Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter: Women Who Say They've Been Raped Are Typically Just 'Girls Trying To Get Attention'

Ann Coulter appeared on “The Lars Larson Show” last week to discuss the discrepancies in Rolling Stone’s article on an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia, which Coulter called a “shocking fraud” that proves that “there is no rape crisis” on college campuses.

Coulter also suggested that rapes only occur in physically violent circumstances, like “being hit on the head with a brick,” and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to get attention.

“People know what a rape is, and to have girls trying to get attention from Lena Dunham to this poor psychotic at UVA, Lady Gaga claiming she was raped but she didn’t admit it to herself for five years. What major crime do people say, ‘I didn’t admit it to myself’?” she demanded.

The conservative commentator told Larson that growing concerns about how colleges are handling sexual assault incidents are “based on nothing” when there are only a “very few percentage of actual rapists” on campuses and those “are usually Clintons or Kennedys.”

Rick Perry, Ron Johnson And Jeff Sessions To Join Anti-Muslim Activists At Florida Beach Resort Confab

FrontPageMag editor and increasingly unhinged anti-Obama yeller David Horowitz is hosting his annual “Restoration Weekend” for anti-Muslim activists at a beach resort in Florida this month. This year, Horowitz has recruited an impressive slate of Republican politicians, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, Oklahoma Rep. Jim Bridenstine to partake in the event’s offerings of golf, spa treatments, and Muslim-bashing.

Joining the GOP politicians at the Palm Beach weekend will be anti-Muslim activists including the Family Research Council’s Jerry BoykinJihadWatch’s Robert SpencerNational Review columnist Andrew McCarthy and, as Horowitz announced this weekend on Newsmax, far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

Conservative pundits Ann Coulter, Michael Reagan and Ben Shapiro will also be at the event, according to its website, along with FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe, Heritage Foundation economics chief Stephen Moore and Wall Street Journal editorial board member Kimberly Strassel.

Horowitz organizes and funds the annual Restoration Weekend through his David Horowitz Freedom Center — attendees pay between $1,750 and $20,000, but the group’s most recent available tax return shows the 2012 event didn’t even break even. At past events, Horowitz has attracted GOP luminaries including Sen. Ted Cruz, former Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Steve King and Rep. Michele Bachmann. All apparently undeterred by their host’s record of anti-Muslim extremism, including accusing former Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin and Republican anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist (whose wife is Muslim) of being secret Muslim Brotherhood agents.

In just the past year, Horowitz’s commentary has moved even further to the fringe. As the Justice Department launched an investigation of the shooting of an unarmed black teen in Ferguson, Missouri, this summer, Horowitz accused Attorney General Eric Holder of leading a black “lynch mob.” A day earlier, Horowitz said he was “sure” President Obama was secretly a Muslim because “he’s a pretend Christian in the same way he’s a pretend American.”

Such anti-Obama conspiracy theories have a welcome place at Horowitz’s Restoration Weekends. At last year’s event, for instance, Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona agreed with Robert Spencer’s statement that President Obama is either a secret Muslim or just acting like one:

Wilders, who has spoken at past Horowitz-affiliated events, including at least one Restoration Weekend, is currently on a U.S. tour that included lunch at the Capitol with Bachmann. Wilders, one of the most fiercely anti-Islam voices in Europe has compared the Quran to Mein Kampf and this year lost some prominent members of his own party when he targeted Moroccans living in the Netherlands to stir up support before the European elections.

Ann Coulter: 'Third World Peasants' To Blame For Respiratory Illness

In an interview with talk radio host Lars Larson last week, conservative commentator Ann Coulter claimed that undocumented immigrant youth are to blame for an outbreak of enterovirus D68 in the U.S.

While the CDC and other experts have denied a link between EV-D68 and new immigrants, Coulter said “a lot of doctors” told her “privately that this is totally the border surge.”

Coulter, citing her expertise as someone who frequently gets colds due to her heavy travel schedule, told Larson that when “you bring all these Third World peasants in and send them throughout the country, it’s not the Mexican kids dying or the Central American kids dying from this, it’s the Americans because they don’t have the immunities.”

Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' - The Book Is Not Better Than The Movie

This week Dinesh D’Souza’s “America: Imagine the World Without Her” is sitting at the top of the New York Times “nonfiction” bestseller list. Earlier this month, the movie version crossed the $14 million dollar mark, which moved it into six place overall for earnings by a political “documentary.”

But D’Souza is not just out to make money, of course. At a June screening of “America,” right-wing strategist Ralph Reed called D’Souza “a national treasure for our cause.” D’Souza’s last movie, “2016: Obama’s America,” was designed to keep Barack Obama from being elected.  “America” is an attempt to prevent Hillary Clinton from being elected in 2016, wrapped in an attack on the progressive movement.

At a time when corporate power and profits are at record highs, “America” the movie argues that America the country is being led down the road to national “suicide” and socialist tyranny in a plan that was conceived by organizer Saul Alinsky and is being carried out by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Central to this long-term leftist scheme to bring about American decline has been an effort to convince Americans to be ashamed of the country’s history so that they will support a reduced role for America in the world.

In the movie, D’Souza sets out to refute progressive “indictments against America: We stole the country from the Native Americans, we stole the labor of the African Americans, we took half of Mexico in the Mexican War. Today our foreign policy and free market system are forms of theft.” D’Souza says this “new story of American shame” is “not just an attack on the one percent. It’s an attack on all of us. We are a nation of immigrants and settlers and we are the ones accused of these crimes.” 

D’Souza interviews some leftists and liberals as foils, including Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, and Michael Eric Dyson, and turns to Alexis de Tocqueville, writing more than 150 years ago, as a “more reliable” source. De Tocqueville understood, D’Souza says, that slavery and the treatment of Native Americans were nothing unique to America, but reflected a universal “conquest ethic.” Throughout history, he says, wealth was built by conquest and theft. But America is uniquely based on a different idea – the idea of acquiring wealth not by taking it from someone else but through innovation, entrepreneurship and trade.

In the process of taking on these progressive “indictments” of American history, D’Souza essentially tells Native Americans, African Americans, and Mexican Americans that in the big picture they really have nothing to complain about, and could be successful if they were just willing to work rather than spending all their time complaining.

D’Souza is proud of himself for being willing to take on racial taboos, which he calls “the enemies of history and truth.” His point seems to be that African Americans were not uniquely abused by slavery and so they should stop thinking the country owes them something. Yes, he says, enslavement was theft of life and labor. But Irish people were also sold into indentured servitude. And some free blacks also owned slaves. Slave-owning founders should not be viewed as hypocrites but as pragmatists who had to accept slavery as the price of creating the U.S. And besides, slavery is part of the “universal conquest ethic” but “what’s uniquely American is the fighting of a great war to end it.”

The movie ignores Jim Crow, but tells the story of Madam C.J. Walker, an African American woman who was born just after the Civil War and who became wealthy by building a successful business in the early 20th Century. In the movie, an actress playing Walker lectures workers about freedom and opportunity and hard work. Of course, the movie does not mention her support for the NAACP or her active involvement in its anti-lynching campaigns. D’Souza claims she is left out of history because her success “confounds the shaming narrative.”

D’Souza also interviews Star Parker, a familiar figure at right-wing conferences, whose I-used-to-be-lazy-and-on-welfare shtick suggests that it is only an unwillingness to work hard that keeps people from being successful. In remarks made after the screening, D’Souza said nonwhite immigrants are doing better than African Americans because the latter have adopted a strategy of “agitate, agitate, agitate” rather than “work, work, work.”

In the movie, D’Souza portrays American foreign policy and global capitalism as fundamentally noble. So why are progressives out to destroy America and its place in the world?

The answer is Saul Alinsky. “America” portrays Alinsky as the ruthless mastermind of a plot to bring socialism to America, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as his equally ruthless acolytes. Hillary Clinton turned down a job offer from Alinsky after she graduated from college because she had more nefarious plans. “While Alinsky wanted the radicals to pressure the government, Hillary wanted the radicals to become the government,” D’Souza says. Why shame people from the outside when you can intimidate them from the inside? “Hillary figured it out,” says D’Souza, “Obama is now carrying it out.”

D’Souza wraps up the movie with a disjointed section on the surveillance state. D’Souza says the government is gathering information on all Americans so that it can target political opponents, the way he says the Obama administration has targeted conservatives through the IRS and other agencies. Not very convincingly, he portrays his recent prosecution for violating campaign finance laws – he has pleaded to a felony and faces sentencing in September – as part of this ideological warfare.

All of which is a long way of saying the movie is a jumbled, self-indulgent, right-wing mess, aside from the slanted take on American history. Critics have not been kind to “America,” which has a 9% rating from movie review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes. Rolling Stone’s Peter Travers put the movie in the “Scum Bucket,” calling D’Souza a “lunatic.”

But plenty of good books have been made into mediocre movies, right? At the screening, D’Souza described the book as the “intellectual spine” of the movie, and said it had been hard to fully communicate all of the book’s ideas and make the movie entertaining.

So, if the book any better? Sadly, no. If anything, D’Souza’s polemics are even more ridiculous and incendiary when he has the space to spell them out. For example, “Today’s progressivism is less indebted to Marx than it is to Lenin.”

D’Souza’s take on race and civil rights is particularly noteworthy given events in Missouri that have focused national attention on the unequal treatment of people of color by police and the justice system.

D’Souza says the Civil Rights movement was hardly revolutionary because racism was already on the decline after World War II.  Government-enforced segregation was bad, he acknowledges, because it represented “a triumph of government regulation over the free market.” But private discrimination is not theft and should not have been banned, he says, writing, “Private employers should no more be forced to hire employees than employees should be forced to work for employers against their will.”

“Somewhat weirdly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not merely outlaw discrimination by the government; it also outlawed most forms of private discrimination. While I consider these restrictions on the private sphere to be unwise and unnecessary, they are also understandable.”

D’Souza says the election of Barack Obama, the existence of affirmative action programs, and changing attitudes toward racial intermarriage are all evidence of the continuing decline in racism in America.

“Blacks know it too: ask blacks today to recall when they personally experienced racism—when for example someone called them ‘nigger’—and many are hard pressed to give a single example.”

So there’s no reason for whining about racism, or God forbid, reparations. “Racism today is not strong enough to prevent blacks or any other group from achieving its aspirations,” he says, adding a couple pages later,

“Progressives are still chasing the windmills of old-style racism, whipping the nation into a frenzy every time there is some obscure incident. The reason blacks remain so far behind whites, however, has very little to do with racism. It has to do with African American cultural backwardness.”

Here are some other highlights:

·         Obama: “Obama is simply part of a fifty-year scheme for the undoing and remaking of America,” he writes. So how did Obama get elected? “There is a one-word answer: slavery.”

·         Clinton: “If Hillary Clinton is elected in 2016, the baton will have passed from one Alinskyite to another. In this case, Alinsky’s influence will have taken on a massive, almost unimaginable, importance. Obama will have had eight years to remake America, and Hillary will have another four or perhaps eight to complete the job. Together these two have the opportunity to largely undo the nation’s founding ideals.”

·         Native Americans: “The Indians were here first, but they were only sparsely and sporadically occupying the land. Consequently, many settlers regarded America as largely unoccupied, although the Indians surely disagreed with that perspective. Too bad the two groups could not amicably work out a way to share and benefit from this vast country.” Too bad? “They couldn’t, I believe, because both groups continued to espouse at least elements of the conquest ethic. Neither wished to be taken from, but both were willing to take when they had the power and the inclination to do so.” D’Souza has little sympathy for those “forlorn” Indians who “seem to prefer the joy of victimhood – and the exertions of claiming reparations of one sort or another –to the joy of entrepreneurial striving” – unlike those who are making money with casinos.

·         Immigration: “Immigration—legal and illegal—is the mechanism that today’s progressive organizers are counting on to undo the consequences of the Mexican War, and make the dream of Aztlan a reality.”

D’Souza asserts that “in no circumstance over the past hundred years” has America “stolen the wealth of any other country.” It’s not foreigners, but Americans, who are victimized by the federal government, “the biggest thief of all,” he writes. “In fact, progressives have turned a large body of Americans—basically, Democratic voters—into accessories of theft by convincing them that they are doing something just and moral by picking their fellow citizens’ pockets.”

With this line of reasoning, D’Souza aligns himself with the proponents of biblical economics, who argue that the government has no right to tax someone in order to alleviate someone else’s poverty.  “It does not promote the common good for the state to insist that successful people pay other people’s medical bills,” he says, describing Obamacare and progressive taxation as forms of theft. Transfer payments, unlike roads, do not constitute “general welfare.” Rather, “It constitutes a forcible extortion from one group and an unearned benefit to another.” The federal government is therefore not an instrument of justice but “an instrument of plunder.”

As in the movie, D’Souza takes time in the book to complain about his own prosecution (even though he admits having broken the law) and to suggest that the current surveillance state is part of the progressive movement’s strategy to impose totalitarianism: “Surveillance is simply the means to ensure that no one is safe.” He writes, “If progressives enforce their agenda through total control and compliance, America will truly be an evil empire, and it will be the right and duty of American citizens to organize once again, as in 1776, to overthrow it.” (Of course, aggressive surveillance began well before the Obama presidency, and progressives have been among those opposing government overreach.)

D’Souza denounces what he says is the progressive plan to diminish America’s influence globally, and closes the book with a warning about what the world might look like when its dominant force is not America but China, whose growing economic power is translating into greater military force and geopolitical influence. Similar concerns may be shared across the political spectrum, but having celebrated China’s adoption of market economics and economic growth, and having defended the export of American manufacturing jobs to cheap-labor China – trends that cannot be blamed on the Obama presidency –D’Souza does not make it clear what he would have American leaders do to forestall China’s rising influence. If he has a solution, he’s keeping it to himself.

The same can be said for the plight of unemployed and underemployed American workers. It doesn’t matter that you’re willing to work hard if there are no jobs to be had. And while D’Souza describes inequality as an essential element of the free market economy, he does not address the fact that in recent decades American workers have received almost none of the benefits of increasing productivity. His lectures to African Americans that their unwillingness to work hard is the only obstacle to their success ignore both evidence of continuing impacts of structural racism – reflected for example in exploitive mortgage underwriting – and the brutal consequences of the recent economic downturn on the already huge disparities of wealth between white and African American (and Latino) households.

The facile ideology of “America: Imagine the World Without Her” – both book and movie – should be no surprise. D’Souza’s entire career, beginning with his work at the right-wing Dartmouth Review and continuing through stints at the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, has been nurtured by far-right funders. His claim to being a “scholar” is grounded in his authorship of a series of polemical books, including “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” an exercise in ideological excess that even some conservative commentators found embarrassing. He champions traditional values, but in 2012 he resigned as president of the Christian King’s College after news that he had traveled with, and become engaged to, a woman who was separated from but still married to her husband.  Like his old friend Ann Coulter, D’Souza has learned that there is seemingly no end to the money to be made, and fame to be enjoyed, by repackaging and peddling ideological diatribes to the country’s right-wing activists.

 

Charisma Pundit: 'Black Men Need More White Women Like Ann Coulter And Laura Ingraham'

Charisma pundit Raynard Jackson warns today that homosexuality and immigration are hurting African American men, and only white female right-wing commentators like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham can save the black community by fighting President Obama.

Seriously.

Black women constantly complain about the dearth of "eligible" black men to date and marry. Noted sociologist William Julius Wilson has argued that "the increasing levels of non-marriage and female-headed households is a manifestation of the high levels of economic dislocation experienced by lower-class black men in recent decades."

He further argues, "When joblessness is combined with high rates of incarceration and premature mortality among black men, it becomes clearer that there are fewer marriageable black men relative to black women who are able to provide the economic support needed to sustain a family."

Then you add in the unfortunate increase in homosexuality within the black community and you have a recipe for disaster.

This is why black men need more white women like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. Even though they are conservative media personalities, they have done more to promote the well-being of black males than many of the very women who stridently complain about the lack of "eligible" black men.



So, let me make sure I understand. Black women complain about the state of "eligible" black males to date and marry, yet they support the policies of a president who is going to make the problem much worse.



Obama has done more for same-sex marriage couples than he has for his same-race brothers and sisters. In fact, Newsweek dubbed him our first gay president—not for his sexual orientation, but for his relentless pandering to homosexuals.

Obama has also advocated amnesty for those in this country who are here illegally, which will only continue to increase the unemployment rate in the black community, especially among low- and under-skilled black workers. This will further decrease the pool of potential black men for women to date and marry. Let's face it, our women are not going to marry someone who is unemployed or underemployed.

Historically, black women have been notoriously protective of their men and children. It is ironic that Coulter and Ingraham, two conservative white women, are now assuming that role. We black men need more white women like Coulter and Ingraham, not back women who will give a pass to a failing black president.

Ann Coulter Warns 'De Blasio Wants To Hold Down Our Legs While The Central Park Five Rape Us'

Ann Coulter is pushing back on overwhelming evidence that “The Central Park Five” were wrongly convicted of rape in 1989, writing today that it is all a left-wing conspiracy to set rapists free.

In 2002, the ancient Robert Morgenthau, Manhattan district attorney, issued a report recommending that the convictions in the Central Park rape case be vacated. Justice Charles Tejada (Fordham Law 2009 Hispanic Heritage Award winner!) granted his request. Liberals are opposed to rape in the abstract, but when it comes to actual rapists, they’re all for them.

The D.A.’s report was based solely on the confession of Matias Reyes, career criminal, serial rapist and murderer. Reyes had absolutely nothing to lose by confessing to the rape – the statute of limitations had run – and much to gain by claiming he acted alone: He got a favorable prison transfer and the admiration of his fellow inmates for smearing the police.

While dumping on the police for screwing up the investigation, Morgenthau wouldn’t let the cops interview Reyes themselves, even though his “confession” was the sole evidence that he raped and brutalized the jogger by himself.



The media proclaim those five rapists innocent based on their own over-excited reports that the DNA found on the jogger matched that of Reyes, but none of the others!

Yeah, we knew that. It was always known that semen on the jogger did not match any of the defendants. (“DNA Expert: No Semen Links to Defendants,” Associated Press, July 14, 1990.)

Hallmark should have a greeting card: “Guess whose semen wasn’t found anywhere on the rape victim?” (Open card) “I’m so proud of you, son!”

Prosecutor Elizabeth Lederer expressly reminded the jurors of the missing rapist in her summation to the jury: “Others who were not caught raped her and got away.” Now we know who “got away.”



But now de Blasio wants to hold down our legs while the “Central Park Five” rape us, again.

Ann Coulter Tells Jewish People To Oppose Immigration Reform Because Latinos Are Anti-Semitic

Ann Coulter is upset that Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson has endorsed immigration reform, even as the House GOP continues to block reform legislation from a vote, and in her latest column suggests that immigration reform will increase rates of anti-Semitism and allow an “open-door policy toward terrorists.”

After depicting Latinos as disproportionately anti-Semitic, Coulter writes that Adelson will become a target of terrorists.

Adelson is a big backer of amnesty, telling the Wall Street Journal: “It would be inhumane to send those people back, to send 12 million people out of this country. … So we’ve got to find a way, find a route for those people to get legal citizenship.”



Adelson might want to hang onto that Israeli citizenship, in case his preferred policy of amnesty ever does go through: His low-wage workers don’t have especially enlightened views of the Jewish people.

The Anti-Defamation League has been taking polls on anti-Semitism in America for decades. In 2013, the ADL reported that – “once again” – foreign-born Hispanics had the highest rates of anti-Semitic views: 36 percent compared with 14 percent of all Americans and 20 percent of African-Americans. This was an improvement over 2011, when 42 percent of foreign-born Hispanics were found to have anti-Semitic views.

How might America’s support for Israel be affected by having a populace that’s 30 or 40 percent Hispanic?

The importation of more than a million poor people to America every year also has the effect of admitting a fair number of terrorists. Among them: Rasmieh Yousef Odeh, Mohammad Hassan Hamdan, Nidal Hasan, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Najibullah Zazi, Sulejman Talovic, Peter Odighizuwa, Ali Hassan Abu Kamal, dozens of Somali terrorists living in Minnesota, Omar Abdel-Rahman and the 9/11 terrorists.

I would think that this country’s open-door policy toward terrorists would be of some concern to the owner of any Las Vegas casino – a well-known terrorist target.

They won’t be coming to kiss Adelson’s ring.

But the ADL — a prominent supporter of immigration reform doesn’t mention whether the “foreign-born Hispanics” category represents undocumented or naturalized immigrants. The Jewish Telegraph Agency notes that “among Latinos, the attitudes are seen as a holdover from Latin America, where traditional Catholic anti-Semitism persists and anti-Semitic attitudes are higher than in America. Once they acculturate to the United States, Latino anti-Semitism declines: Among first-generation immigrants, about 40 percent hold anti-Semitic attitudes; among those born here, the number falls to 20 percent.”

Seeing that anti-Semitism is a persistent problem not only in Latin America but also in Europe, Coulter’s argument would undermine her case for restoring racist laws favorable to European immigrants.

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/11/14

Ann Coulter: If Immigration Reform Passes, 'Organize The Death Squads For The People Who Wrecked America'

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.”

Coulter: Treat DREAMers Like Suicide Bombers

Ann Coulter, who recently lamented the end of the racist immigration quota system​, writes today that America soon "won't exist anymore" due to "the current rate of immigration."

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.

Nativist Of The Year Award: Eight Of 2013's Worst Xenophobic Leaders

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 using violence 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.”

This, he contends, is all part of a scheme to collapse the economy and divide America. Gheen even claims that efforts to reduce gun violence are actually part of Obama’s plan to “disarm American citizens” and arm “illegal alien insurgents.”

7. Cathie Adams

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) and her friends 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 fellow conservatives didn’t find it credible, but that hasn’t stopped GOP politicians from using the salacious report to justify their anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Nativist of the Year: Steve King

No surprise here. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) remains the face of the GOP’s anti-immigrant wing, as he believes that the survival of America and civilization itself relies on people agreeing with his “reasonable” xenophobic views. Nothing captured King’s outlook more clearly than his tirade against undocumented youth, who he believes are mostly drug mules with cantaloupe-sized calves.

Maybe such extemist rhetoric is a reason why the Nativist movement is beginning to fizzle.

PFAW Releases Report on GOP’s Choice On Immigration: Stand With Reformers or Cave to Extremists

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.”

The full report is available at www.pfaw.org.

Peter Montgomery, Senior Fellow at People For the American Way, oversees the organization’s research and writing on the Religious Right.  He is available for comment on this report.

###

Coulter: Immigrants Will 'Give Birth to the Democratic Children That Liberals Aren't Having'

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.

Coulter: America Has Too Many Latinos

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.”

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/15/13

Right Wing Round-Up - 10/25/12

Religious Right Attacks 'Demonic' and 'Mean' Obama in Final Debate

"Mean," "Demonic," "Retard" -- just some of the words Radical Right leaders used to describe President Obama in his winning debate performance on Oct. 22. Find out who said what.

Bachmann in July Warned that Obama is Allowing ‘Influence by the Muslim Brotherhood at the Highest Levels of Power’

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, her baseless pet cause. 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?”

Watch:

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.

Right Wing Round-Up - 9/26/12

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious