Shut up Ann! I think Trump can do more than one thing at a time
When Coulter speaks, all I hear is “LOOK AT ME”! I do not hear principles, or beliefs at all. Here is her latest attempt at carnival barking
Controversial conservative political commentator Ann Coulter offered her two cents about troops on the southern border this week.
First, during an appearance Tuesday on conservative radio show host Lars Larson’s program, Coulter suggested at least one illegal immigrant would have to be shot to teach others a lesson.
She issued the remark while responding to news that President Donald Trump plans to deploy the National Guard to protect the southern U.S. border.
“[W]hat are they going to do, shoot the illegals? I mean, both Obama and Bush did this too. No, there’s a reason the chant was ‘we want a wall.” We don’t want to use the military to process illegals and let them into the country,” she initially said.
Ah yes, a wall, that is all we need, a wall. Build a wall, and do nothing else, just a wall. There are many ways to combat illegal aliens entering the nation, the wall is one, it is a part. Troops on the border is another. By the way Ann, those troops might also aid in building a wall
When Larson pushed back by noting that visible troops along the border might serve as a deterrent, Coulter then dropped her flip remark about shooting an illegal.
“I don’t know, we’ll see,” she said. “If I were an illegal — I mean, unless they’re going to shoot one and send a message to the rest, as Voltaire’s line in Candide is, ‘We hang one to encourage the others’ — if you shoot one to encourage the others, maybe they’ll learn, but otherwise, we’ll see, we’ll see.”
Oh good grief! The reason this was not as effective in previous cases was the rules of engagement that were issued. “Just stand there” did not work true. But I do not believe the Guard will be so handcuffed this time. If the Guard is allowed to enforce the border, and no, that does not mean shoot someone to set an example, I believe this will be a very positive step towards securing the border.
Allow me to add that any attack on the Guard, say by cartels must be dealt with severely. Again, I believe this administration will allow the military to do its job.
Ann Coulter has a piece up at The Daily Caller that illustrates why I do not care for Ann too much. It is not that she is not right a lot of the time, because she is. It is not that she hits hard against those she disagree with, I am much the same way. It is that she goes out of her way to make every issue a firefight, because, publicity! Here is some of what she writes.
Based on the hysterical flailing at Donald Trump — He’s a buffoon! He’s a clown! He calls people names! He’s too conservative! He’s not conservative enough! He won’t give details! His details won’t work! — I gather certain Republicans are determined to drive him from the race.
These same Republicans never object to other candidates who lack traditional presidential resumes — Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain, to name a few. I’m beginning to suspect it’s all about Trump’s opposition to mass immigration from the Third World
First off here I will say that Ann Coulter IS right, the 14th amendment does NOT guarantee birthright citizenship. The wording of the amendment makes that pretty clear. So, Carly Fiorina, or anyone else that says it does, is wrong. But their stance on the issue would certainly not make them “pro-illegal immigration”. Nor would it make them “pro-amnesty”. To assert that attacks against Trump are because people somehow support illegal immigration is simply wrong. It is overkill, which is a Coulter specialty. There would be no one that despises our leaders inattention to border security, and to national security more than I do. As I have written many times, those who support open borders are attacking American sovereignty. The open borders types are Leftists who loathe America, and wish to destroy what we are. They wish to take E Pluribus Unum (out of many one) and bastardize it to destroy what makes America great. It should not surprise anyone that these same Leftists also want to destroy “In God We Trust”, and “Liberty for All” as well. In short, those seeking to eradicate these things are either evil, or are supporting evil ends out of ignorance.
So, let me set this straight. My opposition to Trump has nothing to do with border security. Frankly what Trump says about the border is correct. My opposition to Trump is based on his very shaky ideological record, his over inflated ego, and his petulant attitude that might actually cost the election if he were to be nominated. Back to Coulter for a moment.
Also, let me be clear that I would have trouble supporting Ben Carson due to his misunderstanding of the second amendment, and recent foreign policy statements. Newt Gingrich? He is not trustworthy to me, and Herman Cain also lost my initial support in 2012 because he was less than stellar on foreign policy. See Ann ISSUES matter to me, PRINCIPLES matter even more. That whole principles things also makes me not trust Trump. I mean he brags about being part of crony Capitalism, and being great at it. Kind of makes me doubt he would ever do anything about it. See Ann, records matter. Oh, did I mention Trumps love of eminent domain?
See he offered her “good money” for her “terrible house” but she was defiant. What a loser she must be! Michelle Malkin wrote about this too
Too many mega-developers like Trump have achieved success by using and abusing the government’s ability to commandeer private property for purported “public use.” Invoking the Fifth Amendment takings clause, real-estate moguls, parking-garage builders, mall developers, and sports-palace architects have colluded with elected officials to pull off legalized theft in the name of reducing “blight.” Under eminent domain, the definition of “public purpose” has been stretched like Silly Putty to cover everything from roads and bridges to high-end retail stores, baseball stadiums, and casinos. While casting himself as America’s new constitutional savior, Trump has shown reckless disregard for fundamental private-property rights. In the 1990s, he waged a notorious war on elderly homeowner Vera Coking, who owned a little home in Atlantic City that stood in the way of Trump’s manifest land development. The real-estate mogul was determined to expand his Trump Plaza and build a limousine parking lot — Coking’s private property be damned. The nonprofit Institute for Justice, which successfully saved Coking’s home, explained the confiscatory scheme: Unlike most developers, Donald Trump doesn’t have to negotiate with a private owner when he wants to buy a piece of property, because a governmental agency — the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority or CRDA — will get it for him at a fraction of the market value, even if the current owner refuses to sell. Here is how the process works. After a developer identifies the parcels of land he wants to acquire and a city planning board approves a casino project, CRDA attempts to confiscate these properties using a process called “eminent domain,” which allows the government to condemn properties “for public use.” Increasingly, though, CRDA and other government entities exercise the power of eminent domain to take property from one private person and give it to another. At the same time, governments give less and less consideration to the necessity of taking property and also ignore the personal loss to the individuals being evicted. Trump has attempted to use the same tactics in Connecticut and has championed the reviled Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court ruling upholding expansive use of eminent domain. He told Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto that he agreed with the ruling “100 percent” and defended the chilling power of government to kick people out of their homes and businesses based on arbitrary determinations:
The fact is, if you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and government, whether it’s local or whatever, government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make [an] area that’s not good into a good area, and move the person that’s living there into a better place — now, I know it might not be their choice — but move the person to a better place and yet create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.
Oh well, Michelle is likely one of those open border types right Ann?
American Freedom Defense Initiative President Pamela Geller took to two morning news programs Monday to defend a cartoon contest and art exhibit held for depictions of the Prophet Muhammad as being held in defense of free speech, but outspoken real estate mogul Donald Trump said it looked to him like “she’s just taunting everybody.”
“I watched Pam prior, and it looks like she’s just taunting everybody,” said Trump. “What is she doing? Drawing Muhammad and it looks like she’s taunting people.”
And while he called the violence “disgusting,” Trump said he wonders “what are they doing drawing Muhammad? Isn’t there something else they can draw? They can’t do something else? They have to be in the middle of Texas and on Muhammad?”
He said he has to question why Geller would organize such an event.
“You know, I’m one that believes in free speech, probably more than she does,” said Trump. “What’s the purpose of this? She’s taunting them…I don’t know, maybe she likes risk. What the hell is she doing?”
Yes, how DARE Geller taunt those that would kill us for speaking our minds?Funny, Trump plays the “I am tough, I will not be silenced” cards a lot, which I like. He also bashes PC a lot, which I have been doing for 20 years plus now. But, he seems a bit inconsistent on those principles. Ah yes, there is that word again PRINCIPLES!
But really, who am I to challenge Ann Coulter on principles right? I mean she told us we HAD to nominate Christ Christie in 2012, that Mitt Romney would lose. Then she decided Romney was the ONLY ONLY ONLY hope, and was REALLY strong on illegal immigration somehow. Then Mitt lost, and in the 2014 midterms Ann bashed those primary challengers to establishment Republicans. She criticized the Tea Party types, and bashed Ted Cruz We HAD to reject these challengers because OBAMACARE had to be struck down. Well how did that work out Ann? Oh, yeah, right.
But that is OK folks because now Ann Coulter is telling us Donald Trump is the newest in a growing line of only hopes. And you better listen to her or you are just an open borders, Tea Party/Ted Cruz supporter who reads Michelle Malkin columns and thinks little old ladies should keep their own property or something.
Roger, with due respect,
1. It does not seem hard at all to read the text of the Constitution as not requiring birthright citizenship unless one is construing the word “jurisdiction” to mean something plainly different from what the term meant when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.
As the Lino Graglia law review article Rich excerpted demonstrates, the term meant being subject to jurisdiction in the sense of the complete allegiance inherent in citizenship, not in the sense of merely being subject to American laws. Regarding the latter, every person present in the United States – citizen or not, legally present or not – is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the narrow sense of being expected to follow our laws. (Even diplomats, though they have an immunity defense against prosecution for criminal law violations, are expected to follow our laws and subject to expulsion for failing to do so.)
Yet, every person present in the United States is not presumed to have fealty to the United States, which is what “jurisdiction” means in the Fourteenth Amendment. And it is clearly not the case that every person born in the United States is automatically a citizen pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment: U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats are not; nor are the U.S.-born children of American Indians (they were granted citizenship by an act of Congress in 1924). Given that it is not true that every person born in the United States is an American citizen under the Constitution, how difficult can it be to read the Constitution to not require something it does not require?
2. I don’t know that it’s necessary to “make war” on birthright citizenship, but there is nothing odd about opposition to it. In fact, the United States is one of the few countries in the world that confers citizenship on illegal aliens based on nothing other than the happenstance of their birth within national borders. I am not suggesting that the laws of other countries shed light on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment; just that birthright citizenship is rightly seen as bad policy in most of the world. (Somehow, I suspect that the Supreme Court’s progressives, who believe in consulting foreign law when “interpreting” the U.S. Constitution, would resist that impulse when it comes to birthright citizenship.)
There are many people who believe in robust legal immigration and are open to the notion of some qualified amnesty for some categories of illegal aliens but who nevertheless think it is a terrible idea to grant citizenship automatically to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens – a policy that can only encourage more illegal immigration. I am not a fan of “comprehensive immigration reform”; but if reform is to be comprehensive, and we are trying to discourage illegal immigration, why would we not address every policy that incentivizes illegal immigration?
If denying birthright citizenship seems like an offensive proposition to some, it can only be because we’ve lost our sense of what citizenship should be – the concept of national allegiance inherent in it. If a couple who are nationals of Egypt enter our country and have a baby while they are here, why is it sensible to presume that child’s allegiance is to the United States rather than Egypt? If the baby of an American couple happened to be born while they were touring Egypt, would we not presume that the child’s allegiance was to the United States?
Go read it all, it is an excellent drubbing of Coulter and her brand of “Conservatism”
Ann Coulter tries, once again, to scold us for daring to improve the Republican Party. I guess we just do not know our place do we? How dare we, the people, even dream of getting some newer, more Conservative Republicans? Right Ann?
When a U.S. president is using the IRS to terrify his political enemies, destroying American health care and opening our southern border to millions of future welfare-collecting, Democratic voters from the Third World, why is a dime’s worth of money being wasted on trying to replace the Republican senator from Mississippi with a slightly different Republican?
There she goes again folks, there she goes again.Ann Coulter gets irked when any Republican challenges an incumbent Republican. Why? Would Coulter not prefer a more Conservative Representative or Senator? I know, I know, Coulter says she is all about winning elections. Well, so am I, So are the supporters of Chris McDaniels and other “Tea Party” Republicans challenging incumbent Republicans. It is all about winning. But why is it that Coulter never scolds establishment Republicans, many who have failed to stand up for Conservative principles in the past, for vowing to “destroy” Tea Party challengers?
If Chris McDaniel’s supporters want to show what bad-ass studs they are, how about walking across the Mississippi River and getting Tom Cotton elected in Arkansas? He’s running against a Democrat, fellas! Or how about walking a little farther down the river, to Louisiana, and helping Bill Cassidy take out another Democrat? Those two Democrats, Sens. Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu, are about to win re-election in red states — despite voting for Obamacare and amnesty. And tea partiers are still focused like a laser beam on making Republican senators more perfect, rather than beating Democrats.
Well I am sure McDaniel supporters would like to see those two win office, I know I would, But who says tea partiers in those states are NOT going to vote for those Republicans? The problem here is that Coulter does not believe Conservatives can win. Look at the last election. First Coulter was all about Chris Christie or bust. Then it was Mittmainia for her. Coulter bashed Rick Perry, who actually IS a Conservative in favor of Mitt Romney, the candidate the Democrats wanted to run against. So, forgive me if I am not ready to march to Ann Coulter’s marching orders anytime soon. There is a deeper issue here though, one that escapes the wannabe elitist in Coulter
Yes, it’s annoying to see a Republican appeal to Democratic voters to save his seat.
See, Ann just does not get it. Chochran campaign did not “appeal” to Black voters Ann, they openly race baited against McDaniels, calling him a racist. Is Ann Coulter OK with that? I think most Tea Party folks would have been OK with supporting Chochran if he had won the run off. But when he LOST the primary to McDaniels, and then pulled out the Race Card, well that is hardly a sign of anyone that ought to hold a Senate seat now is it? It is deplorable enough when Democrats go there, but when a Republican does it, well it makes me wonder what else that Republican will do to retain power. It is about principles Ann, maybe grasping that is just above your character level? This is simple folks. Whoever wins a Republican primary ought to support the winner, no matter who wins. But the GOP establishment seems to care more about holding on to power than about America.
We have heard rhetoric like Coulter’s before. We heard it when we were told we had to support Charlie Crist, who has since shown what a bottom feeder he is. We hear it constantly. Milton Wolf should not dare challenge Pat Roberts in Kansas, we should all just line up and vote for who the NRSC, and NRCC tell us too right Ann? And then, when these establishment candidates forget their campaign promises and go wishy-washy, and let us down, AGAIN, then what? I guess we can all have fun looking at Ann Coulters shocked face huh?