Ann Coulter talking about her book Adios America. Also discussed here by Gavin along with part of Ann’s interview with Jorge Ramos.
Ann Coulter interviewed by Gavin McGinnes
Reply
Category Archives: Cultural
My regard for the Prime Minister rises with each passing day
As each day goes by I am more and more astonished at the Prime Minister’s ability to keep his balance and reason surrounded, as he is, by the the moral midgets he has at every turn. Q&A is always a revelation. But what can one say about Amanda Vanstone! That she represents a faction of absolutely disgusting fools who for no reason I can think of, believe there is some valid point to be worrying about the niceties of whether we deprive people of their citizenship if they show up in an Islamic State war zone is incredible to me. These are people I would at least have the pleasure of scraping out of my life thereafter should they ever raise such thoughts with me. But Abbott must work with them if he is to hold the party together and prevent even worse.
Listen Amanda, these people – AND DO NOT GO TO THE LINK UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED FOR IT – are not shoplifting from Woolies. These people are the equivalent of guards in a Nazi concentration camp. Indeed, they are worse since they make huge efforts to go off and join. If we can keep them out of our country, we should. Aid and comfort to the enemy is what you are giving, both here and overseas. If you and your mates actually think this shows you are upholding the finest traditions of our civilisation, then you are as barbaric as the people you defend.
A moderate alternative to more violent Islamist groups
Not really news, but it is interesting to find confirmation: Obama secretly backing Muslim Brotherhood:
President Obama and his administration continue to support the global Islamist militant group known the Muslim Brotherhood. A White House strategy document regards the group as a moderate alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
The policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11. The directive was produced in 2011 and outlines administration support for political reform in the Middle East and North Africa, according to officials familiar with the classified study.
Efforts to force the administration to release the directive or portions of it under the Freedom of Information Act have been unsuccessful.
Recognising the left for what it is
Some thoughts by Laura Rosen Cohen on why the left manages to get it together and the right does not. I am only going to repeat the first two because I think her third point is irrelevant if not actually wrong.
1) It’s about the end result and the power: Leftists are very serious about power and therefore have more solidarity. It’s all about the power. They may loathe each other personally, but the goal is power so they protect each other, till death do they part. There is no moral, financial, philosophical ‘outrage’ so large as to distract from the goal of complete power There is unity in their evil. They are ruthlessly loyal to one another as long as the party line is followed.
2) Corruption pays, lies and morally reprehensible behaviour is encouraged, tolerated and unpunished: There is very little amoral behaviour that gets punished nowadays. It emanates from the White House and that is the example being set by the former bastion of freedom and morality. Even when the disgusting stories of corruption, lies and tyranny get out in the open, most people heave a collective yawn. The individuals who do try to make a difference are punished with lawsuits, intimidation and personal threats to their safety. They are bankrupted, slandered and libeled. Not a single element of their personal or professional life goes unchecked and unexposed. Organs of democratic states are employed against them in order to destroy them.
We make a big deal out of the supposed hypocrisy of the left but there is almost none at all. If they believed what they said themselves, you could call it that. But when Julia was setting up her slush fund, or Hillary selling to the highest bidder, they were not unaware that these kinds of things must never see the light of day since they are indefensible. They did what they did to give themselves money and power, and they say what they say to protect their positions. They throw a few crumbs at the voting mob paid for invariably by others, but there is not the slightest chance that they would ever live amongst them, and they certainly do not like them. The elites hang out with others of the same class, while many of the fools who support them find their lives enveloped in hopelessness and misery.
On the right the major problem is that we do not protect our own. We allow the left to run over our people with lies and slander without rising up to defend and attack in turn. A strategy of defence is needed. Where I think it must begin is with a refusal to brand leftist actions as hypocrisy but as out and out falsehood intended to deceive. If you think that Bill Shorten or Julian Gillard or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama care a fig for you or anything about you then you are a sucker. They are leading you around by your envy of the success others have had. If by now you haven’t worked out that the left is overwhelmingly led by people who are only in it for themselves, then you are merely deceiving yourself. But in your ignorance, you are not only making things worse for me, you are making things worse for yourself as well.
It’s hockey night in Melbourne – this Friday
I last saw a Canada-USA hockey game around a quarter of a century ago in Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto. Now another this Friday here at Rod Laver in Melbourne. There is no game like hockey. I think Aussie Rules is tougher and all forms of rugby more dangerous. But there is nothing like the grace and flow of hockey. The game I saw those many years ago ended with the classic score 6-5 for us, the same score in the eighth game of the first ever Canada-Russia series where it was our pros against their pretend amateurs. They won the first game, we won the second and then we tied the third and they won the fourth. We then we lost the first in Moscow and had to win three straight, on the road, to win the series. I saw none of the games because I was hitchhiking through Europe at the time. And only found the result as we arrived in Paris late at night, trying to work out what happened from this typically sociological discussion on the pages of Le Monde that went on for two full columns until there was this vague mention of the result in a three-line last sentence that my French was only barely good enough for me to work out that the Canadians had won.
HOW IT ENDED: All for fun but I could see it was a real game, although the fight was completely staged. C’mon, it’s forty guys vacationing together in Australia, sharing the same hotels and breakfasts. But the game was the real thing, although with a complete absence of body contact. Yet there we were, with a minute and a half to go, 7-6 Canada, before two goals into the empty net left it 9-6. But there was a real fight in the stands with a chap wearing a shirt with a Russian name in Cyrillic script on the back taken out bleeding from the nose and head. Except for him, a nice time was had by all.
Are we supposed to take this “woman” seriously?
Gavin McInnes reviews Ann Coulter’s !Adios America. This is how it starts.
Ann Coulter is a withered old hag who uses shock value to sell books. Look at her face. What is she, 40? And her hair? Come on. Are we supposed to take this “woman” seriously? Her latest incarnation of Mein Kampf says Adios, America on the front but should really be called Mexicans Are Human Garbage. I haven’t read it yet but the claims she makes in the book are as disgusting as they are outrageous. It all came out on a recent appearance of Fusion with Jorge (pronounced “Hor-jay”) Ramos. As the title implies, his show brings together all kinds of different cultures into a fun plate of multiculturalism that’s like fusion cuisine for the brain. (If you don’t believe diversity is our strength, check out all the cool restaurants in New York City. You can be served by a Somalian one day, a Turk the next, and a Glaswegian in between the two.)
“Ann, if you’re reading this. Show some humanity! We are a nation of immigrants. We stole this land from the Indians.”
Ramos appeared to be focusing on Hispanics throughout the episode he had Coulter on. It was a brilliant way to expose her irrational ramblings for what they really are: Shock Hate. I haven’t actually seen the entire episode but the Internet is rife with apt descriptions of what happened. The show started out with Ann being repulsed by a Hispanic woman of color who simply offered her a hug. After that, a documented boy from Honduras tried to reach out to her and open her eyes to the dangers of prejudice and Ann barked, “You’re not black so drop the racism crap.” Her hatred for Mexicans ran so deep, she couldn’t talk to any of the audience members. Ramos rescued them from her vile bile and bravely took her on himself. He told her America was becoming more diverse and she said, “more Mexican” is not more diverse. He asked her what her problem is with 11 million hard-working people and she said the number was 3 times that! She also said they’re not as nice as we think. “If you don’t want to get killed by ISIS, don’t go to Syria” she said before adding, “If you don’t want to be killed by a Mexican, there’s nothing I can tell you.” I mean, at this point you have to just give up. Even conservatives know the Hispanic crime rate is the same as that for whites. In her world, Mexicans don’t come here for a better life. They come here to murder people.
Ann, if you’re reading this. Show some humanity! We are a nation of immigrants. We stole this land from the Indians. Mexicans aren’t doing the same to us. They’re here to help us. Do you want us to put them all on a giant bus and send them home? Grow up!
You get the point. Now read the rest.
BTW: Here is Ann’s column about the interview.
The moral standards of the left
As everyone understands, there are no actual moral standards on the left. There are moral standards observed by the conservative side of politics that can be used to discredit politicians on the right among voters on the right. On the left, however, power is all and what you do personally makes no difference at all. Watching the rise and rise of Hillary Clinton, along with Bill, would be beyond any measure difficult to understand if you thought honest and ethical behaviour actually mattered. Such behaviour simply could not happen on the conservative side of politics, not least because the left media would never let up on any of it.
So here is an interesting test case brought to us by Donna Laframboise: Will Rajendra Pachauri Be Held Accountable by Green Activists?, which comes with the subheading, “The environmental movement routinely demands accountability from third parties. When will it acknowledge the creepy sexual misconduct of one of its leaders?” The answer is obvious and the answer is never. Being on the left means you never have to say you’re sorry.
When a 74-year-old global thinker, leader, and statesman whose very name is synonymous with climate change and the environment is declared guilty of flagrant sexual harassment of a 29-year-old female subordinate, you’d think calls for him to be held accountable would be deafening. Particularly from folks in the ‘I demand accountability’ business.
But perhaps the green movement has missed the latest developments. Here, therefore, are some current headlines to bring it up to date:
India Today: TERI panel finds RK Pachauri guilty of sexually harassing colleague
Hans India: RK Pachauri guilty of sexual harassment, finds TERI panel
New Indian Express: TERI Declares Pachauri Guilty of Harassment
One India: TERI report finds RK Pachauri guilty of sexual harassment
Deccan Chronicle: TERI’s internal panel finds RK Pachauri guilty in sexual harassment case
There are no moral standards on the left. We on the right think sexual harassment is wrong so they use even fake examples against our representatives – Clarence Thomas for example. But when the real thing is proved beyond all possible measure of doubt – Bill Clinton and the Gap dress – they stand by their man. The kinds of none issues that were used against Mitt Romney – who drove from Boston to the Canadian border with his dog in a cage on the roof of a car – would be insane except for the fact that this is exactly what was used to alienate some votes from Republicans. When Obama admitted to actually eating dog, somehow this never seemed to matter.
I actually thought that Pachauri had been taken down by this scandal. That he is still there and continues to lead the IPCC with no demands that he step down truly is astounding. He had resigned as I had thought, so I will go back to Donna’s original point which is where is all the criticism from the green side of politics for such behaviour.
FURTHER COMMENT: When I look at the ethics of the left, I am of course looking at political morality and not personal, which can be quite different. The great moral monsters of the last hundred years or so have had socialism as the basis for their power. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, and etc. Personal morality is something different but is a dangerous mix with the politics of the left. Gerard Henderson’s article today on Persecutors of Pell raises many an interesting point about how this issue is being used as a political weapon. I found this particularly interesting, mostly because I did not know any of it.
The ABC, under the direction of managing director and editor-in-chief Mark Scott, has been pursuing Pell for years. In 2013 Four Corners edited its Unholy Silence program to Pell’s disadvantage by cutting out a crucial comment where he explained his role in the Catholic Church in Australia. Scott, in private correspondence, subsequently supported this act of censorship. . . .
Meanwhile Scott, who joined the board of Knox Grammar School Council in late 2007 and became deputy chairman in mid-2013, has declined to answer several questions as to what he did, or did not do, with respect to auditing child sexual abuse at the school.
As evidence to the royal commission demonstrates, there was a nest of pederast teachers at Knox Grammar and offending continued up until at least 2003 and the issue did not become public until 2009, some time after Scott joined the board. As far as I am aware, Scott’s association with Knox Grammar has not been reported on the ABC. Of course, I’m not suggesting Spigelman or Scott are responsible for biased reporting, or that they in any way condone pederasts, just that they should have stepped in or made a public statement demanding balance and admonishing rogue clergy.
Who is really surprised that this has not happened? But more to the point, who is surprised that this is such a quiet issue, left unreported at the ABC? The left weaponises morality but is far from even-handed in how these moral judgements are applied.
[My thanks to TM for passing the story along]
“Science has taken a turn towards darkness”
These are quotes from the editor of The Lancet, the premier medical journal in the world, reported by Steve Hayward at Powerline. My link is through Hayward’s post, but any of us who have dealt with global vermin will know what he means. And that is not where it stops.
“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted . . . this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. . .
The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. . . nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system. [Emphasis added.]
Scientific research in some areas has become like the media. There are only certain conclusions you are allowed to reach and if you want that next grant, or that next publication, you had better make sure you are well within the acceptable range of opinion.
And here is the direct link to the editor of The Lancet where you can read his comments in full.
What’s global warming compared with this?
Let’s face it, if you are on the left, there is probably no level of insanity you are not prepared to believe. If you can believe that socialism will bring fairness and prosperity, that even after eighteen years of no heating that the planet is about to fry, and other such things, then you are open to every social fairy tale someone is prepared to spin. But this one, the most insane of all, is still my favourite, since my wife worked in childcare for most of her life. This is now after 23 years and twenty of those years in prison, Couple convicted of child abuse during satanic childcare hysteria still not exonerated.
In 1991 . . . children at a preschool in Oak Hill, Texas began claiming they were abused and forced to drink blood-laced Kool-aid, watch animal sacrifices and fly to Mexico to be sexually abused by soldiers. Sadly, for proprietors Dan and Fran Keller, the charges against them were not dismissed. The two were found guilty of such lunacy and each sentenced to 48 years in prison.
On Wednesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted the couple some relief by acknowledging that false testimony was used in obtaining the conviction. The Travis County District Attorney’s office is expected to dismiss the case.
The Kellers spent 23 years in prison before being released in 2013.
But dismissing the case is not exactly the exoneration the Kellers were looking for. Their attorney, Keith Hampton, vowed to keep fighting.
“I can take it to federal court, but there are some procedural complications I’ll have to mull over,” Hampton told KXAN, Austin’s NBC affiliate. “Second option: to bring it back to the Criminal Court of Appeals. Third option: District Attorney can also agree to their innocence, which they haven’t done before.”
No evidence was ever found that the Kellers had done anything they had been accused of doing. The case hinged on the findings of Dr. Michael Mouw, who mistakenly identified a normal bodily condition as evidence of sexual abuse.
The story never makes the kind of news it ought to because it shows a craziness afoot that cannot be contained. The legal system and “the helping professions” are both shown to be not just useless at sorting truth from fiction but frequently dangerous. Having ruined their lives, the the state is now chiselling on the compensation these people are owed that can never be anywhere near enough for what they have been through.
Ann Coulter on the Decline and Fall of the United States
51% of those voting in America today will pretend not to know what she means. It is even possible they may not even actually know. The US is on its final lap and it is hard to see how it can survive as anything much better than a Venezuela, although it has a lot more capital left to run down. A decade from now it will be a wreck. The economic slide is of course more than evident, but the cultural and political decline is even more pronounced but is left unstated. When it becomes impossible to say the truth as you see it because a swarm of locusts will arrive to pick your personal status clean so that you never work again, no one says anything because there is no advantage for any individual to throw their future over the cliff on some suicide mission that can achieve absolutely no good at all.
These are quotes that are to be discussed as part of “What Would You Ask Ann Coulter?” with the questioner as likely to be as obtuse as any other left media presenter anywhere.
Here’s a look-back at some of her more…memorable quotes:
“It would be a much better country if women did not vote” May 2003, The Guardian
“I’m more of a man than any liberal” July 2007, to Bill O’Reilly on John Edwards
“Young people are idiots” March 2014, AnnCoulter.com
“Foreigners shouldn’t be allowed on American television” June 2014, discussing the World Cup
“Today’s immigrants aren’t coming here to breathe free, they’re coming to live for free” May 2015, ‘Adios, America‘
UPDATE: The interview with Ann is at the link.
Law of Markets 