Ann Coulter – praag.org

HOLA, Ann Coulter!

“Adios America” is the apropos title of Ann Coulter’s latest book. It details how mass immigration is killing America, as Bill O’Reilly would say (or still will). Adios means farewell in Spanish. Hola is the opposite. Immigration patriots bid a hearty hello to Ann Coulter, as she takes over and takes the battle to the enemy.

The big gun has arrived.

Ms. Coulter had managed to avoid the mass immigration vexation until recently. CPUKE 2013 was when she, I believe, first came out as “a single-issue voter against amnesty.” This Sally-come-lately stand, Ms. Coulter has rationalized with reference to Peter Brimelow, on whose work immigration patriots piggyback. Ann acknowledged as much during an interview with Chronicles’ Thomas Piatak. Since Brimelow had made the definitive case against the duopoly’s “plan to turn our country into a third world hellhole,” there was nothing more for her to add.

A WND reader expressed a different opinion. He writes: “Ms. Coulter is spot on but a decade late. That’s a big and calculated ‘mistake.’ Unless you recognize how politically cautious she’s been—you cannot appreciate how professionally suicidal the folks at VDARE, NumbersUSA; Michelle Malkin, Pat Buchanan and yourself have truly been all along.”

Then again, Ann herself conceded in the same interview that “Adios'” first seven chapters were a rehash. If it’s now safe to say stuff “everybody knows,” why the wait?

Like our reader, I worry that the indispensable Ann may be too late, and that we’ve passed the tipping point. For years, those of us who’ve warned about demographics have been dubbed racists. But “the D-Bomb has already dropped,” as this column noted in 2012. Demographics need not have become destiny, but they have.

Both factually and analytically exhaustive, Brimelow’s seminal “Alien Nation” remains the definitive text on centrally planned mass immigration. Peter and I are both immigrants. We came to the U.S. via Canada—and before that from countries whose national fabric is in tatters. An attachment rare among the current crop of immigrants to the American ideas of limited government and self-governance, and a recognition of the importance of the bonds that unite members of a civil society in common purpose: these prompted Peter and myself to take up the cudgels on behalf of an adopted country—America—that is still second-to-none, and an oblivious people—Americans—whose heritage is being squandered for a mess of pottage.

With first-hand experience in the visa labyrinth, I’ve been able to lift a corner of the curtain to reveal, for example, that the O-1 visa program is an open-ended one, allowing unlimited access to individuals with extraordinary abilities. If the traitors in D.C. were truly trawling for the world’s limited pool of unique talent, the O-1 visa gives them unlimited access to it. The H-1B program is anything but. Theoretically, the H-1B swindle could be abolished and all needed Einsteins and supermodels imported through the O-1 program.

A discussion in 2003 with black immigration patriot Terry Anderson, of blessed memory, prompted this warning against “selling out black Americans”: “It’s all very well to disenfranchise meek, guilt-ridden WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). But by encouraging the displacement of black Americans, promoters of unfettered immigration—black leaders included—may have slipped-up strategically. Given their history, blacks are less inclined to fade into the night. They’ve already been sold down the river once before.”

As a libertarian immigration restrictionist, it has been vital to point out that “we are [not] the world” (2006). Free trade is glorious. America needs and wants to remain the first and most mighty consumer society. But “the free flow of people across borders is not to be confused with the free flow of goods across borders. Free trade is a positive-sum game. Contrary to immigration, it is always invited, consensual and hence mutually beneficial to the parties involved.”

Some things are metaphysical. Again, we are not the world: “The purely economic argument about the price at which American workers will perform menial work is meaningless without a reference to borders and to the thing they bound—a nation. Render asunder the idea of a nation, make borders obsolete—and the world is your labor market. Sure, supply and demand must determine the price of labor. Once the borders are shut to the deluge of laborers, the supply of cheap labor (as well as the steady ‘supply’ of crime and welfarism) will no longer be limitless. A smaller pool of workers will allow wages for ‘menial work’ to rise—all the more so as employers, no longer seduced by the interminable flood of cheap labor, begin to bid for the most productive workers. The resulting higher wages, in turn, will induce more Americans to do ‘menial work.'”

Going by “the ‘logic’ of La-Raza libertarians,” “living at the public’s expense does indeed violate the rights of American taxpayers, but there is no reason to single out non-nationals.” Oh yes there is. Such illogic was defeated in 2006: “From the fact that you oppose taxpayer-funded welfare for nationals, it doesn’t follow that extending it to millions of unviable non-nationals is financially or morally negligible. (Or that it comports with the libertarian aim of curtailing government growth.) The argument is akin to saying that because a bank has been robbed by one band of bandits, arresting the next is unnecessary as the damage has already been done.”

As to “the exclusive emphasis in the immigration debate on border security”: What a relief it is that Ms. Coulter is finally dispelling this distraction. According to “The Immigration Scene” (2006), this fetish “has helped open-border evangelists immeasurably. Everyone (and his dog) currently concurs that we have no problem with legal immigration, only with the illegal variety. It’s now mandatory to pair an objection to the invasion of the American Southwest with an embrace of all forms of legal immigration. The sole emphasis on border security has, in all likelihood, entrenched the status quo—Americans will never assert their right to determine the nature of the country they live in and, by extension, the kind of immigrants they welcome. The security risk newcomers pose is the only permissible topic for conversation.”

Immigration into the U.S. is a statist and inorganic affair; a result of manipulation for on high. A 2002 tract, “The Problem With Immigration,” explained why: “In previous decades immigrants assimilated. Now they are encouraged by politicians and identity-politics activists to cling to a militant distinctiveness. The state-enforced ideology of multiculturalism and diversity has thus become a double-edged sword, deployed by government at once to make newcomers more subversive and the host population more submissive.”

Not enough can be said about the hypocrisy of environmental lobbies! They “abhor all by-products of human existence, unless generated by illegal aliens. In that case, the vast latrine and land fill created along the border with Mexico, as millions of migrants defecate and despoil their way to their destinations in the U.S., are just dandy.” (From “In Defense Of The Fence.”)

Alas, it might be too late for Annie to get her gun. Recounted in “Immolation by Immigration” (2002), our family witnessed the following at the American Immigration and Naturalization Service headquarters in Montreal, where we waited to complete the final leg of the immigration odyssey: “Small extended families like ours were not the norm among immigrant families. Birth rates being what they are in the Third World, one qualified legal immigrant from, say, Africa is a ticket for an entire tribe. The initial entrant—the meal ticket—integrates and pays his way; the rest remain, more often than not, unassimilable and welfare dependent.”

To paraphrase the old nursery rhyme, When she’s good she’s very very good. Ann Coulter is perhaps the most powerful ally the immigration patriot movement could hope to recruit. We can now stand down as she stands up.

**
Ilana Mercer is a paleolibertarian writer, based in the U.S. She is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. Her latest book is “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Her website is www.IlanaMercer.com. Follow her on Twitter. “Friend” her on Facebook.

Ilana Mercer: From Purges At National Review To Duggar Pedophilia

Fellow Canadian Kathy Shaidle sends her latest Taki’s Magazine column, “Beta Male Suckiness at National Review.” In it I learn that Kathy’s benevolence approaches the saintly; only recently has she terminated her subscription to National Review (NR). I did so about 15 years ago. The Alberta Report, a Canadian paleoconservative publication with libertarian leanings, soon became the subscription of choice in the home of this budget-conscious, coupon-clipping, immigrant. (Scientific American was another guilty pleasure.)

Why, you ask, would a budding libertarian not patronize Reason Magazine? Well, once one becomes familiar with the libertarianism and writings of the American Old Right—Garet Garrett, Frank Chodorov, Felix Morley, James McClellan, Russell Kirk, Clyde Wilson; as well as Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, on and on—Reason rings hollow; its writers ooze a post-graduate cleverness lacking in philosophical depth. Yes (and yawn), we libertarians favor a free market in kidneys and drugs. No, this libertarian has no desire to read desiccated disquisitions on these dry-as-dust topics.

Then there is the delicate matter of my one-off submission to Reason. Here I must pause to apologize to our readers (who’re probably none the wiser) for the frequent use, in this column, of the first person. A difference of opinion exists about this practice, so prevalent nowadays. I (that honestly hurt) consider its overuse a cardinal sin—even by writers who’ve earned the right to use the “Imperial I.” The more frequent the use of “I this; I that” in a column; the crappier the writing. So says I!

With that disclaimer out of the way, I’ll proceed with one of the few chatty columns I’m likely to write.

“How Things Would Work In A Copyright Free Universe” had found favor with the fair-minded, superb editor of Canada’s Financial Post (Larry Solomon). Not so the gatekeeper at Reason! He grumble that my piece fell short of Reason’s standards—so woefully inadequate was my essay; that said editor hastened to use the “inferior” material in his syndicated column that same week. Thus did Reason Magazine become synonymous with pomposity and dishonesty.

Back to Ms. Shaidle from whom I learn that a National Review editor has terminated Mark Steyn’s print-magazine column. I still recall searching frantically for Florence King’s back-page “Misanthrope’s Corner,” which was retired in 2002. That’s how long ago I bid “adios” to NR’s print version (I access Kevin D. Williamson online, as do I appreciate Josh Gelernter’s mention of my work on South Africa).

But why retire the Steyn byline? Steyn is a star. He also supports wars and is extremely talented. To wit, he managed to both defend and diss columnist John Derbyshire, who himself was dismissed from NR (where he freelanced), for writing “The Talk: Nonblack Version,” published, too, at Taki’s.

By the time the “girlie boys” of NR came for Ann Coulter, I was unaware the magazine still appeared in print. Ann’s column was expunged from National Review after 9/11. The reason? Most real people had a 9/11 moment. Miss Coulter’s cri de coeur was particularly memorable. For exhorting, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,” she was given the boot. This was a puzzling purge, considering neoconservatives promptly adopted her recommendations, invaded Muslim countries and killed their leaders.

In fact, the neoconservatives at NR supported all Coulter’s recommendations save the peaceful one (Christian conversion). Still do. Clicking through the ENORMOUS icons on the new NR website reveals that Lindsey Graham, John McCain’s evil ideological twin, is touted alongside the Patriot Act, whose “expiration” is mourned. (Fear not, fearless ones, your metadata remains unsafe. The USA Freedom Act, to replace Section 215 of the Patriot Act, is a mere mutation. It privatizes the Patriot Act, by co-opting corporations into the service of the Surveillance State.)

Kathy Shaidle is displeased with NR for different reasons. She floats the possibility that founder William F. Buckley might have, “allegedly,” covered up for “liberal celebrity pedophile” Gore Vidal.

Unlike Buckley, whose prose was impenetrable, Gore Vidal was a brilliant belletrist, who dazzled with his original insights, and was wonderfully unsparing about assorted anal activists and all manner of “vulgar fagism.”

Personally, I’m more inclined to forgive the late Mr. Vidal his “predilections”—”poor choices,” as reality TV’s Duggar dynasty absolves child molestation—than I am to succor the simpering, sanctimonious, fruitfully multiplying Duggars, and their priapic son (Josh), who preyed on his sisters.

As to why talent is vanishing from the TV screens and mastheads of mainstream media (which is what NR is): There’s a reason that everywhere the likes of S. E. Cupp, Kimberly G-string, Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Judy Miller, Kirsten Powers, Leslie Marhsall, Andrea Tantaros, Jedediah Bilious, Margaret Hoover, Dana Perino, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Rich Lowry, Katherine Timpf (OMG!), Hannity’s Tamara Holder (OMG! again) and their editorial enablers are weighing in on weighty matters: However hard they try—the aforementioned cannot outsmart their hosts and higher-ups.

Indeed, mediocrity strives for conformity. Republicans have their own fellatio machine to maintain. For the GOP political establishment, intellectual equilibrium is optimally maintained when the Cupps outnumber the Coulters, the Malkins and the Steyns; a reality that would remain unaltered were James Burnham, Russell Kirk and H. L. Mencken themselves to materialize before our very eyes.

Hating the browning of America

When it comes to Ann Coulter—the conservative blonde avenger, the loud-mouthed provocateur, the human hot-button of mass-media notoriety who is forever tossing turds into liberals’ punch bowls — people always want to know: Is she for real?

Even the title of her latest book, ¡Adios, America!: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole, is guaranteed to raise many folks’ blood pressure and strain their credulity.

“I don’t know why liberals find this idea about me comfortable,” Coulter tells me over dinner, “but I just had lunch with a law school friend of mine, and I had forgotten—and he reminded me—that at law school I wore mink coats and took up smoking just to annoy liberals, so apparently I’d been like this for awhile. He said, ‘You’re exactly like you were in law school.’

“In order to change this country to one more favorable to crazy liberal policies, Democrats passed—and Republicans were hoodwinked into passing—this crazy 1965 immigration law that has changed the country in shocking and dramatic ways,” Coulter says, explaining her book’s premise and referring to legislation—sponsored by the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy—that abolished long-implemented preferences for immigrants from Northern and Western Europe over Africans, Asians and other third-world natives.

“This has been our law for 50 years now, and I blame the Republicans for idiotically continuing it,” she continues. “The Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986 [creating an easier path to citizenship for foreigners who illegally entered and settled in the United States] was a mistake. As for these idiot Tea Partiers or whichever conservatives are idol-worshipping Ronald Reagan, he was great for his time, but it was a different world. I don’t think he’s going down as the greatest president when he signed an amnesty law.”

Coulter argues that teeming hordes of new immigrants, especially from Mexico, vote overwhelmingly Democratic, so current immigration policy is really “an evil-genius plan to change the country. That’s what the Democrats get out of it. Obama never could have been elected in this country but for Teddy Kennedy’s immigration act. Never, never, ever, ever!”

Coulter’s politically quixotic prescription: a 10-year moratorium on all legal immigration; a complete dismantling of the immigration bureaucracy, not only government agencies and sympathetic elected officials but also outside advocacy groups; the erection of an impassable fence along the entire U.S.-Mexican border (in her book, she praises the Communist East Germans for effectively, sometimes lethally, preventing their citizens from breaching the Berlin Wall); and a return to pre-1965 policies that give preference to highly educated, usually white Europeans.

“I wouldn’t care if they were white or not; I’m talking about peasants who come from backward cultures,” she says, although she expresses alarm at predictions that by 2050 Caucasians in this country will be a minority. “There are white people from backward cultures. They just don’t happen to come from a country contiguous to the United States. It’s backward cultures that are providing cheap labor and Democratic votes.”

Coulter, however, is unfailingly friendly to our waiter, who identifies himself as “Luis,” an immigrant from Ecuador who came here 10 years ago and is working his way toward U.S. citizenship.

Coulter argues that U.S. immigration policies were demonstrably better a hundred years ago. “There was no mollycoddling of immigrants back then. With the Irish and the Italians, and even the Germans—especially the Germans—we were allowed to boss them around,” she says. “We could say, ‘No. No. You can’t do this anymore. You are an American now. Knock it off!’ The only problem with the fact that they [recent immigrants] are brown—well, you’re saying they’re brown, I’m saying they’re peasants—is that they’re piggy-backing on the black experience, and saying ‘That’s racist’ if you tell them to do things our way, and ‘You can just assimilate to us,’ not the other way around.

“Can you imagine the Irish or Italians or Germans saying that to our country back at the turn of the century? ‘No! Fuck you! You came to our country. Learn our ways!’”

Using language that many doubtless will find hair-raising if not downright offensive, Coulter speaks of the “browning of America”—a term she says she adopted as a negative after seeing it bandied favorably on MSNBC—and how the country is being ruined by an influx from Latin America, the Indian subcontinent, Vietnam, Nigeria, and other benighted locales.

“In Nigeria, everyone is a criminal,” Coulter claims. “But we take more immigrants from Nigeria than we do from Britain. Don’t react casually to that! That’s madness. The British are just going to other countries. And a lot of these countries, like Spain, are just shitholes now. Young, smart people are emigrating to Germany and they won’t be collecting Social Security immediately. Perhaps we should consider them rather than a Nigerian terrorist.”

Coulter adds that among the victims of Latino immigration, especially, are African Americans. “Hispanic groups will move into neighborhoods and say, ‘We don’t want any blacks here,’ and start physically attacking blacks,” she says. “It’s kind of wild. In most race relations, it’s never blacks who are victims of terror, it’s whites. Now blacks are being terrorized.”

So, Ann Coulter is the voice of African Americans now?

“I know they’re never going to adopt me, so you don’t have to say it in that sarcastic way,” she parries. “If they still hate me, I don’t care. They’re being totally screwed by this whole diversity and integration imperative, and they really are part of America. They are so important culturally in America—I mean the humor, the actors…they have the comedians and the music. I love Dave Chapelle, and my close personal friend Sherrod Small. I love Eddie Murphy, although he doesn’t do anything anymore. And Chris Rock.”

In ¡Adios, America! and over dinner, Coulter expands on her belief that when new arrivals from foreign climes are not busying themselves with “browning” the country, collecting welfare payments and swarming to the polls to vote Democrats into office, they are committing Medicare fraud, child rape, gang rape, honor killings and a host of other un-American activities.

She blames politically correct U.S. government census-taking and crime statistic policies—and the media establishment’s reluctance to identify the countries of origin of the alleged perpetrators—on the fact that she doesn’t have generally accepted stats to back up her assertions, merely horrific anecdotes and back-of-the-envelope guesses.

In her assertions about the allegedly low average intelligence of various “undesirable” immigrant groups, she relies on the studies of Jason Richwine, whose work on IQ and immigration was too controversial even for the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, which dismissed him from his staff job there after his Harvard doctoral dissertation came to light.

Meanwhile, Coulter blasts the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls—with the exception of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker—as “bozos” and “morons,” and heaps special contempt on Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (whom she accuses of favoring amnesty), and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who lately pays lip service to tough policies, Coulter says, “but I don’t trust him.”

Source: The Daily Beast

Obama refuses travel ban on black ebola countries

Ann Coulter laments about Obama’s refusal to call a travel ban on black countries that export ebola:

There had never been a case of Ebola in the U.S. until a few months ago. Since then, thousands of people have died of the disease in Africa, and millions upon millions of dollars have been spent treating Ebola patients in the U.S. who acquired it there, one of whom has died.

But the Obama administration refuses to impose a travel ban.

This summer, the U.S. government imposed a travel ban on Israel simply to pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu into accepting a ceasefire agreement. But we can’t put a travel restriction on countries where a contagious disease is raging.

It’s becoming increasingly clear this is just another platform for Obama to demonstrate that we are citizens of the world. The entire Ebola issue is being discussed — by our government, not the United Nations — as if Liberians are indistinguishable from Americans, and U.S. taxpayers should be willing to pay whatever it takes to save them.

Maybe we should give them the vote, too! If Ebola was concentrated in Finland and Norway — certainly Israel! — we’d have had a travel ban on Day One.

She also singles out the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Tom Frieden, who likes to joke about ebola and zombies:

Dr. Tom Frieden justifies Obama’s refusal to prohibit flights originating in Ebola-plagued countries, saying, “A travel ban is not the right answer. It’s simply not feasible to build a wall — virtual or real — around a community, city or country.”

What is it with liberals living in gated communities always telling us that fences don’t work? THAT’S WHAT A QUARANTINE IS.

At the congressional hearing on Ebola last week, Republicans repeatedly pressed the CDC representative, Dr. Toby Merlin, to explain why Obama refuses to impose a travel ban.

In about 17 tries, Merlin came up with no plausible answer. Like Frieden, Merlin kept insisting that “the only way to protect Americans” is to end the epidemic in Africa.

Why, precisely, must we attack Ebola in Africa? Research on a cure doesn’t require cuddling victims in their huts. Scientists who discovered the AIDS cocktail didn’t spend their nights at Studio 54 in order to “fight the disease at its source.”

Until there’s a treatment, we can’t put out the disease there, or here. The only thing Americans will be doing in Liberia is changing the bedpans of victims, getting infected and bringing Ebola back to America. When there’s a vaccine, we can mail it.

Coulter believes American troops sent to Liberia are also in grave danger:

Naturally, Obama is sending troops from the 101st Airborne, the pride of our Army, to Liberia. Their general should resign in protest.

Merlin further explained the travel ban, saying that if West Africans can’t fly to America, “that would cause the disease to grow in that area and spill over into other countries.” So instead of infecting people in surrounding countries, our CDC wants them to come here and infect Americans.

But that won’t happen because the government assures us there’s nothing to worry about with Ebola. They’ve got it under control.

Unfortunately, everything the government says about this disease keeps being proved untrue — usually within a matter of days.

They told us that you’d basically have to roll in an infected person’s vomit to catch the disease. Then, nurses at two first-world hospitals in Spain and the U.S. contracted Ebola from patients.

With no evidence, the CDC simply announced that the nurses were not following proper “protocol.” The disease didn’t operate the way CDC said it would, so the hospitals must be lying.

The government told us that national quarantines won’t work, but then they quarantine everyone with Ebola — or who has been near someone with Ebola, such as an entire NBC crew. To me, this suggests that there’s some value in keeping people who have been near Ebola away from people who have not.

Quite obviously, the only way to protect Americans is to prevent Ebola from coming here in the first place. The problem isn’t that Ebola will leap across oceans to infect Americans; it’s that Obama doesn’t want to protect Americans.

At least he’s only putting expendable Americans on the frontlines of the Ebola epidemic — doctors, nurses, members of the 101st Airborne.

At the moment, more than 13,000 West Africans have travel visas to come to the U.S. Having just seen an Ebola-infected Liberian get $500,000 worth of free medical treatment in the U.S., the first thing any African who might have Ebola should do is get himself to America.

Of all the reasons people have for coming here — welfare, drug-dealing, Medicare scams — “I have Ebola and I’m going to die, otherwise” is surely one of the strongest. The entire continent of Africa now knows that this is a country that will happily spend half a million dollars on treating someone who just arrived — and then berate itself for not doing enough.

Thomas Eric Duncan’s family may be upset with his treatment, but they have to admit, the price was right. Medical bill: $0.00. Your next statement will arrive in 30 days.

And now we’re going to have to let in entire families with Ebola, because the important thing is — actually, I don’t know why. It’s some technical, scientific point about fences not working.

Coulter urges Republicans, as well as all Americans, to demand Frieden’s resignation.

Über Alec, Barking-Mad Bashir & The Death-Defying Libertarians

by Ilana Mercer

[followbutton username=’IlanaMercer’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Ilana Mercer’s Facebook page

In 2007, this column backed actor Alec Baldwin following the “tirade” he unleashed on Ireland, his then 11-year-old daughter.

Six years on, conservative columnist Ann Coulter has experienced her libertarian moment. Last week, she declared: “I’m with Alec Baldwin on punching aggressive paparazzi photographers. I’m with him against the word police. I’m with him on the stalker. I’m with him on using an electronic device on a plane before takeoff. I’m with him on Kim Basinger playing visitation games with their daughter.”

What are conservatives doing demanding Baldwin’s head for calling some pestilential paparazzi a “c**k-s**king little f*g.” It is perfectly obvious Baldwin was just cursing the guy out with whatever bad words popped into his head, not engaging in “homophobia” against an actual gay person.

What Sally-come-lately has exhorted of late about Alec Baldwin ought to be uncontroversial in conservative circles.

Back in 2007, the same Idiocracy now baying for Baldwin’s blood was flapping like black crows over the actor, insisting that words are as bad as bruises, and that he ought to have been arrested or slapped with a restraining order. As if this dad’s access to his kid were not already severely restricted in the course of a rancorous divorce.

What are the chances that Alec Baldwin’s daughter is a “rude, thoughtless little pig”?, I wrote in April of that year.

Since so many of America’s kids and all of Hollywood adults and their little hogs fit the description—I surmised that Baldwin was on the money.

What is the likelihood that the family courts in this country had denied the actor his legal custodial rights?

Given the family court system’s stellar record in railroading an overwhelming majority of petitioning dads, I ventured that Baldwin’s case against the courts was as credible as his case against his daughter’s misconduct.

Back in 2007, I also wagered that the incriminating recording of the actor verbally disciplining his inconsiderate daughter, long-distance, was likely leaked to the media by the “little pig” herself.

Baldwin is an intense, well-spoken individual. Fired up as he was about the compromised legal rights of divorced dads, he would have made an effective spokesman for this cause.

The actor is now blasting “the fundamentalist wing of gay advocacy—Rich Ferraro and Andrew Sullivan —and has come close to doing the same to MSNBC host Martin Bashir. Unlike Baldwin, Bashir has kept his job with the network because he merely cussed a conservative.

An English import, the barking-mad Bashir cursed former Governor Sarah Palin on air for daring to liken “borrowing from China to pay for the national debt” to slavery.

In response, “big-league scold” Howard Kurtz, now at Fox News, ruled that “the issue on which [Bashir] went after the former Alaska governor and Fox News contributor is fair game.”

Nonsense on stilts. Any opinion writer worth his salt would have rejected the quaint notion that certain eternally aggrieved identity groups have exclusive linguistic rights to words in the English language. The word slavery does not “belong” to blacks.

Sarah Palin used a perfectly good noun—slavery—to denote the bondage that trillions in government debt imposes on citizens.

BLACKOUT. “Phony panic” and “urban myth” is how the “prestige press” is characterizing widespread reports of en masse, black-on-white Knock-Out attacks. “Boys behaving badly,” noodled one jocular Democratic strategist about the sucker-punching to death of a few people, so far.

The mischief-makers must be laughing. They couldn’t care a fig. In fact, the rhetorical reprisals the perpetrators deploy to define their crimes are as precise as the blows they land on their pale victims: “polarbearing,” Jew hunting and so on.

But some libertarians were having none of it, insisting à la the left, that to frame the felons in anything but race-neutral terms is collectivist and racist.

In the face of such dogged denial, I worry that libertarians who reject reality may be doomed to extinction.

Picture this: You walk past a feral gang of black youths, like the ones depicted in all these terrifying YouTube clips. You grin bravely, place honky hands on ears and hum loudly as you saunter by, until… you are coshed on the head by a black youth. Then another. And another.

As you fall to your knees near death, you congratulate yourself on cleaving not to reality, but to a noble “theory” instead. You die a happy, theoretically pious libertarian.

It must be abundantly clear to any thinking man that this is idiotic, not individualistic.

Those who’re derided as apostles of intolerance—”collectivists”—for cleaving to reality will likely outlive the self-sacrificing, self-styled individualists, sacrificed to an idea that has no basis in objective reality.

[followbutton username=’IlanaMercer’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Ilana Mercer’s Facebook page

Coulter: Nigerians manning Obamacare

By Ann Coulter.

In a weird confluence of the nation’s two most pressing issues — Obamacare and our insane immigration laws — this week we found out that the tens of thousands of “navigators” hired by the government to enroll people in Obamacare will include convicted felons.

Despite some “navigators” having already been exposed as having arrest warrants against them, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has no plans to screen out the criminals. (But rest assured: If your identity is stolen as a result of trying to sign up for Obamacare, no one will be more upset about it than President Obama.)

In addition to convicted felons, navigators are drawn from labor unions, community organizers, former ACORN staffers and front-groups for the Democratic National Committee.

Call right up and give all your private financial and medical information to those guys! What could go wrong? (Before Obamacare was even online, Minnesota’s health exchange emailed the Social Security numbers and other identifying information for about 2,400 Americans to a man applying to be a “navigator.”)

If you call today, you can sign up for Obamacare plus learn about a Nigerian prince in exile who’s willing to share his vast inheritance with you in exchange for your bank account numbers.

To much fanfare, in 2006 Medicare announced that only 7 percent of its payments were a result of fraud. Two years later, The New York Times reported that it was actually 31.5 percent — and that Medicare had aggressively hidden the fraud from outside auditors.

Do you think a privately run insurance company would take three years to notice that one-third of its payouts had been obtained by fraud? But with federal programs, there’s a powerful incentive not to look for fraud. That would merely vindicate critics of big government!

In 2012, Medicare’s crack investigators noticed that more than a billion dollars in home health care payments for 2008 had gone to one single county in Florida — more than all such payments made to the rest of the entire country.

Do you think it would take five years for a private insurer to figure out it had been scammed out of $1 billion by a few health care professionals in one county? Anyone else would notice being stolen from, but not the government. It’s not their money.

Wherever there’s a government program, there’s a gigantic opportunity for criminals. A staggering percentage of the health care workers scamming Medicare and Medicaid are foreign-born — much higher than their numbers in the medical profession generally.

Do you notice anything that stands out about the list of convicts? Would any of their names have sounded strange to Ben Franklin? Of 22 people convicted of defrauding American taxpayers by fraudulently billing Medicare or Medicaid, at least 17 have almost comically foreign names.

None of the scammers should be foreigners! We can’t do anything about our native-born crooks, but why are we importing them?

Enormous, unwieldy corrupt government programs run by arrogant bureaucrats would be bad enough in 1950. But after decades of our Third World-only immigration policies, one can’t help noticing that Medicare and Medicaid are beckoning Disneylands for foreign-born thieves.

The problem isn’t their complexion, it’s their culture. In America, we think only dumb people become criminals. That’s not true in the Third World!

Nigeria, for example, leads the world in criminal enterprises. Every level of Nigerian society is criminal, with the smart ones running Internet scams, the mid-range ones running car theft rings, and the stupid ones engaging in piracy and kidnapping. At the University of Lagos, you can major in credit card fraud.

There were almost no Nigerians in the United States until the 1970s. Today, there are nearly 250,000 Nigerians in the U.S. (committing the cyber-crime Americans just won’t do!). In 2011, we took in more immigrants from Nigeria than from the United Kingdom (9,246 from the U.K. and 9,344 from Nigeria).

Of course, Obamacare never would have passed without decades of massive immigration from the Third World. Liberals didn’t change any minds — they changed the voters. In order to pass Obamacare, Democrats had to bring in the Third World to vote Democratic.

The downside is that the country is now chock-full of people who come from cultures where criminality and government corruption is a way of life — at the very moment that the country is expanding a government-run health insurance program already shot through with fraud and abuse.

Only confiscatory tax rates can support such a system.

Gosh, I sure hope our new Somali and Nigerian immigrants have German-style rectitude and are very honest about reporting all their income to the government.

Ann Coulter: Republican Party ‘deserves to die’ if it backs immigration reform

The GOP (Republican Party) deserves to die if it backs immigration reform, allowing more Latinos to become citizens, right wing pundit Ann Coulter says in a new column, If the GOP is stupid, it deserves to die.

The article is the latest in a series since President Barack Obama’s November reelection in which Coulter paints Hispanics as lazy, poor and government-dependent, concluding that they could never vote for conservatives and immigration reform would destroy both the Republican Party and the country as a whole.

“Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they’ll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote,” Coulter wrote in the column, published Wednesday.

Coulter went on to claim that Latinos don’t favor a path to citizenship.

“Hispanic voters are a small portion of the electorate,” the column says. “They don’t want amnesty, and they’re hopeless Democrats. So Republicans have decided the path to victory is to flood the country with lots more of them!”

It’s unclear what Coulter bases this on, as she does not cite a source. A Fox News Latino poll published last year found that 85 percent of Hispanics support offering a path to citizenship for the undocumented. A poll released this week by Latino Decisions found that 81 percent of Hispanic voters want Congress to address the pathway to citizenship and border security simultaneously, while only 13 percent favor the border security-first approach advocated by conservatives like Coulter.

Coulter reinforced the views presented in her column during an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity” Wednesday evening that ran under the banner “Legalizing Illegals.”

“This bill has nothing in terms of enforcement,” Coulter said. “If you’re serious about enforcement, just say ‘we’re enforcing E-Verify.’”

In fact, the comprehensive immigration reform proposal under debate in the Senate pours $6.5 billion into border security and mandates the expansion of E-Verify.

During a disagreement over whether Coulter was directly responding to a question about the path to citizenship, she and the host called one another “liberal.”

“You’re not answering my question,” Hannity said, as Coulter continued speaking. “You’re like a liberal.”

“No, nothing… you, you… on the contrary, you are like a liberal,” Coulter stammered back as Hannity sniggered.

She said if “amnesty” happens, “America is over” and “the only thing left for people like you and me to do, Sean, is to punish the people who destroyed America.” – Huffington Post

‘Blacks should buy guns’

Leave it to Ann Coulter and the like to conquer the ever-vexing issue of race relations, unequivocally internalize the volcanic plight of blacks and other minorities everywhere, rather than simplistically merge theories relative to both to the point of irrefutable resolution— all in a matter of a less than a minute TV sound bite.

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting tragedy, the incorrigibly bombastic, right-wing activist took to the Fox News airwaves and the “Bill O’Reilly Show” recently to expound upon and defiantly reaffirm her dangerously hot-headed and shortsighted views regarding the one singular instrument that has truly proven to be a weapon of mass destruction in minority communities everywhere.

“We don’t know all the facts yet,” Coulter later wrote in a blog post chronicling the deadly encounter that left the 17-year-old Martin mortally wounded at the hands of volunteer neighborhood watchmen George Zimmerman. “But let’s assume the conclusion MNSBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small, black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

“If that we’re true,” she continued, “every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America’s oldest and most august civil rights organization.”

Alas, with allies like Ann Coulter and her Republican counterparts, who can afford to have enemies? Indeed, it’s funny how those who know the least sometimes reveal the most. Coulter’s words are a clear illustration to one and all of an approach and road best less traveled. They harken to a society and atmosphere that only further propagates a war among races in which no group can truly win.

What Coulter seems to remain blind about and oblivious to— conveniently so I might add— is the fact that an eye-for-eye way of being ultimately only comes to leave us all blind. And statistics speak to that darkness, with the free-flow of more handguns almost automatically leading to more deaths and shootings in each and every instance.

Beyond the mere numbers, one need look no further than my childhood hometown of Chicago— the South Side’s Englewood neighborhood for an even more exact locale— to painfully bring those words to heart.

During the St. Patrick’s Day weekend preceding the Martin shooting and only days before Coulter was making her rather reckless proclamation, 49 people were shot, at least 11 of them fatally, across the city. Overall, murders were up by more than 60 percent over the first three months of 2012 compared to the year before, with Englewood’s 15 homicides nearly doubling those committed in any of the city’s other enclaves.

In Englewood, since 1960 the community population has dipped from a high of 100,000 to just 30,000 and falling, with more and more families still desperately seeking to get out. More than 4,100 abandoned buildings now riddle the neighborhood, as the gang-laden, arms-packing residents grow more brazen and deadly in their dealings.

Harsh realities such as those are why Coulter’s words aren’t so easily dismissive. When has violence, or setting the course for it, ever led to anything other than more violence? Given all that, is there anyone among us, Ann Coulter included, that can truly advocate for such a society and rest in good conscious?

Count the Rev. Al Sharpton, the NAACP and the parents of Trayvon Martin among those who have come to an equally raised level of understanding. On the 20th anniversary of the deadly race riots that saw much of Los Angeles go up in flames following the Rodney King acquittal, it’s why they all convened in the city Thursday night to plead for greater tolerance and an end to all the violence.

“There are Trayvons all over the country,” boomed Sharpton. “What kind of world are we living in that we can put a black man in the White House, but a black can’t walk through a gated community?”

Thing is, in the kind of world Ann Coulter is calling for, neither may truly have the chance to reach their destination. – blackamericaweb.com

Ann Coulter’s Mugged, a review

Many in the Dissident Right/ Right Opposition have criticized Ann Coulter as the epitome of the cable news partisanship. However, next to Pat Buchanan, she probably speaks more taboo truths than anyone else with Main Stream Media [MSM] access.

Coulter calls for cuts in legal immigration, ending birthright citizenship, speaks frankly about the Bell Curve, defends groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens (with some qualifications), and even quotes VDARE.com and Peter Brimelow .

So I was excited when I heard of her latest book, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama.

But, as she began promoting it, the controversy seemed to be limited to her attacking liberals and the Democrats for racism and indifference to blacks.

So I got worried that the book would be more partisan Jonah Goldberg-type “Democrats-are-the-real-racists, Martin Luther King-is-a-conservative” platitudes than an actual, much-needed indictment of racial demagoguery.

Fortunately, however, the vast bulk of Coulter’s book focuses on exposing liberal and black hysteria and lies about race.

Coulter notes several actions that now inspire accusations of racism in the Age of Obama:

“not electing Obama president”
“requesting documents from Attorney General Eric Holder” in Fast and Furious
“references to Obama playing basketball”
“the word ‘the’”. The last charge, she notes, was inspired by Donald Trump referring to “the blacks.”

Her book’s subtitle is Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama, and Coulter systematically documents racial demagoguery from the 1970s on. She does a great job telling the true story behind supposed acts of racism such as the justified Rodney King beating, the tragic (but not racist) shooting of Amadou Diallo, and the Willie Horton Ad. She exposes the little-known fact that Jim Jones People’s Temple mass suicide was led by a fanatical left-winger driven by “anti-racism” and Marxism, who also had close ties to the Democratic Party.

Perhaps the best part of Coulter’s book is her discussion of hate crime hoaxes. She devotes an entire chapter, amusingly titled “Hey, whatever happened to that story…” to hate crime hoaxes and how the MSM always accepts the lies, only to deep-six the stories when they prove false. In addition to rehearsing well-known hoaxes such as the Tawana Brawley case, she goes into great detail about lesser-publicized frauds, like the non-existent epidemic of black church burnings during the Clinton years. More importantly, she notes that many of these fake hate crimes stirred up actual hate crimes against whites—which were all ignored by the MSM.

Coulter covers the Duke Lacrosse mess later in the book. This is one of the few Hate Crime hoaxes that most people still remember, but Coulter brings up facts often ignored (outside of VDARE and a few other sources) that put it in perspective. She reports DOJ crime statistics noting that there has not been a single case of an actual white-on-black gang rape, while thousands of black-on-white rapes (including gang rapes) occur each year. As Coulter barbs:

If there were a single unequivocal example of a white on black rape in modern times, a lesbian folk singer would have written a song about it and won an Oscar for the accompanying documentary.

There are, however, a few areas where I believe Coulter’s partisanship gets in the way of her otherwise excellent analysis. Like many Conservatism Inc. publicists, Coulter argues the Democrats are in fact the real racists, and that the Republican Southern Strategy was non-racial.

Coulter has occasionally made some statements suggesting that she is sympathetic to Bell Curve arguments. [See her column Murdering The Bell Curve, June 27, 2002 at 2:50 PM]But she concludes her book by asserting

if all black people woke up tomorrow morning with the cultural predilections of Korean Americans, all sociological disparities—income, crime rates, out of wedlock births—would vanish within ten years.

Coulter’s general point that most of the problems in the black community will only improve through cultural change is no doubt true. But the unfortunate fact of average genetic differences means that most of those disparities will never vanish.

These quibbles aside, Coulter’s Mugged ranks with Jared Taylor’s Paved with Good Intentions and Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed as one of the best indictments of American minority and liberal hypocrisy and hysteria on race. – Alexander Hart, VDARE.com