40 thoughts on “Ann Coulter”

  1. So I guess Ann Coulter joins John Derbyshire, Joseph Sobran and Pat Buchanan on the “fired for racism” conservative scrap heap. No wonder not even the “libertarian” right can stand up to the open borders gang or a minority President. If this is given, then how is it consistent for libcon’s to object to people being fired for supporting traditional marriage? Or for speechifying about any highly controversial “triggering” position?

  2. My respect for Ann Coulter has been going downhill for years. She pretty much lost it when she started claiming that her publisher had violated her First Ammendment rights by rejecting one of her articles. It doesn’t surprised my that she’s glommed onto a circus clown like Trump.

  3. “Open borders gang”? You mean Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, etc. — that gang?

    I don’t think that word “libertarian” means what you think it does. “Libertarian” derives from “liberty” — i.e., freedom. It is a political philosophy based on respect for individual rights (and consequently, limitation of government power over individuals).

    The anti-immigrant movement is the exact opposite of libertarianism. It seeks to deny individuals the most basic, fundamental rights, based on nothing more than accident of birth. It denies the fundamental belief of the Founding Fathers — that all individuals are endowed by their Creator with a natural right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Instead, it elevates the State to that level, declaring that government has the authority to decide who should (and shouldn’t) enjoy such rights.

    1. No nation can long survive unlimited immigration, especially if it is also a welfare state. Many of those same founders who endorsed the Declaration of Independence’s lofty rhetoric about equality also owned slaves, so their is a disconnect there. The Declaration didn’t apply to other countries, either. They also wrote in restrictions into the Constitution such as the need to be a natural born citizen to be eligible for the presidency.

      If you truly believe in unlimited immigration, how many of them are you willing to house in your home and support with your own money? If the answer in none, then you’re just trying to make yourself sound all noble and compassionate while sticking everyone else with the bill, just as the Democrats do.

      Once again, few people are anti-immigrant, but a lot of people are anti-illegal immigrant. There is an important distinction. In addition, a lot of people are wising up to the abuses in the H1b visa program where companies fire American employees and replace them with cheap foreign labor.

      1. No nation can long survive unlimited immigration,

        That’s political dogma, not fact. The United States survived quite well, thank you, from the founding of the Republic to the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act. There are numerous other examples.

        especially if it is also a welfare state.

        Ah, now, that’s another matter. The Wall Street Journal has noted on numerous occasions that immigration is a threat to the continued existence of the welfare state. The difference is that the WSJ does not see the end of the welfare state as a bad thing.

        The Declaration didn’t apply to other countries, either.

        Nonsense. “All men were created equal, and are enjowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Do you think the author meant that only Americans were created by God?

        They also wrote in restrictions into the Constitution such as the need to be a natural born citizen to be eligible for the presidency.

        There’s an obvious difference between having the right to *live* in the United States and having the right to be President of the United States. The former falls under the heading of natural rights recognized by the Founding Fathers. The latter, obviously, does not.

        1. One could also ask whether any nation can long survive the welfare state. (See de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America.”)

          If you argue we should give up liberty to preserve the welfare state, okay, but that’s hardly a *libertarian* position.

          1. What’s libertarian (note my use of the lowercase “L”) about the welfare state?

            Conversely, what happens when 50% plus one of your neighbors are illegal alien invaders, and they vote to take your house and your stuff? What’s the matter, are you against democracy, or something?

          2. Noah, democracy has never worked anywhere except in Ancient Greece, and even there, it was built on a framework of slavery.

            “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb, voting on what to have for dinner.” That’s why the Founding Fathers rejected democracy in favor of a Constitutional Republic.

        2. You are unwilling to recognize that the welfare state will not end by flooding the nation with low-skilled immigrants seeking welfare. Or at least, the end won’t be pretty.

          1. So, once again, you have a crystal ball and can predict the future, while anyone who disagrees (e.g., the entire editorial board of the Wall Street Journal) is not worth listening to?

            Just as you and Tumlinson et.al. know what is and isn’t politically realistic in space policy, while the former Speaker of the House (for example) is dismissed as
            politically clueless?

            Okay. So, which is it? Does your crystal ball say that it won’t happen, or it will happen but won’t be pretty?

            If it’s the latter, why are you so concerned about making the end of the welfare state pretty? And how do you define “pretty”?

            Is turning the United States into an INS police state “pretty”?

          3. So, once again, you have a crystal ball and can predict the future, while anyone who disagrees (e.g., the entire editorial board of the Wall Street Journal) is not worth listening to?

            The Wall Street Journal wants cheap labor. Too bad if it screws low income Americans out of their jobs but business is business. The Democrats want voters.

          4. In other words, Larry, you believe the purpose of government is to favor one group of people and protect their jobs from competition. Especially competition from those who belong to a different tribe. To “punish our enemies,” as Obama said (although you and how may disagree on the choice of enemies).

            That’s a common view, but it is not “libertarianism” by any stretch of the imagination.

            The problem with such tribalism is that it’s based on a failure to understand basic economics. New workers do not “take” your jobs. They create economic growth, which in turn creates *new* jobs. Read Von Mises and Hayek, not just Trump and Coulter.

          5. –The Wall Street Journal wants cheap labor. Too bad if it screws low income Americans out of their jobs but business is business. The Democrats want voters.–

            Well Wall Street Journal does want cheap labor, hence it’s writers. Dem want the votes, but not the voters.

            There is nothing wrong with Ann Coulter, or she remains who she is.
            The conservative have not miraculous improved, though that they somehow allowed and supported Trump does indicate some improvement. Which does not mean I like Trump, particularly as a US president.

            There is nothing wrong with open borders but by open border I don’t mean, having no borders, the problem is illegal immigration. The problem is making people into criminals. The solution is to change the laws so the State is not manufacturing criminals by the millions.
            The solution is not to change the laws to grant temporary nullification of laws- that is sort of like a process to lower the manufacturing cost of creating criminals.
            There could possibly be some merit of once a year say on Christmas of nullifying all traffic tickets. Or once a decade pardoning drunk drivers. But doesn’t really fit America, America is about individual liberty, rather than State granting liberty. Though it might be a good idea for a despotic nation.
            What is desirable is to strengthen the rule of Law, as that is one of the underlying principles of America. And you strengthen the law by having laws that most people will follow- are willing to follow.
            And one sort of test of such laws, is the golden rule.
            Or basically we should have fewer laws.
            Or the magic of the 10 commandants, is not adding 10 laws, it’s the reduction of laws to 10 of them.
            So what laws are needed, rather than what laws could be passed.

          6. “Pretty” and “ugly” are subjective terms, Rand. You may find a police state more aesthetically pleasing than the end of the Welfare State. Other people may disagree.

            You don’t seem to find police-state tactics to be pretty when they are part of the War on Drugs. It seems odd that you find them more pleasing when they’re part of a War on Immigrants. Are you under the impression that the WoI will somehow be less messy than the WoD? If the United States can’t stop people from crossing the border to sell illegal drugs, do you imagine it will magically be easier to stop people from crossing the border to look for work?

          8. Once again (as usual), you refuse to stand behind your own words.

            I know. This is the point where you will claim it was “voices in the head” who said “Believe me, the alternative is far uglier.” 🙂

            If that’s the *strongest* argument you have against immigration…

          10. Ed, I think it’s the role of government to protect the rights of the citizenry and legal immigrants. I never claimed to be a libertarian because of the absurb things people like you spout. Your idealism may be commendable but, like the socialists who claim their ideas would work if the right people were in charge (meaning them), it has no basis in economic reality. There are always limits and only fools deny their existence. How many illegal immigrants are you willing to put up in your own house and support with your own money?

        3. “That’s political dogma, not fact. The United States survived quite well, thank you, from the founding of the Republic to the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act. There are numerous other examples.”

          Sure, compare a historical period when the US population was a small fraction of what it is today. The country was so empty that they were giving land away to those who’d homestead it and over 70% of all people were farmers. Exactly comparable to America today, right?

          And to think, some libertarians can’t understand why others don’t take them seriously.

          1. You could phrase argument more concisely, Larry: “The Founding Fathers, those stupid, stupid men. Why, they didn’t even have television!”

            (With credit to Robert Heinlein.)

          2. Well, America could create new land. We don’t even need to go into space to do this.
            I grant this this could be seen as a wild idea.

            But fundamentally I don’t think world is overpopulated.
            And America certainly is not over populated- though it’s over populated with government related stuff [though it’s even that is manageable- perhaps not desirable but the size governmental population though proportionally larger than any nation reflect the US wealth and what it’s citizens choose to buy]..

            Generally I rather have problem of America being a desirable place to live, rather than changing America so it is not desirable enough to want to go to.
            A problem is there are nice place to live in the world, but the governments are making such place less desirable to live there.
            There is no doubt that more people are harder to govern- it increases complexity. But there is other “things” which cause an increase of complexity.
            So it’s quite possible were one to work at it, that one could reduce the complexity without reducing the number of people per square mile.

        4. Someone has a self-evident problem grasping the concept of the rule of law, not to mention sovereignty.

          They also fail to grasp the Founding Fathers’ political philosophy, but that’s a separate topic.

    2. Milton Friedman gave a lecture in which he talked about immigration and welfare.

      Youtube video (about 5 minutes long).

      Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal. – MF

      He explains why.

      1. Milton Friedman points out some stuff, but I would say he is making the case against welfare. He balancing virtues.
        But welfare is not a virtue and only idiots need to have it shown
        that it has bad consequences.
        It’s sort of like imagining we went to the moon to explore the Moon. The value of Apollo was to beat the Soviets to the Moon, and while we were there, yeah there was stuff one call exploration of the Moon.
        What’s disappointing about Milton Friedman little chat, is not that he has shallow understanding of morality, but that he has shallow understanding of economics.
        We don’t need people to do things we don’t want to do- economically speaking this is sheer nonsense.
        But Milton Friedman is right that immigration, does benefit the citizen of the nation as well as the people coming- and briefly it’s complicated, but it’s not because they can do what other will not do.

    3. “The anti-immigrant movement is the exact opposite of libertarianism.”

      First of all there is no anti-immigrant movement of any size. There is a sizeable anti-ILLEGAL-immigration movement.

      Secondly, Libertarians will happily agree to laws that limit liberty. Libertarians believe in levels of personal liberty that preclude anarchy, but no more.

      Fist. Swing. Not hit my nose. etc.

      “It denies the fundamental belief of the Founding Fathers — that all individuals are endowed by their Creator with a natural right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.”

      The *pursuit* of happiness does not extend to taking other people’s stuff, or breaking laws. You cannot use that phrase to justify every whim of an individual.

      Libertarians that I’ve read and heard are not one worlders. You seem to be. That makes you no different than any vanilla Communist, and certainly not a Libertarian in any sense I’ve heard or read about.

      ” Instead, it elevates the State to that level, declaring that government has the authority to decide who should (and shouldn’t) enjoy such rights.”

      The people get to decide that by voting.

      I think you are taking the tenents of “Libertarianism” and Founding statements and using them in ways that were not intended. And the only latitude you have is the fact that there is no one definition of “Libertarianism” and so there are many flavors. So you are welcome to yours.

      But your flavor violates the principles of most statements of Libertarianism that I’ve read or heard. Both on this as well as other aspects of the political society.

      1. “First of all there is no anti-immigrant movement of any size. There is a sizeable anti-ILLEGAL-immigration movement.”

        He knows that but the attack of racism is just too convenient.

      2. Gregg, Gregg, Gregg — that ship has sailed. Many immigration warriors, including some who post here, have come out of the closet and admitted their opposition to immigration in general.

        The anti-immigration arguments put forth here apply to legal immigration as much as (or more than) illegal. If you’re worried about immigrants taking your “stuff” (your job, your government benefits, etc.), how would your concern go away if immigration was legalized? It wouldn’t.

        But immigrants are not taking your “stuff.” You have no ownership right to a job or government benefit. Your right to hold a particular job is based on your ability to do the job as well as, or better than, your competitors. As for government benefits, those are simply money the government takes from *other* people to pay you. If you ask the State to rob Peter and Paul to pay you, you have no right to complain that it pays Mary, too.

        1. Your right to hold a particular job is based on your ability to do the job as well as, or better than, your competitors…, or for lower pay.

          FIFY.

          The usual rules apply. When your neighbor loses his job, it is a recession. When you lose yours, it is a depression.

          Similarly, immigration is great when your job isn’t in their sights. One’s perspective has a way of shifting 180 degrees when they are clamoring to take over from you. Particularly when your company is tactless enough to require you to train your lower cost replacements.

          And, no, I do not object to immigration in general. I am in favor of both liberalizing the legal immigration pathway, and clamping down on the illegal pathway. We do not owe a safe haven to just anybody enterprising enough to sneak in. There are some types of enterprise we already have enough of.

        2. On the other side, there is no overarching love of their fellow man, no great principle they are defending. It is a very basic and Machiavellian calculus: more immigrants = more votes.

  4. I generally agree that she’s become more and more inflammatory for the sake of it, but this doesn’t strike me as anymore anti-Semitic as “niggardly” is racist. She didn’t say anything hateful about Jews, she didn’t impute them in any way, and her point was that Jews don’t have an outsized influence (if Jews had more influence than their number of votes, she wouldn’t want the candidates to stop talking about Israel, and she wouldn’t cite the number of Jews watching). This doesn’t really track for me.

  5. Coulter has become like most people in the press, sensational for the sake of getting attention. I understand that it works, but credibility suffers, and repeated uses doesn’t restore credibility.

    1. –Coulter has become like most people in the press, sensational for the sake of getting attention. I understand that it works, but credibility suffers, and repeated uses doesn’t restore credibility.–
      Except that Coulter is smart, and that restores her credibility, whereas the vast majority of people that do what she does, are stupid as bricks, thus making her more creditable, or worth the time to listen to what she has to say.
      Coulter might be in danger if anyone smart shows up, but in that case, she would be happy and we will have benefited. But how likely is that?.

  6. I fully agree with what I’ve seen of Coulter’s comments regarding latin America and Mexico. The child rape culture issue is real, but less common than in, say, islamic culture. Drunk driving by males is downright endemic.

    What hispanic immigration is doing to the USA is a legitimate subject for discussion. What can’t sanely be done is pretend it has no impact.

    That said, I find Coulter’s mentioned tweets on Jews highly offensive.

    I also find it very offensive that there’s an assumption that Israel is mainly a Jewish issue. It isn’t. It’s a FOREIGN POLICY ISSUE.

    IMHO, Coulter has long been a media and publicity whore. The only recent change is she’s become more blatant about it.

    1. –I also find it very offensive that there’s an assumption that Israel is mainly a Jewish issue. It isn’t. It’s a FOREIGN POLICY ISSUE. —

      Not really. It’s a moral issue. But Canada and Mexico are a bigger foreign policy issue. Then I guess, Japan, and then China.
      Europe could perhaps be too much of a waste of time.

  7. It’s a concern-trolling hit piece on Coulter. For example, Coulter takes a back seat to nobody in being pro-Israel, yet the writer spun her expressed impatience, with candidates wasting time on low-hanging fruit rather than addressing the issues that matter most (to her), into anti-Semitism.

    You all should really be more attuned to these games the MSM plays to divide conservative leaning people from one another. The liberals never, ever admit that one of their own has strayed too far. They just move them off to MSNBC, where nobody will notice them.

  8. >No nation can long survive unlimited immigration,

    >>That’s political dogma, not fact.

    Law is defined within borders. No country exists without them (and fuzzy borders lead to fights.) Immigration absolutely changes the nature of a country. It may survive, but does it remain the same country?

    We used to be the melting pot. People that came here became a part of our shared ideals. This included making this a better place with each generation for all.

    Ann Coulter with her book and Donald Trump in his speeches are pointing out where we are being played for fools, both in legal and illegal immigration. It’s a major problem that adults in govt. need to address.

    Immigration can be great or awful. To assert it’s just one or the other is just plain wrong. It needs to be controlled.

  9. Because “conservatism” is a tradition that says “bringing tens of millions of unassimilable low-wage Third World peasants into the country is A-OK, no matter if it turns the country into a replica of the ultraviolent Third World pesthole they came from, no matter if they fill our jails and our welfare rolls, no matter if they vote early, often, and unanimously for Cultural Bolsheviks who wish to destroy us, so long as those nice men from the Chamber of Commerce get some cheap labor to work in their factories for two cents a day under the table,” and “cultural conservatives” love our culture and want to preserve it right up until they can hire a wetback nanny to raise their kids on the cheap. Got it.

Comments are closed.