Ann Coulter

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..

Coulter: Racial Quotas Kill Kids

President Obama did a lot of bad things, but pound for pound, one of the worst was the January 2014 “Dear Colleague” letter sent jointly by his Education and Justice Departments to all public schools threatening lawsuits over racial discrimination in student discipline. The letter came after years of his administration browbeating schools for their failure to discipline every race of student at the same rate. As the Huffington Post put it: “American Schools Are STILL Racist, Government Report Finds.” The evidence? “Five percent of white students were suspended annually, compared with 16 percent of black students, according to the report.” Q.E.D. According to theory, there’s NO WAY blacks and Hispanics are doing things that require more school discipline than whites or Asians. So if more black students are expelled than Asians, well, gentlemen, we have our proof of racism. To comply, schools would have to stop suspending black kids for breaking a teacher’s jaw, but suspend Asians for dropping an eraser. Using the same logic, I could close the achievement gap between blacks and Asians in a single day by going to every principal’s office in the country and burning the transcripts. (Liberals are saying, “You know, that’s not a bad idea.”) The “school-to-prison pipeline” argument for racial quotas in discipline was hatched in education schools and black studies departments. What I want to know is: How did they test the idea? To validate the theory that recording students’ criminal behavior produces students with criminal records, we divided students into two groups. Group A we continued to suspend when they acted up; Group B we would not suspend no matter what — even when they engaged in their little mischief, like cracking heads with crowbars, dropping teachers off buildings, using a switchblade to cut other students’ eyes out. RESULT: At the end of the year, Group B had better records. Were the researchers really in suspense about how the experiment was going to turn out? I could have told them at the beginning that their odds of success were tremendous — unless they forgot halfway through and began accidentally suspending students in Group B. But the Obama administration said: Wow! That’s amazing. Do you think other schools could replicate those results? One of the administration’s models was Broward County, Florida. Which is kind of important, now that we know that it was Broward’s official policy to make it impossible to arrest students like Nikolas Cruz, thus allowing him to amass a cache of firearms, walk into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and murder 17 people. The “school-to-prison pipeline” nonsense may not be the explanation for every school shooting, but it is absolutely the explanation for THIS school shooting. No matter what Cruz did, no matter how many times his crimes were reported to the sheriff or school officials, there was no way a lad with a name like “Nikolas Cruz” was ever going to leave school with a record. Broward County’s innovative idea of eliminating school discipline captivated Obama’s Department of Education. It was expressly cited by the department’s Civil Rights Division with the notation: “New model for other jurisdictions?” Last October — nearly a year into the Trump administration — Broward Schools Superintendent Robert W. Runcie humbly noted that the district was receiving “invitations from around the country, including from The White House and Federal Office of Civil Rights, to share details about the historic reforms” on school discipline. Either: Liberals truly believe that all races commit crimes at exactly the same level, frequency and intensity; OR they are willing to have people die for their political agenda. Conservatives didn’t pick this school shooting as the test case for gun control. It was liberals who were going to ride the Parkland shooting all the way to the midterms. They thought they had a beautiful story about the evil NRA. Not the mass shooting in Orlando — because of the obvious immigration angle. Not San Bernardino — for the same reason. Not Las Vegas — probably for the same reason, but we’ll never know because law enforcement has issued only lies and nonsense about that shooting. The media did all the hard work of making sure Parkland was the only topic on anyone’s mind, with everyone demanding that we “do something!” And then we got the facts. Cruz’s criminal acts were intentionally ignored by law enforcement on account of Broward’s much-celebrated “school-to-prison pipeline” reforms. Thank God for the internet, or we’d never have known the truth. Admittedly, most of the harm done by the policy that enabled Cruz is not usually a mass shooting. The main damage done by the “school-to-prison pipeline” idiocy is: broken bones, smashed teeth, traumatized students, making it impossible for other students to learn, having a bad influence on marginal students and teachers sinking into depression. Check at your local school for the full results. Thanks to the Obama administration, this crackpot theory is sweeping school districts across the nation! The next time Democrats control Congress and the presidency, we will have racial quotas for prisons, too. When that happens, you better hope the government hasn’t taken your guns.

No kidding!!  As usual, conservative firebrand Ann Coulter nails it.  Excellent!   🙂

Ann Coulter: No DACA Amnesty ‘Until There’s a Wall and Hell Freezes Over’

New York Times best-selling author and populist conservative columnist Ann Coulter says President Trump should not begin to consider amnesty for illegal aliens “until there’s a wall and hell freezes over.” In a post on Friday, Coulter responded to a tweet by President Trump in which he reiterated that he would only be willing to sign off on an amnesty beginning with nearly 800,000 illegal aliens if his list of pro-American immigration principles were enacted simultaneously. Trump tweeted, “The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc. We must protect our Country at all cost!” Those principles include full funding for the construction of a border wall — which has been stalled in the prototype stage — as well as an end to “chain migration,” which makes up more than 70 percent of all legal immigration as it allows newly naturalized immigrants to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. with them. Additionally, Trump says in exchange for DACA amnesty, he wants to see an immediate end to the Diversity Visa Lottery program, whereby 50,000 visas are randomly given out all over the world every year to foreign nationals who do not have to meet a rigorous set of skills or requirements. Ann Coulter, however, says the Trump administration should not even be considering amnesty for illegal aliens. “No DACA until there’s a wall AND hell freezes over.” In a Breitbart News interview this week, Coulter said she wanted DACA illegal aliens to be deported first, citing the role that many of the enrollees of the program play in the open borders lobby and immigration activism organizations. Coulter told Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow: “It has to be said that many of the legal and illegal low-wage workers, they’re incredibly hard workers, they’re really nice people, and it occurred to me … that I actually like all of the illegal immigrants except the DREAMers. They’re the ones I want deported first because they’re the activists. They’re the obnoxious ones. They’re the ones who go to congressional offices and stamp their feet and say, “How dare you not rush to grant us amnesty?” Whereas the other illegals don’t have the time to be protesting; they’re busy working, being polite, being so friendly and nice and saying, “Merry Christmas.” No. Let’s start by deporting the DREAMers. That’s point one.” Trump signing off on any amnesty plan, no matter if it included an end to chain migration, elimination of the Visa Lottery and funding for the border wall, would be an enormous betrayal to his “America First” agenda and commitment to American workers. Amnesty for DACA illegal aliens has the potential to flood the American workforce with more low-skilled foreign labor and could trigger a surge of illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border. Corporate interests, including the GOP mega-donors Charles and David Koch, have teamed up with the open borders lobby to push a DACA amnesty, as it would provide a stream of cheap, foreign labor that would further drive down the wages of America’s working and middle class.

As usual Ann nails it on the head.  And her point about the obnoxious, entitlement-minded so-called “Dreamers” is extremely well taken!  They ARE the ones getting in everyone’s face demanding that they be granted amnesty.  We agree with Ann..  Dreamers SHOULD be the first to be deported.   But, here at The Daily Buzz, we’ve adopted more of an “option D” approach to deporting illegal aliens here in America; “all of the above.”  There are between roughly 15-22 MILLION illegal aliens in this country (the Dems will say 11 million; the same number they’ve used for over 15 years, btw)!!  To put that into some perspective, in Colorado the total population according to the last census was about 4.5 million.  In other words, there are three timess as many illegal aliens already here in America as is the entire population of the state of Colorado!!  So, that is why we’ve been saying that we to be deporting illegal aliens by the hundreds of thousands…paying particular attention to known gang members, convicted criminal aliens, and those already determined by an immigration judge to be deported…regardless of age or gender.  If we did just that, we’d make a HUGE dent in the illegal immigration crisis that is crushing our country and it’s infrastructure.  Of course we need to immediately secure our southern border and BUILD THE WALL NOW!!!   For more on that, see our comments below the anchor baby article we posted the other day (scroll down 4 articles).

 

Coulter: Media Begging Us for Conspiracy Theories on Las Vegas

Now the media are just taunting us with their tall tales about Stephen Paddock, the alleged Las Vegas shooter. Reputedly serious news organizations are claiming that he made a living playing video poker. That’s like claiming someone made a living smoking crack. The media are either doing PR for the gambling industry or they don’t want anyone considering the possibility that Paddock was using gambling to launder money. NBC News reports, with a straight face: “Las Vegas gunman earned millions as a gambler.” A Los Angeles Times article is headlined, “In the solitary world of video poker, Stephen Paddock knew how to win.” The story says that Paddock’s gambling “was at least a steady income over a period of years.” I don’t know all the ins and outs of Paddock’s life, but that’s a lie. How do reporters imagine casino owners make a living? Any ideas on how all those glorious lobbies, lights, pools, and fountains are paid for? How do they think Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn became billionaires if gambling is a winning proposition for people like Paddock — and therefore, by definition, a losing proposition for the casinos? The media think about money the way Democrats do. They have absolutely no conception of where it originates. Those casino owners sure are generous! reporters think to themselves. Economist Thomas Sowell is always ridiculing journalists for not understanding basic economics. It turns out, they don’t understand the spreadsheet of a lemonade stand. The New York Times explained that the “top” video poker machines pay out 99.17 percent. That’s great that Paddock was only losing cents on the dollar (if true), but it’s still losing. The Times quickly explained that he could have more than made up his losses with all the “comps” — the free rooms, meals and “50-year-old port that costs $500 a glass,” as his brother Eric said. Gamblers who are beating the house are not given $500 glasses of port. Refer to the profit/loss spreadsheet. And yet, according to his brother, Paddock was treated like royalty by the casinos. Which means he was losing. Apart from outright theft, the only way to have an advantage over the casino is by card-counting. That’s not cheating and it doesn’t guarantee a win. It merely allows the gambler to make a more educated guess as each card is played, thereby tilting the odds ever so slightly in his favor. Still, if the casinos suspect a customer is counting cards, he will be promptly escorted off the premises. And counting cards only helps with blackjack. Paddock’s game of choice was VIDEO POKER. That’s a computer! It’s programmed to ensure the house wins. Not all the time, but at least often enough to make casino owners multibillionaires. Anyone who plays video poker over an extended period of time will absolutely, 100 percent, by basic logic, end up a net loser. So why are the media insistent that Paddock was getting rich by playing video poker? I don’t know what happened — and, apparently, neither do the cops — but it’s kind of odd that we keep being told things that aren’t true about the Las Vegas massacre, from the basic timeline to this weird insistence that Paddock made a good living at gambling. The most likely explanation is that the reporters and investigators are incompetent nitwits. But the changing facts from law enforcement and preposterous lies from the press aren’t doing a lot to tamp down alternative theories of the crime.

To read of Ann Coulter’s theories, and the rest of her article, click on the text above.

Coulter: Media Find Las Vegas Shooter’s Motive: He’s White!

If the media are going to keep wailing about how vital a free press is, could they start reporting stuff? There’s a remarkable number of dangling facts about Stephen Paddock’s mass murder in Las Vegas, which the media have shown little inclination to investigate. It’s almost as if they’re worried that too much investigation will ruin it. For example: Who was the woman shouting, “YOU’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!” right before the concert? Is any reporter interested in finding out? Probably a random crazy lady, but that’s not typical pre-concert behavior. Why is it taking so long to find out if anyone else went into Paddock’s hotel room since he checked in last Thursday? I’m perfectly prepared to accept that he was the only one who entered that room, but can we see the surveillance video? The sum-total of the information we know about Marilou Danley, the woman who’s been living with Paddock for years is the following: She was out of the country at the time of the attack. She’s not involved. Paddock had apparently assembled an enormous arsenal of weapons. Did she know about it? Did he tell her why? Had his behavior changed recently? Why wasn’t he with her on her trip? Had they broken up? And why did Paddock recently wire $100,000 to the Philippines? Within hours of the first indictments in the Duke lacrosse case — later, all thrown out — the media was bristling with information about the players’ parents, the homes they grew up in, the ritziness of their neighborhoods, and the tuition at their Catholic high schools. Doesn’t any reporter want to ask Danley anything? Do we know yet why Paddock broke two windows? What were his recent winnings or losses at gambling? I don’t know if any of this would change the basic narrative. But the media don’t know, either, and they seem strangely reluctant to ask. As Sherlock Holmes said: First, you exclude the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Our media isn’t doing the reporting that would allow us to exclude anything. And then they wonder why conspiracy theories develop. The media’s idea of hard-hitting investigative reporting is to taunt gun-owners and white men. Making snarky political remarks is Job No. 1 of reporters. Apparently, it’s also the new job description for late-night comics. As long as we’re looking for jobs that Americans just won’t do, maybe we could find some immigrants to tell jokes and report news. We’re getting a lot of smirky, celebratory headlines, like these: AMERICA’S WHITE MAN PROBLEM HOW AMERICA HAS SILENTLY ACCEPTED THE RAGE OF WHITE MEN THE WHITE PRIVILEGE OF THE “LONE WOLF” SHOOTER While it’s great that liberals have finally found a mass murder that they don’t think can be defeated with a “Je Suis Charlie” hashtag, they’re either lying or they don’t know what they’re talking about. Blacks and Hispanics are extremely well-represented as perpetrators of mass shootings, Muslims are over-represented, and surprisingly, even the usually law-abiding Asians more than hold their own. Typical Reporter: Yeah, we decided not to go with the mass shootings at the Tennessee church, the Washington Navy Yard, San Bernardino, the Pulse nightclub, Fort Hood, the LIRR, the Carson City IHOP, the Trolley Square Shopping Mall, the Windy City Core Supply warehouse, Virginia Tech, the Binghamton Civic Center, the Hartford Distributors, the hunting tract in Wisconsin, the Appalachian School of Law … and on and on and on. And those are just a few of the famous ones! It’s hard to notice what’s not there, so it’s especially annoying that the journalist’s method of illustrating mass murderers is to assemble pictures of all the mass shooters, but then only show the white guys. There was one characteristic of white men in abundant evidence at the Las Vegas massacre. They’re awfully chivalrous, these white male country music fans. Twenty-two thousand people came under sustained, high-powered gunfire and few people, if any, were stomped to death — something you can’t say for a Black Friday sale at a Long Island mall. At the Las Vegas concert, men died protecting women, using their bodies as shields and standing up in the middle of gunfire to direct the women to safety. The New York Post reports that one woman said she “was running away and a couple of guys said, ‘Hey, come stand behind us,’ and boom, they went down.” Heather Melton has described how she felt her husband, Sonny, being shot in the back, fatally, as he shielded her from the rain of bullets. Without many facts to go on, the only sweeping conclusion we can make so far is that there’s a reason feminism didn’t emerge from the country music community.

As usual, conservative firebrand Ann Coulter nails it.  Kudos to her for calling out the lazy, and brazenly hypocritical liberal media.  Excellent!    🙂

Coulter: No Amnesty Is a Good Amnesty

Donald Trump is being told that amnesty for “Dreamers,” or DACA recipients, will only apply to a small, narrowly defined group of totally innocent, eminently deserving illegal immigrants, who were brought to this country “through no fault of their own” as “children.” (Children who are up to 36 years old.) Every syllable of that claim is a lie, and I can prove it. To see how DACA will actually work, let’s look at another extremely limited amnesty that was passed in 1986. Farmers wanted temporary guest-worker permits for their cheap labor, so that they could continue pretending that the Industrial Revolution never happened and refuse to mechanize. (And, boy, did that work! We haven’t heard a peep about “crops rotting in the fields” since then.) The agricultural amnesty was supposed to apply to — at most — 350,000 illegal aliens. It would be available only to illegals who were currently in the country doing the back-breaking farm work that no American would do. Without them, crops would wither on the vine. They were saving us from starvation! Talk about deserving. Are any Dreamers saving us from starvation? But instead of guest-worker permits, then-Rep. Charles Schumer — from the lush farmland of Brooklyn — decided to grant full amnesty to any illegals who had done farm work for at least 90 days in the previous year. That’s pretty restrictive, isn’t it? In the end, “up to 350,000 farm workers” turned into 1.3 million. Oh well, what are you going to do? No use worrying — let’s just move forward and get all these people voter registration cards! This innocent little amnesty for a small, clearly defined group of illegals quickly became amnesty for anyone who applied. The same thing will happen with any other amnesty, no matter how strictly the law is written. (And it won’t be written strictly.) In the first few years of the agricultural amnesty, internal Immigration and Naturalization Service statistics showed that 888,637 legalization applications were fraudulent. According to immigration agents, “farm workers” stated in their interviews that cotton was purple or that they had pulled cherries from the ground. Of the 888,637 fraudulent applications, guess how many our government approved. Answer: More than 800,000. The agricultural amnesty was so carefully administered that not one, but TWO of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were in this country because of it. (More on that in another column.) The main problem with the farm worker amnesty, the DACA amnesty or any amnesty is that everyone involved in the entire immigration apparatus is feverishly working, on the taxpayer’s dime, to transform this country into a Third World hellhole. Lawyers for La Raza and lawyers for the government both believe it is their mission to humiliate and destroy white Christian America. (Actually, this country is “biracial Christian America,” plus a few Amerindians and anyone else who assimilated to Western European culture.) There are multitudes of them, and they will never, ever stop. Congress could pass a law granting amnesty to any 7-foot-tall, left-handed, red-headed illegal aliens from Lichtenstein — and hundreds of left-wing outfits would instantly set to work, demanding amnesty for witch doctors, cannibals, pederasts, terrorists and the rest of the multicultural universe that makes America so vibrant. On the other side of the application process would be government immigration bureaucrats who either used to work at La Raza, or hope to in the future. On the off chance that some particularly risible amnesty application is denied by a stodgy rules-follower in our immigration bureaucracy, that denial will be litigated before a federal judge in Hawaii, then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. For two decades after the 1986 amnesty, the federal courts were tied up with dozens of class-action lawsuits brought on behalf of illegal aliens — regular illegal aliens, farm worker illegal aliens and still-in-Mexico illegal aliens — challenging every aspect of the law. Is that how American tax dollars should be spent? On endless litigation, brought by America-hating activists on behalf of people who have no right to be in our country and decided by Democrat-appointed judges? (Who are also America-hating activists.) And when their work is done, there will be a lot more Democrat-appointed judges because there will be a lot more Democrats. Lawyers sued over everything — the absence of Creole interpreters, the requirement that illegals have proof of prior farm work and the rare denials of amnesty. Congress desperately tried passing laws that would prevent courts from hearing these cases — all to no avail. Left-wing lawyers just had to pick the right judge, and they won. In 2005 — nearly 20 years after the 1986 amnesty — the Ninth Circuit was still granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who claimed they had been unfairly denied because they were not in the country for the first amnesty. Seriously. No matter how the law is written, as long as anyone is eligible for amnesty, everybody’s getting amnesty. President Trump is the last president who will ever have a chance to make the right decision on immigration. After this, it’s over. The boat will have sailed. If he succeeds, all the p@ssy-grabbing and Russia nonsense will burn off like a morning fog. He will be the president who saved the American nation, its character, its sovereignty, its core identity. But if he fails, Donald Trump will go down in history as the man who killed America.

Coulter: Peace Through Border Control

I’m dying to hear about the “3-D chess” Trump is playing with his announcement on Monday that he’s breaking his promise on Afghanistan and throwing more forces into that utterly pointless war. Will he be sending the transgender troops? But then the Emperor God gave a magnificent speech in Arizona Tuesday night. Curiously, when he talks to voters — as opposed to his Cabinet and White House staff — there’s very little about sending more U.S. troops to die in the human meat-grinder of Afghanistan. Trump got thunderous applause from his 30,000-person focus group for the wall, stepped-up deportations and Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio — recently convicted of contempt for “racially profiling” Hispanics. But you could hear a pin drop when he mentioned Afghanistan, Nikki Haley and Gen. John Kelly. (At least he had the good sense not to bring up Goldman Sachs’ Gary Cohn again.) There were long faces all over cable news after Trump’s speech, which surely triggers the reward center in his brain, like giving a mouse cheese. What was so refreshingly different about the Trump campaign was that the candidate didn’t use any of the idiotic, consultant-written bromides offered by every other GOP presidential candidate for at least the past 30 years. Instead, he looked around the country, saw what the problems were and said he’d fix them. Here are the highlights from every speech by any Non-Trump candidate for the past several decades: “I listened to the American people.” “People are frustrated.” “This election is about the future!” It may not seem like it at first, but another one of those head-scratching cliches is: “Peace through strength.” During the campaign, this was a staple of knuckleheads like Jeb!, but I’m sorry to report that our hero used it on the Arizona crowd, referring to his decision to send more troops to die in Afghanistan for no earthly purpose. The Swamp is sticky. When Reagan said, “peace through strength,” it meant something. But 30 years after Reagan won the Cold War, anyone who uses this expression conveys only that he has no understanding of the current war. During the Cold War, America was facing an aggressively imperialistic, nuclear-armed Soviet Union. By contrast, the main threat to Americans’ safety today comes not from a country, but from millions of individual savages spread throughout the globe. Americans aren’t being slaughtered by invading Soviet troops, “Red Dawn”-style, but by Islamic terrorists on tourist visas flying commercial airplanes into our skyscrapers, and by first- and second-generation Muslim immigrants setting off bombs and shooting people at the Boston Marathon, American military bases, community centers, and gay nightclubs. Americans are raped, addicted, and murdered not by the Red Army, but by millions of illegal aliens waltzing across our wide-open border. Our freedoms are being taken away not by a foreign power, but by our own government — in order to protect us from terrorists, international crime rings, and Mexican drug cartels operating in our own country. Defeating a non-country adversary may seem an impossible task, but the savages are perfectly containable. Today’s enemy has no capacity to harm a hair on a single American’s head — as long as we don’t let them come here. We don’t need a military victory. We need an immigration moratorium. The Non-Trump Republicans promised us only more immigration and more wars. PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH! How does a military buildup help Kate Steinle? How about the 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11? Did Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan protect soldiers at Fort Hood or nightclubbers in Orlando? Did it do anything for Grant Ronnebeck, who was fatally shot by an illegal alien robbing a convenience store in Mesa, Arizona, in 2015? More than 1,600 American troops died in Afghanistan under Obama, and not one American is safer. All we need to do to win the current war is: Keep our nuclear weapons in working order and stop allowing enemy forces into our country. If we must have troops constantly deployed somewhere, the only place they’d actually be useful is 10 feet into Mexico. (Let a court try to stop that!) During the campaign, Little Marco dismissed as unrealistic Trump’s proposed temporary suspension of Muslim immigration to our country — including the more than 2 million Muslims we’ve taken in just since 9/11. Instead, Rubio proposed we do something achievable, like remake the entire Middle East with wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan. Trump, and only Trump, promised to put our country first and protect our interests when it came to immigration and foreign wars. He didn’t care that political correctness dictated putting America’s interests dead last. But since becoming president, instead of draining the swamp, the swamp seems to have drained Trump. His agenda has been drowned out by the agenda of Washington’s Uni-Party. That’s why all we ever hear about is tax cuts and war (unless Trump is speaking to one of his 30,000-person focus groups). Rather than actually being like Reagan and winning the war we’re in, Trump has decided to continue Obama’s unconstitutional “executive amnesty” — opposition to which gave the GOP stunning victories in 2014 and 2016. This week, he grabbed the hot poker of Afghanistan, allowing ecstatic Democrats to scratch that disaster off Obama’s Greatest Hits list. Now, it’s Trump’s war. I don’t know why Trump would surround himself with people who oppose his agenda, but on Tuesday night he heard again from the people who see him as our country’s last hope. He should listen to them.

Exactly!!  Well said, Ann.  Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter is responsible for that op/ed.  Ann is exactly right that Pres. Trump needs to focus on those items that got him elected; halting illegal immigration, building a wall along our southern border, repealing & replacing Obamacare, etc.  To be fair, Trump HAS made a LOT of progress.  But, his agenda has been stalled in Congress.  As for Afghanistan (a subject near and dear to my heart, since I spent some time there)…  We, as a nation, need to make a decision about it one way or the other..  Either send in 100,000 troops and go through that all over again…OR  just put a few Special Ops outposts there from which to launch smaller special operations missions…and bring the majority of the troops at Bagram Air Base home.