Columnist.
Economics professor Dave Brat crushed House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Republican primary Tuesday night, in a campaign that was mostly about Cantor's supporting amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens. This marks the first time a U.S. House majority leader has ever lost a primary election. His crushing defeat reinforces a central point: Whenever the voters know an election is about immigration, they will always vote against more immigration -- especially amnesty.
Death Penalty Month at anncoulter.com has already been interrupted by the psycho in Santa Barbara, and now it's being interrupted by the Buddhist in Bagram. Keeping to the spirit of Death Penalty Month, let's review the execution of Pvt. Eddie Slovik. Slovik's offense: desertion in wartime. (See the tie-in?) Unlike Bowe Bergdahl, who deserted his unit, according to the accounts of his comrades, Slovik never actually deserted. He also didn't call America a "disgusting" country or say he was "ashamed to be an American." Slovik was just a chicken.
Mass murder at a sunny college campus in a beach town would normally be considered "newsy," but Elliot Rodger's massacre at the University of California-Santa Barbara last Friday is getting surprisingly little press. This is not a good case for liberals: The killer was an immigrant, a person of color, and the majority of his casualties resulted from attacks with a car or knife. It makes as much sense to rant about the NRA as to blame the Auto Club of America or the National Knife Collectors Association. Rather, what we have is yet another mass murder committed by a schizophrenic -- just like those of Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, James Holmes and Adam Lanza.
The New York Times has been touting a study purporting to show that 4 percent of death row inmates have been "falsely convicted." "Falsely convicted" is not "innocent." But after being processed through the lawyer-to-journalist telephone game, "insignificant procedural errors" quickly becomes "27 guys didn't do it!" What the study actually shows is that those sentenced to death are more likely to have their convictions overturned than those sentenced to prison. Yeah, we knew that. Anti-death penalty fanatics fight every execution tooth and claw. Sometimes they get lucky. What the statisticians have proved is that it's very difficult to be executed in this country.
As described in last week's column, The New York Times and other sanctimonious news outlets censored details about the crime that put Clayton Lockett on death row, the better to generate revulsion at his deserved execution. You might say they buried the facts alive. For example, the Times neglected to mention anything about the raping that preceded the murdering, which seems odd for a newspaper so consumed with the "War on Women." (At least Lockett never refused to pay for a woman's birth control pills!) The Times also dropped the part about Lockett's dangerous behavior while incarcerated, such as ordering hits on the witnesses against him, his threats to kill prison guards, and the bounty of homemade weapons seized from him in prison -- saw blades, sharpened wires, shivs and shanks. (Old Times motto: "All the News That's Fit to Print." New Times motto: "Nobody Likes a Rat.")
The next time liberals get indignant when we say they care more about criminals than the victims of crime, remember their hysterical weeping over Clayton Lockett. I refer, of course, to the vile rapist-murderer, whose execution last week is getting more press than Chris Christie's bridge scandal. This week we will review some facts about the case that The New York Times edited out of its capacious articles on Lockett. This is the information that was not fit to print. Next week, we'll discuss the death penalty, with particular reference to Clayton Lockett. The main category of facts you won't read about Lockett in the Times, or elsewhere in the NFM (Non-Fox Media), is what he did to his victims -- which is to say, his last four victims. It may surprise you to learn that Locket had a long felony record.
I had listened to roughly eight hours of commentary on Donald Sterling and the ugly remarks he made in conversations secretly tape-recorded by his girlfriend, before I heard anyone mention a wife. HE HAS A WIFE? At first, I thought the topic must have changed when I left the room, but no -- the TV talking heads were still discussing Sterling advising his girlfriend to stay away from blacks. Not only does Sterling have a wife of 50 years, but earlier this year, she sued his girlfriend, demanding the return of two Bentleys, a Ferrari, a Range Rover and a $1.8 million apartment, claiming it was bought with community property without the wife's consent.
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is demanding a quick settlement of the lawsuit brought by the five men convicted of one of the most sickening crimes in the city's history: the attack on the Central Park jogger in 1989. The plaintiffs are demanding $50 million apiece -- for going to prison for a rape that they committed, as detailed in Chapter 13 of "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Destroying America." Abner Louima got $5.8 million for a shockingly brutal police assault on him, and he was just an innocent bystander. The "Central Park Five," as PBS documentarian Ken Burns has dubbed them, aren't exactly Emmett Till (as Burns would have you believe). Even if they were innocent of the Central Park rape, which they aren't, the reason they were originally arrested was that they were rampaging through the park, assaulting people.
As those of you who follow my hate mail know, I am opposed to running untested candidates against perfectly good incumbent Republican senators this election cycle. It will be a long time before Republicans have as good a year as this to win a Senate majority. Unfortunately, we have idiots doing the idiot thing, pretending to be "tea partiers," while challenging sitting Republican senators over fairly minor ideological differences. Anyone opposing an incumbent Republican for any reason other than amnesty is a fraud or an idiot. Right now, immigration and Obamacare are the only things that matter. Since every Republican voted against Obamacare, that leaves only immigration.
Between having Republican presidential candidates fly to Las Vegas to kiss his ring, billionaire Sheldon Adelson has managed to fit in time to talk Sen. Lindsey Graham into sponsoring a bill banning Internet gambling. As you may know, Sheldon Adelson is a CASINO OWNER. Internet gambling would compete with his casino business. On the other hand, when it comes to the services Adelson isn't selling, but buying -- low-skilled workers -- he's for unbridled competition, preferring not to limit the supply even to people who are legally in the United States. (Weirdly, so is Lindsey Graham!)
Last Sunday, The New York Times published a front-page article about the heartfelt need of California farmers for more illegal aliens. The first tip-off that heinous public policy ideas were coming was that the Times introduced farmer Chuck Herrin, owner of a farm-labor contracting company, as a "lifelong Republican." That's Times-speak for "liberal." Herrin admitted that he employs a lot of illegal aliens and bitterly complained that they lived in fear of "Border Patrol and deportations." (But, apparently, he doesn't live in fear of admitting he's violating our immigration laws.)
I've been thrown off my health insurance -- THANKS, OBAMACARE! -- and have spent hours and hours over the past month trying to figure out my options now that the Democrats have made my old plan, which I liked, "illegal." (I prefer to think of my plan as "undocumented.") Whom do I bill for the hours of work Obamacare forced me to perform? How about you, Mickey? You're the smartest living liberal (faint praise), and you assured us that Obamacare was going to be *fantastic*. By now, Obama has issued "waivers" from Obamacare to about 99 percent of the country. (Perhaps you've heard, there's a big midterm election this year.) As one of the few Americans not granted a waiver, I'm here to tell you: You have no idea what's coming, America.
Let me begin by saying that I think the only issue in the 2014 election should be Obamacare. In fact, that should be the only issue in every election until it's repealed. I also think all Republican candidates should be trained with shock collars and cattle prods to automatically respond, upon hearing some combination of the words "abortion," "rape" and "incest": "Yes, of course there should be exceptions in the case of rape or incest, and I also support giving rapists the death penalty, unlike my Democratic opponent, who wants to give rapists the right to vote. Now, back to what I was saying about Obamacare ..." Yet and still, I'm not sure it's news that The New York Times ran into some kids at CPAC who are "pro-free market on fiscal issues and libertarian on social ones." ("Young Republicans Find Fault With Elders on List of Social Issues," March 10.)
When I wrote a book about mobs and group-think a few years ago, I could honestly say that mob behavior existed exclusively on the left in America -- unless you count Oakland Raiders tailgate parties, which I do not. As described in Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America, the distinctive characteristics of the mob mentality include: -- Slogans as arguments ("Bush lied, kids died!" "Keep your laws off my body!" "You can't hug a child with nuclear arms"); -- Imperviousness to facts (e.g., the left's refusal to abandon repeatedly disproved canards about Reagan's tax cuts causing the deficit, the Aug. 6th PDB (President's Daily Brief) stating anything relevant about 9/11, and Valerie Plame being an "undercover agent"); -- Acceptance of contradictions (I haven't heard a cavil from MSNBC about Obama's expansion of the Afghanistan war, use of drones and continued operation of Guantanamo -- all deemed "war crimes" in the Bush administration); and -- Extreme emotional attachment to their leaders combined with a passionate hatred of putative enemies (the burning and decapitations of Bush in effigy, books and movies about Bush's assassination -- even as liberals' publicly discuss their sex fantasies about Clinton and Obama).
It's pointless to pay attention to foreign policy when a Democrat is president, unless you enjoy having your stomach in a knot. As long as a Democrat sits in the White House, America will be repeatedly humiliated, the world will become a much more dangerous place -- and there's absolutely nothing anybody can do about it. (Though this information might come in handy when voting for president, America!) The following stroll down memory lane is but the briefest of summaries. For a full accounting of Democratic national security disasters, please read my book, "Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism."
Democrats believe they've hit on the perfect issue to distract from the horror of Obamacare in the 2014 elections: the minimum wage. Apparently, increasing the minimum wage was not important for American workers during the first five years of Obama's presidency -- least of all his first two years, when Democrats controlled Congress and could have passed *anything*. (And did!) No. The minimum wage did not become a pressing concern until an election year in which the public's hatred of Obamacare is expected to be the central issue.
Liberals are winning wild praise for their candor in admitting problems with Obamacare. It shows you the level of honesty people have come to expect of our liberal friends. Now, liberals are applauded for not lying through their teeth about something. What are they supposed to say? *This Obamacare website is fantastic! And really, haven't you already read all the magazines in your current doctor's office anyway?* The New York Times has described Obama's repeated claim that you could keep your insurance plan and keep your doctor under Obamacare as a mere slip of the tongue: "Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that."
With all the smirking on the left about their electoral victories, it's important to remember that Democrats haven't won the hearts and minds of the American people. They changed the people. If you pour vinegar into a bottle of wine, the wine didn't turn, you poured vinegar into it. Similarly, liberals changed no minds. They added millions of new liberal voters through immigration. So why are Republicans like Trey Gowdy, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and John Boehner making fools of themselves in order to spot the Democrats three more touchdowns? The House Republicans' "Standards for Immigration Reform," for example, contains this fat, honking nonsense: "One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents."
New Jersey governor Chris Christie deserves to be defended. The gravamen of the media's case against Christie on Bridgegate seems to be that he is a "bully" -- which I painstakingly gleaned from the fact that the governor is called a "bully" 1 million times a night on MSNBC and in hundreds of blog postings and New York Times reports. Christie is not a bully. If anything, he's a pansy, a man terrified of the liberal media, of Wall Street, of Silicon Valley, of Obama, of Bruce Springsteen, of Mark Zuckerberg, of Chuck Schumer. It's a good bet he's afraid of his own shadow. (In fairness, his shadow is probably pretty big and scary.) About the only thing Christie doesn't seem afraid of is the buffet at Sizzler.
As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week, Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing the country. The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and it's too important to wait. Leave aside the harm cheap labor being dumped on the country does to the millions of unemployed Americans. What does it mean for the Republican Party? Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly's report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party.
