Ann Coulter

Coulter: Stop Apologizing for Saving Black Lives

Idiot conservatives were doing the idiot thing this week, screaming “racism!” in response to an old tape of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg defending stop-and-frisk, one of the policies that drove New York City murder rates down to Mayberry levels. They weren’t being ironic. In the 2015 tape, Bloomberg makes the blindingly obvious point that if “95 percent of murders and murder victims are young male minorities” — as is true in New York City — then police should be questioning about 95 percent young male minorities. To stop crime, he said, you “put a lot of cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods.” Bloomberg further explained that frisking young black and brown men for minor crimes is how you keep guns off the streets generally: “And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them. And then they start, they say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to get caught.’ So they don’t bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home.” Does anyone with a functioning frontal lobe disagree with this? By pursuing the wacky idea of having cops frisk kids in high-crime areas for minor offenses like turnstile jumping, Mayor Rudy Giuliani cut the murder rate from more than 2,000 per year to about 600. No one thought it could possibly go any lower — and then Bloomberg got murders down to an unfathomable 300 or so per year. Giuliani and Bloomberg did more for young minorities than all living Democrats combined. In New York City alone, at least 20,000 more black men are alive today than would be under the genius crime-fighting ideas of prior administrations (and The New York Times). Unless liberal elites are pursuing a secret plan to reduce the black population by allowing young black men to kill one another (that would make a great movie by Jordan Peele!), stop-and-frisk is nothing to apologize for. Well, guess what? Bloomberg apologized for it. He began his presidential campaign with a repudiation of his signature accomplishment in order to please a handful of black activists and a lot of white liberals. For that, he deserves the contempt of all men of good will. Why not attack him for the gutless apology? Is Bloomberg sorry for saving so many black lives? Does becoming a Democrat make basic math incomprehensible? Is he a pandering coward? Can we trust anything he says? But small-bore conservatives did what they always do: Give up winning a war in order to land a quick blow in a skirmish. They called Bloomberg’s earlier, logically insuperable point “RACIST!” Great, so now conservatives are adopting the absolute worst aspect of liberalism — calling everything “racist.” As I wrote in 2016, when the media were going through their quadrennial demand that the Republican candidate for president “disavow” David Duke, these “racism” orgies never have anything to do with black people. It’s part of the Fabulous White People competition, where black people are the chips. If anything, the urge to call other people “racist” has only gotten stronger since then, so I’ll quote myself: “Sad people with meaningless lives [are] suddenly empowered to condemn other people. I beat you in blacks yesterday; I’m going to beat you in women today. This is what makes them feel superior to other people, especially other white people. It’s not about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; it’s just a self-actualization movement for people with emotional issues.” Why are conservatives leaping into this game? For the teeny-tiny pleasure of taking a cheap shot at Bloomberg, they are endorsing the idea that anyone who 1) grasps basic math and 2) is opposed to gun crime is a “racist.” Our entire public dialogue will soon be nothing but white people calling one another “racist,” as if we’re trapped in an eternal Democratic presidential debate. At the New Hampshire debate last Friday night, Tom Steyer — hedge fund manager and Hero to Black People Everywhere — kept hammering Joe Biden about some “racist” remark made by South Carolina State Sen. Dick Harpootlian, a Biden supporter. “One of the leaders of Joe Biden’s South Carolina campaign,” Steyer said, “made racist remarks about someone associated with our campaign.” Steyer then repeatedly called on Biden to “disavow” the remark and the man who made it. “Be on the right side,” he implored. The story: Harpootlian had tweeted that another South Carolina Democrat, state legislator Jerry Govan, flipped his support from Biden to Steyer after being paid “almost $50,000” by the Steyer campaign. Calling Steyer “Mr. Moneybags,” Harpootlian concluded, “This is what happens when billionaires get involved … They don’t have to persuade anybody, they just buy them.” I’ve assembled a panel of black judges to rule on Harpootlian’s racism, and their response is: Keep reading. Get to the racism part. Nope, that’s it! Govan is black, so pointing out that Steyer paid him $50,000 and got his endorsement is “racist.” I would have gone with “anti-Semitic” myself, but what do I know? I guess I’ll check with the conservative “racism” fighters!

Thanks to conservative firebrand Ann Coulter for calling these self-righteous hypocrites out.  When Dems abuse the word “racism,” we kinda expect it.  It’s like a Geico commercial; “it’s what they do.”   But, when our side does it, it’s nauseating, and we need people like Ann to call them out.  Heck, Trump is called racist basically every day for simply waking up and breathing.  It’s beyond ridiculous.  Stop and frisk was a method that worked in both Rudy’s and Bloomberg’s administrations in NYC.  There is NO question or debate about that.  It’s not even remotely moot.  And those who shout “racism” over such practices are the real racists.

Ann Coulter: IMPEACHMENT WEEK–It’s OK to Be Bored; Not OK to Be White

It’s weeks like this that make me wish I had a job and didn’t have to stay home watching TV. With the impeachment nonsense dragging into its 56th month, I have some random observations, only a few of which have anything to do with impeachment. 1) As tempting as it must be for Republican senators to make a headlong rush to the TV cameras at the conclusion of the day’s festivities, they would be well advised to say this, and only this, each night: Here are the vital issues the United States Congress did NOT address today: — Repairing our highways, bridges and border with a major infrastructure bill. — Ensuring that all Americans can get jobs by cutting off the deluge of cheap foreign labor. — Providing the public with quality services by not inviting the rest of the world to come partake of government benefits meant for Americans. — Fixing the disaster of Obamacare, so that all Americans have access to quality health care (by activating the same mechanisms that give them quality food, housing and iPhones: the free market, contract law, and occasional government subsidies). — Passing a bill to defund all the pointless, expensive military deployments around the globe, so we can FINALLY address the hellfires in our own hemisphere. — Ending the opioid crisis by declaring war on Mexican drug cartels and building a wall. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should attach electrodes to the testicles of every Republican and blast him the moment he (OR SHE!) diverges from the script. 2) The person I really feel sorry for is Nancy Pelosi. I assume she’s weeping uncontrollably as she watches her chances of holding the speakership dwindle every time Jerry Nadler waddles to the mic. True, you “go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want,” as Donald Rumsfeld said, but surely there are more telegenic Democrats than Nadler and Adam Schiff. 3) Every day since forever, the New York Times has run a column about how white people are getting on African Americans’ last nerve. On Monday of this week, it was “How Much Racism Do You Face Every Day?” Average for black teenager: 5x a day. Example: Hearing about a family member who experiences something they described as racial discrimination. And here’s one from Tuesday, titled: “How to Convince a White Realtor You’re Middle Class; Black people expend daily energy to counteract racial stereotypes and get fair treatment.” The examples included a white real estate agent asking a slatternly attired black woman if she could afford a specific house, and a black woman claiming she was required to sign a “no party” pledge before checking into a Portland, Oregon, Marriott. Also since forever, whites have been trying not to offend. Thus, on the same day as the racial stereotypes column, the Times ran an article about white Iowa voters terrified of picking a Democratic nominee whom black people won’t like. It’s useless. No matter how hard they try, whites just can’t stop offending black people with their damned “microaggressions.” My thought is, anyone of any race can commit “microaggressions” against people of other races. What we all should endeavor to do is avoid macro-aggressions — you know, little things like murder, rape, assault, and carjacking. 4) Last week, 20-foot-tall letters appeared on the side of a barn in Southport, England, spelling out the phrase: “IT’S OK TO BE WHITE.” British papers went on red alert, denouncing the “[r]acist and anti-ethnic graffiti” that “[s]hocked” and “appalled” residents. We understand and deeply apologize for such monstrous racism. Would any of these variants pass legal muster? — It might be acceptable to be white, but we’re not sure, we’ll get back to you. — While it is certainly never OK to be white, we hope you will accept our deepest apology. — Whiteness is not for everybody, but to say it’s ‘OK’ to be white is not who we are. If none of these are acceptable, please rest assured, we don’t mean to offend. Apologies all around! We’re all staying late at the office to figure this out. Food is being sent in as we speak … At least we won’t have to watch impeachment news.

HAHAHA!!  No kidding!!  Thanks to conservative firebrand Ann Coulter for that spot-on rant.  Never one to shy away from offending those with tender sensibilities, she correctly calls out how Democrats in the House have spent all of their energies on this impeachment nonsense, at the expense of them passing any meaningful legislation that will actually benefit we-the-people/taxpayers trying to make ends meet.  And, the pathological obsession with race on the part of the left has become beyond ridiculous.  Thanks Ann      🙂

Ann Coulter counts Mitt Romney among ‘feckless old ladies’ in GOP who may vote to convict Trump

Conservative writer Ann Coulter took a shot Saturday night at three Senate Republicans who reportedly were the only remaining members of the GOP who hadn’t signed a Senate colleague’s resolution condemning the House impeachment inquiry against President Trump. A story in The Hill on Friday had identified the trio as Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah — lawmakers who’ve each opposed Trump from time to time from within the GOP tent. Coulter offered her reaction to the story in a Twitter message. “BREAKING: The Hill newspaper names 3 GOP senators as possible votes to convict Trump,” Coulter wrote. “Turns out they’re all legendarily feckless old ladies: Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, & Mitt Romney.” Within a few hours the tweet had gained more than 16,000 likes and 4,000 retweets. “The RINO’s want Trump impeached? I’m shocked!!,” one Twitter user commented. “Disappointed; but not surprised about Romney,” another wrote. “I have faith in Susan Collins after standing up for Brett Kavanaugh,” another commenter wrote. “I have no faith in Lisa Murkowski or Mitt Romney for this [if nothing] else [requires] integrity.” The resolution defending President Trump was introduced Thursday by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and had been signed by every Senate Republican except the trio, Graham told The Hill on Friday. Graham’s resolution calls on House Democrats to allow Trump to “confront his accusers” and to allow Republicans to issue subpoenas to witnesses of their choosing, according to The Hill. Neither Murkowski, nor Collins, nor Romney has endorsed the impeachment inquiry or the removal of Trump from the presidency, the story noted, adding that all three have simply refrained from taking a position on the matter so far.

We expect this sorta stuff from Lisa and Susan.  They may as well be Dems.  But, Mitt..he’s from Utah; a decidedly Republican/conservative state.  He ran to fill the retiring Sen. Orin Hatch’s seat.  And Orin was a big supporter of President Trump.  For Mitt, its pure jealousy.  Mitt has an ego complex and can’t believe after he lost his presidential run (against Obama), and that some buffoon playboy from New York City could win.  Mitt is an arrogant, elitist, self-righteous, jealous tool for the liberal left.  Utah needs to primary against him next opportunity.  Kudos to Ann for calling this “feckless old ladies” out.  Excellent!    🙂

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!!  🙂