CPAC today invited conservative commentator Ann Coulter to debate “liberal” journalist Mickey Kaus, who ended up holding the same right-wing views on immigration reform as Coulter, and who even praised ultraconservative GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions. The two tried to outdo each other in bashing supporters of immigration reform, but it was hard to top Coulter.
Coulter attacked MSNBC for “celebrating the browning of America.” “But if you don’t celebrate it you’re a racist,” she added. “It’s going to be people who are not from America who are going to be in theory funding older, white people who are getting to their Social Security and Medicare age. I don’t think that can last, at some point they’re going to say, ‘Screw it.’”
“I used to think everything was about sex, now I realize everything is about immigration,” she added later. Coulter praised Mitt Romney for taking the “most aggressive” stance on immigration and called on the GOP to nominate another staunchly anti-immigrant candidate.
Coulter ended with this call to arms: “Amnesty is forever and you got to vote for the Republicans one more time and just make it clear; but if you pass amnesty, that’s it, it’s over and then we organize the death squads for the people who wrecked America.”
UPDATE: During a press conference with Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly, Coulter compared the increasing Latino population to rape:
“My favorite network for humor is MSNBC. They’re always sneering, demographics are changing. No this isn’t a natural process,” Coulter said. “It’s like you’re being raped and the guy is telling you ‘my penis is in you.’ No, you’re raping me. Demographics are changing by force. There is nothing natural about it.”
“I also don’t think you can remind people enough Democrats have not been winning people through their dazzling arguments,” Coulter said. “They have changed the voters and in the 2012 election, if the country had not changed, by force, on purpose, by people trying to harm this country, i.e. Ted Kennedy, Romney would have won a larger landslide against Obama than Reagan won against Carter in 1980, because he won 4 points more of the white vote. Back in 1980, the country was nearly 90 percent white now.”
According to Coulter, immigration is destroying the GOP and thus America itself, because apparently only "real Americans" vote Republican. She's particularly offended that immigration means she has to "hear about soccer all the time."
"We’re living in a different country now, and I can’t recall moving!," she writes.
Coulter also lashes out at proponents of the DREAM Act, claiming that their arguments would also protect rapists, murderers and suicide bombers.
If we have to excuse lawbreaking so as not to “punish the children,” there’s no end to the crimes that have to be forgiven – insider trading, theft, rape, murder and so on.
How do you think kids feel when their father has to “live in the shadows” because he committed a rape? The kids did nothing wrong, but they have to go to bed every night wondering: Is tomorrow the day Dad is going to be caught?
With illegal aliens, the parents are more like gypsies teaching their kids to beg and pick pockets. The parents forced the kids into being lawbreakers.
Similarly, Palestinians use their children to commit acts of terrorism against Israel, so that when Israel responds, the parents can wail, “They’re bombing children!”
(I thought only liberals couldn’t do analogies.)
Americans are under no moral obligation to admit huge numbers of people who have no particular right to be here just because the Democrats need 30 million new voters.
Why shouldn’t Republicans oppose mass immigration on the grounds that immigrants will vote Democratic? The only reason the Democrats want mass immigration is because they know immigrants will vote Democratic. (Also for the cheap nannies and gardeners.)
Immigration is the “single issue” that decides every other issue. If this country were the same demographically today as it was in 1980, Romney would have won a bigger victory in 2012 than Reagan did against Carter. And we wouldn’t have to hear about soccer all the time.
We’re living in a different country now, and I can’t recall moving! Had I wanted to live in Japan, I could have moved there. Had I had wanted to live in Mexico, Pakistan or Chechnya – I could have moved to those places, too.
(Although maybe not. They all have stricter immigration policies than we do.)
I’m sure they’re lovely, but I wanted to live in America. Now I can’t. At the current rate of immigration, it won’t exist anymore. The Democrats couldn’t win elections there, so they changed it.
While the vast majority of Americans, including Republicans, back a comprehensive immigration reform plan that includes a pathway to citizenship, the Nativist movement is still trying to scare voters and elected officials into thinking that attempts to fix America’s broken system will actually destroy the country…and all of civilization.
Here’s a look at some of 2013’s worst xenophobic leaders, including our choice for “Nativist of the Year”:
8. William Gheen
Americans For Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) leader William Gheen hasn’t changed his tune about usingviolence to stop immigration reform, warning that his group may soon stop using “nonviolent political means.” According to Gheen, politicians are trying “to demonize whites, Christians, and males” and turn over power to immigrants who are “gang raping, molesting kids, drinking, driving, killing, and joining gangs that try to feed our children cocaine and methamphetamine at the earliest age they can.”
As the leader of the Texas chapter of Eagle Forum and a former chairman of the Texas GOP, Adams has been pleading with her fellow Republicans not to aid immigration reform efforts. Why? She believes that such reform measures are tools of Satan that will lead to the enactment of Sharia law and usher in the End Times.
6. Ann Coulter
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter is angry that America no longer has racist immigration quotas, worrying that America will soon “turn itself into Mexico” and undermine its delicate “ethnic composition.” “The country is over,” she said, if the immigration reform passes. Coulter also seems to be creating figures about the undocumented population out of thin air, suggesting that there are 30 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
5. Phyllis Schlafly
The immigration debate in Congress opened the door for some conservative activists to not only oppose reform efforts but also to fight any political outreach to non-white voters. Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly took the lead, urging the GOP to abandon any outreach to people of color and Latinos in particular. She claims Latinos don’t understand the Bill of Rights or American values... because if they did, they would be voting Republican like real Americans do. Instead, explained Schlafly, Republicans should simply try to increase white turnout.
4. Mark Krikorian
Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies seems to think that Nativists are the real victims in the immigration debate and is attempting to use a “play the victim” mentality to attack supporters of immigrant rights. He says that Nativists are waging a heroic struggle against “ethnic chauvinist groups” and their allies in “Big Business…Big Labor, all the big donors, Big Government Big Education, Big Media, Big Philanthropy [and] Big Religion.” Krikorian hopes that the GOP stops trying to attract Latino voters, warning that “the future of the republic rests” on whether Speaker Boehner allows immigration reform to come to a vote in the House.
3. Michele Bachmann
Speaking of which, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) andherfriends in the Tea Party Caucus are desperately trying to defeat immigration reform by making sure that such legislation doesn’t even come up for a vote. Bachmann believes that immigration reform will literally destroy the future of the country and that Obama won re-election in part because he gave some undocumented immigrants the right to vote (he didn’t). She thinks that Republicans should give Obama a spanking until he hands over his magic wand that unilaterally gives the vote to all undocumented immigrants:
2. Jason Richwine
The Heritage Foundation’s study on the supposedly devastating impacts of immigration reform might have had more credibility if its principal author, Jason Richwine, weren’t a proponent of racist pseudo-science with links to white nationalists. His report was so erroneous and misleading that even many of Richwine’s fellowconservatives didn’t find it credible, but that hasn’tstopped GOP politicians from using the salacious report to justify their anti-immigrant rhetoric.
WASHINGTON – Will Republicans in Congress stand with the majority of their party and country in supporting comprehensive immigration reform, or will they stand with extremists attempting to derail the bipartisan momentum for reform? That’s the choice exposed in a new report from People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch.
The report, Congressional Republicans’ Clear Choice on Immigration: Stand With Pro-Reform Majorities or Cave to Anti-Immigrant Extremists, details the strategies that have been used by the Right to block immigration reform and the defining choice Republicans face on immigration now as the national landscape shifts. PFAW Senior Fellow Peter Montgomery, the report’s author, documents the anti-immigration vitriol of far-right pundits and elected officials such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Senator Ted Cruz. Recent comments from the GOP’s far-right fringe – such as Rep. Steve King’s characterization of most young undocumented immigrants as drug runners with “calves the size of cantaloupes” from “hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert” – suggest that this fringe is not relenting as the national debate continues.
“There is new bipartisan momentum for immigration reform, and some Republicans are working to reposition the party in the minds of Latino voters,” the report notes. “But in order to make that possible, Republican officials will have to demonstrate that they are willing to face down the divisive extremists that many of them once cheered on.”
Expanding on her claim that America has too many Latinos, Ann Coulter today argues that Democrats want to bring even more immigrants into the country because they are aborting their own children and don’t want conservatives “out-populating” them. Coulter warns that progressives intend to prevent their “demographic collapse” through immigration and see the Senate reform bill as a way “to flip an imminent conservative victory into a permanent liberal majority.”
After likening immigrants to prisoners, she writes that progressives “want the rest of the world’s poor to come here not only to raise their children, clean their houses, manicure their lawns and cook their meals, but to give birth to the Democratic children that liberals aren’t having.”
Republican states, such as Utah and Kentucky, have been steadily gaining population, while liberal states, such as New York and Vermont, are consistent demographic losers. It should not come as a surprise, though it always does, that people opposed to abortion are out-populating those who consider abortion a right.
But liberals always have a workaround. For decades, their solution to the left’s demographic collapse has been immigration. Idiot Republicans being buffaloed into supporting Rubio’s amnesty bill are not merely throwing Democrats a lifeline – they’re allowing Democrats to flip an imminent conservative victory into a permanent liberal majority.
With native-born liberals unwilling to reproduce themselves, liberals need a constant influx of new Democratic voters from other countries – and there happen to be 11 million of them living here right now! Contrary to Rubio-Republicans who think “they all look alike,” the vast majority of Hispanics are not “social conservatives.” (That’s blacks, Marco.) In addition to being the one ethnic group most opposed to capitalism – even more than Occupy Wall Street protesters! – polls show that Hispanics are more pro-abortion than other Americans (66 percent of Hispanics versus 50 percent of other voters) and favor gay marriage more than other Americans (59 percent compared to 48 percent of all voters). They also support big government by an astronomical 75 percent and Obamacare, in particular, by 62 percent. (Polls: Pew, ABC, ABC, Pew, Fox)
Of course the Democrats want these illegals voting!
It is of no concern to the Democratic Party that illegal aliens are lawbreakers and overwhelmingly minimum-wage workers. Liberals don’t care about the working class having millions more low-skilled workers competing with them, and they certainly don’t care about the country. They just want to win elections. (If only it would occur to Republicans that they need to win elections, too.)
Next, Democrats will be demanding that we set up polling booths in the prisons and sending Marco Rubio out to argue that we already have “de facto” prison-voting.
Does it occur to these brainless wonders in the GOP that the Democrats wouldn’t be agitating for amnesty if it didn’t get them votes? That’s all it’s about. Liberals want the rest of the world’s poor to come here not only to raise their children, clean their houses, manicure their lawns and cook their meals, but to give birth to the Democratic children that liberals aren’t having.
In her latest column, Ann Coulter laments the 1965 immigration bill that ended a racist quota system which favored immigrants from northern and western Europe. She said that “Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act was designed to boost the number of immigrants from the Third World,” and now “we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel by holding ourselves out as the welfare ward of the world.”
Just in case it wasn’t clear already, Coulter is talking about Latino immigrants, warning that the “Gang of 8” immigration reform bill will “turn the country into Mexico” and expand the welfare state.
“Was there a vote when the country decided to turn itself into Mexico?” Coulter asked, arguing that if “Rubio’s amnesty goes through, the Republican Party is finished.”
Meanwhile, Sens. Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and John McCain are working feverishly to turn the country into Mexico.
So now I think all the scandals are intended to distract from Rubio’s amnesty bill.
For decades, Mexicans have been about 30 percent of all legal immigrants to the United States, while only a smidgen more than 1 percent come from Great Britain. Is that fair? Granted, their food is better, but why is it the norm is to have nearly 30 times as many Mexican as British immigrants?
We have been taking in more immigrants from Guatemala, the Dominican Republic and Colombia, individually, than from England, our mother country. There are nearly twice as many immigrants from El Salvador as from Canada, and 10 times as many as from Australia.
Why can’t the country be more or less the ethnic composition it always was? The 50-1 Latin American-to-European ratio isn’t a natural phenomenon that might result from, say, Europeans losing interest in coming here and poor Latin Americans providing some unique skill desperately needed in our modern, technology-based economy.
To the contrary, it’s result of an insane government policy. Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act was designed to artificially inflate the number of immigrants from the Third World, while making it virtually impossible for anyone from the nations that historically provided our immigrants to come here.
Pre-1965 immigrants were what made this country what it was for a reason: They were the pre-welfare state immigrants. From around 1630 to 1966, immigrants sank or swam. About a third of them couldn’t make it in America and went home – and those are the ones who weren’t rejected right off the boat for being sick, crippled or idiots.
That’s why corny stories of someone’s ancestors coming here a half-century ago are completely irrelevant. If their ancestors hadn’t succeeded, their great-grandchildren wouldn’t be here to tell the story because no one was given food stamps, free medical care and housing to stay (and vote Democrat).
Now we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel by holding ourselves out as the welfare ward of the world and specifically rejecting skilled immigrants.
As Milton Friedman said, you cannot have open borders and a welfare state. The reason a country’s average immigrant matters is that the losers never go home – they go on welfare. (Maybe if they had to work, immigrants wouldn’t have as much time to build bombs.) Airy statements about wanting to end welfare aren’t going to change that implacable fact.
It should not come as a surprise that a majority of recent immigrants are following a path that’s the exact opposite of earlier immigrants. The immigrant story of lore is that the first generation is poor but works hard, then the second, third and fourth generations soar up the socioeconomic ladder.
But innumerable studies have shown that Mexican first-generation immigrants work like maniacs – and then the second, third and fourth generations plunge headlong into the underclass.
By now, Mexicans are the largest immigrant group in America, with about 50 million Hispanics living here legally.
Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill will soon make it 80 million. First, there are at least 11 million illegal immigrants, a majority from Mexico, who will be instantly legalized. Then we’ll get their entire extended families under our chain migration system.
I wouldn’t want that many Japanese! I wouldn’t want that many Dutch (not that there are that many Dutch)! Why do we have to become a different country? Was there a vote when the country decided to turn itself into Mexico? No other country has ever just decided to turn itself into another country like this.
The nation’s plutocrats are lined up with the Democratic Party in a short-term bid to get themselves cheap labor (subsidized by the rest of us), which will give the Democratic Party a permanent majority. If Rubio’s amnesty goes through, the Republican Party is finished. It will be the “Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party” versus the “Chuck Schumer Republican Party.”
Back in July, Eagle Forum Collegians hosted their 2012 Annual Leadership Summit at the Heritage Foundation where Rep. Michele Bachmann delivered a speech warning of the Muslim Brotherhood’s supposed infiltration of the U.S. government, herbaselesspetcause. Bachmann told attendees that the Obama administration’s meeting with an Egyptian lawmaker, who was vetted by the Secret Service and both the State Department and Department of Homeland Security, was part of a string of “outrageous, unbelievable actions on the part of the administration to allow influence by the Muslim Brotherhood at the highest levels of power: the State Department, the White House, the Pentagon, the FBI.”
She then attacked the media for “saying we’re going after individual personalities and that we’re being mean to Muslims.” But Bachmann did in fact specifically name individuals, including Secretary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, and other Muslims serving in the administration as part of a witch hunt denounced by Democratic and Republican leaders alike, including the Republican Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Bachmann went on to explain that “every day I’m in trouble for something, who cares, who cares?”
Later, the Congresswoman suggested that attendees read “everything Phyllis Schlafly has ever written,” calling her an “absolute genius,” and also recommended books by extremist commentator Ann Coulter and disgraced pseudo-historian David Barton.
On Sunday morning, ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” gave right-wing shock pundit Ann Coulter a national platform to opine on national politics and promote herself and her books. “This Week” is generally a serious and reasonable look back on the week’s political events. Coulter, however, is neither serious nor reasonable – not even close.
Coulter, a self-described “mean-spirited, bigoted conservative,” goes out of her way to provoke and offend and even promote violence. Based on her own words, she’s a strident racist and bigot who openly despises much of humanity. Many of her defenders, however, claim that she’s really just an entertainer who says ridiculous things for comedic effect. But it doesn’t matter whether she’s really a fanatic or just plays one on TV. What matters are the vile things she says, often to huge audiences thanks to mainstream media outlets that mistake bigotry for edginess.
A few of her most outrageous comments are captured here:
Recently, talking about the Occupy Wall St. protests in November, Coulter suggested that violence against protesters could shut down the movement: “Remember the lesson from my book: It just took a few shootings at Kent State to shut that down for good.”
In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Coulter attacked a group of widows that had joined together to lobby for a government investigation into the attacks, culminating with the 9/11 Commission:
These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.
There is really nothing that Coulter won’t say. Coulter – among many many other things – has said that:
Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote: "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen."
Killing an abortion doctor isn't murder: "Well, apparently, this one random nut who shot Tiller -- I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester."
John Edwards is a “faggot”: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I -- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."
I could go on, but the point is that Coulter has firmly established herself as a hate-filled provocateur and radical – not a conservative. We fully expect ABC and “This Week” to have conservative guests with whom we disagree, and vice versa, but that’s not the issue here. Coulter has been playing the same game for years, making millions off bigotry and hate. The mainstream media shouldn’t play along.
Clearly uncomfortable, Coulter hedged a bit before declaring that "violence will break out" when the Constitution is trampled upon and stated that the "current score" between murdered babies and murdered doctors was approximately fifty million to seven:
Potter: Let's talk about your appearance in Broken Arrow on March 3, your speaking at a fundraiser for the founder of Operation Rescue, Randall Terry who is running for president on the Democratic ticket in Oklahoma. Why'd you take the gig?
Coulter: Well, for one thing, this is what I do for a living; I give speeches. But I love Randall Terry and I must say, if he beats President Obama in the Democratic primary, I'm going to be torn ... do I support Randall Terry or Mitt Romney, whom I've been pushing for the Republican Party? So it could end up being a very difficult choice for me.
Potter: You say you love Randall Terry, He's famous nationally for his efforts to shut down abortion clinics. He's used many graphic images in his protests. He even had words of support for the guy who gunned down that obstetrician in the Wichita church service back in 2009. You're cool with all that?
Coulter: Ummmmm .... well, I'm going to discuss the issue of the abortion clinic doctors being shot in my speech. But, by in large, the current score is, what, about fifty million to seven in terms of the number of people their side has killed and the number of people our side has killed. But I'll give you a brief preview, which is when you take democracy away from people, violence will break out. That is not, itself, an endorsement, but it is a suggesting that we go back to living under the Constitution.
As we've noted before, anti-abortion zealot Randall Terry is currently running a Potemkin presidential campaign for the sole purpose of exploiting a loophole that allows him to air graphic anti-abortion ads on television under the guise that they are campaign ads.
Location: Arrow Heights Baptist Church, 3201 South Elm Place, Broken Arrow (just outside Tulsa), Oklahoma.
"We are thrilled to have Miss Coulter's formidable talents and skills give us a boost in our efforts in Oklahoma. I'm certain the evening will be inspirational and motivational.
"If I -- the 'extremist candidate' -- receive 5% or 6% of the vote in the Oklahoma primary, it sends a serious rebuke to the Obama campaign. Moreover, it shows that a sizable percentage of voters are willing to defect from a sitting President in their own party, because of his attacks on human life and religious liberty. That would spell big trouble for the Obama camp in the swing states in the general election."
This year's CPAC has been an extremely disjointed event as conservatives keep trying to come to grips with the fact that they dislike their Republican choices for president only slightly less than they dislike President Obama.
Nothing better exemplifies this fundamental tension than the fact that perennial CPAC favorite Ann Coulter could barely even muster tepid applause from the crowd as she half-heartedly tried to make the case for Mitt Romney. But she did still manage to throw out some vintage Coulter-esque red meat to the audience, like when she compared President Obama to Flavor Flav:
Have even conservatives finally grown tired of Ann Coulter? Conservative talk show host Steve Deace lit into Coulter, calling the right-wing pundit a “hack of the highest order,” on Michael Brown’s Line of Fire and again on his own talk show last night. Coulter’s relationship with the conservative movement soured after she joined the board of the gay conservative group GOProud, eventhoughsheregularly attacks gays and lesbians, and Deace told Brown that Christians who purchase Coulter’s book will are “probably going to have to give an account one day on why they wasted the revenue God gave them:
The commentator that probably has the least amount of credibility in America is Ann Coulter. I think a Christian that buys another one of her books or anything else that’s attached to her is probably going to have to give an account one day on why they wasted the revenue God gave them. She has undermined almost everything Christians say they believe for the last few years, including her recent joining of the board of GOProud, which is a pro-gay Republican group. I don’t know how else to put that, I don’t say this with joy and glee, I’m not playing roll out the barrel in the back as I’m telling your audience this Michael, but you asked me a blunt question and I’ll give you a blunt answer, and that is that the list of people I know in American politics who I’ve studied or interviewed or gotten to know who I think have less credibility and less integrity than Ann Coulter, regardless of their belief system, is a real short one.
Last night on his own talk show, Deace said Coulter was “the least sincere, most dishonest person in American politics I know and have ever interviewed regardless of which side of the aisle they’re on,” hitting her for her endorsement of Mitt Romney:
I was on an interview, I was on Dr. Michael Brown’s show today, Line of Fire, and he was asking me about our book, We Won’t Get Fooled Again, and he brought up some of the people we’ve interviewed, just wanted to get my quick take on them after we did the interviews and he brought up Ann Coulter, and I said, bottom line, Ann Coulter is the least sincere, most dishonest person in American politics I know and have ever interviewed regardless of which side of the aisle they’re on. I just think she’s an absolute hack of the highest order, and just totally insincere. So [she and Romney] belong together.
Right-wing advocates who have made a decades-long push to bring federal courts under ideological domination are planning to wage a campaign against any nominee President Obama makes to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.