Blog

“Trump’s Great Wall Becomes Trump’s Great Stall” by Ann Coulter 11/28/2018

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

For those of us who were ecstatic the night Donald Trump was elected president, who watch election night videos over and over again, it used to be easy to defend him against the charge that he is just a BS-ing con man who would say anything to get elected.

It’s getting harder.

Trump was our last chance. But he’s spent two years not building the wall, not deporting illegals — “INCREDIBLE KIDS!” — and not ending the anchor baby scam.

Within 10 seconds of Trump’s leaving office, there will be no evidence that he was ever president. Laws will be changed, executive orders rescinded, treaties re-written and courts packed.

Trump will leave no legacy at all. Only a wall is forever.

We had no choice. No one else was promising to save America.

“On day one, we will begin working on an impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful southern border wall. We will use the best technology, including above- and below-ground sensors, that’s the tunnels. Remember that: above and below. Towers, aerial surveillance and manpower to supplement the wall, find and dislocate tunnels and keep out criminal cartels …” — Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump

But then he signed a spending bill expressly prohibiting him from building any part of the wall.

“I will never sign another bill like this again. I’m not going to do it again.” — President Trump, after signing a spending bill that blocked any funding for a wall.

Today, eight months later, Trump is about to sign another spending bill that will give him no money for the wall.

Anyone want to bet me that he won’t?

So much for the world’s greatest negotiator.

Donald Trump is the commander in chief. He doesn’t need Congress’ approval to defend the nation’s borders.

But as long as his excuse for not building the wall is that Congress hasn’t appropriated money for it, why on earth would he sign a spending bill that doesn’t give it to him?

There is no tomorrow on this. Republicans are about to lose the House. It’s now or never.

We didn’t need someone to tell us how hard it is to get anything done in Washington. We knew that.

That’s why we hired a builder. We didn’t care what Trump’s position on the lira was. We didn’t care about Syria. We were just looking for the best contractor we could find so we would finally get a wall.

If we were talking about a golf course in Scotland, I think Trump could figure out how to get it done.

But instead of winning, we’re getting whining. We’re told it’s Congress’ fault for not giving Trump money to build the wall! The ACLU will sue! A judge will stop him! Blame Paul Ryan! (Possible Trump epitaph: Chuck wouldn’t let me!)

President Reagan bombed Libya in retaliation for two U.S. serviceman being killed by a bomb in a West Berlin discotheque — TWO!

But Trump thinks he needs the preapproval of Congress, the ACLU and a district court judge in Hawaii to do something about tens of thousands of Americans being killed every year by illegal alien heroin dealers, drunk drivers and straight-up murderers.

Reagan invaded Grenada because the country was becoming a Soviet client state. No Grenadian threatened to touch a hair on any American’s head. One wonders what Reagan’s reaction would have been to someone telling him, YOU CAN’T DO THAT! THE ACLU WILL SUE!

If Reagan had Trump’s advisers, we’d be speaking Russian.

The ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the other anti-American groups opposing Trump on immigration were the very same groups that opposed Reagan. They would have been happy if the U.S.S.R. had nuked this country.

Sadly for them, Reagan kept his promises, and we won the Cold War. So now the back-up plan is to destroy our country by flooding it with the Third World.

We needed Reagan and got P.T. Barnum instead.

Evidently, Trump knew he could bomb an innocent country based on false information about the Syrian government using nerve gas in April 2018. (Actual reason: Ivanka cried.) No less than the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons spent months testing the bodies allegedly killed by nerve gas. Conclusion: No nerve gas.

But we’re supposed to believe that Trump doesn’t realize that he’s also allowed to defend the citizens of this country. Does he know he’s president?

Even if noted constitutional law scholar Jared Kushner has convinced Trump that he needs congressional approval before he’s allowed to repel invaders at our border — but doesn’t need Congress to bomb an innocent country because Ivanka cried — the president could order the troops to invade Mexico and build the wall 10 yards in.

But all we get are bombastic tweets and useless half-measures. The conservative media have been excitedly reporting that Obama put illegal alien kids in cages too! Obama used tear gas on the invaders too!

Yes, exactly — and none of that worked. That’s why we voted for the guy who promised to build a wall.

Unlike the president, we knew that the deluge of poor people flooding our country would never stop until we had an impenetrable border.

And whatever happened to that executive order on anchor babies? Is Trump “trying” to sign that, too? Maybe he got writer’s cramp.

Trump also promised to deport illegals — even the ones Democrats have given cute names to.

“We’re always talking about ‘Dreamers’ for other people. I want the children that are growing up in the United States to be dreamers also. They’re not dreaming right now.” — Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump

“The executive order (on “Dreamers”) gets rescinded.” — Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump

Is it Paul Ryan’s fault that Trump did a 180 on “Dreamers,” called them “INCREDIBLE KIDS” and tried to give them amnesty?

Every day that Trump does not keep his promises on immigration, thousands of immigrants turn 18 and start block voting for the Democrats, while thousands of traditional Americans die off.

Florida and Texas are about five years away from turning solid blue. Trump was our last chance. After this, the country is never going to elect a Republican president again.

So the next time you watch one of those election night videos, remember: If Trump doesn’t keep his immigration promises, Hillary might as well have won.

Trump will leave no legacy whatsoever. Without a wall, he will only be remembered as a small cartoon figure who briefly inflamed and amused the rabble.

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER

“Jared: the Birdbrain of Alcatraz” by Ann Coulter 11/21/2018

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

In the systematic dismantling of common sense in America, Jared Kushner’s “sentencing reform” bill is the coup de grace — a Mack Truck hurtling down the highway about to take out thousands of Americans. The Idiot Army is already in place to fight and win this battle.

Jared and the hip-hop artists currently advising him have decided that too many people are in prison. If you think you’ve heard this before, you have: Genius insights of this sort have preceded nearly every major crime wave this country has experienced, from Philadelphia to California to a bloody period known as “the Warren Court.”

As anyone with an amoeba’s understanding of recent history knows, beginning in the early ’60s, assorted heads-up-their-asses liberals jettisoned logic, common sense and a basic understanding of human nature by releasing criminals from the prisons where they belonged.

Instead of punishing criminals, we would give them social services, education and job training — with the implied understanding that they wouldn’t move next door to any of the reformers. The experts assured a disbelieving public that these policies would reduce crime.

As Thomas Sowell writes in The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, the stage was set. Liberal criminologists’ soft-on-crime policies were in place. We only needed empirical evidence.

“THE RESULTS: Crime rates skyrocketed. Murder rates suddenly shot up until the murder rate in 1974 was more than twice as high as in 1961. Between 1960 and 1976, a citizen’s chances of becoming a victim of a major violent crime tripled.”

Prior to this period, crime had been declining for three decades.

Thousands of Americans were murdered, raped, assaulted, disfigured and robbed as a direct result of the exact same policies that Jared and his assistant, Donald Trump, are trying to foist on the country right now.

Then-Princeton professor John DiIulio Jr. looked at the consequences of a single order by a Carter-appointed judge, Norma Shapiro, that put a population cap on Philadelphia prisons in the 1990s. In an 18-month period between 1993 and 1994, 9,732 prisoners released as a result of Judge Shapiro’s order were re-arrested for committing 79 murders, 90 rapes, 701 burglaries, 959 robberies, 1,113 assaults, 2,215 drug offenses and 2,748 thefts.

It took more than a decade of Reagan and Bush judges, Republican mayors and governors, and the endless complaints of ordinary people to produce the low crime rates we have today. Their formula was: Do the precise opposite of whatever the ACLU, the Brennan Center for Justice and The New York Times recommend.

In New York City alone, at least 10,000 people — mostly minorities — are not dead because Rudy Giuliani revived the idea of punishment for criminals, in lieu of understanding them.

Progressive young hipsters living in Brooklyn today have no concept that their trendy neighborhoods would be uninhabitable war zones but for Mayor Giuliani. If you don’t have order and safety in big cities, you can’t have anything else.

In 1991 the U.S. murder rate was well over twice what it is today.

Normal person: Thank God we started putting criminals in prison again!

Jared: LET’S RELEASE THEM.

A 2014 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that, within five years of release, 82 percent of property offenders, 77 percent of drug offenders, 74 percent of public order offenders and 71 percent of violent offenders were arrested for a new crime — after not getting caught committing God knows how many others.

This is not rocket science. Lock up criminals and they can’t commit any more crimes. As a New York Times headline put it in 2004 with characteristic cluelessness: “Despite Drop in Crime, an Increase in Inmates.”

But there are no permanent victories with liberals. Brennan Center acolytes have been patiently waiting for everyone who knows anything to leave the building, so they could go back to springing criminals again.

Hillary’s losing the election was a major setback. But then — in a stroke of luck! — criminologists discovered the president’s ridiculously naive son-in-law! Joy reigned throughout the land!

Not only does Jared have the advantage of knowing absolutely nothing about the history of the precise policies he’s pushing, but he has a personal interest in lenient sentencing, inasmuch as his father is — as Obama calls criminals — “justice involved.”

In 2005, Charles Kushner was thrown in federal prison for felony tax evasion, illegal campaign contributions and witness tampering, to wit, hiring a prostitute to sleep with his brother-in-law.

For a wispy little fellow like Jared, of all the things life has given him to be embarrassed about, having to visit his father in prison has to rank pretty high. Surely we can come up with a better way for him to deal with the shame and humiliation of his father being a convicted felon than sentencing thousands of Americans to a new and dangerous crime wave.

Jared is the kind of moron who believes that the crime listed on a convict’s baseball trading card is the worst crime he committed.

Thus, we’re incessantly told that sentences will be cut only for “nonviolent drug offenders.”

If you are even passingly familiar with our justice system, you know that virtually everyone in prison is there as the result of a plea bargain — “97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases,” according to The New York Times.

You don’t strike a deal with the prosecutor to plea to the worst crime you’ve committed. You plea to the least serious offense.

Rape = indecent exposure

Armed robbery = illegal gun possession

Felony assault = disorderly conduct

You also plead guilty to the crime that can be proved unequivocally. Unlike witnesses, guns and drugs can’t be intimidated out of testifying.

So what does Jared’s bill do? It slashes the sentences for illegal possession of drugs and guns.

Trump ‘s attitude is, Yes, the sentencing reform bill is an idiotic idea that will do great harm to our country, but Jared’s been down in the dumps, so it’s the least I can do for the guy.

Americans will be murdered, raped and assaulted for the sole purpose of ensuring that Jared has something on his Wikipedia page other than: “BFF of Saudi bone carver Mohammed bin Salman” and “Got into Harvard because his felon father gave the college millions of dollars.”

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

“GOP to Dems: Here, Take Our Wallet, Too!” by Ann Coulter 11/14/2018

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

Election recounts would be more plausible if Democrats occasionally let the Republican win. But they don’t. Ballots miraculously discovered days and weeks after the election — in the back seat of a car, after helpful “corrections” to the ballots by election supervisors, etc. — invariably result in a surprise win for the Democrat.

Voters are just supposed to accept that, unless Republicans win an election by an insuperable margin, the Democrats will steal it.

And the thieving is cheered on by our media. Whenever President Trump has the effrontery to mention that GOP victories are being stolen by corrupt Democratic officials, the media snippily note that his claim is “UNSUBSTANTIATED.”

Thus, for example, in the first 60 seconds of CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront” on Monday, Burnett said:

— “(The email from Trump headquarters) without providing any evidence … warns that, quote, corrupt Democrats are trying to, quote, steal election victories in Florida. …

— “It’s a baseless claim that President Trump has been pushing for days. …

— “(Gov. Rick) Scott (is) talking about rampant fraud without providing any evidence. …

— “Now, ‘steal an election,’ ‘committing fraud’ are big claims to make without having evidence.”

Hey! I have an idea! Why doesn’t CNN rustle up some reporters to go and investigate the biggest story of the year?

No, the burden is on random Republicans — who have jobs other than “reporting the news” — to produce bulletproof evidence of voter fraud. Otherwise, it’s just a wacky coincidence that these “recounts” always result in mysterious new votes for Democrats.

If a freelance investigative reporter like James O’Keefe actually does produce the evidence that our media are too lazy and biased to get for themselves, they sneer that O’Keefe can’t be trusted. He’s not a real reporter!

What a real reporter does is call up some left-wing outfit, get a quote, and peremptorily announce that there has never been an illegal ballot cast in any election, ever.

We called the Brennan Center for Justice, and they assured us that voter fraud doesn’t exist. I can prove I called — I’ll show you my phone records! We’re not going to send our reporters on a snipe hunt. Oh, and we also got an interesting brochure on voter suppression, such as the Nazi-inspired idea that voters should know how to spell their own names.

That’s what we get from our crackerjack media. Journalists’ phones should be taken away, so they’d be forced to do actual reporting.

Republicans control the state legislature and governor’s office in Florida. They control the U.S. Congress and the presidency. If that’s not enough to prevent two statewide Florida elections from being stolen, the GOP is more useless than I’d already imagined.

Here’s a primer for Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan on how to deal with all the Senate and House election “recounts” that keep magically flipping seats to the Democrats.

In 1974, Republican Louis Wyman won his race for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, beating Democrat John Durkin by 355 votes. Durkin demanded a recount — which went back and forth by a handful of votes until the state’s Ballot Law Commission concluded that Wyman had indeed won.

Wyman was certified the winner by the New Hampshire secretary of state and was on his way to Washington, D.C., when … the Senate refused to seat him. New Hampshire’s certification of Wyman as the winner meant nothing, because, you see, Democrats held a majority in the Senate.

The Senate spent months examining disputed ballots. Unable to come up with any method whereby they could declare the Democrat the winner, the Senate forced New Hampshire to hold another election.

Demoralized Republicans stayed home and, this time, the Democrat won.

Hey, Mitch! Don’t Republicans hold a majority in the Senate?

In 1984, Democrat Frank McCloskey won a razor-thin re-election to the House from Indiana’s 8th Congressional District. The state held two recounts, both of which the Republican won. The Washington Post reported that there were “no allegations of fraud” in the recount, and 90 percent of ballot disqualifications had been agreed to “by election commissions dominated by Democrats.”

Consequently, Indiana’s secretary of state certified Republican Rick McIntyre the winner.

But the Democratic-controlled House simply refused to seat McIntyre. Instead, the House undertook its own “recount.” You’ll never guess who won!

Don’t Republicans have a majority in the House for six more weeks?

In 2008, Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota won his re-election bid against challenger Al Franken by 725 votes. But for several weeks after the election, Democratic precincts kept discovering new votes for Franken — including ballots sitting in cars, as well as a write-in vote for “Frankenstein” — which was counted as a vote for Franken. (Duh.)

These late-discovered ballots eventually put Frankenstein ahead by 312 votes, whereupon he was immediately certified the winner by the George Soros-backed secretary of state.

The U.S. Senate was in Democratic hands, so there was no question but that Majority Leader Harry Reid would seat the cheater, Franken. And that, kids, is how the Democrats got the 60th vote for Obamacare.

Four years later, we found out that more than 1,000 felons — ineligible to vote — had cast ballots in the 2008 Minnesota election. (To state the obvious, felons support Democrats by about 10-1.)

In the middle of the Democrats’ open theft of the Indiana seat in 1984, The New York Times pompously reminded readers of the “basic constitutional principle that Congress is the judge of its own membership and that lawmakers can overrule state laws in making that determination.”

You’ve already caved on Arizona, Mitch. How about taking a page from the Democrats’ playbook? You don’t have to go full Daley Machine. Democrats steal elections they actually lost. Republicans just want you to hang on to the seats they won.

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

“Pussy (Hats) Whipped” by Ann Coulter 11/07/2018

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

That’s all you got?

Two years of non-stop campaigning, denouncing and doxing — and all the Resistance has to show for it is a House majority smaller than the one Republicans currently have and a net loss of three Senate seats? (Thank you, Justice Brett Kavanaugh!)

Democratic leaders may try saying, “THIS IS JUST WHAT WE WANTED! We wanted to be down by three Senate seats.” But I think their voters are saying, We were hoping for more of a rebuke.

The media exhausted itself on this election! Can they go back to that level of hysteria today?

President Clinton lost 54 House seats and eight Senate seats in his first midterm, as voters responded to Hillary’s attempt to socialize health care. President Obama lost 63 House seats and six Senate seats in his first midterm, as voters responded to the Democrats’ successful party-line vote to socialize health care.

America’s response to Trump’s first two years? Republicans lost fewer than 40 House seats and gained Senate seats. (Again: Thank you, Justice Kavanaugh.)

And that was with more than 40 House Republicans being spooked into retiring rather than go down to certain defeat in what the media convinced them would be a big blue wave.

It’s always a bad idea to give Democrats control of any part of government. You don’t want those guys running a lemonade stand.

But — wow — are there silver linings!

First, all the worst Republican House members were defeated, such as cheap labor advocate Kevin Yoder of Kansas and Florida’s Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a second-generation immigrant who goes around calling his fellow Republicans white supremacists. (Alleged white supremacist Steve King won and Curbelo lost — hahahahaha!)

As the movie character Ninotchka said of Stalin’s reign of terror: “The last mass trials were a great success! There are going to be fewer but better Russians.”

 

 Second, the main accomplishment of the Resistance in the first midterm was to help Trump win his re-election bid.

Even voters skeptical about Trump will embrace him after two minutes, let alone two years, of watching Speaker Nancy Pelosi run the House, Rep. Maxine Waters chair the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler head the Judiciary Committee — and Rep. Adam Schiff run around issuing subpoenas all over town.

How about Rep. Alcee Hastings, an impeached and convicted bribe-taker? His seniority surely requires giving him a committee chairmanship! Is Pelosi going to discriminate against Hastings just because he’s a proud black man? Right now, Pelosi is trying to determine which committee chairmanship requires no honesty whatsoever.

If you were hoping the Democrats would seize this opportunity to make utter fools of themselves — impeachment hearings, resurrecting the Kavanaugh gang rape claims, and Russia, Russia, Russia — I’ve got good news! That’s exactly what their base is demanding. I promise you, Maxine Waters is not going to say, “Don’t worry, guys. I’ll be keeping a very low profile.”

Voters will be pleading, Couldn’t we get an infrastructure bill? Will you please do something about all these criminal aliens in my sanctuary city? And the Democrats will be carrying on about Trump’s taxes.

The Senate math was on Republicans’ side, but countering that were several GOP retirements. Republicans not only held the Senate with a bigger margin … but now with no Jeff Flake, John McCain or Bob Corker!

The only GOP senator to lose his re-election was Dean Heller of Nevada. That makes him the fourth Republican who supported Marco Rubio’s 2013 amnesty bill to lose his seat. Inasmuch as about 85 percent of incumbent senators win re-election, at least for the past quarter-century, this is quite an accomplishment!

Mercifully, of the 14 GOP traitors who voted for Rubio’s amnesty, only six remain in office. Four were beaten, three retired one step ahead of the guillotine and one took the easy way out by dying.

Which raises the question: What exactly was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plan for victory? Hope a Supreme Court justice retired and that the Democrats would make vicious and false claims against our nominee?

The Republicans’ stunning Senate victories resulted from nothing they did. These are the guys who ran like little girls from Trump’s campaign promises on immigration. Republicans didn’t even bother forcing Democrats to cast wildly unpopular votes on the wall, sanctuary cities or anchor babies. In fact, Republicans did very little of interest to any voters.

The one and only reason Republicans picked up Senate seats in a midterm election is the utter derangement of the Resistance, which — by complete happenstance — was recently put on display when Democrats got the bright idea to falsely accuse a sweet nerd like Brett Kavanaugh of gang rape.

As Trump is accused of the foulest treason over the next two years, he might want to remember Kavanaugh.

You think having MSNBC gloat over your tax returns and Robert Mueller accusing you of collusion with Russia is outrageous? I imagine it was also unpleasant to be accused from every media outlet of gang rape. But Justice Kavanaugh and his family soldiered on, winning the nomination — and winning three Senate seats for the GOP.

Just remember, Mr. President, every time Adam Schiff appears on TV, the RNC should be sending a receipt to the Democrats.

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER

“The True History of Millstone Babies” by Ann Coulter 10/31/2018

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

Having mastered fake news, now the media are trying out a little fake history.

In the news business, new topics are always popping up, from the Logan Act and the emoluments clause to North Korea. The all-star panels rush to Wikipedia, so they can pretend to be experts on things they knew nothing about an hour earlier.

Such is the case today with “anchor babies” and “birthright citizenship.” People who know zilch about the history of the 14th Amendment are pontificating magnificently and completely falsely on the issue du jour.

If you’d like to be the smartest person at your next cocktail party by knowing the truth about the 14th Amendment, this is the column for you!

Of course the president can end the citizenship of “anchor babies” by executive order — for the simple reason that no Supreme Court or U.S. Congress has ever conferred such a right.

It’s just something everyone believes to be true.

How could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution?

The first question would be: Why would they do that? It’s like being accused of robbing a homeless person. WHY WOULD I?

The Supreme Court has stated — repeatedly! — that the “main object” of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment “was to settle the question … as to the citizenship of free negroes,” making them “citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”

Democrats, the entire media and House Speaker Paul Ryan seem to have forgotten the Civil War. They believe that, immediately after a war that ended slavery, Americans rose up as one and demanded that the children of illegals be granted citizenship!

You know what’s really bothering me? If someone comes into the country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen!

YOU MEAN THAT’S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where the post-Civil War amendments would be intended to grant citizenship to the kids of Chinese ladies flying to birthing hospitals in California, or pregnant Latin Americans sneaking across the border in the back of flatbed trucks.

You can make it up. It doesn’t have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!

As the court has explained again and again and again:

“(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”

That’s why the amendment refers to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.” For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren’t citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a civil war to end.

The 14th Amendment fixed that.

The amendment didn’t even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.

Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It’s easy to miss — the law is titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”) Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?

Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.

President Trump, unlike his critics, honors black history by recognizing that the whole purpose of the Civil War amendments was to guarantee the rights of freed slaves.

But the left has always been bored with black people. If they start gassing on about “civil rights,” you can be sure it will be about transgenders, the abortion ladies or illegal aliens. Liberals can never seem to remember the people whose ancestors were brought here as slaves, i.e., the only reason we even have civil rights laws.

Still, it requires breathtaking audacity to use the Civil War amendments to bring in cheap foreign labor, which drives down the wages of African-Americans — the very people the amendments were written to protect!

Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough. But at least there’s a Supreme Court decision claiming that they are — U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That’s “birthright citizenship.”

It’s something else entirely to claim that an illegal alien, subject to deportation, can drop a baby and suddenly claim to be the parent of a “citizen.”

This crackpot notion was concocted by liberal zealot Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote as dicta in a 1982 case. “Dicta” means it was not the ruling of the court, just a random aside, with zero legal significance.

Left-wing activists seized on Brennan’s aside and browbeat everyone into believing that anchor babies are part of our great constitutional heritage, emerging straight from the pen of James Madison.

No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right. It’s a made-up right, grounded only in the smoke and mirrors around Justice Brennan’s 1982 footnote.

Obviously, it would be better if Congress passed a law clearly stating that children born to illegals are not citizens. (Trump won’t be president forever!) But until that happens, the president of the United States is not required to continue a ridiculous practice that has absolutely no basis in law.

It’s often said that journalism is the first draft of history. As we now see, fake news is the first draft of fake history.

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER

“Crazed Zealot Jeff Sessions Attempts to Enforce Law!” by Ann Coulter 10/24/2018

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

The New York Times recently published a snippy attack on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, portraying him as a single-minded zealot pursuing crackpot ideas that were putting the Trump administration “on track to lose in court and prompting high-level departures.”

The Times’ sources were “current and former career department lawyers.” In other words, Trump-hating Democratic zealots weeks away from their book contracts.

One attorney who left the Department of Justice during its descent into madness under Sessions was Stephen J. Buckingham. (Why not “Astor” or “Carnegie”?)

As at any federal agency, 99 percent of “career” attorneys at DOJ are left-wing. Social activists move effortlessly from the ACLU, the Democratic Socialists of America and the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force to government jobs. Thus, one entry on Buckingham’s resume is that he “created a program to amend the immigration status of unaccompanied Sudanese refugee minors.”

During Democratic administrations, these selfless career employees sell guns to Mexican drug cartels and run around the country making sure local police forces can’t do their jobs. During Republican administrations, they spend their time quietly, relentlessly sabotaging the administration they allegedly serve.

In addition to being a nonstop source of critical remarks about the Trump administration, “career” DOJ employees also lead mob assaults on Cabinet members, as Allison Hrabar did to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in June.

Along with a dozen of her friends from the Democratic Socialists of America, DOJ paralegal Hrabar surrounded Nielsen’s table at a Washington, D.C., restaurant, shouting: “Kirstjen Nielsen, you’re a villain!” “If kids don’t eat in peace, you don’t eat in peace!” “The f—ing gall!” “Shame on you!” “Shame! Shame! Shame!” “Fascist pig!” — which Nielsen eventually realized was not the evening’s special.


(And it still didn’t occur to Gen. John Kelly’s special friend Nielsen why voters wanted a wall.) It took months of complaints about the DOJ not firing Hrabar — and her own arrogant claim that she couldn’t be fired — for her to finally lose her job. In Buckingham’s case, he told the Times that his conscience was shocked when Sessions asked him a legal question. (God forbid the attorney general question one of the lawyers working at DOJ!)
The Times reports: “In one instance, Mr. Sessions directly questioned a career lawyer, Stephen Buckingham, who was asked to find ways to file a lawsuit to crack down on sanctuary laws protecting undocumented immigrants. Mr. Buckingham, who had worked at the Justice Department for about a decade, wrote in a brief” — and presumably his forthcoming memoirs — “that he could find no legal grounds for such a case.”Anyone else remember Arizona being denounced for two years during the Obama administration for trying to enforce immigration laws that the federal government wouldn’t? Hey, idiots! The feds have total control over immigration.

Didn’t Khizr Khan give Buckingham a copy of his Constitution?

I have been not practicing law longer than “Buckingham” was at the Justice Department, but I found possible legal grounds to go after sanctuary cities in approximately eight seconds on Google.

Title 18 of the U.S. Code is the federal criminal code. Section 3 states: “Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”

It’s hard to miss Section 3. Section 1 was repealed in 1984, and Section 2 consists of only 52 words. But Buckingham must have exhausted himself reading Section 2 and didn’t have the energy to shove ahead to Section 3.

Even if a couple sentences is your maximum reading limit, the crime of “accessory after the fact” has gotten a lot of airtime since Trump became president. It is one of the literally millions of laws Trump has probably broken, demanding his impeachment.

Before Trump was even inaugurated, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee was claiming on MSNBC’s Chris Matthews’ show that Trump could be an “accessory after the fact” to the (nonexistent) Russian collusion.

Earlier this year, Frank Figliuzzi, the former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, elaborated on this theory on MSNBC’s “The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell,” explaining that the president may have helped Vladimir Putin avoid punishment for his felonious act of taking out Facebook ads (or something).

By contrast with the (nonexistent) felony of (nonexistent) Russian collusion, the whole point of a “sanctuary city” is to shelter known criminals from arrest and deportation.

Sanctuary cities like Philadelphia expressly prohibit officials from giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement advance notice before releasing illegal alien inmates to the public. In California, even if ICE shows up asking for a specific criminal alien, state and local government officials are instructed to refuse to comply, except in cases of certain violent felonies.

Prosecutors in “sanctuary” jurisdictions throughout the country are dropping criminal charges against immigrants — or allowing them to plea to minor offenses — for the sole purpose of preventing their deportation.

In practice, this means less punishment for noncitizens than U.S. citizens. Talk about the “new Jim Crow.”

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf not only refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement, she actually warned illegal aliens of an impending ICE raid.

These government officials are threatening the lives and safety of their own constituents by actively assisting known criminals escape apprehension by federal law enforcement. As Democrat Sheila Kuehl, chair of the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, put it, Californians should “lie, cheat and steal” to ensure that no immigrant be deported.

It’s hard to think of a more fundamental betrayal of the public trust.

Yes, you’re right, New York Times. Poor career attorneys are being asked to do horrible things under Jeff Sessions. Such as enforce the law.

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

“Fake News Autopsy” by Ann Coulter 10/17/2018

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

Whenever Donald Trump talks about fake news, there are howls of indignation from the establishment media. We’re told that the very mention of “fake news” is a direct attack on our democracy, that the alternative is “darkness,” that it led to the dismemberment and murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and that, yes, every once in a while there might be a typo, but if you mean the media intentionally report false information, that is dangerous demagoguery.

I present CNN’s Ana Cabrera.

On Sunday night, Cabrera launched a premeditated, vicious, racist lie about President Trump, then proceeded to discuss the false story with a black guest, primed to analyze the fake news.

We’ll slow down the replay in order to follow the ball, so you can see every handoff in the creation of fake news.

A few weeks ago, when Judge Brett Kavanaugh was facing 30-year-old, completely uncorroborated accusations of sexual assault based on recovered memories in order to block his Supreme Court appointment, Trump said, “It’s a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of.”

This statement was quoted by numerous news outlets, including CNN: “Trump says it’s ‘a very scary time for young men in America,'” Jeremy Diamond, Oct. 2.

Cabrera rewrote the president’s quote, telling CNN viewers that Trump had said: “WHITE men have a lot to fear right now.”

How did “white” get slipped in there?

If this were merely a mistake, there are lots of words in the English language that might have been inserted instead of “white.” Why not “radial tire”? Why not “hangnail”? Why not the words “virtuoso” or “champagne”?

Dictionaries are heavy with all of the words that might have been inserted if this were an accident. How could the word “white” inadvertently get slipped into a Trump quote?

CNN intentionally told an ugly lie about the most incendiary issue roiling the nation: race. It wasn’t a lie about Trump’s position on tax policy, North Korea or school vouchers. The network deliberately pushed a racism narrative calculated to incite racial hatred that could get someone killed.

Like a professional jewel thief swiping a Cartier watch so deftly that the guard doesn’t notice, Cabrera launched the lie during a segment that began: “People are talking about a string of recent incidents with racial undertones.”

“People are talking about” is how opinion journalism masquerades as news. What topics aren’t “people talking about”?

People are talking about CNN head Jeff Zucker’s split from his wife after 21 years.

People are talking about Chris Cuomo’s behavior at the CNN Christmas party.

People are talking about how Ana Cabrera got her job.

Cabrera then presented two stories about white people falsely accusing black people of doing things they hadn’t done — which was ironic, inasmuch as Cabrera was about to falsely accuse Trump of doing something he hadn’t done.

After a brief word from a black guest, professor Marc Lamont Hill, who said our world is “still shot through with white supremacy,” Cabrera told the lie about Trump:

“President Trump and his son, Don Jr., said this week, white men have a lot to fear right now.”

(His son said no such thing either.)

Cabrera then ran a clip of “Saturday Night Live” comedian Michael Che’s “take” on the nonexistent quote, in which he injected race into the president’s remarks, calling Trump a “white dude.”

Che: “Come on. Old, rich white dude telling us it’s a scary time in America? That is pure comedy.”

(The absence of a punchline was covered with, “That is pure comedy,” meaning, “Please laugh now!”)

At this point in the program, the lie about Trump transformed into actual presidential policy. Cabrera asked Hill, “Why do you think that is Trump’s strategy?”

Hill went off on the fictional Trump quote, talking about the president’s “racial tribalism.” Again, this was about a Trump statement that had absolutely nothing to do with race — until CNN made it so.

“It stokes white fear,” Hill continued, “saying that it’s a scary time to be a white man because you get accused of something that you didn’t do” — as CNN was accusing Trump of something he didn’t do.

Goebbels would be proud!

If this were an error, it would have been quickly corrected before the first commercial break. It was not corrected because it’s not a mistake; it’s a political strategy. CNN invents fake news to push an ugly narrative about the president’s “racial tribalism.”

That’s why an entire news segment was prepared around the fake quote, with an invited guest asked to comment on something Trump never said.

To those of you with jobs and busy lives, clip this column and keep it in your wallet so you are prepared the next time someone scoffs at Trump’s denunciation of fake news.

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER

“GOP Needs Update to Dems’ UFC Cage Match Rules” by Ann Coulter 10/10/2018

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

It’s time to update the GOP’s Marquess of Queensbury Rules.

If you saw Ruth Bader Ginsburg at Brett Kavanaugh’s swearing-in ceremony, you know that we may need to fill her seat in about 4 1/2 minutes. Naturally, I hope she lives to be 300 — although parenthetically, it seems she already has.

The confirmation hearings for Kavanaugh made Robert Bork’s hearings look like a day at the beach. At least liberals only lied about Bork’s judicial philosophy. They didn’t accuse him of being Ted Bundy. The next nomination hearing will make Kavanaugh’s look like an ice cream social.

Just because it didn’t work this time doesn’t mean Republicans’ work is done. They have to make sure this never happens again.

Democrats are already pushing the idea that Kavanaugh’s confirmation was somehow illegitimate because of the shoddy FBI investigation. Liberals’ beef is that the FBI neglected to interview Kavanaugh’s former Yale classmates, who dispute his characterization of precisely how big a drinker he was in college.

I wouldn’t say he was a belligerent drunk, but more of an obstreperous drunk.

No, no! I would say he was a mild drunk with periods of obstreperousness.

This is not the stuff of perjury prosecutions.

Of course, if true, it’s HUGE. Kavanaugh’s demeanor when drunk in college sounds nearly as awful as liberals’ behavior when sober — obnoxious, aggressive and argumentative. I refer you to the recent antics we’ve seen on Capitol Hill, as well as anywhere Ted Cruz stops in for a bite.

Since none of the FBI’s latest report on Kavanaugh has leaked, the one thing we can be sure of is that the agents turned up nothing unfavorable on him. Except for a colonoscopy, I think we’re done with Kavanaugh.

It’s the accusers who have skirted investigation. Even Republicans have moved on. He’s on the court, so who cares if Kavanaugh was falsely accused of “rape” in front of his little girls?

That’s what everyone thought when the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players were proved innocent and the D.A. was disbarred. Why go after the accuser? Hasn’t she suffered enough?

Crystal Mangum was not prosecuted for falsely charging she was gang-raped. And see? No harm, no foul! She went on to live a happy and productive — oh, wait! The next time we heard about Mangum was when she stabbed her boyfriend to death.

On reflection, it certainly seems possible that Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick was not being completely, 100 percent honest in her sworn statements about repeatedly attending high school parties in the 1980s, when she was a college student, where underage girls were drugged and gang-raped.

Deborah Ramirez’s three-decade-old, unsubstantiated, recovered memory of a drunken Kavanaugh exposing himself as a college freshman is the sort of charge that makes feminists laugh! (I know that from reading Gloria Steinem’s explanation in The New York Times that Gov. Bill Clinton summoning a female underling to his hotel room, dropping his pants and saying, “Kiss it!” did not rise to the level of sexual harassment. He took “no” for an answer!)

Perhaps Republicans could get Steinem to explain under oath why it’s acceptable for a sitting governor to do what is disqualifying for a drunk college freshman to do.

While no one would question the word of a living saint like Christine Blasey Ford, some parts of her testimony demand the clarity that can be obtained only in a formal legal proceeding — such as her trauma-induced need for two front doors (when the second front door seems clearly attached to a rental apartment); her fear of flying (but only when it will delay a confirmation hearing); and her claim that she never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph (contradicted by her ex-live-in boyfriend); among other things.

Pretending they are the wronged ones, liberals keep yipping about Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. They believe any attack on Kavanaugh was justified after the dirty trick pulled by Republicans on Garland.

The Republicans’ refusal to hold hearings on Garland has been called an “unprecedented obstruction” (MSNBC’s Chris Hayes), a “violation of traditions in norms” (Hayes again), an “insult and injury” (Sen. Cory Booker) and “remarkable and unprecedented” (MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow). The GOP’s treatment of Garland showed their “hypocrisy on Brett Kavanaugh” (MSNBC’s Ari Melber).

The truth is apparently a big secret, inasmuch as even Republicans aren’t saying it. You’ll read it here for the first time.

The Republicans’ wily, underhanded, double-dealing trick with Garland was this: Win a majority of seats in the U.S. Senate! I know liberals won’t read the Constitution, but can they do math? Garland didn’t have the votes.

Republicans had 54 seats and, in 2016, Senate rules still required 60 votes for Supreme Court appointments. Democrats would have needed 14 Republican senators to switch sides to confirm a Democratic president’s nominee.

There was no way that was happening. A Republican Senate simply wasn’t going to give “consent” to any Democratic nominee eight months before a presidential election — even an election that everyone thought Hillary was going to win. The Constitution says “advice and consent,” not “advice and rubber-stamp.”

There was nothing “unprecedented” about a Republican Senate rejecting a Democratic nominee — other than the fact that Republicans were the ones doing it. Democrats do it all the time.

That’s how we got Justice Anthony Kennedy — whom Kavanaugh replaced: A Democratic Senate rejected Reagan nominee Robert Bork. That’s also how we got Harry Blackmun, author of the ridiculously lawless Roe v. Wade: A Democratic Senate rejected Richard Nixon’s previous nominees Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell.

It would have been a waste of time and only humiliated Garland to hold hearings. At least Republicans didn’t accuse him of gang rape.

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER

“Whatever It Takes” by Ann Coulter 10/03/2018

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

The Democrats’ current position on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is: We cannot have someone addicted to beer on our highest court! What if a foreign power were to ply him with this nectar in a can? Talk about taking control of our government! Suppose they throw in a case of Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbier?

A bitter college roommate is going whole hog, wailing, He lied about being a beeraholic.

By the media’s account, Kavanaugh was a bounder, a brawler and a drunk. And yet he still managed to graduate at the top of his class, go to Yale, then to Yale Law and work in the highest positions in government.

I am in awe of his manliness. Hemingway has nothing on this guy! He should be our president. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln after being told Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk, let’s find out what Kavanaugh drank and send a barrel of it to every college student.

At least the Democrats seem to have moved on from the Crazy Ladies Who Must Be Believed.

Kavanaugh’s first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, doesn’t remember the time or place of the alleged high school groping, and all four witnesses she named deny any memory of such a party.

Forcing our first one-week delay, we were told that the poor lady was so traumatized by being groped in high school that she couldn’t fly. It was the worst thing that ever happened to her, compelling her to do what any reasonable person would under the circumstances: Add a second front door to her house.

She was supposedly terrified of small spaces, and an airplane, one of her friends told CNN, “was the ultimate closed space where you cannot get away.”

Then we found out that Ford regularly jets off to Hawaii, Costa Rica, the South Pacific islands and French Polynesia … to go surfing, one of the most terrifying activities around.

It sounded like a joke. I was so shattered and broken, I could only go rock climbing in the Grand Tetons. After that, I’d repair to my room and curl up in a fetal position. Then I’d go rock climbing again.

An ex-boyfriend has come forward to say that in six years of dating Ford, she never mentioned a sexual assault, had no fear of flying, lived comfortably in a tiny home with only one front door, once coached a friend on how to take a polygraph, contrary to her sworn testimony — and also lied about stealing $600 from him.

Kavanaugh’s second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, jumped in to help, dusting off a memory of the nominee pulling a Bill Clinton on her as a freshman in college — but only after she spent a week huddled with her attorney, “assessing her memories” and calling classmates to ask if they thought it was true.

And did she have corroboration? She doesn’t need any! She’s a “survivor.” Even The New York Times — the newspaper that believed the Duke lacrosse rape case until about five minutes before the prosecutor was disbarred — said Ramirez didn’t have enough evidence to meet its standards.

His third accuser, our heroine Julie Swetnik, is the woman produced by porn lawyer Michael Avenatti. She claims that she repeatedly attended gang rape parties in the 1980s — and she saw Brett Kavanaugh there!

An ex-boyfriend says Swetnik once threatened to kill him and his unborn child; she had a restraining order taken out against her; was sued by an employer for engaging in “sexually offensive conduct,” making “false and retaliatory allegations” against co-workers and also lying about her educational background and work history.

A Democrat and Emmy-winning meteorologist wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee stating that, soon after he met Swetnik in the 1990s, she proposed group sex to him. Some years later, her own father told him to stay away, citing Swetnik’s psychological problems.

She is now the Democrats’ leading contender for 2020.

Poor Kate Snow of NBC News thought she had landed the interview of a lifetime when she sat down with Swetnik. Within about three questions, it became clear that she was talking to a lunatic. At that point, most of Snow’s energy went into hoping for a building-wide power failure to shut down the cameras.

Of the four witnesses Swetnik provided to NBC, whom she claimed would confirm her story, one denied knowing any Julie Swetnik, one was dead, and two did not respond to the network, perhaps wishing they were dead too.

By the end of the interview, Snow’s purse was missing.

But the Democrats are energetic devils. They’ve been poring over Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook and exclaiming, He’s a beeraholic!

With grim passion, they say, how dare you laugh at this? If he were a teetotaler, they’d say, We can’t have someone on the court who’s so nerdy. How can this weird aesthete sympathize with murderers and insider traders?

They’ve already won a second week’s delay by having two deranged women scream at Sen. Jeff Flake in an elevator.

After wetting himself, Flake insisted on a seventh FBI investigation. For weeks, the Democrats have been demanding an investigation — of an incident without witnesses, on a date unknown at a place unknown — by saying, Oh, you big babies, the FBI investigation of Anita Hill only took three days!

The FBI wrapped up its investigation of Kavanaugh in a few days and then sat around wondering how long it had to wait before producing the report. So now the “it will only take three days” crowd is saying, Keep investigating! We don’t know how long the probe should be, but the minimum standards of decency require that it last at least until there’s a new president.

Whatever they find, they will argue in the alternative and just keep doing it and doing it. If Kavanaugh stepped on a bug, PETA activists would be screaming at Flake in an elevator.

The Democrats have a pair of twos, but they expect Republicans to fold. Why? Because that’s what Republicans always do!

Unfortunately, this time, Kavanaugh’s supporters are not accepting surrender.

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER

“No More Mr. White Guy” by Ann Coulter 9/26/2018

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

“They know the optics of 11 white men questioning Dr. Ford … will be so harmful and so damaging to the GOP.” — Areva Martin, CNN legal analyst

“They understand that you have all of these white men who would be questioning this woman … the optics of it would look terrible.” — Gloria Borger, CNN chief political analyst

“Women across this nation should be outraged at what these white men senators are doing to this woman.” — Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif.

“There has been some discussion of the GOP senators who happened to all be … white men.” — Jim Sciutto, CNN correspondent

“What troubles me is now there are … they’re all white men.” — Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan, on CNN

”You’re seeing on display a metaphor for what this party is, which is basically ignorant white men.” — “Morning Joe” contributor Donny Deutsch

“All these white men … stumbling all over themselves asking her, you know, aggressive and obnoxious questions.” — Asha Rangappa, CNN analyst

“What are those — that collection of old white men going to do?” — Cynthia Alksne, MSNBC contributor

“If she testifies in front of the Judiciary Committee, where 11 members are white men …” — Susan Del Percio, Republican political strategist, on MSNBC

“Once again, it will be all white men on the Republican side of the Judiciary Committee.” — CNN anchor Poppy Harlow

“The optics for Republicans are going to be really tricky … You’ve got all white men on the Republican side here …” — Julie Pace, Washington bureau chief for The Associated Press, on CNN

“The Republicans, it happens to be 11 white men still on that side.” — CNN host John Berman

“The Republicans, it is 11 white men, talk to me about how you think the tone inside this hearing on Monday will be perceived?” — Berman, a few minutes later

“On the Republican side, all 11 are white men.” — Berman, again, same show, several minutes later

“What hasn’t changed is the number of white men questioning, certainly, on the Republican side.” — Dana Bash, CNN chief political correspondent

“The Republican side on the Senate Judiciary Committee is all white men …” — Irin Carmon, senior correspondent for New York Magazine, on MSNBC

“Only this crowd of clueless old white guys …” — The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin on Twitter

Let me begin by saying these commentators are making a brilliant and totally ORIGINAL point, the plain truth of which is outshone only by, as I’ve said, its sheer no-one-has-ever-made-that-observation-before-ness.

As the Supreme Court confirmation hearing resumes this week for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, it’s clear that the Republicans are simply too white to get the job done. I suggest the Republicans sign up some outside help, the way baseball teams make late-season acquisitions of pitchers and designated hitters for the playoffs.

Some suggestions (note: not all of the following individuals are Republicans, but none has any partisan profile that I am aware of):

1. The Rev. Al Sharpton (Tawana Brawley affair demonstrates that he believes women).

2. Bill Cosby (extensive, up-close experience with victims of sexual assault, albeit from a rapist’s, rather than a “rapee’s” perspective).

3. Keith Ellison (likely good rapport with committee Democrats; has own transportation to Capitol Building).

4. Matias Reyes (would undoubtedly throw himself into committee’s work as pleasant change of pace from prison).

5. Sorry, I don’t remember the gentleman’s name, but that guy who kidnapped and raped the Columbia student, poured bleach on her and Krazy-Glued her lips shut. (This one is sort of a “wild card,” I admit; he could be absolutely great, or, judging by his history of poor impulse control, he could be too emotionally unstable to handle the committee’s important work; definitely a Person of Color, though; that I’m sure about.)

6. Alton Maddox, attorney for black youth hired by Jewish landlord to slash a model’s face because she refused to date him. Maddox pioneered novel “she’s a manipulative slut who had it coming” defense. (Close relationship with the Rev. Sharpton a definite plus.)

7. Lakireddy Bali Reddy, entrepreneurial Indian immigrant with strong experience with underage rape victims, having brought little girls to the U.S. purchased from their poverty-stricken parents in India as his private sex slaves. (His presence may bring Asha Rangappa on board.)

Seriously, if feminists want to make the point that only female senators have any business conducting these hearings, they have a logical point, albeit an idiotic one.

Of course, the last time feminists bet big on women being certain allies in the fight against misogyny, they were the women of the O.J. jury.

Still, I get the logic of demanding women interlocutors.

But what is the thinking behind snickering at “white men” judging an accusation of sexual assault? Chuck Grassley is a big rapist?

You can be for rape or against it — I happen to be against it — but the idea that alleged sexual assault survivors need the loving care of black, Indian or Hispanic men to judge their stories flies in the face of crime statistics from around the globe.

In the history of the world, there has never been a more pacific, less rapey creature than the white male of Western European descent.

I realize it gives The New York Times’ editorial board (recent acquisition: Sarah Jeong) warm feelings every time someone throws in the word “white” as an intensifier, denoting extra hatefulness, but really, guys, it’s getting old.

Can we please, for the love of God, drop the painfully trite, mind-numbing cliche about “white men,” as if somehow their whiteness makes evil even eviler?

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION