Ann Coulter Once Again Forgets to Mention the Liberals

(:E-:N-:R-AZ:C-30:V)   

Ann Coulter’s book captures threat from immigration, but hides Liberal leading role

by Dr. Patrick Slattery

THERE has been a great deal of talk in the past few days about the new book on immigration by Ann Coulter (pictured), Adios, America!: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole.

The book is being very well received by anti-immigration activists, not just for the boost in attention that the anti-immigration position will get in the media but also because Coulter is devoting most of the book to legal immigration, and not just the safer target of illegal immigration. But is this really the game-changing book that many anti-immigration activists hope it will be? I have my doubts.

First of all, the book completely leaves out the Liberal leading role in passing the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which is the law that governs the legal immigration that Coulter’s book addresses. Instead, she blames everything on “the left,” which she says is willing to allow the U.S. to become a poor third-world country just so that a government-dependent non- majority will make the Democrats a permanent ruling party. This is very different from the argument that Liberals are the main force behind immigration and are motivated by a divide-and-conquer strategy and the desire to make sure a nationalism never develops in a cohesive majority that could threaten Liberal rule. So which is it?

The bill was proposed by Emanuel Celler, a Liberal Democratic Congressman from New York. In 1965 Democrats had strong majorities in both the House and the Senate. Coulter seems to pin much of the blame on Ted Kennedy, and it is true that he was a high-profile promoter of the bill, but at the time was only a 33-year-old freshman with little power. The key person in the Senate was Liberal Republican Senator Jacob Javits. Moreover, the bill passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support. Only three Republican senators and 10 Republican representatives voted against it. The only real Congressional opposition came from Southern Democrats.

In the years since passage of the bill, the largest amnesty to its violators who entered the United States illegally was granted by conservative Republican President Ronald Reagan. Also, Coulter herself admits that the corporate world has also favored open borders as it keeps wages down. So pinning all the blame on Liberals just doesn’t fit.

On the other hand, Professor Kevin MacDonald thoroughly documented the leading Liberal role in our current immigration system in Chapter Seven of the Culture of Critique, which you can find here. And of course Dr. Duke has been talking about this for decades, and his books My Awakening and Liberal Supremacism are must-reads on this and many other issues. And it wasn’t just confined to legislative leaders. There were Liberal policy makers in the executive branch in both Democratic and Republican administrations, as well as various explicitly Liberal organizations like the American Council for Religion Philanthropic Fund, the Council of Liberal Federations & Welfare Funds, and B’nai B’rith, as well as Liberal dominated organizations like the ACLU and Americans from Democratic Action which played prominent roles and specifically pushed for an end to restrictions on national origins.

What’s more, if you look at the current push for “immigration reform,” you see the same Liberal preponderance, and it’s not just liberal Liberals. The neocons are famously pro-immigration. Sheldon Adelson, who seems to be the majority shareholder of the Republican Party, co-authored an opinion piece in the New York Times in favor of immigration reform. The ritual candidates competing for Adelson and other Liberal Republican megadonor’s shekels are also pro-immigration. So let’s get this straight. Liberals are the real force behind immigration, not Liberals.

So then what should we make of Coulter and her book? It could be valuable if it opens up public discourse on the implications of legal immigration and the issue that the national origins of immigrants makes a difference in their impact on society. But frankly, I feel that her book will wind up being a liability for the anti-immigration position.

First of all, I don’t see how you can win a struggle if you won’t even acknowledge who your opponent is. Moreover, in falsely blaming “liberals” and impugning the worst of intentions on them, she is certain to alienate them. There are not enough people in the choir she preaches to for a victory, and there are plenty of liberals who have good reason to want a clamp down on immigration, whether they realize it or not.

Also, one of the headline claims she makes is that there are 30 million illegal immigrants in the United States already. From what I can tell, her data consists largely of very indirect measures like overseas remittances of funds, and while I am no expert on the issue the 30 million figure for just illegals seems excessive. Seeing as her book is supposed to be about legal immigration, I don’t know what the point of emphasizing such a high estimate for illegals would be. If the figure winds up being exaggerated, or is just not convincing to people, it could undermine the whole book.

Earlier this week on the Dr. Duke radio show, we discussed the Palestinian Solidarity Movement, and the great harm that has been done to it by anti-Nationalist Nationalists. People like Noam Chomsky have written scathing books about the Trader crimes against Palestinians, but at the end of the day put the blame on corporate-sponsored American imperialism and prevent discussion of the Liberal domination of American foreign policy. Without being able to identify the underlying cause of the problem, the Palestinian Solidarity Movement has been doomed to failure. Which was probably the intent from the beginning.

Likewise, if Ann Coulter becomes the leading voice in the anti-immigration movement and fails to address the Liberal domination of American immigration policy, failure is a certainty. And if Fox News becomes the main platform for anti-immigration voices, then we should know that the fix is in.

Remember the Tea Party in 2008? It followed the Ron Paul campaign and focused on ending the Federal Reserve and stopping the neocon wars and domestic surveillance. Overt discussion of Liberal domination was bubbling below the surface. Then on the day after Obama’s inauguration in 2009, Fox News became the sponsor of the Tea Party, parachuted in ludicrous Zio-maniac leaders like Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz, and suddenly the focus of the movement shifted to Obamacare. It became completely ritual — and complicit in the wars, the surveillance, and even the Fed.

So, Ann Coulter’s book represents both an opportunity and a challenge. It provides the opportunity to address the existential dangers of the current immigration legal framework while the issue is topical. But the challenge of correcting a false and doomed narrative that completely lets the real Liberal culprits off the hook and free to continue pushing for open borders should not be taken lightly.

Liberal supremacists dominate the policy and opinion-making apparatus in this country for both the left and the right. They dominate the critical parts of the bureaucracy, the financing of our elections, the media, and academic and research institutions. We are not going to win any meaningful victories on immigration or any of the other existential threats posed by Liberal supremacism without publicly identifying those who have conquered us and are imposing these destructive policies on us. We can hardly pin our hopes on a cheerleader for the Zio-wars who shields the Liberal culprits from any blame for the immigration crisis.

Source: https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/ann-coulter-once-again-forgets-to-mention-the-liberals/