Does Support for Israel Clash with America First?

The Republican Party has become the de facto pro-Israel political party. Should it be that way? Does Israel help American now? If so, how? Does that mean we cannot criticize the country or its government? Should the United States help pay for Israel’s defense? Are critics on the Right … right to be hostile to Israel? Last of all, does it compromise “America First” to support Israel?  Freedom of speech is a godsend, one that forces us to contend and discuss even the most elementary or transparent of issues. Anti-Israel and anti-Semitism sentiment is on the rise (especially among some on the populist Right), and their outrage compels us to revisit American-Israeli relations. Are we too tied up with other countries? Are we violating George Washington’s warning in his Farewell Address to avoid foreign entanglements when we support other countries, including Israel?

Let’s start with the charge “You can’t criticize Israel. You will pay a (political) price if you do!” Much of the corporate media is decidedly pro-Palestinian. The hateful Squad in Congress (including incestuous Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib) routinely criticize Israel and hobnob with terrorists, and nothing happens to them. I submit that yes, you can (and should) criticize Israel, as we should be free to criticize any country. I vigorously denounced the country’s onerous COVID-19 policies, and I do not celebrate their having the second largest PRIDE festival in Tel Aviv. Even Israelis themselves criticize their country! It’s not anti-Semitism to criticize Israel.

How has Israel helped us? They keep Iran in check, for starters. They bombed ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula, when most news outlets ignored them. They have helped other allied countries develop their military prowess, too (Singapore, for example) or provide intelligence against international terrorism (Australia).

But what about ongoing foreign aid to Israel? I stand for the most part with US Congressman Thomas Massie, the only Republican to vote against the $90 million funding for Israel’s Iron Dome. Drug cartels and human-trafficking dominate our Southern border, and our political class is paying for the defense of other countries? My problem isn’t with Israel per se, but with our representatives focusing on every other country but our own. Rep. Massie’s stance is not anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, but pro-America. We should expect the same from all our representatives.

I do disagree with Massie’s statement that AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee) is foreign influence. Americans have the right to lobby their government to spend money for other countries, even though I disagree with them. Unlike Massie, I would have voted to condemn the BDS movement due to its multiple ties to terrorist organizations. It’s one thing to say a country should not exist, but it’s another to work with international terrorist groups who won’t stop with Israel. They want to erase America, too.

But what about some of the professional pundits on the right, and their criticism of Israel? Should we agree with them?

Ann Coulter raged against the 2016 Republican presidential nominees because of their focus on Israel, while ignoring our country’s immigration problems. She doesn’t have a problem with Israel per se, either. In fact, Coulter likes Israel’s border security and wants us to imitate it (so do I). I say we give Israel $3 billion a year to build our wall.

Robert Novak was convinced that Israel deliberately attacked the U.S.S. Liberty during the Six Day War. On June 6^th, 1967 Israeli warplanes fired on an American ship in the Mediterranean Sea during the fractious Six Day War. Israel had warned every other nation to clear out of the Mediterranean, but the Liberty did not get the message in time.

Did Israel attack the ship on purpose to deceive the United States into the conflict via a false flag operation? Some of the surviving veterans say yes, but they also admit that they can’t prove it. After more than U.S. ten commissions on the incident (including a conference as recent as 2004), there is nothing to substantiate the charge. Besides, Israel did not have to seduce the United States into war, since they were already winning on their own. The United States and Israel did endure a twenty-year period of statis over the incident notwithstanding, and Israel paid a large indemnity. For the record, Israeli and Jewish scholars in Israel have not tried to hide discussion on this issue. Robert Novak was entitled to his opinion, but he was wrong.

Then there’s Pat Buchanan. I will never forget his statement on The McLaughlin Group: “If you want to know ethnicity and power in the United States Senate, 13 members of the Senate are Jewish folks who are from 2 percent of the population. That is where real power is at….” My initial reaction was, Wow, Pat – anti-Semitic much? Today, you hardly hear Buchanan talk about Israel. What happened? President Trump maintained a solid relationship with the country and kept the United States out of foreign wars. Yes, Pat, it can be done: you can be America First and still support Israel.

But is there really a conflict with America First if you support other countries? I supported Brexit, but I don’t think Britain’s interests are more important than America’s. I applaud Marine Le Pen’s populist efforts to break France out of the chokehold of abject secular globalism, but it's not America’s job to help make that happen. Singapore’s pro-family policies should be replicated around the world, but I vigorously oppose the country’s harsh limitations on freedom of speech.

Israel is not a perfect country, but she is special because like the United States, she was forged by people fleeing persecution to establish freedom of security of themselves and their posterity. Yes, you can criticize Israel. No, we shouldn’t have to pay for their defense (we can’t even pay our own bills!). Israel is a force for good, including for the United States. Ultimately, however, our real focus should not be denigrating any one country, anyway, but rather focusing on domestic American interests.

Political Courage at Its Finest: Ann Coulter Disposes of Jorge Ramos on Immigration

                      


This "debate" was refreshing and riveting.

Coulter had the courage to say some of the most politically correct yet morally necessary remarks about illegal--and legal--immigration.

She had the courage to take down Telemundo (or Univision, or whatever) anchor Jorge Ramon on one point after another, and call him out for lying and distorting information without batting an eyelash.

The guests in the audience wanted to lecturer her and question her integrity and morals rather than ask her questions about her views and what she had written in her book Adios, America.

I was stunned by the some of the research and conclusions which she had reached, including the fact that Ronald Reagan had achieved an electoral tidal wave victory in 1984 without pandering to identity politics.

I can add that other Republican US Senators did remarkably well that year, gathering an unprecedented turnout with key voting blocs, despite the best efforts of the media to smear the President and the Republican ticket across the country. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, for example, got a higher turnout of the black vote than expected in 1984.

She also slammed the diversity talk, when a good chunk of the immigration, legal or illegal, is coming from Mexico. How about that? She even played the race card back onto Jorge Ramos. Doesn't he understand that his commitment to the status quo on immigration in this country disenfranchises at least two billion people who live in $2 a day. Many of them would love to come to the United States, but this country cannot take in the entire world. A nation is not supposed to serve as an international charity.

Back to the identity politics of the Democratic Party ... All the identity politics games have never helped this country. President Trump pushed aside all that garbage and talked about "Making America Great Again." The promises of a great country where everyone can win is a promise open to everyone. Barack Obama divided the country over race. President Trump has united the country more than ever. He has fulfilled promises going after the Deep State, drained the swamp, cut through all the regulatory burdens, and he has been taking down the corrupt media like no one else.

Mexico does not send their best ...

Coulter also acknowledges that no candidate would ever attain her level of immigration enforcement policy, perhaps because the political capital is not available right now. In other cases, the solution is through the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment process, like ensuring that public schools only teach American kids. How about making sure that the 14th Amendment only applies to the descendants of black slaves, not illegal aliens' anchor babies?

These are all winning policy goals, and it would be great to see the United States Congress take real steps toward making these wins possible. Still, outspoken critics of illegal immigration and job-crushing, dangerous levels of legal immigration need to be confronted at every turn, and Coulter masterfully serves up wise answers with back-up research to combat the myths, lies, and distortions which have been plaguing this debate.

Former Critic Ann Coulter Pens Perfect Defense of Roy Moore for US Senate

Team, Did you read Ann Coulter's defense of Judge Roy Moore? In case you missed it, we wanted to share it with you. ---- It’s hard to disprove accusations from 40 years ago — that’s why we have statutes of limitations — but, despite that, there are a surprising number of problems with the allegations against Moore. One accuser has been called a liar by her own stepson, who says he’s voting for Moore. Another neglected to mention that Moore sent her brother to prison. In defense of one of Moore’s accusers, Gloria Allred produced a yearbook allegedly signed by Moore, apparently in two different inks and giving his title as “D.A.” He was not the district attorney and didn’t sign his name that way. Allred refuses to produce the yearbook for handwriting analysis or to deny that it’s a forgery. Contrary to what you have heard one million times a day on TV, there aren’t “multiple accusers.” There are two, and that’s including the one with the fishy yearbook inscription whose stepson says she’s lying. The other “accusers” claim he dated them when they were 16 to 19 years old and Moore was in his early 30s — or younger than Jerry Seinfeld was (39) when he dated 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein. That would also make Moore 15 years younger than Bill Clinton when he had a 22-year-old intern performing oral sex on him in the Oval Office. Moore’s date “accusers” say he did nothing more than kiss them. The media throw the dating claims in with the molestation claims so they can keep howling about “multiple accusers.” In fact, only two women are alleging anything that, if true, would merit national attention. TV anchors think it’s very clever of them to ask anyone who isn’t bowled over by the claims of Moore’s (two) accusers: So you’re calling the women “liars”? Checkmate! There’s a lot of room between HE’S A CHILD MOLESTER and THE WOMEN ARE LIARS. They could be misremembering. They could be confusing Moore with someone else. They could be suggestible. They could be delusional. They could have repeated the story to themselves so many times that they believe it. They could be really, really disgusted with Jerry Seinfeld. The main accuser has gotten a lot of her facts wrong, such as where she was living at the time (she moved to another town 10 days after meeting Moore); the corner where she allegedly met Moore for their liaisons (she named a corner more than a mile away from her house, across a busy intersection); and when she began to get into trouble with boys and alcohol (it was before meeting Moore, not after). It was 40 years ago! But it’s just weeks before the election and that’s the media’s favorite time to produce wild accusations against Republicans. Four days before the 1992 presidential election, Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh dropped an indictment of Reagan’s defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, which seemed to implicate President George H.W. Bush in a lie. Bush lost the election, and about a month later a judge threw out the indictment. In the middle of the 2004 presidential campaign, CBS’s Dan Rather produced forged documents allegedly proving that President George W. Bush had shirked his National Guard service decades earlier. In September 2006, just before the midterm elections, the media released GOP congressman Mark Foley’s creepy emails to House pages. No physical contact was alleged. The corpus delicti was that Foley told pages they looked “hot” in their soccer shorts. The entire GOP was crucified by the media for not having discovered this “pedophile” in its midst. Republican congressmen who had never met Foley lost their seats because of the media’s timing of the email release. More than 20 years earlier, a Democratic congressman, Gerry Studds, who had actually buggered a 17-year-old page, indignantly defied his House censure and proudly stood for re-election. His outraged Massachusetts constituents elected him six more times. Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy denounced the “witch hunt” against Studds, saying his critics wanted “to torch the congressman for his private life.” When Studds died in 2006, The Washington Post’s headline on his obituary was: Gerry Studds; Gay Pioneer in Congress. The New York Times’ headline was, Gerry Studds Dies at 69; First Openly Gay Congressman. I supported Rep. Mo Brooks in the primary, but Alabamians would be crazy to let the media vilification of Moore affect their vote. Moore’s real crime is that he’s a believing Christian who goes around wantonly quoting the Bible on sodomy. Journalists react to that like Linda Blair in “The Exorcist.” The media say that Republicans support Moore just because they want another GOP vote in the Senate. I support Moore just because I hate the media.

White Privilege, and the End of White Guilt on Illegal Immigration and Islam

White privilege has become the new talking point for silencing conservatives on college campuses. I have faced this argument head-on every time I visited a college campus or discussed contemporary problems with liberals, whether at Cal State Fullerton, UCLA, UC Berkeley (before Antifa robbed me then pepper-sprayed me).

What is “white privilege”? Not exactly sure. Hollow race-based talking points from the left are often vacuous. Ben Shapiro called it a cheap left-wing rhetorical trick to silence criticism. “You are white, therefore you have no right to comment on the problems afflicting black and Hispanic communities in the United States.” An academic definition, if possible: white privilege is a set of societal benefits which white people enjoy because of their skin color, "an invisible package of unearned assets".

These charges are especially frustrating because this line of “thinking” contends that people like me benefit from this unperceived systemic racism. Whites get all the breaks, while blacks are systematically targeted by government institutions and private businesses in hiring, the criminal justice system, and education, hence the high black crime rates, rioting, the degrading conditions of urban ghettoes etc. The white guy has it good just because he’s white, and therefore he needs to “check his privilege” and empathize with the plights of the poor, down-trodden minorities.

Ann Coulter has slammed this racist line of argument soundly, and she identified a key moment in history when this white privilege, or rather white guilt narrative started crumbling under its own hypocrisy: The OJ Simpson trial. In 1995, a majority black jury exonerated a clearly guilty black man for killing his ex-wife and her new boyfriend. Coulter continues: “Overnight, the white guilt bank — once thought “too big to fail” — was shut down. Henceforth, instead of producing stuttering embarrassment, liberal moral intimidation on race produced only eye-rolling. With that, America became a much healthier country, especially for black people.”

For the majority of Americans, especially white Americans, that verdict did not fit. Men and women of sound mind and outrage said “We quit” … feeling guilty, that is. Coulter then details the immense criminal enforcement and welfare reforms which followed right after that corrupt verdict. These changes benefited all Americans, particularly blacks. In short, the OJ verdict outraged the country, pushing people past their discomforting fear of the race card to demand action against societal ills, regardless of the communities where they were prominent.

The OJ Verdict trumped he race card in the 1990's, but Coulter then drew a plumb-line to the Obama Administration and the return of the race card. White privilege became the talking point and memo for professors, liberal agitators, the Occupy Movement, etc. Poor Trayvon and Michael Brown were supposed to prove to the American public that despite a Black president and black executive secretaries, the United States was still a racist country, and white America owed everyone else an apology and massive contrition.

Once again, the liberal media played along and demanded that we Americans, particularly white America, let them push us into a corner of guilt over covert racism—especially if we the people criticized Barack Obama. At least The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol called “Bulls—t” on Bill Maher’s show.

Trump has arrived, though, and has indeed “trumped” the Left’s race card, but not just on urban renewal for blacks:

1.       Illegal immigration

In my view, the American public and thus the Presidential candidates, especially the winner in the White House today, spoke freely against illegal immigration because of the tragic, avoidable murder of Kate Steinle. For decades, the liberal press force-fed Americans a steady diet of “pity the poor illegals, you privileged (white) Americans.” We shouldn’t begrudge mass illegal immigration into our country. It’s our fault they’re here, anyway. But while Americans, especially working-class white Americans, were lectured about their untold benefits from “white privilege”, they were losing jobs, they saw their factories shut down and moved oversees, and worst of all, they witnessed their loved ones murdered by illegal aliens.

Just like white America got angry over a guilty black man walking, so too Middle America got tired of the liberal moral shaming. Candidate Trump spoke loudly and proudly what was on the minds of millions of working class voters. I would add that his message of strengthening American manufacturing, securing our borders, and ensuring public safety resonated with black and Hispanic American working-class voters, too.

2.       Islam

This time, I am not qualifying this political sect with “radical.” Read the Koran, follow the devastating, chaotic agenda of Muslims calling themselves faithful adherents to Mohammed, and you will find a political cult, not a benign religion. Once again, Trump was not afraid to say: “Why don’t we stop everything until we figure out what the hell is going on?” Trump wanted a pause, not a Muslim ban. But the Democratic Party and their left-wing grassroots hordes still want to play the national bigotry card. I have heard this iteration of the race card most recently from CAIR-LA Director Hussam Ayloush at Scripps College.

The big event that freed up Americans to speak plainly in opposition to Islam. Mr. “Diversity Visa” Sayfullo Saipov and his jihadi truck driving in New York City. It didn’t help that he murdered eight Americans so close to Ground Zero.

Enough. The liberal shaming over white privilege, which really wasn’t, gave us the following:

OJ Simpson, who got away with killing his wife.

Five-time deported illegal alien Jose Zarate, who killed an innocent young woman walking on the pier with her father.

Islamic radical Sayfullo Saipov, who murdered eight Americans, even though neighbors and co-workers had reported this man to authorities about his radicalized tendencies.

With all the talk about “White privilege” and the moral intimidation which accompanies it, what has happened? Disadvantages, particularly for whites. Would someone please explain to me where white privilege fits into all of this? It’s time to shut down these arguments for good in the new generation coming out of college campuses and in our schools. 

"But I Feel Guilty When I Say 'Deport'!"

Well, not me per se. I’m with Ann Coulter. She captured the cry of many hearts in this country following Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ announcement to rescind DACA:

“We Made Donald %#&@ Trump PRESIDENT -- What Else Can We Do?

Why the outrage? GOP leadership want to make an amnesty Satan Sandwich. Alzheimer’s Nancy with Cryin’ Chuck are lining up to help. At least 18 Republicans in the House and the Senate are climbing over themselves to do something about the poor illegal kids. Their average age is 26, by the way—Obamacare metrics for maturity, perhaps?

In spot-on fashion, Coulter reported how the voters in this country—among Republicans, Tea Party activists, and even Democrats, both “moderate” as well as left-wing—have fought militantly against amnesty of any kind. The wide swath of Main Street doesn’t want more immigration.  I have friends and contacts here in Los Angeles County, registered Democrats, who have told me that they will vote Republican if that candidate will stop illegal immigration. This issue is no longer Democrat v. Republican. The consensus to stop the overrunning of our borders by illegals, as well as the swarming of our labor markets with cheap labor is strong. In California, per a study conducted by uber-liberal, anti-free speech UC Berkeley, 80% of respondents—80%--oppose sanctuary cities.

What more do we need to shove in our politicians’ faces? We pushed Trump into the White House, and even he doesn’t seem keen on keeping this key promise to repeal DACA and end the backdoor amnesty which has followed. A new report indicates that the fraud rates with this unconstitutional program reach as high as 50%! Imagine that half the people filling out forms for this temporary stay, which needs to go, are not even eligible for the program? Forget that: these individuals are not even eligible to live in the country to begin with!

Trump won the election, in spite of the most heated efforts from the corrupt media, the political class on both sides of the aisle, plus the finagling of Big Business. Trump even picked up a higher voter margin than Romney in Oakland, Compton, and Inglewood, California last year. Why? These large, urban areas contain black voting blocs, which turned out for Trump since he boldly tackled a key issue which has decimated their communities and opportunities: illegal immigration. “Sanctuary cities are racist!” exclaimed Chanell Temple during a Cudahy city council meeting earlier this year. Her battle cry went viral. Why won’t Washington listen?

It’s not Big Business—everyone loves seeing Silicon Valley melt into tears, especially after their harsh, fascist boardroom ways have been exposed to the public. Big Labor has been taking a big hit on the chin, the gut, and especially their wallets. Right-to-work has made unions stronger for workers, while weakening their corrupt campaign pipelines to the Democratic Party.  La Raza? They are despicable, and even in “browning” California, their numbers are waning ahead of rising Asian immigration.

So what is it?

Guilt. 

Lyin' Ted Lieu, Sold Out to
George Soros and IT Tech Thief Awan

Congressman Lyin’ Ted Lieu smears Republicans as “The party that wants to deport your kids.” What a crock! He and his parents came legally to this country. Can we deport him for betraying us? Yet this guilt trip is still working. Why else would ruby-red US Senator James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) get wobbly on deporting illegals: “[W]e as Americans do not hold children legally accountable for the actions of their parent. In the coming months, Congress must address this issue.”

No Congress doesn’t. When someone gets caught breaking into my house, I don’t have to feed the burglar’s kids. We are not responsible for the illegals who’ve managed to stay in this country into adulthood. They have skills and the will to succeed—they can thrive in their countries of origin. If we want to talk blame, lay the shame at feet of the illegal alien mothers and fathers who brought their kids here. Blame the Democratic Party, too. They killed funding for the border wall in the late 1980’s and in 2006. They have shamelessly demagogued this issue to create hardship cases to guilt-trip everyone. In 2010, Democrats held every political card, including a supermajority in the US Senate, but they did nothing on immigration, breaking many promises. Of course, the media covered for President Obama then as they do now.

Yet still this undue responsibility lingers over the most hard-core of conservatives because of the young illegals. Guilt just overtakes them: “How heartless can you be?” This is the message I got from one Facebook user after my DACA Repeal celebration in Downtown Los Angeles this week. Saul Alinsky was right: shame is very effective, and it’s still working on conservatives across the board—at least on this issue. Instead of debunking these lies, our government keeps trying to pick up the tab for someone else’s crimes. Good Catholic school boy Paul Ryan wants to “do something”.

Sorry, folks—the guilt trip is over; well, at least for me. Sadly not for GOP leadership. It seems the same is true for Trump.  So here’s my answer in not-so PC fashion: Screw Guilt. We are not responsible to care for those illegal “minors”. Time to shame the Left right back—and all the establishment GOP falling for this psychological warfare.

Newsflash, folks: the world hangs on nothing, but hasn’t crumbled. It’s not as though these kids are completely helpless when they get deported. They have family connections to prepare the way for them in their home countries. The American consulates have been adequately streamlined to ensure that those who want to immigrate legally to this country can do so. And please do not lecture me about separating families. When amnesty panderers find a way to resurrect Kate Steinle, then they can lecture about the young illegals who face deportation. At least those young radicals can still go home, embrace their families and friends, and live their lives. They will survive returning to their home countries and returning legally.

Suck it Up, Buttercups! America is Our Safe Space, Even for Hate Speech (Which Doesn’t Exist)

Fresh off our First Amendment victory in Berkeley, California’s Trump supporters and conservatives around the country rallied to hear President Trump’s 100 Days Celebration Speech.

You know what? He’s doing a great job.

Of course, there are critics. One libertarian-leaning millennial friend of me complained about how Trump spends so much time gloating over accomplishments. My retort? His accomplishments are mine—are our victories. Second, people can pound their chests when they have done great things—Michael Jordan could trash-talk the best on the court because he ended up besting them. Finally, I quipped: “If you don’t like, don’t listen. First Amendment, Baby!”

And about the First Amendment ... Berkeley was a smash-hit success for this sacred right But why? A bunch of conservatives stood their ground in a liberal city. OK, but more importantly, we reasserted that every inch of America is safe space for free speech. Over this past weekend, two insights have re-emerged about these ongoing assaults on free speech.

The first one I had first learned from Ben Shapiro at the University of Redlands. Before his speech, one of the many overpaid campus vice-chancellors announced to the sold-out audience that the university maintained its dedication to diversity, inclusion, and tolerance while opposing the bugaboos of homophobia, xenophobia, and any other fill-in-the-blank phobias. How about ailurophobia for the cat-haters?

Following the disclaimers, conservative wonks enjoyed listening to Benji slaughter the secular leftist sacred cows. The most telling, memorable phrase from his whole talk? “America is a safe space.” Indeed. Safety defined as the right and opportunity to speak one’s mind and pursue happiness free from arbitrary sanctions or suppression. Liberty is not a magic word to justify invidious discrimination, but a state of being absent the opposing confines of government force and fiat. If you don’t like what you hear, you are free not to listen. You are not entitled, however, to shut down someone else’s exercise of liberty, whether in speech, the press, individual conscience, etc.  America is indeed a safe space, you liberal pussy-hat wearing snowflakes. In third-world, communist countries, you are forced to listen to the party line’s dogma and dreck—or you go to gulag.

The second insight deals with the whole “hate speech” canard. Freedom of speech does include a license to hate. I hate illegal immigration. Does that make it hate speech? I guess, in that general sense that liberals love to jump into to justify their own hate speech, including “Keep your hate speech off this campus!” or “Hang Trump!” The second hateful remark came from a German professor at Fresno State University two months ago. His classes were canceled, but not because of the content of the courses, mind you. His tweet was more than hate, but a vicious threat to kill the President. Besides, his inconsiderate rhetoric reflected poorly on the university—not that they don’t already look bad to the thinking, reasoning world.

Free speech does not justify shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. But that scenario is not about speech. The prohibitions comes from the imminent danger based on the statement.

Ann Coulter added further depth to this insight. Despite her Berkeley no-show fail, I still respect her keen mind and strong consistency to root out bigger issues underlying debates which can turn mundane.

This Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Step-on-All-Of-Us, Jonathan Karl rolled out the expected Berkeley-First Amendment wrestling match, this time with Ann Coulter and Robert Reich discussing free speech and its many discontents. Strangely enough, Coulter’s most supporters included Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Robert Reich (even though Reich blocked me on Twitter two months ago!). With Karl moderating, Coulter dismissed the surface-level hustle over freedom of speech. It’s a given from professors left and right that diverse intellects should exercise their right to express their views.

Coulter plumbed the deeper vein of the problem when she slammed the “hate speech” brand seared onto her proposed speech about illegal immigration. Discussion of public policy is not hate speech in the slightest, she indicated, but the necessary engine for good governance in our republic.

And there’s one more thing about this free speech/hate speech brouhaha: this term “hate speech” has grown so broad as to be meaningless. Ha Ha Ha!

“Illegal aliens commit crimes.” Racist!

“Women and men exhibit fundamental biological differences.” Backward chauvinist pig!

“Homosexuality is not an innate trait.” Homophobic bigot!

Yet scientific research underscores these talking points.

How about this triggering truth: “There is no such thing as hate speech.”

Why? Tagging any statement as “hateful” is subjective, lacking clear standards. Wikipedia (not Wikileaks, which was hate speech to corrupt Democrats) defines It’s not hate speech as much as hateful hearing hate speech as “speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin” etc. The offense lies with the hearer, not the speaker. From George Carlin’s monologues or Don Rickles’ ribbings, everyone bursts out laughing at the sharp, explicitly anti-PC retorts. Only the smug, razor-blade Antifa snowflakes want to slash their lungs out because they have predetermined such jibes as hateful.

Now let’s go one step further. In the end, it’s a power struggle, fomented in the minds of the hateful hearers. Leftist organizations smear un-leftist rhetoric as “hate speech” in order to shut down the opposition and remove all challenges. Analyzing the high illegitimacy rates in black communities or criticizing Islam becomes “hate speech”, even though the welfare and safety of our country depend on having these discussions. The “hate speech” controversy definitely explains why Middlebury College snowflakes shut down Charles Murray earlier this month.

Once a brilliant tactic, this Alinskyite shaming and threatening is now failing. The police are protecting conservatives so that violence won’t silence. The problem is now exposed as hateful hearing, not hate speech. So I say: “Suck it up buttercups, free speech is here to stay, whether you hate it or not, and we Americans will safely speak our minds.”

Ann Coulter: Not Showing UP for Free Speech is a Cultural Shutdown

I have been hard on Ann Coulter in the past.

I once called her “The Incredible Shrinking Ann Coulter” because of her vicious—and sometimes vulgar—attacks on long-term Presidential favorite Ted Cruz. She was right about Trump, though I still give Senator Cruz mad props for fighting the good fight. His latest legislative insight, civil asset forfeiture of Mexican Drug Lord El Chapo’s billions for the wall—is pure gold.

Coulter has written very provocative statements, and one tweet got her fired from National Review. On the flip side, she has written some of the most penetrating and erudite political studies, and never once has she feared bucking trends and upending narratives. For this reason, among others, I joined with Los Angeles County for Trump as well as other social media stars like Baked Alaska, Tim Pool, and Shuttershot45 to see Ann Coulter give a riveting speech about illegal immigration and our government’s needs to enforce its immigration laws.

Wednesday morning, in the Encino/Universal City section of Los Angeles, I was getting primed to join her in the culture war for freedom of speech. Friends and fellow fighters from throughout Los Angeles County were ready for another rumble in the hotbed of liberalism. Then the news trickled in: Ann Coulter was cancelling her speech, citing security concerns. The announcement overwhelmed social media like a deluge: her sponsors backed out, her legal team would not defend her, and the Berkeley police signaled that they would not be able to protect her.

I could not believe this. I had read one week ago that Coulter was the last conservative with guts. Then she backs out. What an epic fail. Ben Shapiro wrote the next day: Fascism Wins. Coulter joined Tucker Carlson later that night to explain the situation. I was left unimpressed. Whether anyone realizes it or not, freedom of speech faces unprecedented assault, especially in institutions where one would expect its sanctity to remain defended and inviolable. Churches, charities, and small businesses face lawsuits, threats, and bankruptcy for voicing their concerns and standing by their religious convictions. College Republican/conservative cubs must pay hefty security fees and assume all liability costs—which they can’t, so they don’t showcase keynote conservative speakers.

The assault on free speech has hit Main Street, too.

I have attended town halls and city council meetings throughout Southern California. When I called out the Mayor of Anaheim, CA Tom Tait for violating the Brown Act and for not enforcing the rules of decorum, I was thrown out. Aggressive liberals have invaded town halls, yelling and jeering for every time on the check-list of socialist goals. They don’t get sanctioned or thrown out. When I called out card-carrying Communist Congresswoman Judy Chu (D-Pasadena) for her numerous ethical violations, the rogue police immediately escorted out. Before that, they had ordered me to remove a banner on my shoulders because it violated the town hall rules of decorum, when it actually didn’t.

This is fascism with a smile on its face, folks, and it’s time for our leaders as well as the followers to take a stance. I will not be silent.

And neither should have Ann Coulter.

So, Los Angeles County for Trump took a private limousine-bus up to the People’s Republic of Berkeley, ready for anything, with or without Queen Anne. On the way up, we stopped in Central and Northern California, where so many Trump supporters came up to us. They embraced our passion and courage. The same refrain came out of their mouths: “I didn’t know there were other Trump supporters in California.” Especially in Los Angeles County!

Within minutes of our final stop on Bancroft Street at UC Berkeley, the local media interviewed us. Mind you, they were preparing a story on something else, but we became their featured report for the evening. Twitter sensation Baked Alaska spoke out: “We are here to be peaceful. We have no intention of starting violence.” That was true then, and it’s true now. Our team demonstrated the true diversity of the Trump movement in California. We had Asians, Blacks, and Latinos for Trump joining, including immigrants from Central America furious about millions of illegals clamoring for immediate amnesty.

I expected nothing less than peaceful victory the next day, and I was right. The makeshift free speech rally began at 2 p.m. in Martin Luther King Jr. Park. By 1 p.m., conservatives of all stripes swarmed the main plaza. One man held the American flag at the top of a dried-up fountain. He ensured that our banner yet waved above all other banners. Men and women draped in American flags, Trump gear, picture of Pepe the Frog, and most importantly riot gear of their own populated the entire square. This Trump supporter never felt so at home, and right in the heart of ultra-liberal Berkeley, California.

The conservative masses there were stumping not just for Trump, but for freedom of speech, for our rights as citizens, and for our great country. After eight years of Barack Obama and the insidious poison of silencing political correctness, We the People—especially in California—had had enough and staked out our stance. Other guest speakers, including Laura Southern and Gavin McInnes, spoke at the rally. McInnes even read Ann Coulter’s scheduled speech.

She should have been there. Granted, not building the wall along our southern border counts as government abandoning its core responsibility. But a conservative advocating for principles of freedom of speech as well as enforcement of our immigration laws needs to stand up and fight for these principles, even in the face of dire threats.

Antifa showed up, but with limited effect. Berkeley police, in full riot regalia, defended the streets, and free speech advocates won the day. Trump supporters signaled that they won’t rest until every right is secured, even in the most liberal bastions. If conservatism’s leading minds won’t step up, then We the People will. After all, Americanism is at stake. There is no America apart from the First Amendment.

Mike Pence for VP?

So, Donald Trump is choosing Mike Pence as a running mate.

At least that's the news I have read from the conservative websites and a little dabbling from CNN.

He had a hard time keeping the news to himself.

Let's hope the pause for an announcement following the Nice France attacks will change his mind.,

Pence is not worth two pence to some critics, and for me, he was not the best choice.

Then again, this choice was not about winning over voters like me, who are not that large in the scope of electoral statistics.

Mike Pence (Gage Skidmore)

Ann Coulter predicted that the VP pick would be his first mistake.

Again, like me, Coulter is not the target audience Trump has to consider with his VP choice.

He needs to shore up concerned and fearful Evangelicals, conservatives, and libertarians very worried about Trump's track-record.

So far, those key demographics are warming up to Trump because of the Pence pick.

Influential conservatives in California have told me that they love Pence as the candidate.

Here are my initial thoughts about the Indiana Governor.

This man could not stand up to the Big Gay Hate Machine in Indiana when this reddest of red states wanted to protect the First Amendment rights of all businesses.

He has been a terrible executive for the Hoosier state, according to other sources..
He drank the Obamacare Medicaid kool-aid!

The conservative media pundits gave him a partial pass, however, because his program instituted work requirements along with Health Savings Accounts.

Seriously!

Mike Pence had thrown his hat in the ring for President. He did not last long, but at the time, he was  one of the most principled, consistently conservative members of the House.

When he became governor, however, his tenacity for fiscal discipline and social conservatism faced a few more bumps. A legislator only runs an office--maybe two or three.

A governor is responsible for the entire state.

Indiana is no small commitment, and Pence had quite an act to follow: Mitch Daniels.

So, I may not think Mike Pence was the best candidate for VP.

We all know that Ann Coulter was not too thrilled.

But Trump needed to choose someone who would appeal to the unsure conservatives.

Coulter became a Trump cheerleader long ago. Trump did not want need to wind the unstrung commentariat or the populists.

He needed to assure fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.

He needed to give some kind of calm consistency to his ticket.

He has succeeded.

Pence is the VP nom, and most people are not really talking about him.



That will work for me.