Ann Coulter Defiant Even as UC Berkeley Flip Flops on Speech

DEFIANT.

No dice.

That’s Ann Counlter’s response to a UC Berkeley offer to allow her to speak on campus five days after the original scheduled date of her speech, which was initiated by the school’s College Republicans.

And so the fun begins. And by fun I mean antifa, assaults, blood, and general chaos.

Times Colonist

BERKELEY, Calif. — University of California, Berkeley officials said Thursday they have a “grave concern” of violence on campus if Ann Coulter follows through on her vow to speak next week at the university.

Chancellor Nicholas B. Dirks instead proposed an alternate May 2 date for the conservative author, reversing a decision from a day earlier when officials cancelled the event.

Coulter took to Twitter to reject the offer, saying she will appear next Thursday as originally planned.

“I’m speaking at Berkeley on April 27th, as I was invited to do and have a contract to do,” tweeted Coulter, who was invited to speak by campus Republicans. In a separate tweet she said she’s not free May 2.

Coulter’s rejection potentially sets the stage for another political brawl at Berkeley, where violent protesters forced the cancellation of a speech by former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos in February.

Dirks told a news conference that police have “very specific intelligence regarding threats that could pose a grave danger to the speaker,” her audience and protesters if the event goes ahead next Thursday. He urged Coulter to speak at the later date instead, when the university can provide an “appropriate, protectable venue.”

The Berkeley College Republicans invited Coulter to speak on the subject of illegal immigration.

On Wednesday, UC Berkeley officials announced they were calling off the event because of security concerns.

“We have been unable to find a safe and suitable venue,” officials wrote in a letter to the campus Republicans on Wednesday. “Given current active security threats, it is not possible to assure that the event could be held successfully.”

Coulter responded Wednesday, also on Twitter, by saying she planned to come anyway.

Campus spokesman Dan Moguluf said Coulter’s promise “to come to the campus come what may” prompted Dirks to launch an expanded search beyond the usual venues for high-profile speakers to find one where officials can ensure safety.

Berkeley has been the site of clashes between far-right and far-left protesters, most recently at a rally last weekend called in support of President Donald Trump in downtown Berkeley.

Mogulof said campus police learned that some of the groups that appeared to be responsible for the violence last weekend and at the Yiannopoulos event “planned to target the appearance of Ann Coulter on campus.”

Some of the groups? Let’s name the group. It’s the black clad, black masked antifa. It’s called a criminal conspiracy to deny Ann Coulter her constitutional right to speak.

The members of the “I punch Nazis” group are at this point a violent criminal gang who should be treated as such. If local authorities won’t step in, then AG Jeff Sessions should order the FBI to infiltrate the group, gather evidence, and send the members to prison.

Looking on the bright side, maybe Louise Rosealma will show up again and take another punch. This time to her schnoz.

ACTION FROM THE LAST BATTLE OF BERKELEY.

Ann Coulter: A Maniac Has Control of American Foreign Policy

JUDGE JAMES ROBART. THE MANIAC.

Ann Coulter can never bring herself to describe the role that Jews play in advancing the destruction of America.

Other than that, she lays the truth out there. Which is that the federal judiciary has participated in the destruction of America as much as any other group. The disturbing aspect of this is that many of the enemy judges were appointed by Republicans.

Excerpt from Ann Coulter

To review:

— When the president’s immigration policy is to promote international communism: The president wins.

— When the president’s immigration policy is to transform America into a different country: The president wins.

— But when the president’s immigration policy is to protect Americans: Some piss-ant judge announces that his authority exceeds that of the president.

In many parts of the country, you’re already not living in America. Just a few more years, and the transformation will be complete. There will be a North American landmass known as “the United States,” but it won’t be our country.

The only thing that stands between America and oblivion is a total immigration moratorium. We are well past the point of quick fixes — as Judge Robart’s delusional ruling proves.

The judiciary, both political parties, the media, Hollywood, corporate America and approximately 1 million lobbying groups are all working frantically to bring the hardest cases to our shores. Left-wing traitors, who used to honeymoon in Cuba and fight with peasant revolutionaries in Peru, toil away, late into the night, to ensure that genocidal Rwandans can move to America and immediately start collecting food stamps, Medicaid and Social Security.

No matter how clearly laws are written, government bureaucrats connive to import people from countries that a majority of Americans would not want to visit, much less become. Federal judges issue lunatic rulings to ensure that there will never be a pause in the transformation of America.

Congress could write laws requiring immigrants to pay taxes, learn English, forgo welfare and have good moral character. It could write laws giving the president authority to exclude aliens in the public interest.

Except it already has. Those laws were swept away by INS officials, federal judges and Democratic administrations — under ferocious pressure from America-hating, left-wing groups.

The country will not be safe until the following outfits are out of business:

The ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project; the National Immigration Forum; the National Immigration Law Center; the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild; the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; the Office of Migration and Refugee Services; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the American Immigration Lawyers Association; the Border Information and Outreach Service; Atlas: DIY; the Catholic Legal Immigration Network; the Clearinghouse for Immigrant Education; the Farmworker Justice Fund; Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the International Center for Migration, Ethnicity and Citizenship; the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force; the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; the National Association for Bilingual Education; the National Clearinghouse on Agricultural Guest Worker Issues; the National Coalition for Dignity and Amnesty for Undocumented Immigrants; the National Coalition for Haitian Rights; the National Council of La Raza; and the National Farm Worker Ministry.

Trump to Make Major Announcement Today: Internet Expects Sarah Palin Endorsement

WILL SHE OR WON’T SHE ENDORSE TRUMP?
Sarah Palin

Trump has told the world on Twitter there’ll be an announcement on Tuesday (today) and that it’ll be a lot of fun. Everyone is expecting that Sarah Palin is going to be there to say that she wants to Make America Great Again. Let’s wait and see.

Admittedly it’s all theater. As the saying goes, if voting really mattered it would be illegal. Nonetheless, it’s fun to watch Trump tweak the nose of the establishment over and over. If Palin endorses Trump, watch the liberal press blow a fuse. More fun!

Excerpt from Hot Air


She and Trump have been allies for years. No other pols have excited right-wing populists during the Obama era the way each of them has. When asked by CNN in November who the “standout” candidate in the race was, Palin mentioned Trump, not Cruz, which surprised me at the time. And Palin recently praised Marion Maréchal-Le Pen’s movement in France, signaling her openness to Trump-style nationalism. It would make sense if she went all-in for him.

It would make sense, I should say, if there were no “true conservative” candidate running for president. But there is. The irony of Palin endorsing Trump this year of all years, if it happens, is that the tea party finally has a candidate running who not only passes nearly every litmus test they can throw at him but who’s run a brilliant campaign and stands a shockingly good chance of winning. That’s Cruz, a guy whom Palin herself has praised repeatedly in the past.

Support from Palin would give Trump some cover on the inevitable attacks from Cruz that he’s an establishmentarian in populist clothing. That’s Trump’s biggest vulnerability; any cover he can get for it from another populist with a national profile will help him. The larger meaning of Palin endorsing Trump, though, would be the signal it sends that populist conservatism is now less about conservatism than it is about populism. If you have enough of the latter, you don’t need to worry much about the former. It would be a bookend to the tea-party era, which started with Palin and Glenn Beck yelling at Obama about progressive tyranny and would end with Beck yelling at Palin and Trump about progressive tyranny. That’s what makes Trump versus Cruz such good theater if you’ve followed the tea party during Obama’s presidency. Essentially it’s a test of whether tea-party revolutionaries want a counterrevolution, a return to the strongman after a period of chaos, or to stick with the guy who better represents their ideals in Cruz.

My prediction is that it’s not her. She’ll stay neutral between Trump and Cruz and Trump’s “major announcement” tomorrow will involve some local pol. Even if I’m right, though, the revolution/counterrevolution question persists.

The Daily Caller also has the story covered, although it’s missing any speculation.

Ann Coulter: THE PROBLEM ISN’T GUNS OR WHITE MEN

CHRIS HARPER MERCER AU NATUREL AND AFTER RETOUCHING BY CNN. THEY TRIED TO BLAME HIS CRIMES ON WHITEY.
mercer-cnn

Reports say that shooter Harper-Mercer left a manifesto. Yet we know nothing much about what is said. Meanwhile, Dylan Roof’s race realist writings were published over and over and promoted by the media as a hate document.

I guess only white men can hate. Blacks and mulattoes are exempt.

Ann Coulter

he media act as if they’re performing a public service by refusing to release details about the perpetrator of the recent mass shooting at a community college in Oregon. But we were given plenty of information about Dylan Roof, Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Jared Loughner.

Now, quick: Name the mass shooters at the Chattanooga military recruitment center; the Washington Navy Yard; the high school in Washington state; Fort Hood (the second time) and the Christian college in California. All those shootings also occurred during the last three years.

The answers are: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, Kuwaiti; Aaron Alexis, black, possibly Barbadian-American; Jaylen Ray Fryberg, Indian; Ivan Antonio Lopez, Hispanic; and One L. Goh, Korean immigrant. (While I’m here: Why are we bringing in immigrants who are mentally unstable?)

There’s a rigid formula in media accounts of mass shootings: If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that won’t work, blame it on guns.

Regular readers of this site are a savvy bunch. They know the formula. But the brain dead zombies sitting watching Talmudvision are clueless. Ann speaks truth, however.

The perpetrator of the latest massacre, Chris Harper-Mercer, was a half-black immigrant, so the media are refusing to get too specific about him. They don’t want to reward the fiend with publicity!

But as people hear details the media are not anxious to provide, they realize that, once again: It’s a crazy person. How long is this going to go on?

When will the public rise up and demand that the therapeutic community stop loosing these nuts on the public? After the fact, scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpful before the wanton slaughter.

After every mass shooting, the left has a lot of fun forcing Republicans to defend guns. Here’s an idea: Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine?

Liberals will howl about “stigmatizing” the mentally ill, but they sure don’t mind stigmatizing white men or gun owners. About a third of the population consists of white men. Between a third and half of all Americans have guns in the home. If either white men or guns were the main cause of mass murder, no one would be left in the country.

But I notice that every mass murder is committed by someone who is mentally ill. When the common denominator is a characteristic found in about 0.1 percent of the population — I think we’ve found the crucial ingredient!

Democrats won’t be able to help themselves, but to instantly close ranks and defend dangerous psychotics, hauling out the usual meaningless statistics:

— Most mentally ill are not violent!

Undoubtedly true. BUT WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANOREXICS, AGORAPHOBICS OR OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVES. We were thinking of paranoid schizophrenics.

— The mentally ill are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence!

I’ll wager that the percentage of the nation’s 310 million guns that are ever used in a crime is quite a bit lower than the percentage of mentally ill to ever engage in violence.

As with the “most Muslims are peaceful” canard, while a tiny percentage of mentally ill are violent, a gigantic percentage of mass shooters are mentally ill.

How can these heartless Democrats look the parents of dead children in the eye and defend the right of the mentally deranged to store their feces in a shoebox, menace library patrons — and, every now and then, commit mass murder?

Work camps would be a great place to rehabilitate the mentally ill. Getting up early, going to work in a field doing hard labor, breathing in that fresh air. Mental illness could be cured.

For the record, i’m an admirer of Dr. Thomas Szasz, whose writings argued that there is no such thing as mental illness.