing like this will expose your own gigantic paranoia at being excluded from historic WASP America. If you start obsessing over the Augusta National Golf Club (as the Times did for one solid decade), people will naturally begin to suspect that you’re resentful toward traditional American culture.

But I am not giving lessons in self-esteem here. I’m trying to help you dash off an op-ed in record time. Psychoanalysis has been liberals’ go-to move forever.

Following the 1964 presidential election, the American Psychiatric Association was forced to issue “the Goldwater rule,” prohibiting shrinks from psychoanalyzing people they’d never met, after a few thousand of them had issued their professional opinion that Barry Goldwater was nuts. (A “frightened person,” “paranoid,” “grossly psychotic” and a “megalomaniac.”)

Some Times writer probably produced an op-ed calling Calvin Coolidge “paranoid.”

It’s not very interesting, but, again, the sole purpose of your op-ed is to assure the status-anxious that they are better than other people.

(2) The perfect hack phrase is to say conservatives are “frightened of the country changing around them.”

Examples:

– “The Tea Party, to be most benign about it, is primarily white, it is witnessing a country changing around it. It feels angry, feels — the diversity.” — Katrina Vanden Heuvel, MSNBC, May 24, 2012

(You want angry? Go to an Al Sharpton rally.)

– “Old white guys (are) caught in a demographic vice, right? (They) are frankly a little nervous, right? The country is changing around them. … The country is becoming more brown, and more — younger. And the values are changing. Gay rights, women are working. I mean all of these things are happening and they are not quite sure what to do.” — Jamal Simmons, MSNBC, June 15, 2013

– “I don’t think these are organized hate groups. These are, by and large, more or less everyday citizens who are very fearful of the way the world is changing around them.” — Mark Potok, (spokesman for the country’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center) in “Changing World Draws Racist Backlash,” The Philadelphia Tribune, June 28, 2010

I thought it was a nice gesture that Mark admitted that conservatives are not “organized hate groups.” We owe you one, Mark! You’re a super guy.

(3) Call conservatives “aggrieved” as often as possible.

Yes, this from the party of reparations, #BlackLivesMatter, comparable worth, “Lean In,” the DREAM Act and so on. If the Democratic Party were a reality TV show, it would be called “America’s Got Grievances!”

Examples:

– “‘We don’t have victories anymore,’ Mr. Trump told those deeply aggrieved Americans in June.” — Arthur Goldwag, op-ed: “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch,” The New York Times, Sept. 1, 2015

– “Mr. Bush has to win over a fair chunk of the aggrieved, frightened Trump voters.” — New York Times editorial, Aug. 26, 2015

– “You have this aggrieved conservative industry that makes their money by being aggrieved.” — John Feehery, Republican spokesman for former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, quoted in New York Times, Jan. 15, 2015

You’re doing this not just for the $75 you’ll make for writing a Times op-ed. Dreadful hacks meet a need.

A lot of people are followers by nature. They just want to be told: Here are the politicians you admire, and here are the ones you disdain; here are the people you worship, and here are the ones you disparage; here are the TV shows you like, and here are the ones you despise.

Times writers are like personal shoppers for people too lazy to form their own opinions. Just don’t imagine that this is good writing, comedy or art. But it’s not bad for something you can dash off in about 45 minutes!

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: