Left-fascists are not only rapers and mutilators of the Constitution, they're also hypocrites.

Who knew? Obviously, Ann Coulter did. Once again, Ann proves she is smarter than almost anybody out there. She's even smarter than Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters combined.

From Human Events:

"Nativism in American politics has become so rampant that it is considered scandalous in Republican circles for a judge to acknowledge paying any attention to foreign courts and their legal rulings." -- New York Times editorial, Aug. 3, 2010

The New York Times runs this same smug editorial every few months -- at least I think it's the same editorial -- to vent its spleen at conservatives who object to American judges relying on foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

But when it comes to anchor babies, The New York Times and the entire Democratic establishment plug their ears and hum rather than consider foreign laws on citizenship. (For more on this, see "Mexican immigration law versus U.S. immigration law.")

Needless to say, America is the only developed nation that allows illegal aliens to gain full citizenship for their children merely by dropping them on U.S. soil.

Take Sweden -- one of the left's favorite countries. Not only is there no birthright citizenship, but even the children of legal immigrants cannot become Swedish citizens simply by being born there. At least one parent must be a citizen for birth on Swedish soil to confer citizenship.

(Applicants also have to know the lyrics to at least one ABBA song, which explains why you don't see groups of Mexicans congregating outside Ikea stores.)

Liberals are constantly hectoring Americans to adopt Sweden's generous welfare policies without considering that one reason Sweden's welfare policies haven't bankrupted the country (yet) is that the Swedes don't grant citizenship to the children of any deadbeat who manages the spectacular feat of giving birth on Swedish soil.

In Britain, only birth to at least one British citizen or the highest class of legal immigrant, a "settled" resident with the right to remain, such as Irish citizens, confers citizenship on a child born in England. And if the British birthright is through the father, he must be married to the mother (probably a relic from Victorian times when marriage was considered an important institution).

Even Canada, the country most similar to the United States, grants citizenship upon birth -- but excludes the noncitizen parents of anchor babies from receiving benefits, such as medical care, schooling and other free stuff given to Canadian citizens.

After MSNBC'S favorite half-black guest, professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, made the dazzling point last week that "all babies are anchor babies" because "I certainly know my 8-year-old has anchored the heck out of my life," thereby winning this week's witty wordplay contest, she claimed to be stumped on how citizenship could possibly be determined if not by location of birth.

"I want Americans to pause for a moment and ask themselves," Harris-Lacewell said portentously, "on what basis would you determine citizenship, if not based on where a child is born?" (Luckily for Harris-Lacewell, U.S. citizenship is not granted on problem-solving abilities.)

Harris was off and running, babbling: "Do you have to have two parents who are citizens? How about grandparents? How about great-grandparents?"

I don't know -- how does Sweden do it? How about Denmark? Maybe we should check the laws of every other country in the universe -- especially the ones liberals are relentlessly demanding we emulate!

Or is Ms. Lacewell one of those chest-thumping, nationalistic nativists who becomes hysterical when anyone brings up foreign law? Where is The New York Times when we need it?

The Times' editorial denouncing "nativist" conservatives ended with this little homily: "(Republicans) might want to re-read James Madison's description in the Federalist Papers of the ideal legislator: 'He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations.'"

Of course, conservatives' objection to judges looking to foreign law is that they're judges, not legislators -- least of all "ideal legislators."

Judges are supposed to be interpreting a constitution and laws written by legislators, not legislating from the bench. Hey, whose turn is it to remind The New York Times that the legislative branch of our government is different from the judicial branch?

As the Times' own august quote from James Madison indicates, he was referring to "the ideal legislator," not "the ideal Supreme Court justice."

In its haste to call conservatives names, the Times not only gave away that they think judges are supposed to be "legislators" -- a point they've been denying for decades -- but also provided a ringing endorsement for ending birthright citizenship.

Not being an easily frightened nativist like Harris-Lacewell, I think we should look at other countries' laws, then adopt the good ones and pass on the bad ones.

For example, let's skip clitorectomies, arranged marriages, dropping walls on homosexuals, honor killings and the rest of the gorgeous tapestry of multiculturalism.

Instead, how about we adopt foreign concepts such as disallowing frivolous lawsuits, having loser-pays tort laws, and requiring that both parents be in the U.S. legally and at least one parent be a citizen, for a child born here to get automatic citizenship?

Or (to paraphrase my favorite newspaper) has nativism in American politics become so rampant that it is considered scandalous in Democratic circles for a legislator to acknowledge paying any attention to foreign countries and their laws? If so, then Democrats might want to re-read James Madison's description in the Federalist Papers of the ideal legislator: "He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations."

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans" and most recently, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America.

SEX IS DEATH (If you have to buy a boner, you may be a goner)

Hee-hee! SEX IS DEATH is back, kiddies! I know the truth about everybody's favorite playtime activity hurts, but zoo sex with anybody or anything that's handy will kill you.

WGN: Enzyte linked to heart arrhythmia

The study showed heart patterns were affected when some of the patients took the supplement.

One doctor said Enzyte has the properties of the most powerful heart controlling medicines that's available with a prescripiton.

Supplements do not follow the same safety guidelines and oversight of prescription drugs.

Under U.S. law, dietary supplements are "presumed safe unless proven to be otherwise."

Supplement makers also do not have any obligation to provide proof that they work.

Doctors in this study are warning their patients not to use Enzyte and similar products that don't have more information available on their safety.

It is now time for you ladies to tune out. And you little girls too. Go on, git!

All right boys, it's time for some straight thinking. Did you ever wonder why every guy [even those of Italian descent!] seems to need boner pills these days?

It could be chronic onanism:

5 Things You Didn't Know About Masturbation from WebMD:

Certain forms of masturbation can lead to sexual dysfunction

Experts warn that men who frequently stimulate themselves in ways that don't simulate sex with a partner -- for example, stroking very rapidly or with great pressure or friction -- can develop retarded ejaculation. That's a type of sexual dysfunction in which it is difficult or even impossible to climax during partnered sex.

Golly, Huge Hefner never warned us about that!

World War II continues apace.

From the LA Times and the AP, more evidence that life on earth is brutally unfair, even if you change the name of your country.

Myanmar's Karen veterans of World War II remain all but forgotten

Reporting from Mae La Camp, Thailand —

"Colonel Peacock, Major Hogan, Captain Bower … Shoot from the hip! Quick march! Right turn!" The names, ranks and barked commands of World War II British officers officers tumble from these old Asian soldiers' memories as if it all happened yesterday.

But the war never really ended for the Karen tribesmen who fought alongside the British to drive the Japanese out of Burma, and who now live as refugees in jungle camps astride the Thai-Myanmar border or inside their ravaged homeland, impoverished and driven from their homes amid a brutal insurgency.

These ethnic minority people, who were made promises by the British that were fatally broken, remain virtually forgotten and unrewarded by the outside world as the 65th anniversary of the Allied victory in Asia approaches on Aug. 15. For them, medals, parades and joyous family reunions all ring hollow.

Yet the Karen warriors, all in their 80s and 90s, have forgiven their former allies — and even remember them with stirring fondness.

"As I bent down to pull him away, the bullet hit me here," recounts Sein Aye, pointing to a reddish scar on his neck. The Japanese had ambushed his unit, and the teenage soldier, recruited from a farming village, dragged a gravely wounded British officer to safety under fire.

Simeon U — 91 years old, twice wounded, four times decorated — recalls killing at least five Japanese "with my own hands" and staying behind their lines when the bulk of the battered British force retreated in 1942.

He fought in the hills as a guerrilla with Maj. Hugh Paul Seagrim, a lanky man nicknamed "Grandfather Longlegs."

The Japanese announced that their reprisals would end if Seagrim surrendered, so the officer walked into their camp, only to be executed with seven Karen companions. He remains a legend among the Karen.

"He was a great chap. We trusted him. He inspired the Karen people," says Simeon U, squatting on the floor of a bamboo hut at Mae Rama Luang, a camp embedded in a remote valley housing 20,000 Karen refugees.

When the Japanese invaded, the Burma Independence Army, an armed group composed mainly of the Burman ethnic majority, joined them in hopes of wresting independence from Britain, the colonial ruler. Among their targets were the Karen, whom the British had much favored.

When the British retreated to India, some, like Seagrim, managed to stay behind and later were joined by other British soldiers who infiltrated back into the country. They organized the Karen into a fighting force.

But for the Karen, the war did not end with Japan's defeat. In 1949, a year after Burma gained its independence, the tribe rose in rebellion, having failed to secure a state of its own as the British had promised. It would become the world's longest insurgency.

In 1989 Burma's military rulers changed the country's name to Myanmar, though much of the world still refers to it as Burma.

The struggle has taken a massive toll: an estimated half a million people driven from their homes in Myanmar's Karen state, 150,000 of them living as refugees in Thailand.

The United Nations and human rights groups have detailed widespread killings, rape, torture, forced labor and burning of villages as the regime campaigns to deny the rebels support from the civilian population.

"We had nothing to eat. The Burmese soldiers came and stole our rice. We left with nothing," says Sein Aye. In his late 80s, he lives in a small hut in Mae La Camp, existing on rations from aid groups. He lists his worldly possessions as two sarongs, three shirts and a broken watch.

The veterans' plight was virtually unknown until 1998 when Sally Steen, a British aid worker with ancestral roots in colonial Burma, visited the border and met an 87-year-old ex-soldier who had served with the Burma Rifles. He was caring for a mentally impaired daughter, suffered from severe asthma and was destitute.

"When I asked him what I could do to help, he said, 'I'd like you to inform my officers,' " Steen recounts. "In other words, [he felt that] his officers still had a responsibility."

Steen formed her own group, Help 4 Forgotten Allies, because support was not forthcoming from the British government.

"That is a dead duck. They will not give pensions. … They are adamant," says Steen, who is based in England.

In the past, officials have said the Karen are ineligible because they fought alongside the British rather than in British units.

The Burma Forces Welfare Assn. exists in England to help the veterans and used to give them annual grants of $110. The grants stopped in 2008, but some will be renewed, Steen said. Last year, her group gave about $65 to each of more than 150 veterans and their widows. She admits it was a "miserable sum."

Yet, few of the veterans show any rancor.

"The British government did its best to try to give us our own state," says Simeon U. "Then, I did what I had to do. Now, I want the new generation, my sons, to take over and continue the struggle."

Ka Paw Say, who helped to clandestinely distribute Steen's grants to veterans in Myanmar, said some of those he met imagined the British had come back to liberate them. "They were so thankful for the money, and they wanted some milk and bread, which they had not eaten since the British days," he said.

In the refugee camp, after telling his life story to a visitor, Dwe Maung asks to sing a song. The words, in the Karen language, pour out loud and clear as though he were still a young, eager trooper: "When you hear the sounds of the buffalo horn, the soldiers will gather. … Our flag will rise. We will fight bravely for king and country."

Exiled, widowed, nearly blind and almost penniless, the old fighter waves a dirty, rolled-up towel over his head, and a smile sweeps across his furrowed face.

Next to him, Sein Aye rises from his chair with the help of a long cane. Then he stands, parade-ground erect, and says goodbye to a visitor with a flawless British Army salute.

Sodomy is the new black.

Doogie Howser and the guy with whom he shares a rectum are about to buy two babies from some poor deluded woman. [I don't hear the left-hypocrites screaming about the sacred 14th Amendment in this case.]

Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka Are Expecting Twins
Neil Patrick Harris, who directed the recent Hollywood Bowl production of Rent, and his partner David Burtka (Tulsa in the Bernadette Peters revival of Gypsy) are expecting twins via a surrogate, according to eonline.com.

The babies are due in October. Harris tweeted Aug. 14: "So, get this: David and I are expecting twins this fall. We're super excited/nervous/thrilled. Hoping the press can respect our privacy..."

Never mind the horrific pile of mortal sin here, kiddies, that's just Hollyweird. How about the dumbass expecting privacy immediately after announcing his crime to the world?

Those twins are going to need some serious therapy in a few years. Please remember them in your prayers.