Heather Mac Donald and "the Pursuit of Equity"

 

Some readers describe Ann Coulter as a flame-thrower, and her columns are always provocative, whether you agree with her or not.  However, at TakiMag she’s just reviewed Heather Mac Donald’s book, When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives. And the review is excellent – and informative:

“No Biggie, Just the End of Civilisation”

. . . It seems that in the hysteria that followed George Floyd’s death in 2020, we agreed to destroy all of Western civilization — law, music, art, education, policing, science and medicine — to make up for black people not doing well on standardized tests.

Mac Donald cites not hundreds but thousands of institutions that have flung aside standards in order to more fully dedicate themselves to the sole, driving purpose of our nation: boosting black people’s self-esteem.

And her review concludes:

Luckily, learning to identify and treat disease isn’t such a big deal at today’s medical schools, anyway. Instead, the faculty are charged with teaching about “systems of power, privilege and oppression.” More than half of the top 50 medical schools now require students to take courses in systemic racism, Mac Donald notes. I’m sure that will be a huge relief when doctors miss your brain tumor.

In 2021, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute announced that it would spend $2 billion … to find a cure for brain cancer? Parkinson’s disease? Heart disease? NO!!! The $2 billion would go to promoting “diversity and inclusion in science.”

In 2022, the National Cancer Institute, funded by you, taxpayer, decided to change its mission from conquering cancer — and really, who cares about that? FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS! — to guess what? Yes!!! Promoting diversity! Instead of Outstanding Investigator Awards being granted solely on the basis of merit, the gender and race of the researchers would have to be considered.

All this has done wonders for the morale of doctors. Mac Donald quotes one cancer researcher: “It’s the end of the road for me as a Jewish male doctor.” A UCLA doctor told her that the smartest undergraduates in science labs are saying, “Now that I see what is happening in medicine, I will do something else.”

In response to this dystopic future, Mac Donald asked an oncologist, “When would white and Asian male scientists fight back? How much longer would they continue to allow their hard work and accomplishments to be disparaged and sidelined?”

He emailed back: “We value our jobs. We need our jobs. Our peers will turn on us. Speak out, lose job forever, be quickly forgotten and abandoned.”

That’s why, Mac Donald says, it falls to the rest of us to never shut up about the tearing down of standards, to put forth “unapologetic defense(s) of color-blind standards,” and to “relentlessly provide the data that explain the lack of racial proportionality in meritocratic institutions.”

To paraphrase Orwell: If there is hope, it must lie in the uncancelable.

Read the whole column here.

# # #

Facts vs propaganda

image credit: legalzoom.com

New York Times, Washington Post, 

Wikipedia, Facebook, etc., etc.

I’m linking to this report by Monica Showalter at American Thinker – not because it’s about the Jeff Epstein-Bill Clinton scandal, but because it shows the blatant corruption in media and information platforms:

With the bust of longtime Democratic donor and Bill Clinton buddy Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges, it's pretty amazing, the scope of the Left's effort to pin the whole thing on President Trump.

It's going on all over, as if directed by some Mighty Integral from far above, to borrow a phrase from Tom Wolfe from The Right Stuff.  It's orchestrated.  It's universal.  It's big.  And it's about as honest and fact-filled as the Russian collusion narrative.

Here are the top three areas, and these aren't the only ones:

One, the press. 

The New York Times, the Washington Post, and other media outlets have attempted to pin the matter on President Trump as a matter of his knowing Epstein in the past and saying nice things about him, and the bum deal cut with Epstein earlier in Miami, which involved Trump's now–labor secretary, Alexander Acosta.

. . .

Meanwhile, over at the Wikipedia desk, item two, the second front on pinning-Trump has leftists are beavering away, eliminating all evidence of Democrats involved in the Epstein case, too.

And, three, at Facebook, posts are being censored for references to Democrats, particularly Bill Clinton, regarding the Epstein case.

The effort is strikingly global. Anything to protect Democrats, just as the original bad plea deal in Miami was a deal to protect Democrats (and their campaign money supply) by letting Epstein off.

One can only suppose that it's going to get worse as all the names of the Democrat "faves" start to roll out.

Full article with chapter-and-verse plus links is here.

# # #

What is a Xanatos Gambit?

Source: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit

The reactions to Trump’s White House speech offering a compromise to get the Wall funded and stop the partial government shutdown were in many ways predictable. Ann Coulter was apoplectic, the mainstream media called President Trump more names, and Democrat leadership Schumer and Pelosi rejected his proposal out-of-hand. Some conservative commentators were of the opinion that Trump knew full well his proposal would be rejected by the Democrats, putting them in the intransigence column in order to pacify their hard-to-the-left base, while not seriously advancing any real concessions to Dreamers. Maybe.

But one of the more interesting takes was at Chicago Boyz and linked via American Thinker:

For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a ‘Xanatos Gambit’ is a plan for which all foreseeable outcomes benefit the creator — including ones that superficially appear to be failure.  

And here’s the theoretical application to the Wall stand-off:

President Trump’s “Big  Macs served at the White House” and grounding Speaker Pelosi’s Congressional Junkets on military transports during a government shut down over funding “The Wall” are both very much in that “Xanatos Gambit” frame work.  President Trump is staying on the offensive so House Democrats and the media cannot “get off a shot” over the Government shut down. 

More at all the links.

# # #

FIRST STEP Act: another report against it

This blog has posted several links concerning the FIRST STEP legislation on criminal justice reform.  In particular, I noted that two conservative columnists who are both strong supporters of legal immigration and law enforcement nevertheless disagree on the merits of this bill. Michelle Malkin supports it. Ann Coulter opposes it.

Now Matthew Boyle at Breitbart reports:

A Republican U.S. Senate document circulating among GOP offices opposed to the so-called FIRST STEP Act, a criminal justice reform bill making its way through Capitol Hill, lists 20 violent crimes that would be eligible for early release under the legislation.

. . .

The letter goes on to list the 20 violent crimes that would be eligible for early release under the bill:

1. Trafficking cocaine or methamphetamines, even if convicted as a kingpin (18 U.S.C § 841(b)
2. Strangling a spouse or an intimate partner (18 U.S.C. §113(a)(8)
3. Trafficking fentanyl, except in rare cases (18 U.S.C. § 841(b))
4. Providing or possessing contraband, including firearms, in prison (18 U.S.C. § 1791)
5. Felonies committed while in a criminal street gang (18 U.S.C. § 521)
6. Escape of prisoners (18 U.S.C. § 751)
7. Rioting in a correctional facility (18 U.S.C. § 1792)
8. Importing aliens for prostitution (18 U.S.C. § 1328)
9. Assault with intent to commit rape or sexual abuse (18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(2)(F))
10. Threatening to murder a congressman, senator, or government official (18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)
11. Drug-related robberies involving assault with a dangerous weapon (18 U.S.C. § 2118(c)(1)
12. Violent carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury (18 U.S.C. § 2119(2))
13. Stealing immigration documents for the purpose of keeping an immigrant in slavery (18 U.S.C. § 1592)
14. Attempt or conspiracy to engage in human smuggling (18 U.S.C. § 1592)
15. Failing to register as a sex offender (18 U.S.C. § 2250)
16. Arson (18 U.S.C. § 81)       
17. Blackmail (18 U.S.C. § 873)
18. Domestic assault by an habitual offender (18 U.S.C. § 117)
19. Hate crimes (18 U.S.C. § 249)
20. Assaulting a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon (18 U.S.C. § 111(b))

At that point, the GOP senate document lists a series of questions for proponents of the bill:

1. Would you consider these low-level or non-violent crimes?
2. How can we trust the BOP to correctly categorize who is high vs. low risk?
3. If the reasons these are not on the list is because they are obscure crimes, why is drug trafficking – the single most common offense – missing?
4. Why are obscure violations of the Atomic Energy Code on the exclusion list but not these crimes?
5. If you added provisions to the bill that Senator Booker and Democrats wanted, why won’t you add more violent crimes to the ‘exclusion from early release’ list that Republicans want?
6. Why have an exclusion list in the first place if these crimes are missing from it?
7. Can you promise that no offender who commits these crimes will ever be released early?
8. How many offenders are in prison for each of these crimes and how many will be eligible to be released into my home state?

The full report is here. There are questions about the source of the document, but if it’s reliable, it’s a frightening prospect. If you go to the Breitbart page, take a look at some of the reader comments.

# # #

Another look at First Step Act

 image credit:rightoncrime.com

Yesterday, this blog linked to some information on the First Step Act, with support coming from Ken Blackwell and Pastor Darrell Scott, among others. On the other hand, Ann Coulter criticized the Act in pretty sharp terms. Then I came across Michelle Malkin’s analysis of the First Step Act; like Coulter, Malkin is tough on crime, immigration, and drug dealing, so I was interested to see that she supports the Act:

The package of criminal justice reform proposals endorsed by President Donald Trump is not “soft” on crime. It’s tough on injustice. And it’s about time.

Known as the “First Step Act,” the legislation confronts the Titanic failure of the federal government’s trillion-dollar war on drugs by reforming mandatory minimum sentences, rectifying unscientifically grounded disparities in criminal penalties for crack vs. powder cocaine users, and tackling recidivism among federal inmates through risk assessment, earned-time credit incentive structures, re-entry programs and transitional housing.

There’s nothing radical about giving law-breakers who served their time an opportunity to turn their lives around and avoid ending up back behind bars. More than 30 red and blue states have enacted measures to reduce incarceration, control costs and improve public safety. Texas — no bleeding-heart liberal mecca — spearheaded alternatives to the endless prison-building boom a decade ago by redirecting tax dollars to rehab, treatment and mental health services. The Lone Star state saved an estimated $3 billion in new public construction costs while stemming the prison population tide.

. . .

Despite staunch support from conservative Republican governors, prosecutors and law enforcement closest to the ground on this issue, the same hyperbolic talking points used by some immovable “law and order” opponents at the state level are now being used against First Step: Cops will be endangered, critics balk. Violent monsters will go free. Child predators and drug kingpins will flood our neighborhoods.

Scary, but deceptive. The plain language of the bill makes clear that its “early release” provisions must be earned. Moreover, as Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee points out: “At all times the Bureau of Prisons retains all authority over who does and does not qualify for early release.” Former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman, a veteran of the criminal justice system for 20 years, notes that inmates convicted of crimes of violence (including assaults on police), drug trafficking (including hardcore fentanyl and heroin dealing) and child pornography would not qualify for credits. Period. The list of ineligible prisoners is a mile long.

. . .

Critic Dan Cadman of the Center for Immigration Studies is not satisfied and argues that “the simplest way to make it a clean bill where immigration enforcement is concerned is to say at the beginning of the bill that ‘none of the sections that follow in this bill apply to incarcerated aliens.'” That should be a simple fix and is no reason to prevent First Step from moving to the Senate floor for vigorous debate.

Full article is here.

# # #

Ohio Issue #1 and the "First Step" proposal

On November 6, Ohio voters rejected Issue #1, an amendment that would have reduced the penalties for drug trafficking under Ohio law. Cleveland Tea Party blogs urged a “No” vote here, here, and here. 

The Trump administration is proposing reform to the federal criminal justice system that is running along parallel lines to Issue #1. Ken Blackwell reports:

The FIRST STEP Act is the beginning of a transformation of America’s federal criminal-justice system into what it should have always been: a system that makes America safer. This legislation unites conservatives, police and civil rights advocates, civil libertarians, business leaders and supporters of social justice. Supporting this legislation means supporting ideas that all Americans want - from police to Democrats to Republicans - an America that is fair, an America that puts Americans first, and that makes America safe. 

Blackwell concludes that “This is a law and order President who believes in justice and the First Step Act will get us closer to true justice.” Among those standing with President Trump at his press conference were Sen. Tim Scott and Pastor Darrell Scott.  But Ann Coulter vigorously disagrees, and she is not one to pull her punches:

In the systematic dismantling of common sense in America, Jared Kushner's "sentencing reform" bill is the coup de grace -- a Mack Truck hurtling down the highway about to take out thousands of Americans. The Idiot Army is already in place to fight and win this battle.

Jared and the hip-hop artists currently advising him have decided that too many people are in prison. If you think you've heard this before, you have: Genius insights of this sort have preceded nearly every major crime wave this country has experienced, from Philadelphia to California to a bloody period known as "the Warren Court."

. . .

We're incessantly told that sentences will be cut only for "nonviolent drug offenders."

If you are even passingly familiar with our justice system, you know that virtually everyone in prison is there as the result of a plea bargain -- "97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases," according to The New York Times.

You don't strike a deal with the prosecutor to plea to the worst crime you've committed. You plea to the least serious offense.

Coulter hammers both the facts and stats concerning previous crime waves, and she also directs her outrage at President Trump and his son-in-law. Whether she is correct in attributing a motive to Trump’s support of this initiative, her analysis of past efforts at criminal system reform is worth considering, and some of her arguments will resonate with those against Ohio’s Issue #1. (Full column by Ms. Coulter is here.)

# # #

DREAMer amnesty: moral imperative or Democrat votes

image credit: jimbovard.com

The DREAMers, we are told, are in the U.S. through no fault of their own. The Uniparty’s selling point for amnesty is the “moral imperative” and compassion. But it is really all about votes, as Michael Bastasch at The Daily Caller confirms:

The Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund circulated a memo on Monday calling illegal immigrants brought here at a young age — so-called “Dreamers” — a “critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”

The memo, co-authored by former Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri, was sent around to allies calling on Democrats to “refuse to offer any votes for Republican spending bills that do not offer a fix for Dreamers and instead appropriate funds to deport them.”

. . .

“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” reads Palmieri’s memo, obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond,” reads the memo. “In short, the next few weeks will tell us a lot about the Democratic Party and its long-term electoral prospects.”

YouTube of meeting with President Trump and Senators on immigration

Yesterday's report at Zero Hedge was not encouraging about whatever bill President Trump will sign, but Trump's meeting with senators in front of the media tells me there's more here than meets the eye. 

Probably a good time to call the White House if you oppose any amnesty; the Action Alert is here.

# # #

Mark Steyn on illegal immigration

We can expect a lot of work in 2018 to do what we can to block the passage of DACA, start building the wall, and end chain migration. My fave, Mark Steyn, guest hosted for Rush Limbaugh yesterday, and his segment on illegal immigration and The Wall were reported at both Breitbart (“Mark Steyn: In the End, Trump Presidency ‘Will Stand or Fall on How He Tackles Immigration’”) and on Steyn’s blog page (“The Wall Is All”). The transcript report by Jeff Poor at Breitbart is below.

“[T]here’s a lobby — there’s lobbies for everything in this country,” Steyn said. “And there’s a strong lobby for illegal immigration. There’s a strong lobby for refugees, which again is a completely fraudulent operation by and large. Trump won because a significant [number of voters] were serious about building a wall, about ending illegal immigration and about doing something about people who walk into this country illegally, stay here illegally, take jobs illegally, get driver’s licenses illegally, use Social Security numbers illegally. And at some point … I would have liked him to hold the inauguration ceremony on the southern border and for it to culminate after the oath of office with him ceremonially laying the brick in the wall. But in the end, his presidency will stand or fall on how he tackles immigration.”

Steyn pointed to how low-skilled mass immigration has impacted the American economy, and there is a demand for low-skilled workers. He added that it isn’t just policy for Trump that is important [but] shifting “attitudes” as well.

“In the end, the Trump presidency I believe will stand or fall on how permanently he manages to shift not just the number of people coming into the country, but how he manages to shift attitudes towards remorseless unskilled mass immigration,” Steyn added. “That’s what got him elected, and that’s what [will] actually be the basis on which his presidency is judged.”

Steyn’s page is here. Ann Coulter recently published an article along the same lines, at Townhall and Human Events here. Her take is that if the United States does not stop illegal immigration, then all other issues are essentially academic. 

# # #

Free Speech Week at Berkeley Sept 24-27

Remember what happened when Milo Yiannopoulis was scheduled to speak at Berkeley last February?

Photo credit: SFGate

It was cancelled. Breitbart Radio just announced:

Milo Plans Four-Day Extravaganza At Berkeley For Free Speech Week

Yesterday, Pamela Geller’s blog ran this headline:

Pamela Geller To Speak at Milo’s Free Speech Week at Berkeley, Joins Steve Bannon, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz

That’s already a powerhouse line-up that will be impossible to ignore. (Berkeley is already looking for safe spaces to protect poor snowflake students from the presence of Ben Shapiro.) I plan to follow this, as it could be a watershed moment for First Amendment rights.

# # #

The lies we were told about who would silence free speech

art credit: National Coalition Against Censorship

John Kass at The Chicago Tribune comments on the liberal reaction to conservative speech, which is, essentially: “Shut Up.”

The lie we were told as kids was this: The end of American liberty would come at the hands of the political right.

Conservatives would take away our right to speak our minds, and use the power of government to silence dissent. The right would intimidate our teachers and professors, and coerce the young.

And then, with the universities in thrall, with control of the apparatus of the state (and the education bureaucracy), the right would have dominion over a once-free people.

. . .

But the lie is obvious now, isn't it?

Because it is not conservatives who coerced today's young people or made them afraid of ideas that challenge them. Conservatives did not shame people into silence, or send thugs out on college campuses to beat down those who wanted to speak.

The left did all that.

It's there in front of you, the thuggish mobs of the left killing free speech at American universities. The thugs call themselves antifas, for anti-fascists.

They beat people up and break things and set fires and intimidate. These are not anti-fascists. These are fascists. This is what fascists do.

. . .

What is the cost for all this?

Free speech, without which there is no republic.

American universities were once thought to be the last great refuge of ideas, where ideas could flourish and be challenged and debated. But today, the university is the place where liberty and ideas go to die.

. . .

Right-wing provocateur Ann Coulter has been silenced at Berkeley, where the free speech movement was born. And other intellectuals, including Charles Murray and Heather Mac Donald, have been silenced at other colleges, attacked by mobs.

If the left agrees with your views, you may speak. If the left doesn't agree, they will shut you down. This is America now.

. . .

University administrators have made a show of wringing their hands. But they're hypocrites. They're part of this. They are of the same cloth. They allowed this seed to bloom. They watered it, by giving in to the young who demanded a safe space from intellectual challenge.

Safe spaces are not about learning or critical thinking. Safe spaces belong to education camps, where future bureaucrats are trained in the Orwellian shaping of language and the culling of threatening ideas.

. . .

All speech challenging the status quo is offensive — to the establishment. And free speech is what American liberty is about.

Unless, of course, you're of the hard left, and can hunt free speech at American universities and crush it.

That's not fiction. That's not fantasy. And it is not a lie. It's happening now, in the United States.

Read the rest here.

# # #

Coulter on free market healthcare

Image credit: North Country Public Radio

Sorry, I have been off the air for a couple of weeks, and when I got back online this weekend, I found a column by Ann Coulter on HER solution to the healthcare repeal-replace dilemma. Here’s are several extracts and the whole thing (from a little over a week ago) is here.

It’s always impossible to repeal laws that require Ann to pay for greedy people, because the greedy run out on the streets wailing that the Republicans are murdering them.

Obamacare is uniquely awful because the free stuff isn’t paid for through income taxes: It’s paid for through MY health insurance premiums. This is unfortunate because I wanted to buy health insurance.

Perhaps you’re not aware — SINCE YOU EXEMPTED YOURSELVES FROM OBAMACARE, CONGRESS — but buying or selling health insurance is illegal in America.

Right now, there’s no free market because insurance is insanely regulated not only by Obamacare, but also by the most corrupt organizations in America: state insurance commissions. (I’m talking to you, New York!)

Federal and state laws make it illegal to sell health insurance that doesn’t cover a laughable array of supposedly vital services based on bureaucrats’ medical opinions of which providers have the best lobbyists.

As a result, it’s illegal to sell health insurance that covers any of the medical problems I’d like to insure against. Why can’t the GOP keep Obamacare for the greedy — but make it legal for Ann to buy health insurance?

This is how it works today:

ME: I’m perfectly healthy, but I’d like to buy health insurance for heart disease, broken bones, cancer, and everything else that a normal person would ever need, but no more.

INSURANCE COMPANY: That will be $700 a month, the deductible is $35,000, no decent hospital will take it, and you have to pay for doctor’s visits yourself. But your plan covers shrinks, infertility treatments, sex change operations, autism spectrum disorder treatment, drug rehab and 67 other things you will never need.

INSURANCE COMPANY UNDER ANN’S PLAN: That will be $50 a month, the deductible is $1,000, you can see any doctor you’d like, and you have full coverage for any important medical problems you could conceivably have in a million years.

Mine is a two-step plan (and you don’t have to do the second step, so it’s really a one-step plan).

STEP 1: Congress doesn’t repeal Obamacare! Instead, Congress passes a law, pursuant to its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, that says: “In America, it shall be legal to sell health insurance on the free market. This law supersedes all other laws, taxes, mandates, coverage requirements, regulations or prohibitions, state or federal.”

The end. Love, Ann.

There will be no whining single mothers storming Congress with their pre-printed placards. People who want to stay on Obamacare can. No one is taking away anything. They can still have health insurance with free pony rides. It just won’t be paid for with Ann’s premiums anymore, because Ann will now be allowed to buy health insurance on the free market.

Americans will be free to choose among a variety of health insurance plans offered by willing sellers, competing with one another to provide the best plans at the lowest price. A nationwide market in health insurance will drive down costs and improve access — just like everything else we buy here in America!

Within a year, most Americans will be buying health insurance on the free market (and half of the rest will be illegal aliens). We’ll have TV ads with cute little geckos hawking amazing plans and young couples bragging about their broad coverage and great prices from this or that insurance company.

The Obamacare plans will still have the “essential benefits” (free pony rides) that are so important to NPR’s Mara Liasson, but the free market plans will have whatever plans consumers agree to buy and insurance companies agree to sell — again, just like every other product we buy here in America.

. . .

Until the welfare program is decoupled from the insurance market, nothing will work. Otherwise, it’s like forcing grocery stores to pay for everyone to have a house. A carton of milk would suddenly cost $10,000.

. . .

STEP 2: Next year, Congress formulates a better way of delivering health care to the welfare cases, which will be much easier since there will be a LOT fewer of them.

No actual money-making business is going to survive by taking the welfare cases — the ones that will cover illegal aliens and Mara Liasson’s talk therapy — so the greedy will get government plans.

But by then, only a minority of Americans will be on the “free” plans. (Incidentally, this will be a huge money-saver — if anyone cares about the federal budget.) Eighty percent of Americans will already have good health plans sold to them by insurance companies competing for their business.

With cheap plans available, a lot of the greedy will go ahead and buy a free market plan. Who wants to stand in line at the DMV to see a doctor when your neighbors have great health care plans for $50 a month?

. . .

# # #

Weekend video schadenfreude fun

Via Instapundit and Michael Walsh at PJ Media on Trump and the media / celebrities:

"As Oscar Wilde famously said, "One must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing." Ditto with these cocksure pronunciamentos about the impossibility of a Trump presidency from the usual suspects. (The Ann Coulter clip is especially funny!) Enjoy":

# # #

Coulter on Trump, Media, & Crooked Hillary

art credit: guerillagraphix.com

Coulter on Trump, Media, Crooked Hillary, 

Guns, and the Second Amendment

I run hot and cold on Ann Coulter, but her column yesterday at The Daily Caller -- on Trump, the Media, Crooked Hillary, and the Second Amendment blow-up -- made sense to me:

Even having predicted that the media’s attacks on Trump would be unprecedented, I’m still amazed. Every single news outlet is dedicated to hysterically denouncing Trump, every minute of every day, while cooing at Hillary.

Everything Hillary has ever touched has failed, been engulfed in scandal, resulted in massive investigations, litigation, financial ruin, prison or death. The final stage of any Hillary enterprise is a grand announcement that Hillary did not technically break the law. Or no one can prove she did. Or, even if she did, no one ever gets prosecuted for it.

She’s prone to coughing fits and lapses of memory in the middle of speeches, and falls down all the time. But that’s not nearly as important as the media’s manufactured story about Trump throwing a baby out of a rally!

. . .

The main story this week: The media’s psychotic claim that Trump called for Hillary’s assassination.

Trump said: “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Hmmm. What could Second Amendment people “do”? One thing they could do is what they did do — in 1994. That was the year gun rights supporters voted out dozens of Democrats who voted wrong on guns, ushering in the first Republican Congress in 40 years.

It’s been nearly a quarter century, and the Democrats are still so traumatized by their sweeping losses in 1994, that, even after Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona, even after the Aurora movie theater shooting, even after the Sandy Hook massacre, Democrats refused to take up a gun bill in the U.S. Senate.

Apparently, the only news you’ll be getting from now until the election is the media’s own insane interpretation of every little thing Trump says or does. . . .There’s no way to phrase something so that it can’t be lied about.

. . .

There’s no strategy for overcoming this level of media hostility. Trump has made some mistakes during this campaign, but he hasn’t done anything wrong for months now. He could say “yes,” and the media would change the question to, “Are you a child molester?”

Just when you think it can't get any worse. . . .

# # #

Ann Coulter's take on Cruz and Kasich

Ramirez cartoon credit: rightwingnews.com

Ann Coulter's acerbic take on Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich was up on the Breitbart website the other day:

Apparently, John Kasich and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)  are at their most appealing when no one is paying attention to them, which, conveniently, is most of the time.

. . .

Listening to Cruz always makes me feel like I have Asperger’s. He speaks so slowly, my mind wanders between words. As Trump said, there’s a 10-second intermission between sentences. I want to order Cruz’s speeches as Amazon Audibles, just so I can speed them up and see what he’s saying.

The guy did go to Harvard Law School, so I keep waiting for the flashes of brilliance, but they never come. Cruz is completely incapable of extemporaneous wit.

Now that Cruz has been mathematically eliminated, he’s adding Carly Fiorina to the ticket. She’s not his “running mate,” but his “limping mate.” It’s an all-around lemon-eating contest.

. . .

Kasich is constantly proclaiming that illegals are “made in the image of God,” and denounces the idea of enforcing federal immigration laws, saying: “I don’t think it’s right; I don’t think it’s humane.”

When asked about his decision to expand Medicaid under Obamacare — projected to cost federal taxpayers $50 billion in the first decade — he said: “Now, when you die and get to the, get to the, uh, to the meeting with St. Peter … he’s going to ask you what you did for the poor. Better have a good answer.”

He lectured a crowd of fiscal conservatives on his Obamacare expansion, saying, “Now, I don’t know whether you ever read Matthew 25, but I commend it to you, the end of it, about do you feed the homeless and do you clothe the poor.” He also attributed the law to Chief Justice John Roberts and said, “It’s my money, OK?”

Voters thought they were getting a less attractive version of Mitt Romney with Kasich, but it turns out they’re getting a more televangelist version of Ted Cruz.

They’re also getting a less warm and personable version of Hillary Clinton. Last week, Kasich lashed out at a reporter who asked a perfectly appropriate question, going from boring campaign boilerplate to irritated browbeating in about one second flat. As much as I enjoy watching reporters being berated, this was deranged.

Kasich: Listen, at the end of the day I think the Republican Party wants to pick somebody who actually can win in the fall.”

Reporter: But if you’ve only won Ohio?

Kasich: “Can I finish?”

Reporter: “If you answer the ques–”

Kasich: “I’m answering the question the way I want to answer it. You want to answer it?” (Snatches voice recorder from reporter’s hand.) “Here, let me ask you. What do you think?

When giving a speech to Ohio EPA workers a few years ago, Kasich suddenly went off topic and began shouting about a police officer who had given him a ticket three years earlier. “Have you ever been stopped by a police officer that’s an idiot?” he began. He proceeded to tell the riveting story of his traffic violation to the EPA administrators, yelling about “this idiot! … He’s an IDIOT!”

Based on the dashcam video immediately released by the police, Kasich had been in the wrong, and the officer — you know, “the IDIOT” — was perfectly polite about it.

. . .

Ironically, it’s Kasich who has been complaining the loudest about the alleged billions of dollars of “free media” Trump has been getting. It turns out not getting “free media” was a godsend for Kasich and Cruz.

Read the rest here.

# # #