Ann Coulter and the Politics of Rape

By Lowell Ponte

Ann Coulter announced Wednesday that she has cancelled her planned speech at the University of California Berkeley. The reason: University officials persuaded her speech sponsors that the risk of violence (and financial costs to them) if she spoke was too great, so they withdrew their backing.


Bill O’Reilly, meanwhile, has recently been fired by Fox News because of allegations of sexual harassment. One of several accusers said that O’Reilly “would come by her desk and would leer at her up and down. She felt like he was looking at her cleavage and it made her feel uncomfortable.” She also said he told her: “Looking good there girl” and referred to her as “hot chocolate.”

Not many decades ago, a judge would weigh such remarks against how a woman dressed and acted. To wear short skirts or low cleavage was sometimes used to justify sexist harassment, or even to defend a rapist’s outrageous claim that the woman was “asking for it.”

The good news is that we now are much more enlightened about women’s rights, and that such claims will never again be used to vindicate a sexual attacker.

The bad news is that this same rationale of past rapists is now used by political radicals. Ann Coulter has dressed herself in provocatively stimulating (and therefore dangerous) ideas, the radicals have said. And because this has aroused them emotionally, they are entitled to take her down by force.

The University of California Berkeley refused to guarantee Coulter’s safety. Emerging evidence of the Berkeley mayor’s links to radical activists suggested that, as in the past, city police have been ordered to stand down and let activists engage in violent, destructive behavior. Yet another attempt by Leftist partisans to impose a “heckler’s veto” on non-Leftist speakers seemed likely.

What should have been done? Attorney General Jeff Sessions could have sent federal marshals to defend Coulter’s right to speak, along with other federal law enforcers.

At the first sign of disruption, those radicals involved could be arrested and charged with violating Coulter’s civil rights and with interfering with a state university funded by taxpayers.

At the first sign of violence, those radicals could be arrested and charged as urban terrorists. They should also be charged under the conspiracy statutes with a long list of crimes, from civil rights violations to violence.

Everyone involved in any way with these terrorists should be investigated. During the last major outbreak by terrorists, who did $100,000 damage and injured several people in a plot to silence another conservative speaker, they received help from an Arizona foundation, which in turn received help from a George Soros foundation. These links should be tracked down, made public, and where appropriate prosecuted as accomplices to violence.

None of this, of course, will be done. Instead, the terrorists will win, as they did by silencing Coulter. They will go on to wage more and more violence to create fear and conformity – today against conservative speakers, tomorrow against capitalists and private property owners, and the day after that against anyone with traditional values who works and saves money.

The Leftist rapists will eventually assault us all, and Left-wing professors and journalists will excuse and justify every attack as America looks more and more like the “ultraviolence” of the 1971 movie “A Clockwork Orange.”


To schedule an interview with Lowell Ponte (who is solely responsible for the opinions in this article), contact: Sandy Frazier at 516-735-5468 or email

For a free media copy of Money, Morality & The Machine, the 2016 widely-praised book co-authored by Craig R. Smith and Lowell Ponte, contact: David Bradshaw at 602-918-3296 or email


Will French Voters Shatter the European Union?

As with Trump, Populist Nationalism Could Shake the World

By Lowell Ponte

On Sunday, French voters rejected the elitists of all the ruling parties, right and left, and for the first time in generations chose two outsider candidates to contend for President in a May 7 runoff.

Marine Le Pen, 48, of the nationalist, anti-European Union party the National Front, came in second with roughly 22 percent of votes. And two points ahead of her was Emmanuel Macron, 39, who has never held elective office.

TE cover Nov 17th_Large
The media are quick to tell us that Macron is “neither left nor right” and is a “centrist” who must win against “far right” Ms. Le Pen. But Macron is the former economy minister of socialist President Francois Hollande, who wrecked the French economy and sent hundreds of thousands of the brightest young French to Great Britain and other lands seeking opportunity.

Le Pen has said that her election would overthrow the “savage globalist” ruling establishment of the European Union (EU) by holding a national referendum, like Brexit, over whether to stay in the EU and use the Euro currency, through which Germany has largely conquered the rest of Europe.

The EU, as Craig R. Smith and I explain in our latest book Money, Morality & The Machine, was devised after World War II by French intellectual Jean Monnet. Monnet wanted it to replace European nations by melting them into one government, so no such war could happen again.

And, because Germany’s WWII dictator had been democratically elected, Monnet wanted the European Union to be created and ruled not by votes of the people, but by an elite of unelected Eurocrats, Progressive philosopher kings who “know better” than the people and keep increasing EU power bit by bit. When United Kingdom voters saw that 61 percent of their laws and regulations were being imposed by the EU, and that they no longer had sovereign control over who migrated into their country, they voted for Brexit to leave the EU.

Macron firmly supports the European Union and Euro, sharing this view held by the ruling parties from right to left that after the Sunday election endorsed him and called for a united front against French nationalist Le Pen.

A cynic might suspect that, knowing no Socialist could win after Hollande’s dismal failure, Macron ran as an unknown stealth socialist under his own new party label, En Marche! (which means “Forward” or “Onward” or “On the Move”).

Macron claims to favor more market freedom and smaller government, yet defends keeping the entire French welfare state. (France, with a population of 66 Million, has the world’s seventh largest economy, only slightly smaller than India, with a population of 1.25 Billion.) Macron was an investment banker who in a short career for Rothschild & Co. made as much as $3.1 Million.

At age 15, Macron, the son of two doctors, fell in love with his teacher, 24 years his senior, who left her husband and three children to marry the persuasive youngster. He loves poetry.

Macron is, as the New York Times calls him, “the establishment’s anti-establishment candidate.” He is for the EU, immigrants, and Muslims settling in France. He claims to be an independent but portrays himself “almost as the anti-Le Pen.” And, having the support of the ruling party elites and leftist globalists (e.g., he made a TV ad of a friendly telephone call days before the vote from Barack Obama), Macron is favored to win and keep France under globalist control in the EU, which is why Le Pen calls Macron the “candidate of oligarchs.”

Markets cheered, and the Euro briefly surged, at the prospect of Le Pen losing on May 7. She has repeatedly traveled to Moscow, praised Russia as a defender of Christianity, and taken almost $10 Million in loans over the last three years for her party from a small Russian bank. (Macron claims that Russia has been hacking his computers.) If Le Pen wins, the EU might shatter in the anti-EU, anti-globalist nationalist forces this would unleash across Europe and the world.

frexit-714a0She is nationalistic like Charles de Gaulle, who tried to make France the planet’s fulcrum of power by tilting between the United States and Soviet Union. She favors nationalist trade policies to protect French workers. And like De Gaulle, she claims France was not responsible for the genocidal anti-Semitism of the Vichy Government under German occupation because the “true” French Government was in exile in London. Le Pen purged her own father from the party, which he founded, for making anti-Semitic remarks.

The globalist establishment has used many tactics to minimize the National Front’s power. In Sunday’s election, 56 French villages, including several in the far north that tend to vote for the National Front, strangely registered zero votes for Le Pen.

Worse, the U.K. Express reported that a “computer blunder” had sent two voter cards to 500,000 French citizens outside the country – and hence, likely, globalists; this gave these mostly anti-Le Pen voters the opportunity to cast two votes, not one.).

As President, neither Macron nor Le Pen could do much without support of French lawmakers from the dominant parties. France’s election of legislators happens June 11 and 18. If Le Pen wins in May and June, we might see a Frexit – and her victory would shake the world economy. A restoration of national greatness, and dimming of globalism, will move forward on both sides of the Atlantic.

To schedule an interview with Lowell Ponte, whose ancestors 160 years ago were French utopians, contact: Sandy Frazier at 516-735-5468 or email

For a free media copy of Money, Morality & The Machine, contact: David Bradshaw at 602-918-3296 or email


By Craig R. Smith and Lowell Ponte 

Americans were shocked to learn that a paying customer could be violently dragged off an airliner because United Airlines wanted to give his seat to someone else

40,629 people who had valid tickets have been involuntarily bumped from airliners, because airlines are allowed to sell more tickets than they have seats on each flight. But millions of us risk losing our savings because banks are allowed to lend long-term, or in other ways gamble by speculative investment with, the money they take in as short-term demand deposits. Our banks are a lot like United Airlines!

Most of us still assume that putting our money into a bank makes us safer. Instead, under current law you do not “own” your bank account. The bank does and can put it at risk, The government, under “bail-in” rules established by President Barack Obama, can confiscate every dollar in your account as “assets” that belong to the bank, not to you.


Why, if you try to withdraw more than a small amount from your account, could your bank refuse to return the savings or retirement cash you entrusted to them? This is now almost routine at American banks.

And why, if you are lucky enough to withdraw your money, will the bank report this transaction to the Internal Revenue Service? (Surprise! Your bank is now required to spy on you by the government.)

In our free, updated 2017 White Paper Don’t Bank On It! Executive Summary, we explain 20 major reasons why your bank has become one of the riskiest places to put your money.

This began centuries ago, when people paid the goldsmiths of London to keep their gold coins in safes. The goldsmiths gave out paper receipts for this money, which depositors began trading with others like money. Most people left their gold untouched, so the goldsmiths began lending it for interest.

This was the beginning of “Fractional-Reserve Banking.” The goldsmiths gambled that if they kept a fraction of these gold deposits, they could pay the few customers who might suddenly want their gold back. Trouble was, if a national crisis happened, or if depositors lost faith in the goldsmiths, they could start a “run” on these bankers, with everybody demanding their lent-out gold at once. This could cause the system to collapse.

American banks practice such Fractional-Reserve Banking today – using short-term demand deposits to make long-term loans. The Federal Reserve now supposedly keeps banks reliable by using dubious “stress tests” to show that your bank has one percent to 10 percent of its assets in reserve.

After many lost their bank savings in the Great Depression, the government also created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to insure bank accounts. Trouble is, the FDIC has only $25-$50 Billion in reserve, and in the most dire emergency might be able to scrape together half a trillion dollars.

This sounds impressive until you learn that the FDIC insures over $7 Trillion in bank deposits. It could cover at most only $1 out of every $14 deposited in American banks – roughly 7 percent.. If even one of the six biggest banks failed – because of hackers, cyber terrorists, a major bank run by customers, or many other causes – the FDIC might be unable to cover depositor

losses. Printing new dollars to cover this would destroy our currency’s value.

We have only “fractional reserve insurance“ covering our Fractional-Reserve deposits. The government is rushing to impose a “cashless society” because we have vastly more debt than we have money to pay it. If people wake up to this, our economy based on debased paper money would collapse.

No wonder that a veteran Harvard economics professor withdrew his life savings from one of America’s biggest banks. It’s a good time for all of us to take out our own “savings insurance” by moving a portion of our assets from shaky government dollars and banks into reliable hard money that will go up in value if the government economy built on mirage money goes down.

To schedule an interview with Craig R. Smith or Lowell Ponte, the co-author of seven financial books whose writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, contact: Sandy Frazier at 516-735-5468 or email

For a free copy of the 2017 updated White Paper Don’t Bank On It!, contact: David Bradshaw at 602-918-3296 or email