Ann Coulter

UC Berkeley Bans Ann Coulter – But She Plans to Speak Anyway!

The campus that is the home of the historical free speech movement, UC Berkeley, has banned conservative commentator and author Ann Coulter, citing security threats. According to Young America’s Foundation, student organizers of an upcoming Ann Coulter event at the university were emailed by Berkeley administrators who claimed they were unable to “find a safe suitable venue” for Coulter. “Young America’s Foundation, BridgeCal and Berkeley College Republicans have been working together to produce a lecture at UC-Berkeley on April 27, 2017, by Ann Coulter, a twelve-time bestselling author, whose book, ‘Adios, America!’ – a No. 2 New York Times bestseller — is widely credited with shaping President Donald Trump’s immigration views,” announced Young America’s Foundation in a press release, Wednesday. “The topic of her speech was immigration.” “UC-Berkeley, a publicly-funded university, first imposed a series of ridiculous requirements on the speech allegedly in the name of ‘safety.’ Coulter, we were informed, would be required to deliver her speech in the afternoon; only students would be allowed to attend; and the speech location would not be announced until close to the event,” they continued. “Against our advice, Coulter agreed to all these requirements. In return, she requested two measures, which actually had something to do with safety.”

To see what those two measures are, and read the rest of the article, click on the text above.

Coulter: We Must Stop Immigrants Who ‘Rip Off Government Programs’

Author Ann Coulter said that immigration authorities should concentrate their efforts to stop the immigration of people who “rip off government programs.” Coulter said on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that there should be a way to stop certain immigrants “whose specialty is committing crimes against our entitlement programs.” “There’s a specialty in computer hacking and credit card stealing and ripping off government programs,” she said. Coulter said it is difficult to track statistics involving crimes committed by immigrants, and that it is “telling” that advocates for strong border enforcement like herself are “always” the ones wanting the stats. She said it is easier to get statistics on how many American houses have “broken stair railings” than it is to find certain data involving criminal illegal immigrants. “They absolutely want to take [Attorney General] Sessions out because they want to keep this dump of the third world going on America,” she said of her ideological opposition. “How many [immigrants] are committing crimes, what kind of crimes, and how much does that cost the country?” she asked.

Some great questions, Ann!

Coulter on Immigration Policy: ‘Our Country Is Not a Battered Woman’s Shelter’

Monday on Sean Hannity’s nationally syndicated radio program, conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter maintained President Donald Trump was within his legal authority to act as he had with his executive order placing restrictions on those coming to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries. But she also pointed out that the 2016 presidential election was a mandate from the American people for Trump to take a more aggressive approach with regards to immigration, including the admission of refugees. “I think that is the reason for this election,” Coulter said. “The public has been begging for less immigration overall. Forget the ones from the countries designation by Hillary Clinton’s State Department as terrorist countries. For decades now, if you ask Americans do you want immigration to stay the same, go up or be reduced — nobody wants it to go up. And I believe it’s been a consistent majority saying, ‘No, fewer, fewer, fewer immigrants. We’ve taken in enough. America needs a break.’ We have taken, as I describe in ‘Adios America, for the past several decades, America has taken in more refugees than the entire rest of the world combined. Our country is not a battered woman’s shelter. We’re not here to take in all the charity cases of the world. This was the point of this election — please help us, the American people, including immigrants who have come in.”

Exactly!!  Well said, Ann!

Coulter: A Maniac Is Running Our Foreign Policy! (It’s Not Trump)

If only we were able to deport citizens, we could use Trump’s new policy of excluding those who are “hostile” toward our country to get rid of Judge James Robart. Judge Robart’s veto of Trump’s travel ban notwithstanding, there is not the slightest question but that the president, in his sole discretion, can choose to admit or exclude any foreigners he likes, based on “the interests of the United States.” The Clinton administration used the executive branch’s broad power over immigration to send a 6-year-old boy back to a communist dictatorship. The courts were completely powerless to stop him. As explained by the federal appellate court that ruled on Elian Gonzalez’s asylum application: “It is the duty of the Congress and of the executive branch to exercise political will,” and “in no context is the executive branch entitled to more deference than in the context of foreign affairs,” which includes immigration. The court acknowledged that Elian might well be subjected to “re-education,” “communist indoctrination” and “political manipulation.” (Then again, so would enrolling him at Sidwell Friends.) It didn’t matter! Sending little boys back to communist dictatorships was the policy of the Clinton administration. The Obama administration’s immigration policy was to ensure that millions of poverty-stricken foreigners would come here and help turn our country into a Mexican version of Pakistan. When Arizona merely tried to enforce the federal immigration laws being ignored by the Obama administration, the entire media erupted in rage at this incursion into the majestic power of the president over immigration. They said it was like living in Nazi Germany! The most reviled section of the act, melodramatically called the “Papers Please” law, was upheld by the Supreme Court. But the other parts, allowing state officials to enforce federal immigration laws, were ruled unconstitutional. A president’s policy choice to ignore immigration laws supersedes a state’s right to enforce them. The court conceded that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens were arrested in Arizona each year, that they were responsible for “a disproportionate share of serious crime,” and that illegals constituted nearly 6 percent of Arizona’s population. But Arizona was powerless to enforce laws on the books — if those laws happened to be about immigration. The president’s authority over immigration is absolute and exclusive, as part of his authority over foreign policy. To review: — When the president’s immigration policy is to promote international communism: The president wins. — When the president’s immigration policy is to transform America into a different country: The president wins. — But when the president’s immigration policy is to protect Americans: Some piss-ant judge announces that his authority exceeds that of the president. This is exactly what I warned you about in Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole. Nothing Trump does will be met with such massive resistance as his immigration policies. The left used to attack America by spying for Stalin, aiding our enemies, murdering cops and blowing up buildings. But, then liberals realized, it’s so much more effective to just do away with America altogether! Teddy Kennedy gave them their chance with the 1965 immigration act. Since then, we’ve been taking in more than a million immigrants a year, 90 percent from comically primitive cultures. They like the welfare, but have very little interest in adopting the rest of our culture. In many parts of the country, you’re already not living in America. Just a few more years, and the transformation will be complete. There will be a North American landmass known as “the United States,” but it won’t be our country. The only thing that stands between America and oblivion is a total immigration moratorium. We are well past the point of quick fixes — as Judge Robart’s delusional ruling proves. The judiciary, both political parties, the media, Hollywood, corporate America and approximately 1 million lobbying groups are all working frantically to bring the hardest cases to our shores. Left-wing traitors, who used to honeymoon in Cuba and fight with peasant revolutionaries in Peru, toil away, late into the night, to ensure that genocidal Rwandans can move to America and immediately start collecting food stamps, Medicaid and Social Security. No matter how clearly laws are written, government bureaucrats connive to import people from countries that a majority of Americans would not want to visit, much less become. Federal judges issue lunatic rulings to ensure that there will never be a pause in the transformation of America. Congress could write laws requiring immigrants to pay taxes, learn English, forgo welfare and have good moral character. It could write laws giving the president authority to exclude aliens in the public interest. Except it already has. Those laws were swept away by INS officials, federal judges and Democratic administrations — under ferocious pressure from America-hating, left-wing groups. The country will not be safe until the following outfits are out of business: The ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project; the National Immigration Forum; the National Immigration Law Center; the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild; the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; the Office of Migration and Refugee Services; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the American Immigration Lawyers Association; the Border Information and Outreach Service; Atlas: DIY; the Catholic Legal Immigration Network; the Clearinghouse for Immigrant Education; the Farmworker Justice Fund; Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the International Center for Migration, Ethnicity and Citizenship; the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force; the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; the National Association for Bilingual Education; the National Clearinghouse on Agricultural Guest Worker Issues; the National Coalition for Dignity and Amnesty for Undocumented Immigrants; the National Coalition for Haitian Rights; the National Council of La Raza; and the National Farm Worker Ministry. And that’s only a small fraction of the anti-American immigration groups assiduously dragging the Third World to our shores — while you were busy working. Look at that list — look at Judge Robart’s ruling! — and ask yourself: Is it possible that anything short of a total immigration moratorium can save this country? Only when there is no immigration to bellyache about will these nuts be forced to think of a new way to destroy America.

Indeed!!  Ann is exactly right!!  And, as usual, knocks it out of the park with this outstanding op/ed.  Most Americans aren’t aware of the fact that between 1921 and 1965 (over 40 years!) there was virtually NO immigration, legal or illegal, to speak of!  Why?  Because those who came to America after WW1 (that’s World War ONE) were still being assimilated into our unique American culture.  Then, as Ann just pointed out, Ted Kennedy’s immigration act of 1965 threw all of that common sense out the window.  And instead of thoughtful, controlled, immigration that would be in our country’s national security and economic best interests, we started a flood of unchecked immigration that has become an unending invasion that we simply cannot afford.  And, the overwhelming majority of these immigrants are hardly contributors to our economy in a positive way.  Let’s be honest.  The majority are parasites that we-the-taxpayers are paying for.  The current system is crushing our infrastructure (i.e. courts, hospitals, welfare roles, etc.), and we-the-actual citizens are left holding the bill, and the mess.  Ask the parents of the late Kate Steinle who was shot by a criminal illegal alien (in San Fran, a sanctuary city, no less) how they feel about the illegal immigration crisis in America today.  Her dad’s testimony before Congress was heartbreaking.  Until we get a handle on the immigration crisis we need to have a total and complete moratorium on ALL immigration, legal AND illegal.  That all begins with security our southern border.  Then, Congress needs to rewrite our immigration laws to account for how things are today (NOT 1965), and to take into account the national security and economic interests of the United States.  Period.  Please consider this our Read of the Day.  If you read anything here at The Daily Buzz, then READ THIS!!….then pass it along to all your friends and family members…especially those who may not agree.   🙂

Coulter: Give Me Your Tired Arguments…

Everything said about President Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a lie — including that it’s a Muslim ban. The New York Times wore out its thesaurus denouncing the order: “cruelty … injury … suffering … bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating … breathtaking … inflammatory … callousness and indifference” — and that’s from a single editorial! Amid the hysteria over this prudent pause in refugee admissions from seven countries whose principal export is dynamite vests, it has been indignantly claimed that it’s illegal for our immigration policies to discriminate on the basis of religion. This is often said by journalists who are only in America because of immigration policies that discriminated on the basis of religion. For much of the last half-century, Soviet Jews were given nearly automatic entry to the U.S. as “refugees.” Entering as a refugee confers all sorts of benefits unavailable to other immigrants, including loads of welfare programs, health insurance, job placement services, English language classes, and the opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship after only five years. Most important, though, Soviet Jews were not required to satisfy the United Nations definition of a “refugee,” to wit: someone fleeing persecution based on race, religion or national origin. They just had to prove they were Jewish. This may have been good policy, but let’s not pretend the Jewish exception was not based on religion. If a temporary pause on refugee admissions from seven majority-Muslim countries constitutes “targeting” Muslims, then our immigration policy “targeted” Christians for discrimination for about 30 years. Never heard a peep from the ACLU about religious discrimination back then! According to the considered opinion of the Cato Institute’s David J. Bier, writing in the New York Times, Trump’s executive order is “illegal” because the 1965 immigration act “banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin.” In 1966, one year after the 1965 immigration act, immigrants from Cuba suddenly got special immigration privileges. In 1986, immigrants from Ireland did. People from Vietnam and Indochina got special immigration rights for 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War. The 1965 law, quite obviously, did not prohibit discrimination based on national origin. (I was wondering why the Times would sully its pages with the legal opinion of a Grove City College B.A., like Bier! Any “expert” in a storm, I guess.) In fact, ethnic discrimination is practically the hallmark of America’s immigration policy — in addition to our perverse obsession with admitting the entire Third World. Commenting on these ethnic boondoggles back in 1996, Sen. Orrin Hatch said: “We have made a mockery” of refugee law, “because of politics and pressure.” We let in one ethnic group out of compassion, then they form an ethnic power bloc to demand that all their fellow countrymen be let in, too. As the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, described “diversity” in Der Spiegel: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” That’s our immigration policy — plus a healthy dose of Emma Lazarus’ insane idea that all countries of the world should send their losers to us. (Thanks, Emma!) Americans are weary of taking in these pricey Third World immigrants, who show their gratitude by periodically erupting in maniacal violence — in, for example, San Bernardino, Orlando, New York City, Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, Bowling Green and St. Cloud. The Muslim immigrants currently being showcased by the left are not likely to change any minds. The Times could produce only 11 cases of temporarily blocked immigrants that the newspaper would even dare mention. (Imagine what the others are like!) For purposes of argument, I will accept the Times’ glowing descriptions of these Muslim immigrants as brilliant scientists on the verge of curing cancer. (Two of the Times’ 11 cases actually involved cancer researchers.) Point one: If the Times thinks that brilliance is a desirable characteristic in an immigrant, why can’t we demand that of all our immigrants? To the contrary! Our immigration policy is more likely to turn away the brilliant scientist — in order to make room for an Afghani goat herder, whose kid runs a coffee stand until deciding to bomb the New York City subway one day. (That was Najibullah Zazi, my featured “Immigrant of the Week,” on May 1, 2012.) Point two: I happened to notice that even the stellar Muslim immigrants dug up by the Times seem to bring a lot of elderly and sickly relatives with them. Guess who gets to support them? House Speaker Paul Ryan’s driving obsession (besides being the Koch brothers’ lickspittle) is “entitlement reform,” i.e., cutting benefits or raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare. I have another idea. How about we stop bringing in immigrants who immediately access government programs, who bring in elderly parents who immediately access government programs, or who run vast criminal enterprises, stealing millions of dollars from government programs? (I illustrated the popularity of government scams with immigrants in Adios, America! by culling all the news stories about these crimes over a one-month period and listing the perps’ names.) Point three: Contrary to emotional blather about the horrors refugees are fleeing, a lot are just coming to visit their kids or to get free health care. One of the Times’ baby seals — an Iraqi with diabetes and “a respiratory ailment” — was returning from performing his responsibilities as an elected official in Kirkuk. That’s not exactly fleeing the Holocaust. While it’s fantastic news that most Muslim refugees aren’t terrorists, the downside is: They’re not refugees, they’re not brilliant, they don’t have a constitutional right to come here, and they’re very, very expensive. Until politicians can give us more government services for less money, they need to stop bringing in the poor of the world on our dime.

Exactly!!  As usual, Ann Coulter nails it!    🙂

Coulter: Tips for Hate Crime Hoaxers

In a country of more than 320 million people, everything must happen once. So it’s somewhat surprising that not one of the alleged post-election hate crimes committed by Trump supporters has turned out to be true. They are false in one of two ways: Either they aren’t “hate” or they aren’t true. This week, we’ll provide tips for selling a hate crime that didn’t happen. Hate Crime Hoaxer Tip No. 1: Don’t invent hate crimes that could form the opening of a Harlequin Romance. Liberal girls always seem to be imagining strong, rough, Heathcliff-type white men demanding that they disrobe or become “sex slaves.” (Oddly, Heathcliff keeps doing this in well-trafficked areas in the middle of the day with no witnesses.) The hijab hoaxer at the University of Michigan described her imaginary Trump-supporting pursuer as white, in his 20s or 30s, with an athletic build, unkempt and intoxicated. He demanded that she remove her hijab. (After a police investigation, she admitted she made it up.) The alleged hijab victim at University of New Mexico, Leena Aggad, said her hijab was ripped off by “a really buff guy wearing a Trump shirt.” (The attack was serious enough for her to tell the media about it, but not serious enough to report it to campus security, much less the police.) A 28-year-old black woman, Kara Stevens, claimed three Trump-supporting white men in their 30s approached her in a Safeway parking lot in Hillsboro, Oregon, mentioned Donald Trump — then threatened to turn her into their “sex slave”! (Investigation suspended with no video, no witnesses and no evidence.) With a little more imagination, these stories could become the new “Fifty Shades of Grey.” Hate Crime Hoaxer Tip No. 2: Don’t accuse white men of throwing things at you — even if it allows you to issue inspirational quotes, suitable for framing, like: “It’s going to take more than a brick to break me!” An African-American woman, Eleesha Long, claimed that, the day after the election, three white men in Trump shirts threw rocks at her on the campus of Bowling Green State University. The Safeway “sex slave,” Kara Long, claimed the Trump-supporters threw a brick at her. (She, of the inspirational quote.) We’ve seen lots of rock-, bottle- and brick-throwing recently — in Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte, Oakland, Chicago — in fact, pretty much whenever disaffected urban youth encounter the police. We’ve seen Mexicans throw eggs at Trump supporters and rocks at the police. We’ve seen Brazilians throw rocks at journalists at the Olympic Games in Rio, Palestinians throw rocks at the military in Israel, and Muslim “refugees” throw rocks at the police in Europe. But throwing things at people never really caught on with white men over the age of 6. (NOTE: Sen. John McCain’s bellicose sidekick is a notable exception — CNS News: Sen. Lindsey Graham, “I’m Ready to Throw a Rock” at Russia.) Even sad, directionless, white (alleged) “men” at Occupy Wall Street protests — i.e., the molecular opposite of a Trump supporter — don’t seem to have thrown rocks at cops. The rock-throwing was done by their minority backup. Again, we’re a country of 320 million people, so it must have happened sometime, but the 21st-century white American male is the most pacific — and least rock-throwing — Y-chromosomed being ever to walk the Earth. Black women accusing white men of throwing rocks at them are thinking of what they would do, not what their athletically built, white male, Trump-supporting Lotharios would do. Hate Crime Hoaxer Tip No. 3: Don’t post your tale of victimology on Facebook if your father may read it, worry about you and call the police. That’s what Eleesha Long’s father did, which — to Miss Long’s eternal embarrassment — led to a police investigation. The cops found clear evidence of hate — hers. She’d texted her boyfriend such sweet nothings as, “I haven’t met a decent Trump supporter yet” and “I hope they all get AIDS.” More significant in terms of the penal code, police determined from her cellphone records that she was nowhere near the site of the alleged rock-throwing incident. Hate crime hoaxers, I don’t think I need to tell you this, but you do NOT want a police investigation. Much better to send anonymous reports into America’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, so your story can appear in The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, the “Today” show, “Good Morning America,” etc., etc. A brick might not break you, but a police investigation will.

Indeed!  That fun piece was written by Ann Coulter.  Excellent!   🙂

Coulter: The Great Hijab Cover-Up

Forget fake news; the real issue is fake “hate.” Has there been one (1) documented hate crime committed by white people against any hue in the Rainbow Coalition since Nov. 8? That’s out of the 9,456,723 hate crimes alleged by America’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC is to “hate” what Rolling Stone is to rape. It is the biggest peddler of fantasies since Walt Disney. I’ve read through dozens of SPLC “hate crimes” and they are all lies. The Muslim girls in particular seem to be very spirited liars. Since the election, there have been vivid stories from across the nation of Trump supporters tearing off Muslim girls’ hijabs — at the University of Michigan (since retracted), Louisiana State University (also retracted), San Diego State University (that too was retracted), the New York City subway (again: retracted), and the University of New Mexico (no witnesses, won’t reveal attacker’s name or report the incident for investigation). The main take-away from all these stories is: We sure have taken in a lot of Muslims! They seem to have trouble assimilating to American laws about not committing mass murder, but the good news is, when it comes to America’s culture of victimhood, they assimilate like fish to water! This isn’t mass psychogenic illness, like when cheerleaders at the same high school all develop tics. It’s not even the Salem witch trials. At least the Salem witch-hunters believed in witches. The Muslim hoaxers are lying, and they know they’re lying. Otherwise, they’d leave the country. If Muslims want to convince me that they’re living in abject fear in Trump’s America, instead of rushing to the media, somebody’s got to leave. I’ve heard endless stories about the reign of terror against Muslims, but have yet to hear of one single Muslim — much less a wave of Muslims — moving out of the United States. It’s not as if they get depressed at the thought of abandoning the old ancestral home, where their great-grandparents are buried. They just got here! If any Muslim were at risk of so much as a dyspeptic look from white Americans, there’s emigration as well as immigration. But to the contrary, we can’t keep them out! They get huffy and give indignant speeches at the Democratic National Convention at the suggestion of a mere pause in Muslim immigration. The greatest fear of Muslims these days is that they won’t be home when the “Today” show calls and will miss the opportunity to regale credulous hosts with stories about their victimization at the hands of white American men (whose great-grandparents are buried here). The left has gone so insane that the SPLC, the main propagator of fake hate crimes, is the media’s go-to expert on hate. SPLC spokesmen appear on TV and defame all the people they hate: whites, Christians, Trump supporters, cops, frat boys and so on. The SPLC is like the cult awareness groups taken over by Scientologists. Terrified parents would call for help in rescuing their kids from Scientology and be told, No, Scientology is not a cult. With the SPLC, the “hate watch” group is the hater. Unlike some toothless nobody claiming to be a member of the ALL-POWERFUL KU KLUX KLAN, the SPLC’s slanders are instantly amplified by the media megaphone in somber interviews conducted by the most easily fooled people in the universe, American journalists. Breitbart, Daily Caller and others have done a great job collecting the hoax hate crimes since the election, but we need a central clearinghouse to keep up with the volume. How about someone found the Northern Poverty Law Center (NPLC), to document actual hate crimes and expose the hoaxes being spit out on an assembly line by the SPLC? Maybe the Koch brothers could get back in Trump’s good graces by funding this much-needed service. The soon-to-exist NPLC ought to be in the Rolodexes of every media organization, so they can stop reporting fake news and start covering the real hate crimes currently ignored by the press. The only incidents of actual “hate” since the election have been entirely in one direction: against (mostly white) Trump supporters. This isn’t surprising given the climate of hate being spread by the media. As illustrated on the website of the NPLC (coming soon!), we aren’t dealing with a Reichstag fire designed to generate hate toward white male Trump supporters. It’s been Reichstag fire after Reichstag fire. At this point, any claim of “hate” directed at Muslims, blacks, gays or Hispanics by Trump supporters should be treated as if it’s a UFO sighting: presumed false, unless documented with irrefutable evidence.

Agreed!!  As usual, Ann Coulter absolutely nails it here!!  The SPLC are a bunch of self-righteous, agenda-driven, liberal hypocrites.  So, kudos to Ann for calling those blowhards out.  Excellent!!    🙂