Two sad sellouts?

JJ Sefton writes in part in his Morning Report,

Most disappointing of all are the words coming from people who I once had much respect for: Ann Coulter and most shockingly Tucker Carlson. For them to claim that what Trump did in taking out Soleimani is an escalation and war-mongering running counter to his claims of wanting to get out of the Middle East just boggles the mind. If anything, the President both de-escalated the situation while at the same time might very well have set in motion the final collapse of the Iranian regime, the source of much of our misery lo these past 40 years in that region and across the globe, including right here on our own soil. If that does happen, as I think it could before this year is out, he would have done so without starting a war and without sending one single soldier to die on Persian soil. That these two, especially Carlson, cannot see this just boggles the mind.

Two sad sellouts. Oh well...

Read more here.

Ann Coulter says it is common for people to insert a memory on a public figure.

Ann Coulter weighs in...

Ann Coulter writes in Taki's Magazine, that it's

...great how the media act as if attempted rape was perfectly acceptable in America, until we were educated by the #MeToo movement. No, the breakthrough of the #MeToo movement was that it was finally acceptable to call out liberal sexual predators.

Until recently, it was OK to rape and even murder girls — but only if your name was “Clinton,” “Kennedy” or “Weinstein,” et al. Then Hillary lost, and Teddy was dead, so there was no point in ferociously protecting the Democrats’ rapists any longer.

Read more here.

Ann Coulter is frustrated!

Ann Coulter writes at Town Hall,

...We already tried amnesty once. The 1986 amnesty under Reagan was supposed to be a one-time fix. We'd forgive the estimated 1 million illegal aliens living here and, in exchange, draconian measures would be imposed on any employer ever caught hiring an illegal again -- up to a $10,000 fine per illegal and jail time for repeat offenders.

We never got the employer sanctions.

There weren't 1 million illegals -- it was 4 million.

It wasn't a one-time fix. In another real-world example of "incentives," the first amnesty led to a never-ending stream of illegals across our border, confident of getting in on the next amnesty. Today, there are at least 40 million illegals living in the U.S. (Eleven million is nonsense -- they've been claiming that since 1986. See "Adios, America!")

...Congress has passed laws requiring that immigrants pay back taxes, learn English, not collect welfare and have good moral character. That's not too onerous, right? It's not like we're requiring them to have any skills or talents that would be valuable to America.

Every single one of these requirements has been scuttled by immigration bureaucrats, federal judges and Democratic presidents. All of 'em. Our immigration bureaucracy is so dedicated to destroying America that it's made citizens of thousands of convicted felons.

...If you don't understand how that could happen, you have no idea how much our cultural elites hate this country. Their governing philosophy is: Anyone we bring in is at least better than an American!

...Every politician swears up and down that he wants a "secure border." But then these same politicians go absolutely berserk when Trump says he wants to build a wall.

...As long as both political parties stoutly refuse to build the wall, we know they are not serious about ever stopping illegal immigration. (Luckily, the Constitution gives the commander in chief full authority to protect our borders, with or without congressional approval.)

...Politicians and the press are themselves responsible for thoroughly killing any human sympathy Americans may have had for illegal immigrants -- even the "Dreamers" (whom Ivanka adores, but would die before sending her kids to a school jam-packed with them).

The only question is: Will anyone in Washington ever listen?

The media drives her right back into the Trump camp.

Here is Ann Coulter recently appearing on Hannity's radio program. Ann says that every time Trump disappoints her on some issue like building the wall, the media comes along and drives her right back into Trump's camp again.

Berkeley cancels speech by Ann Coulter. She plans to go anyway.

Anti-free speech Berkeley laid down these requirements for Ann:

her speech would be scheduled for the afternoon; only students would be allowed to attend; and the location would be announced only just before the event.

Coulter actually agreed to these requirements, but requested two stipulations in return, as YAF noted:

1) That the University of California chancellor request that the Oakland chief of police refrain from telling his men to stand down and ignore law-breaking by rioters attempting to shut down conservative speakers, as he has done in the past; and

2) That UC-Berkeley announce in advance that any students engaging in violence, mayhem or heckling to prevent an invited speaker from speaking would be expelled. As Coulter explained, "If Berkeley wants to have free speech, it can have it." The university's response was to ban her speech.

Mark Tapson reports at Truth Revolt,

Bestselling author and conservative firebrand Ann Coulter scheduled for an April 27 speaking engagement at the University of California, Berkeley, home of the Free Speech Movement decades ago and now the home of the Totalitarian Anti-Speech Movement, but the event has been canceled due to security concerns. That's not stopping Coulter, however, who intends to proceed with the event anyway, according to The Washington Examiner.

Read more here.

Ann Coulter disappointed

Ann Coulter is not holding back in expressing her disagreement with our attack on the Syrian airfield. Here are a few of her tweets:

"What follows Assad? What followed Saddam? Gaddafi? 15 yrs, 6k lost heroes 500k massacred Chrstns $5 Trill--for what?

"We know what happens when strong men go and a vacuum of power is left. Even worse people take over."

She points out that this is not her first time to be disappointed in something Trump did:

How about the 27th time? Nikki Haley, Mattis, Kelly, Goldman Sachs, Pudzer, Obamcare Lite, no DACA repeal, no refugee slowdown,no Kobach..

Please show the autopsy photos of Dean Riopelle & Forrest Hayes to Trump, so we can get going on deportations.Ann Coulter added,

(In reply to this tweet:

The Associated PressVerified account @AP
Federal immigration officials deport California prostitute who gave a fatal heroin shot to a Google executive.

Summary of Sunday shows: People who will never, ever vote for Trump strongly approve of his bombing Asad for ISIS.

Urgent to "get rid of" Asad, who is zero threat to U.S., but still no rush on getting rid of criminal aliens actually killing Americans.

Read more here.

Coulter very critical of congressional Republicans in the House and Senate

Ann Coulter writes at Town Hall,

A stunning number of senators and congressmen are supported by rich wives -- Sens. John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Richard Blumenthal, John Kerry and Ron Wyden, and Reps. Michael McCaul, Scott Peters and Paul Ryan, to name a few. Is there any other profession with as high a percentage of men sponging off their wives' inheritances?

Then a self-made billionaire came along, violated all the rules they had lived by, and swept aside more than a dozen experienced politicians just like themselves! Not only did Trump make his own money, but he beat them at the one thing they thought they knew how to do.

...These useless Republicans allowed a Senate seat to be stolen from under their noses in Minnesota in 2008, giving Obama the vote he needed to pass Obamacare and destroy our health care.

...Congressional Republicans are just nincompoops. The only thing they know is: Imitate Reagan -- from 30 years ago. It would make more sense for Republicans to demand that all air traffic controllers be fired for no reason than it is for them to keep treating Putin like it's 1950 and he's Stalin. (We know Putin isn't Stalin because Democrats aren't affectionately calling him "Uncle Joe" and spying for him.)

If Republicans had an ounce of self-respect, right after repealing Obamacare and writing a bill taxing remittances to make Mexico pay for the wall, they'd be impeaching the ridiculous Judge James Robart. Even lawyers who oppose Trump's travel ban agree that Judge Robart made a complete ass of himself when he blocked the executive order.

...At least since the Chinese exclusion case of 1889, the Supreme Court has made blindingly clear that "the power of exclusion of foreigners" belongs to the political branches of government: Congress and the president -- not to the judiciary.

...There are lots of constitutional questions that reasonable people can disagree about. Whether the president can exclude foreigners from seven terror-prone countries is not one of them.

...But congressional Republicans are happy to ignore the Constitution, ignore the balance of powers, ignore written law, even to relinquish their own constitutional authority and let the courts run our foreign policy, just to be a part of the establishment's STOP TRUMP movement.

Instead of neurotically fixating on Russia in some fantasy camp imitation of Reagan, circa 1982, what we'd like these worthless Republicans to do is: Imitate Trump -- circa now.

Read more here.

Advice for fake hate crime hoaxers

Ann Coulter offers advice to hate crime hoaxers.

Hate crime hoaxers, I don’t think I need to tell you this, but you do NOT want a police investigation. Much better to send anonymous reports into America’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, so your story can appear in The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, the “Today” show, “Good Morning America,” etc., etc.

Read more here.

The latest from Ann Coulter

The latest piece by Ann Coulter is here. She gives reasons why you should vote for Trump and against Hillary.

"Immigration policies are designed to funnel welfare-dependent voters to the Democrats and cheap labor to the rich."

When it comes to multiculturalism, you can’t say, We love the empanadas — but we don’t want 40-year-old men raping their nieces. This isn’t an a la carte menu. We get ALL the attributes of the cultures we’re importing.

As described in excruciating detail in Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole, our media already have a totally “open mind” about incest and child rape — and murder! — when it’s committed by immigrants.

Thus, for example, where I would have chosen the headline: “Illegal Alien Convicted of Incest, Child Rape,” The Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press went with the less catchy: “Man guilty in case of human smuggling.”

And where I would have used the headline, “Illegal Alien Repeatedly Raped 14-year-old Girl at Job Site,” The Commercial Dispatch in Columbus, Mississippi, went with the more subtle, “Columbus resident charged with molestation.”

Immigrant women arrive in America, thrilled to have escaped cultures where rape, incest and spousal murder are acceptable, only to discover that those crimes are perfectly acceptable in this country, too — provided the perpetrator is from the very culture they fled.

In 1989, Brooklyn judge Edward Pincus sentenced a Chinese immigrant to probation for a premeditated murder of his wife, on the grounds that the murder flowed from “traditional Chinese values about adultery and loss of manhood.” The female head of the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Margaret Fung, applauded the ruling.

Somewhat amazingly, newspapers are more likely to report black crime than immigrant crime. (Anything to keep the Third World immigration flowing!)

...Compare these headlines about the same brutal sexual attack:

— “Two held in attack on child” — Austin American-Statesman (Texas), July 19, 2013

— “Two Mexicans placed on immigration detainers as third man is arrested over five-day gang rape hell of teenage runaway during which she smoked crack” — Daily Mail Online, July 24, 2013

Needless to say, The New York Times did not cover the Mexican illegal alien gang rape at all.

...Manifestly, the purpose of our immigration policies is not to help Americans — or the immigrants who wanted to live in a place like America. They are designed to funnel welfare-dependent voters to the Democrats and cheap labor to the rich. (The Chinese immigrant who got probation for murdering his wife, for example, came to America based on his specialized skill of being a dishwasher.)

Read more here.

Ann Coulter: "This isn't about him!"

Ann Coulter writes about the first debate,

...The media's excitement over Hillary successfully "baiting" Trump is revealing -- of the media, of what this election is really about, and of what Trump needs to do now.

The definition of Trump "taking the bait" was getting him to talk about himself, not about issues. This from a media that claim to be aching for "policy specifics."

...For the media, their gal was winning whenever precious minutes of a 90-minute debate were spent rehashing allegations about Trump. Ha ha! We prevented Trump from talking about issues that matter to the American people! That was scored as a "win."

...Trump wins whenever he talks about issues; he loses whenever he talks about himself.

Trump was winning when he talked about the heinous trade deals that have shipped jobs abroad and immiserated millions of Americans -- which Hillary supports. He was winning when he talked about bringing order and safety to black neighborhoods overrun with crime; Hillary’s with the criminals. He was winning when he talked about rebuilding our inner cities, instead of saying, "Vote for me!" then, "See you in four years!" -- as Hillary does.

...Hillary, for example, criticized Trump for not releasing his tax returns, saying, "maybe ... he's paid nothing in federal taxes."

This is exactly what Sen. Harry Reid stated as hard fact about Romney in 2012 -- on the Senate floor, so he couldn't be sued. After the election was over, Reid was asked about this obvious falsehood. He laughed it off and said, "Romney didn't win, did he?"

This is the game they play.

Trump has got to learn to ignore it. The voters have. They don't care about his taxes. They want jobs, they want a wall and they'd like fewer Muslims showing up, collecting welfare, then killing Americans.

Trump doesn't have to do formal debate practice, standing at a podium, facing off against a shorty in pantsuit. But he does need Pavlovian training to stop responding to irrelevancies.

This isn't about him! It's about a movement of the people to take back their government from an arrogant plutocracy.

From now until the next debate, every single person who works for Trump should personally insult him several times a day.

Good morning, sir -- your business is a total fraud.

Here are those trade stats you wanted -- oh and you lied about opposing the war in Iraq.

The Cincinnati airport needs a tail number -- why did you "fat-shame" that poor girl?

If he starts to respond, they should say, "No one cares, sir. Tell me how you're going to stop Mexican drugs from pouring across our border."

The proof that voters don't care about the personal attacks on Trump is that, even after his lazy and self-indulgent debate performance, he won nearly every online poll.

Read more here.

Maybe, maybe not

Now that Trump has softened his position on immigration, the media is delirious about the timing of Ann Coulter's book. Ann Althouse notes,

But I'm not sure Coulter is a big loser here. Her book is getting a lot of attention because people who love to hate her see a hilariously colossal clash between her book — "In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!" — and Trump's supposed "softening." There's so much more reason now to bring her on the shows — where she can continue to promote herself — than there might have been if this was just another book by Ann Coulter. There are so many! Don't all the liberal (and conservative) show hosts want to needle her about her dramatic experience in publishing timing. And suddenly she's leveraged as the expert on how Trumpsters feel when he flips on their favorite issue.

Read more here.

In a bind

Ann Coulter is in a tough position. She is out pushing her new book, "In Trump We Trust," and, at the same time, Trump is softening his stand on deporting immigrants who come here illegally. She is not happy, as her tweets show.
Debra Heine writes about it at PJ Media.

Hitler just found out about it:


This article seems to indicate Ann is not really worried.

Producing a victim to make their argument, in order to block any response.

Ann Coulter writes about the Kahn/Trump controversy:

...a candidate for president of the United States is supposed to be prohibited from discussing a dangerous immigration program because Khan's son was one of fourteen (14!) Muslim servicemen killed by other Muslims in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's why we're obligated to import yet more Muslims – including, undoubtedly, some just like the ones who killed his son. Q.E.D.!

...There were virtually no Muslims in America before Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration act. Today, we admit more immigrants from Muslim countries than from Great Britain.

Are Americans allowed to have an opinion on whether that's a good idea?

So far, it's worked out great!

In addition to the sudden appearance of honor killings, clitorectomies, hijabs and massive government frauds, Muslim immigrants have given us: The most devastating terrorist attack in world history, followed by terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon, a military recruiting center in Chattanooga, Times Square, Vaughan Foods in Oklahoma, San Bernardino and an Orlando nightclub, among other places.

We've admitted 2 million Muslims just since 9/11 – that’s more than had been admitted before 9/11. If we don't make it 3 million, we're monsters? May we ask how many Muslims Khan's mystery Constitution requires -- or is that out of bounds unless we had a child who died in Iraq?

...After Trump somehow got the crazy idea that a presidential candidate was allowed to discuss government policies and proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigration -- which, by the way, is perfectly constitutional -- the entire media and political class erupted in a sputtering rage.

Conscience of a Nation, Speaker Paul Ryan proclaimed: "That's not who we are." Jeb! Bush made the subtle and clever argument that Trump was "unhinged." Marco Rubio called any pause in Muslim immigration "offensive." ABC News' Jonathan Karl called Trump's plan "outrageous" -- which was way better than MSNBC, where Trump was compared to white supremacists and Nazis.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Trump had "disqualifie(d)" himself from "serving as president" for suggesting any slowdown in Muslim immigration. Vice President Joe Biden -- tribune of blue-collar Americans everywhere! -- said that if Trump were the nominee, Hillary would "win in a walk."

Then it turned out Trump's Muslim ban was a huge hit with actual voters. Hillary, who promises to quadruple the number of Syrian "refugees" we bring in, is quite far from winning "in a walk."

So the media and political class had no choice: They had to produce a victim to make their argument, in order to block any response.

Read more here.

There's a reason we have a greeting card business!

Ann Coulter writes at Breitbart,

...If you’re on MSNBC and traffic in outrage and sanctimony every day, you can lose your bearings and not even realize what an idiot you’ve become.

Ann is referring to the nonstop outrage at MSNBC and other media outlets about Melania Trump's speech containing plagiarisms of Michelle Obama's 2008 speech.

The similar passages were:

— The only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams!

— Your word is your bond!

— May your tomorrows be brighter than your yesterdays!

— From tiny acorns great oaks grow!

Huffington Post, Gawker and Jezebel pulled all-nighters to hoot and sneer at the prospective first lady’s speech. The following day, Andrea Mitchell devoted half her show to Melania’s “plagiarism.”

Listen to yourselves, MSNBC! Your obsession with the “theft” of these saccharine sentiments only reminds people how trite Michelle Obama’s speech was. (Which you adored.)

...Obviously, Melania’s speechwriter didn’t think up those words — and neither did Michelle’s. You can hear the same thing at any third-rate college commencement, at Orientation Day at Excel academies, at motivational speakers’ corporate events, and right now, in the greeting card aisle of your local Rite Aid.

Not even Hallmark cards could claim authorship because there were probably caveman drawings with rainbows that said, “You can achieve anything you set your mind to!”

If I were giving a speech and suddenly burst into, “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets …” you’d have a right to say, “Um — Ann, did you write that part about fighting on the beaches yourself?

But if I say: “The only limit to your achievement is your dreams!” no one can claim the rights to those words because they’re insipid nothings.

No one invented “the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams,” anymore than I invented “Hey — how you doing?” There’s nothing there! These are phrases designed to allow you to make sounds while moving your mouth.

People who wanted to hate Melania thought her speech was godawful, and the ones who like her thought it was awesome and are now requesting copies of the speech to use at the office.

Some people like this stuff. There’s a reason we have a greeting card business.

Read more here.

Not everyone is excited about the prospect of Paul Ryan becoming House Speaker

Ann Coulter is one who will not be pleased to hear that a "path" has been cleared for Paul Ryan to become Speaker of the House. She writes,

...Two years ago, Ryan bragged to a Catholic radio station: "I actually campaigned with Jack Kemp against a thing called Prop 187."

That "thing" was an overwhelmingly popular initiative to prevent illegal aliens from collecting government benefits. It gave Republicans their biggest victory in California in the last 30 years, was supported by a majority of blacks, a majority of whites, a majority of Asians and 31 percent of Hispanics.

Two years later, the Dole-Kemp ticket got only 21 percent of the Hispanic vote. That's worse than Romney! (These empowerment types really have their finger on the pulse of ethnic America!)

Like Kemp, Ryan acts as if he's the tribune of blacks and Hispanics, chastising Republicans for "preaching to the choir." He prefers to preach to the mariachi band -- one of which serenaded him on his visit to an immigrant rights group in Chicago, a few months after his failed vice presidential bid.

...The best thing I ever heard about Dick Cheney is that, after listening to Ryan drone on about how Republicans needed to create "a real ownership society" at a meeting with members of Congress, Cheney said, "Yeah, we're not going to do that," and then turned to a different representative.

...All of human experience has already taught us how to fight poverty, and it doesn't involve the words "opportunity," "empowerment" or "zone."

Effective: Don't pay people not to work. The 1996 welfare reform act, with its time limits and work requirements, reduced welfare caseloads by an astronomical 65 percent, as former recipients entered the workforce.

Ineffective: Self-flattering politicians jabbering about how much they care about poverty, then creating behemoth government programs that give corporations tax breaks for pretending to help the poor.

Effective: Stop dumping millions of low-wage workers on the country to drive down wages. America's booming, prosperous middle class arose in the 40-year period after immigration was virtually shut down in 1924 -- until Teddy Kennedy opened the floodgates to the Third World in 1965.

Ineffective: Demanding an endless supply of cheap immigrant labor favored by your corporate donors, subsidized by the long-suffering middle class, while strutting around like you're Martin Luther King.

Read more here.

"No apologies" conservatism

Jim Geraghty writes today in National Review about No Apologies Conservatism.

Appearing with Jimmy Fallon on the Tonight Show, Donald Trump was in the mood to tweak his own persona — to a point. “I think apologizing’s a great thing,” he said. “But you have to be wrong. I will absolutely apologize, sometime in the hopefully distant future, if I’m ever wrong.”

It’s funny because it’s true: Trump’s steadfast refusal to apologize for his controversial antics may be the most striking thing about him. A significant portion of the Republican base craves it, and a handful of pro-Trump conservative pundits does, too. None of them looms larger, perhaps, than Ann Coulter.

It makes sense. Trump has given political expression to a model of conservative discourse perfected by Coulter and subsequently emulated by Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, and others: 1) Say something controversial or provocative and get a ton of attention in the process. 2) When the media and the Left inevitably demand an apology, adamantly refuse to provide one, driving your critics batty and burnishing your conservative credentials with the base. It’s been Coulter’s modus operandi for her entire, lucrative career, and now Trump has brought it to the campaign trail: A real conservative never says he’s sorry.

...Past history suggests those demanding an apology should not threaten to hold their breath until they get one. After all, not apologizing has served Coulter so well over the years that even the politically ambitious have taken the hint, and to great effect: Trump continues, at least for now, to top the polls with a version of the same shtick. Its originator couldn’t be more pleased.

Read more here.

"If you don't want to be killed by ISIS, don't go to Syria. If you don't want to be killed by a Mexican, there's nothing I can tell you."

Telling it like it is

Ann Coulter writes,

...once again, the weekend came and went without anyone in America being killed by ISIS, but a lot of people being killed by immigrants -- legal, illegal, second generation and anchor babies. There's no way to know exactly how many Americans were killed July Fourth weekend as a result of the country's immigration policies, because the media don't trust us with the truth.

But the holiday weekend kicked off with the news that an illegal alien from Mexico, Francisco Sanchez, had shot and killed 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle on Wednesday on a San Francisco pier. The most surprising aspect of the crime was that we were told right away that Steinle's suspected killer was an illegal alien. Usually, we only find out that the perp was an immigrant years later when the Spanish translators show up in court.

Coulter then reels off a long list of crimes committed in America last week by illegal immigrants.

She concludes,

Some of these crimes were committed by legal residents -- even "citizens." But without Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration act, combined with Justice William Brennan's 1982 anchor baby invention, the "Mexican mafia" would not be living in America, much less be "citizens."

Just as America's immigration policies began favoring people from cultures as different from ours as possible, we also began providing government assistance to any loser immigrants and refusing to deport the criminals.

There's no question but that the only reason any of this week's criminal immigrants are in America at all is because of Ted Kennedy's 1965 immigration act.

Now go back to worrying about ISIS.