James Fulford writes:Ann Coulter`s March 17 speech at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference [CPAC] was one of the best on immigration in years. Naturally, CPAC and the MSM haven`t bothered to provide a transcript. This transcript is therefore exclusive to VDARE.com, as well as the links, all of them added by us.Ann Coulter has always been good on immigration (see the list of her columns on immigration) One of my favorites wasRead My Lips: No New Amnesty. She also gets in on legal immigration.This was not only an important speech, it was a brave one. The Daily Caller`s Mickey Kaus pointed out that Senator Marco Rubio (Conquistador-FL), who is supposed to be betraying both his country and his party in the Amnesty deal, didn`t have the nerve to get up at and say that to the young people at CPAC. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, has a lot more nerve (Kaus uses a different word) than Rubio is ever likely to grow.
Maybe it’s not that courageous to defy the near-perfect Elite Media Consensus favoring “comprehensive immigration reform”–i.e. amnesty. But it takes balls to do it a) at a conservative conference rigged to push amnesty; b) if you value your relationship with amnesty-supporting FOX News; and c) if you ridicule Roger Ailes’ old patrons, the Bushes, in the process.…The Coulter video is here on Politico. … Don’t expect it to be featured on Fox! … P.S.: Hmm. I can’t find it on Daily Caller either. It’s lucky I’m not paranoid. …[Coulter blasts amnesty at CPAC, March 17, 2013]
Well, I`m not paranoid either, but as I say, there`s no transcript anywhere but here on VDARE.com.Ann Coulter:As some of you know that with the turmoil in North Korea our regularly scheduled ambassador Dennis Rodman will not be here so I’m filling in.I’m Ann Coulter, the author of NINE massive NYT Best sellers. Boy, the sequester has really ruined everything hasn’t it? Little kids can’t go on White House tours, the Muslim Brotherhood has been deprived of $250 million…oh no, that’s safe. Even CPAC had to cut back on its speakers this year … by about 300 pounds.After all Obama’s hard work and wrangling over the budget, he’s managed to cut the growth of federal spending by 2%.Congratulations, Mr. President!Even that was imposed on him by the sequester. And Roger Ailes calls Obama lazy!Did you see that? A new biography of Roger Ailes quotes him as saying that Obama is lazy. Van Jones said that was racist, but Obama himself said he was lazy. You know why Van Jones didn’t know that? Because he’s lazy. I’m just kidding, I love Van Jones. I do!Liberals say the word “lazy” is a racist code word, as is “Chicago,” the word “apartment,” mentioning that Obama golfs. No, these are all—according to liberals—racist dog-whistles. That may be why only Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews can hear them.But you know, Obama has his own code words. He says “investment”—he means government spending. He says “revenue,” he means taxes. He says “Dr. Livingstone is in the library,” he means “Distract Michelle I’m going out for a smoke!”Even after Republicans gave Obama his tax hike he still won’t cut spending. This is becoming what’s known as “a pattern.” Remember? Republicans agreed to raise taxes and in exchange, we’re supposed to be taking an axe to the budget. No, he wants to raise taxes again. Remember this the next time some journalist asks a Republican, “Are you saying you wouldn’t take ONE DOLLAR in tax hikes in exchange for ten dollars in budget cuts?!” No, see the problem is, we’re the Indians and the Democrats are Andrew Jackson. We’ve been through this before.Back in the 80s, Ronald Reagan made that deal with Tip O’Neill, he said he’d raise taxes, Tip O’Neill said, oh yeah, we’ll slash the budget. Oh, yeah. The Democrats TRIPLED the budget. So it is not true that Reagan’s tax cuts led to the deficit. The problem was that for every additional dollar that came in to the IRS the Democrats were spending another $3. Then Reagan’s knucklehead of a Vice President, the first George Bush, unable to learn from the first kick of a mule, made the exact same deal with Democrats, breaking his “No New Taxes” pledge. He raised taxes in exchange for promised cuts in spending.“I’d gladly take a tax hike today for a cut in spending on Tuesday.”And once again, Democrats raised spending. So it would be like journalists going to tribal chiefs circa 1890 and saying sarcastically, “Are you telling me you would not give up ONE acre of land for a guaranteed promise ten acres of land?” And then ten years later, “Oh yeah we’re going to be needing Nebraska and South Dakota, too.”Obama claims he wants to keep taxes low for the middle class and let me tell you, for the 400 people left in the middle class they could not be happier. But Obama also said he had to shut down White House tours because of the sequester—do not worry though! The $250 million for the Muslim Brotherhood, that’s safe. The federal grant to study the sex habits of gophers, that’s safe.We also apparently have enough money to spy on American’s personal finances. Did you see that Reuters reported—yesterday, I think— that Obama is drawing up a plan to allow our spy agencies to scour the finances of Americans? But most Americans don’t care, after four years of Obama they don’t really have any personal finances to scour. Most of them told Obama ”Hey, let me know if you find anything!”I don’t know why Republicans keep saying we have to cut spending to save these entitlement programs for our grandchildren. We have to cut spending to save the entitlements for today’s 45 year olds. In our current spending rate, 45 year olds will not receive any Medicare. And liberal’s response is to say “Well, but Medicare is the most popular program in US history.” Which, by the way, isn’t saying much, “the most popular government program!” They determined what the most popular program was by asking the recipients of Medicare, do you like Medicare? That’s like asking six year olds, are birthdays a good idea? Can we include the neighbors and the friends who are forced by buy gifts?Despite the non-Fox Media’s claim that we have become a center-Left nation, in fact the Republicans still hold the House of Representatives. There’s a reason that’s called “the people’s house,” it is most representative of the people of America, they are up for election every two years. And the reason we don’t have the Senate is because the Republicans keep screwing up. I can think of about 10 Senate seats in the last three election cycles that we just pissed away through narcissism, greed or stupidity.Show me one example in the last ten years of the Democrats giving up a winnable seat. No, that hasn’t happened. Passion is great, but remember that in politics, scoring is all that counts. We can’t anticipate every candidate’s mistake but we can stop encouraging candidates to show off for the base by taking positions that aren’t even our positions. It is not the position of the National Right to Life Committee that a woman should be forced to carry the baby of her rapist. I think our position is no, absolutely, exceptions for rape and incest, and now let’s talk about the other 99% of abortions. Hey, where did all the Democrats go?I think our position is also and let’s talk about locking up the rapist and not giving him the right to vote the way the Democrats want to. But on the basis of this one bone-headed statement by Todd Akin out in Missouri, Democrats finally had their talking point: the Republicans were waging a War on Women.If we agreed to wage a War on Women, I wasn’t at that meeting. If I had been I would have told Republicans, you’re too late. Democrats have already won that war. The keynote speaker at the Democratic Nation Convention was forcible rapist Bill Clinton. The convention also featured a loving tribute to Teddy Kennedy, who I believe has the only confirmed kill in the War on Women. I half expected Charles Manson to show up night three.No, the only evidence they have for the Republican War on Women is apparently that some taxpayers don’t feel obliged to pay for Sandra Fluke’s birth control. I think that haircut is birth control enough.Your average Democrat actually believes things much crazier than Todd Akin, but the Democrats don’t let their candidates open their mouths and say stupid stuff. Otherwise you’d have Democrats saying “I think abortions should be funded federally, we should confiscate all guns, trees have feelings…” Democrats tell their candidates, open your mouth and we’ll kill you.In addition to being much better at stealing elections, Democrats are much crueler to those who hurt the Democratic Party.They don’t get book contracts or radio gigs or TV gigs for harming the Democratic Party. Where’s Howard Dean’s TV show? The only place that would employ Dennis Kucinich is Fox News—and that’s after Keebler let him out of his contract.If Republicans don’t focus on what is really causing problems, they’re going to fall for the canard that the problem with the Party is its conservative principles. Au contraire. Conservatism is about the only thing the Republican Party has going for it. In Gallup Polls over the last twenty years about twice as many Americans have called themselves “conservatives” as called themselves either “liberal” or “Republican.” No, conservatism is our winning feature.Which brings me to the final point before I get to your questions and that is the scapegoating of a fake Republican establishment, which is allowing the real Republican establishment to plot and scheme undetected.My example of this is: What public policy will harm average Americans, drive up unemployment, change America permanently in negative ways and on the other hand is supported by businessmen who will never vote for a Republican anyway?Amnesty for illegal aliens! And half of elected Republicans support it, as far as I can tell most conservative talk radio and TV hosts support it. You want the Republican Establishment, that‘s the Republican Establishment.There are many, many negative consequences to amnesty but I think the one that ought to concern this crowd is, if amnesty goes through America becomes California and no Republican will ever win another national election. As it is, the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan will never elect another Republican.I can see why Democrats would want amnesty, but why on Earth are Marco Rubio and these endless Bushes supporting it?Even Shemp and Zeppo Bush are supporting amnesty for illegals.Republicans are grasping at these suicidal policies because they’re panicked; they’re demoralized after the last election. Stop panicking, Republicans! Obama was an incumbent; he did worse than any other incumbent to win reelection in more than a hundred years. Liberals writing the obituary of the Republican Party right now remind me of nothing so much as new homeowners at the heights of the housing bubble. People always announce their complete triumph a moment before their crushing defeat.Our job, our job, Republicans, is to ensure Democrats have that crushing defeat. Thank you and I’ll take some questions.Q: Do you believe Chris Christie should have been invited to CPAC this year?A: Um… Did you see his [2012 Republican national] convention speech? It was really bad. I must say—though I have, as you know, loved Chris Christie—I am now a single-issue voter against amnesty, so Christie is off my list. Our next speaker Ted Cruz is still on my list.Q: Good Evening, I’m Kenneth Harbin, I’m from Ohio. Is there any advice that you can give us young vocal black conservatives when dealing with attacks from the liberal mob, and will you go on a date with me?A: Yes, absolutely, young man, I’m just going to need a note from your mother.What was this advice for .. I’m already imagining our date .. what advice for black conservatives?Q: Yes.Well, I have good news, also relating back to the amnesty issue. I’ve been saying this in every radio interview and trying to slip it into every column I write: Mitt Romney won 20% of black males under the age of 30. That is a stunning number, I mean, the traditional home of blacks is in the Republican Party as described by my latest smash bestseller Mugged, blacks and Republicans go together like chocolate and peanut butter, and I think the reason…but, the Democrats stole them away by lying about the history of Civil Rights and the history of Republicans – all set straight in Mugged—and I think the reason Romney did so astronomically well among young black males is that they want jobs and they don’t want to be competing with illegal aliens for jobs.Blacks have been in this country longer, their roots in America go back longer than most whites, I think we owe them something more that someone who has just run across the border.Q: Hi, this is Daniel Rivera, I have two-pronged question for you. First, I have my mother’s signed consent statement we can absolutely go on a date, so I’ll meet you right outside.Point two, much has been made recently of the Republican Party’s need for a facelift by the liberal media, you know they’re running around crazy saying we’ve been defeated as you said, and it’s a little bit annoying. On the other hand, we have been doing horribly with minorities and women and I was wondering what your thoughts are on that and the second thing is that much has been made of the GOP divided, but in the conference I’ve noticed that on the one hand you have people like Marco Rubio on the one hand and then you’ve got Paul on the other, vastly different but both test well with independents, minorities and women so I was wondering your thoughts on that too.A: First of all, this idea that the GOP is the Party of old white men, the average age at our convention of both the speakers and attendees is about fifteen years younger than at the Democratic Convention. I may be exaggerating slightly but not by much. I keep hearing, oh, Republicans they want to take us back they want to take us back, I look at the Democratic Convention they have Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Teddy Kennedy, wait…who’s trying to bring you back here?As for the groups Republicans don’t tend to do well with, I think, well we’re actually doing pretty well with white women. With married women …with single women, Mitt Romney did better than John McCain on every single possible demographic including Evangelicals – we were told that Evangelicals were not going to vote for the Mormon. Every single religious group, Jews, Evangelicals, Catholics, more of them voted for Mitt Romney than voted for McCain.The only two groups that voted more for McCain than for Romney were Asians and Hispanics, the two largest immigrant groups this country has been taking in for the last thirty years. I’ve said this before, Teddy Kennedy specifically designed his immigration act of 1965 to change American demographically without checking with the American people. It’s virtually impossible to emigrate here from Europe. About 80% of our immigrants for the last 30 years have come from The Third World, about 60% of them go on welfare, a much higher percentage than native-born Americans. This is so Democrats gets themselves more voters. We have a more dependent society, we have people who want welfare, and we cannot get the votes of a dependent society without changing our principles.They’re awful people, Democrats. Every time a woman has a child out of wedlock, Democrats think “Oh great! Another Democratic voter”; every time a family gets divorced, “Fantastic another Democratic voter!” Every time someone loses his job and has to go on welfare, “Fantastic another Democratic voter!” No, we offer hope opportunity and jobs and I hope that we offer a change to our absolutely suicidal immigration policies.Q: Ann, could you agree that even here as CPAC there seems to be some confusion, it was not a conservative defeat in 2012 it was a Boston liberal Republican defeat with Mr. Romney and I just want to ask you if you could help clarify why it’s important that Mr. Bush not be our nominee and Mr. Christie not be our nominee and Mr. Cruz and some of the other great conservatives, real conservatives, in great part thanks to Jim DeMint, that are out there for us today, thank you.A: Well, I’d like to give you some rules for choosing out next Presidential nominee. I don’t have a candidate yet but I do have some rules certainly for who shouldn’t be running.I’ve made this mistake, so I’m not blaming any of you. Among the candidates I’ve supported have included Pete Dupont, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, Duncan Hunter.No, you can’t run a congressman. You can’t run a governor from a state that’s only as big as a Congressional district, that’s the equivalent of running a congressman. We can’t run businessmen, pundits, people who have not run and won elections in at least a midsized state. We’re looking at governors and senators.Once you throw in the governors and senators, let’s see how they debate, let’s look at their positions then. I was telling my friend, I couldn’t get to sleep last night so instead of counting sheep I was counting Republican candidates.We have a pretty good list of them. Going with the Governors, we have Sandoval of Nevada. Yeah, he’s pro-choice but maybe we can change him and, again, I’m a single issue voter against amnesty. There’s Martinez of New Mexico, Rick Snyder of Michigan,Paul LePage of Maine, there is of course—I’m sorry he’s got to be in the running—of course Chris Christie of New Jersey.I will now be against him unless he changes on amnesty. There is Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Pence of Indiana, John Kasich of Ohio. In the Senate you have Ron Johnson, Ted Cruz … and … I say we just … Scott Walker?Ok, you have your favorites out there, I say you throw them in the debates and let’s see. But I should also tell you that I also have a height requirement. So if you didn’t hear your favorite senator or governor, put them next to the clown at the roller coaster, see if he hits the height requirement.And then I just wouldn’t get too wedded to any one candidate right now. Let’s see how they debate, let’s see what their records are and most importantly, let’s see what their position is on amnesty. Thank you, drive safely!