FSTDT

[From "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!image 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.

Ann Coulter #fundie anncoulter.com

ISIS has killed four Americans -- in Syria. We're not exactly talking about another 9/11. Here's a tip: If you don't want to be killed by ISIS, don't go to Syria.

Meanwhile, illegal aliens have killed, raped and maimed thousands of Americans -- in America. If you don't want to be killed, raped or maimed by illegal immigrants in your own country, I have no tips for you. There's nothing you can do. You're on your own. Good luck.

Our politicians don't care. They are obsessed with cleaning up the rest of the world, while we're getting our clock cleaned at home.

Americans are at greater risk of being killed by Joran van der Sloot than by ISIS, since a lot more of us vacation in Aruba, as Natalee Holloway did, than in Syria. So why doesn't Sen. John McCain drone on, day after day, "Joran van der Sloot is winning. We're neither degrading nor destroying Joran van der Sloot."

[...]

ISIS is not at our doorstep. Illegal immigrants are not only at our doorstep, but millions of them are already through the door, murdering far more Americans than ISIS ever will.

Sometimes people don't want to be cleaning up the rest of the world.

Lenin seized power from Russia's provisional leader, Alexander Kerensky, in 1917, because Kerensky would not stop fighting wars. By promising peace, Lenin won such widespread support from exhausted Russians that the Bolsheviks were able to overthrow the government in less than a day.

That's what a lot of Americans thought they were voting for last November. Couldn't we please focus on Americans for a bit? Can't a Republican Congress do anything to stop the surge of foreign criminals, viruses and parasites crossing our border? Will politicians ever stop gassing on about what's happening 7,000 miles away and worry about us?

Ann Coulter #fundie anncoulter.com

Sorry this column is late. I got raped again on the way home. Twice. I should clarify -- by "raped," I mean that two seductive Barry White songs came on the radio, which, according to the University of Virginia, constitutes rape.

TAKE BACK THE NIGHT!

Even the feminist-whipped media parted company with Rolling Stone magazine over Sabrina Rubin Erdely's story about an alleged fraternity gang-rape at the University of Virginia -- since retracted.

But while dismantling every part of this preposterous rape claim by a woman Rolling Stone calls "Jackie," journalists rush to assure us that "sexual assault at colleges and universities is indeed a serious problem," as an article in Slate put it.

It would be as if Republicans responded to the apocryphal attack on McCain volunteer Ashley Todd in 2008 by saying, "Physical assaults on McCain volunteers by Obama supporters are indeed a serious problem."

If we're in the middle of a college-rape epidemic, why do all the cases liberals promote keep turning out to be hoaxes? Maybe I'm overthinking this, but wouldn't a real rape be more persuasive?

Instead, all the hair-on-fire college rape stories have been scams: the Duke lacrosse team's gang-rape of a stripper; Lena Dunham's rape by Oberlin College's "resident Republican," Barry; and Rolling Stone's fraternity gang-rape at UVA. Two of the three were foisted on the public -- and disproved in public -- only in the last few weeks.

The only epidemic sweeping the nation seems to be Munchausen rape syndrome. What's next, college noose hoaxes?

Even Lady Gaga recently claimed she was raped, although, she admitted: "I didn't even tell myself for the longest time." How do you not "tell" yourself you've been raped?

Rolling Stone's fantasist rape victim told The Washington Post she didn't report her rape or go to the hospital because "she was new to campus and unaware of the resources available to her."

Unaware of the "resources"? Has she heard of "911"?

Who doesn't report a brutal crime? I had my right arm sawed off by an attacker several years ago, but I was unaware of the resources available to me, so I never pressed charges. I didn't even admit it to myself until several years later.

Although Jackie had spoken about her rape at a "Take Back the Night" rally, she told the Post that if Rolling Stone's Erdely hadn't approached her, "I probably would not have gone public about my rape."

Except for being imaginary, Jackie's rape should have been easy to prove. In addition to the fact that she would have been a bloody mess, it was supposed to have happened at a fraternity. That narrows the suspect pool down from "anyone who was in the Charlottesville, Virginia, area on Sept. 28, 2012" to "40 specific guys, 20 percent of whom are, by definition, guilty of rape."

The zealots aren't backing down from Jackie's Lifetime Movie-of-the-Week rape fantasy, even as every single part of it is proved untrue. Her "close friends," The Washington Post reports, insist that "something traumatic happened to her."

Similarly, Rolling Stone authoress Erdely told Slate, "There's no doubt in my mind that something happened to her that night" based on "the degree of (Jackie's) trauma." After all, she's been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and is taking antidepressants!

Another explanation for her trauma is: Jackie is a nut. Have you considered the possibility that your protagonist is out of her mind?

(The fact that Erdely is an "award-winning" investigative journalist tells you everything you need to know about modern journalism. Of course, her one award was from Rape Hoax Monthly, which should have been a tip-off.)

College must be difficult for white, straight coeds, because it's so hard to be a victim. You're not black, you're not gay, you don't have leprosy -- what can you do to acquire victim cool? Join the rape club!

On college campuses, two millennia of Anglo-Saxon law has been scrapped in deference to sexual assault doctrines that would embarrass Chairman Mao. Young men's futures are being put in the hands of the most closed-minded, reason-free, quick-to-accuse, unfair, standardless humans on Earth.

I'm sorry we were popular in high school! Can you stop accusing us of rape now?

In penance for publishing a book that falsely accused Oberlin's Barry of rape, Random House offered to pay his legal fees, suggesting that his law firm "donate all of the crowd-funding raised (to sue Random House) to not-for-profit organizations assisting survivors of rape and sexual assault."

Heads: rape hoax hysterics win; tails: men falsely accused of rape lose. How about donating it to organizations that assist survivors of false rape accusations?

The main threat to college students' physical and emotional safety these days comes not from athletes or fraternity members, but from the feminists.

Ann Coulter #racist anncoulter.com

TO AVOID LOOKING LIKE A CRIMINAL, DON’T COMMIT A CRIME

Black liberals keep bemoaning the danger to their own teenage sons after the "not guilty" verdict in George Zimmerman's murder trial. To avoid what happened to Trayvon Martin, their boys need only follow this advice: Don't walk up to a stranger and punch him, ground-and-pound him, MMA-style, and repeatedly smash his head against the pavement.

The Justice-for-Trayvon crowd keeps pretending there hasn't been a trial where the evidence overwhelmingly showed that Trayvon committed the first (and only) crime that night by assaulting Zimmerman. Instead, the race agitators are sticking with the original story peddled by the media, back when we had zero facts. To wit, that Zimmerman had stalked a young black child and shot him dead just for being black and wearing a hoodie.

[...]

The case most like George Zimmerman's is the Edmund Perry case. In 1985, Perry, a black teenager from Harlem who had just graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy, mugged a guy who turned out to be an undercover cop. He got shot and a few hours later was dead.

Instead of waiting for the facts, the media rushed out with a story about Officer Lee Van Houten being a trigger-happy, racist cop. When that turned out to be false, The New York Times looked at its shoes. It was the kind of story the elites wanted to be true. It should be true. We had such high hopes for that one. Damn!

[...]

Luckily for the policeman, Perry had mugged him in a well-lit hospital parking lot. Twenty-three witnesses backed the officer's story in testimony to the grand jury. (Unlike Zimmerman, Van Houten's case was at least presented to a grand jury.)

As I wrote in "Mugged": "God help Officer Van Houten if he had been mugged someplace other than a hospital parking lot with plenty of witnesses." Such as, for example, a dark pathway in The Retreat at Twin Lakes. There weren't 23 witnesses backing Zimmerman's story, only about a half-dozen. But, as with Van Houten, the evidence overwhelmingly corroborated Zimmerman's story.

[...]

Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like volitional human beings. But not yet.

[...]

Van Houten said he was jumped, knocked to the ground, punched and kicked by Edmund Perry. Grand jury witnesses backed his story. Isn't it possible that Van Houten saw Perry as a threat for reasons other than "just because he is black"?

(And please stop talking about Martin's "hoodie"! Zimmerman wasn't worried about the hoodie; he was worried about being beaten to death.)

Instead of turning every story about a black person killed by a white person into an occasion to announce, "The simple fact is, America is a racist society," liberals might, one time, ask the question: Why do you suppose there would be a generalized fear of young black males? What might that be based on?

Throw us a bone. It's because a disproportionate number of criminals are young black males. It just happens that when Lee Van Houten and George Zimmerman were mugged by two of them, they survived the encounter.

Ann Coulter #fundie anncoulter.com

(Coulter wants to repeal the 26th Amendment)

Adopted in 1971 at the tail end of the Worst Generation's anti-war protests, the argument for allowing children to vote was that 18-year-olds could drink and be conscripted into the military, so they ought to be allowed to vote.

But 18-year-olds aren't allowed to drink anymore. We no longer have a draft. In fact, while repealing the 26th Amendment, we ought to add a separate right to vote for members of the military, irrespective of age.

As we have learned from ObamaCare, young people are not considered adults until age 26, at which point they are finally forced to get off their parents' health care plans. The old motto was "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote." The new motto is: "Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote."

Eighteen- to 26-year-olds don't have property, spouses, children or massive tax bills. Most of them don't even have jobs because the president they felt so good about themselves for supporting wrecked the economy.

Ann Coulter #fundie anncoulter.com

"Most important, Democrats resolutely refuse to tell the poor the secret to not being poor: Keep your knees together until marriage.

That's it. Not class size, not preschool, not even vouchers, though vouchers would obviously improve the education of all students. You could have lunatics running the schools — and often do — and if the kids live with married parents, they will end up at good colleges and will lead happy, productive lives 99 percent of the time."