Mediaboss Marketing

Everything said about President Trumps Muslim ban is a lie including that its a Muslim ban.

The New York Times wore out its thesaurus denouncing the order: cruelty injury suffering bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating breathtaking inflammatory callousness and indifference and thats from a single editorial!

Amid the hysteria over this prudent pause in refugee admissions from seven countries whose principal export is dynamite vests, it has been indignantly claimed that its illegal for our immigration policies to discriminate on the basis of religion.

This is often said by journalists who are only in America because of immigration policies that discriminated on the basis of religion.

For much of the last half-century, Soviet Jews were given nearly automatic entry to the U.S. as refugees. Entering as a refugee confers all sorts of benefits unavailable to other immigrants, including loads of welfare programs, health insurance, job placement services, English language classes and the opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship after only five years.

Most important, though, Soviet Jews were not required to satisfy the United Nations definition of a refugee, to wit: someone fleeing persecution based on race, religion or national origin. They just had to prove they were Jewish.

This may have been good policy, but lets not pretend the Jewish exception was not based on religion.

If a temporary pause on refugee admissions from seven majority-Muslim countries constitutes targeting Muslims, then our immigration policy targeted Christians for discrimination for about 30 years.

Never heard a peep from the ACLU about religious discrimination back then!

According to the considered opinion of the Cato Institutes David J. Bier, writing in The New York Times, Trumps executive order is illegal because the 1965 immigration act banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin.

In 1966, one year after the 1965 immigration act, immigrants from Cuba suddenly got special immigration privileges. In 1986, immigrants from Ireland did. People from Vietnam and Indochina got special immigration rights for 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War.

The 1965 law, quite obviously, did not prohibit discrimination based on national origin.(I was wondering why the Times would sully its pages with the legal opinion of a Grove City College B.A., like Bier! Any expert in a storm, I guess.)

In fact, ethnic discrimination is practically the hallmark of Americas immigration policy in addition to our perverse obsession with admitting the entire Third World.

Commenting on these ethnic boondoggles back in 1996, Sen. Orrin Hatch said: We have made a mockery of refugee law, because of politics and pressure. We let in one ethnic group out of compassion, and then they form an ethnic power bloc to demand that all their fellow countrymen be let in, too.

As the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, described diversity in Der Spiegel: In multiracial societies, you dont vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.

Thats our immigration policy plus a healthy dose of Emma Lazarus insane idea that all countries of the world should send their losers to us. (Thanks, Emma!)

Americans are weary of taking in these pricey Third World immigrants, who show their gratitude by periodically erupting in maniacal violence in, for example, San Bernardino, Orlando, New York City, Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, Bowling Green and St. Cloud.

The Muslim immigrants currently being showcased by the left are not likely to change any minds. The Times could produce only 11 cases of temporarily blocked immigrants that the newspaper would even dare mention. (Imagine what the others are like!)

For purposes of argument, I will accept the Times glowing descriptions of these Muslim immigrants as brilliant scientists on the verge of curing cancer. (Two of the Times 11 cases actually involved cancer researchers.)

n Point one: If the Times thinks that brilliance is a desirable characteristic in an immigrant, why cant we demand that of all our immigrants?

To the contrary! Our immigration policy is more likely to turn away the brilliant scientist in order to make room for an Afghani goat herder, whose kid runs a coffee stand until deciding to bomb the New York City subway one day.(That was Najibullah Zazi, my featured Immigrant of the Week, on May 1, 2012.)

n Point two: I happened to notice that even the stellar Muslim immigrants dug up by the Times seem to bring a lot of elderly and sickly relatives with them. Guess who gets to support them?

House Speaker Paul Ryans driving obsession (besides being the Koch brothers lickspittle)is entitlement reform, i.e., cutting benefits or raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare.

I have another idea. How about we stop bringing in immigrants who immediately access government programs, who bring in elderly parents who immediately access government programs, or who run vast criminal enterprises, stealing millions of dollars from government programs?

n Point three: Contrary to emotional blather about the horrors refugees are fleeing, a lot are just coming to visit their kids or to get free health care. One of the Times baby seals an Iraqi with diabetes and a respiratory ailment was returning from performing his responsibilities as an elected official in Kirkuk.

Thats not exactly fleeing the Holocaust.

While its fantastic news that most Muslim refugees arent terrorists, the downside is: Theyre not refugees, theyre not brilliant, they dont have a constitutional right to come here and theyre very, very expensive. Until politicians can give us more government services for less money, they need to stop bringing in the poor of the world on our dime.

View original post here:
ANN COULTER: Give me your tired arguments - St. Augustine Record

If youve been wondering where Grammy- and Oscar-winning rapper Eminem disappeared to and, seriously, who hasnt? wonder no more.

The rapper, aka Slim Shady, aka Marshall Mathers, has resurfaced on a new record by Big Sean, a fellow Detroit native. Em appears back to his standard trick: rage-fueled name-dropping. His target this time around?

Who else? President Donald Trump.

He calls the president a b**** and drops some bombs about conservative firebrand Ann Coulter while hes at it, with lyrics that are so crude and foul were not going to repeat them here.

Em has kept a low profile in recent years, especially considering how prolific he was 15 years ago, when his film debut "8 Mile" earned his single "Lose Yourself" an Oscar for Best Song. He spent those years calling out pretty much everybody, from his mother (played in the film by actress Kim Basinger), to the mother of his daughter Haley, to Britney Spears and Limp Bizkit front man Fred Durst (remember him/them?). It's safe to say this shtick played a large part in catapulting him to the top of the charts.

Can lightning strike twice? Fact is, the artist would scoff at the notion. He'd say it's already struck countless times, and if anyone disagreed he really doesn't even care. Essentially rap's Axl Rose, Eminem can do whatever he wants at this point in his career, which suggests his rapping these particular lyrics about Coulter is something that just might have been thrust before him.

By Big Sean himself? His producer? Someone else?

Or perhaps this is just more discontentedness from liberal celebrities, coupled with their increasing penchant for calling for violence. Madonna talked about blowing up the White House, DeNiro talked about punching Trump in the face, Scott Baio has been attacked physically not once but twice and recent violence at UC Berkeley suggest the Left won't be satisfied until there is some very real unrest on the streets.

Related: Rioting, Violence on Parents' Dime at UC Berkeley

Despite the occasional celebrity calling for calm (Matthew McConaughey, for example, was quoted earlier this week saying that "we need to embrace President Trump"), there are 10 times that amount calling for civil unrest, and in the face of opposition, out-and-out violence.

Regarding UC Berkeley, protests erupted there on Wednesday ahead of a planned Wednesday appearance by right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, causing $100,000 worth of damage to the campus. The school released that figure on Thursday, and blamed "150 masked agitators" for it, saying they had "come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest."

Related: Michael Moore: Women Trump Voters Are Victims

Then two members of the Berkeley College Republicans "were attacked while conducting an interview" on the campus on Thursday.

So the question remains: Was Eminem called into action as a pop culture icon known for inflammatory lyrics spat out at a rapid-fire pace? Or did he merely see President Trump as an opportunity to become relevant again? How well the song charts might be the only answer to that question that we ever get.

More here:
Eminem Curses Trump, Raps About Sexual Assaults Against Ann Coulter - LifeZette

|

Posted: Feb 01, 2017 7:08 PM

Everything said about President Trump's "Muslim ban" is a lie -- including that it's a Muslim ban.

The New York Times wore out its thesaurus denouncing the order: "cruelty ... injury ... suffering ... bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating ... breathtaking ... inflammatory ... callousness and indifference" -- and that's from a single editorial!

Amid the hysteria over this prudent pause in refugee admissions from seven countries whose principal export is dynamite vests, it has been indignantly claimed that it's illegal for our immigration policies to discriminate on the basis of religion.

This is often said by journalists who are only in America because of immigration policies that discriminated on the basis of religion.

For much of the last half-century, Soviet Jews were given nearly automatic entry to the U.S. as "refugees." Entering as a refugee confers all sorts of benefits unavailable to other immigrants, including loads of welfare programs, health insurance, job placement services, English language classes, and the opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship after only five years.

Most important, though, Soviet Jews were not required to satisfy the United Nations definition of a "refugee," to wit: someone fleeing persecution based on race, religion or national origin. They just had to prove they were Jewish.

This may have been good policy, but let's not pretend the Jewish exception was not based on religion.

If a temporary pause on refugee admissions from seven majority-Muslim countries constitutes "targeting" Muslims, then our immigration policy "targeted" Christians for discrimination for about 30 years.

Never heard a peep from the ACLU about religious discrimination back then!

According to the considered opinion of the Cato Institute's David J. Bier, writing in The New York Times, Trump's executive order is "illegal" because the 1965 immigration act "banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin."

In 1966, one year after the 1965 immigration act, immigrants from Cuba suddenly got special immigration privileges. In 1986, immigrants from Ireland did. People from Vietnam and Indochina got special immigration rights for 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War.

The 1965 law, quite obviously, did not prohibit discrimination based on national origin. (I was wondering why the Times would sully its pages with the legal opinion of a Grove City College B.A., like Bier! Any "expert" in a storm, I guess.)

In fact, ethnic discrimination is practically the hallmark of America's immigration policy -- in addition to our perverse obsession with admitting the entire Third World.

Commenting on these ethnic boondoggles back in 1996, Sen. Orrin Hatch said: "We have made a mockery" of refugee law, "because of politics and pressure." We let in one ethnic group out of compassion, then they form an ethnic power bloc to demand that all their fellow countrymen be let in, too.

As the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, described "diversity" in Der Spiegel: "In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."

That's our immigration policy -- plus a healthy dose of Emma Lazarus' insane idea that all countries of the world should send their losers to us. (Thanks, Emma!)

Americans are weary of taking in these pricey Third World immigrants, who show their gratitude by periodically erupting in maniacal violence -- in, for example, San Bernardino, Orlando, New York City, Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, Bowling Green and St. Cloud.

The Muslim immigrants currently being showcased by the left are not likely to change any minds. The Times could produce only 11 cases of temporarily blocked immigrants that the newspaper would even dare mention. (Imagine what the others are like!)

For purposes of argument, I will accept the Times' glowing descriptions of these Muslim immigrants as brilliant scientists on the verge of curing cancer. (Two of the Times' 11 cases actually involved cancer researchers.)

Point one: If the Times thinks that brilliance is a desirable characteristic in an immigrant, why can't we demand that of all our immigrants?

To the contrary! Our immigration policy is more likely to turn away the brilliant scientist -- in order to make room for an Afghani goat herder, whose kid runs a coffee stand until deciding to bomb the New York City subway one day. (That was Najibullah Zazi, my featured "Immigrant of the Week," on May 1, 2012.)

Point two: I happened to notice that even the stellar Muslim immigrants dug up by the Times seem to bring a lot of elderly and sickly relatives with them. Guess who gets to support them?

House Speaker Paul Ryan's driving obsession (besides being the Koch brothers' lickspittle) is "entitlement reform," i.e., cutting benefits or raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare.

I have another idea. How about we stop bringing in immigrants who immediately access government programs, who bring in elderly parents who immediately access government programs, or who run vast criminal enterprises, stealing millions of dollars from government programs? (I illustrated the popularity of government scams with immigrants in "Adios, America!" by culling all the news stories about these crimes over a one-month period and listing the perps' names.)

Point three: Contrary to emotional blather about the horrors refugees are fleeing, a lot are just coming to visit their kids or to get free health care. One of the Times' baby seals -- an Iraqi with diabetes and "a respiratory ailment" -- was returning from performing his responsibilities as an elected official in Kirkuk.

That's not exactly fleeing the Holocaust.

While it's fantastic news that most Muslim refugees aren't terrorists, the downside is: They're not refugees, they're not brilliant, they don't have a constitutional right to come here and they're very, very expensive. Until politicians can give us more government services for less money, they need to stop bringing in the poor of the world on our dime.

Read the original post:
Give Me Your Tired Arguments - Ann Coulter - Townhall - Townhall

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

SiriusXM host Alex Marlow contended that the mainstream medias irresponsible use of terms like fascist and white nationalist for speakers who are not of the Left has laid the groundwork for violence against them.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

It is the rise of a genuinely violent fascist movement, Coulter said of these left-wing gangs. It would be as if the Nazis went around complaining about how the Jews were attacking them and oppressing them. Thats basically what we have going on now.

She recalled how violent protesters shut down a Trump rally in Chicago during the 2016 presidential campaign. It was amazing to me how many families with kids, and wives, and daughters, they continued to go out to see Trump. It is like my college speeches, something Ive been doing for a long time. You know, youll have 20 speeches that are fine, and then suddenly, BAM! the violent mobs show up. You never know when its going to happen, so you have to be prepared all the time, she said.

But Americans still did come out. I think that was intended to reduce Trumps crowds, and make it look like he was the one creating the violence. All of this, just for someone who says, We have to take care of Americans first. Thats what theyre so upset about, Alex, Coulter declared, returning to an earlier point about how the U.S. Congress is attempting to cut back on the cost of major programs for Americans, such as Social Security and Medicare, at the same time open-borders advocates insist on importing even more dependents.

We cant afford that. We cant afford this. We have to raise the retirement age. No, stop! We gave at the office! she exclaimed.

Coulter agreed wholeheartedly with President Trumps threat to withdraw all federal funding from Berkeley if the college administration refuses to deal with violence.

This is a genuine threat to democracy when people cant engage in the first of the Bill of Rights, the very first one thats mentioned: freedom of speech, she warned. This has been a burgeoning movement, particularly on our college campuses, for a long time.

In a calm, reflective moment, I think he should do the same thing with any colleges that have speech codes or need special free speech zones where students and/or professors are disciplined for engaging in First Amendment speech, she advised.

This has absolutely been done before, she noted. The IRS has been used to say, Sorry. If youre collecting student aid, you cant attend these colleges. Were not sending any student aid to these colleges who dont abide by and those were often kind of silly principles being enforced, like Bob Jones University, thats sort of a very hardcore fundamentalist Christian college. Im a Christian. It has some beliefs or it used to; I dont know if they still do but one was from the Tower of Babel. They wouldnt allow interracial dating.

They had blacks, they had whites, and it was mostly a black-and-white country back then in fact, scholarships for black students but whites couldnt date black students. Blacks couldnt date white students, she explained. And I ought to add, because I looked this up at the time, there was very little dating of any sort. If you went on a date at Bob Jones, you had to have a chaperone with you. Anyway, there was no racial animus to this; it hit both races equally.

But for that, the IRS came down like a ton of bricks on Bob Jones University. No federal aid through student scholarships, as I recall. A student who had student aid could not attend that college. And now, we have a genuine fascist, violent fascist, movement rising up, and theres not only no punishment, but taxpayers are paying for this? Oh, no, no, no. Second to immigration, the next biggest problem in this country is the universities and public schools, she said.

Coulter said this climate of hatred and violent repression of dissent comes from the university administrations.

These are not spontaneous movements, she scoffed. I described in my book Demonic on groupthink and mob behavior, that these are particularly lickspittle students that want to please the professor. And they know damned well their professors are opposed to everything Ann Coulter says and everything Milo says. Its just like presenting a polished apple to the teacher. Oh, teacher, here: I brought you a gift today! I went and protested Ann Coulter!

At the risk of being snobbish, but telling you what the truth is, it doesnt tend to happen at the Ivy League schools, she observed. Berkeley is weird. The worst ones are the Jesuit colleges and the community colleges. I mean, at Harvard and Yale and Ive spoken at both places many times Wellesley, Smith, my own alma mater Cornell, the kids are too they want to challenge you intellectually. Theyd be embarrassed to throw something.

Though I do think there is a new movement kind of sweeping through here, she added, at some of these schools, wed be organized. Wed be ready to go. Id give the speech. They could stand up at the mics.Id take questions until they had collapsed from exhaustion. And usually at the tougher schools to get into, thats how they want to be. They want to ask you a question and outsmart you. Its when it is a three-year-old, who doesnt have the power of speech or logic, and just throws food so it would tend to be the lesser colleges.

The other thing is, when we would be prepared and have college Republicans and large men prepared to throw out any hecklers, sometimes the members of the administration would stop people our people, who had rented the room had paid for me to come speak. Someone comes to disrupt and start heckling, they try to remove the heckler, and an administrator this happened at Syracuse University some dean of students stepped forward and said, You cant remove the heckler because youre interfering with his free speech rights! Coulter said with astonishment.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m.to 9:00 a.m.Eastern.

LISTEN:

More here:
Ann Coulter: Trump Should Withdraw Funding from Any School with Speech Codes - Breitbart News

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The New York Times wore out its thesaurus denouncing the order: cruelty injury suffering bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating breathtaking inflammatory callousness and indifference and thats from a single editorial!

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Amid the hysteria over this prudent pause in refugee admissions from seven countries whose principal export is dynamite vests, it has been indignantly claimed that its illegal for our immigration policies to discriminate on the basis of religion.

This is often said by journalists who are only in America because of immigration policies that discriminated on the basis of religion.

For much of the last half-century, Soviet Jews were given nearly automatic entry to the U.S. as refugees. Entering as a refugee confers all sorts of benefits unavailable to other immigrants, including loads of welfare programs, health insurance, job placement services, English language classes, and the opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship after only five years.

Most important, though, Soviet Jews were not required to satisfy the United Nations definition of a refugee, to wit: someone fleeing persecution based on race, religion or national origin. They just had to prove they were Jewish.

This may have been good policy, but lets not pretend the Jewish exception was not based on religion.

If a temporary pause on refugee admissions from seven majority-Muslim countries constitutes targeting Muslims, then our immigration policy targeted Christians for discrimination for about 30 years.

Never heard a peep from the ACLU about religious discrimination back then!

According to the considered opinion of the Cato Institutes David J. Bier, writing in the New York Times, Trumps executive order is illegal because the 1965 immigration act banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin.

In 1966, one year after the 1965 immigration act, immigrants from Cuba suddenly got special immigration privileges. In 1986, immigrants from Ireland did. People from Vietnam and Indochina got special immigration rights for 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War.

The 1965 law, quite obviously, did not prohibit discrimination based on national origin. (I was wondering why the Times would sully its pages with the legal opinion of a Grove City College B.A., like Bier! Any expert in a storm, I guess.)

In fact, ethnic discrimination is practically the hallmark of Americas immigration policy in addition to our perverse obsession with admitting the entire Third World.

Commenting on these ethnic boondoggles back in 1996, Sen. Orrin Hatch said: We have made a mockery of refugee law, because of politics and pressure. We let in one ethnic group out of compassion, then they form an ethnic power bloc to demand that all their fellow countrymen be let in, too.

As the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, described diversity in Der Spiegel: In multiracial societies, you dont vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.

Thats our immigration policy plus a healthy dose of Emma Lazarus insane idea that all countries of the world should send their losers to us. (Thanks, Emma!)

Americans are weary of taking in these pricey Third World immigrants, who show their gratitude by periodically erupting in maniacal violence in, for example, San Bernardino, Orlando, New York City, Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, Bowling Green and St. Cloud.

The Muslim immigrants currently being showcased by the left are not likely to change any minds. The Times could produce only 11 cases of temporarily blocked immigrants that the newspaper would even dare mention. (Imagine what the others are like!)

For purposes of argument, I will accept the Times glowing descriptions of these Muslim immigrants as brilliant scientists on the verge of curing cancer. (Two of the Times 11 cases actually involved cancer researchers.)

Point one: If the Times thinks that brilliance is a desirable characteristic in an immigrant, why cant we demand that of all our immigrants?

To the contrary! Our immigration policy is more likely to turn away the brilliant scientist in order to make room for an Afghani goat herder, whose kid runs a coffee stand until deciding to bomb the New York City subway one day. (That was Najibullah Zazi, my featured Immigrant of the Week, on May 1, 2012.)

Point two: I happened to notice that even the stellar Muslim immigrants dug up by the Times seem to bring a lot of elderly and sickly relatives with them. Guess who gets to support them?

House Speaker Paul Ryans driving obsession (besides being the Koch brothers lickspittle) is entitlement reform, i.e., cutting benefits or raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare.

I have another idea. How about we stop bringing in immigrants who immediately access government programs, who bring in elderly parents who immediately access government programs, or who run vast criminal enterprises, stealing millions of dollars from government programs? (I illustrated the popularity of government scams with immigrants in Adios, America! by culling all the news stories about these crimes over a one-month period and listing the perps names.)

Point three: Contrary to emotional blather about the horrors refugees are fleeing, a lot are just coming to visit their kids or to get free health care. One of the Times baby seals an Iraqi with diabetes and a respiratory ailment was returning from performing his responsibilities as an elected official in Kirkuk.

Thats not exactly fleeing the Holocaust.

While its fantastic news that most Muslim refugees arent terrorists, the downside is: Theyre not refugees, theyre not brilliant, they dont have a constitutional right to come here, and theyre very, very expensive. Until politicians can give us more government services for less money, they need to stop bringing in the poor of the world on our dime.

View original post here:
Ann Coulter: Give Me Your Tired Arguments - Breitbart News