Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
VOTE NOW: What should Republicans' Top Legislative Priority Be?
Repeal the ObamaCare individual mandate
Stop the NSA's warrantless spying on Americans
Refuse to reauthorize the Import-Export Bank
Stop the ObamaCare bailouts of insurance companies
View poll and comments »
Ann Coulter’s ¡Adios America! is a four-alarm siren aimed at alerting some still-drowsy conservatives that the Democrats’ hot pursuit of “immigration reform” is designed to blow up the Republican party and conservatism in general. It is an open conspiracy by the Left, but too many in the GOP appear indifferent or, worse yet, are suffering from Stockholm syndrome and are cooperating with those who seek the party’s demise.
Coulter lays all this out in specific, gruesome and verifiable detail in her customary lively and provocative style. It’s a tutorial on the immigration debate, which conservatives ignore at their peril. Here is the real clear politics of what’s happening. Except for Lyndon Johnson’s pummeling of Barry Goldwater in 1964, she writes, “Democrats have not been able to get a majority of white people to vote for them in a presidential election since 1948.” Their response was to “overwhelm” Americans with “new voters from the Third World.” And this they did by passing the historic 1965 Immigration Reform Act, which, in essence, allowed enormous numbers of Hispanics to legally pour across America’s borders, whetting the appetite for a massive invasion of illegal immigrants as well.
Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy let the donkey out of the bag in his piece for the Roper Center in 1998:
The reform act, he allowed, “promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy, has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.” (My emphasis) And so it has.
The Democratic effort to jam pro-Democrat immigrants into voting booths is both cynical and notorious. Before the 1996 presidential election, the Clinton administration undertook a major initiative to give citizenship to one million people so they could vote by Election Day.
The White House, Coulter reminds us, “demanded that applications be processed twelve hours a day, seven days a week. Criminal background checks were jettisoned for hundreds of thousands of applicants, resulting in citizenship being granted to at least seventy thousand immigrants with FBI criminal records and ten thousand with felony records. Murderers, robbers, and rapists were all made citizens so that the Democrats would have a million foreign voters on the rolls by Election Day.” Even the Washington Post realized this was intended to create a “potent new block of Democratic voters.”
Now that millions of illegal aliens have flooded America and are siding overwhelmingly with Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats—with help from too many obtuse Republicans—keep pressing for amnesties which will entice even more illegals to cross the border and allow even more millions of Hispanics to cast their votes for the Clinton-Obama party.
The 1976 Simpson-Mazzoli Act was a disaster. The amnesty came, Coulter notes, but “the border security never did.” She documents the results: Illegal immigration quickly sextupled. And there have been at least “a half dozen more amnesties since then, legalizing millions more . . .who broke our laws.” The browning of America is working out just swell for the Left, especially in important electoral states, but why do Republicans, Coulter wonders, keep acting like Charlie Brown and embracing these suicidal policies?
Amnesty and voting rights for illegals aren’t even high on the Hispanic wish list. Rep. Steve Pearce, a rock-ribbed New Mexico Republican, for instance, keeps winning a substantial number of Hispanics, despite telling them there is only one path to citizenship as far as he’s concerned: Illegals will just have to return to Mexico and get in the back of the line.
In 2011, 73 percent of California Hispanics said they’d support a candidate who wanted to “secure the border first, stop illegal immigration, and then find a way to address the status of people already here illegally.” And these are California Hispanics. In a 2014 Univision poll, 58 percent chose “require border security first” over “pass immigration reform.” Even Republican Whit Ayres, a too eager pro-Latino pollster, acknowledges that among Hispanics “jobs and the economy lead by a mile” over amnesty.
In virtually every presidential election the Democrats scoop up at least 60 percent of the Hispanic vote—a whopping 71% in 2012. Why? Because Hispanics, as well as other groups in the lower economic brackets, are far more interested in government handouts. “That’s why,” Coulter writes, “Obama’s Spanish-language ads during the 2012 campaign didn’t say one word about amnesty. Instead, he promised Hispanics free healthcare under Obamacare.”
Coulter exposes dozens of deceptions surrounding this issue, which explains her firm rejection of “comprehensive immigration reform” solutions and supposed “fixes” coming from Republicans and Democrats alike. Like Lenin’s supposed observation that promises, like piecrusts, are made to be broken, solemn, bipartisan pledges to ensure border security never materialize. Under Simpson-Mazzoli, border security provisions in the law were ignored. Teddy Kennedy swore that his 1965 bill would never “inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area,” but more than half of all immigrants to the United States since 1970 are native Spanish speakers.
Is Obama really the Deporter in Chief, as some of his supporters claim, in order to lure Republicans into backing immigration “reform”? Not so, says Coulter, pointing out that he’s deported “far fewer” than Bush, but has just changed the definition to include illegals turned away at the border. Her evisceration of Marco Rubio’s 2013 “reform” proposal is done in devastating detail, as she also caustically describes how Rubio quickly abandoned his pledge on border security first.
New amnesties proposed by both Democrats and Republicans will, if approved by Congress and if history is a guide, almost certainly help swamp our welfare and prison rolls and lower the wages of our existing work force. And don’t believe there are only 12 million “illegals,” she says, since there are excellent studies—a very convincing one by Bear Stearns—which point to as many as 30 million.
Does Coulter have a solution? The only plan the Congress should push, she argues, is one that conservatives have been pushing for over a decade: Secure the border first. Once it is really accomplished, she remarks, we can then debate what to do with those “in the shadows.” Still seems a reasonable plan for many of us on the right.
Honestly, you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried...
A Cincinnati teacher has resigned in the wake of racist comments and abusive actions taken toward handicapped children.
Intervention Specialist Pamela Bullock has left her position at Wayne Local Schools in Warren County, after four teaching assistants wrote a letter to administrators detailing her abuse toward students.
In one incident, the assistants reported that Ms. Bullock was taking care of a handicapped, non-verbal student, when she became irate at him. Bullock threw a marker at the boy, hitting him in the head.
Later the same day, "a racial comment was directed toward the same student," wrote the assistants. "After applying a bandage to the student's leg, [Bullock] said, 'Anything else, your highness? My people fought for years, so we wouldn't have to serve white people like you.'"
In another incident, Bullock reportedly got angry at a student and took the safety wheels of his wheelchair.
The assistant's letter continued, "In addition, there is a great lack of teaching in the functional skills classroom for intensive needs special education students. On most days, she sits at her computer, while paraprofessionals create activities and try to teach the students. It is not the intention of this letter to be vindictive or to attack (Bullock). However, as paraprofessionals, we are required to be advocates for our students."
Two administrators, elementary school principal Jean Hartman and special education coordinator Amanda Johnson, did nothing about the incidents, despite it being brought to their attention. When the district started termination procedures, Bullock resigned and Johnson and Hartman were put on administrative leave.
Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr., in a speech Wednesday on the House of Representatives floor, quoted several prominent conservatives to help make the case that “there has been nothing conservative about our policy of permanent, forever, endless war in the Middle East.” In the speech, Duncan quotes, in turn, thought-provoking comments from Thomas Sowell, David Keene, Jon Utley, Peggy Noonan, and William F. Buckley, Jr.
Mr. Speaker, the week before last, the greatly respected conservative columnist Thomas Sowell wrote:
"What lessons might we learn from the whole experience of the Iraq war? If nothing else, we should never again imagine that we can engage in nation building in the sweeping sense that term acquired in Iraq--least of all, building a democratic Arab nation in a region of the world that has never had such a thing in a history that goes back thousands of years."
The week before last, the longtime conservative leader David Keene wrote in the Washington Times about our Middle East wars:
"The concept of U.S. national interests was stretched beyond any rational meaning with the argument that 'democracies don't go to war with democracies,' so rebuilding the world in our own image was seen as our ultimate national interest."
Mr. Keene went on and said:
"America took on more than we could possibly handle. The result is a generation of young Americans who have never known peace, a decade in which thousands of our best have died or been maimed with little to show for their sacrifices, our enemies have multiplied, and the national debt has skyrocketed."
The week before last, the publisher of The American Conservative magazine, Jon Utley, wrote an article entitled: "12 Reasons America Doesn't Win Its Wars." The Magazine said:
"Too many parties now benefit from perpetual warmongering for the U.S. to ever conclude its military conflicts."
Mr. Utley quoted conservative columnist Peggy Noonan, who wrote:
"We spend too much on the military, which not only adds to our debt, but guarantees that our weapons will be used."
She quoted one expert, who said:
"Policymakers will find uses for them to justify their expense, which will implicate us in crises that are none of our business."
Conservative icon William F. Buckley, shortly before he passed away, came out strongly against the war in Iraq. He wrote:
"A respect for the power of the United States is engendered by our success in engagements in which we take part. A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride."
He added that if the war dragged on, as it certainly has:
"There has been skepticism about our venture, there will be contempt."
A couple of weeks ago, we saw an Iraq army, which we have trained for years and on which we have spent megabillions, cutting and running at the first sign of a fight. We should not be sending our young men and women to lead and/or fight in any war where the people in that country are not willing to fight for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, fiscal conservatives should be the ones most horrified by and most opposed to the horrendous waste and trillions of dollars we have spent on these very unnecessary wars in the Middle East.
Last week, 19 Republicans voted for a resolution saying that we should bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Republican leadership of the Foreign Affairs Committee did not want any Republicans to speak in favor of that resolution, so Mr. Jones, Mr. Sanford, and Mr. Massie requested, and received, time from the Democratic sponsor, Mr. McGovern.
I did not want to do that, but I at least wanted to point out today that there has been nothing conservative about our policy of permanent, forever, endless war in the Middle East.
In his most famous speech, President Eisenhower warned us against the military industrial complex. We should not be going to war in wars that are more about money and power and prestige than they are about any serious threat to the United States. I think President Eisenhower would be shocked at how far we have gone down that path that he warned us against.
If there's one thing the Supreme Court accomplished last Friday (besides unleashing cultural chaos on America), it was ending the liberal media's charade. Whatever scrap of journalistic impartiality existed flew out the courtroom window Friday when the press decided these five justices not only invented a right to same-sex marriage but to censorship too.
Less than a week after the Court trampled the Constitution, one of the biggest stories of the ruling is the industry tasked with relaying it -- the mainstream press. After years of trying to drive out debate, the liberal media is using the cloak of the Court to do it. Desperate to take away the voice of Christians at the public table, the Left is already on the march to undermine the very freedom that gives breath to the speech it now enjoys.
Despite being one of two nations in the entire world who forced this on their people by the courts, much of the media has declared victory over a dispute that's barely existed two decades. Americans who believe in thousands of years of human history must now surrender to a four-day-old "right" -- or shut up altogether. "What they believed yesterday is no longer acceptable today," wrote Howard Kurtz, a Fox News analyst. "If you are an American who is opposed to gay marriage... you barely see yourself reflected in the coverage. The message is that you are clueless, out of touch, a lost cause. And in some quarters, it's worse: that you are a bigot, a homophobe..."
In the hundred hours since the opinion was released, we've already seen the gloves come off. At a newspaper in Pennsylvania, editors warned that they would "no longer accept, nor... print, op-eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.' ...This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitic letters. To that, we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple."
These are the conversations taking place in newsrooms all across the country. This is just one that happened to go public. Not surprisingly, people were outraged and flooded the newspaper with scathing emails and phone calls. Within hours, the editors issued an apology. It was, John Micek, said, a "genuine attempt at fostering civil discussion." (Not very genuine, it seems, since ending the discussion doesn't exactly foster one.) Still, Micek said, "These pages... belong to the people of Central Pennsylvania. I'm a conduit, I recognize, for them to share their views and to have the arguments that make us better as a people. And all views are -- and always will be -- welcome."
For how long, no one knows. Over at the Daily Beast, editors are already calling the justices' four dissents "treason." And it doesn't take much imagination to assume that Americans who believe the same as President Obama did three years ago will be accused of the same. Obviously, FRC has been dealing with these attacks for some time. But after Friday, the campaign to blacklist those who still believe in natural marriage became surprisingly ferocious.
When Ken Blackwell appeared on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" to talk about the Supreme Court's marriage ruling, left-wing groups mobilized thousands of people to contact the network, demanding it ban him from future shows. It's a deliberate attempt to silence your voice, which we represent in Washington. "You better be ready and you better be prepared because it's coming," Rev. Franklin Graham warned. "There will be persecution of Christians for our stand."
In the media, there already is. The press is no longer a guardian against censorship but a portender of it. And this much is clear: they'll shove anyone out of the public square who doesn't stand their ground. Of course, the sad irony of their intolerance is that if anyone should be a natural ally for free speech, it's the press. After all, our right to disagree springs from the same well as their freedom to write about it.
If there's one thing conservatives have going for them, it's that the media has inflated the support for same-sex marriage for so long that they've actually started to believe it. It will come as a great surprise then, as I'm sure it did to John Micek, when millions of Americans start pushing back on this effort to drive conservatives underground. In its arrogance, the Left seems to have overlooked the fact that the Court ordered same-sex marriage by the slimmest of majorities -- one that happens to reflect the deep divide of its country's own people.
The marriage debate isn't over, and FRC will do everything it can to make sure it stays that way. Today, we're launching a new movement called Project Tolerance: Preserving Your Voice in the Public Square. The media is already hearing from the Left -- now it's time they heard from us. If you want to know what you can do in the wake of Friday's ruling, here's something: click over to FRC's site and sign up to join the pushback.
When Donald Trump said something not exuberantly enthusiastic about Mexican immigrants, the media’s response was to boycott him. One thing they didn’t do was produce any facts showing he was wrong.
Trump said: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
The first thing a news fact-checker would have noticed is: THE GOVERNMENT WON’T TELL US HOW MANY IMMIGRANTS ARE COMMITTING CRIMES IN AMERICA.
Wouldn’t that make any person of average intelligence suspicious? Not our media. They’re in on the cover-up.
A curious media might also wonder why any immigrants are committing crimes in America. A nation’s immigration policy, like any other government policy, ought to be used to help the people already here — including the immigrants, incidentally.
It’s bad enough that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are accessing government benefits at far above the native rate, but why would any country be taking another country’s criminals? We have our own criminals! No one asked for more.
Instead of counting the immigrant stock filling up our prisons, the government issues a series of comical reports claiming to tally immigrant crime. The Department of Justice relies on immigrants’ self-reports of their citizenship. The U.S. census simply guesses the immigration status of inmates. The Government Accounting Office conducts its own analysis of Bureau of Prisons data.
In other words, the government hasn’t the first idea how many prisoners are legal immigrants, illegal immigrants or anchor babies.
But there are clues! Only about a quarter of California inmates are white, according to a major investigative piece in The Atlantic last year — and that includes criminals convicted in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when the vast majority of California’s population was either black or white.
Do immigration enthusiasts imagine that more than 75 percent of the recent convicts are African-American? Blacks have high crime rates, but they make up only about 6 percent of California’s entire population.
A casual perusal of the “Most Wanted” lists also suggests that the government may not have our best interests in mind when deciding who gets to live in America.
Here is the Los Angeles Police Department’s list of “Most Wanted” criminal suspects:
– Jesse Enrique Monarrez (murder),
– Cesar Augusto Nistal (child molestation),
– Jose A. Padilla (murder),
– Demecio Carlos Perez (murder),
– Ramon Reyes (robbery and murder),
– Victor Vargas (murder),
– Ruben Villa (murder)
The full “Most Wanted” list doesn’t get any better.
There aren’t a lot of Mexicans in New York state — half of all Mexican immigrants in the U.S. live in either Texas or California — and yet there are more Mexican prisoners in New York than there are inmates from all of Western Europe.
As for the crime of rape specifically, different groups have different criminal proclivities, and no one takes a backseat to Hispanics in terms of sex crimes.
The rate of rape in Mexico is even higher than in India, according to Professor Carlos Javier Echarri Canovas of El Colegio de Mexico. A report from the Inter-American Children’s Institute explains that in Latin America, women and children are “seen as objects instead of human beings with rights and freedoms.”
All peasant cultures have non-progressive views on women, but Latin America happens to have the peasant culture that’s closest to the United States.
The only reason our newspapers aren’t chockablock with reports of Latino sexual predators is that they are too busy broadcasting hoax news stories about non-existent gang-rapes by white men: the Duke lacrosse team (Crystal Gail Mangum), University of Virginia fraternity members (Jackie Coakley) and military contractors in Iraq (Jamie Leigh Jones).
In fact, the main way we find out about Hispanic rapists is when the media report on dead or missing girls — hoping against hope that the case will never be solved or the perp will turn out to look like the rapists on “Law and Order.” When it turns out to be another Latino rapist, that fact is aggressively suppressed by the media.
New Yorkers were horrified by the case of “Baby Hope,” a 4-year-old girl whose raped and murdered body turned up in an Igloo cooler off of the Henry Hudson Parkway in 1991. After a 20-year investigation, the police finally captured her rapist/murderer in 2003. It was Conrado Juarez, an illegal alien from Mexico, who disposed of the girl’s body with the help of his illegal alien sister.
New York City is the nation’s media capital. But only The New York Post reported that the child rapist was a Mexican.
In 2001, the media were fixated on the case of Chandra Levy, a congressional intern who had gone missing. All eyes were on her boss and romantic partner, Democratic congressman Gary Condit. Then it turned out she was assaulted and murdered while jogging in Rock Creek Park by Ingmar Guandique — an illegal alien from El Salvador.
There was a lot of press when three Cleveland women went missing a decade ago. By the time they escaped in 2013 from the sick sexual pervert who’d been holding them captive, it was too late for the media to ignore the story. The girls hadn’t been kidnapped by the Duke lacrosse team, but by Ariel Castro.
Now, get this: While investigating Castro, the police discovered that he wasn’t the only Hispanic raping young girls on his block. (All in all, it wasn’t a great street for trick-or-treating.)
Castro’s erstwhile neighbor, Elias Acevedo, had spent years raping, among many others, his own daughters when they were little girls. The New York Times’ entire coverage of that case consisted of a tiny item on page A-18: “Ohio: Life Sentence in Murders and Rapes.”
The media knew from the beginning that the monstrous gang-rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in Houston in 1993 was instigated by Jose Ernesto Medellin, an illegal immigrant from Mexico. But over the next decade, with more than a thousand news stories on that case, the fact that the lead rapist was a Mexican was not mentioned once, according to the Nexis archives.
Only when Medellin’s Mexicanness was used to try to overturn his death sentence did American news consumers finally find out he was an illegal alien from Mexico. (After years of wasted judicial resources and taxpayer money being spent on Medellin’s appeals, he will now be spending eternity way, way south of the border.)
Who is this media cover-up helping? Not the American girls getting raped. But also not the Latina immigrants who came to the U.S., thinking they were escaping the Latin American rape culture. So as not to hurt the feelings of immigrant rapists, the media are willing to put all girls living here at risk.
No wonder the media is sputtering at Trump. He broke the embargo on unpleasant facts about what our brilliant immigration policies are doing to the country.
Your support keeps freedom alive!