More on Ann Coulter’s recent rhetoric about immigration, this time focusing specifically on her appearence at a CPAC-sponsored debate on 8 March which was structured as an homage to William F. Buckley’s Firing Line. (Buckley played a crucial role in drumming opponents of the jews out of conservativism.)
In the news this past week was confirmation and a reminder of what Coulter calls a “strange asymmetry”. College group’s diversity event canceled after excluding white people, Washington Times, 13 March 2014:
An event meant to celebrate diversity and combat racism at a Washington state community college has been cancelled after a flier emailed to guests said white people weren’t invited.
Diversity and Equity Center staffer Karama Blackhorn helped write the invitation and said she stands by her opinion that staff members of color would have a more honest discussion about race without white people there.
“When trying to explicitly talk about race it can be a really difficult conversation for a lot of people,” she told the station.
“That space is not for white people. That space is for people of color,” she said of the center.
As previously noted, the terms “diversity” and “racism” are opposites. “Diversity” is seen as something intrinsically good in “people of color”, which is just a euphemism for non-White. “Racism”, in contrast, is seen as something intrinsically evil in Whites.
The CPAC debate pitted the jew Mickey Kaus, playing the role of liberal/Democrat, opposite Coulter, who played the conservative/Republican. The audio clips in this podcast were taken from a 30:56 long video of the exchange.
@6:14 sets the tone and stakes out the overall theme:
Kaus: The Republican leadership still presses ahead for amnesty, including John Boehner in the House, and I don’t understand why. Democrats have a perfectly good reason to be for amnesty, which is craven ethnic pandering that’s gonna ensure our power for the next two generations.
Coulter: [forced laugh]
Kaus: But what’s the Republican excuse?
Coulter: [forced laugh]
Coulter has no answer. It’s the same pandering to jews in the leadership of both parties. They both must realize it, but won’t openly acknowledge it.
@11:32 Kaus again calls attention to Republicans leaders and their policies:
Kaus: “We’ll only fund healthcare to three times poverty, not four times poverty.”
Coulter: [forced laugh]
Kaus: None of that will do, will do good that will in any way compensates for the negative effect of amnesty on the wages of unskilled and poor Americans. So Paul Ryan says he’s gonna lift them up but he’s pushing them down with the other hand.
Kaus: What is it with your party that’s fallen – the Republican voters don’t like it
Kaus: Look what happened to Marco Rubio when he endorsed amnesty.
Coulter: All of them.
Kaus: He went down in the polls. Why does the Republican party persist in this suicidal rush?
Coulter: It’s baffling. It’s one of those questions like how high is up, why they keep doing this. I mean part of it is you do not hear the truth about immigration or amnesty any place in the media. You can hear I guess on some of the blogs. There is no issue of as much importance to America and Americans that is so hidden from public view as immigration. I mean you’re talking about who votes.
Not only is immigration not profitable to poor Americans, or even Americans on the whole, it’s bankrupting America.
Contrary to what Kaus implies, it’s not suicide, it’s genocide. Contrary to what Coulter claims, it’s not baffling. The media’s bias is a jewish bias.
It is the same jewish media which openly debated for months last winter whether Chuck Hagel would be the best US Secretary of Defense for Israelis.
It is the same jewish media that, last April, before they knew anything else, hoped the Boston bomber was a White Christian.
It is the same jewish media that, last May, was praised by Joe Biden for altering public opinion and promoting immigration, civil rights, feminism and gay marriage.
It is the same jewish media that, this February, flipped their lids and condemned Tom Perkins for having the audacity to equate the merely rich 1% to the jews.
The same jewish moguls who control this jewish media also have political influence. They fund both political parties.
@13:01 Coulter tries again, without success, to explain why:
Coulter: The country does become California. Why the Republicans are rushing headlong into this: Some of it is cowardice, they feel like we lost the last election, and “oh, please hispanics, will you vote for me, will you vote for me?” Well, you know, look at the polls, hispanics don’t care about amnesty.
As Mickey just said, who gets hurt by bringing in more low-wage workers? The million you brought in last year. And the year before. And the year before.
I mean my whole life I’ve heard Republicans hate black people. I’ve never seen any evidence of it until I read Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill. We are the party that has always stood up for African Americans. Who gets hurt the most by amnesty, by continuing these immigration policies? It is low-wage workers, it is hispanics, it is blacks.
And the fact that Republicans don’t understand that, can’t grasp it, you say Rubio was hurt by it, it wasn’t just Rubio – McCain, Bush, as you’ve written in your blog, it’s like a zombie amnesty. We can’t kill it. They keep going back to it.
And my assumption is it’s it’s it’s the lobbyists. And it may not be the congressmen or the senators themselves who want the job lobbying, but I think their staff does.
As a professional politcal pundit, Coulter knows that the Republican base is White – not low-wage workers, hispanics or blacks.
Her suggestion that senators and congressmen answer to their staff, who manipulate them in order to get jobs as lobbyists, is ridiculous.
We know that these senators and congressmen don’t answer to their voters on immigration. Their true constituency are the people who control whether they get elected, and whether they stay in office – the people who control the media and fund their parties and campaigns. In a word, jews.
Politicians who might feel some affinity for and loyalty to their White voters are afraid to openly express it. Even Coulter, an unelected pundit with a secure income from her books, purchased by Whites, won’t openly recognize White interests, much less express whatever affinity or loyalty she might feel.
@16:00 Kaus lays a trap:
Kaus: That’s the difference between the amnesty debate and the tax debate – is, taxes, we can always raise them later or lower them later if we don’t like it. Amnesty, there’s no do-overs, once you let people in , they’re here.
Coulter: Yeah. That’s why it’s more important that Obamacare.
Kaus’ point is true in the sense that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The poison is in the same old false claim that “liberal”/leftist policies, once implemented, cannot be reversed. “Can’t turn back the clock!”
Coulter too quickly and easily concedes, showing how and why “conservatives” always manage to lose.
@16:33 Coulter blames insanity, and Kaus once again reminds her of the racial reality:
Coulter: Harry Reid called the anchor baby law, or ruling, insanity. Of course it’s insanity! So yeah, there were some good Democrats but now I guess they just think, oh screw the country, screw low-wage workers, we want our 30 million voters.
Kaus: And it’s the triumph of ethnic politics over economic politics. As an old marxist…
Coulter: [forced laugh]
Kaus: I remember the time in the Sixties when the people came in and said, “No, it’s not the proletariat that counts, it’s the fact that we’re black or hispanic.” And we said, “You’re crazy, we’re marxists, all workers are the same, it doesn’t matter which color they are.”
Coulter: [forced laugh]
Kaus: But they’ve won. They’ve won. They’ve taken over the democratic party.
Coulter won’t confront WHO is screwing WHOM, much less WHY. She returns again and again to voting, even though she knows that what the voters want doesn’t really matter.
Though Kaus won’t mention the jews, he comes closer to the truth, to race, to anti-White animus. He shoves it in Coulter’s face, and all she can do is lamely laugh.
Kaus, like Mark Rudd, understands that “60s marxist” is essentially code for “jews”. Coulter probably does too.
@22:40 Prompted by the question “who’s your pick for 2016”, Coulter launches into a long, incoherent rant:
Coulter: But no, look, I mean Obama is trying to do everything he can. It’s not elected Republicans, it’s the American people who are stopping Republicans, I think that’s probably the best hope for our candidates.
Because again there’s no, to quote Mickey Kaus, I used to think everything was about sex, now I think everything is about immigration. It is, it determines every single other issue, and of course that’s how we’ve gotta pick our presidential nominee. And just you know a little footnote, that’s why Mitt Romney was my favorite candidate, he was the most aggressive on immigration. He was, and in a way that was very appealing.
I mean in that first debate he had one of the best answers, if I had two weeks to write an answer, and it was for illegal immigrants, do you want to give them drivers licenses and in-state tuition. Well half the Republicans on stage had already done that. And Mitt Romney said, “No, I will appeal to hispanics the way Republicans always have. We’re offering freedom, and liberty and a chance at a better life for you and your children. And any hispanics who are here for a handout aren’t voting for Republicans anyway.”
It was a beautiful and perfect answer. I mean they made fun of self-deportation, which I never really understood, except that I think liberals and the media have a capacity, they could turn the phrase “apple pie”, into “ooo, ooo, he said apple pie”, but of course that’s our solution to immigration.
Which is why you can’t believe these fake polls on, oh, most Americans support a path to legalization. That’s because, I look up every one of these polls and the question is always, do you want to, it’s always a binary question, two options: Do you want to round up illegal immigrants at gunpoint, put them on buses, send them home, ripping children from grandmothers?
Or, would you like to put them on a path to legalization where they have to learn English and take lessons in patriotism and pay back taxes of which there are none – they’d be getting money back under the earned income tax credit.
But look, there’s no politician in Washington who’s suggesting rounding anybody up. We didn’t round them up to get them here. We’re not gonna round them up to get em home. We just enforce E-Verify when the jobs dry up, and oh say, college tuition subsidized by the taxpayers.
And now as we know, please every conservative remember this, what Joe Wilson got in trouble for. And everyone was hysterical over Representative Joe Wilson at President Obama’s State of the Union address when he yelled out “you lie”, it was because Republicans had been fighting for two weeks with the Democrats to exclude illegal immigrants from getting Obamacare. And Obama stood up at the State of the Union, “Absolutely, no illegal immigrants will be able to get Obamacare”. And in a moment of passion and rage Joe Wilson yelled out, “You lie!”
Well we found out this week Joe Wilson was right, Obama was lying. He’s has now announced, he’s announced to illegal aliens, “Yes, please, sign up for Obamacare, this will not be used to deport you.”
This is Coulter in fast talk mode, like a snake oil salesman. She knows the Republican leadership is betraying its White voting base. She can’t really explain that, or why any White should still vote for them, but advises it anyway.
In outlining the strongest line Republicans have on immigration, Coulter makes plain just how weak it is. They have no substantial requirements – immigrants will speak English anyway, can’t be taught patriotism, and (as she herself recognizes) won’t be paying any back taxes. They want no forced deportation, only the self-deportation resulting from cutting off jobs and benefits.
It is similar to, but not even as robust as what Enoch Powell proposed in Britain 46 years ago.
Many came illegally, overcoming some resistance. Few will go home if not actively forced to do so.
Coulter’s point about polling biased in favor of amnesty is just a variation on the point she’s already made about the (jewish) media. “Round them up at gunpoint” is an allusion to the jewish holocaust narrative.
She correctly notes that politicians at the highest levels, including presidents, are lying about their intentions.
@30:05 Coulter concludes the debate with a severe case of cognitive dissonance:
Coulter: I mean obviously I’m disappointed in Republicans. The only thing that matters more is immigration. Immigration is forever, it is game over when that happens.
Oh, and by the way, every Republican voted against Obamacare. So there’s no trying to figure out is he going to vote against Obamacare. I mean some are better than others, I don’t really like hearing him say, “We’re gonna keep the good parts of Obamacare.” What is that?
But amnesty is forever. And I think you gotta vote for the Republicans one more time, and just make it clear that if you pass amnesty that’s it, it’s over, then we organize the death squads for the people who wrecked America.
It would be stupid to take Coulter’s radical rhetoric seriously. She doesn’t take it seriously herself. She advocates that Whites, who she won’t even address as Whites, vote for a party she knows has betrayed them, and will continue to do so. She won’t acknowledge the long-term, jewish nature of the project that has wrecked White America. Her “beautiful and perfect answer”, to offer freedom and a better life to any alien who wants it, is exactly how the wrecking was accomplished.
“Liberals”, in general, are relatively honest about the significance of race. “Conservatives” like Coulter, in contrast, deny it. Both favor non-Whites over Whites, because both march to a tune called by the jews.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
CPAC “Debate” Exposes How Far Right Conservative Media Are On Immigration | Blog | Media Matters for America, by Solange Uwimana, 10 March 2014:
This is typical of the judaized media’s discourse on immigration.
The sick irony is that the “racially tinged” arguments made by “conservatives”, explicitly naming and favoring non-Whites, appeal mainly to deracinated Whites.
Crunch. Crunch. Crunch. Another great episode. I’m glad I’m on your side!