Columnist.
Americans have got to drop their weird verbal tic of inserting "illegal" into any discussion of immigration. After I pointed out on "Fox News" that the dispute between Sen. Rand Paul and Gov. Chris Christie over spying on "Americans" was entirely a problem of immigration, "Fox Insiders" put these two sentences together: "[Coulter] explained that halting *illegal* immigration would help solve other key issues such as the economy and national security. 'Don't make terrorists citizens through immigration, and we'll have a lot less of a national security problem,' Coulter said, pointing to the attacks at the Boston Marathon and in Chattanooga."
There's a cultural acceptance of child rape in Latino culture that doesn't exist in even the most dysfunctional American ghettoes. When it comes to child rape, the whole family gets involved. (They *are* family-oriented!) In a 2011 GQ magazine story about a statutory rape case in Texas, the victim's illegal alien mother, Maria, described her own sexual abuse back in Mexico.
For years, Republican candidates have been assured by their political consultants that amnesty is a runaway hit with the public. Then they always come in for a zinger of a surprise when the American people are finally able to express themselves on the subject. (Sometimes it seems as if political consultants are in the game only to make money.) Washington has tried to sneak through three amnesties in the last decade — in 2006, 2007 and 2013. Each time, amnesty had the full support of the media, the White House, leaders of both political parties, big campaign donors and lobbyists. And every time, as soon as the public got wind of what was happening, the politicians scattered like roaches and the loudest amnesty proponent in the room would suddenly be demanding "border security first!"
There are few sexual perversions not celebrated by our media today, but I gather, from decades of flood-the-zone coverage of even the most preposterous allegations of rape, that liberals are still on record as being against rape.
In the wake of Kate Steinle's murder at the hands of an illegal immigrant, mass immigration advocates have begun a campaign of lies in defense of their cheap labor. "Studies show," they say, that immigrants commit LESS crime than the native population. Inasmuch as the vast majority of post-1970 immigrants — legal immigrants — are poor, non-white and come from countries with far worse crime rates than our own, that's at least counterintuitive. The main evidence cited in support of the claim that immigrants commit less crime than Americans is a moronic point about cities with a lot of immigrants seeming to have low crime rates. *Check and mate, Mr. Trump!* The "New York sure seems safe to me!" argument is like the "Saturday Night Live" sketch of Bill O'Reilly arguing that New York has more people than California.
In the days leading up to July Fourth weekend, Americans were hysterically warned about an ISIS attack in the United States. Congressman Peter King, for example, somberly advised Fox News viewers that "this is the most concerned I've seen the FBI and Homeland Security" since 9/11. And, once again, the weekend came and went without anyone in America being killed by ISIS, but a lot of people being killed by immigrants — legal, illegal, second generation and anchor babies. There's no way to know exactly how many Americans were killed July Fourth weekend as a result of the country's immigration policies, because the media don't trust us with the truth.
"When Donald Trump said something not exuberantly enthusiastic about Mexican immigrants, the media's response was to boycott him."
When Donald Trump said something not exuberantly enthusiastic about Mexican immigrants, the media's response was to boycott him. One thing they didn't do was produce any facts showing he was wrong. Trump said: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." The first thing a news fact-checker would have noticed is: THE GOVERNMENT WON'T TELL US HOW MANY IMMIGRANTS ARE COMMITTING CRIMES IN AMERICA. Wouldn't that make any person of average intelligence suspicious? Not our media. They're in on the cover-up.
The massacre of black churchgoers in Charleston by an evil psycho is a hideous thing. The case is especially sickening because the victims were chosen specifically because of their race. Thank God it's extremely rare for whites to target black people for attack. And yet the public is being told by The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC and Salon that the Charleston massacre is proof that we live in a country packed with marauding racist murderers. It's like saying we have an epidemic of men flying gyrocopters onto Capitol Hill. Yes, there's that one time, but I notice you keep citing the same case. In The Washington Post, for example, columnist Lonnae O'Neal blamed the Charleston attack on "white supremacy," claiming that "racial sickness is all around us." (I guess the one upside of the horror in South Carolina is that we can FINALLY have a national conversation about race.)
Sen. Ted Kennedy's 1965 immigration act allowed the Democrats to start winning elections the same way they win recounts: by enlarging the pool of voters. Liberals couldn't convince Americans to agree with them, but they happened to notice that the people of most other countries in the world already agreed with them. So Sen. Ted Kennedy's immigration act brought in millions of poverty-stricken foreigners to live off the American taxpayer and bloc-vote for the Democrats. The American people aren't changing their minds. Americans are becoming a minority to other, new people. Deft politicians used to know how to convince the 15 percent on the fence. But even Reagan would look at today's electorate and say: Who are you guys? We live in a different country, and I don't remember moving.
I'm impressed by the coolness and steadiness of our media in suppressing any news about immigration. It's as if they've built a triple-layer fence with border guards around immigration topics. And guess what? Their fence is working! How many thousands of news stories have there been on Ferguson, ISIS, Chris Christie's "Bridgegate" or men becoming women? But the media will never tell you about Mexicans gang-raping a lesbian in Richmond, California, an Indian immigrant in San Francisco importing 12-year-old girls he bought from their parents for sex, or three children being beheaded by Mexicans in Baltimore.
Third World immigration advocates Frank Sharry, Ali Noorani and Marc Andreessen aren't shy about rushing to the press with pabulum quotes about how wonderful immigration is, but they don't want to debate me, even to lie about all those benefits. They don't want you to think about immigration at all. Although you will miss the lush analytical context of the full case made in my smash new book, Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole, here are some more startling facts from my book that the anti-American crowd doesn't want you to know: — If an illegal alien drops a baby on American soil, the entire family can access welfare programs that were supposed to be for U.S. citizens — in addition to the government assistance illegal aliens can collect right away, such as food stamps and housing subsidies, free medical care and free schooling.
I finally found a Mexican willing to do a job no American will do! I have an explosive book on the No. 1 issue in the country coming out next week, I've already written 10 New York Times best-sellers — I'd be on a postage stamp if I were a liberal — but can't get an interview on ABC, NBC or CBS. Only Mexican-born Jorge Ramos would interview me on his Fusion network. Yay, Jorge! After a spellbinding interview, Ramos ended by asking this excellent question — which I had suggested myself for all authors, most of whom write very boring books, harming the marketability of my own books: "Is there anything in your book that isn't already generally known?" My soon-to-be-released book, "Adios, America! The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole," is jam-packed with facts you didn't already know. Don't even think of using it as a coaster, like those other books.
Was Jeb Bush too busy watching telenovelas during his brother's presidency to remember the Iraq War? We went to war at such breakneck speed after 9/11, that, before the invasion, I was able to write approximately 30 columns about it, give five dozen speeches on it, discuss it on TV a hundred times and read 1,089 New York Times editorials denouncing the "rush to war." So I remember the arguments. Contrary to the fairy tale the left has told itself since Obama truculently gave away America's victory in Iraq, our argument wasn't that we had to invade Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. And the left's argument certainly was not: "He doesn't have any WMDs!"
Bloomberg News ran a happy news story this week about the "surprising" development of Republicans joining Democrats in their effort to end our "incarceration generation" by the simple expedient of putting fewer criminals in prison. (Lots of good ideas involve ham-fisted, Johnnie Cochran-style rhymes.) And Bloomberg wasn't just talking about the media's usual lickspittle, Sen. Rand Paul. Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Texas governor Rick Perry have all called for "new" approaches to allegedly "non-violent" drug crimes — i.e., any approach other than prison. Perry says: "You want to talk about real conservative governance? Shut prisons down. Save that money."
Astronomically low crime rates may be one of the greatest public policy triumphs in history. All this time, liberals have been lying in wait, dying to undo all the accomplishments of the last 20 years. A quarter century of peace has lulled ordinary people into taking their safety for granted. They naturally assume that everyone regards it as a good thing that people are able to go about their lives without being raped, beaten, slashed or murdered. They don't know liberals. I've been warning you since 2001 that, as soon as we left the room, liberals would start emptying the prisons and loosing predators on us again. The stunning crime reduction of the last couple of decades is being called a "public policy disaster" from every news outlet — even the news outlets currently being looted in Baltimore.
It's beginning to look as if the Democratic Party can't whip African-Americans into an anti-white frenzy to turn out on Election Day, and then say, "OK, thanks, guys! That's all we need." How else do liberals explain the upsurge in racial unrest since Obama became president? Why would white racism — their view — latent for the previous 15 years, burst forth meteorically just as the country elected its first black president? Did we elect this bumbling incompetent, then suddenly remember that we're racists? I have an explanation! It's subtly alluded to in the title of my book, "Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama." What's theirs?
I gather from the increasing hysteria of the feminists that Democrats are beginning to rebel at having a loser of a presidential candidate being foist upon them, in the person of Hillary Clinton. The same way the national tea party leaders are a thorn in the side of the Republican Party, constantly challenging incumbent Republicans with untested candidates who then go on to lose to Democrats (in Delaware, Indiana and Nevada, and nearly in Kentucky, Kansas and Mississippi), the feminists are a thorn in the side of the Democrats, saddling them with utter mediocrities like Hillary. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sen. Patty Murray are, objectively, two of the least appealing human beings ever elected to any office. (That sentence still works even without the words "elected to any office.") But God help the Democrats if they tried to replace Schultz as chair of the Democratic National Committee or Murray as secretary of the Senate Democratic Caucus.
Usually liberals have the decency to wait a few months after one of their rape fantasies collapses to start citing the case as "unresolved" — *it was a tie, the game was rained out, we'll never know what happened.* But with the apocryphal University of Virginia gang rape, lefties started in right away with the "I guess we'll never know what happened" rewrite. Just last week, the Columbia Journalism Review released the results of a months-long investigation into Rolling Stone's story about a violent fraternity gang rape at UVA. As you will recall, the CJR found that the magazine had based its entire story on the delusions of one girl, who freaked out every time the alleged reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, tried to confirm a single fact.
From the Duke lacrosse team, the Columbia mattress girl and the University of Virginia, the left has not been able to produce one actual rape on a college campus. It's beginning to look as if the rape of the Sabine women never happened, either. Someone's going to have to go back and investigate. The big finale to the latest college rape fable, Rolling Stone's whimsical "A Rape on Campus," about a fraternity gang rape at the University of Virginia that never happened, is the Columbia Journalism Review's "investigation" of the story, released Sunday night. It's more of a house of mirrors than a finale, inasmuch as CJR's report is so preposterous that it demands its own investigation.
