Ann Coulter

Coulter — GOP to Dems: Here, Take Our Wallet, Too!

Election recounts would be more plausible if Democrats occasionally let the Republican win. But they don’t. Ballots miraculously discovered days and weeks after the election — in the back seat of a car, after helpful “corrections” to the ballots by election supervisors, etc. — invariably result in a surprise win for the Democrat. Voters are just supposed to accept that, unless Republicans win an election by an insuperable margin, the Democrats will steal it. And the thieving is cheered on by our media. Whenever President Trump has the effrontery to mention that GOP victories are being stolen by corrupt Democratic officials, the media snippily note that his claim is “UNSUBSTANTIATED.” Thus, for example, in the first 60 seconds of CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront” on Monday, Burnett said: — “(The email from Trump headquarters) without providing any evidence … warns that, quote, corrupt Democrats are trying to, quote, steal election victories in Florida. … — “It’s a baseless claim that President Trump has been pushing for days. … — “(Gov. Rick) Scott (is) talking about rampant fraud without providing any evidence. … — “Now, ‘steal an election,’ ‘committing fraud’ are big claims to make without having evidence.” Hey! I have an idea! Why doesn’t CNN rustle up some reporters to go and investigate the biggest story of the year? No, the burden is on random Republicans — who have jobs other than “reporting the news” — to produce bulletproof evidence of voter fraud. Otherwise, it’s just a wacky coincidence that these “recounts” always result in mysterious new votes for Democrats. If a freelance investigative reporter like James O’Keefe actually does produce the evidence that our media are too lazy and biased to get for themselves, they sneer that O’Keefe can’t be trusted. He’s not a real reporter! What a real reporter does is call up some left-wing outfit, get a quote, and peremptorily announce that there has never been an illegal ballot cast in any election, ever. We called the Brennan Center for Justice, and they assured us that voter fraud doesn’t exist. I can prove I called — I’ll show you my phone records! We’re not going to send our reporters on a snipe hunt. Oh, and we also got an interesting brochure on voter suppression, such as the Nazi-inspired idea that voters should know how to spell their own names. That’s what we get from our crackerjack media. Journalists’ phones should be taken away, so they’d be forced to do actual reporting. Republicans control the state legislature and governor’s office in Florida. They control the U.S. Congress and the presidency. If that’s not enough to prevent two statewide Florida elections from being stolen, the GOP is more useless than I’d already imagined. Here’s a primer for Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan on how to deal with all the Senate and House election “recounts” that keep magically flipping seats to the Democrats. In 1974, Republican Louis Wyman won his race for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, beating Democrat John Durkin by 355 votes. Durkin demanded a recount — which went back and forth by a handful of votes until the state’s Ballot Law Commission concluded that Wyman had indeed won. Wyman was certified the winner by the New Hampshire secretary of state and was on his way to Washington, D.C., when … the Senate refused to seat him. New Hampshire’s certification of Wyman as the winner meant nothing, because, you see, Democrats held a majority in the Senate. The Senate spent months examining disputed ballots. Unable to come up with any method whereby they could declare the Democrat the winner, the Senate forced New Hampshire to hold another election. Demoralized Republicans stayed home and, this time, the Democrat won. Hey, Mitch! Don’t Republicans hold a majority in the Senate? In 1984, Democrat Frank McCloskey won a razor-thin re-election to the House from Indiana’s 8th Congressional District. The state held two recounts, both of which the Republican won. The Washington Post reported that there were “no allegations of fraud” in the recount, and 90 percent of ballot disqualifications had been agreed to “by election commissions dominated by Democrats.” Consequently, Indiana’s secretary of state certified Republican Rick McIntyre the winner. But the Democratic-controlled House simply refused to seat McIntyre. Instead, the House undertook its own “recount.” You’ll never guess who won! Don’t Republicans have a majority in the House for six more weeks? In 2008, Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota won his re-election bid against challenger Al Franken by 725 votes. But for several weeks after the election, Democratic precincts kept discovering new votes for Franken — including ballots sitting in cars, as well as a write-in vote for “Frankenstein” — which was counted as a vote for Franken. (Duh.) These late-discovered ballots eventually put Frankenstein ahead by 312 votes, whereupon he was immediately certified the winner by the George Soros-backed secretary of state. The U.S. Senate was in Democratic hands, so there was no question but that Majority Leader Harry Reid would seat the cheater, Franken. And that, kids, is how the Democrats got the 60th vote for Obamacare. Four years later, we found out that more than 1,000 felons — ineligible to vote — had cast ballots in the 2008 Minnesota election. (To state the obvious, felons support Democrats by about 10-1.) In the middle of the Democrats’ open theft of the Indiana seat in 1984, The New York Times pompously reminded readers of the “basic constitutional principle that Congress is the judge of its own membership and that lawmakers can overrule state laws in making that determination.” You’ve already caved on Arizona, Mitch. How about taking a page from the Democrats’ playbook? You don’t have to go full Daley Machine. Democrats steal elections they actually lost. Republicans just want you to hang on to the seats they won.

Of course, conservatives and Republicans don’t want to find themselves being guilty of the brazen voter fraud that is so prevalent among Democrats and their supporters.  BUT, author Ann Coulter makes a good point..  We need to be fighting tooth and nail for legitimately won GOP races like the governor’s race in Georgia and the Senate and governor’s race in Florida.  Those are critical races, and the GOP won all three.

Coulter: The True History of Millstone Babies

Having mastered fake news, now the media are trying out a little fake history. In the news business, new topics are always popping up, from the Logan Act and the emoluments clause to North Korea. The all-star panels rush to Wikipedia, so they can pretend to be experts on things they knew nothing about an hour earlier. Such is the case today with “anchor babies” and “birthright citizenship.” People who know zilch about the history of the 14th Amendment are pontificating magnificently and completely falsely on the issue du jour. If you’d like to be the smartest person at your next cocktail party by knowing the truth about the 14th Amendment, this is the column for you! Of course the president can end the citizenship of “anchor babies” by executive order — for the simple reason that no Supreme Court or U.S. Congress has ever conferred such a right. It’s just something everyone believes to be true. How could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution? The first question would be: Why would they do that? It’s like being accused of robbing a homeless person. WHY WOULD I? The Supreme Court has stated — repeatedly! — that the “main object” of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment “was to settle the question … as to the citizenship of free negroes,” making them “citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.” Democrats, the entire media and House Speaker Paul Ryan seem to have forgotten the Civil War. They believe that, immediately after a war that ended slavery, Americans rose up as one and demanded that the children of illegals be granted citizenship! You know what’s really bothering me? If someone comes into the country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen! YOU MEAN THAT’S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION? Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where the post-Civil War amendments would be intended to grant citizenship to the kids of Chinese ladies flying to birthing hospitals in California, or pregnant Latin Americans sneaking across the border in the back of flatbed trucks. You can make it up. It doesn’t have to be a true scenario. Any scenario! As the court has explained again and again and again: “(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.” That’s why the amendment refers to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.” For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren’t citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a civil war to end. The 14th Amendment fixed that. The amendment didn’t even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here. Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It’s easy to miss — the law is titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”) Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship? Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here. President Trump, unlike his critics, honors black history by recognizing that the whole purpose of the Civil War amendments was to guarantee the rights of freed slaves. But the left has always been bored with black people. If they start gassing on about “civil rights,” you can be sure it will be about transgenders, the abortion ladies or illegal aliens. Liberals can never seem to remember the people whose ancestors were brought here as slaves, i.e., the only reason we even have civil rights laws. Still, it requires breathtaking audacity to use the Civil War amendments to bring in cheap foreign labor, which drives down the wages of African-Americans — the very people the amendments were written to protect! Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough. But at least there’s a Supreme Court decision claiming that they are — U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That’s “birthright citizenship.” It’s something else entirely to claim that an illegal alien, subject to deportation, can drop a baby and suddenly claim to be the parent of a “citizen.” This crackpot notion was concocted by liberal zealot Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote as dicta in a 1982 case. “Dicta” means it was not the ruling of the court, just a random aside, with zero legal significance. Left-wing activists seized on Brennan’s aside and browbeat everyone into believing that anchor babies are part of our great constitutional heritage, emerging straight from the pen of James Madison. No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right. It’s a made-up right, grounded only in the smoke and mirrors around Justice Brennan’s 1982 footnote. Obviously, it would be better if Congress passed a law clearly stating that children born to illegals are not citizens. (Trump won’t be president forever!) But until that happens, the president of the United States is not required to continue a ridiculous practice that has absolutely no basis in law. It’s often said that journalism is the first draft of history. As we now we see, fake news is the first draft of fake history.

Agreed!!  And well said, Ann.  Conservative firebrand, and former attorney, Ann Coulter is responsible for that outstanding legal op/ed.  Please consider this your “Read of the Day.”  If you read only one article here at The Daily Buzz, then please READ THIS in its entirety, and forward on to all of your friends and family members…especially those who tend to vote Democrat.  Ann is exactly right.  The whole “anchor baby” narrative is a total sham.  And, presidents of BOTH parties have stood silent and allowed it to continue.  In 1980 30,000 anchor babies were born here to illegal alien parents.  That number was over 250,000 last year!  Think about that!  It’s utter insanity…and WAY past time we put an end to it.  Kudos to President Trump for at least trying to have an honest discussion about it, despite being shouted down by everyone, including legislators in his own party.  Unreal..

Coulter: Whatever It Takes

The Democrats’ current position on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is: We cannot have someone addicted to beer on our highest court! What if a foreign power were to ply him with this nectar in a can? Talk about taking control of our government! Suppose they throw in a case of Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbier? A bitter college roommate is going whole hog, wailing, He lied about being a beeraholic. By the media’s account, Kavanaugh was a bounder, a brawler and a drunk. And yet he still managed to graduate at the top of his class, go to Yale, then to Yale Law and work in the highest positions in government. I am in awe of his manliness. Hemingway has nothing on this guy! He should be our president. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln after being told Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk, let’s find out what Kavanaugh drank and send a barrel of it to every college student. At least the Democrats seem to have moved on from the Crazy Ladies Who Must Be Believed. Kavanaugh’s first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, doesn’t remember the time or place of the alleged high school groping, and all four witnesses she named deny any memory of such a party. Forcing our first one-week delay, we were told that the poor lady was so traumatized by being groped in high school that she couldn’t fly. It was the worst thing that ever happened to her, compelling her to do what any reasonable person would under the circumstances: Add a second front door to her house. She was supposedly terrified of small spaces, and an airplane, one of her friends told CNN, “was the ultimate closed space where you cannot get away.” Then we found out that Ford regularly jets off to Hawaii, Costa Rica, the South Pacific islands and French Polynesia … to go surfing, one of the most terrifying activities around. It sounded like a joke. I was so shattered and broken, I could only go rock climbing in the Grand Tetons. After that, I’d repair to my room and curl up in a fetal position. Then I’d go rock climbing again. An ex-boyfriend has come forward to say that in six years of dating Ford, she never mentioned a sexual assault, had no fear of flying, lived comfortably in a tiny home with only one front door, once coached a friend on how to take a polygraph, contrary to her sworn testimony — and also lied about stealing $600 from him. Kavanaugh’s second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, jumped in to help, dusting off a memory of the nominee pulling a Bill Clinton on her as a freshman in college — but only after she spent a week huddled with her attorney, “assessing her memories” and calling classmates to ask if they thought it was true. And did she have corroboration? She doesn’t need any! She’s a “survivor.” Even The New York Times — the newspaper that believed the Duke lacrosse rape case until about five minutes before the prosecutor was disbarred — said Ramirez didn’t have enough evidence to meet its standards. His third accuser, our heroine Julie Swetnik, is the woman produced by porn lawyer Michael Avenatti. She claims that she repeatedly attended gang rape parties in the 1980s — and she saw Brett Kavanaugh there! An ex-boyfriend says Swetnik once threatened to kill him and his unborn child; she had a restraining order taken out against her; was sued by an employer for engaging in “sexually offensive conduct,” making “false and retaliatory allegations” against co-workers and also lying about her educational background and work history. A Democrat and Emmy-winning meteorologist wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee stating that, soon after he met Swetnik in the 1990s, she proposed group sex to him. Some years later, her own father told him to stay away, citing Swetnik’s psychological problems. She is now the Democrats’ leading contender for 2020. Poor Kate Snow of NBC News thought she had landed the interview of a lifetime when she sat down with Swetnik. Within about three questions, it became clear that she was talking to a lunatic. At that point, most of Snow’s energy went into hoping for a building-wide power failure to shut down the cameras. Of the four witnesses Swetnik provided to NBC, whom she claimed would confirm her story, one denied knowing any Julie Swetnik, one was dead, and two did not respond to the network, perhaps wishing they were dead too. By the end of the interview, Snow’s purse was missing. But the Democrats are energetic devils. They’ve been poring over Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook and exclaiming, He’s a beeraholic! With grim passion, they say, how dare you laugh at this? If he were a teetotaler, they’d say, We can’t have someone on the court who’s so nerdy. How can this weird aesthete sympathize with murderers and insider traders? They’ve already won a second week’s delay by having two deranged women scream at Sen. Jeff Flake in an elevator. After wetting himself, Flake insisted on a seventh FBI investigation. For weeks, the Democrats have been demanding an investigation — of an incident without witnesses, on a date unknown at a place unknown — by saying, Oh, you big babies, the FBI investigation of Anita Hill only took three days! The FBI wrapped up its investigation of Kavanaugh in a few days and then sat around wondering how long it had to wait before producing the report. So now the “it will only take three days” crowd is saying, Keep investigating! We don’t know how long the probe should be, but the minimum standards of decency require that it last at least until there’s a new president. Whatever they find, they will argue in the alternative and just keep doing it and doing it. If Kavanaugh stepped on a bug, PETA activists would be screaming at Flake in an elevator. The Democrats have a pair of twos, but they expect Republicans to fold. Why? Because that’s what Republicans always do! Unfortunately, this time, Kavanaugh’s supporters are not accepting surrender.

Let’s hope not, Ann..  Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter is responsible for that excellent piece.

Coulter: Trump Represents What Liberals ‘Hate About America, Which Is Americans’

New York Times best-selling author and populist conservative columnist Ann Coulter says President Trump represents what the political Left and establishment media “hate about America, which is Americans” in an exclusive interview with SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Daily. In an interview with Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow, Coulter said liberals have used immigration to demographically alter the United States in order to avoid having to “care about the middle part of the country.” Coulter said: “He is a representative of what they hate about America, which is Americans. They hate the gun culture, they hate white men, they hate the middle part of America, and now with the demographic changes, they’ve wrought through immigration, they don’t really need to care about the middle part of the country. They’ve got Wall Street, they’ve got Silicon Valley, they’ve got the coasts, so they can stop pretending to like… to care about people in Indiana. Their attack on Trump I think is just… they’re able to do it without having the slightest tinge of embarrassment about attacking the Wal-Mart set because he’s technically a rich man who’s president. They see him as the representative of everything they hate about America, which again, as I say, is Americans.” Coulter’s new book, Resistance is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind, dives into the Left’s obsession with despising Trump and his “America First” agenda. Click here to hear the full interview with Ann

As usual, Ann really nails it..  For more, click on the text above.  Excellent!!  🙂

Coulter: Kavanaugh Threatens The Left’s Right to Cheat

The fact that the media responded to the nomination of a Supreme Court justice by obsessively covering Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Russia and NATO proves that Trump has checkmated them with Brett Kavanaugh. Liberals know they can’t stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation, so they’d just as soon not hear any news about it at all. Please cheer us up with stories about Paul Manafort’s solitary confinement! But there was one very peculiar reaction to the nomination. The nut wing of the Democratic Party instantly denounced Kavanaugh by claiming that his elevation to the high court would threaten all sorts of “rights.” Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted: “Our next justice should be a champion for protecting & advancing rights, not rolling them back — but Kavanaugh has a long history of demonstrating hostility toward defending the rights of everyday Americans.” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted: “If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court it will have a profoundly negative effect on workers’ rights, women’s rights and voting rights for decades to come. We must do everything we can to stop this nomination.” If only these guys could get themselves elected to some sort of legislative body, they could pass laws protecting these rights! Wait, I’m sorry. These are elected United States senators. Of all people, why are they carrying on about “rights”? If senators can’t protect these alleged “rights,” it can only be because most Americans do not agree that they should be “rights.” That’s exactly why the left is so hysterical about the Supreme Court. They run to the courts to win their most unpopular policy ideas, gift-wrapped and handed to them as “constitutional rights.” What liberals call “rights” are legislative proposals that they can’t pass through normal democratic processes — at least outside of the states they’ve already flipped with immigration, like California. Realizing how widely reviled their ideas are, several decades ago the left figured out a procedural scam to give them whatever they wanted without ever having to pass a law. Hey! You can’t review a Supreme Court decision! Instead of persuading a majority of their fellow citizens, they’d need to persuade only five justices to invent any rights they pleased. They didn’t have to ask twice. Apparently, justices find it much funner to be all-powerful despots than boring technocrats interpreting written law. Soon the court was creating “rights” promoting all the left’s favorite causes — abortion, criminals, busing, pornography, stamping out religion, forcing military academies to admit girls and so on. There was nothing America could do about it. OK, liberals, you cheated and got all your demented policy ideas declared “constitutional rights.” But it’s very strange having elected legislators act as if they are helpless serfs, with no capacity to protect “rights.” It’s stranger still for politicians to pretend that these putative “rights” are supported by a majority of Americans. By definition, the majority does not support them. Otherwise, they’d already be protected by law and not by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s latest newsletter. On MSNBC, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said people storming into the streets and making their voices heard about Kavanaugh is “the remarkable part about a democracy.” Actually, that isn’t democracy at all. Liberals don’t do well at democracy. Why don’t politicians run for office promising to ban the death penalty, spring criminals from prison or enshrine late-term abortion? Hmmm … I wonder why those “I (heart) partial-birth abortion!” T-shirts aren’t selling? Unless the Constitution forbids it — and there are very few things proscribed by the Constitution — democracy entails persuading a majority of your fellow Americans or state citizens to support something, and then either putting it on the ballot or electing representatives who will write it into law — perhaps even a constitutional amendment. Otherwise, these “rights” whereof you speak are no more real than the Beastie Boys’ assertion of THE RIGHT TO PARTEEEEEEEE! Gay marriage, for example, was foisted on the country not through ballot initiatives, persuasion, public acceptance, lobbying or politicians winning elections by promising to legalize it. No, what happened was, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly discovered a right to gay marriage lurking in the state’s 223-year-old Constitution — written by the very religious John Adams. (Surprise!) After that, the people rose up and banned gay marriage in state after state, even in liberal bastions like Oregon and California. The year after the Massachusetts court’s remarkable discovery, gay marriage lost in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. Everywhere gay marriage was submitted to a popular vote, it lost. (Only one state’s voters briefly seemed to approve of gay marriage — Arizona, in 2006 — but that was evidently a problem with the wording of the initiative, because two years later, the voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.) Inasmuch as allowing people to vote resulted in a resounding “NO!” on gay marriage, liberals ran back to the courts. Still, the public rebelled. The year after the Iowa Supreme Court concocted a right to gay marriage, voters recalled three of the court’s seven justices. A handful of blue state legislatures passed gay marriage laws, but even in the Soviet Republic of New York, a gay marriage bill failed in 2009. And then the U.S. Supreme Court decided that was quite enough democracy on the question of gay marriage! It turned out that — just like the Massachusetts Constitution — a gay marriage clause had been hiding in our Constitution all along! Conservatives could never dream of victories like this from the judiciary. Even nine Antonin Scalias on the Supreme Court are never going to discover a “constitutional right” to a border wall, mass deportations, a flat tax, publicly funded churches and gun ranges, the “right” to smoke or to consume 24-ounce sugary sodas. These are “constitutional rights” every bit as much as the alleged “constitutional rights” to abortion, pornography, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, the exclusionary rule and on and on and on. The only rights conservatives ever seek under the Constitution are the ones that are written in black and white, such as the freedom of speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Mostly, we sit trembling, waiting to see what new nonexistent rights the court will impose on us, contravening everything we believe. So when you hear liberals carrying on about all the “rights” threatened by Kavanaugh, remember that by “rights,” they mean “policy ideas so unpopular that we can’t pass a law creating such rights.”

Exactly!!  And well said, Ann.  Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter is responsible for that spot-on op/ed.  Please consider this your Read of the Day.  If you read just one article here at The Daily Buzz (and who would do such a silly thing?!), then READ THIS!!!  Then, please forward on to all of your friends and family members, especially those who are liberals or Dems…and watch their heads explode.    🙂

Coulter: Meanwhile, 10 Miles from the White House …

Now that Trump has solved Northeast Asia’s problems, maybe he can get to a problem in our country — in fact, within 10 miles of the White House. For some reason, The Washington Post recently ran an article on something important — the MS-13 gang presence at a public school on the outskirts of our nation’s capital, William Wirt Middle School in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The media’s usual approach to the diversity being inflicted on us is: Don’t report this! It’s better if no one knows. Maybe the left has decided it’s too late to do anything about the transformation of our country into a Third World hellhole, and Trump couldn’t stop it even if he wanted to. The Post reported that, like many schools up and down the East Coast, MS-13 has turned Wirt into a battleground. There have been near-daily gang fights, rampant drug dealing, one reported rape, gang signs on the walls, one shooting — more in nearby schools — and teachers afraid to be alone with their students. At least two students are required to have security officers assigned to them, walking them from class to class and watching them during lunch hour, on account of MS-13 threatening to kill them. How many different categories of immigrants require special law enforcement officers devoted to them? Thanks to mass Muslim immigration, the FBI has terrorist watch lists in ALL 50 STATES. That’s why whenever there’s a terrorist attack, the FBI says, Oh yeah, we were watching that guy. And now we have police bodyguards for kids at schools wherever “unaccompanied minors” have been dumped by our government. In addition to the free school lunches, transportation, housing and health care to pay for all this wonderful diversity, immigrants are also massively ratcheting up law enforcement costs. It would be enraging enough if bad things were happening to our country and the immigrants were paying for it. But we’re paying for it. Wait — you are offering to bring gang warfare, drug cartels and terrorism? We’ll go top dollar for that! Put your wallet away! Your money’s no good here! Having made the odd decision to report factual information about immigration, The Washington Post was careful to include the gigantically irrelevant, painfully idiotic cliche: The “vast majority” of poor Latin Americans pouring into our country “enroll in school and stay out of trouble.” Yes, and the vast majority of boa constrictors stay out of trouble too. Let’s put them in our schools! In fact, far fewer boa constrictors kill Americans each year than Latin American immigrants do. Less than one a year. And boa constrictors don’t undercut you at the construction site. We never hear that “vast majority” argument about the policies that liberals like. The “vast majority” of gun owners never shoot up a school. The “vast majority” of smokers will never get lung cancer. The “vast majority” of Americans do not benefit from Wall Street profits. Why are we subjecting ourselves to mass immigration at all? Hey, everyone, let’s all get an HIV injection! Don’t worry, the vast majority of us won’t get AIDS! We’re certainly not doing it to be nice to Hispanics. They’ve been polled and polled and polled, and it turns out they DON’T want more people being brought in to take their jobs and drive down wages. Recent immigrants probably don’t want their useless brother-in-law from Chiapas sleeping on the couch either. In the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama’s Spanish language ads didn’t make a peep about immigration. Instead, he bragged about giving everyone free health care. (Sidebar: Unmentioned were the millions of people who lost their health care, thanks to all that free health care for immigrants.) Less than two years ago, Republicans watched the most anti-immigrant politician in a century be elected president, with every major institution in America against him. Trump won more of the Hispanic vote than any Republican in a generation. The Chamber of Commerce knows that Hispanics didn’t come here to have their wages driven down by an unending stream of unskilled workers just like themselves. Republicans and Democrats know it. The only people who don’t know it are Americans who don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings by opposing the constant importation of unskilled, poverty-stricken immigrants. The reason for this transformation of our country, our culture and our politics is to flood the market with low-wage workers and Democratic voters. Obviously, those are losing arguments, so the beneficiaries of mass Third World immigration lie. They claim that anyone who doesn’t want to supply the rich with cheap labor must hate Hispanics. Trump thought North Korea was hard? With immigration, we have all of the most influential forces in our culture on the same page. Immigration is a great unifier of the rich and powerful. The rich are like sharks — all appetite, no brain. With their cheap labor voting 7-3 for the Democrats, it won’t be long until Democrats have a lock on government. What do you think they’ll do then, Business Roundtable? Answer: Make it impossible to do business. Google “California.” With the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the Koch brothers’ incessant lobbying for more and more cheap labor, we see exactly what Lenin said about the capitalists: They will sell us the rope with which to hang them. The rich don’t care. They can’t think beyond next quarter’s earnings.

Exactly…  That spot-on op/ed was written by conservative firebrand, Ann Coulter.   Excellent!!    🙂

Coulter: I Have a Dream … About Gay Wedding Cakes

The Supreme Court’s recent decision on whether a Christian baker can be forced to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage (no) arriving on the same day that Bill Clinton reared his syphilitic head on NBC’s “Today” reminded me how liberals always use black people as props. Midway through the last century, bedrock legal principles about property rights and freedom of association were abrogated to deal with a specific, intractable problem: We could not get Democrats to stop discriminating against blacks. So Republicans, with very little Democratic help, passed a slew of laws saying: No, even though you own that restaurant, you cannot discriminate against black customers. And no, even though we are a free people, you cannot refuse to associate with black people in your clubs, universities or sports teams. This should have been a one-time exception to the law for one specific group of people based on an emergency. But Democrats, never wild about freedom in the first place, saw “civil rights” as a great gig. Instead of civil rights being used to remedy historic injuries done to a specific group of people, they’d use “civil rights” as a false flag for all their pet projects. Just six years after passage of the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act, Democrats in New York had dropped black people from the equation and moved onto legalized abortion. State senator Manfred Ohrenstein of Manhattan explained why killing the unborn was a “right”: “It was the end of the civil rights era, and we viewed [abortion] as a civil right.” In the 1991 case Kreimer v. Morristown, a Carter-appointed federal district judge, H. Lee Sarokin, ruled that a public library’s discrimination against smelly, frightening homeless people violated the equal protection clause because it had a “disparate impact” on people who refuse to bathe compared to those who bathe regularly. Three years later, President Clinton promoted him to an appellate judgeship. (The judge, not the homeless person.) In 2007, then-governor Eliot Spitzer vowed that “New York state will continue to be a beacon of civil rights” — when proposing a state law that would guarantee access to late-term abortions. In June 2012, The New York Times chirpily reported “gay rights the fastest-moving civil rights movement in our nation’s history!” These days, you could be forgiven for not realizing that civil rights ever had anything to do with black people. According to Equal Opportunity Employment Commission statistics, for a least a decade, 65 percent of all “civil rights” claims have had absolutely nothing to do with race discrimination. The gay wedding cake caper is only the most recent example of our majestic “civil rights.” Instead of basing favored treatment under the law on a history of brutal and widespread injustice in America, liberals thought it should also be based on other forms of suffering, such as: being a woman, being a Muslim, wanting an abortion, having been born in Mexico, being a smelly homeless person stinking up the public library and — according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg this week — being a gay couple who wants to force a Christian to bake a cake for your wedding. It must make blacks feel great being compared to daft women, smelly homeless people and bossy gays harassing a Christian baker. And apes! Princeton ethics professor Peter Singer compares black people to apes, citing the black liberation movement as a model for the liberation of apes. We must “extend to other species,” Singer says, “the basic principle of equality” that we extend “to all members of our own species.” This wasn’t an Ambien-induced Twitter rant by a comedian. Singer wrote it, calmly and deliberately, in a book on “ethics.” Still, I believe the greatest insult black Americans have had to endure from liberals was when they called Bill Clinton the “first black president.” I notice that he was not the first black president when Democrats were singing Fleetwood Mac at his inauguration, nor when he was appointing the first woman attorney general or passing welfare reform. Only after Clinton was caught in the most humiliating sex scandal in U.S. history did he suddenly become “the first black president.” (Which is not true, according to Monica Lewinsky’s description of Clinton’s private parts.) During the House impeachment hearings, Rep. Maxine Waters ferociously defended Clinton, saying, “I am here in the name of my slave ancestors.” She said she had woken up in the middle of the night, “with flashes of the struggles of my African ancestors for justice.” What this had to do with Clinton perjuring himself about molesting a chubby Jewish White House intern was anyone’s guess. Always the master of subtlety, as soon as the Lewinsky scandal broke, Clinton promptly invited the Rev. Jesse Jackson to the White House to “pray” with him. Two months later, he took off on an 11-day, six-nation $43 million trip to — guess where? Africa! Haven’t black people suffered enough without this horny hick piggybacking on their oppression?

No kidding!  And well said, Ann..  Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter is responsible for that funny rant.  Her point is well taken, though.  Democrats use blacks as props to further their agenda, which oftentimes is NOT in the best interests.  And yet, blacks still vote for Dems overwhelmingly for some odd reason.  If only they studied a little history….they might rethink that in the next election..