Was Thomas Jefferson On The Duke Lacrosse Team?

By Ann Coulter
https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2019/07/03/was-thomas-jefferson-on-the-duke-lacrosse-team-n2549523
July 3, 2019


Statue of Thomas Jefferson on the University of Missouri campus

While tearing down everything that's great about our country, the left has always permitted us to celebrate patriotic holidays.

But this year, on the week that we commemorate the unveiling of the Declaration of Independence, Nike yanked a Betsy Ross tribute sneaker off the market because the American flag didn't sit well with Colin Kaepernick.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is telling wild, provable lies about America's border agents.

This Fourth of July, let's look at the tactics used by the left to blacken the reputations of American heroes. To wit, the lie that the principal author of the declaration, Thomas Jefferson, fathered a child with his slave, Sally Hemings.

The charge was first leveled in 1802 by a muckraking, racist, alcoholic journalist, James Callender, who had served prison time for his particular brand of journalism. He had tried to blackmail Jefferson into appointing him postmaster at Richmond. When that failed, Callender retaliated by publicly accusing Jefferson of fathering the first-born son of Sally Hemings -- or, as the charming Callender described her, "a slut as common as the pavement."

No serious historian ever believed Callender's defamation -- not Dumas Malone, Merrill Peterson, Douglass Adair or John Chester Miller. Not one. Their reasoning was that there was absolutely no evidence to support the theory and plenty to contradict it.

The Jefferson-Hemings myth was revived by feminists trying to elevate the role of women in history. Modern pedagogy requires that no period of our past be taught without turning it into a lecture on racism, sexism or homophobia.

Fawn M. Brodie got the ball rolling with her 1974 book, "Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History," which used Freudian analysis to prove Jefferson kept Hemings as his concubine and fathered all six of her children.

Brodie's book was followed by Barbara Chase-Riboud's 1979 novel "Sally Hemings," a work that imagines Hemings' interior life. When CBS announced plans to make a miniseries out of the novel, Jefferson scholars exploded, denouncing the project as a preposterous lie. The miniseries was canceled.

Finally, a female law professor, Annette Gordon-Reed, wrote "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy," which accused professional historians of racism for refusing to defer to the "oral history" of Hemings' descendants.

She said "racism," so the historians shut up.

In 1998, a retired pathologist, Dr. Eugene Foster, performed a DNA test on the Y-chromosomes of living male descendants of Sally Hemings, as well as those from Jefferson's paternal uncle. The Y-chromosome is passed from male to male, so, if the story were true, Hemings' male descendants ought to have the Y-chromosome of the Jefferson male bloodline.

What the DNA tests showed was that Hemings' firstborn son, Tom -- the Tom whose alleged paternity was the basis for Callender's accusation -- was not related to any Jefferson male.

Foster's study did establish that Hemings' last-born son, Eston, was the son of some Jefferson male, but could not possibly say whether that was Thomas Jefferson or any of the other 25 adult male Jeffersons living in Virginia at the time, eight of them at or near Monticello.

For Eston to be Jefferson's son, we have to believe that five years after being falsely accused of fathering a child with Hemings, Jefferson decided, What the heck? I may be president of the United States, but I should prove Callender's slander true by fathering a child with my slave!

It would be as if five years after the Duke lacrosse hoax, one of the falsely accused players went out and actually raped a stripper -- in fact, the same stripper.

Nonetheless, Nature magazine titled its article on the study "Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child." Hundreds of newspapers rushed to print with the lie, e.g.:

"Study: Jefferson, Slave Had Baby" -- Associated Press Online, Nov. 1, 1998

"DNA Study Shows Jefferson Fathered His Slave's Child" -- Los Angeles Times, Nov. 1, 1998"

Jefferson Exposed" -- Boston Globe, Nov. 3, 1998

Two months after these false "findings" had been broadcast from every news outlet where English is spoken, Foster admitted that the DNA had not proved Jefferson fathered any children by Sally Hemings, merely that he could have fathered one child. Only eight newspapers mentioned the retraction.

The science alone puts the odds of Thomas Jefferson fathering Eston at less than 15% -- less than 4%, if all living Jefferson males are considered, not just the ones at Monticello.

All other known facts about Jefferson make it far less probable still.

There are no letters, diaries or records supporting the idea that Jefferson was intimate with Hemings, and quite a bit of written documentation to refute it, including Jefferson's views on miscegenation and his failure to free Hemings in his will, despite freeing several other slaves.

In private letters, Jefferson denounced Callender's claim -- a denial made more credible by his admission to a sexual indiscretion that would have been more shameful at the time: his youthful seduction of a friend's wife.

None of the private correspondence from anyone else living at Monticello credited the Hemings rumor, though several pointed to other likely suspects -- specifically Jefferson's brother, Randolph.

Eston was born in 1808, when Thomas Jefferson was 64 years old and in his second term as president. His brother Randolph was 52, and Randolph's five sons were 17 to 24 years old. All of them were frequent visitors at Monticello.

While Jefferson was busy entertaining international visitors in the main house, Randolph would generally retire to the slave quarters to dance and fiddle. One slave, Isaac Granger Jefferson, described Randolph in his dictated memoirs thus: "Old Master's brother, Mass Randall, was a mighty simple man: used to come out among black people, play the fiddle and dance half the night."

There is not a single account of Thomas Jefferson frequenting slave quarters. Nor did Jefferson take any interest in Hemings' children. Randolph did, teaching all of Hemings' sons to play the fiddle.

Randolph was an unmarried widower when Eston was conceived. After Randolph remarried, Hemings had no more children.

In response to DNA proof that only one of Hemings' children was related to any Jefferson male -- and her firstborn son was definitely NOT fathered by any Jefferson -- the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the Monticello Association and the National Genealogical Society promptly announced their official positions: Thomas Jefferson fathered all six of Hemings' children! Guided tours of Monticello today include the provably false information that Jefferson fathered all of Hemings' children.

So now you, at least, know the truth -- not that it matters in the slightest. Happy Fourth of July!

Ann Coulter's Latest Book Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind is available on Amazon

Take It Easy, Ann, and Train Your Fire Elsewhere

By Ed Morrow
https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/17/take-it-easy-ann-and-train-your-fire-elsewhere/
March 17, 2019

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

You know we like you, Ann. We’ve liked you for years. We’ve bought your books by the boxcar. We like the way you say stuff to TV cameras that other conservatives wouldn’t whisper into their pillows at 3 a.m. We like the way you make hostile crowds laugh while looking sideways at each other to check if it’s OK. We aren’t so sure about you getting chummy with Bill Maher—he’s just using you and doesn’t really like you like we do.

But liking you aside, we regret to say, you are, as President Trump says, “wacky.” We’ll hold off on the “nut job” part.

You have always been a loose cannon, routinely firing off remarks that your fans have had to explain as innocuous to the perpetually offended. You were just tweaking them, we insist, and they were trying to turn a tweak into a deadly insult for which they could demand an effusive apology followed by your exile from polite society.

Often, it was an enjoyable kerfuffle, for you are a funny member of the punditry. But sometimes defending your more provocative remarks was tiresome. Why make us fight peculiar, unnecessary battles of no strategic value? We dutifully did, wondering, a little bit, if maybe you might be just stirring up a fight to get the world to watch you wave your banner high above a tumultuous scuffle that you pointlessly provoked. You aren’t shy, and we like that, but conservatives are conservatives because they believe in Americanism, not Coulterism.

This brings us to what you’ve been up to recently.

We, too, are disappointed that President Trump hasn’t built a nice, tall wall along our southern border, one that a curious giraffe might strain to peer over but not illegals, not even if two or three stood upon each other’s shoulders. We, too, think that open borders will destroy the America we love and that millions of illegal immigrants love to immigrate  into illegally. But we don’t think Trump is, as you declare, a “con man,” an “idiot,” a “liar,” “lazy,” “incompetent,” and so on.

When you describe him as such, you aren’t adding an inch to that wall. You are making it easier for his opponents to stop him from building it. They’re delightfully using your words to mock Trump and you.They think the Twitter spat you started with the president is hilarious. Of course, Trump is at fault, too. He shouldn’t let you bait him into responding to your taunts, but it is in his nature, as we all know, to snap back when he is criticized.

Trump may be president, but millions of people voted for someone else. All of Hollywood and all the news chatterers hate his every atom. Three-quarters or more of the world believes what they’ve heard about him and hate him, too. Most of the leaders of his own party want him to go away so they can roll over and get their bellies scratched by those they claim to oppose. You should be a little charitable. You’ve made a career out of getting people angry with you. Trump is a relative newbie at it, and look at how he’s leapt far past your efforts. Shouldn’t that get a little respect from you?

You say Trump should have done more for the wall before the midterms, when Republicans had both the House and the Senate and he held the presidential pen, but his position wasn’t as strong as you seem to think. There was absolute opposition from the Democrats and just tepid support from Republicans. He chose to work on the economy first, knowing that a bad economy would produce midterm results that would worsen the situation. A good economy didn’t give him the electoral results he hoped for, but did forestall a blue tidal wave that surely would have strengthened the impeachment effort.

You may remember that before Trump had even sat down in the Oval Office the Democrats had set up the Russian collusion hoax and the deep state was humming away, scheming their feverish dreams of presidential perp walks accompanied by the sounding of sanctimonious horns of outrage by the media. Trump forced from office would have meant open borders for the remaining years of a crippled Pence presidency then borders opened wider under a Democratic president ushered in like Jimmy Carter to cleanse a supposedly disgraced White House.

Imagine a Carter with our new socialist kiddies in Congress handing him idiocies to sign. Trump’s emphasis on the economy prevented that, at least for now.

The government shutdown was a Hail Mary that failed. It’s easy to say Trump should have held out, but the Democrats made it clear they would be delighted to see the economy tank while the media blamed Trump and the Republicans. It would be “happy days are here again,” with Trump as Hoover and whatever Democrat next nominated as FDR reborn. A couple more weeks of media bleating about federal workers facing foreclosure and rummaging through dumpsters for food would have pushed skittish Republicans into open rebellion. Trump had to cave. Declaring a national emergency to build the wall was his fail-safe.

What we need from you, Ann, isn’t recriminations about what might have been. The question for conservative punditry is where to direct attention now. Twelve Republican senators voted to block Trump’s emergency declaration. Which of them do you consider idiots, con men, liars, and incompetents? I suggest Mitt Romney checks off a lot of those boxes and you could add a few more unpleasant characteristics. He says he’s against open borders but cringes at the word “wall.” He prefers “barrier.” I suspect the Democrats could get him to accept a speed bump somewhere between Las Vegas and the Utah border at some rest area on I-25.

The Despicable Dozen need to be chased out of the weeds and run up to the top of the nearest bare-branched tree to be exposed so their constituents can know them for what kind of critters they are. You are a clever writer. Write them up nice and proper, and do it quick.

And how about Democrats from conservative constituencies? Maybe you could spook a few of them into remembering that Americans don’t like illegal immigration. Go after the leaders of the opposition, and it will stiffen the spines of the wall builders.

We need the border wall to preserve America as a great nation, but it isn’t all we need. As illegal immigration is reduced from the south it will increase elsewhere and there are other foreign and domestic threats to America.

Conservatives got lucky in 2016. The electorate recognized Trump as the better alternative to the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua. It may be different in 2020. The Democrats might pick a less odious candidate. If they successfully block the wall and disappointed wall supporters blame Trump, he might lose their votes. This could cost him the election and that means no wall at all. And no conservative response to those other foreign and domestic threats.

So, Ann, please lay off Trump. There are other targets better deserving your fire. We don’t need you going all wacky and doing a Rosie O’Donnell impression. One of her is one more than enough.

WHITE SUPREMACISTS ATE MY HOMEWORK

By Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-01-16.html#read_more
January 16, 2019


Gillette's "We Believe" ad focuses on "Toxic Masculinity"

By finally returning to the issue that won him the election, President Trump once again has a winning hand. That's why we're hearing so much about "white supremacy" this week. 

Liberals lie all the time, but when they know they're vulnerable they lie even more than all the time. They're vulnerable on immigration. Even heroic, nonstop lying doesn't help -- as CNN has discovered. 

So, naturally, the media have turned to their larger project of relentlessly trying to discredit conservatives as "white supremacists." 

Unfortunately for them, apart from a few crackpots -- whom I assume exist in a country of 320 million people -- there are no "white supremacists." There were white supremacists 50 years ago, and they were all Democrats. (See my book Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama.) 

Today, "white supremacy" is nothing but a comfortable fantasy the left developed to explain its sick preoccupation with white people.

Talk about a manufactured crisis! The same people who love to snicker about Fox News viewers worrying about Sharia law sweeping the country are convinced that mythical "white supremacists" are hiding under every bed. 

The whole concept is bogus. In my life, I've encountered a number of white people -- some of them are my best friends. I've never heard any of them suggest that whites should rule over other races. None of them has argued that a substandard white person should get a job over a more competent person just because he's white -- you know, what every other group openly advocates for itself. 

There is a whole swath of journalists who have decided that instead of investigating relevant news, they will spend their time doing oppo-research on prominent conservatives, hoping against hope to call them "racists." 

If the facts don't fit, they'll make them up. The New York Times' Maureen Dowd once famously imagined a Republican congressman calling Obama "boy." 

This week, Newsweek's Nina Burleigh ("I'd be happy to give (Bill Clinton) a b---job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal") casually asked to interview me about "white identity politics." 

I have nothing to do with "white identity politics." I don't know anyone who knows anyone who even knows what that means. (Nor do I know anyone who's seen a copy of Newsweek in at least a decade.) 

When will we get around to talking about the media's actual hatred of whites? 

Last year, The New York Times hired Sarah Jeong, a Korean journalist who has posted such venomous anti-white tweets as: 

"White men are bullshit." 

"(F)uck white women lol." 

"White people have stopped breeding. (Y)ou'll all go extinct soon. (T)hat was my plan all along." 

"Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants." 

"#CancelWhitePeople." 

"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" 

"(O)h man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men." 

There's no question but that such racist attacks would never be tolerated toward any other group. Jeong never apologized and happily took her seat on the Times' editorial board. 

Our cultural institutions regard the statement "It's okay to be white" as hate speech. Colleges instigate investigations whenever signs with that phrase appear on campus. Second-graders in this country are being indoctrinated into "white privilege" ideology. 

Eventually people get tired of the left's fixation on "white people" -– the gratuitous dumping on Western civilization, the incessant sneering about "old white men," and the nonsense about "white privilege," as if every white person knows every other white person and is greased into jobs and promotions. 

But if you ever respond to the hate by noting that the contributions from the parts of the world loathed by The New York Times dwarf the contributions of other cultures, they threaten you. 

Any references to white male accomplishments are merely defensive. 

Consider the current Gillette ad, "We Believe: The Best Men Can Be" (after the board of directors rejected the more accurate title, "ANNOUNCEMENT TO SHAREHOLDERS: WE'RE FOLDING THE COMPANY"). The ad shows only white men harassing women -- and being corrected by minority men. 

As long as they brought it up, every culture in the universe is galaxies more misogynistic than Western European culture. The ad should have been titled, Hey, white America, you've got to stop doing the things that everyone BUT you does. 

When other groups talk about themselves, they instantly go to: We rock, we're awesome! Only the descendants of white Western Europeans are not allowed to be proud of their culture. 

There is still casual racism, and that should be quickly and severely condemned. Iowa Rep. Steve King, for example, was fanatically obsessed with vindicating a white defendant accused of, first, murdering a half-Pakistani woman, and, second, falsely accusing a Congolese man of the murder. 

Except King never did that. Newsweek's Burleigh did, writing an entire book in defense of alabaster-white Amanda Knox, after she was convicted of the brutal murder of her half-Pakistani roommate -- later overturned -- and also convicted of falsely accusing an innocent Congolese man of the crime, for which she served four years. 

Liberals could never, in a million years, survive the standards of "racism" applied to conservatives. 

Even famed defense attorney Alan Dershowitz said that the only reason journalists defended "Foxy Knoxy" was that "she's pretty and she doesn't look like she did it and Americans care about what people look like. She's the all-American young woman and we don't care about the evidence." 

If you want to know about white supremacy, Nina, interview yourself. After that, maybe you can learn your maid's name. 

I'm getting back to the subject you desperately don't want to discuss: How uncontrolled low-skilled immigration is slaughtering our working class -- white, black and brown. 

MEDIA THROW EVERYTHING AT THE WALL TO SEE WHAT STICKS

By Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/
January 9, 2019



Now that Trump has finally turned to the campaign promise that won him the election -- build a wall and deport illegals -- the Democrats, the media and even most Republicans are hysterical. 

Just remember: They were hysterical about Ronald Reagan, too. You don't change history by being a follower, particularly if the people you're following are unimaginative, go-with-the-flow company men. 

When President Reagan implemented the strategy that won the Cold War, he was opposed by the entire media, as well as foreign policy "experts" in both parties. 

The New York Times and Washington Post produced nonstop denunciations of his "dangerous" policies. There were propaganda movies like "The Day After," terrifying Americans about a Soviet strike on our country. Witless college students demanded cyanide pills be stocked in campus health care clinics, on the grounds that Reagan was going to get us all nuked. 

Only after Reagan's policies succeeded did these same hysterics say, Ho hum, no big deal. We always knew the Soviet Union was a paper tiger. 

Frantically rewriting history, they claimed Reagan had merely continued the policies of his predecessors. The truth about their eight-year primal scream is helpfully assembled in my smash best-seller, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. 

The Democrats, the media and most of the Republican Party are as fanatically opposed to Trump's ideas about illegal immigration as they were to Reagan's ideas about winning the Cold War.

Like Reagan, Trump has only the people on his side. Unlike Reagan, he doesn't seem as confident that he is right. 

So the people need to be louder. 

All we're getting from the media on immigration is an avalanche of lies, neurotically repeated by people citing one another: 

Polls show Americans don't want a wall!

We're a nation of immigrants!

Immigrants commit less crime than the native born!

Studies show: Black Americans are NOT hurt by illegal immigration. 

Every one of these claims is a lie, as demonstrated in my book Adios, America. (Also a smash best-seller.) 

People assume a minimal standard of decency in others and think to themselves, Well, Joe Scarborough wouldn't say that if it weren't true. 

What viewers don't understand is how lazy media personalities are. They are merely quoting what someone told them. They don't know. Their expertise consists of memorizing a set of talking points, like ABBA memorizing the syllables to English words without knowing what they meant. 

If journalists allowed follow-up questions and you could ask, "How do you know that?" The answer would be, "I heard it from a guy at Vox." 

The media go to extremely biased sources; they know nothing, so they're not in a position to challenge them; and even if they were, they wouldn't, because they're on the same team. 

After a New York Times reporter tracked me down for a quote about the wall, I gave him the following, but he chose not to run it. Why should the Newspaper of Record present the opposition's side honestly? 

There are a million reasons we want a wall, but here are five:

1) The Simpson-Mazzoli Act -- passed almost 30 years ago to the day Trump was elected president -- came with elaborate promises that it would put an end to illegal immigration. In fact, 30 to 40 million more illegals have poured into our country since then.

2) Notwithstanding the vast number of illegal alien valedictorians, there are also criminals, drunk drivers, drug cartel members and desperately poor people consuming government services meant for the least among us and driving down the wages of our working class.

3) We need a better method.

4) Walls work. See Israel.

5) If we don't get it done now, we never will. Trump is our last chance. 

But instead of explaining to the Times' readers why Trump's promise to build a wall shook the political world to its foundation, the newspaper trotted out campaign adviser Sam Nunberg's boast that he invented "build the wall" because Trump's mind tends to wander. It was only a dumb talking point, you see, not a serious campaign pledge. 

This is like claiming you were the guy who invented carrying an umbrella when it rains. I'm sorry, Sam, but you're not getting royalties for that. 

Building a wall is kind of an obvious idea for protecting a border. Not only have walls been used from time immemorial to defend borders, but those precise three words have been used to describe what should happen at our specific border thousands of times before Trump used them, according to a quick Nexis search. 

The current DNC talking point against a wall is that it is a "medieval solution to a 21st-century problem!" Turn on MSNBC or CNN right now, and you'll hear someone saying it. 

So are wheels. Are Democrats taking tires off their cars? 

A roof is a medieval solution. How about Nancy Pelosi replace the one over her house with "new technology" -- like a drone! Drones won't keep anything out, but at least she can see what's coming in seconds before it drops on her head. 

Medievalism: 1; Pelosi: 0. 

BUSH'S FINEST 30 SECONDS: THE WILLIE HORTON AD

By Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/
December 4, 2018



The press in America is even worse than we imagine. We sense that they're biased and stunningly incompetent. They are those things, but so much more. Our media's version of the news is mathematically and precisely the opposite of the truth. 

The death and burial of George H.W. Bush is only the latest example. 

In the puffery and revisionism that accompany funerals, the man who gave us David Souter, an unnecessary war, tax hikes he promised not to impose and the Americans With Disabilities Act (aka The Destruction of Small Libraries Throughout New England Act) has been elevated to saintlike status. 

But the one incident the media decided to excoriate Bush for was, in fact, his finest moment: the Willie Horton ad. 

If we let the media get away with this, they will have once again redefined what constitutes acceptable discourse in America and cemented the notion that our political process should never be soiled by such a campaign ad -- the one thing Bush got right in his entire public career.

Far from representing the "low road," the Willie Horton ad was the greatest campaign commercial in political history. The ad was the reason we have political campaigns: It clearly and forcefully highlighted the two presidential candidates' diametrically opposed views on an issue of vital national importance. 

Bush's opponent, Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, had championed a self-evidently insane criminal justice program that provided prison furloughs to first-degree murderers. 

One of the murderers let out under Dukakis' program was a career violent criminal, Willie Horton. In 1974, Horton sliced up a 17-year-old convenience store clerk, Joey Fournier, in Lawrence, Massachusetts, after Fournier had already handed over all the money. He then stuffed the boy's corpse in a garbage can. That wasn't Horton's first offense: Years earlier, he'd been convicted of attempted murder for stabbing a man in South Carolina.

No sane person would have allowed Horton to take a breath of free air again. 

Horton was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, which was the maximum possible penalty, inasmuch as Gov. Dukakis had vetoed the death penalty. The whole idea of sentencing first-degree murderers to life without parole is that they are never supposed to be let out of prison. But under the weekend furlough program lustily promoted by Dukakis, Horton was released. 

On April 3, 1987, months after running away from his most recent furlough, Horton broke into the Maryland home of Cliff Barnes and his fiancee, Angela Miller, and waited for them to return. When Barnes got home, Horton lunged at him, dragged him to the basement, tied him up, and spent hours torturing him, slashing him and jamming a pistol butt in his mouth and eyes. He told Barnes he planned to hang him and watch him die. 

Five hours later, Barnes' fiancee came home. Horton left Barnes bound and gagged in the basement, went upstairs and repeatedly raped and beat Miller, as Barnes listened helplessly from the basement. 

Twelve hours after he had first encountered Horton, Barnes managed to escape. When Horton realized Barnes was gone, he stole the couple's car and led police on a high-speed chase before finally being captured -- again. 

The Maryland judge who sentenced Horton refused to send him back to Massachusetts, saying: "I'm not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released." 



The following year, Michael Dukakis offered himself up to be president of the United States. 

Dukakis was directly responsible for Horton's release -- as well as the release of hundreds of other murderers, many of whom went on to commit similarly heinous crimes. Even Dukakis' own Democratic legislature in liberal Massachusetts had tried to reverse a state Supreme Court decision granting furloughs to first-degree murderers. 

But the Greek homunculus vetoed the bill. 

When Horton's survivors Barnes and Miller tried to meet with Dukakis after their ordeal to ask him to rescind the furlough policy, he refused to see them, arrogantly announcing, "I don't see any particular value in meeting with people." This marked the first time the media supported a politician's refusal to meet with victims of one of his policies. 

What could be more central to a presidential campaign than an ad highlighting how Bush would handle criminal justice issues versus how the elected governor of Massachusetts was at that moment handling them? 

Liberals' response was to accuse Republicans of racism because Horton was black, knowing full well that the GOP would have given everything it owned for him to have been white. But it was too important an issue to ignore just because the poster-boy for Dukakis' insane crime policies happened to be black. 

Bush's ad was so "racist" it never even showed Horton's picture. Instead, white male actors were shown passing through the "revolving door" of criminal justice. 

(An independent group unconnected to the Bush campaign produced an ad seen by 16 people showing Horton -- appalling the press by using his mug shot, rather than his First Communion photo as prescribed by The New York Times' standards and ethics policy for black criminals.) 

Liberals smugly cite Bush campaign manager Lee Atwater's deathbed apology for the Horton ad. Yes, he hoped for a nice obituary and didn't want his kids teased at school, so he said whatever his captors wanted him to say. (By the way, it didn't work.) 

Just like Atwater, the reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize for her articles on Horton disavowed her own reporting, after going through the media's re-education camp. 

You don't have the right to "apologize" for something you did that's not factually incorrect. 

The Horton ad was the highest, best form of political campaigning, serving to illustrate stark differences between the candidates on an important policy issue. People should have won awards for that ad. Instead, it became one of the stops on the left's Via Dolorosa of Racism. Idiot Republicans are ashamed of it, thinking the best response is to say: Al Gore brought up Horton first! 

Yammering morons don't have any argument against the ad, other than feigned outrage. You're seriously defending the Willie Horton ad?! 

Yes I am! It demonstrated that Michael Dukakis should have never been anywhere near a position of power, least of all, the presidency. What's your argument against it? 

GOP NEEDS UPDATE TO DEMS’ UFC CAGE MATCH RULES

By Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/
October 10, 2018



It's time to update the GOP's Marquess of Queensbury Rules. 

If you saw Ruth Bader Ginsburg at Brett Kavanaugh's swearing-in ceremony, you know that we may need to fill her seat in about 4 1/2 minutes. Naturally, I hope she lives to be 300 -- although parenthetically, it seems she already has. 

The confirmation hearings for Kavanaugh made Robert Bork's hearings look like a day at the beach. At least liberals only lied about Bork's judicial philosophy. They didn't accuse him of being Ted Bundy. The next nomination hearing will make Kavanaugh's look like an ice cream social. 

Just because it didn't work this time doesn't mean Republicans' work is done. They have to make sure this never happens again. 

Democrats are already pushing the idea that Kavanaugh's confirmation was somehow illegitimate because of the shoddy FBI investigation. Liberals' beef is that the FBI neglected to interview Kavanaugh's former Yale classmates, who dispute his characterization of precisely how big a drinker he was in college. 

I wouldn't say he was a belligerent drunk, but more of an obstreperous drunk.

No, no! I would say he was a mild drunk with periods of obstreperousness. 

This is not the stuff of perjury prosecutions. 

Of course, if true, it's HUGE. Kavanaugh's demeanor when drunk in college sounds nearly as awful as liberals' behavior when sober -- obnoxious, aggressive and argumentative. I refer you to the recent antics we've seen on Capitol Hill, as well as anywhere Ted Cruz stops in for a bite. 

Since none of the FBI's latest report on Kavanaugh has leaked, the one thing we can be sure of is that the agents turned up nothing unfavorable on him. Except for a colonoscopy, I think we're done with Kavanaugh. 

It's the accusers who have skirted investigation. Even Republicans have moved on. He's on the court, so who cares if Kavanaugh was falsely accused of "rape" in front of his little girls?

That's what everyone thought when the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players were proved innocent and the D.A. was disbarred. Why go after the accuser? Hasn't she suffered enough? 

Crystal Mangum was not prosecuted for falsely charging she was gang-raped. And see? No harm, no foul! She went on to live a happy and productive -- oh, wait! The next time we heard about Mangum was when she stabbed her boyfriend to death. 

On reflection, it certainly seems possible that Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick was not being completely, 100 percent honest in her sworn statements about repeatedly attending high school parties in the 1980s, when she was a college student, where underage girls were drugged and gang-raped. 

Deborah Ramirez's three-decade-old, unsubstantiated, recovered memory of a drunken Kavanaugh exposing himself as a college freshman is the sort of charge that makes feminists laugh! (I know that from reading Gloria Steinem's explanation in The New York Times that Gov. Bill Clinton summoning a female underling to his hotel room, dropping his pants and saying, "Kiss it!" did not rise to the level of sexual harassment. He took "no" for an answer!) 

Perhaps Republicans could get Steinem to explain under oath why it's acceptable for a sitting governor to do what is disqualifying for a drunk college freshman to do. 

While no one would question the word of a living saint like Christine Blasey Ford, some parts of her testimony demand the clarity that can be obtained only in a formal legal proceeding -- such as her trauma-induced need for two front doors (when the second front door seems clearly attached to a rental apartment); her fear of flying (but only when it will delay a confirmation hearing); and her claim that she never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph (contradicted by her ex-live-in boyfriend); among other things. 

Pretending they are the wronged ones, liberals keep yipping about Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. They believe any attack on Kavanaugh was justified after the dirty trick pulled by Republicans on Garland. 

The Republicans' refusal to hold hearings on Garland has been called an "unprecedented obstruction" (MSNBC's Chris Hayes), a "violation of traditions in norms" (Hayes again), an "insult and injury" (Sen. Cory Booker) and "remarkable and unprecedented" (MSNBC's Rachel Maddow). The GOP's treatment of Garland showed their "hypocrisy on Brett Kavanaugh" (MSNBC's Ari Melber). 

The truth is apparently a big secret, inasmuch as even Republicans aren't saying it. You'll read it here for the first time. 

The Republicans' wily, underhanded, double-dealing trick with Garland was this: Win a majority of seats in the U.S. Senate! I know liberals won't read the Constitution, but can they do math? Garland didn't have the votes. 

Republicans had 54 seats and, in 2016, Senate rules still required 60 votes for Supreme Court appointments. Democrats would have needed 14 Republican senators to switch sides to confirm a Democratic president's nominee. 

There was no way that was happening. A Republican Senate simply wasn't going to give "consent" to any Democratic nominee eight months before a presidential election -- even an election that everyone thought Hillary was going to win. The Constitution says "advice and consent," not "advice and rubber-stamp." 

There was nothing "unprecedented" about a Republican Senate rejecting a Democratic nominee -- other than the fact that Republicans were the ones doing it. Democrats do it all the time. 

That's how we got Justice Anthony Kennedy -- whom Kavanaugh replaced: A Democratic Senate rejected Reagan nominee Robert Bork. That's also how we got Harry Blackmun, author of the ridiculously lawless Roe v. Wade: A Democratic Senate rejected Richard Nixon's previous nominees Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell. 

It would have been a waste of time and only humiliated Garland to hold hearings. At least Republicans didn't accuse him of gang rape.

Whatever it Takes

By Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/
October 3, 2018



The Democrats' current position on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is: We cannot have someone addicted to beer on our highest court! What if a foreign power were to ply him with this nectar in a can? Talk about taking control of our government! Suppose they throw in a case of Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbier? 

A bitter college roommate is going whole hog, wailing, He lied about being a beeraholic. 

By the media's account, Kavanaugh was a bounder, a brawler and a drunk. And yet he still managed to graduate at the top of his class, go to Yale, then to Yale Law and work in the highest positions in government. 

I am in awe of his manliness. Hemingway has nothing on this guy! He should be our president. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln after being told Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk, let's find out what Kavanaugh drank and send a barrel of it to every college student. 

At least the Democrats seem to have moved on from the Crazy Ladies Who Must Be Believed. 

Kavanaugh's first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, doesn't remember the time or place of the alleged high school groping, and all four witnesses she named deny any memory of such a party. 

Forcing our first one-week delay, we were told that the poor lady was so traumatized by being groped in high school that she couldn't fly. It was the worst thing that ever happened to her, compelling her to do what any reasonable person would under the circumstances: Add a second front door to her house. 

She was supposedly terrified of small spaces, and an airplane, one of her friends told CNN, "was the ultimate closed space where you cannot get away." 

Then we found out that Ford regularly jets off to Hawaii, Costa Rica, the South Pacific islands and French Polynesia ... to go surfing, one of the most terrifying activities around. 

It sounded like a joke. I was so shattered and broken, I could only go rock climbing in the Grand Tetons. After that, I'd repair to my room and curl up in a fetal position. Then I'd go rock climbing again.

An ex-boyfriend has come forward to say that in six years of dating Ford, she never mentioned a sexual assault, had no fear of flying, lived comfortably in a tiny home with only one front door, once coached a friend on how to take a polygraph, contrary to her sworn testimony -- and also lied about stealing $600 from him. 

Kavanaugh's second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, jumped in to help, dusting off a memory of the nominee pulling a Bill Clinton on her as a freshman in college -- but only after she spent a week huddled with her attorney, "assessing her memories" and calling classmates to ask if they thought it was true. 

And did she have corroboration? She doesn't need any! She's a "survivor." Even The New York Times -- the newspaper that believed the Duke lacrosse rape case until about five minutes before the prosecutor was disbarred -- said Ramirez didn't have enough evidence to meet its standards. 

His third accuser, our heroine Julie Swetnik, is the woman produced by porn lawyer Michael Avenatti. She claims that she repeatedly attended gang rape parties in the 1980s -- and she saw Brett Kavanaugh there! 

An ex-boyfriend says Swetnik once threatened to kill him and his unborn child; she had a restraining order taken out against her; was sued by an employer for engaging in "sexually offensive conduct," making "false and retaliatory allegations" against co-workers and also lying about her educational background and work history. 

A Democrat and Emmy-winning meteorologist wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee stating that, soon after he met Swetnik in the 1990s, she proposed group sex to him. Some years later, her own father told him to stay away, citing Swetnik's psychological problems. 

She is now the Democrats' leading contender for 2020. 

Poor Kate Snow of NBC News thought she had landed the interview of a lifetime when she sat down with Swetnik. Within about three questions, it became clear that she was talking to a lunatic. At that point, most of Snow's energy went into hoping for a building-wide power failure to shut down the cameras. 

Of the four witnesses Swetnik provided to NBC, whom she claimed would confirm her story, one denied knowing any Julie Swetnik, one was dead, and two did not respond to the network, perhaps wishing they were dead too. 

By the end of the interview, Snow's purse was missing. 

But the Democrats are energetic devils. They've been poring over Kavanaugh's high school yearbook and exclaiming, He's a beeraholic! 

With grim passion, they say, how dare you laugh at this? If he were a teetotaler, they'd say, We can't have someone on the court who's so nerdy. How can this weird aesthete sympathize with murderers and insider traders? 

They've already won a second week's delay by having two deranged women scream at Sen. Jeff Flake in an elevator. 

After wetting himself, Flake insisted on a seventh FBI investigation. For weeks, the Democrats have been demanding an investigation -- of an incident without witnesses, on a date unknown at a place unknown -- by saying, Oh, you big babies, the FBI investigation of Anita Hill only took three days! 

The FBI wrapped up its investigation of Kavanaugh in a few days and then sat around wondering how long it had to wait before producing the report. So now the "it will only take three days" crowd is saying, Keep investigating! We don't know how long the probe should be, but the minimum standards of decency require that it last at least until there's a new president. 

Whatever they find, they will argue in the alternative and just keep doing it and doing it. If Kavanaugh stepped on a bug, PETA activists would be screaming at Flake in an elevator. 

The Democrats have a pair of twos, but they expect Republicans to fold. Why? Because that's what Republicans always do! 

Unfortunately, this time, Kavanaugh's supporters are not accepting surrender. 

Coulter's Latest Book Hits the Trump-Hating Left

By Richard Kirk
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/coulters_latest_book_hits_the_trumphating_left.html
August 27, 2018

Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind, by Ann Coulter, Sentinel, New York, August 21, 2018 (288 pages, $25.00, Hardcover) 

You want evidence of Justice Department and media corruption?  Coulter's got the goods – in spades – and served with her signature rapier wit.  Resistance Is Futile doesn't simply rehash talking points about Hillary's serial lawbreaking, Mueller's partisan probe, or Deep State subversion of an opposition president, though all those matters are treated with lawyerly and comedic deftness.  (Think My Cousin Vinny.)  First and foremost, Coulter's book is about collusion – the democracy-demolishing collusion between Democrats and the mainstream media that has existed for decades but that a white-hot hatred for the "vulgarian" Trump has made unmistakably clear to most Americans.  On the bright side, this exposure is actually destroying journalism, which the author says must perish and be rebuilt on an ethical foundation for democracy to survive.  Coulter provides a veritable avalanche of media inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and lost-their-mind absurdities to support her conclusion. 

For example, Democrats and their media lackeys who only yesterday decried federal surveillance of possible terrorists, and who nearly defrocked John Brennan for lying to Sen. Dianne Feinstein about the CIA's enhanced spying activity, now view that same man as a paragon of rectitude.  Indeed, they regularly denounce as unpatriotic anyone who questions the validity of warrants obtained from a secret court to spy on Americans associated with the Trump campaign – even during the campaign!  The same coterie of co-conspirators who were eager to vindicate Alger Hiss and praise cooperation with the Soviet Union now portray Putin's Russia as the gravest threat to America since 9-11 or Pearl Harbor.  According to these partisans, Putin must be publicly vilified and his country harshly punished for interfering with an American election via a few thousand Facebook ads – many supporting Trump, some supporting Bernie, others touting Ted Cruz, Jill Stein, Black Lives Matter, United Muslims of America, and even Hillary.

This breakdown comes from Muller's own indictment of the 13 villainous Russians he is clearly not anxious to see in court, having backed away from an expedited trial when one of the Russian ham sandwiches actually sent a legal team to the U.S. to have the charges against him adjudicated.  One possibly exculpatory element of that defense would be the fact that most of the Facebook ads were placed after the election and even jumped on the Resistance bandwagon.  Mueller, by the way, has the distinction of being FBI director during two of the bureau's most famous screw-ups.  First, Republican Senator Ted Stevens was falsely accused of lying to investigators (sound familiar?) eight days before an election he lost by less than 2 percent.  When the trial judge discovered prosecutors had withheld vital exculpatory evidence, he threw out the case and demanded an investigation of the investigators.

Then there was the anthrax case, where Mueller worked "in lockstep" with his hand-chosen investigator, Richard Palmer.  Together these vigilantes all but destroyed the life of Steven Hatfill, an innocent U.S. Army biodefense researcher whom the FBI hounded relentlessly for six years because he fit the bureau's profile: "a 'flag-waving' patriot."  Even after a federal judge said the investigators hadn't found "a scintilla of evidence" against Hatfill and the government later settled with Hatfill for almost six million dollars, Mueller said, "I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation."  There you have the "honorable" Robert Mueller.

When it comes to immigration, the media's "heads I win, tails you lose" reportage depends on who resides in the White House.  While Obama lived there, federal law and even federal policy that ignored those laws ruled supreme.  That's what CNN's law expert informed us of after Arizona vainly attempted to enforce federal immigration laws in 2010.  But now that Trump's address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it's perfectly okay for blue states to ignore federal immigration law.  Indeed, thanks to a few lower-court rulings cheered by mainstream media pundits, the president is now unable to exercise his "clear constitutional and federal authority" to "exclude immigrants in the best interests of the United States."
NBC's release of the embarrassing 2005 Access Hollywood tape just weeks before the November election provides yet another example of media partisanship.  This electoral kill shot, according to Coulter, "breached all professional norms and probably the law."  By contrast, NBC's current president, Andy Lack, when heading NBC News in 1999, "held the network's interview with Juanita Broaddrick" in which she accused Bill Clinton of rape until after the president's impeachment trial.  In this case, timing says everything you need to know about Lack, NBC, partisanship, and a willingness to place more importance on a braggadocious utterance about consensual groping within a celebrity culture ("They let you do it," Trump added.) than multiple accusations of actual predatory behavior by a Democrat.

Other matters diligently dissected by Coulter include Trump's wildly mischaracterized Charlottesville statement, George Soros's plundering of Russia and manipulation of foreign elections, the false claim that Trump asked Russia to "hack" Hillary's private email server, the media's misreporting about changes to the 2016 GOP platform in order to suggest Russian influence, and an honest comparison of Watergate with the Mueller probe.  Concerning the last, Coulter comments, "Imagine what G. Gordon Liddy could have done working from the inside of the FBI, with FISA warrants and government-paid spies!"


Coulter offers these two summary judgments about the current special prosecutor's investigation:  "[t]he very nature of Mueller's probe is Soviet justice.  He has an open-ended commission to look for any crimes committed by anyone connected to the Trump campaign[.] ... If the Russians were trying to sow discord and undermine confidence in our democracy, then the guy they probably colluded with was Robert Mueller."

Closing arguments directed at the media include the following observations: "[f]ake news means reporting, for example, that Trump colluded with Russia to sway the election when it was the Democratic Party and the FBI that colluded with Russia to sway the election."  Put otherwise, Russia "is accused of doing to the Democrats what the media do to Republicans every election cycle."

Despite her full-throated defense of the president against leftist and media insanity, Resistance Is Futile isn't a Trump hagiography.  Coulter describes the president as "utterly undisciplined" and "the crudest kind of braggart."  In Coulter's estimation, however, these flaws pale when compared with Trump's failure to achieve his primary campaign promise: stopping illegal immigration.  Coulter ends her case with the less than sanguine hope that Trump may yet keep that promise, but also with the consolation that if he accomplishes nothing else, "at least the media will be totally discredited."

In sum, if you seek a detailed eye- and ear-catching review of news stories that have been misreported, distorted, or conveniently ignored due to Trump Derangement Syndrome, Resistance Is Futile is the book for you.

Richard Kirk is a freelance writer living in Southern California whose book Moral Illiteracy: "Who's to Say?" is also available on Kindle.