Blog

You can read Ann’s column here or on her website at AnnCoulter.com.

Can we have a quick reality check and acknowledge that what is happening to America is a million times worse than what’s happening in Europe and is of much greater consequence?

Conservatives regularly point to the mass migration afflicting Europe as if it’s the Ghost of Christmas Future for America. Since waves of Third World migrants began sweeping into the European Union, we’ve seen terrorism, knifings, rape gangs and riots popping up all over the birthplace of Western civilization. Sweden has gone from a country where rape was essentially nonexistent to the Rape Capital of the World.

It’s sweet of Americans to be so concerned about Europe, but maybe they should look at their own country. On account of a mass immigration policy imposed on us by our government, the United States has undergone a transformation unprecedented in all of world history.

From 1620 to 1970, the U.S. was demographically stable — not to be confused with “a nation of immigrants.” The country was about 85% to 90% white, almost entirely British, German, French and Dutch, and 10% to 15% African American. (The American Indian population, technically in their own nations, steadily plummeted — an example of how vast numbers of new people can displace the old, both accidentally and on purpose.)

In a generation, the white majority has nearly disappeared, while the black percentage has remained about the same, with more than 90% of African Americans still native-born. White Americans are one border surge away from becoming a minority in their own country.

In 2016, non-Hispanic whites were 61.3% of the population and 54% of all births. That was two years ago, before Trump came in and flung open the border to all of Latin America, especially children and pregnant ladies hoping to have an anchor baby.

Back in 1995, the Census Bureau estimated that whites would decline to about 64% of the population by 2020. Today, the Census Bureau projects the nation will be less than 60% white by then. We’re moving faster than even La Raza could have hoped!

This isn’t about race — though it might be of some concern to the rapidly diminishing white population that our cultural overlords are so tormented by “whiteness.”

E.g.:

“The Unbearable Whiteness of Congress” — The Daily Beast

“Whiteness is terrorism” — Trinity College professor Johnny Eric Williams on Twitter

“The Problem of Whiteness” — course at University of Wisconsin-Madison

“Abolish the White Race” — Harvard Magazine (“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”)

This stunning demographic replacement matters because American culture is the envy of the world. Not only was this wonderful culture created by white Western Europeans, but merely asking immigrants to assimilate to it is generally considered a hate crime.

If everyone assimilated to our culture, who cares what race they are? But given sufficient numbers, they don’t. They don’t need to, and we certainly aren’t asking them to. The reason we successfully assimilated not-so-different European cultures was that we controlled the numbers — essentially stopping immigration for 50 years while we forged an American character.

Let’s compare our demographic situation to the European countries we’re weeping over. France is still about 80% French (85% Western European), and England is about 80% English (85% Western European). Even Holland is still approximately 76% Dutch (80% Western European).

What we’re witnessing in Europe is that continent’s first brush with the joys of diversity.

American conservatives’ obsession with Europe’s snail-like introduction to diversity, while ignoring a demographic tsunami in their own country, is the mirror image of neoconservatives’ fixation on unrest in the Middle East, while ignoring the invasion on our border.

When did it become deplorable, Walmart-y behavior to care about your own country? Not to care more, but merely to care as much as you do about the rest of the world?

It seems as if progress is inevitable, that things always get better and never retrogress. But the Roman Empire had philosophers, literature, science, great buildings, statues and works of art. It had advanced communication, plumbing and transportation systems. It had a universal set of measures, laws and rules.

And then the Dark Ages came. In the blink of an eye, all that was lost. The people no longer had the technological know-how even to repair bridges and aqueducts built by the Romans. They had lost the ability to make cement. They lost many of the works of Aristotle. Roads and plumbing fell into disrepair. Statues crumbled. Nikki Haley would be happy!

Only centuries later did civilization begin to reassert itself, barely climbing back to the accomplishments of several centuries earlier.

Whatever the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire, one thing is for damn sure: There were not vast bands of powerful Romans prattling about “Roman privilege,” demanding that the Huns be given preference over Romans and writing articles with titles like “Abolish the Romans!”

That is the driving impulse of one of our two major political parties. The other party can’t bestir itself to care about anything other than tax cuts, abortion and moving our embassy to Jerusalem.

COPYRIGHT 2019 ANN COULTER

You can read Ms. Coulter’s column here or at AnnCoulter.com.

Several months into the Trump administration, I started running a daily “Border Wall Construction Update” on Twitter, announcing how many miles of the wall had been completed that day and how many miles since the inauguration. It was always the same numbers: 0 and 0, respectively.

I was immediately attacked by people in the Trump base. You’re being unfair, he hasn’t had enough time, there’s a legislative process, he’s doing the best he can.

As days turned to weeks and weeks turned to months and months turned to years, and not 1 inch of the wall was built, the “3-D chess” crowd dwindled.

Sometimes Trump would concede he hadn’t built any part of the wall. Sometimes he would fib and claim it was being built. There’s no way to sugarcoat it: That was a lie.

Drug dealers, drunk drivers, criminals, welfare dependents and low-wage workers driving down American wages continued to flow across our border.

We are now past the midway point of Trump’s first term, maybe his only term. If Trump couldn’t come up with a legislative fix when he controlled both houses of Congress, he’s sure not going to now that he’s lost the House.

We are headed for another failed Republican presidency.

President George H.W. Bush promised, “Read my lips, no new taxes” — then raised taxes.

President George W. Bush promised that America would not be “the world’s policeman” — then turned the United States into the world’s policeman.

Whether these promises weren’t kept out of bad faith, incompetence or changed minds is of no consequence. That will be a minor footnote for future historians to debate. All that matters is that it didn’t happen. That’s why Trump got elected.

But he still hasn’t started the wall.

By now, my erstwhile critics are getting the point. But I’m not sure the president is — a few weeks ago, he unfollowed me on Twitter.

Trump seems to be mystified about what he needs to do to maintain the support of his most devoted backers. He’s saying the right things, isn’t he? He’s holding press conferences, giving Oval Office addresses and tweeting that he wants a wall.

Here’s what you haven’t done, Mr. President: You haven’t broken ground. You want your supporters back? BREAK GROUND TODAY.

You know those caravans marching north toward our border? They’re not giving speeches about how they’re coming north. They’re not tweeting about how they’re coming north. They’re not giving Oval Office addresses about how they’re coming north.

They’re coming north.

What you need to do today — not after the State of the Union address, not after the next GOP retreat, not after another meeting with the Democrats — is to start rolling construction trucks to the southern border.

When Obama wanted something done, he did it. After spending two years saying he didn’t have constitutional authority to amnesty Dreamers, he issued an executive order amnestying Dreamers.

Obama has a legacy — a terrible legacy, but a legacy nonetheless. We’re still living with that executive order today.

By contrast, Mr. President, you do have constitutional authority to defend the nation’s borders, as you have noted repeatedly. But you’ve chickened out. The only edifice you have built is constructed of tweets, press conferences and speeches.

Ironically, Obama was a man of action. The New York real estate tycoon is just a man of words.

Words don’t stop caravans. No one rushes to a caravan saying — WAIT! STOP! TRUMP IS ABOUT TO TWEET!

Are you sure you want to make a dangerous 700-mile journey through cartel-infested lands when you know that as soon as you get to the U.S. border, there could be a Donald Trump tweet awaiting you?

Obama assumed dictatorial powers, bypassing Congress to issue laws from the Oval Office. You would just be doing your job, Mr. President. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

The most fundamental responsibility of the U.S. president is to protect the nation’s sovereignty. It is not to ensure the safety of the Kurds or the Syrian Christians or Pakistani goat herders, but to ensure the safety and security of the American people. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

The Senate’s latest omnibus spending bill provides “not less than $15,000,000” for border security — in Pakistan. The border security of our own country has become a joke. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Yesterday people crossed our border who will kill Americans. Today there are people crossing our border who will kill Americans. And tomorrow there will be more people crossing our border who will kill Americans. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

It’s great that you met with the Clemson football team, but while you were doing that, people were crossing the border who will kill Americans. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Countless presidents and presidential candidates have vowed to stop illegal immigration. Good intentions, bad intentions — it doesn’t matter. They didn’t keep their promises. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Fifty years from now, an American family will pile into the car to see the country and, while motoring by the Texas border, will slam on the brakes. Oh look, honey, here’s a historic site! They’ll blow the dust off a small plaque on a garden trellis that will read: “On this site, President Donald Trump built the impregnable southern border wall.”

Stanley, you have to step to the left — you’re blocking the whole thing!

There will be plenty of room in the Trump Presidential Library for the entire border wall, because the library will contain only two books, “The Art of the Deal,” and Trump’s follow-up book, “Never Mind.” BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Emergency powers or no emergency powers, on tomorrow night’s news we want to see helicopters circling the trucks headed to the border. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

They have a caravan; you have a caravan. They’re heading north; you head south. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

Cost: People who don’t like you will continue not to like you. Benefit: Your legacy will be — He kept Americans alive who would otherwise be dead. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

We’ve heard your speeches. We know you understand the crisis, and you know what needs to be done. But none of that will mean anything if you don’t take action — not in a month, not in a week, but today. BREAK GROUND TODAY.

COPYRIGHT 2019 ANN COULTER

You can read Ms. Coulter’s column here or at her website AnnCoulter.com.

By finally returning to the issue that won him the election, President Trump once again has a winning hand. That’s why we’re hearing so much about “white supremacy” this week.

Liberals lie all the time, but when they know they’re vulnerable they lie even more than all the time. They’re vulnerable on immigration. Even heroic, nonstop lying doesn’t help — as CNN has discovered.

So, naturally, the media have turned to their larger project of relentlessly trying to discredit conservatives as “white supremacists.”

Unfortunately for them, apart from a few crackpots — whom I assume exist in a country of 320 million people — there are no “white supremacists.” There were white supremacists 50 years ago, and they were all Democrats. (See my book Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama.)

Today, “white supremacy” is nothing but a comfortable fantasy the left developed to explain its sick preoccupation with white people.

Talk about a manufactured crisis! The same people who love to snicker about Fox News viewers worrying about Sharia law sweeping the country are convinced that mythical “white supremacists” are hiding under every bed.

The whole concept is bogus. In my life, I’ve encountered a number of white people — some of them are my best friends. I’ve never heard any of them suggest that whites should rule over other races. None of them has argued that a substandard white person should get a job over a more competent person just because he’s white — you know, what every other group openly advocates for itself.

There is a whole swath of journalists who have decided that instead of investigating relevant news, they will spend their time doing oppo-research on prominent conservatives, hoping against hope to call them “racists.”

If the facts don’t fit, they’ll make them up. The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd once famously imagined a Republican congressman calling Obama “boy.”

This week, Newsweek’s Nina Burleigh (“I’d be happy to give (Bill Clinton) a b—job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal”) casually asked to interview me about “white identity politics.”

I have nothing to do with “white identity politics.” I don’t know anyone who knows anyone who even knows what that means. (Nor do I know anyone who’s seen a copy of Newsweek in at least a decade.)

When will we get around to talking about the media’s actual hatred of whites?

Last year, The New York Times hired Sarah Jeong, a Korean journalist who has posted such venomous anti-white tweets as:

“White men are bullshit.”

“(F)uck white women lol.”

“White people have stopped breeding. (Y)ou’ll all go extinct soon. (T)hat was my plan all along.”

“Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

“#CancelWhitePeople.”

“Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?”

“(O)h man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”

There’s no question but that such racist attacks would never be tolerated toward any other group. Jeong never apologized and happily took her seat on the Times’ editorial board.

Our cultural institutions regard the statement “It’s okay to be white” as hate speech. Colleges instigate investigations whenever signs with that phrase appear on campus. Second-graders in this country are being indoctrinated into “white privilege” ideology.

Eventually people get tired of the left’s fixation on “white people” -– the gratuitous dumping on Western civilization, the incessant sneering about “old white men,” and the nonsense about “white privilege,” as if every white person knows every other white person and is greased into jobs and promotions.

But if you ever respond to the hate by noting that the contributions from the parts of the world loathed by The New York Times dwarf the contributions of other cultures, they threaten you.

Any references to white male accomplishments are merely defensive.

Consider the current Gillette ad, “We Believe: The Best Men Can Be” (after the board of directors rejected the more accurate title, “ANNOUNCEMENT TO SHAREHOLDERS: WE’RE FOLDING THE COMPANY”). The ad shows only white men harassing women — and being corrected by minority men.

As long as they brought it up, every culture in the universe is galaxies more misogynistic than Western European culture. The ad should have been titled, Hey, white America, you’ve got to stop doing the things that everyone BUT you does.

When other groups talk about themselves, they instantly go to: We rock, we’re awesome! Only the descendants of white Western Europeans are not allowed to be proud of their culture.

There is still casual racism, and that should be quickly and severely condemned. Iowa Rep. Steve King, for example, was fanatically obsessed with vindicating a white defendant accused of, first, murdering a half-Pakistani woman, and, second, falsely accusing a Congolese man of the murder.

Except King never did that. Newsweek’s Burleigh did, writing an entire book in defense of alabaster-white Amanda Knox, after she was convicted of the brutal murder of her half-Pakistani roommate — later overturned — and also convicted of falsely accusing an innocent Congolese man of the crime, for which she served four years.

Liberals could never, in a million years, survive the standards of “racism” applied to conservatives.

Even famed defense attorney Alan Dershowitz said that the only reason journalists defended “Foxy Knoxy” was that “she’s pretty and she doesn’t look like she did it and Americans care about what people look like. She’s the all-American young woman and we don’t care about the evidence.”

If you want to know about white supremacy, Nina, interview yourself. After that, maybe you can learn your maid’s name.

I’m getting back to the subject you desperately don’t want to discuss: How uncontrolled low-skilled immigration is slaughtering our working class — white, black and brown.

COPYRIGHT 2019 ANN COULTER

You can read Ann’s latest column here or at AnnCoulter.com.

Now that Trump has finally turned to the campaign promise that won him the election — build a wall and deport illegals — the Democrats, the media and even most Republicans are hysterical.

Just remember: They were hysterical about Ronald Reagan, too. You don’t change history by being a follower, particularly if the people you’re following are unimaginative, go-with-the-flow company men.

When President Reagan implemented the strategy that won the Cold War, he was opposed by the entire media, as well as foreign policy “experts” in both parties.

The New York Times and Washington Post produced nonstop denunciations of his “dangerous” policies. There were propaganda movies like “The Day After,” terrifying Americans about a Soviet strike on our country. Witless college students demanded cyanide pills be stocked in campus health care clinics, on the grounds that Reagan was going to get us all nuked.

Only after Reagan’s policies succeeded did these same hysterics say, Ho hum, no big deal. We always knew the Soviet Union was a paper tiger.

Frantically rewriting history, they claimed Reagan had merely continued the policies of his predecessors. The truth about their eight-year primal scream is helpfully assembled in my smash best-seller, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.

The Democrats, the media and most of the Republican Party are as fanatically opposed to Trump’s ideas about illegal immigration as they were to Reagan’s ideas about winning the Cold War.

Like Reagan, Trump has only the people on his side. Unlike Reagan, he doesn’t seem as confident that he is right.

So the people need to be louder.

All we’re getting from the media on immigration is an avalanche of lies, neurotically repeated by people citing one another:

Polls show Americans don’t want a wall!

We’re a nation of immigrants!

Immigrants commit less crime than the native born!

Studies show: Black Americans are NOT hurt by illegal immigration.

Every one of these claims is a lie, as demonstrated in my book Adios, America. (Also a smash best-seller.)

People assume a minimal standard of decency in others and think to themselves, Well, Joe Scarborough wouldn’t say that if it weren’t true.

What viewers don’t understand is how lazy media personalities are. They are merely quoting what someone told them. They don’t know. Their expertise consists of memorizing a set of talking points, like ABBA memorizing the syllables to English words without knowing what they meant.

If journalists allowed follow-up questions and you could ask, “How do you know that?” The answer would be, “I heard it from a guy at Vox.”

The media go to extremely biased sources; they know nothing, so they’re not in a position to challenge them; and even if they were, they wouldn’t, because they’re on the same team.

After a New York Times reporter tracked me down for a quote about the wall, I gave him the following, but he chose not to run it. Why should the Newspaper of Record present the opposition’s side honestly?

There are a million reasons we want a wall, but here are five:

1) The Simpson-Mazzoli Act — passed almost 30 years ago to the day Trump was elected president — came with elaborate promises that it would put an end to illegal immigration. In fact, 30 to 40 million more illegals have poured into our country since then.

2) Notwithstanding the vast number of illegal alien valedictorians, there are also criminals, drunk drivers, drug cartel members and desperately poor people consuming government services meant for the least among us and driving down the wages of our working class.

3) We need a better method.

4) Walls work. See Israel.

5) If we don’t get it done now, we never will. Trump is our last chance.

But instead of explaining to the Times’ readers why Trump’s promise to build a wall shook the political world to its foundation, the newspaper trotted out campaign adviser Sam Nunberg’s boast that he invented “build the wall” because Trump’s mind tends to wander. It was only a dumb talking point, you see, not a serious campaign pledge.

This is like claiming you were the guy who invented carrying an umbrella when it rains. I’m sorry, Sam, but you’re not getting royalties for that.

Building a wall is kind of an obvious idea for protecting a border. Not only have walls been used from time immemorial to defend borders, but those precise three words have been used to describe what should happen at our specific border thousands of times before Trump used them, according to a quick Nexis search.

The current DNC talking point against a wall is that it is a “medieval solution to a 21st-century problem!” Turn on MSNBC or CNN right now, and you’ll hear someone saying it.

So are wheels. Are Democrats taking tires off their cars?

A roof is a medieval solution. How about Nancy Pelosi replace the one over her house with “new technology” — like a drone! Drones won’t keep anything out, but at least she can see what’s coming in seconds before it drops on her head.

Medievalism: 1; Pelosi: 0.

COPYRIGHT 2019 ANN COULTER

You can read the column here or at AnnCoulter.com.

The media are trying to convince Trump that if he abandons the wall, he’ll be a statesman, so that as soon as he folds, they can start making fun of him as an untrustworthy liar.

Everyone knows that we can never have a secure border without an impermeable barrier — something like a wall — across all of it. The Democrats know it, the voters know it, and the millions of illegals hurtling toward our border like cannonballs know it.

The Democrats’ latest idea is to call a wall “immoral, ineffective and expensive.”

If they think a wall is “immoral,” then they’re admitting it’s effective. An ineffective wall would merely be a place for illegals to stop and get a little shade before continuing their march into the United States.

Democrats’ backup argument is to cite — every four minutes on MSNBC — Trump’s claim that Mexico would pay for the wall. We’re all baffled by Trump not having already taxed remittances to Mexico to pay for the wall (100 percent within the president’s authority under various banking regulations), but if we’re going to start listing the promises Trump hasn’t kept, this is going to be a long column.

In point of fact, however, he never said Mexico would pre-pay. We can tax remittances anytime.

To keep the Third World masses flowing across our un-walled border, the media are demanding that Trump agree to nonspecific “border security.” It’s like ordering a Starbucks and instead of getting a coffee, you’re told to have more “pep.” Now move along. Here’s your change.

Would liberals accept such airy statements of intent in lieu of clear legal commands for any of the things they care about? (Not to be confused with “our country,” which they do not care about.)

Instead of EPA emissions standards, with specific parts per million of pollutants allowed into lakes and rivers, how about a law promoting “enhanced appreciation of God’s bounty”? Emissions standards are immoral and ineffective!

Nearly every Republican presidential candidate tried to con voters with these meaningless catchphrases about “border security.”

Here are The Des Moines Register’s summaries of some of the candidates’ positions on immigration a few weeks before the 2016 Iowa caucus:

Jeb Bush: “has called for enhanced border security.”

Marco Rubio: “proposes … improved security on the border.”

John Kasich: “believes border security should be strengthened.”

Chris Christie: “urges … using technology to improve border surveillance …”

Rand Paul: “would secure the border immediately.”

Carly Fiorina: “would secure the border, which she says requires only money and manpower.”

They all lost.

The guy who won: “Trump has said many illegal immigrants are rapists and are bringing drugs and crime to the United States. He has called for building a wall along the southern border, and has said he would make Mexico pay for it. He said he would immediately terminate President Barack Obama’s ‘illegal executive order on immigration.'”

Trump got more votes than any other Republican in the history of presidential primaries. No one was falling for “border security” then, and they aren’t now.

But instead of doing what he said and building a wall, Trump has hired people who don’t even grasp that the point is to make it unattractive to break into our country.

On ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, Trump’s head of Customs and Border Protection, Kevin McAleenan, announced plans to give illegal alien kids free medical care at the border: “What we’ve done immediately, (Homeland Security) Secretary (Kirstjen) Nielsen and I have directed that we do medical checks of children 17 and under as they come into our process.”

Apparently, our working class is rolling in so much free health care that now our country is diverting medical resources to treat other countries’ sick kids.

McAleenan boasted that we — that’s you, taxpayer — will be providing “doctors, physician assistants, paramedics to do an initial intake check so that we know if a child is healthy as they arrive at the border and then make sure they can get medical care if they need it.”

Luckily, this won’t hurt any Americans because the doctors they’re sending to the border are not currently treating any U.S. citizens. Oh wait! This just in: They will be taken away from sick Americans!

(Possible 2020 Trump campaign bumper sticker: I voted for a wall and all I got was free checkups for illegals.)

Doctors aren’t like the Petroleum Reserve. We don’t keep them cryogenically frozen, waiting to be unfrozen so they can treat illegals demanding free medical care as the price of hating us. If we rush doctors to the border, they are being rushed away from Americans who need medical care.

How about Democrats compile a list, by name, of the Americans they would like not to see their doctors anymore?

As a result of this boundless compassion for anyone who is not an American, how many more sick kids are going be dragged by their parents across hundreds of miles of desert just to see an American doctor?

Mexican cartel member to poverty-stricken Latin American:

Before setting off on this caravan, I want you to know that when you get to the border your kids will be held up for a medical check. And if they find anything wrong, your child will be given First World medical treatment. Also, you won’t be allowed to pay. I just want you to understand what you’re getting into before you join this caravan.

And when those kids die, Secretary Nielsen can demand more free medical care for illegals breaking into our country. Instead of having a wall, we’ll have a series of interlocking charity hospitals on the border treating the poor of the world before crossing into a country that didn’t ask for them and doesn’t want them.

Sorry, America. You lose again.

COPYRIGHT 2019 ANN COULTER

You can read the column here or at AnnCoulter.com.

The day after Christmas, President Trump issued his official Kwanzaa greetings from the White House:

“This annual celebration of African heritage, unity and culture is a special opportunity for many to reflect on their shared ancestry and values. At this time, our nation joins in honoring the important contributions of African-Americans to the strength and success of the United States.”

We have to assume this was Jared’s idea.

Other great Jared ideas:

1) Fire James Comey — the Democrats will love it!

2) Hire Anthony Scaramucci — we need to bring professionalism to the communications department!

3) Back Luther Strange in the Alabama Senate primary and diss Mo Brooks, the MAGA candidate — don’t worry, this won’t lead, like night into day, to a primary victory by Roy Moore and a Democratic pickup in the most conservative state in the union.

4) Hire more Goldman Sachs bankers than George W. Bush and Barack Obama combined — that’s just what your industrial Midwest base wants!

5) Back Obama’s Paris climate accord — this won’t result in mass protests when fuel prices soar in the countries that signed it! (Like France.)

6) Defend bone saw-killer Mohammed bin Salman to the hilt — I’m sure he’s not manipulating me at all!

Kwanzaa, celebrated exclusively by white liberals, is a fake holiday invented in 1966 by black radical/FBI stooge Ron Karenga — aka Dr. Maulana Karenga, founder of United Slaves, the violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural gibberish that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga’s United Slaves.

In what was ultimately a foolish gambit, during the madness of the ’60s, the FBI encouraged the most extreme black nationalist organizations in order to discredit and split the left. The more preposterous the group, the better. (It’s the same function MSNBC and CNN serve today.)

By that criterion, Karenga’s United Slaves was perfect.

Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of the ’60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. Although some of their most high-profile leaders were drug dealers and murderers, they did not seek armed revolution.

Those were the precepts of Karenga’s United Slaves. The United Slaves were proto-fascists, walking around in dashikis, gunning down Black Panthers and adopting invented “African” names. (I will not be shooting any Black Panthers this week because I am Kwanzaa-reform, and we are not that observant.)

It’s as if David Duke invented a holiday called “Anglika,” which he based on the philosophy of “Mein Kampf” — and clueless public school teachers began celebrating the made-up, racist holiday.

In the category of the-gentleman-doth-protest-too-much, back in the ’70s, Karenga was quick to criticize Nigerian newspapers that claimed that certain American black radicals were CIA operatives. Karenga publicly denounced the idea, saying, “Africans must stop generalizing about the loyalties and motives of Afro-Americans, including the widespread suspicion of black Americans being CIA agents.”

In a 1995 interview with Ethnic NewsWatch, Karenga matter-of-factly explained that the forces out to get O.J. Simpson for the “framed” murder of two whites included: “the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, Interpol” and so on. Karenga should know about FBI infiltration. (He further noted that the evidence against O.J. did not “eliminate unreasonable doubt” — an interesting standard of proof.)

Now we know the truth: The FBI fueled the bloody rivalry between the Panthers and United Slaves. In the annals of the American ’60s, Karenga was the Father Gapon, stooge of the czarist police. Whether Karenga was a willing FBI dupe, or just a dupe, remains unclear.

In one barbarous outburst, Karenga’s United Slaves shot two Black Panthers to death on the UCLA campus: Al “Bunchy” Carter and John Huggins. Karenga himself served time, a useful stepping-stone for his current position as the chair of the Africana Studies Department at California State University at Long Beach.

(Speaking of which, Rep. Paul Ryan certainly is right about what a fantastic job his mentor Jack Kemp did reaching out to all those “socially conservative” minorities. Look at how California has swung decisively to the right since Kemp started all that outreach stuff. Good luck winning California now, Democrats!)

Back to the esteemed Cal State professor: Karenga’s invented holiday is a nutty blend of schmaltzy ’60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism. The seven principles of Kwanzaa are the very same seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another invention of The Worst Generation.

In 1974, Patty Hearst, kidnap victim-cum-SLA revolutionary, famously posed next to the banner of her alleged captors, a seven-headed cobra. Each snakehead stood for one of the SLA’s revolutionary principles: Umoja, Kujichagulia, Ujima, Ujamaa, Nia, Kuumba and Imani. These are the exact same seven “principles” of Kwanzaa. (And here’s something interesting: Kawaida, Kwanzaa and Kuumba are also the only three Kardashian sisters not to have their own shows on the E! network.)

Kwanzaa praises collectivism in every possible area of life. It takes a village to raise a police snitch. When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy underlying Kwanzaa, from “classical Marxism,” he essentially said that, under Kawaida, we also hate whites.

While taking the “best of early Chinese and Cuban socialism” (is that the mass murder, the imprisonment of homosexuals or the forced labor?), Karenga said Kawaida practitioners believe one’s racial identity “determines life conditions, life chances and self-understanding.”

There’s an inclusive philosophy for you!

Kwanzaa was the result of a ’60s psychosis grafted onto the black community by the founder of a murderous black nationalist cult with the FBI’s seal of approval.

Kwanzaa emerged not from Africa, but from the FBI’s COINTELPRO.

Sing to “Jingle Bells”:

Kwanzaa bells, dashikis sell

Whitey has to pay;

Burning, shooting, oh what fun

On this made-up holiday!

Only white liberals take Kwanzaa seriously. American Blacks celebrate Christmas.

Merry Christmas, fellow Christians!

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

You can either read the column here or at AnnCoulter.com.

If you were elected president after decades of politicians doing nothing about the millions of illegals pouring into our country every year, committing crimes, dealing drugs, driving drunk, molesting children and killing Americans like Kate Steinle, and your central campaign promise — repeated every day — was to build a wall, wouldn’t you have spent the entirety of your transition period working on getting it done?

Wouldn’t you have been building prototypes, developing relationships with key congressional allies and talking to military leaders about using the Seabees or the Army Corps of Engineers to build the wall?

Wouldn’t you skip the inauguration and take the oath of office in San Diego so you could get started on supervising wall construction immediately after putting your hand on the Bible and being sworn in as the leader of the free world?

You would if you meant it.

Well, Donald Trump didn’t do that.

OK, sure he could have taken the oath in D.C., gone to a few balls, then started the wall on day two of his presidency. But he didn’t do that either.

Maybe I’m a literalist. A zealot. When people kept telling me to be patient — the wall is coming! — I nursed a private hope that I was wrong, and they were right.

It is now crystal clear that one of two things is true: Either Trump never intended to build the wall and was scamming voters all along, or he has no idea how to get it done and zero interest in finding out.

He sacrifices every opportunity to make the wall happen.

For two years, Trump pretended to believe the president of the United States needs express authorization from Congress to defend the nation’s borders and blamed the Republican majority for not “funding” the wall.

In a few weeks, he’ll start blaming the Democratic House.

Last week — several whole days ago — Trump said over and over again that he would shut down the government if he didn’t get funding for the wall — the precise thing he claims he needs. “We need border security. The wall is a part of border security,” he said. “If we don’t have border security, we’ll shut down the government.”

Trump wore the shutdown over the wall as a badge of honor: “You want to know something? OK, you want to put that on me. I’ll take it. You know what I’ll say? Yes, if we don’t get what we want … I will shut down the government. Absolutely.”

One week later, The Drudge Report:

WALL FUNDING OFF TABLE

In other words, Trump is doing exactly what I feared he would do in the worst conceivable way. He’s not building the wall, while making ridiculous promises right up until the second before he folds.

The Washington Post loves to find the one crazy, trailer park lady who supports Trump because she’s had religious ecstasies about him, but most people who voted for him did so with a boatload of qualms.

The basic factory setting on the perception of Trump is: gigantic douchebag. This is a man who manufactured fake Time magazine covers featuring himself with the headline, “Donald Trump: The ‘Apprentice’ is a television smash!” so that he could put framed copies of it on the walls of his clubs.

His business is convincing people with lowbrow taste to give him their money.

He’s a vulgar publicity hound who used to call reporters in a fake voice and pretend to be his own PR agent, “John Miller” or “John Barron,” so he could brag that actresses wanted to date him.

On one “Apprentice” episode, the reward for the winning team was: to see Trump’s apartment. Not to eat there or spend the night. They got to see it. “As a little treat,” he said, “you’re gonna see the nicest apartment in New York City.” He added: “I show this apartment to very few people. Presidents, kings …”

It’s not as if a majority of his voters weren’t clear-eyed about what kind of man he is. If anything, Trump’s vulgar narcissism made his vow to build a wall more believable. Respectable politicians had made similar promises over the years — and they always betrayed the voters. Maybe it took a sociopath to ignore elite opinion and keep his word.

On the basis of his self-interest alone, he must know that if he doesn’t build the wall, he has zero chance of being re-elected and a 100 percent chance of being utterly humiliated.

But when Trump is alone with Ivanka, they seem to agree that the wall has nothing to do with it. The people just love him for who he is! In a country of 320 million people, I’m sure there are some, but I have yet to meet a person who said, Yeah, I don’t really care about immigration or trade, I just love his personality!

What else were we going to do? He was the only one talking sense. Unfortunately, that’s all he does: talk. He’s not interested in doing anything that would require the tiniest bit of effort.

In the end, we’ll probably find out “wall” was Trump’s “safe word” with Stormy Daniels. It’s just something he blurts out whenever he’s in trouble.

He’s in trouble now. As absurd as the Russia nonsense is, the details about Trump’s sleazy associates, the porn star, the Playboy playmate and his seedy business practices leave his supporters feeling queasy, even if he hasn’t committed any crimes.

Instead of joining a fight that will make his most ardent supporters cringe no matter how it comes out, why not choose a battleground where he’s guaranteed a win? If Trump used the military to build the wall — actually build it, not keep telling us he’s going to build it — the Democrats will go mad.

They’ll hold impeachment hearings, file a million lawsuits, produce weeping children reading from phony scripts written by immigrant rights groups — and Trump will win. The public will support Trump overwhelmingly, and the left will be forced to keep reminding voters why they hate Democrats.

Instead, what he’s doing now absolutely guarantees that the next president will be a Democrat and, given today’s Democratic Party, that president will be Kamala Harris.

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER

You can read the column here or at AnnCoulter.com.

This week, I will provide readers with a FREE excerpt from Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind in order to prove that if you’d bought the book two months ago, you’d already understand the rules of the game. Now that Democrats are about to take control of the House, this is the only book you’ll need until President Trump is out of office.

** ** **

Boring facts can be used to prove big crimes, but in the case of Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s payment to a porn star, what we have is a boring fact being used to prove a boring crime: an alleged violation of the campaign finance laws zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz … Worse: They’re trying to prove a reporting violation.

If Trump paid the $130,000 himself solely to help his campaign — and he wouldn’t have minded at all having a porn star telling the tabloids she’d had sex with him except for the fact that he was running for president — it would be a reporting violation and OH MY GOSH — HE’D HAVE TO PAY A FINE!

Their argument is what if he didn’t pay it himself?! That’s why the media are obsessed with when Cohen emailed Stormy Daniels’ lawyer and from which email address — trying to find bread crumbs that someone else paid Stormy in order to claim it was an illegal campaign contribution — again requiring that the payment be motivated solely by the fact that Trump was running for office.

This is how they lure you into arguing about something that doesn’t matter.

In the 1990s, Chinese nationals were literally dragging duffel bags of money into the Democratic National Committee as President Clinton allowed sensitive ballistic-missile guidance technology to be transferred to the Chinese government.

No charges. No independent counsel.

Clinton held illegal campaign fundraisers at the White House, where Chinese citizens handed checks directly to White House staff.

Still no charges and no independent counsel.

Videotapes of the White House fundraisers surfaced, featuring the president and vice president glad-handing campaign donors on federal property.

And again, no charges, no independent counsel.

The New York Times’ response to Attorney General Janet Reno’s refusal to assign an independent counsel to these textbook campaign finance violations was a forceful editorial lightly ribbing Reno for her “blunders.”

“Saturday Night Live” was tougher on Reno.

“Weekend Update With Norm Macdonald,” Nov. 8, 1997:

With the release of over 100 hours of videotape of President Clinton at campaign fundraisers, the pressure continues to mount on Attorney General Janet Reno to name an independent counsel to investigate the president. In addition, some senators are said to be furious that, instead of watching the videotapes, Reno has been taping over them with episodes of “Xena: Warrior Princess.”

But now we’re supposed to care that Trump’s personal lawyer lied about a legal payment to, depending on your point of view, a mistress or an opportunistic grifter — AND HE USED A TRUMP ORGANIZATION EMAIL ADDRESS.

Lying to the press isn’t a crime, and paying money to cover up an affair isn’t a crime, either, even if you’re running for president. If these were crimes, John Edwards would be on death row.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Edwards lied up a storm about getting his mistress pregnant as his wife was dying of cancer. Only through the generous support of his well-heeled donors was he able to hide his mistress from the public. This donor-funded scam went on for months, until the National Enquirer finally caught Edwards visiting his mistress and newborn baby at the Beverly Hilton.

Edwards was later charged with campaign finance violations for using campaign funds to hide the affair. The prosecution was widely ridiculed, and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

If that’s not a violation of the campaign finance laws, then Trump’s $130,000 payment to Daniels sure isn’t.

** ** **

In a sane world, that ought to be all you need to know about Trump’s alleged campaign finance violations. As the money-grubbing Clinton years demonstrated, federal election laws are like “No Smoking” signs in France: rules that exist only for our amusement.

But with Robert “Ahab” Mueller no closer to finding anything resembling Russian collusion, the Resistance has pinned its impeachment hopes on the most meaningless of “crimes.”

Proving that the Cohen plea agreement is all about getting Trump on something — anything! — and not about enforcing the law, one of the crimes the government forced him to plead guilty to isn’t a crime. It’s not a crime by statutory definition and it’s not a crime by the fact that we still have a First Amendment.

Cohen pleaded guilty to a campaign finance violation for entering into a “catch and kill” agreement with the National Enquirer’s David Pecker, whereby the Enquirer would purchase, and then bury, the stories of women who claimed to have had sex with Trump, in this case, Karen McDougal.

As a definitional matter, that agreement cannot be the basis of a campaign finance violation. The government’s own Sentencing Memorandum for Michael Cohen states:

“In August 2014, (Pecker) had met with Cohen and (Trump), and had offered to help deal with negative stories about (Trump’s) relationships with women by identifying such stories so that they could be purchased and ‘killed.'”

August 2014 is a full year before there even was a Trump campaign. It’s disturbing enough to have every payment made during a campaign subject to investigation as a potential campaign finance violation. But to be finding campaign law violations before there’s even a campaign is ludicrous.

And is The New York Times OK with the government hauling newspaper publishers into court and demanding that they explain why they chose to run, or not to run, a story? Liberals may dispute whether bloggers are “journalists,” but the National Enquirer is the largest newspaper in the country.

If Pecker’s editorial judgment can be the subject of litigation, how about prosecuting Newsweek for catching and killing Michael Isikoff’s story on Monica Lewinsky?

Yes, Cohen pleaded guilty to a campaign finance violation for agreeing to pay Pecker to kill the affair stories. The government had nailed Michael Cohen on so many financial crimes (having nothing to do with Trump) that prosecutors could have gotten him to plead guilty to bearing Trump’s love child. (If Cohen wants a lucrative gig after prison, how about renting out his face by the hour to smart guys who like being underestimated?)

The main thing we’ve learned from Cohen’s guilty plea on the Enquirer deal is that these prosecutors don’t mind looking silly, as long as they can get Trump.

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER

You can read the column here or at AnnCoulter.com.

The press in America is even worse than we imagine. We sense that they’re biased and stunningly incompetent. They are those things, but so much more. Our media’s version of the news is mathematically and precisely the opposite of the truth.

The death and burial of George H.W. Bush is only the latest example.

In the puffery and revisionism that accompany funerals, the man who gave us David Souter, an unnecessary war, tax hikes he promised not to impose and the Americans With Disabilities Act (aka The Destruction of Small Libraries Throughout New England Act) has been elevated to saintlike status.

But the one incident the media decided to excoriate Bush for was, in fact, his finest moment: the Willie Horton ad.

If we let the media get away with this, they will have once again redefined what constitutes acceptable discourse in America and cemented the notion that our political process should never be soiled by such a campaign ad — the one thing Bush got right in his entire public career.

Far from representing the “low road,” the Willie Horton ad was the greatest campaign commercial in political history. The ad was the reason we have political campaigns: It clearly and forcefully highlighted the two presidential candidates’ diametrically opposed views on an issue of vital national importance.

Bush’s opponent, Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, had championed a self-evidently insane criminal justice program that provided prison furloughs to first-degree murderers.

One of the murderers let out under Dukakis’ program was a career violent criminal, Willie Horton. In 1974, Horton sliced up a 17-year-old convenience store clerk, Joey Fournier, in Lawrence, Massachusetts, after Fournier had already handed over all the money. He then stuffed the boy’s corpse in a garbage can. That wasn’t Horton’s first offense: Years earlier, he’d been convicted of attempted murder for stabbing a man in South Carolina.

No sane person would have allowed Horton to take a breath of free air again.

Horton was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, which was the maximum possible penalty, inasmuch as Gov. Dukakis had vetoed the death penalty. The whole idea of sentencing first-degree murderers to life without parole is that they are never supposed to be let out of prison. But under the weekend furlough program lustily promoted by Dukakis, Horton was released.

On April 3, 1987, months after running away from his most recent furlough, Horton broke into the Maryland home of Cliff Barnes and his fiancee, Angela Miller, and waited for them to return. When Barnes got home, Horton lunged at him, dragged him to the basement, tied him up, and spent hours torturing him, slashing him and jamming a pistol butt in his mouth and eyes. He told Barnes he planned to hang him and watch him die.

Five hours later, Barnes’ fiancee came home. Horton left Barnes bound and gagged in the basement, went upstairs and repeatedly raped and beat Miller, as Barnes listened helplessly from the basement.

Twelve hours after he had first encountered Horton, Barnes managed to escape. When Horton realized Barnes was gone, he stole the couple’s car and led police on a high-speed chase before finally being captured — again.

The Maryland judge who sentenced Horton refused to send him back to Massachusetts, saying: “I’m not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released.”

The following year, Michael Dukakis offered himself up to be president of the United States.

Dukakis was directly responsible for Horton’s release — as well as the release of hundreds of other murderers, many of whom went on to commit similarly heinous crimes. Even Dukakis’ own Democratic legislature in liberal Massachusetts had tried to reverse a state Supreme Court decision granting furloughs to first-degree murderers.

But the Greek homunculus vetoed the bill.

When Horton’s survivors Barnes and Miller tried to meet with Dukakis after their ordeal to ask him to rescind the furlough policy, he refused to see them, arrogantly announcing, “I don’t see any particular value in meeting with people.” This marked the first time the media supported a politician’s refusal to meet with victims of one of his policies.

What could be more central to a presidential campaign than an ad highlighting how Bush would handle criminal justice issues versus how the elected governor of Massachusetts was at that moment handling them?

Liberals’ response was to accuse Republicans of racism because Horton was black, knowing full well that the GOP would have given everything it owned for him to have been white. But it was too important an issue to ignore just because the poster-boy for Dukakis’ insane crime policies happened to be black.

Bush’s ad was so “racist” it never even showed Horton’s picture. Instead, white male actors were shown passing through the “revolving door” of criminal justice.

(An independent group unconnected to the Bush campaign produced an ad seen by 16 people showing Horton — appalling the press by using his mug shot, rather than his First Communion photo as prescribed by The New York Times’ standards and ethics policy for black criminals.)

Liberals smugly cite Bush campaign manager Lee Atwater’s deathbed apology for the Horton ad. Yes, he hoped for a nice obituary and didn’t want his kids teased at school, so he said whatever his captors wanted him to say. (By the way, it didn’t work.)

Just like Atwater, the reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize for her articles on Horton disavowed her own reporting, after going through the media’s re-education camp.

You don’t have the right to “apologize” for something you did that’s not factually incorrect.

The Horton ad was the highest, best form of political campaigning, serving to illustrate stark differences between the candidates on an important policy issue. People should have won awards for that ad. Instead, it became one of the stops on the left’s Via Dolorosa of Racism. Idiot Republicans are ashamed of it, thinking the best response is to say: Al Gore brought up Horton first!

Yammering morons don’t have any argument against the ad, other than feigned outrage. You’re seriously defending the Willie Horton ad?!

Yes I am! It demonstrated that Michael Dukakis should have never been anywhere near a position of power, least of all, the presidency. What’s your argument against it?

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER