Tom’s Big Picture

Ann Coulter is somewhat of a mystery to me, someone who’s hard to take seriously at times. She’s an entertainer, like Rush Limbaugh, and from that perspective some of her more outrageous statements make sense- and it’s not so much what she says (which is usually true), but the provocative way she says them. And of course, she can get away with it for obvious reasons- so I think she’s having a lot of fun.

What’s ironic about Coulter is that the liberal elites she attacks are by-and-large media elites, whose very wealth and power are partially sustained by the mass commercialization of Nordic female beauty- i.e. the mythos of the Hollywood blond bombshell and New York supermodel. These liberal elites comb the countryside of the interior of the country searching for those few cases of near perfect genetic beauty (as they are an ugly sort of people themselves dependent upon a constant supply of imported Celtic and Anglo-Saxon beauty for their industries), and then lure them into lives of media prostitution in New York and Hollywood. It’s poetic justice that their own media-created idol creates a Teflon coating for someone like Coulter, who can get away with saying a lot more than a Limbaugh or Hannity.

Her latest column in particular about immigration took a lot of guts to write, even for Coulter, as she treads on subjects that are forbidden to discuss, specifically the interests of the white sheep getting sheared in our multicultural wealth transfer racket:

With his 1965 immigration act, Kennedy embarked on entirely transforming American culture for no good reason. (You know how people always say the same arguments against illegal immigrants today were once made about the Irish to show how silly those arguments are? If only the U.S. Senate had had an “Irish Need Not Apply” sign!)

Until that point, immigration law basically took a laissez-faire approach, with country quotas attempting to replicate the traditional immigration patterns. Most immigrants to America had historically come from Great Britain, Germany and Scandinavian countries. Consequently, immigration quotas roughly reflected that balance, with smaller numbers of immigrants admitted from other countries.

But in an angry, long-awaited payback to WASPs, Kennedy decided he was going to radically transform the racial composition of the country. Instead of taking 15 immigrants from England and three from China, America would henceforth take three from England and 15 from China. Payback’s a bitch, Daughters of the American Revolution!

Some of those hardworking immigrants who just want a chance to succeed were arrested in a plot to blow up JFK Airport last week.

…

In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner.

One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population.

We needed to have “more discussion” about Iraq for nearly two years before finally invading. When will we be allowed to begin discussion of a government policy enacted by stealth 40 years ago specifically intended to decimate one particular ethnic group in our own country?

If liberals think Iraqis are genetically incapable of pulling off even the most rudimentary form of democracy, why do they believe 50 million Mexicans will magically become good Americans, imbued in the nation’s history and culture, upon crossing the Rio Grande? Maybe we should dunk Iraqis in the Rio and see what happens.

And as long as we’re adopting an open borders policy for immigration, how about opening the borders for emigration? As it stands, anyone can come in and start plotting terrorist attacks or collecting government services right away. But the rest of us can never escape having to pay for it.

You can leave the country, you can renounce your citizenship — but you still owe taxes for 10 years. The government does not allow us to stop supporting welfare recipients in America, millions more of whom it plans to import under Bush’s bill. That’s not a free market — it’s a roach motel.

If these free-marketeers at The Wall Street Journal want the free movement of people, how about letting us freely leave after they’ve wrecked the country?

Read the entire column here.

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 7th, 2007 at 11:22 am and is filed under Heritage & Culture, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.