Showing posts with label Ann Coulter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ann Coulter. Show all posts

Friday, September 4, 2015

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

How to Write a New York Times Op-Ed in Three Easy Steps
Today we’ll talk about how to write a New York Times op-ed in 45 minutes or less. We all like labor-saving tips!The main point to keep in mind is that your op-ed is not intended to elucidate, educate or amuse. These are status pieces meant to strike a pose, signaling that you are a good person.After reading your op-ed, readers should feel the warm sensation of being superior to other people — those who don’t agree with you. The idea is to be in fashion. It’s all about attitude, heavy on eye-rolling.
(1) Psychoanalyze conservatives as paranoid and insecure. Liberals — who, to a man, have been in psychoanalysis — enjoy putting people they disagree with on the operating table and performing a vivisection, as if conservatives are some lower life form.
Thus, for example, an op-ed in this week’s Times by Arthur Goldwag was titled “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch.”
This should not be confused with Justin A. Frank’s 2004 book, “Bush on the Couch,” offering a detailed diagnosis of Bush’s alleged mental disorders.
Nor should it be confused with a column that went up on Daily Kos the day after I wrote this column, psychoanalyzing me. (I’m just glad I snubbed the guy in high school.)
Goldwag explained: “Mr. Trump’s angry certainty …”
Let’s pause right here. I am obsessed with Donald Trump. I wish I could cancel my book tour and just lie in bed watching his speeches all day long. I’m like a lovesick teenager studying Justin Bieber videos. And I’ve never seen Trump look angry.
(Goldwag continued) ” … that immigrants and other losers are destroying the country while the cultural elites that look down on him stand by and do nothing resonates strongly with the less-educated, lower-income whites who appear to be his base.”
Yes, Trump’s base are “less-educated.” This is as opposed to Democratic voters, who couldn’t figure out how to fill in a Florida ballot in 2000.
True, writing like this will expose your own gigantic paranoia at being excluded from historic WASP America. If you start obsessing over the Augusta National Golf Club (as the Times did for one solid decade), people will naturally begin to suspect that you’re resentful toward traditional American culture.
But I am not giving lessons in self-esteem here. I’m trying to help you dash off an op-ed in record time. Psychoanalysis has been liberals’ go-to move forever.
Following the 1964 presidential election, the American Psychiatric Association was forced to issue “the Goldwater rule,” prohibiting shrinks from psychoanalyzing people they’d never met, after a few thousand of them had issued their professional opinion that Barry Goldwater was nuts. (A “frightened person,” “paranoid,” “grossly psychotic” and a “megalomaniac.”)
Some Times writer probably produced an op-ed calling Calvin Coolidge “paranoid.”
It’s not very interesting, but, again, the sole purpose of your op-ed is to assure the status-anxious that they are better than other people.
(2) The perfect hack phrase is to say conservatives are “frightened of the country changing around them.”
Examples:
– “The Tea Party, to be most benign about it, is primarily white, it is witnessing a country changing around it. It feels angry, feels — the diversity.” — Katrina Vanden Heuvel, MSNBC, May 24, 2012
(You want angry? Go to an Al Sharpton rally.)
– “Old white guys (are) caught in a demographic vice, right? (They) are frankly a little nervous, right? The country is changing around them. … The country is becoming more brown, and more — younger. And the values are changing. Gay rights, women are working. I mean all of these things are happening and they are not quite sure what to do.” — Jamal Simmons, MSNBC, June 15, 2013
– “I don’t think these are organized hate groups. These are, by and large, more or less everyday citizens who are very fearful of the way the world is changing around them.” — Mark Potok, (spokesman for the country’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center) in “Changing World Draws Racist Backlash,” The Philadelphia Tribune, June 28, 2010
I thought it was a nice gesture that Mark admitted that conservatives are not “organized hate groups.” We owe you one, Mark! You’re a super guy.
(3) Call conservatives “aggrieved” as often as possible. Yes, this from the party of reparations, #BlackLivesMatter, comparable worth, “Lean In,” the DREAM Act and so on. If the Democratic Party were a reality TV show, it would be called “America’s Got Grievances!”
Examples:
– “‘We don’t have victories anymore,’ Mr. Trump told those deeply aggrieved Americans in June.” — Arthur Goldwag, op-ed: “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch,” The New York Times, Sept. 1, 2015
– “Mr. Bush has to win over a fair chunk of the aggrieved, frightened Trump voters.” — New York Times editorial, Aug. 26, 2015
– “You have this aggrieved conservative industry that makes their money by being aggrieved.” — John Feehery, Republican spokesman for former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, quoted in New York Times, Jan. 15, 2015
You’re doing this not just for the $75 you’ll make for writing a Times op-ed. Dreadful hacks meet a need.
A lot of people are followers by nature. They just want to be told: Here are the politicians you admire, and here are the ones you disdain; here are the people you worship, and here are the ones you disparage; here are the TV shows you like, and here are the ones you despise.
Times writers are like personal shoppers for people too lazy to form their own opinions. Just don’t imagine that this is good writing, comedy or art. But it’s not bad for something you can dash off in about 45 minutes!

Sunday, August 30, 2015

SMALL BUT HONEST COLUMNIST AGAIN FORCED TO CORRECT HIGHEST-RATED SHOW ON CABLE TV by Ann Coulter

To support his insane interpretation of the post-Civil War amendments as granting citizenship to the kids of illegal aliens, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly is now taking job applications for the nonexistent -- but dearly hoped-for -- Jeb! administration, live, during his show. 

(Apparently my debate with O'Reilly will be conducted in my column, Twitter feed and current bestselling book, Adios, America, against the highest-rated show on cable news.) 

Republicans have been out of the White House for seven long years, and GOP lawyers are getting impatient. So now they're popping up on Fox News' airwaves, competing to see who can denounce Donald Trump with greater vitriol. 

Last Thursday's job applicants were longtime government lawyers John Yoo and David Rivkin. 

In response to O'Reilly's statement that "there is no question the Supreme Court decisions have upheld that portion of the 14th Amendment that says any person, any person born in the U.S.A. is entitled to citizenship ... for 150 years" -- Yoo concurred, claiming: "This has been the rule in American history since the founding of the republic." 

Yes, Americans fought at Valley Forge to ensure that any illegal alien who breaks into our country and drops a baby would have full citizenship for that child! Why, when Washington crossed the Delaware, he actually was taking Lupe, a Mexican illegal, to a birthing center in Trenton, N.J. 

If one were being a stickler, one might recall the two centuries during which the children of slaves were not deemed citizens despite being born here -- in fact, despite their parents, their grandparents and their great-grandparents being born here.


Incongruously, Yoo also said, "The text of the 14th Amendment is clear" about kids born to illegals being citizens. 

Wait a minute! Why did we need an amendment if that was already the law -- since "the founding of the republic"! 

An impartial observer might contest whether the amendment is "clear" on that. "Clear" would be: All persons born in the United States are citizens. 

What the amendment actually says is: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." 

The framers of the 14th Amendment weren't putting a secret trap door in the Constitution for fun. The "jurisdiction thereof" and "state wherein they reside" language means something. (Ironically, Yoo -- author of the Gitmo torture memo -- was demonstrating that if you torture the words of the Constitution, you can get them to say anything.

At least Rivkin didn't go back to "the founding of the republic." But he, too, claimed that the "original public meaning (of the 14th Amendment] which matters for those of us who are conservatives is clear": to grant citizenship to any kid whose illegal alien mother managed to evade Border Patrol agents. 

Whomever that was the “original public meaning” for, it sure wasn’t the Supreme Court. 

To the contrary, the cases in the first few decades following the adoption of the 14th Amendment leave the strong impression that it had something to do with freed slaves, and freed slaves alone: 

-- Supreme Court opinion in the Slaughterhouse cases (1873): 

"(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." 

-- Supreme Court opinion in Ex Parte Virginia (1879): 

"[The 14th Amendment was] primarily designed to give freedom to persons of the African race, prevent their future enslavement, make them citizens, prevent discriminating State legislation against their rights as freemen, and secure to them the ballot." 

-- Supreme Court opinion in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880): 

"The 14th Amendment was framed and adopted ... to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that, under the law, are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government in that enjoyment whenever it should be denied by the States." 

-- Supreme Court opinion in Neal v. Delaware (1880) (majority opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, who was the only dissenting vote in Plessy v. Ferguson): 

"The right secured to the colored man under the 14th Amendment and the civil rights laws is that he shall not be discriminated against solely on account of his race or color." 

-- Supreme Court opinion in Elk v. Wilkins (1884): 

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized ..." 

One has to leap forward 200 years from "the founding of the republic" to find the first claim that kids born to illegal immigrants are citizens: To wit, in dicta (irrelevant chitchat) by Justice William Brennan, slipped into the footnote of a 5-4 decision in 1982. 

So to be precise, what Yoo means by the "founding of the republic," and Rivkin means by "the original public meaning" of the 14th Amendment, is: "Brennan dicta from a 1982 opinion." 

Perhaps, if asked, the Supreme Court would discover a "constitutional" right for illegal aliens to sneak into the country, drop a baby, and win citizenship for the kid and welfare benefits for the whole family. (Seventy-one percent of illegal immigrant households with children are on government assistance.

But it is a fact that the citizenship of illegal alien kids has never been argued, briefed or ruled on by the Supreme Court. 

Yoo and Rivkin aren't stupid. It appears that the most significant part of their analysis was Yoo's legal opinion: "I don't think Trump is a Republican. I think actually he is ruining the Republican Party." Please hire me, Jeb!! (or Rubio)! 

O'Reilly could get more reliable constitutional analyses from Columba Bush than political lawyers dying to get back into government. 

COPYRIGHT 2015 ANN COULTER 


Thursday, August 27, 2015

The Constitution Still Doesn’t Grant Birthright Citizenship

To support his insane interpretation of the post-Civil War amendments as granting citizenship to the kids of illegal aliens, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is now taking job applications for the nonexistent — but dearly hoped-for — Jeb! administration, live, during his show.
The Constitution Still Doesn’t Grant Birthright Citizenship | The Daily Caller(Apparently my debate with O’Reilly will be conducted in my column, Twitter feed and current bestselling book, Adios, America, against the highest-rated show on cable news.)
Republicans have been out of the White House for seven long years, and GOP lawyers are getting impatient. So now they’re popping up on Fox News’ airwaves, competing to see who can denounce Donald Trump with greater vitriol.
Last Thursday’s job applicants were longtime government lawyers John Yoo and David Rivkin.
In response to O’Reilly’s statement that “there is no question the Supreme Court decisions have upheld that portion of the 14th Amendment that says any person, any person born in the U.S.A. is entitled to citizenship … for 150 years” — Yoo concurred, claiming: “This has been the rule in American history since the founding of the republic.”
Yes, Americans fought at Valley Forge to ensure that any illegal alien who breaks into our country and drops a baby would have full citizenship for that child! Why, when Washington crossed the Delaware, he actually was taking Lupe, a Mexican illegal, to a birthing center in Trenton, N.J.
If one were being a stickler, one might recall the two centuries during which the children of slaves were not deemed citizens despite being born here — in fact, despite their parents, their grandparents and their great-grandparents being born here.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Coulter: I Don’t Care If Donald Trump Performs Abortions in the White House

Conservative author Ann Coulter tweeted Sunday that Donald Trump’s immigration policy is so awesome, she doesn’t care if he performs abortions in the White House.
The tweet comes after Trump admitted in a Meet the Press interview that it’s possible he donated to Planned Parenthood in the past. Coulter has said that she believes abortion is murder.
She continued to praise Trump’s new policy paper, even comparing him to Ronald Reagan and his plan to the Magna Carta.
I don't care if wants to perform abortions in White House after this immigration policy paper.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

[VIDEO] Coulter: 'Immigrant': The New N-Word by Ann Coulter


Americans have got to drop their weird verbal tic of inserting “illegal” into any discussion of immigration.
After I pointed out on “Fox News” that the dispute between Sen. Rand Paul and Gov. Chris Christie over spying on “Americans” was entirely a problem of immigration, “Fox Insiders” put these two sentences together:
“[Coulter] explained that halting illegal immigration would help solve other key issues such as the economy and national security. ‘Don’t make terrorists citizens through immigration, and we’ll have a lot less of a national security problem,’ Coulter said, pointing to the attacks at the Boston Marathon and in Chattanooga.” (Emphasis added.)
Were those guys illegals? Did Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev swim across the Rio Grande to get to Boston? Did Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez hire coyotes to sneak him across the border so he could shoot four Marines and a sailor in Chattanooga?
No. Our government invited them in.
Some of our other beloved legal immigrants include:
— Anwar al-Awlaki, the man whose death in Afghanistan provoked Rand Paul to stage a 13-hour filibuster in opposition to the use of drones against — I quote — “American citizens”;
— the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan;
— the attempted Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad;
— all those Somali immigrants living in Minnesota, bloc-voting for Al Franken before flying to Syria to fight with ISIS;
— Sirhan Sirhan;
— the 9/11 hijackers;
— the Pakistani terrorist Daood Sayed Gilani, American anchor baby, responsible for four days of bombings in Mumbai in 2008;
— the New York subway bomb plotter, Najibullah Zazi;
— Pakistani terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, who shot a U.S. Army captain in 2010;
— the “local man” arrested this week for trying to organize an army of ISIS fighters in New York and New Jersey, Nader Saadeh — anchor baby “American citizen.”
ALL LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND THEIR CHILDREN! Why were any of them in this country? What are we getting out of this?
It’s not just the Fox website. Wherever I go on this book tour, I find people injecting “illegal” into the discussion, as if they’re being polite, like saying “Jewish” instead of “Jew.” But all these “homegrown,” “American” terrorists aren’t Americans, at all — except as a result of recent government policy.
This week, Sens. Jeff Sessions and Ted Cruz have sent a letter to the Obama administration asking how many “non-citizens, naturalized U.S. citizens and natural-born U.S. citizens have been involved in terrorist-related activity since 1993.” National Review’s headline? “Cruz, Sessions: How Many ‘Homegrown’ Terrorists Were Illegal Immigrants?” (The headline was later changed, after complaints.)
It’s a national neurosis! People simply refuse to see what’s right in front of their faces.
Admittedly, the media hide the evidence, but did anyone read this 2010 New York Times headline, “2 New Jersey Men in Terrorism Case Go Before a Judge,” and think, Oh my gosh! What is America coming to?
The “New Jersey men” were Mohamed Mahmood Alessa and Carlos Eduardo Almonte. Alessa, born to legal immigrants from Jordan and the Palestinian territories, told his Boy Scout troop, “Osama bin Laden is a hero in my family” and expressed a desire to mutilate homosexuals and subordinate women. (He was the first member of his troop to earn a merit badge in female circumcision.)
Alessa’s co-conspirator, Almonte, is a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic. (Raising suspicions, he doesn’t play baseball.) He could be heard on a wiretap saying that he wanted U.S. troops to come home “in caskets.”
He also attended an anti-Israel rally with a large sign reading “DEATH TO ALL JUICE” — which he posted to his Facebook page, a social media platform created by a juice. (Naturalization officials must have high-fived one another when they got that guy.)
CNN was so relieved to have a “homegrown” terrorist who wasn’t a Muslim, the network abandoned its own rule book and identified Almonte as the child of “Latino immigrants” — amid fulsome descriptions of him as “an all-American kid” and an “all-American altar boy.”
So the good news is: Not all “American” terrorists are Muslim immigrants. Some are Latino immigrants — who typically become radicalized after coming into contact with one of our prized Muslim immigrants.
In addition to “DEATH TO ALL JUICE” Almonte, there was Bryant Neal Vinas, whose parents were legal immigrants from Argentina and Peru. Vinas fought with al-Qaida in Afghanistan and, in 2008, plotted to bomb New York’s Penn Station.
At least he’s not one of those icky illegal immigrants!
I have a word limit, so I’ve limited today’s discussion of legal immigrants to the terrorists. But I note that the big news this week is about an illegal immigrant, Victor Aureliano Martinez Ramirez, who raped, then murdered 64-year old Marilyn Pharis with a hammer at her home in Santa Maria, California. Has anyone noticed that Martinez Ramirez’s co-conspirator in the rape-torture-murder was legal immigrant Jose Fernando Villagomez?
It’s getting to the point where we’re going to need cattle prods and shock collars to break people of the neurotic compulsion to slip “ILLEGAL” in front of the word “immigrant.” The reality of legal immigration cannot make a dent in the elite’s make-believe world, where legal immigrants are only hot Swedish models, Rupert Murdoch and Sergey Brin.
Instead of Christie and Paul sparring over government policy on search warrants in a post-9/11 world, could we reconsider the government policy of admitting legal immigrants who need to be spied on?
Copyright 2015 Ann Coulter
Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading......

Sunday, August 9, 2015

[VIDEO] [COMMENTARY] DONALD TRUMP: STILL RIGHT ABOUT MEXICAN RAPISTS



There's a cultural acceptance of child rape in Latino culture that doesn't exist in even the most dysfunctional American ghettoes. When it comes to child rape, the whole family gets involved. (They are family-oriented!)

In a 2011 GQ magazine story about a statutory rape case in Texas, the victim's illegal alien mother, Maria, described her own sexual abuse back in Mexico.

"She was 5, she says, when her stepfather started telling her to touch him. Hand here, mouth there. The abuse went on and on, became her childhood, really. At 12, when she finally worked up the desperate courage to report the abuse and was placed in foster care, she says her mother begged her to recant -- the family needed the stepdad's paycheck. So Maria complied. She was returned home, where her stepdad continued to molest her. When she talks about it, tears stream down her face."

Far from "I am woman, hear me roar," these are cultures where women help the men rape kids.

Maria dismissed the firestorm of publicity surrounding the sexual precocity of her own daughter, laughingly referring to the 11-year-old rape victim as "my wild child." She even criticized the girl's older sisters for complaining about the young girl's promiscuous clothing choices, saying -- of an 11-year-old: "Well, she's got the body, so leave her alone."

In 2013, illegal immigrant Bertha Leticia Rayo was arrested for allowing her former husband, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, to rape her 4-year-old daughter, then assisting his unsuccessful escape from the police. The rapist, Aroldo Guerra-Garcia, was also aided in his escape attempt by another woman, Krystal Galindo. (Kind of a ladies man, was Aroldo.)

That same year, the government busted up a child pornography operation in Illinois being run out of the home of three illegal aliens from Mexico, including a woman. At least one of them, Jorge Muhedano-Hernandez, had already been deported once. (Peoria Journal Star headline: "Bloomington men plead guilty to false documents.")

The Baby Hope case in New York City began when a Mexican illegal alien, Conrado Juarez, raped and murdered his 4-year-old cousin, Anjelica Castillo. His sister helped him dispose of the body. Police found the little girl's corpse in a cooler off the Henry Hudson Parkway, but the case went unsolved for two decades, because none of the murdered girl's extended illegal alien family ever reported her missing. Anjelica's mother later told the police she always suspected the tiny corpse in the cooler was her daughter's, but never told anyone.

In 2014, Isidro Garcia was arrested in Bell Gardens, California, accused of drugging and kidnapping the 15-year-old daughter of his girlfriend, then forcing the girl to marry him and bear his child. The mother had suspected Garcia, then 31 years old, had been raping her teenage daughter, but did nothing. All three were illegal aliens from Mexico, making this another case for the "Not Our Problem" file.

In 2007, Mexican illegal immigrant Luis Casarez was convicted in New Mexico for repeatedly raping a 3-year-old and an 8-year-old. During his sentencing, Casarez borrowed Marco Rubio's talking points about hardworking illegal immigrants with roots in America. "I have been here for many years," Casarez told the judge -- incongruously, through a translator. "That's why," he added, "I've been working instead of getting involved with problems." Other than that one thing.

Two weeks after Luis Casarez was indicted for child rape, his son, Luis Casarez Jr., was indicted in a separate case of child rape.

When the crime is this bizarre, it's not "anecdotal." "Child rape perpetrated by more than one family member" isn't your run-of-the-mill crime. It's rather like discovering dozens of cannibalism cases in specific neighborhoods.

How many fourth-generation American father-son child-rape duos do we have? How many American brother-sister teams are conspiring in child rape and murder? How many mothers are helping their boyfriends and husbands get away with raping their own children?

And how many 12-year-old American girls are giving birth -- to the delight of their parents?

In some immigrant enclaves, the police have simply given up on pursuing statutory rape cases with Hispanic victims. They say that after being notified by hospital administrators that a 12-year-old has given birth and the father is in his 30s, they'll show up at the girl's house -- and be greeted by her parents calling the pregnancy a "blessing."

This happens all the time, they say.

And yet, in the entire American media, there have been more stories about a rape by Duke lacrosse players that didn't happen than about the slew of child rapes by Hispanics that did because Democrats want the votes and businesses want the cheap labor. No wonder they hate Trump.

COPYRIGHT 2015 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK 


[VIDEO] ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIME ACCOUNTS FOR OVER 30% OF MURDERS IN MANY STATES

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump deserves credit for forcing all 17 Republican candidates to talk about the social costs of illegal immigration, but it is not “Trump’s issue.” We will be making a fatal mistake if we let the media discuss it that way.

As Ann Coulter has pointed out, this is the most critical issue of the 2016 race because this is the issue that will define whether or not there will even be an American nation recognizable as the “home of the free and land of the brave.”
But illegal immigration is not “Ann Coulter’s issue” any more than it is “Tom Tancredo’s issue.” It is America’s issue — not only because it will define America in the 21st Century but because it also defines American elections and who will be voting in elections in 2020 and beyond. It also illuminates the power of the mainstream media to keep issues off the national stage.
Think of illegal immigration this way: If the liberal media can keep illegal alien crime out of the “kitchen table debate,” they can keep any issue out of the debate. And they will if they can get away with it. For those reasons, illegal immigration is much more than an issue of public policy; it is the poster child for media malpractice.
The media’s attempt to suppress public awareness over illegal alien crime and the effects of illegal immigration on American workers’ jobs and wages is nothing less than censorship on a massive scale. We need to start talking about it in those terms and hold the media accountable for the lack of ethical standards.
The mainstream media – including, sadly, major segments of the presumably conservative media, like the Wall Street Journal — are working overtime to keep the American public and the American voters in the dark on the scope of illegal alien crime. The murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco exposed only the tip of a massive iceberg, and the media establishment is desperate to avoid dealing with the iceberg underneath.
Let’s look at a few numbersYou haven’t seen them in the New York Times, Atlanta Constitution, or the Miami Herald, nor have they been featured on NBC Nightly news or CNN. So, the average American is blissfully unaware of them.
  • Between 2008 and 2014, 40% of all murder convictions in Florida were criminal aliens. In New York it was 34% and Arizona 17.8%.
  • During those years, criminal aliens accounted for 38% of all murder convictions in the five states of California, Texas, Arizona, Florida and New York, while illegal aliens constitute only 5.6% of the total population in those states.
  • That 38% represents 7,085 murders out of the total of 18,643.
That 5.6% figure for the average illegal alien population in those five states comes from US Census estimates. We know the real number is double that official estimate. Yet, even if it is 11%, it is still shameful that the percentage of murders by criminal aliens is more than triple the illegal population in those states.
Those astounding numbers were compiled by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) using official Department of Justice data on criminal aliens in the nation’s correctional system. The numbers were the basis for a presentation at a recent New Hampshire conference sponsored by the highly respected Center for Security Policy. You can view the full presentation here:

Monday, July 27, 2015

Ann Coulter: Trump Could Win The Election

In a D.C.-based radio interview, best-selling author Ann Coulter Friday defended GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump and believes he could be a “nominee who could win” the election.
“Trump is different. We have been lied to for thirty years about immigration. That’s why Trump is striking this chord. He’s attractive. He’s tall. He’s hilariously funny. I think he could be not only a nominee who could win but a third party candidate who could win,” Coulter told WMAL Friday.
She admitted in the interview she has reversed her stance on opposing candidates who were not governors.
“The more I see Trump talk, the more it diminishes the other candidates,” Coulter said.
The “Adios, America!” author told WMAL a third party candidate would “be fantastic” considering the current Republican field for president.
“I promise you that if the nominee is Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry or really any of those midgets, our fate is sealed,” Coulter said. “The Republican isn’t winning if it’s Marco or Jeb Bush. It’s absolute madness… The polls show Donald Trump is way ahead.”
Coulter dismissed Trump’s “war hero” comments about Sen. John McCain in comparison to what other presidential candidates have done.
“Marco Rubio spent three years trying to push amnesty on the country. I think that’s a bigger mistake than some flip remark that was he was instantly retracting. And Jeb Bush who campaigned for about five years to give illegal aliens driver’s licenses and 13 of the 19 hijackers on 911 had Florida driver licenses. He calls illegal immigration an ‘act of love’ and those are rather more important mistakes,” Coulter told WMAL host Brian Wilson.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Ann Coulter Waves Goodbye

Goodbye to the prosperous country founded by overwhelmingly Protestant colonists in the 18th century. Hello to the third-world multicultural mélange with a distinctly Mexican accent, appalling cultural norms, and a clearly leftist political orientation. Such is the vision of the United States given by no-holds-barred pundit Ann Coulter in her latest book, Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole.

Coulter’s subtitle summarizes her basic thesis -- that America’s immigration policies since the decisive Edward Kennedy immigration bill in 1965 have altered our demographic makeup so radically that the nation will be unalterably degraded if immediate changes aren’t made to our legal and illegal immigration practices. Despite assurances to the contrary, Kennedy’s legislation became the vehicle for fundamentally transforming America’s immigrant population from largely European to overwhelmingly Third World in origin.

Indeed, Coulter observes in her heavily annotated work that about 50 million Mexicans, more than a quarter of that nation’s population, has already migrated, either legally and illegally, to America -- a figure derived by employing data other than census forms that folks unlawfully in the country clearly don’t complete at the postulated 90% rate. Thanks to family reunification policies and notoriously lax enforcement of sanctuary laws, “since 1970, nearly 90 percent of all legal immigrants have been from the Third World.”  Accordingly, the country now accepts “more immigrants from Nigeria than we do from Britain.”

The devastating consequences of accepting millions of immigrants from cultural backwaters are evident in crime statistics -- stats that Coulter says are incredibly hard to secure since it’s now deemed racist to ask how many incarcerated folks are foreign born. Despite the virtual blackout on such data, it’s clear that immigrants (legal and illegal) constitute a disproportionate percentage of the nation’s prison population. “The U.S. government admits that at least 351,000 criminal immigrants were incarcerated in the United States as of 2011.” 

Many of these criminals, Coulter observes with biting sarcasm, are committing crimes that Americans just won’t do. Adios America is replete with atrocities that most news outlets won’t specifically attribute to immigrants. Instead, a “man” or “residents” are to blame for gruesome crimes. Consider, for example, a 1998 New York Times story in which the journalist employs numerous misleading terms in his report on a vicious gang-rape in Fresco, California (“working class city… men and boys… 24-year-old man… teen-ager… seven juveniles”) all the while avoiding specifically identifying both the perpetrators and victims of these crimes as Hmong immigrants. Coulter adds that “over the next year, about three dozen Hmong men were indicted for a series of gang rapes and forced prostitution of young girls in the Fresno area.” 

The truth that PC journalists are loath to admit is that Third World attitudes toward women are generally abysmal when compared with the United States. Thus, the fact that young Hispanic girls in the U.S. are seven times more likely than their white counterparts to give birth between the ages of ten and fourteen is perfectly consistent with Mexican law where “in thirty-one of thirty-two states… the age of consent for sex is twelve.” The lone exception is Mexico State where the legal age is fourteen. Thus, it shouldn’t be surprising that Hispanics have the highest unmarried birthrate in the U.S., “even higher than American blacks,” a fact “that will never be identified as the consequence of mass immigration.” 

Via: American Thinker


Continue Reading....

Immigration Showdown: Coulter Dominates Maher Panel vs. Amnesty Champion Gutierrez!

Columnist and author of “Adios, America” Ann Coulter debated immigration with former MSNBC host Joy Reid and Congressman Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) on Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time.”
The discussion began with Maher and Coulter debating the number of illegal immigrants in the US, and the prior immigration system in the US. Coulter said that, “We used to have an immigration policy where we would choose the best in the world, and that was changed,” Maher rebutted, “Well, we would choose the whitest in the world.”
Coulter continued, “Look, the pre-1970 immigrants were more educated, made more money, were more likely to buy houses, and 30% of them went home. Now, no one goes home, they go on welfare, and they are far more likely to be on welfare than the native population, I think a nation’s policies should be concerned with the people already here, and that includes the immigrants who came last year and the year before. It should be people who live here benefit, not to become the battered woman’s shelter of the world, where we’re bringing in the hardest cases, and the wife beaters, and single mother with eight kids.” Maher responded that he didn’t think those assertions were born out by statistics, because Coulter said there were 30 million illegal immigrants, while government stats say there are 12 million. Coulter argued that her number from Bear Stearns is more accurate than the Census figure that the 12 million came from because “people who have trekked thousands of miles, left their families behind, broken laws, stolen Social Security cards, are not going to be filling out government surveys.”
Maher answered that he still thinks that number is high, given lower birthrates among Mexican women, and “I’ve read everywhere that actually the net immigration from Mexico in the last seven years has been zero.” The two then agreed to suppose 30 million is correct, Coulter stated, “the point at issue is, should America’s immigration policy be used to benefit the people already here, or should it be benefiting Pakistani pushcart operators, illiterate in their own language, never mind ours, who come here, go on welfare, commit terrorism, engage in crimes. Why wouldn’t you look out across the world, like a sports team does, and try to get the crème de la crème?”
Gutierrez was then offered a rebuttal that Coulter was “revving up, you know, it’s a like a Latino registration machine,” and warned “you’re never going to take the White House with this kind of politics ever again–.” Maher then told Gutierrez “that didn’t exactly answer her question.”
Reid then responded, “We were earlier talking, and touched on the issue of slavery. Ever since the forcible removal of millions of African-Americans from chattel slavery, this country has been importing new slave labor because this country wants, and runs, and is fueled by cheap labor,” a point Coulter agreed with. Reid added, that cheap labor was and continues to be drawn from Mexico by “people who are on your side, big agriculture…the big corporate interests who want people to come here.” Coulter reacted that she is not on the side of big agriculture or large corporations, and Maher pointed out that Coulter agreed with Reid’s point in her book.

Popular Posts