The magnitude and scope of voter fraud perpetrated by liberal and far left groups is nothing short of astounding – and brazen. Not only is it illegal, but it also effectively abridges and endangers our freedoms, rights, opportunities and abilities to accumulate wealth.
George Soros, ACORN and SEIU are intimately involved in these rigged elections both directly and through proxies. Democrats and the news media marginalize the severity of the problem and even speciously turn it around, blaming conservatives and Republicans for much of it. Their modus operandi is the Chicago/Alinsky way – ad hominem attacks and deflecting the blame.
We must be vigilant this election regarding voter fraud and rigging the results. If we want to take our country back, we must educate ourselves in the truths and deceptions and be ready to act on them to effect the desired results.
A drive to protect vote fraud
By Michelle Malkin October 27, 2010
Faced with multiple reports of early-voting irregularities and election shenanigans across the country, left-wing groups are playing dumb, deaf and blind.
More cunningly, these organizations are seeking to marginalize complaints about election integrity by casting citizen-watchdog efforts as racist "scare tactics." Echoing President Obama's message to the Democratic faithful on the campaign trail, they are accusing political opponents of suppressing the votes of minorities and the poor. Yesterday, The New York Times quoted a liberal voting-rights advocate, Wendy R. Weiser, wringing her hands over individual Americans taking clean elections seriously:
"Private efforts to police the polls create a real risk of vote suppression, regardless of their intent," said Weiser.
Weiser also turned up in a similar story minimizing voter fraud that was published yesterday by National Public Radio.
The NPR report asserted that "most election experts" believe that fears of voter fraud are "overblown." Overblown?
* In North Carolina and Nevada, early voters have encountered ballot-machine glitches that favor Democrats in hotly contested races.
* In Troy, NY, and Daytona Beach, Fla., police investigations into suspected absentee-ballot fraud by elected government officials are underway.
* In Harris County, Texas, the voter registrar admitted that 20 percent of voter-registration forms submitted by liberal activist Houston Votes had problems. Election whistleblowers there are now being investigated by the Obama Justice Department and have been slapped with an ethics complaint by the Texas Democratic Party and a left-wing group called Texans for Public Justice.
* In Yuma County, Ariz., election officials denied any fraud associated with thousands of requests for "permanent early voter list" status submitted en masse by open-borders group Mi Familia Vota (a social-justice satellite of the Service Employees International Union). But election officials admitted that some 6,000 out of 14,000 requests fielded by the Yuma County Recorder's Office "were reviewed and rejected, under Arizona law, either due to the fact the request was a duplicate or the requestor was not eligible to vote in this election or within the jurisdiction."
Liberals shrugged their shoulders at reports of illegal-alien canvassers trolling for votes in Washington state. Never mind the radical goals spelled out by SEIU International Secretary-Treasurer and Mi Familia Vota founder Eliseo Medina, who views illegal-alien amnesty as a powerful Democratic recruitment tool to capture millions of new progressive voters.
And for the last two years, Democratic leaders have had nothing to say about the militant New Black Panther Party goons who took it upon themselves to police a Philadelphia voting booth in 2008 wielding billy clubs and shouting anti-white slurs to suppress votes. Now, they're treating citizen election monitors as if they are the jack-booted thugs.
Silence dissent. Criminalize watchdogs. Whitewash fraud. These are the signature tactics of the left. On Nov. 2,
Americans get their chance to say: Enough.
NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Most people just assume that the constitutional tenet of one person – one vote is a given. In an honest and idealistic world this should be true. Unfortunately, this is far from reality and many elections are being significantly influenced or bought/stolen by well financed and orchestrated schemes that largely seem to arise from the far left.
Who are these groups and individuals that seek to manipulate elections to facilitate the victory of their far left candidates? Generally they are well known names like George Soros, SEIU and ACORN.
Where is the FBI and Dept. of Justice? Aren’t they supposed to help protect our rights?
As evidenced by the egregious dismissal of charges against the New Black Panther Party by the Dept. of Justice and its inherent bias against Whites, they are clearly not executing their responsibilities under the Obama Administration.
After the elections in November, among the big issues that must be investigated is voter fraud and the groups and individuals that are involved. Serious efforts must be made to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law otherwise our Democracy will be even in more jeopardy.
Tea Party Vs. SEIU
Investor’s Business Daily 09/28/2010
Electoral Process: The price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance, especially at the ballot box. A group of Texans who decided to get involved in local elections uncovers massive vote fraud connected to a powerful union.
Being an election judge or poll watcher is often a thankless task and one of those things that many voters have no particular interest in doing. The job is often left to party hacks and other foxes willing to guard the henhouse. Yet they are the ones who rock the cradle of democracy.
Perhaps concerned about the election shenanigans of recent years involving Acorn and bogus registrations, Black Panthers intimidating voters with nightsticks and suspicious recounts that go on and on until a desired result is achieved, as in Minnesota, Catherine Engelbrecht and 50 other Houston neighbors decided to get involved.
They volunteered to work at Houston polling places in the 2008 election cycle. "What we saw shocked us," Engelbrecht said. "There was no one checking IDs, judges would vote for people that asked for help. It was fraud, and we watched like deer in the headlights."
Seeing that it wasn't quite the way their old civics class textbooks said it would be, they decided to form a group, "True The Vote," which would do what governments were unable or unwilling to do: ensure that voters are alive, eligible, who they say they are and cast their ballots only once. "It was a true Tea Party moment," Engelbrecht recalls.
She and her associates collected publicly available polling data to prove that the fraudulent voting they saw was real, rampant and organized. "The first thing we started to do was look at houses with more than six voters in them," she said, because those were houses most likely to have fraudulent voters attached to them.
They found that most voting districts had about 2,400 of such residences if they were primarily Democratic, only 1,800 if they were Republican. When they came to one with 2,400 houses, they dug deeper with the help of 30 donated computers and countless hours of volunteer work.
One woman was found to have registered six times in one day. There were 1,597 registrations that named the same person with a variety of signatures. One person turned in more registrations in one day than was physically possible.
"Vacant lots had several voters registered on them. An eight-bed halfway house had more than 40 voters registered at its address," according to Engelbrecht. "We then decided to look at who was registering the voters."
It turned out most of the fraudulent registrations were done by a group called Houston Votes, headed by Sean Castle, who also works for the Service Employees International Union. Only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be good.
Harris County voter registrar Leo Vasquez has taken True The Votes' work and the results of his own investigation to the Texas secretary of state's office and the Harris County district attorney.
"The integrity of the voting rolls in Harris County, Texas, appears to be under an organized and systematic assault by the group operating under the name Houston Votes," Vasquez said.
Voter rolls are under assault nationwide by the group formerly known as Acorn, the SEIU, and others. The Secretary of State Project is a group founded and funded by George Soros and dedicated to electing people like Minnesota's Mark Ritchie to control the election machinery. It was Ritchie's suspect recounting process that put comedian Al Franken in the U.S. Senate.
"It's not the votes that count, it's who counts the votes" is a quote most commonly attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. It could be the motto of MoveOn.org, Acorn and the SEIU.
Our politicians are suppose to be our representatives, our employees, our servants. They are to represent our ideas, feelings and goals - to do what is in our best interest.
Unfortunately, "president?" Obama and most Democrats are pursuing actions that is in their best interests and diametrically opposed to our wishes.
Obamacare. Intentionally unsecured borders. Reckless federal spending of money that we don't have. Pork projects. Pro-Muslim/anti-Christian actions including Ground Zero support for a Trojan Horse mosque. ETC.
Suspected at the time and now being investigated, it appears that malfeasance was committed in order to get Al Franken elected as Senator for Minnesota in the 2008 elections. The state’s Attorney General at the time seemed to portend that a way would be found to elect Franken which ultimately was the case. Facilitating the course of events was corrupt involvement by ACORN.
The manipulation and violation of our laws and the election process by well orchestrated corrupt actions of ACORN, SEIU and other unions and dishonest partisan Democrats and the news media’s malpractice in ignoring such transgressions, presents sever threats to our rights and freedoms.
Demand for probe into MN felon voting grows
Ed Morrissey July 16, 2010
Minnesota Majority spokesman Dan McGrath appeared on the Twin Cities Fox affiliate last night to explain their latest report on felon voting in Minnesota, and to expand on their demand for law enforcement action. According to their meticulous research of voting and conviction records, as many as 1,000 felons may have voted in the 2008 election in Minnesota. That would have been more than enough to swing the US Senate election to Al Franken, who prevailed by just over 300 votes in a protracted recount and election challenge over Norm Coleman. Noting that the data won’t have any impact on the 2008 results, McGrath wants action to ensure the integrity of the upcoming November election, but doesn’t appear to be getting much cooperation:
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to subtract felon voters once the ballots have been cast. That’s why federal law requires states to regularly audit and cleanse their voting rolls to remove the dead and ineligible, in order to protect the value of eligible votes.
The Department of Justice has become disinterested in enforcing this part of the Motor Voter Act, a fact pointed out specific to Minnesota by J. Christian Adams last week on a local talk-radio show. Ramsey County, which includes the capital city of St. Paul, has researched a few of the cases but as noted by Fox 9 reporter Jeff Passolt, doesn’t appear to consider it a priority.
Even if the Minnesota Majority report is entirely correct — and it appears very solid — it wouldn’t provide a basis of overturning Franken’s election. McGrath is right in that the report should be considered in the context of the future instead of the past, and all sides should be demanding enforcement of voter eligibility in order to ensure clean elections. To the extent that enthusiasm lacks, it’s worth asking how much value some people put in clean elections, both inside and outside of Minnesota.
George Soros is the ideological soul mate of Obama and has helped him directly and indirectly over the years. The multibillionaire, through MoveOn.org and many other groups including the SEIU, has supported Obama's far-left efforts and his campaigns over the years. So the question is,then: Has Obama's ostensibly inept and delayed responses on the Gulf oil spill disaster been somewhat intentional in order to reward his benefactor Soros?
This surely can't be excluded and is not inconsistent with his other actions/inactions and ideologies.
Obama Boss George Soros Ready To Profit From Oil Disaster
June 14, 2010
Perhaps this is why drilling in Alaska is off the table– it would actually keep America safe and strong and won’t make Obama Boss George Soros even richer than he is now.
Interestingly, it seems the more trouble we have, the better it is for Soros. Last year, Soros noted he was “having a very good crisis” having bet against the United States and profiting from her economic downturn.
Now we learn Soros is set to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Gulf oil catastrophe. With Obama’s ‘moratorium’ and the Obama Admin’s general hostility to drilling, it’s reported many oil companies have already looked into with Brazil regarding a move those shores. And what is Soros principally invested in right now? Petrobras, the Brazilian state oil company.
Obama’s Boss Sees Silver Lining in BP Spill
Reuters is reporting that Brazil stands to benefit from the BP oil spill catastrophe as the US moratorium makes more rigs available for other countries.
Even as an ecological catastrophe makes the future of U.S. offshore drilling less certain, Brazil is plowing ahead with a $220 billion five-year plan to tap oil fields even deeper than BP’s ill-fated Gulf well, which is still leaking crude.
It’s estimated that thirty five rigs are now sitting idle in the Gulf of Mexico. Brazil is already getting inquiries from companies wanting to move their rigs there. Brazil’s state oil company, Petrobras already produces about a fourth of the world’s deep water oil…
The shortage of rigs could help Brazil become a major oil exporter.
What an amazing stroke of good fortune for Obama’s boss, unrepentant Nazi collaborator, George Soros! Soros is also invested in offshore oil drilling in Brazil, assisted by the American taxpayers.
Soros Fund Management, LLC holds a stake in Petrobras of approximately $900 million as of December 31, 2009.
George Soros’ principal investments are in oil; one in particular is Petrobras, the Brazilian-owned company. This happens to be the largest investment in the Soros portfolio at the present time.
Soros also owns quite a lot of real estate in Brazil. Soros’ Adecoagro, which invests in renewable energy, owns or leases about 840,000 acres of farmland in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay growing coffee, soybeans and other commodities. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Bunge Ltd. Are also expanding into ethanol in Brazil.
When you get to boss the president around, you never have to let a good crisis go to waste.
UPDATE: Dan in comments reminded me of the $2 billion loan deal Obama made to Brazil last year, furthering the connection between Obama, our tax dollars, and Soros’ business. here’s the WSJ’s take on the matter on August 18, 2009
Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling
Too bad it’s not in U.S. waters.
You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.
The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a “preliminary commitment” letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.
Millions of Americans who only peripherally concerned themselves with the Presidential election were duped by Obama during his campaigning, interpreting the well controlled sound bites and the cheerleading of the liberal press as an affirmation that he would be a good change for America. Consequently, he received their vote and now they possess buyer’s remorse. On the other end of the spectrum, millions of voters clearly saw through the lies, smoke screens, denials and irrefutable incriminating evidence that belied his “moderate” image. Many even identified him as a dishonest, corrupt, ruthless, racist and radical anti-American whose goals were seemingly aimed at subverting the social and economic systems in our country, and with it, our freedoms and rights.
These latter individuals did correctly assess the situation … but it is actually potentially worse than many of his ardent foes might have thought. Following painstaking research and analysis, Aaron Klein wrote a book entitled The Manchurian President in which he provides a chilling accounting of Obama’s radical past and evolution that goes all the way back to his early childhood. What he reveals should frighten every American and put them on notice that this man represents real and existential threats to our freedoms, rights and America as we knew it.
Obama must be thwarted!!
See Video of Aaron Klein being interviewed by Sean Hannity:
An ideological war has been fought out in this country over the last century between the Founders and the Progressives. There have been ebbs and flows but recently the level of conflict has reached a painful, impressive and vitriolic high.
The magnitude of importance of the ensuing outcome can’t be overstated as regards our future as a “free” country. American citizens are now fighting to preserve and regain their rights, freedoms and hard earned money from a rapidly expanding, over-reaching and oppressive government (to its productive citizens) that sees itself as the wise, privileged ruling class.
Not unlike pre-Revolutionary war times …
Tea Party Finds Its Motivation In Constitution
By Michael Barone 03/31/2010
Over the past 14 months, our political debate has been transformed into an argument between the heirs of two fundamental schools of political thought, the Founders and the Progressives. The Founders stood for the expansion of liberty and the Progressives for the expansion of government.
It's an argument that's been going on for a century but was largely dormant over the quarter-century of low-inflation economic growth after the Ronald Reagan tax cuts. It's been raised again by the expand-government policies of the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders.
Those policies, thoroughly in line with the Progressive tradition, have been advanced by liberal elites in government, media, think tanks and academia.
The opposition, roughly in line with the Founders tradition, has been led by the non-elites who spontaneously flocked to Tea Parties and town halls. Republican politicians have been scrambling to lead these protesters.
The conservative rebellions of the late 1970s and middle 1990s were focused on taxes. The Tea Partyers are focusing on the expansion of government — and its threat to the independence of citizens.
The first mention of tea parties came in February 2009 from CNBC's Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, when he asked "if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages. How many of you people want to pay your neighbor's mortgage, that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?"
Then he called for a Chicago tea party.
This struck a chord. Tea Partyers began to dress in 18th-century costumes — political re-enactors — and brandished the "Don't tread on me" flag. They declared their independence by opposing Progressive policies that encourage dependence on government.
The Progressives have always assumed that people needed safety nets and would welcome dependence on government. The public's clear rejection of the Democratic health care bills has shown that this assumption was unwarranted.
Americans today prefer independence to dependence on government, just as they did 200 years ago.
All this was supposed to have been consigned to the past long ago.
The Progressives of the early 1900s — Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, New Republic founder Herbert Croly — argued that in an industrial era of mass production and giant businesses, ordinary people were helpless and needed government's guiding hand.
It would be more efficient, they argued, for centralized, disinterested experts to administer national institutions than to let chaotic markets operate freely and to observe the Constitution's horse-and-buggy limits on government power.
The Founders were out of date.
The Progressives had their way for much of the 20th century.
But it became apparent that centralized experts weren't disinterested, but always sought to expand their power. And it became clear that central planners can never have the kind of information that is transmitted instantly, as Friedrich von Hayek observed, by price signals in free markets.
It turned out that centralized experts are not as wise and ordinary Americans are not as helpless as the Progressives thought.
By passing the stimulus package and the health care bills, the Democrats produced expansion of government. But voters seem to prefer expansion of liberty.
The Progressives' scorn for the Founders has not been shared by the people. First-rate books about the Founders have been best-sellers. And efforts to dismiss the Founders as slaveholders, misogynists or homophobes have been outweighed by the resonance of their words and deeds.
The Declaration of Independence's proclamation that "all men are created equal" with "unalienable rights" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has proved to be happily elastic.
It still sings to us today, thanks to the struggles and sacrifices of many Americans who gave blacks and women the equality denied to them in 1776.
In contrast, the early Progressives' talk of an "industrial age" and an outmoded Constitution sounds like the language of an age now long past. Their faith in centralized planning seems naive in a time when one unpredicted innovation after another has changed lives for the better.
Polls and recent election results tell us that racial minorities and the so-called "educated class" — the people who expect their kind will administer centralized institutions — still take the side of the Progressives.
Most Americans, however, are rejecting the path of dependence and are intent on declaring their independence once again.
America under Obama is devolving into the Russia of the early 1980’s as most recently evidenced by the audacious and manifestly corrupt passage of the Obamacare legislation which also excludes Obama, members of Congress and their staffs from having to use it. They will continue to have available to them a gold-plated plan with freedom of choice.
The rest of America won’t – we will either have to wait for it or die waiting.
And Obama doesn’t intend to end his pursuit of increasing control and domination by the Federal Government over the lives of us Americans.
America's New Nomenklatura
Investors Business Daily 03/29/2010
Government: With the passage of health care reform and the ongoing boom in federal hiring, it's becoming increasingly clear that America is now run by a new, privileged class of bureaucrats.
For those who remember the old Soviet Union, it was a grim place — at least for average citizens. But not so for those in government. Contrary to the official ideals of equality and a classless society that the ruling communist regime espoused, the USSR created a privileged class of party members inside government — the nomenklatura.
This semipermanent bureaucracy earned higher incomes, got better health care, ate better food and had greater job security than average Russians, the much-despised proletarians. Today, our bloated federal government seems, in significant ways, to be creating this same dynamic.
Take the just-passed health care bill that carefully excluded the White House, congressional leaders and their staffs from having to live under the reforms' restrictions.
"President Obama will not have to live under the Obama health care reforms, and neither will the congressional staff who helped to write the overhaul," said Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. "The message to the people at the grass roots is that it's good enough for you, but not for us."
The hypocrisy of these officials and the contempt they show for average Americans is bad enough. But Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public can also go to jail or be fined up to $250,000 for not buying insurance. And the government is spending $10 billion to hire 16,500 new IRS agents to make sure they don't escape the new system.
Under current budget plans, this won't end soon. With $45 trillion in new government spending planned over the next decade, this new privileged governing class can only grow.
Today, as we witness a massive shift of resources from the private to the public sector, the only place adding jobs is government. Since the start of last year, the federal government has added 81,000 jobs. By contrast, private-sector payrolls have shed 4.71 million.
Big government is the place to be these days. Federal workers are some of the country's best-paid, earning far in excess of their counterparts in the private sector. A recent report in Politico.com, for example, noted that 2,000 congressional staffers now have incomes in excess of $100,000, and that 43 make the $172,500 maximum.
But the bureaucrats — that silent, permanent government that now exceeds 2.8 million in number — make out just as well.
USA Today recently looked at federal pay vs. private pay in 2008 for specific occupations ranging from airline pilot and cook to computer manager and registered nurse. What they found was more than a little disquieting for those in the private sector.
The average federal worker that year took home on average $67,691 in salary, compared with $60,046 in the private sector — a difference of $7,645. Not that much, you say? Well, that was before benefits are factored.
The average government worker gets a whopping $40,785 a year in health care, pension and other benefits compared to $9,882 for a private worker. The difference in total compensation widens to $38,548 a year — for the same job with the same duties.
Anyone who has visited the slow-moving Post Office, talked to the surly and often hostile IRS agent or even gone to the local DMV to spend time in waiting-room hell can tell you that pay gap doesn't represent productivity, training or ability.
What it does represent is the new Nomenklatura — the privileged apparatchiks who now run our government and with it, sadly, much of our lives. This is very much a result of years of "progressive" thinking that has pushed the Democratic Party sharply leftward across the political spectrum.
Since the Civil War, the so-called Progressive Movement's dream has been to exalt bureaucratic expertise and control over free-market efficiency. With the new administration, their dream has become our nightmare.
Americans are under relentless assault by more liberal and far left members of the Federal government as well as the news media. Their purpose? To trivialize opposing points of view and actions in order to facilitate implementation of their radical agenda. That is a major reason for their denigrating the Tea Party Movement as being racist, composed of fringe elements, and not representing average Americans. The same can be said for their attacks on corporations (insurance companies, banks, pharmaceuticals), healthcare providers (including physicians and hospitals) and those in the vanguard exposing the realities of what really is transpiring (Fox News, conservative commentators, Sarah Palin). Diaphanous allegations and ad hominem attacks are their modus operandi.
We must counter their verbal attacks, false allegations and fabrications - persistently and loudly. If we don't and keep acquiescing to the Federal government's increasing restriction of our rights, freedoms and choices as well as their unrestrained confiscation of our hard earned money through taxes and fees, we will have little left. We will end up in a situation not dissimilar to that of communist Russia in the 1970's and early 80's with a privileged, powerful, and corrupt government ruling and repressing the rest of the people, the proletariat, and where there is controlled but not free speech and the government determines most aspects of our daily lives.
Speak loudly and often in defense of your rights so that we can continue to SPEAK FREE!
Speak Free
Media contributed by Tami Peterson Lewiski www.digitaldecorating.com
The anti-Conservative violence in Canada that preceded Ann Coulter’s intended but canceled speech is not an oddity – there or here. It seems that free speech whether by private citizens, politicians, writers or members of the media is only free if it espouses principles that comport with far-left ideology. Many conservative speakers and politicians have been attacked or had their speeches disrupted or terminated by groups of the radical left yet little or nothing was mentioned in the “main stream” media. In the majority of these situations, it appeared that such disruptive behavior was officially countenanced and not adequately or expeditiously neutralized.
When was the last time a liberal speaker at a University had their speech cancelled by out of control conservatives? Can’t think of any.
If one unkind word is spoken against a far-left adherent, the media is in an uncontrollable frenzy. The reverse does not occur in that the media and our present government actually encourage wanton vicious attacks against the right.
There are several important lessons in all of this. First, we must stand up and protect and fight for our rights. We must not allow our conservative points of view to be officially suppressed, threatened or punished whether it is by our government or a public institution. If we back down and don’t fight back, the consequences will be further erosion of our rights and freedoms. This is what has happened even in Canada and, of course, elsewhere. Let’s not let it happen here in America. There are already proposals to do just this such as the "Fairness Doctrine" and Obama's information czar who suggested controlling, correcting or deleting information on the internet that the government may deem "inaccurate" or "inappropriate".
We also must not be apologetic for our points of view or for non-violent means to express them. The left has done this very well. We need to be more verbally aggressive, loud and persistent.
Oh, Canada!
by Ann Coulter 03/24/2010
Since arriving in Canada I've been accused of thought crimes, threatened with criminal prosecution for speeches I hadn't yet given and denounced on the floor of the Parliament (which was nice because that one was on my "bucket list").
Posters advertising my speech have been officially banned, while posters denouncing me are plastered all over the University of Ottawa campus. Elected officials have been prohibited from attending my speeches. Also, the local clothing stores are fresh out of brown shirts.
Welcome to Canada!
The provost of the University of Ottawa, average student IQ: 0, wrote to me—widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me—in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
This marks the first time I've ever gotten hate mail for something I might do in the future.
Apparently Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which the provost, Francois A. Houle advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use, but I take it I'm not supposed to say, "F----you, Francois."
While it was a relief to know that it is still permissible in Canada to promote hatred against unidentifiable groups, upon reading Francois' letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle (French for "Frank A. Hole").
What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? ("Ottawa": Indian for "Land of the Bed-Wetters.")
How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?
Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Or—my suspicion—is it only conservative women who fuel Francois' rage?
How about sending a letter to all Muslim speakers advising them to please bathe once a week while in Canada? Would that constitute a hate crime?
I'm sure Canada's Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of Francois' strange warning to me, inasmuch as I will be filing a complaint with that august body, so I expect they will be reviewing every letter the university has sent to other speakers prior to their speeches to see if any of them were threatened with criminal prosecution.
Both writer Mark Steyn and editor Ezra Levant have been investigated by the Human Rights Commission for promoting hatred toward Muslims.
Levant's alleged crime was to reprint the cartoons of Mohammed originally published in a Danish newspaper, leading practitioners of the Religion of Peace to engage in murderous violence across the globe. Steyn's alleged crime was to publish an excerpt of his book, America Alone in Maclean's magazine, in which he jauntily described Muslims as "hot for jihad."
Both of them also flew jet airliners full of passengers into skyscrapers in lower Manhattan, resulting in thousands of deaths. No, wait—that was somebody else.
Curiously, however, there was no evidence that either the cartoons or the column did, in fact, incite hatred toward Muslims—nor was there the remotest possibility that they would.
By contrast, conservative speakers are regularly subjected to violent attacks on college campuses. Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and I have all been the targets of infamous campus attacks.
That's why the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (a sponsor of my Canada speeches) and the Young America's Foundation (a sponsor of many of my college speeches) don't send conservatives to college campuses without a bodyguard.
You'd have to be a real A-Houle not to anticipate that accusing a conservative of "promoting hatred" prior to her arrival on a college campus would in actuality—not in liberal fantasies of terrified Muslims cowering in terror of Mark Steyn readers—incite real-world violence toward the conservative.
The university itself acknowledged that Francois' letter was likely to provoke violence against me by demanding—long after my speech was scheduled, but immediately after Francois disseminated his letter—that my sponsors pony up more than $1,200 for extra security.
Also following Francois' letter, the Ottawa University Student Federation met for 7 1/2 hours to hammer out a series of resolutions denouncing me. The resolutions included:
"Whereas Ann Coulter is a hateful woman;
"Whereas she has made hateful comments against GLBTQ, Muslims, Jews and women;
"Whereas she violates an unwritten code of 'positive-space';
"Be it resolved that the SFUO express its disapproval of having Ann Coulter speak at the University of Ottawa."
At least the students didn't waste 7 1/2 hours on something silly, like their studies.
At the risk of violating anyone's positive space, what happened to Canada? How did the country that gave us Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Martin Short, Dan Aykroyd and Catherine O'Hara suddenly become a bunch of whining crybabies?
After Tuesday night, the hatred incited by Francois' letter is no longer theoretical. The police called off my speech when the auditorium was surrounded by thousands of rioting liberals—screaming, blocking the entrance, throwing tables, demanding that my books be burned, and finally setting off the fire alarm.
Sadly, I missed the book-burning because I never made it to the building.
But, reportedly, a Canadian crowd hasn't been this excited since they opened a new Tim Hortons. Local reporters couldn't make out what the crowd was chanting, but it was something about "Molson" and a "sled dog."
I've given more than 100 college speeches, and not once has one of my speeches been shut down at any point. Even the pie-throwing incident at the University of Arizona didn't break up the event. I said, "Get them!" and the college Republicans got them, and then I continued with my rambling, hate-filled diatribe—I mean, my speech.
So we've run this experiment more than 100 times.
Only one college speech was ever met with so much mob violence that the police were forced to cancel it: The one that was preceded by a letter from the university provost accusing me of hate speech.
(To add insult to injury, Francois didn't even plan to attend my speech because Tuesday is his bikini wax night.)
If a university official's letter accusing a speaker of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she's given the speech—which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of the speech—is not hate speech, then there is no such thing as hate speech.
Either Francois goes to jail or the Human Rights Commission is a hoax and a fraud.
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments