The current issue of Newsweek (yes, it’s still in business!) has a picture of President Trump sitting in a recliner, with snacks and an iPad in his lap, pointing his TV remote at the viewer, blazoned with the headline, “Lazy Boy.”
The law on whether NGO ships that ferry thousands of illegal migrants from Libya to Europe via Italy each week are smugglers or rescuers is very murky but the name of their game is without doubt very fishy. So I asked an independent Dutch research institute, Gefira, which has done lots of work on Europe’s migrant crisis, to take a closer look at the activities of the NGO fleet. In 2016, its 20 or so vessels—together with European Union and Italian naval and coastguard ships—“rescued” a record 181,000 migrants from open boats near the coast of Libya and brought them to Italy which at its southernmost point, Sicily, is 275 nautical miles (318 miles) from Tripoli.
In 1994, after 40 years in the wilderness, Republicans swept both houses of Congress, running on Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America,” in which the GOP promised to hold votes on 10 popular policies in the first 100 days. They won, fulfilled the contract, and went on to control the House for more than a decade.
For a long time, libertarianism seemed to me the political outlook which most closely matched a live-and-let-live view of the world.
In Britain, as in the U.S., when an Islamic terrorist is said to be, “known to law enforcement,” the translation is: “He is being actively ignored by law enforcement.”
After the latest terrorist attack in Britain — at least as of this writing — Prime Minister Theresa May bravely announced, “Enough is enough!”
What is the point of these macho proclamations after every terrorist attack? Nothing will be done to stop the next attack. Political correctness prohibits us from doing anything that might stop it.
Poland doesn’t admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. Japan doesn’t admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. The United Kingdom and the United States used to have very few Muslims: They used to have almost no terrorism. (One notable exception was chosen as the National Freedom Hero in this year’s Puerto Rican parade in New York!)
Notwithstanding the lovely Muslim shopkeeper who wouldn’t hurt a fly, everyone knows that with every tranche of peace-loving Muslims we bring in, we’re also getting some number of stone-cold killers.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair dumped millions of Third World Muslims on Britain to force “multiculturalism” on the country. Now Britons are living with the result. Since the 9/11 attack, every U.S. president has done the same. President Bush admitted Muslim immigrants at a faster pace after 9/11 than we had been doing before 9/11.
Whatever the 9/11 attackers intended to accomplish, I bet they didn’t expect that.
Now we can’t get rid of them. Under the rules of political correctness, Western countries are prohibited from even pausing our breakneck importation of Muslims, much less sending the recent arrivals home.
In defense of the poor saps responding to every terrorist attack with flowers, candles and hashtags, these are people who have no ability to do anything else. Western leaders are in full possession of the tools to end Islamic terrorism in their own countries, just as their forebears once ended Nazi Stormtroopers.
Unable to summon the backbone to defeat the current enemy, the West is stuck constantly reliving that glorious time when they whipped the Nazis. In almost every Western country — except the one with an increasingly beleaguered First Amendment — it’s against the law to deny the Holocaust.
Are we really worried about a resurgence of Nazism? Isn’t Islamic terrorism a little higher on our “immediate problems” list? How about making it illegal to make statements in support of ISIS, al-Qaida, female genital mutilation, Sharia law or any act of terrorism?
The country with a First Amendment can’t do that — the most that amendment allows us to do is ban conservative speakers from every college campus in the nation.
But If our elected representatives really cared about stopping the next terrorist attack, instead of merely “watching” those on the “watch” list, they’d deport them.
To this day, we have a whole office at the Department of Justice dedicated to finding and deporting Nazis even without proof they personally committed crimes against Jews. But we can’t manage to deport hearty young Muslims who post love notes to ISIS on their Facebook pages.
If the Clinton administration had merely enforced laws on the books against an Afghani immigrant, Mir Seddique Mateen, and excluded him based on his arm-length list of terrorist affiliations, his son Omar wouldn’t have been around to slaughter 49 people at an Orlando nightclub last year.
If Secretary of State John Kerry, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson or anyone else in our vaunted immigration vetting system had done his job, Pakistani Tashfeen Malik never would have been admitted to this country to commit mass murder in San Bernardino a year after she arrived. Before being warmly welcomed by the U.S., Malik’s social media posts were bristling with hatred of America and enthusiasm for jihad.
We’re already paying a battery of FBI agents to follow every Muslim refugee around the country. When they find out that one of them lists his hobby as “jihad,” we need them to stop watching and start deporting.
Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, the rest of the useless GOP — and obviously every Democrat — have the blood of the next terrorist attack on their hands if they don’t make crystal clear that admiring remarks about Islamic terrorism is a deportable act.
But they won’t do it. That’s “not who we are,” as Ryan famously said.
True, most Muslims are peaceful. Guess what? Most Nazis were peaceful! We didn’t knock ourselves out to admit as many of them as we could, screening out only the Nazis convicted of mass murder.
Before we were even formally involved in World War II, the FBI was all over the German American Bund. No one worried about upsetting our German neighbors. (Perhaps because they knew these were Germans and wouldn’t start bombing things and shooting people.)
But today, our official position is: Let’s choose love so as not to scare our Muslim neighbors. Isn’t that precisely what we want to do? Facing an immobile government, two British men — by which I mean British men — were sentenced to PRISON for putting bacon on a mosque in Bristol last year. One died in prison just after Christmas, an ancient religious holiday recently replaced by Ramadan.
If we can’t look askance at Muslims without committing a hate crime, can’t we at least stop admitting ever more “refugees,” some percentage of whom are going to be terrorists and 100 percent of whom will consume massive amounts of government resources?
No, that’s “not who we are.”
Until any Western leader is willing to reduce the number of Muslims in our midst, could they spare us the big talk? “We surrender” would at least have the virtue of honesty.
COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban insists that the H-1B visa racket is a feature of the vaunted American free market. This is nonsense on stilts. It can’t go unchallenged.
Another billionaire, our president, has ordered that the H-1B program be reformed. This, too, is disappointing. You’ll see why.
First, let’s correct Mr. Cuban: America has not a free economy, but a mixed-economy. State and markets are intertwined. Trade, including trade in labor, is not free; it’s regulated to the hilt. If anything, the labyrinth of work visas is an example of a fascistic government-business cartel in operation.
The H-1B permit, in particular, is part of that state-sponsored visa system. The primary H-1B hogs—Infosys (and another eight, sister Indian firms), Microsoft, and Intel—import labor with what are grants of government privilege. Duly, the corporations that hog H-1Bs act like incorrigibly corrupt rent seekers. Not only do they get to replace the American worker, but they get to do so at his expense.
Globally, a series of sordid liaisons ensures that American workers are left high and dry. Through the programs of the International Trade Administration, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the International Monetary Fund, and other oink-operations, the taxpaying American worker is forced to subsidize and underwrite the investment risks of the very corporations that have given him the boot.
Domestically, the fascistic partnership with the State amounts to a subsidy to business at the expense of the taxpayer. See, corporations in our democratic welfare state externalize their employment costs onto the taxpayers.
So while public property is property funded by taxpayers through expropriated taxes; belonging to taxpayers; is to be managed for their benefit—at least one million additional immigrants a year, including recipients of the H-1B visa, are allowed the free use of taxpayer-supported infrastructure and amenities. Every new arrival avails himself of public works such as roads, hospitals, parks, libraries, schools, and welfare.
Does this epitomize the classical liberal idea of laissez faire?
Moreover, chain migration or family unification means every H-1B visa recruit is a ticket for an entire tribe. The initial entrant—the meal ticket—will pay his way. The honor system not being an especially strong value in the Third World, the rest of the clan will be America’s problem. More often than not, chain-migration entrants become wards of the American taxpayer.
Spreading like gravy over a tablecloth, this rapid, inorganic population growth is detrimental to all ecosystems: natural, social and political.
Take Seattle and its surrounding counties. Between April 2015 and 2016, the area was inundated with “86,320 new residents between April 2015 and 2016, marking the region’s biggest population gain this century, fueled in large part by the region’s technology industry. . . . an average of 236 people are moving to the Seattle area each day,” reported Geekwire.com. (Reporters for our local fish-wrapper—in my case, parrot-cage liner—have discharged their journalistic duties by inviting readers to “share” their traffic-jam stories.)
Never as dumb as the local reporters, the likes of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Mark Zuckerberg and Mark Cuban are certainly as detached.
Barricaded in their obscenely lavish compounds—from the comfort of their monster mansions—these social engineers don’t experience the “environmental impacts of rapid urban expansion”; the destruction of verdant open spaces and farmland; the decrease in the quality of the water we drink and air we breathe, the increase in traffic and traffic accidents, air pollution, the cellblock-like housing erected to accommodate their imported I.T. workers and extended families, the delicate bouquet of amped up waste management and associated seepages.
For locals, this lamentable state means an inability to afford homes in a market in which property prices have been artificially inflated. Young couples line up to view tiny apartments. They dream of that picket fence no more. (And our “stupid leaders,” to quote the president before he joined leadership, wonder why birthrates are so low!)
In a true free market, absent the protectionist state, corporate employers would be accountable to the community, and would be wary of the strife and lowered productivity brought about by a multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic workforce. All the more so when a foreign workforce moves in to residential areas almost overnight as has happened in Seattle and its surrounds.
Alas, since the high-tech traitors can externalize their employment costs on to the community; because corporations are subsidized at every turn by their victims—they need not bring in the best.
Cuban thinks they do. High tech needs to be able to “search the world for the best applicants,” he burbled to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
Yet more crap.
Why doesn’t the president know that the H-1B visa category is not a special visa for highly skilled individuals, but goes mostly to average workers? “Indian business-process outsourcing companies, which predominantly provide technology support to corporate back offices,” by the Economist’s accounting.
Overall, the work done by the H1-B intake does not require independent judgment, critical reasoning or higher-order thinking. “Average workers; ordinary talent doing ordinary work,” attest the experts who’ve been studying this intake for years. The master’s degree is the exception within the H1-B visa category.
More significant: THERE IS a visa category that is reserved exclusively for individuals with extraordinary abilities and achievement. I know, because the principal sponsor in our family received this visa. I first wrote about the visa that doesn’t displace ordinary Americans in … 2008:
It’s the O-1 visa.
“Extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, business or athletics,” states the Department of Homeland Security, “means a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.”
Most significant: There is no cap on the number of O-1 visa entrants allowed. Access to this limited pool of talent is unlimited.
My point vis-à-vis the O-1 visa is this: The H-1B hogs are forever claiming that they are desperate for talent. In reality, they have unlimited access to individuals with unique abilities through the open-ended O-1 visa program.
There is no limit to the number of geniuses American companies can import.
Theoretically, the H-1B program could be completely abolished and all needed Einsteins imported through the O-1 program. (Why, even future first ladies would stand a chance under the business category of the O-1A visa, as a wealth-generating supermodel could certainly qualify.)
Now you understand my disappointment. In his April 18 Executive Order, President Trump promised to merely reform a program that needs abolishing. That is, if “Hire American” means anything to anybody anymore.
In celebration of Earth Day this Saturday, let’s review how the Sierra Club sold its soul and screwed the Earth for a $100 million donation. They must hate themselves for it, so why shouldn’t we hate them, too?
After Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act began dumping millions of Third-Worlders on the country, the Sierra Club talked of little else besides reducing immigration.
In 1970, the club adopted a resolution complaining that the country’s growing population was polluting the “air, water and land” — to the point that “our very survival (is) threatened.”
In 1978, the Sierra Club adopted a resolution urging Congress to “conduct a thorough examination of U.S. immigration laws,” noting that the United States, Canada and Australia were the only countries admitting “more than a handful of permanent immigrants.”
In 1980, the club dropped its promotion of birth control, in order to focus on immigration. “It is obvious,” the club said, “that the numbers of immigrants the United States accepts affects our population size and growth rate,” even more than “the number of children per family.”
In 1989, the club’s Population Report expressly called for reducing the number of immigrants.
In 1990, the club’s grassroots leaders voted overwhelmingly to launch a major national campaign on the immigration problem.
Even people who don’t live in yurts can’t help but notice the environmental damage being done by hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans clamoring across the border every year, setting fires, dumping litter, spray-painting gang signs in our parks and defacing ancient Indian petroglyphs.
The problem isn’t just the number of people traipsing through our wilderness areas; it’s that primitive societies have no concept of “litter.” That’s a quirk of prosperous societies. The damage to our parks shows these cultural differences.
Writing in an environmental journal at New York University, Rosa P. Oakes described the “reprehensible” damage being done to “towering cactus, Joshua trees, flowering cactus varieties, colorful wildflowers and rock formations” by illegals. With accompanying photos, she noted that the immigrants’ litter included “abandoned vehicles … used needles, drug paraphernalia, plastic grocery bags, paper products, empty water containers, blankets, clothing, used disposable diapers, among other things.”
The Mexican cultural trait of littering is apparently well known to everyone — except American journalists.
As usual, when it comes to anything that reflects negatively on Third World immigrants, you have to be Agatha Christie to get at the truth. If the media can hide Hispanic child rape, it’s child’s play for them to ignore the Hispanic littering problem.
The best way to find out about garbage being dumped all over by our vibrant recent immigrants is to look at local news stories from any town that contains a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
Here are three from last year:
Local politicians in heavily Hispanic Allentown, Pennsylvania, wanted to suck up to their constituents by renaming Seventh Street “Calle Siete.” Then it turned out that the Hispanic merchants on “Calle Siete” had no interest in this idea. Their No. 1 issue? Litter.
Dorcas Derivera, an immigrant from Guatemala, said in perfect English that if politicians wanted to do something useful, they would deal with the litter problem on Seventh Street, which she said she must pick up from the sidewalk before clients arrive.
“It’s embarrassing,” she told a local newspaper. “How am I going to do business?”
Also last year, in a classic MSM Hide-the-Mexican story, there were media reports of “racist” graffiti targeting “Hispanics and African-Americans” in San Leandro, California’s Marina Park. Obviously, graffiti directed at “Hispanics and African-Americans” could only have been left by one of those white supremacist gangs so prevalent on “Law and Order”!
Nope. It was Mexicans, again: The Nortenos, a Mexican gang. By “Hispanics,” the media meant “Hispanics other than the ones doing the graffiti.”
Then last October, the parks and recreation department in Decatur, Alabama, was again forced to remove goals from the soccer field because of the mountains of garbage routinely left behind. In the past decade, the soccer games had become “an increasingly popular social event among the Hispanic community.”
Would any of this be of interest to an alleged environmental group? It used to be — until the early 2000s.
That was when the Sierra Club was given $100 million by hedge fund billionaire David Gelbaum in exchange for never opposing immigration again. The club said, How dare you ask us to abandon our principles for filthy lucre!
Just kidding! It said, SURE! Did you bring the check?
Mass Third World immigration is a triple whammy for the environment because:
1) Millions more people are tromping through our country;
2) The new people do not share Americans’ love of nature and cleanliness; and
3) We’re not allowed to criticize them.
One big advantage of taking white Western European immigrants is that we’re permitted to complain about their grating cultural habits without being accused of “racism.” (Also, there aren’t that many of them.)
The Sierra Club didn’t anticipate the PC reasons for preferring non-Third World immigrants, but simply wanted to stop so many people pouring into our country and stepping on the flowers. Which is why the club used to be nearly monomaniacally focused on reducing immigration.
By now, it’s been a quarter-century since the Sierra Club cared about the environment. As is the fate of most groups that stick around long enough, today it’s just another left-wing, hate-America interest group. Unfortunately, among the things the Sierra Club hates about America are its rivers, mountains, hiking trails, parks and wildlife.
Give me your tired, your poor, your empties and pizza boxes, your Cheetos bags, your soiled diapers and abandoned couches …
COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
During the presidential campaign, every prominent feminist accused Donald Trump of being a sexist who would wage “war on women.” The day after his inauguration we saw The Women’s March, the greatest collective hissyfit in history. However, it is obvious that President Trump will be a better president for women than Hillary Clinton could ever been, and for one simple reason: Muslim immigration is the greatest threat to the freedom and safety of American women, and Donald Trump promises less, while Hillary Clinton promised more.
There were a few tense hours before President Trump’s First Address to Congress. All news outlets were claiming the president would call for an immigration bill in which both sides would be asked to compromise.
Was this Fake News? Or, was the president sending up a trial balloon to test the reaction? Was Donald Trump, who has both Houses, planning to give away the store (and a shot at a second term)? I hope I speak for Deplorables when I say this: The only time you want the president to reach across the aisle on matters immigration is to grab a Democrat or an errant Republican by the throat.
Like many legal immigrants, I’m an immigration restrictionist. As soon as open-border enthusiasts discover this; they tell me to go back whence I came (Canada and before that South-Africa), the idea being that I’m not suited to join “the nation of immigrants.” Agreed. I’ll save them the effort. Americans have little use for a scribe with a love of the English idiom and an oddball, annoying attachment to the American ideas of limited government and self-governance. You wouldn’t want to import too many such subversives, who’ll agitate for the values that made us great and will MAGA.
The only TV personality to have vigorously stood up for the high-value immigrant minority is Tucker Carlson. In 2013, before it was safe for mainstream to speak of any immigration vetting whatsoever—and as his neoconservative Fox News co-panelists (Charles Krauthammer, Bret Bair) noodled on about their Latino philosophical soul-mates—Mr. Carlson blurted this out:
What is missing in this conversation is the fact that not all immigrants are the same. Immigrants from certain countries go on welfare overwhelmingly. Many Latin American countries send us immigrants who go on welfare. The question is, does the United States need massive new numbers of the low-skilled immigrants in a post-industrial economy? Is that good for the United States? Is it not mindless to say all immigrants are good? They are not. Some are, some aren’t. … the Republican Party ought to be courageous enough to draw the distinction between people who add to the sum total of the American economy, who buy into the culture, who improve the country, and those who don’t. And there is a difference. Sorry.
Thank you, Tucker Carlson, for being, I believe, the first famous pundit to doff the proverbial hat to those high-value immigrants who not only talk the American creed, but live it; the kind who subsidize the largess Republican turncoats seem so eager to dispense.
Thankfully, the patriotic president said nothing, in his Address, about a “compromise” immigration bill. Rather, Trump rededicated himself to The Wall and to a merit-based point system à la Canada. (Been there, done that. Canada is tougher and smarter than America.)
Judging by the mirth among good people and the misery among the bad, the president has already made progress. It’s just over a month into his presidency and the deportations of illegal immigrants are proceeding swimmingly. The morale among Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has never been higher. Their jobs are becoming “fun, again,” lamented a New York Times reporter, whose job has become a living hell. Joy!
Some anonymous informants for the newspaper-of-record within ICE say they miss the days of doing diaper duty. In 2012, following Barack Obama’s reelection, the men of ICE were forced to babysit Central American minors who rushed the South-Western border, “for the DREAM Act.” (All you need to know about the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act is that it culminates in Green Cards and citizenship for millions of Democrats.) ICE was charged with minding the minors before escorting them in style to their destinations in the interior.
Most agents are, however, over the moon about enforcement. ICE agents “are predominantly male, and have often served in the military, with a police department or both.” While working without women could predispose them to happiness, the agents are likely just overjoyed because President Trump has let them do their job!
By upholding the moral order, President Trump is also restoring the natural order, inverted by his predecessors. The feminist order of Obama had humiliated thousands of American men-of-action by turning them into wet-nurses. Obama messed with their biology. Men who think of themselves as protectors resent looking like child minders.
Dead ringer “W,” currently being rehabilitated by certain conservatives, was more “manly” in the way he emasculated these men. In 2005, George Bush indicted and viciously prosecuted two border-patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. Their crime: Shooting a drug dealer in the derriere, in the process of defending their countrymen.
So, look forward to epic images of heavy equipment barreling toward the Southern border. The sight of a gold-plated structure going up, as sections of the borderland along Mexico start to resemble Liberace’s backyard: This is sure to warm the cockles of your heart, and make America’s monomaniacal media go berserk. (Let Milo design The Wall. If conservatives can rehabilitate the unrepentant Bush; they can forgive Milo for saying stupid stuff.)
Of course, ordinary concrete would do just fine.