Excerpt from ANN COULTER’s brand-new book, DEMONIC: THE LIBERAL MOB ENDANGERING AMERICA

Human Events ^ | 06/07/2011 | ANN COULTER

[Yosemitest]

DEMONIC: THE LIBERAL MOB ENDANGERING AMERICA CHAPTER 10 (excerpt)
CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE MOB: GEORGE WALLACE, BULL CONNOR, ORVAL FAUBUS AND OTHER DEMOCRATS
By Ann Coulter


It was the Democratic Party that ginned up the racist mob against blacks
and it is the Democratic Party ginning every new mob today—
ironically, all portraying themselves as the equivalent of the Freedom Riders.
With real civil rights secure—
try to find a restaurant that won’t serve a black person
—modern civil rights laws benefit only the mob,
not the victims of the mob, as American blacks had been.
Just as fire seeks oxygen, Democrats seek power,
which is why they will always be found championing the mob
whether the mob consists of Democrats lynching blacks
or Democrats slandering the critics of ObamaCare as racists.

Democrats have gone from demagoguing white (trash) voters
with claims that Republicans are the party of blacks,
to demagoguing black voters telling them Republicans are the party of racists.
Any mob in a storm.

The liberal fairy tale that Southern bigots simply switched parties, from Democrat to Republican, is exactly wrong.
What happened is:
The Democrats switched mobs.
Democrats will champion any group of hooligans in order to attain power.
As Michael Barone said of the vicious segregationist (and Democrat) George Wallace,
he was “a man who really didn’t believe in anything—
a political opportunist who used opposition to integration
to try and get himself ahead.”

This is why the Democrats are able to transition so seamlessly
from defending Bull Connor racists
to defending Black Panthers, hippies, yippies,
Weathermen, feminists, Bush derangement syndrome liberals,
Moveon.org, and every other indignant, angry mob.

Every segregationist who ever served in the Senate was a Democrat
and remained a Democrat except one.
Even Strom Thurmond—
the only one who later became a Republican
—remained a Democrat for eighteen years after running for president as a Dixiecrat.
There’s a reason they were not called the “Dixiecans.”

A curious sleight of hand is required to hide from the children the fact
that all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats.
In history books, such as Robert A. Caro’s biography of Lyndon Johnson, the seg- regationists are not called “Democrats.”
They’re called “Southerners.”3

Except it wasn’t just “Southerners” voting against civil rights.
Not every senator who opposed black civil rights was a Southerner,
but every one was a Democrat.
In addition to the Southern Democrats who voted against putting the 1957 civil rights bill on the Senate calendar, for example,
there were five Democrats from nowhere near the South:
Democratic senator Wayne Morse of Oregon—a favorite target of Senator Joe McCarthy
—Democratic senator Warren Magnuson of Washington,
Democratic senator James Murray of Montana,
Democratic Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana,
and Democratic senator Joseph O’Mahoney of Wyoming.4

According to Caro, the Western Democrats traded their votes on civil rights
for a dam authorization on the Idaho-Oregon border.
That’s how dear black civil rights were to liberals—
they traded them away for a dam.

While Democrats are the party of the mob,
Republicans are the party of calm order,
willing to breach the peace only when it comes to great transgressions against humanity—
slavery, abortion, and terrorism.

After the Civil War, it was Republicans
who passed the Thirteenth Amendment, granting slaves their freedom;
the Fourteenth Amendment, granting them citizenship;
and Fifteenth Amendment, giving them the right to vote.
It was Republicans who sent federal troops to the Democratic South
to enforce the hard-won rights of the freed slaves.

Then, as now, the Democrats favored the hooligans.
The Ku Klux Klan was originally formed as a terrorist group to attack Republicans
who had come to the Democratic South after the Civil War
to help en- force legal equality for freed slaves.

It was—again—Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866
and the Reconstruction Act of 1867, both signed into law by Republican president Ulysses S. Grant.
Under the “living Constitution,” the Supreme Court upheld fraudulent “separate but equal” accommodations
for blacks in the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson.

Republicans kept introducing federal civil rights bills
and Democrats kept blocking them—
a bill to protect black voters in the South in 1890;
antilynching bills in 1922, 1935, and 1938;
and anti–poll tax bills in 1942, 1944, and 1946.

With a lock on the racist mob vote, Democratic politicians won elections
and promptly resegregated the entire South with Jim Crow laws.
In 1913, Progressive Democrat president Woodrow Wilson even instituted segregation in Washington, D.C.,
bringing Jim Crow to the federal workforce.
Wilson summarily dismissed black officials from their federal jobs in the South and in D.C.

A friend of Wilson said that with him running the country,
“Negroes should expect to be treated as a servile race.”7
There’s your post-racial Democratic Party.

A crucial part of the Democrats’ victim folklore is that
they have been losing the South to Republicans over the past half century
because the Democrats stood on principle to oppose race discrimination,
while the Republican Party pandered to racists in the South
—a region of the country liberals believe is composed primarily of Klan members.
(That might be your first clue as to why Southerners don’t like liberals.)
The Republican Party’s allegedly racist appeal to Southerners
is darkly referred to seventeen times a day in the mainstream media as the “Southern Strategy.”

In fact, it was Eisenhower who broke the Democrats’ hold on the South in 1952,
and if anyone was appealing to bigots that year, it wasn’t Eisenhower.
Democrat Adlai Stevenson, known to experience “personal discomfort in the presence of Negroes,”12
chose as his running mate John Sparkman of Alabama, a Democrat segregationist.

And yet the Old South—
which according to mainstream media accounts
voted Republican solely out of racial resentment
—suddenly started voting Republican in 1952.
Ike carried Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida outright,
and nearly stole Kentucky, North Carolina, and West Virginia from Stevenson.
(Eisenhower lost Kentucky by a microscopic .07 percent
and lost West Virginia and South Carolina by fewer than 4 percentage points.)

This was just four years after Democrat-turned-Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond won four Southern states.
But running with a segregationist didn’t help Stevenson in the South a few years later.

Then, in 1956, the Republican Party platform endorsed the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education that desegregated public schools;
the Democratic platform did not, and would not,
as long as Democrats were winning elections by appealing to the racist mob.
This led the black congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr. to break with his party
and endorse Eisenhower for president.

Governor Orval Faubus, progressive New Deal Democrat, blocked the schoolhouse door to the Little Rock Central High School
with the state’s National Guard rather than allow nine black students to attend.
In response, President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to take it out of Faubus’s hands.
Then he sent the 101st Airborne Division to walk the black children to school
and stay with them throughout the day.

Eisenhower implemented the 1948 executive order President Truman had issued—but then ignored—desegregating the military.
Also unlike Truman, Eisenhower hired blacks for prominent positions in his administration.

It was Republicans who overwhelmingly introduced, promoted, and passed every civil rights act
from the end of the Civil War right up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
President Eisenhower pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, written by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, guaranteeing black voting rights,
to be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.

During the endless deliberation on Eisenhower’s civil rights bill, Senator Lyndon Johnson warned his fellow segregationist Democrats,
“Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again.”
Senator Sam Ervin, another liberal luminary—
instrumental in the destruction of anti-communist Republicans Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon
—told his fellow segregationists,
“I’m on your side, not theirs,”
and advised them to face up to the fact that
“we’ve got to give the goddamned niggers something.”14

Until 1964, every civil rights act had presented no possible constitutional problems—
those federal laws were fully within Congress’s enumerated powers to enact
because they were directed at government officials (Democrats)
who were violating the Constitution by denying black citizens the right to vote.

Federal laws aimed at discrimination by government actors are expressly within Congress’s authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Democrats opposed these civil rights laws
not because of any questions about Congress’s authority to enact them—
they couldn’t care less about the Constitution
—but because they wanted to keep discriminating.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was again supported overwhelmingly by Republicans and less so by Democrats.
As with the 1957 and 1960 civil rights acts, it was Republicans who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act by huge majorities,
with a distinctly smaller majority of Democrats supporting it.
In the Senate, for example, 82 percent of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
compared with only 66 percent of Democrats.
In the House, 80 percent of Republicans supported the ’64 bill,
compared with only 63 percent of Democrats.

The only reason Democratic majorities were beginning to support civil rights for blacks was
that by 1964—thanks to Republican voting rights acts—more blacks were voting.
Democrats couldn’t keep winning elections in some parts of the country by appealing to the racist mob.

As Democratic senator Carter Glass of Virginia had explained years earlier,
“Discrimination!
Why that is exactly what we propose,”
saying the Democrats sought to
“remove every negro voter who can be gotten rid of,
legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.”
The Democrats’ position on civil rights depended on where the votes were.

Once the Democrats got involved, civil rights became just another racket with another mob.
Unlike previous civil rights laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act included provisions aimed at purely private actors,
raising the hackles of some constitutional purists, notably Barry Goldwater, the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nominee.
Goldwater, like the rest of his party, had supported every single civil rights bill until the 1964 act.
But he broke with the vast majority of his fellow Republicans to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Like many other conservatives opposed to a living, growing, breathing Constitution,
Goldwater actually opposed only two of the seven major provisions of the bill—
those regulating privately owned housing and public accommodations.
But there were other provisions he would have made tougher.
For example, Goldwater wanted to make it mandatory
that federal funds be withheld from programs practicing discrimination,
rather than discretionary, as President Kennedy had requested.

Goldwater was a vehement foe of segregation.
He was a founder of the NAACP in Arizona,
donating the equivalent of several thousand dollars
to the organization’s efforts to integrate the public schools.
When he was head of the Arizona National Guard, he had integrated the state Guard
before Harry Truman announced he was integrating the U.S. military.
As the Washington Post said, Goldwater
“ended racial segregation in his family department stores,
and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants
and in the Arizona National Guard.”

But he was also a believer in limited government.
It was, after all, racist Democratic politicians in the South
using the force of the government to violate private property rights
by enforcing the Jim Crow laws in the first place.
As Sowell points out, it wasn’t the private bus companies
demanding that blacks sit in the back of the bus,
it was the government.

Goldwater not only had personally promoted desegregation, he belonged to a party
that had been fighting for civil rights for the previous century against Democratic obstructionism.
Lyndon Johnson voted against every civil rights bill during his tenure in the Senate.
But by the time he became president, he had flipped 180 degrees.
Appealing to regional mobs wouldn’t work with a national electorate.

Unlike mob-appeasing Democrats, Goldwater based his objections to certain parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on purely constitutional principles.
Along with other constitutional purists in the Republican Party,
Goldwater opposed federal initiatives in a lot of areas, not just those involving race.
By contrast, segregationist Democrats routinely criticized the exercise of federal power and expenditure of federal funds
when it involved ending discrimination against blacks—
but gladly accepted federal pork projects for their states.

It would be as if,
after fighting the Democrats for a hundred years over the issue of abortion,
Republicans finally got Roe v. Wade overturned,
and then, out of pure political calculation, Democrats jumped on the bandwagon
and demanded a federal law outlawing abortion.
Some pro-life Republicans would probably object
that federal law outlawing abortion
is not one of Congress’s enumerated powers.

On the basis of Republicans’ constitutional objections,
Democrats would then reverse the entire history of the pro-life movement
and start claiming the Democratic Party alone
fought to end abortion in America.
That is exactly what they have done with the history of civil rights.

[RonDog]

From a post bt FReeper Syncro:

Here is a link to her talking about the book on the Hannity show last nite

http://www.popmodal.com/video/7817

She will be on the show tonite [Tuesday, 6/7/11] also.

And, from www.anncoulter.com:

June 7, 2011, 10:31 AM

BOOK TOUR: ABC'S GOOD MORNING AMERICA TUESDAY 8AM -

CNN'S PIER'S MORGAN TUESDAY NIGHT

INSIDE EDITION

June 7, 2011, 9:36 AM

Excellent Interview! - VIDEO! Jamie Weinstein Interviews Coulter About "Demonic"!

June 7, 2011, 9:19 AM

They're all good. (But some weren't jokes!) - DC: Top 15 jokes in Ann Coulter’s ‘Demonic’

June 7, 2011, 9:08 AM

FANTASTIC LIST! - DC: Top 10 shocking things in Ann Coulter’s book ‘Demonic’ that will drive liberals crazy

June 7, 2011, 1:04 AM

NEW BOOK OUT TUESDAY- PREVIEW ON HANNITY RADIO AND TV MONDAY! -

June 6, 2011, 11:29 PM

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT ... - Ann Coulter on Hannity: TV debut of Ann's new book Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America

And, from www.locatetv.com, it appears that Ann will be back on "The View" tomorrow:

WEDNESDAY (6/08/11)

Author Ann Coulter; musician Nick Jonas; actress Christina Hendricks.

[RonDog]

:o)

[wintertime]

It is impossible for Coulter to state with certainty that Obama is a natural born citizen or even a citizen at all! Yet, she MOCKS those who have REASONABLE questions regarding Obama’s eligibility ( and used the KKK to make her point.)

She’ will **never** again get a dime from me. I encourage others to do the same.

Proudly “cranky”,
Wintertime

[wintertime]

Ann’s always defended the Constitution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**ONLY** the parts that’s convenient for her financially and will advance her career in entertainment.

[wintertime]

I understand that she has fans but you have to understand that she also has detractors that dislike some of her stands on homosexuality and Constitutional eligibility.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well! Gee! Silly me! I have deal breaking issues like having an eligible president with access to all of our nation's most sensitive secretes and in control of the world's most destructive military force since the dawn of mankind! And...I don't think children in our government schools being taught fagotry is a good idea or that the homo bullies should get people fired from their jobs.

Personally, I will never again buy one of Coulters books and will go out of my way to see that see never gets any of my money.

[CSM]

I ordered mine today and am now praying that it is not in this format!

[CSM]

“I like parts of Anne”

Me too!

[ViLaLuz]

“And...Coulter is just as much and entertainer and as phony as those cute little red slippers.”

Yup. I appreciate her wit and sarcasm, but she’s just what you say she is, similarly to Glenn Beck.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

Did anyone see Annie on the Pier Morgan CNN show tonight. I imagine the show will get its highest ratings in awhile. Annie was great even though the host would not let Annie answer alot of the questions. He would ask a question and then 5 seconds into Annie’s answer he would start to talk over her.

[Yosemitest]

This post's format is my doings, just trying to make it easier to absorb.
The info Ann gives is so intense, that I don't want anyone to miss anything.

[Yosemitest]

Is CNN still on the air.
I heard there audience had all been instituted into the mental wards.

"... and then 5 seconds into Ann’s answer he would start to talk over her."

Yeah ... liberals can't focus their thoughts.
They try to protect their feeble brains by talking loud over facts they can't tolerate.
The best way to handle a liberal is to point your finger at them and laugh out loud.

[CSM]

Whew, that is good to hear....

Thanks for calming my worries FRiend.

[Loud Mime]

I call people like him blah-blah-birthers.

Obama is in; it’s over. Start fighting the real battle.

[Yosemitest]

It's not over.
That Marxist, Illegal Immigrant that's defiling our White House should be jailed, and then deported.
It's never "over" until honest people give up.

May our Heavenly Father

deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh,
that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus ...

[philman_36]

WE'RE ALL RUTH BADER GINSBURG NOW
If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born."

[Yosemitest]

The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, is the ROOT of that LAW.
AND .... IT IS A LAW DEFINING the rules of CITIZENSHIP and NATURALIZATION.

So try again, LOSER !

"If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born.""

That's a very bad 'STRAW MAN' MIS-DIRECTION.
It isn't even close to what that law is.
A definition of the rules, is not the same as a RESOLUTION declaring a SPECIFIC PERSON a Citizen.

For REFERENCE. see:

111th Congress (2009-2010), S.RES.225.ATS, which states:
"Recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.
... Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961; ...
Resolved,
That the Senate recognizes and celebrates the 50th anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State."

and also 111th CONGRESS, 1st Session,H . RES . 593, which states:
"Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.
... Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii; ...
Resolved,
That the House of Representatives recognizes and celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.

[Yosemitest]

Also READ:

Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —
as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.

But the fact is,
they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —
in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.

And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,
who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” —
he was ALSO “natural born.”

If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”
then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.


The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact found
that Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.

Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.

But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,
Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.

There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
though.

It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.

But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.

Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means
“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”

Note that again:
Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,
which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”


The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:

“Plaintiff claims that
President Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,
Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
and this precedent fully supports
that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
and thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,
916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“

Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.

So your statement that "natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !

[philman_36]

So your statement that "natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !

Please cite the exact reply on this thread where you contend I made the statement that "natural born means both parents ".

[philman_36]

You really should read “Rule #1” on digging holes.

[philman_36]

That's a very bad 'STRAW MAN' MIS-DIRECTION.

Tell Ann Coulter that since she is the one who wrote it.