General

They’re Replacing YOU, Black America

/13 Comments/in /by
They’re Replacing YOU, Black America

Liberals are screwing over African Americans again, sublimely confident that whatever they do, Democrats will never get less than 90% of the black vote.

In the Buffalo, New York, mass shooting 10 days ago, 18-year-old Payton S. Gendron drove 200 miles to a grocery store jam-packed with the descendants of American slaves and gunned down as many people as he could. But instead of this being an anti-black thing, the media have decided, no, it’s an anti-immigrant thing, based on the shooter’s belief in the “great replacement theory,” which holds that elites are deliberately replacing historic Americans with immigrants.

Trust us, it’s all in his “manifesto” — and no, you can’t see it. What? You don’t trust the media to tell you the truth about the shooter’s motive?

Still, I can’t help but notice that the shooter seemed really intent on killing black people. He drove 3 1/2 hours from Conklin, New York, to get to a city with remarkably few immigrants. Only 10% of Buffalo is foreign-born. But it’s 35% black.

Much closer to Conklin than Buffalo is, for example, Middletown, New York, which is 39% Hispanic and 16% foreign-born. In about half the time it took to get to Buffalo, he also could have driven to Utica, New York, which is 22% foreign-born. And he would have cut his driving time by more than an hour if he’d gone to Schenectady, New York, 17% foreign born.

So why are the media insisting that the killer hated immigrants, when it kinda looks like he mainly hated blacks?

For one thing, midterm elections are coming, and voters are poised to have a say on the fabulous things Biden’s done to our border.

Oh, you think we should have a border? What — do you believe in REPLACEMENT?

Moreover, Hispanics have begun to show a slight — very slight — willingness to vote for Republicans, coinciding with the Democratic Party’s enthusiastic embrace of Black Lives Matter, and thus, black criminality. (It turns out Latinos are generally opposed to getting beaten up and having their money stolen.)

Finally, of course, there’s the fact that Democrats know there’s nothing, absolutely nothing, that will stop black people from voting for them.

Now they’re just showing off. Yeah, Buffalo was a racist shooting — but watch this: We’re going to make it about immigrants, and we’ll STILL get the black vote!

After years of the media trying to turn every single event into proof that white people hate African Americans, at last there’s a monstrous crime where even skeptics say, Yeah, this one was totally about a white guy who hates black people. But the media decided that this week, they needed to juice the immigrant vote.

The madness, the wild upside-down insanity of the media pushing the “great replacement theory” as the motive for the Buffalo shooting, is this: If anyone’s being replaced by immigrants, it’s black people.

Black people have always been here! Heard of the 1619 Project? The thesis and details may be comically false, but it is a plain fact that blacks have been here since 1619. Historic America is not a monolithically white country; it is a biracial country — black and white — and remained so for two centuries, until Teddy Kennedy decided to change it with his 1965 immigration act.

Of the two racial groups that formed 99% of America from the 1600s to the mid-1970s, which one do you think is getting the short end of the stick? The white working class isn’t popping champagne corks over mass immigration, but black people get absolutely nothing out of it.

Rich people, mostly whites, are making out like bandits. Endless low-skilled immigration has finally solved “the servant problem.” By now, so many hardworking Latinos have come in that virtually every upper-middle-class white person has a maid, a nanny and a gardener.

It’s low-wage workers — mostly black men — whose wages have been annihilated by competition from the cheap labor being dumped on the country. Not only have working-class wages gone into the toilet, but a lot of jobs are totally off-limits to black people — because they don’t speak Spanish or Chinese or Tagalog.

For decades now, black professors, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and ordinary African Americans have been pointing out how immigration hurts them. Democrats don’t care.

And that’s the story of how an unequivocally anti-black mass murder became a crime against immigrants.

More on the real “replacement” next week.

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500

Quo Vadis, Mother Russia?

/6 Comments/in /by

Where does Mother Russia go from here? Bitter at their losses in the Cold War and post-Cold War years, many Russian nationalists are urging the regime to align with today’s great power antagonist of the United States, Xi Jinping’s China.

“The demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” said Russia’s new ruler Vladimir Putin in his 2005 state of the nation address.

“As for the Russian people,” Putin went on, “it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.”

From Putin’s standpoint, the statement was then and remains today understandable.

Consider. When Putin entered his country’s secret service, Berlin was 110 miles deep inside a Soviet-occupied East Germany. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria were member states of the Warsaw Pact.

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were republics of the USSR. Ukraine was the most populous and ethnically closest of the Soviet republics to Russia itself.

And today? Berlin is the capital of a united, free and democratic Germany, a member of NATO, that is beginning a rearmament campaign triggered by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria are members of the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Former Soviet republics Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are also members of that Western alliance established to contain Russia.

Sweden and Finland, neutral through the Cold War, are applying for membership in NATO.

Ukraine, backed by the U.S. and NATO, is fighting a war to push the Russian army out of its territory, a war that has the support of almost every country on the continent of Europe.

Even the falls of the British and French empires at the end of World War II do not match as geo-strategic disasters the collapse of the Soviet Empire and breakup of the Soviet Union since the end of the Cold War.

How goes the Russian war in Ukraine launched on Feb. 24?

Russia has enlarged the territory it controls in Crimea and its Luhansk and Donetsk enclaves in the Donbas. And now, with the fall of Mariupol, Moscow controls the entire Sea of Azov and has completed its land bridge from Russia to Crimea.

But Russia has failed to capture and been forced by the Ukrainian army to retreat from Kyiv and Kharkiv, the largest cities in Ukraine, and Putin has seen his forces humiliated again and again.

Yet, withal, Russia today remains a great power.

The largest nation on earth with twice the territory of the U.S., Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal and exceeds the U.S. and China in tactical nuclear weapons. It has vast tracks of land and sits on huge deposits of minerals, coal, oil and gas.

But Russia also has glaring weaknesses and growing vulnerabilities.

While Putin has built up impressive forces in the Arctic, the Baltic Sea, with Finland and Sweden joining the Western alliance, is becoming a NATO lake. Russian warships sailing out of St. Petersburg to the Atlantic have to traverse the coastal defenses of 11 present or future NATO nations: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Britain and France.

Among the questions that Russia, shrunken in so many ways from the great U.S. rival of the Cold War it once was, must answer is, “Quo Vadis?”

Where does Mother Russia go from here?

Bitter at their losses in the Cold War and post-Cold War years, many Russian nationalists are urging the regime to align with today’s great power antagonist of the United States, Xi Jinping’s China.

This is a recipe for a Second Cold War, but how would that war avail the Russian nation and its people?

In any Russia-China alliance, there is no doubt who will be senior partner. And it is not the U.S. that covets and wishes one day to control the resources of Russia from Novosibirsk to the Bering Sea.

Watch the Latest Videos on the Buchanan-Trump YouTube Playlist!

China’s population of 1.4 billion people is 10 times Russia’s. East of the Urals, China’s population is 50 to 100 times the size of Russia’s in Siberia and the Far East.

What of a U.S.-Russia detente as Moscow’s future rather than Cold War II?

During some of the coldest days of the Cold War, U.S. presidents like Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan sought to find common ground on which to stand with Russia to avoid conflict.

Ike invited the “Butcher of Budapest,” Nikita Khrushchev, for a 12-day U.S. visit in 1959. Nixon initiated a “detente” with Leonid Brezhnev, who had ordered the Warsaw Pact to crush the “Prague Spring” in 1968. Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev negotiated the dismantling of an entire class of nuclear weapons in the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty.

Given the hostility Putin has generated by his invasion of Ukraine, Western leaders may be unable to bring Russia in from the cold. But if we isolate Russia, push it out of the West, Moscow has only one direction in which to go — east, to China.

In 230 years, the United States has never gone to war with Russia. Not with the Romanovs nor with the Stalinists, not with the Cold War Communists nor with the Putinists.

U.S. vital interests dictate that we maintain that tradition.

Why Would the U.S. Give a War Guarantee — to Finland?

/5 Comments/in /by

A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War ended, are we still expanding NATO? Russia does not threaten the United States. As for any threat that it poses to its European neighbors, let them deal with it.

Seeing Russia invade Ukraine, historically neutral Finland has undergone a late conversion and decided to join NATO immediately.

Why? Because NATO membership means the world’s strongest power, the United States, under Article 5 of NATO, would go to war against Russia, should it cross Finland’s border.

Nervous about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intentions, Finland wants America legally and morally bound to fight Russia on its behalf, should Putin invade Finland as he invaded Ukraine.

From the Finnish point of view, this is perfectly understandable.

But why would the United States consent to go to war with Russia, the largest nuclear power on earth, for violating Finland’s frontiers?

Finland is not Alaska; it is not Canada; it is 5,000 miles away. And no one ever asserted during the Cold War, or for the decades since, that Finland was a U.S. vital interest.

Why, then, would we consent, in advance, to go to war with Russia over Finland?

President Joe Biden said last week that NATO has an “open door” policy and Finland and Sweden are welcome, and he looks forward to their joining.

Consider what Biden is actually saying and doing here.

He is ceding to Finland, a country of 5.5 million people with an 830-mile border with Putin’s Russia, the right to obligate the United States of America to go to war with Russia, if Russia attacks Finland.

What patriot would commit his own country, in perpetuity, to go to war on behalf of another country not his own?

Why would America surrender to the Finns our freedom of action in deciding whether or not to fight a nuclear-armed Russia?

NATO is not a country club; it is a military alliance Putin regards as an enemy. Every member of that alliance is obliged to treat an attack on any one of its 30 members as an attack on all, and all are obligated to come to the defense of the nation attacked.

By welcoming Finland into NATO, Biden is offering Helsinki the kind of war guarantee Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain gave to Poland in the spring of 1939, which led to Britain’s having to declare war on Sept. 3, 1939, two days after Germany invaded Poland.

How did that work out for Britain and the empire?

In his farewell address, President George Washington warned his countrymen against “permanent alliances.” In conscious echo of our first president, Thomas Jefferson warned against “entangling alliances.”

NATO is a military alliance that has been in existence since 1949. While it began with the U.S., Canada and 10 European nations, it ended the Cold War with 16. We have since added 14 more.

Six of the nations NATO added since the Cold War — Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania — were members of the USSR’s Warsaw Pact. Three of the newest NATO members — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania — are former republics of the Soviet Union.

The last quarter-century of NATO’s encroachment into Russia’s space and onto Russia’s front porch has been a leading cause of the worsening relationship between the world’s two great nuclear powers.

The repeated refusal of Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to rule out NATO membership for Ukraine was a primary cause of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

This does not absolve Putin of culpability in launching the war on Ukraine, but it should tell us that any new members of NATO, in Russia’s “near abroad,” especially a new NATO member with an 830-mile border with Russia from the Baltic to the Arctic, is running a real risk and raising the possibility of war.

Indeed, with Russia’s war in Ukraine in stalemate, having failed to achieve its objectives in Kyiv, Kharkov and Odessa, Russian officials have repeatedly raised the prospect of a desperate resort to tactical nuclear weapons to stop the bleeding. “Escalate to de-escalate” is the slogan.

Bringing Sweden and Finland into NATO, which has already elicited rage from Moscow and ominous threats, is unlikely to reduce whatever pressure currently exists to escalate to nuclear war.

A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War ended, are we still expanding NATO?

Russia does not threaten the United States. As for any threat that it poses to its European neighbors, let them deal with it. Together, NATO Europe is far more populous and economically powerful than Russia, and militarily capable of providing for their own defense.

Why should this be our obligation more than 30 years after the Cold War — and counting?

With small but modernized military forces, Finland, if attacked, can resist Russia. Why, then, let ourselves be obligated to go to war on Finland’s behalf, a war that could result in an escalation to nuclear war, the avoidance of which was a goal of every president, from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan?

Turkey is now warning that it may exercise its rights as a NATO member to veto membership by Sweden and Finland. Anyone think Turkish President Recep Erdogan would declare war on Russia, if it invaded Finland?

Dr. Stephen Sanderson’s Race and Evolution: Causes and Consequences of Race Differences is now available

/3 Comments/in /by

Dr. Stephen Sanderson’s Race and Evolution: Causes and Consequences of Race Differences was reviewed by F. Roger Devlin for TOO. It is now available on Amazon, both in hardcover and Kindle.

Payton Gendron’s Manifesto

/72 Comments/in /by

Since Payton Gendron’s manifesto is virtually banned from the internet, I thought I should post it. Can’t agree with all of it by any means, but this guy is no dummy. It’s a huge file, so takes time to upload.

Manifesto

Are All Court-Created Rights Now in Peril?

/8 Comments/in /by

What does this fear that if the Alito decision overturning Roe becomes law, all these other decisions are in peril as well, tell us? It suggests that the national establishment lacks faith that the American people have truly and fully embraced the social reforms that progressives have gotten the Supreme Court to impose by fiat.

In the storm that erupted over the leaked draft opinion of Justice Samuel Alito, which would overturn Roe v. Wade, a secondary alarm has arisen among our elites.

If Roe is overturned, it is said, a whole raft of Supreme Court rulings rooted in the same principles and legal reasoning could be overturned as well.

Pillars of our progressive society could come crashing down.

In an op-ed in The Washington Post, legal scholars Melissa Murray and Leah Litman wrote that Alito’s draft opinion “declares that the Constitution ‘makes no reference to abortion’ and argues that abortion rights were ‘entirely unknown in American law,’ throughout most of the nation’s history.”

Yet, the scholars argue, the same “is true of contraception, which the court held states could not restrict in Griswold v. Connecticut. It’s true of … interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, which the court has held could not be prohibited in Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges. It’s true of sexual intimacy between consenting adults, which the court held states could not prohibit in Lawrence v. Texas.”

If a woman’s right to an abortion no longer exists, we are being forewarned, the right to birth control, gay rights, interracial marriage and same-sex marriage could be the next to fall to the Alito ax.

Yet, the idea that a state legislature, in this decade, would enact a new statute that outlaws sexual relations between gays and lesbians or rejects any constitutional right to same-sex marriage — and the Supreme Court would uphold that statute — seems an absurdity.

Still, the raising of such fears tells us something about those advancing this line of argument. They are worried about the fate of cherished reforms that they have managed to impose upon the nation and its people through autocratic decisions of the Supreme Court.

What the pro-abortionists are saying is that many court decisions declaring new rights are not at all deeply rooted in the Constitution or in the hearts and minds of the population.

They are saying that there are more Americans than you might imagine who would like to see the work of the Supreme Court, of which progressives are most proud, undone.

They are saying that the rights discovered and declared in the gay rights and same-sex marriage decisions, for example, had to be imposed by the court. Else, they might never have become federal law. The nation as a whole would never have embraced them.

Again, what does this fear that if the Alito decision overturning Roe becomes law, all these other decisions are in peril as well, tell us?

It suggests that the national establishment lacks faith that the American people have truly and fully embraced the social reforms that progressives have gotten the Supreme Court to impose by fiat.

Consider.

Earl Warren was appointed chief justice by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953. A year later, Warren delivered his unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed racial segregation in all public schools — 10 years before Congress was able to pass the Civil Rights Act.

While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were enacted democratically, by the Congress, Brown and subsequent court decisions mandating forced busing to bring about racial integration and a prescribed racial balance were enacted autocratically.

They were imposed by unelected justices, serving for life, against whose rulings U.S. citizens had no recourse. And Brown and its progeny were resisted in a way the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not.

During these same decades, Supreme Court decisions were handed down outlawing all Bible instruction and voluntary prayer in public schools and forbidding virtually all religious expressions in the public square.

The nation was formally, officially and involuntarily secularized.

A democratically elected Congress would never have enacted these proscriptions. It took an autocratic court to impose them, by exploring and then discovering in the Constitution exactly what the court had decided to impose upon the American people, without the people’s consent.

Abortion was declared a constitutional right and legalized in every state, including that half of the nation that regarded it as shameful, sinful or criminal, in that it snuffed out the life of an unborn child.

Whatever else these court decisions do, they show a lack of confidence in the ruling class in its ability to persuade the majority to agree and enact a law, and a reliance upon the court to impose autocratically what progressives could not persuade the country to enact democratically.

President Joe Biden says this generation of Americans is in a global struggle between democracy and authoritarianism.

But were the decisions to outlaw the Bible and school prayer in the public schools, to declare that a right to abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage can be found in the penumbras of the Constitution, arrived at democratically or autocratically?

Perhaps the solution is to have court decisions discovering new rights subjected to national referenda, so the whole nation can say “Yea” or “Nay” after they are handed down.

 

Dems Speak Out on Roe! Release the COVID Variants!

/2 Comments/in /by

Dems Speak Out on Roe! Release the COVID Variants!

I guess Democrats realized that having feminist harpies fan out across the airwaves to shriek about the vital importance of aborting babies wasn’t helping, because we all woke up Monday morning to …

A NEW SURGE OF CORONAVIRUS!

Maybe that will distract the dingbats. They probably all think they have “long-haul COVID.”

In response to the Supreme Court’s leaked draft opinion returning abortion to the states, Hillary Clinton said: “Any American who says, ‘Look, I’m not a woman, this doesn’t affect me. I’m not Black, that doesn’t affect me. I’m not gay, that doesn’t affect me’ — once you allow this kind of extreme power to take hold, you have no idea who they will come for next.”

On the other hand …

1) Women themselves don’t seem to view abortion as a “women’s rights” issue — in fact, a lot of polls show women more opposed to abortion than men. Nobody’s wondering, for example, how Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted.

3) Idea! Maybe wait for what comes next to talk about what comes next.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., tweeted: “The Republicans won’t stop with banning abortion. They want to ban interracial marriage. Do you want to save that? Well, then you should probably vote.”

Yes — doubtless in an opinion written by Clarence Thomas.

Always on top of things, President Joe Biden’s response to the abortion opinion was to talk about … gay kids being thrown out of school. “What happens,” the advanced dementia patient asked, “if you have states change the law saying that children who are LGBTQ can’t be in classrooms with other children?”

Wha …?

Why does every liberal argument about allowing Americans to vote on abortion immediately veer off into apocalyptic warnings about something else entirely? I’m beginning to suspect abortion is not as beloved as liberals claim it is. As Biden wrote in his 2007 book, “Promises to Keep”: “If we tried to make this a referendum on abortion rights … we’d lose.”

And yet, we keep being hectored about the runaway popularity of Roe v. Wade. Apparently, poll respondents just don’t want feminists to yell at them. Yes, absolutely, Roe is great. I don’t hate women, please leave me alone.

According to The New York Times — and I don’t think they’re exaggerating the opposition to abortion — two-thirds of Americans oppose abortion after the first trimester. That’s 12 weeks. The Mississippi abortion law that’s going to turn women into birthing machines bans abortion after 15 weeks.

Also inadvertently admitted in the Times: What percentage of abortions do you think take place after the first trimester? Answer: 8%.

That’s what the termagants are shrieking about? The 8% of abortions opposed by a substantial majority of Americans? No wonder they keep changing the subject to Black people.

The winner of the most clinically insane response to the draft opinion is Amanda Taub of The New York Times. She explained that opposition to abortion is a sneaky way of opposing … women in the workforce? Contraception? Secularists?

Nope. Desegregation!

Her evidence: “It is hard to imagine now, but at the time Roe v. Wade was decided, in 1973, abortion was not a major issue for the American right, or even for evangelical Christians. …”

Hmmm, why might that be? Maybe it’s because, until Roe, abortion was a crime in almost every state in the Union. Three-quarters of the states banned abortion at every stage of pregnancy. All this is admitted in the Roe opinion itself.

As Justice Samuel Alito’s draft puts it:

“Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Zero. None. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe was handed down, no federal or state court had recognized such a right.”

Hey, Amanda! It is hard to imagine, but matricide isn’t a major issue for the American right, either. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court suddenly discovers a “constitutional right” to kill your mother, I would expect that to change.

But the sleuth Taub presses on:

“The shift [to pro-life] was not spurred by abortion itself, but by desegregation. After the Supreme Court ordered schools in the South to desegregate, many white parents pulled their children from public schools and sent them to all-white private schools. … The I.R.S. revoked those schools’ tax-exempt status, provoking widespread anger among white evangelical Christians and catalyzing their new role as a powerful conservative force in American politics.”

I’m sure the creation of private religious academies had nothing to do with the court banning prayer in the public schools, then banning prohibitions on teaching Darwinism and sex ed. Why would Christians care about any of that?

By the way, where did this champion of desegregation go to high school? ANSWER: Amanda Taub went to a university “lab” school that is only 5% Black in a town that is 18% Black.

The gigantic hypocrite concludes: “Publicly opposing desegregation was not really socially acceptable or palatable to a broader coalition. But opposing abortion was.”

Whereas the Taubs relied on admissions testing and grades to ensure their daughter went to a segregated school.

Democratic Party: Get these lunatics away from the media!

But how? We don’t have anything —

Any new variants out there?

Guess what, America? CORONAVIRUS IS BACK!

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION