Archive

Ann Coulter

donald trump make america great

Let me make sure you understand one very very important fact about elections in this country…OK maybe two. #1 In Presidential elections the establishment (aka the 1%, aka the globalists, aka the Illuminati etc. will stop at nothing until they are certain they own both horses in a two horse race  #2 Our Presidential elections are corrupt and fraud is rampant…and it’s not just dead democrats and illegal aliens voting who shouldn’t. With Trump still way out in front and still not controlled by the zio mafia who has taken over our government …expect to see a shit storm of lies, and negative Trump stories everywhere you turn, in every paper you read and on ever news station you watch…They want him out so Hillary can win and sink this country deeper into a hole than we can imagine, or ever get out off. Here is the unvarnished truth about Trump’s elect ability in November …don’t let the media dictate who you get to choose from this year. EP-150629545

IT’S ONLY TRUMP!!

Who can win it!

Ann Coulter

The only question for Republicans is: Which candidate can win states that Mitt Romney lost?

Start with the fact that, before any vote is cast on Election Day, the Democrats have already won between 90 and 98 percent of the black vote and 60 to 75 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. Unless Republicans run the table on the white vote, they lose.

donald-trumps-campaign-says-this-poll-shows-hes-a-front-runner-in-2016
If there’s still hope, it lies with Trump and only Trump. Donald Trump will do better with black and Hispanic voters than any other Republican. But it’s with white voters that he really opens up the electoral map.

A Republican Party that wasn’t intent on committing suicide would know that. But Stuart Stevens, the guy who lost a winnable presidential election in 2012, says it’s impossible for Republicans to get one more white vote — and the media are trying to convince the GOP that he’s right.

donald_trump_2016_poster-r9456cb99b50a42dfb24eb9e9797f3152_kvl_8byvr_324

Stevens says Romney tapped out every last white voter and still lost, so he says Republicans are looking for “the Lost Tribes of the Amazon” hoping to win more white votes: “In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and won a landslide victory of 44 states. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost with 24 states.”

Apparently, no one’s told Stevens about the 50-state Electoral College. The national white vote is irrelevant. Presidential elections are won by winning states. (Only someone who got his ass kicked running an eminently electable candidate might not know this.)

Trump_2016_USA_FLAG_sticker

Excluding third parties and breaking it down to a two-man race, Mitt Romney won 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi, but only 40 percent of the white vote in Massachusetts. What sense does it make to talk about his national percentage of the white vote with disparities like that?

Romney lost the white vote to Obama in five crucial swing states: Maine (42 percent of the white vote), Minnesota (47 percent), New Hampshire (48 percent), Iowa (48 percent) and Wisconsin (49 percent). He only narrowly beat Obama’s white vote in other important swing states — Illinois (51 percent), Colorado (52 percent), Michigan (53 percent), Ohio (54 percent) and Pennsylvania (54 percent).


Increasing the white vote in these states gives Trump any number of paths to victory.  Continue Reading this article at its source (Click)
Advertisements

Immigration Reform

By: Ann Coulter
2/13/2014 01:51 AM

Dear Fellow Conservative,

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.”

14989900902112672049

As the kids say: WTF?

That may be a pleasant-sounding sentiment, but it has absolutely nothing to do with our country’s history. Not the first thing. Did Republicans really think they could pawn off the idea that our forefathers fought and died at Valley Forge so that illegal aliens wouldn’t have to live in the shadows?

Yeah, it was a long shot. We didn’t know you guys had read the Constitution. We’ll be quiet now.

Apart from the fact that protecting children from the mistakes of their parents has not the slightest connection with the nation’s founding, it’s a ridiculous concept.

Yes, children suffer when their parents break the law. Also when their parents get divorced, become alcoholics, don’t read to them at night, feed them junk food and take them to Justin Bieber concerts. None of that is the child’s fault.

But it’s not the country’s fault either.

If we have to excuse lawbreaking so as not to “punish the children,” there’s no end to the crimes that have to be forgiven — insider trading, theft, rape, murder and so on.

How do you think kids feel when their father has to “live in the shadows” because he committed a rape? The kids did nothing wrong, but they have to go to bed every night wondering: Is tomorrow the day Dad is going to be caught?

How do you function like that? And how awful it must be when their dad is sent to prison! How do you think Jack Abramoff’s kids felt? What about Martha Stewart’s kid?

Why not just forgive the crimes of all perpetrators who have kids? At a minimum, shouldn’t we allow criminals to defer their sentences until their kids turn 26 so they can stay on Dad’s health insurance? Or at least until their kids have gone to college? Chris Christie can give them in-state tuition!

“It’s not the kids’ fault” proves too much. People can get away with anything if they’re willing to use their children as trump cards to avoid the force of law.

The once-respected Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., compared illegal aliens brought here as kids to children who steal a grape or scream in a restaurant:

“When children wander into neighborhood yards, we don’t call that trespassing. When children cry and yell and scream at restaurants or on airplanes, we don’t call that a violation of the noise ordinance. When children eat a grape at the grocery store or eat a piece of candy waiting in line before Mom or Dad pays for it, we don’t have them arrested for petty larceny.”

Yes, but in those cases, both the child and his parents had a right to be where they were — the yard, restaurant or grocery store — when the child suddenly behaved like a child. With illegal aliens, the parents are more like gypsies teaching their kids to beg and pick pockets. The parents forced the kids into being lawbreakers.

Similarly, Palestinians use their children to commit acts of terrorism against Israel, so that when Israel responds, the parents can wail, “They’re bombing children!”

(I thought only liberals couldn’t do analogies.)

Americans are under no moral obligation to admit huge numbers of people who have no particular right to be here just because the Democrats need 30 million new voters.

Why shouldn’t Republicans oppose mass immigration on the grounds that immigrants will vote Democratic? The only reason the Democrats want mass immigration is because they know immigrants will vote Democratic. (Also for the cheap nannies and gardeners.)

Immigration is the “single issue” that decides every other issue. If this country were the same demographically today as it was in 1980, Romney would have won a bigger victory in 2012 than Reagan did against Carter. And we wouldn’t have to hear about soccer all the time.

We’re living in a different country now, and I can’t recall moving! Had I wanted to live in Japan, I could have moved there. Had I had wanted to live in Mexico, Pakistan or Chechnya — I could have moved to those places, too.

(Although maybe not. They all have stricter immigration policies than we do.)

CONTINUED AT THE SOURCE….CLICK

liberalsBy: Ann Coulter  
9/18/2013 06:01 PM

There’s been another mass shooting by a crazy person, and liberals still refuse to consider institutionalizing the dangerous mentally ill. The man who shot up the Washington Navy Yard on Monday, Aaron Alexis, heard voices speaking to him through the walls. He thought people were following him. He believed microwave ovens were sending vibrations through his body. There are also reports that Alexis believed the Obamacare exchanges were ready to go.Anyone see any bright red flags of paranoid schizophrenia? (Either that, or Obama’s NSA is way better than we thought!)But Alexis couldn’t be institutionalized because the left has officially certified the mentally ill as “victims,” and once you’re a victim, all that matters is that you not be “stigmatized.”

But here’s the problem: Coddling the mentally ill isn’t even helping the mentally ill. Ask the sisters of crazy homeless woman “Billie Boggs” how grateful they were to the ACLU for keeping Boggs living on the streets of New York City. Ask the parents of Aaron Alexis, James Holmes (Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooter), Jared Loughner (Tucson, Ariz., mall shooter) or Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter) how happy they are that their sons weren’t institutionalized.

Tellingly, throughout the last three decades, the overall homicide rate has been in free fall, thanks to Republican crime policies, from 10 per 100,000 in 1980 to 4 per 100,00 today. (You might even call them “common sense” crime policies.) But the number of mass shootings has skyrocketed from 4 per year, between 1900 and 1970, to 29 per year since then.

Something seems to have gone horribly wrong right around 1970. What could it be? Was it the introduction of bell-bottoms?

That date happens to correlate precisely with when the country began throwing the mentally ill out of institutions in 1969. Your memory of there not being as many mass murders a few decades ago is correct. Your memory of there not being as many homeless people a few decades ago is also correct.

evil_liberals

But liberals won’t allow the dangerous mentally ill to be committed to institutions against their will. (The threat of commitment is very persuasive in getting disturbed individuals to take their medicine.) Something in liberals’ genetic makeup compels them to attack civilization, for example, by defending the right of dangerous psychotics to refuse treatment and then representing them in court after they commit murder.

Liberals won’t even agree to take the most basic steps to prevent psychotics from purchasing guns — yes, GUNS! — because to allow the release of mental health information would be “stigmatizing.” We’re not talking about anorexic girls here. We just need shrinks to tell us if potential gun purchasers are paranoid schizophrenics.

The disastrous consequences of the deinstitutionalization movement is described in E. Fuller Torrey’s book, The Insanity Offense: How America’s Failure to Treat the Seriously Mentally Ill Endangers Its Citizens. Torrey’s book reads like a compendium of America’s most heinous murders since the early ’70s — all of which could have been stopped with involuntary commitment laws, and none of which could have been stopped even with a complete gun ban.

STORY CONTINUES AT IT’S SOURCE

He has taught at the University of Chicago,  Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and at the American Enterprise Institute conservative think tank.

He is currently a Fox News opinion contributor.[1] He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA… The views of no other economist (except possibly the common sense theories of Milton Friedman) cause a liberal to see red and go on the attack more than John Lott’s treatises on guns and gun control.  Ann Coulter tells it like only she can.

You can tell the conservatives liberals fear most because they start being automatically referred to as “discredited.” Ask Sen. Ted Cruz. But no one is called “discredited” by liberals more often than the inestimable economist John Lott, author of the groundbreaking book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.

Lott’s economic analysis of the effect of concealed-carry laws on violent crime is the most thoroughly vetted study in the history of economics, perhaps in the history of the world.

Some nut Dutch professor produces dozens of gag studies purportedly finding that thinking about red meat makes people selfish and that litter leads to racism — and no one bothers to see if he even administered questionnaires before drawing these grand conclusions about humanity.

But Lott’s decades-long studies of concealed-carry laws have been probed, poked and re-examined dozens of times. (Most of all by Lott himself, who has continuously re-run the numbers controlling for thousands of factors.)

Tellingly, Lott immediately makes all his underlying data and computer analyses available to critics — unlike, say, the critics. He has sent his data and work to 120 researchers around the world. By now, there have been 29 peer-reviewed studies of Lott’s work on the effect of concealed-carry laws.

Eighteen confirm Lott’s results, showing a statistically significant reduction in crime after concealed-carry laws are enacted. Ten show no harm, but no significant reduction in crime. Only one peer-reviewed study even purported to show any negative effect: a temporary increase in aggravated assaults. Then it turned out this was based on a flawed analysis by a liberal activist professor: John Donohue, whose name keeps popping up in all fake studies purporting to debunk Lott.

In 1997, a computer crash led to the loss of Lott’s underlying data. Fortunately, he had previously sent this data to his critics — professors Dan Black, Dan Nagin and Jens Ludwig. When Lott asked if they would mind returning it to him to restore his files, they refused. (One former critic, Carlisle Moody, conducted his own analysis of Lott’s data and became a believer. He has since co-authored papers with Lott.) CONTINUED AT THE SOURCE …CLICK

The Car Guyz

Auto Industry Experts Playing for the Other Team ...You!

FOX News

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

The Rush Limbaugh Show

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Breitbart News

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Drudge Retort

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Fathers' Rights Blog

by Jeffery M. Leving

therightwingextremist

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: