Republicans and conservatives should shun Ann Coulter.

Republicans and conservatives need Ann Coulter like they needs hemorrhoids, especially when she seriously needs a clue. Once again, the bombastic polemicist has demonstrated that critical thinking isn’t her strong suit.

A story by The Hill elaborates:

“Conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter criticized President Trump in a series of tweets Friday over what she said is the lack of progress on the border wall.”

Here are a couple of Coulter’s tweets that the story refers to:

Republicans and conservatives should be able to see that Coulter isn’t thinking correctly. Building a border wall so soon after President Trump’s inauguration is a mission that’s impossible even for Ethan Hunt.

A 03/08/16 AP story states, “Sure, a wall can be built, but it’s not nearly as simple as Trump says it will be. Constructing the wall, now a signature applause line at Trump campaign rallies, is a complicated endeavor, fraught with difficulties. Numerous bureaucratic, diplomatic, environmental, monetary and logistical hurdles must be overcome.”

Has Congress allocated the money needed to build such a wall? No.

From Newsweek, 06/14/17:

“Construction of new barriers along the southern U.S. border with Mexico could start as soon as spring 2018 if the budget is approved.

The House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee held a hearing on Tuesday on the 2018 budget requests for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

CBP acting chief Carla Provost, who has been working in the agency since 1995, told subcommittee chairman John Carter, a Republican congressman for Texas, that the amount requested for the construction of new barriers would allow the works to start as early as March 2018.”

Does the federal government own every inch of land that would be needed for such a wall? No. As the Washington Post reports, “A significant amount of border land in Arizona and New Mexico is owned by the federal government. But most Texas land is privately owned, thanks to its terms of entry into the Union 200 years ago.”

Would it be easy to build such a wall along the Rio Grande? No. A story by the Los Angeles Times explains why:

“About a third of the entire border is fenced, nearly 700 miles. But just 17% of the border in the [Rio Grande] valley has fencing, about 55 miles, a Border Patrol spokesman said. Much of that fence was built during Barack Obama’s presidency as part of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which some residents and environmental groups unsuccessfully sued to block.

The fencing had to meet requirements of a 1970 treaty administered by the International Boundary and Water Commission, a joint U.S.-Mexican agency, which requires that structures built along the Rio Grande cannot disrupt its flow. The result: some U.S. property lies south of the fence but north of the Rio Grande.”

In short, that 2016 AP story is correct. The building of President Trump’s border wall is a complicated endeavor, and the Trump Administration has already done all it can at this point to get construction on the wall started.

So, Ann Coulter’s complaint about President Trump is ridiculous at best. Why then is she so obsessed with the border wall?

Answer: Coulter is notorious for her bigotry against Hispanics, and she sees the proposed border wall as a means to keep more Hispanic people out of the USA.

In a 05/26/15 story for the Daily Beast, Lloyd Grove describes a dinner conversation that he had with Coulter:

“Using language that many doubtless will find hair-raising if not downright offensive, Coulter speaks of the “browning of America” — a term she says she adopted as a negative after seeing it bandied favorably on MSNBC — and how the country is being ruined by an influx from Latin America, the Indian subcontinent, Vietnam, Nigeria, and other benighted locales.”

Seriously, in the light of her anti-Hispanic bigotry – especially her anti-Mexican bigotry – Republicans and conservatives should treat Ann Coulter the way that physicians treat a bodily limb that has gangrene.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners Week of June 16, 2017
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Brett Buck


  • jim_m

    Democrats are openly calling for the murder of conservatives and David can only fuss about Ann Coulter.

    Dems are saying this:

    “We are in a war with selfish, foolish & narcissistic rich people,” wrote James Devine on Twitter. “Why is it a shock when things turn violent? #HuntRepublicanCongressmen.”

    Devine has run for office, consulted for numerous New Jersey campaigns, and worked in the offices of state lawmakers.

    And David’s first instinct is to create a distraction so no one will talk about the left’s desire to decide political issues through murder.

  • FrenchKiss

    Such bullshit. Coulter doesn’t hate Mexicans, she loves America.

  • Scalia

    There’s nothing wrong with prodding the president to not forget that he will be held accountable if he fails to do everything he can to fulfill one of his key campaign promises. David opposes the wall, so any suggestion that we should get serious about it is enough to get David foaming at the mouth.

    And…it looks like Ann is still living rent-free in David’s head. What’s his fixation with her? A play about assassinating President Trump and attempted mass murder in DC don’t even get an honorable mention from David. We’re not even treated to possible solutions to the ever-widening rift in our nation that has spilled blood with the potential to spill much, much more. No, we’re admonished to shun Ann….who??

    Well, there’s bound to be pushback (and there has). I fear this will get worse…

    • jim_m

      The answer is that the left(Apparently including David, definitely including Bruce) has decided that murdering conservatives is the appropriate thing to do and that it possibly may be for thrm a moral necessity. David is providing cover for that position.

      • Scalia

        I don’t think David and Bruce are calling for the murder of conservatives. They just have super, SUPER bad cases of myopia.

        • Brucehenry

          Remarks like the above one by Jim are among the reasons I didn’t say anything the other night to express sympathy for Rep Scalise or shock/dismay about the fact that it was a crazed Bernie Bro who shot him.

          What could I possibly have said here that wouldn’t immediately have been attacked as insincere, inadequate, or weak (at best) or a cynical lie (at worst)? Hell, I said NOTHING AT ALL and Jim took that silence as active support for attempted political murder.

          I think you should look up the definition of myopia and ponder who fits the diagnosis around here.

          When I did comment it was to point out the double standards so loved by “conservatives” and, for my trouble, was called a “lowlife scum.” Life in the Wizbang comment section, it don’t change much.

          • Brett Buck

            Remarks like the above one by Jim are among the reasons I didn’t say anything the other night to express sympathy for Rep Scalise or shock/dismay about the fact that it was a crazed Bernie Bro who shot him.

            What could I possibly have said here that wouldn’t immediately have been attacked as insincere, inadequate, or weak (at best) or a cynical lie (at worst)? Hell, I said NOTHING AT ALL and Jim took that silence as active support for attempted political murder.

            Listen, as little as I think of your positions, I expect you would *not* explicitly advocate for violence. at least not when put directly in those terms. I wouldn’t have sucked you in for saying nothing,

            But one of the reasons you might get associated with this is that you have been a very enthusiastic (if not effective) defender of the same liberal culture that has nurtured this insane combination of aggressive political correctness, ludicrous conspiracies, and a “resistance movement” that takes thuggery and political violence as its primary tactic.

            This has been going on for years, finally culminating in the current situation, where you and your like-minded buddies have whipped leftists into a frenzy of violent threats, and now finally a political assassination attempt. It was all very predictable. And what has your response been when someone points out the very obvious bullying and over the top rhetoric – “and you call liberals whiny”, post something someone fringe said and try to claim it’s what we believe in (classic projection) or some such.

            I assure you, when Obama won, I and many on the conservative side were just as alarmed about it as the worst of the current foaming at the mouth idiots are about Trump. We have been attacked incessantly by mainstream media and national politicians as liars, cheats, racists, sexists, knuckle-dragging morons, dupes, warmongers, “chickenhawks”, exploiters of the poor, trying to push your grandmother off a cliff, etc, and now, ludicrously, communist plants and apologists – for decades. I am none of those things, and neither is any other conservative I talk to on a regular basis.

            We didn’t riot in the streets and call for impeachment or a civil war. But VAST numbers of your side of the street did exactly that, while armchair warriors such as yourself egged them on and defended them like they were reincarnations of the founding fathers.

            You reflexively defend the liberal philosophy and politicians like Obama (who raised partisan violent and confrontational politics to a high art, pretty much his only response to opposition) and now you act shocked and surprised that it has led to violence? You aggressively defend people who call for this and mock anyone who dares to complain. You are part and parcel of it – you own it, it is yours, this is what your actions have led to

            Or maybe you really didn’t see this coming – but that’s even more ridiculous.

            If you don’t agree with what is happening, then act accordingly. Stop making excuses, or claiming to be victimized – do something different. Because you have backed the wrong horse.

          • Brucehenry

            All ludicrous over the top nonsense, there, buddy. I’m an old-school FDR-RFK liberal, updated in the new millennium to wake up to women’s rights, gay rights, trans rights, etc.

            I haven’t “egged on” anyone to commit violence and I defy you to find a quote on Wizbang, where I have been commenting for years, that comes anywhere close to advocating or excusing violence by anyone.

            Never espoused any conspiracy theories (unless you, like Jim, think the special counsel’s investigation into Trump campaign/Russia connections is a conspiracy theory). Never used the phrase “resistance movement” (which I think is a ludicrous self-congratulatory drama-queen phrase to describe being against Trumpism).

            As for defending this “liberal culture” that has “nurtured” your yada yada, what would you have mild-mannered liberals do? If being a liberal in itself means that I somehow “nurtured” this nutjob who shot Scalise what should I have done differently? Should I stop advocating that women get equal pay for equal work? Should I change my way of thinking to accept the “wisdom” of keeping the minimum wage low or discarding it altogether? Should I just keep quiet if cops are shooting black people, or tell them to “just comply” with police harassment and brutality? Should I swallow whole the “climate change is a hoax” line pushed by guys like Trump– and you and Jim? Should I just forget my wife and daughters are subject to being devalued, belittled, held back in their careers, and even physically threatened just because of their sex?

            You conflate “armchair warriors” like me with this nutjob and with the antifa kooks but take GREAT UMBRAGE at being associated with Ted Fucking Nugent, who has hinted repeatedly that he would love to shoot Obama and Hillary and gets invited to the White House as a result. NOW, when one of your own is hurt, and some of your own perceive a threat, you all of a sudden want civil discourse.


          • Scalia

            Links to show where he threatened to shoot or kill Obama.

          • Brucehenry

            I said he “has repeatedly hinted that he would love to shoot Obama and Hillary” and posted a link showing the quotes. Do you deny he has said these things? It’s all on video, look it up yourself I ain’t your Google.

          • Scalia

            The closest I’ve seen is where he said they should be tried for treason and hung over Benghazi. That’s nothing approaching to what your pictures claim.

          • Brucehenry
          • Scalia

            Man, your memory is on par with Paul’s. I responded to those links when you originally posted them on another thread. If you bothered to watch the video, Nugent made those remarks in the context of what he considered their assault on the Second Amendment. “Suck my machine gun” is on par with, “Suck my _____.” It’s an insult, not a threat to shoot or kill, but one wouldn’t expect a pathological liar like yourself to give anything you disagree with an honest assessment.

            That’s it. If you can’t come up with something better, don’t make that accusation again.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure man, you’re right they weren’t actual direct threats. Oh, and making those harmless insults in front of a crowd of drunken yahoos wasn’t an attempt to “egg on” anybody. And saying stuff like that, and then being invited to the White House BECAUSE he is known for saying stuff like that doesn’t say anything about Trump or Trumpism or Trump supporters.


          • Scalia

            Yeah, I recall those supporters being so egged on by Nugent that they flew to the White House and shot it up with their AK-47s….not. If somebody told you to suck his you-know-what, would you take him literally, or would you rather take it as a statement that he couldn’t care less what you thought about his behavior?

            This isn’t a Nugent love-fest. You’re just trying to find a right-winger of renown to justify your arguments. It’s false equivalence.

            Both myopia and “whataboutism.”

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, as I have said, whataboutism is pretty popular here, so I used it in my response to Brett’s reply to me. It may be a logical fallacy, but it does point out the double standard.

            Speaking of double standards, you are bending over backwards to excuse the juvenile violent ravings of Ted Nugent, partly by pointing out that nobody flew to the White House and shot it up (at least not immediately, but wasn’t there an attempt or two 2009-17?). Yet not a word to suggest to Brett, or to Jim, that the harmless musings of an elderly liberal on a conservative blog (nor his silence) might not mean that said liberal “owns” the tragic shooting that took place at the baseball practice.

          • Scalia

            Tu quoque is popular everywhere. And as you have shown, you have a great penchant for it too. You used it for years prior to your raising it as an issue here.

            As to MY double standards, beside RM, I’ve probably defended you more than anybody else here, in spite of my disdain for you. I have also steadfastly refused any kind of consideration of banning you from this site. On a personal level, I don’t care what you think of me since you’re not an honest person. As a moderator, I’ll do my best to be fair to all participants regardless my personal feelings. I told Jim directly that I don’t think you were calling for anybody’s murder. So, continue to live in your Never Land of false equivalences and alleged double standards. I guess that helps you get around your own unprincipled behavior.

            No more about Nugent.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure. Nugent is not the point.

            I do appreciate that you pointed out to Jim that I wasn’t calling for anyone’s murder. Kinda the least you could do, LOL, but thanks.

          • Scalia

            So, you’d rather protect your widdle feelings than doing the right thing. You’d rather talk about gerrymandering or how hypocritical we are than to express outrage at attempted mass murder.

            Like I said—myopia.

          • Brucehenry

            And like I said, I doubt I could have expressed anything about the shooting without being attacked as insincere at best or cynical at worst. You (and others) kept trying to bait me into commenting so you could do just that — don’t bother to deny it.

          • Scalia

            I’ll do anything I please. I know you work a day job, so I deliberately left you out of my original comment. Since your memory is so flawed, I only called out Buster. pennywit was the first to comment, and Paul, in spite of being severely abused by others, including yours truly, didn’t hesitate to condemn the act (by the way, nobody else attacked Paul). What did I do with Paul’s comment? I upticked it without any wisecracks. Only the next day, I finally mentioned you, so yes, I most certainly deny it, you punk.

          • Brucehenry

            Paul is no liberal. Just not a doctrinaire “conservative.”

            I think the phrase you used was “Bruce? Zip.” And others joined in.

          • Scalia

            He’s far more liberal than any of us and has been repeatedly attacked for his dishonesty and his lack of intelligence (just like you). You lowlife coward. You’re trying to blame Jim, et al, for your fear of saying the right thing? Please. At least try to tell a better lie than that.

          • Brucehenry

            I’ve always been free, on Wizbang, to say or not say whatever I liked, as long as it wasn’t a violation of the TOS.

            I began my participation in this thread by saying that remarks like Jim’s were among the reasons I didn’t comment in the way you think I should have. If you don’t accept that I don’t know what to tell you. I’m not the kind of guy who goes around talking about thoughts and prayers.

          • Scalia

            I couldn’t care less whether you added prayers to your posts. If you don’t believe in God or have trouble with the whole religion thing, there’s little that I can do about it. Your failure to comment on any subject has no bearing on your membership. Pretty poor red herring.

          • Scalia

            These are our boards. You will post a link proving your claim or your post will be deleted. I already looked it up and have addressed this previously. I’ve never read anything to substantiate that claim.

          • You have earned a reputation here which fully supports such predictions as to your positions.

          • jim_m

            Because you do support murder to advance your agenda.

            Where is your comment saying that you like how Ted Nugent has stepped forward and is saying that he will tone down his rhetoric?

            Oh, yeah, you don’t give a crap about that because you never really cared about what he said in the first place. It was just an excuse for you to support murder for your political ideology.

          • jim_m

            Note that after 18 hours and having responded to other of my comments since this was posted, Bruce still cannot bring himself to acknowledge that Nugent has stepped forward to say he will tone down his rhetoric while the left is filled with people saying that Scalise asked for it.

            Bruce cannot admit that he and his fellow travelers actually are willing to accept violence committed in the name of his agenda.

        • jim_m

          No. I did not say that they were calling for the murder of conservatives. I said that Bruce supports it and as we see tonight, he defends it even if he is not calling out for people to do it. He supports anything done with the intent of advancing his agenda.

          • Brucehenry

            What a kook

          • jim_m

            Note he does not deny that he is willing to accept violence committed on behalf of his agenda

          • Brucehenry

            You’re obviously off your meds. But since you are wanting to “note” something, “note” this — that Moderator Scalia rushes to demand links proving that Nugent is the scumbag I say he is, but demands no links from you providing any evidence (quotes) that Brucehenry “is willing to accept violence” or that “Bruce supports it” or that “you…support murder.”

            This is slander and another of your ever-more-frequent violations of Wizbang’s TOS, but no moderator appears to demand you pony up. One might expect to see something like this:

            “We moderate these boards [edited]. You will post a link proving your claim or your post will be deleted.”

            But what do we see? Nothing. What do we hear? Crickets.

          • Does Tha AMA know you are practicing psychiatry without a license?

          • Brucehenry

            You’re right I retract my diagnosis, unqualified as I am to make it. He’s just lying, like always, and you’re doing nothing about it.

            I challenge anyone here to go back as far as they wish (I started commenting regularly here in 2008) and find any comment I have made that encourages or “supports” or in any way advocates political violence to “advance my agenda.”

            Link to it if you can find one.

          • Already addressed.

          • jim_m

            You never say anything against violence and thuggery in support of your agenda except when someone calls you out and even then it is such a grudging response and with sch a display of how unnecessary you feel it is to ever say anything to criticize your fellow travelers. Your default position is that everyone should presume that you are the most holy of angels. We don’t. You have demonstrated that you are not.

            So yes, based on your behavior and words some of us have concluded that you do indeed accept violence perpetrated on behalf of your agenda because you are silent about it and resent so bitterly the necessity to speak out against it.

          • Brucehenry

            So, no quotes.

            Nine years of comments but you can’t find one that demonstrates my “support” of political violence.

            Lying sack of shit with no regard for Wizbang’s TOS (and really, why should you have any regard for them, being exempt and all?) or delusional hallucinating paranoid madman who reads words no one has written. It’s one or the other.

          • jim_m

            I love how you complain about my supposed violation of the terms of service while violating the terms of service yourself. Kind of shows how you are just a thin skinned fascist seeking cover for your support of violence by shutting down discussion.

            You still have refused to denounce the assassination attempt or the many, many leftists (including CBS and the NYT) who are saying that the GOP asked for it.

          • Scalia

            He who abhors speculation about his motives is normally the first to speculate on the motives of others. You heard crickets from me because I have other things in my life that are more important than to cater to your complaints.

            I briefly stepped into Wizbang to see how pennywit was doing and to reply to a post he addressed to me. I could have emailed him, but given he replied to one of my posts, I took care of it online. For your information (though you don’t deserve it), I was giving advice on several high-stakes real estate transactions. I have routine speaking engagements, classes to teach and tons of research to conduct on behalf of clients, friends and members of our church. At this stage of my life, I would have hoped some things would slow down, but it appears they’ve sped up, so if you don’t like the way things are done here, you’re perfectly free to go someplace else.

            Moderator Scalia rushes to demand links proving that Nugent is the scumbag I say he is, but demands no links from you…

            Translation: “I can’t bring myself to say that I accused Nugent of calling for the killing of Obama and Clinton because that would demonstrate that I’m guilty of the very thing Jim accuses me of, so I’ll go ahead and lie about what I said to give me better footing to engage in whatabou….er…accuse Scalia of inconsistency.”

            You had previously linked to the Rolling Stone article which accuses Nugent of threatening to kill Obama & Clinton and then sarced about “those terrible libs and their misplaced moral center.” When I pointed out that Nugent didn’t say that, you sarced, “Sure it was just harmless banter not a threat at all.” When you link to column that accuses a man of threatening to kill people, you’re endorsing that allegation. You weren’t simply saying that Nugent is a scumbag, and that shows in a most bizarre manner that you’ll reflexively lie, even when your dishonesty is so easily exposed. Scumbag, heal thyself.

            With respect to your silence on the DC shooting, your lame excuse that you didn’t want to be accused of being insincere, etc., is laughable when practically all you post is derided in one way or another. That never stopped you before, but when it comes to an assassination attempt on a Republican, you’re suddenly gun-shy. Please. As I told Jim, that doesn’t mean you approve of murder, but it would make anybody wonder why a prolific poster has to have some things dragged out of him before he’ll admit one thing or another. I’ve seen you do that time and again. I think your stepping up to be the first to agree that Sanders’ treatment of Vought was wrong is a rare event for you. You even got five upticks for that (also rare on Wizbang).

            Bruce, your excuse that you didn’t want your statement to be attacked just doesn’t hold water. By far and away, the latest episodes of actual violence have been perpetrated by the Left. Several of us have talked about extreme rhetoric and instead of agreeing that we all need to tone it down, you deride us for being insincere (since we don’t complain about the Right)!! That means from your perspective, we really don’t care about violent rhetoric and we really don’t care when leftists get roughed up or killed. We’re just upset when it happens to conservatives. Our appeal otherwise is thus hypocritical at best. It’s perfectly permissible for you to accuse us of all sorts of nefarious motives, but you’re “outraged” when you get a taste of your own medicine. It’s okay to use our silence against us to prove in your mind that we endorse violence against the Left, but we can’t use your silence to signal what you endorse.

            If you think that we treat every liberal alike, you’re mistaken. pennywit has taken his share of abuse, especially from Jim and Rodney, but he doesn’t hesitate to call a spade a spade, even when his side is guilty. Hence, he gets nowhere near the reaction that you get.

            Bottom line: Thoughts that are not turned to action are not crimes. If you were not accused of conspiring to kill anybody, the fact that you may believe that somebody should be killed, as reprehensible as it is, does not amount to a crime. If Jim had accused you of conspiracy, I would have stepped in. You accused Nugent of making a criminal threat. That warrants moderation. When Jim accused you of engaging in criminal behavior, that also warranted moderation—and I stepped in. For non-criminal behavior, if you don’t like motive-mongering, try stopping it yourself. But if you dish it out, expect to eat plenty yourself.

          • Brucehenry

            OK I can see, if I squint, what you’re talking about here. But you recently posted an open thread about Gianforte’s assault and not only did Jim and others not denounce the assault, they rationalized and tried to justify it! Even though within a matter of days Gianforte pleaded guilty to assault and wrote a letter to the reporter in which he admitted the reporter “did nothing wrong” and did nothing to provoke a violent response.

            Now, when that thread was up, did you see me speculating about regular commenters here who had nothing to say? I could be remembering wrong, but I don’t recall JLawson, for example, saying anything. Did I try to bait him into saying something so I could attack him? Did I insist that unless he denounced Gianforte in explicit terms he was failing to “do the right thing?” On that thread, ol’ Jim here had lots to say about how liberals should expect to be met with the violence he imagines that “they” support. And how this particular reporter had his ass-whoopin’ comin’ or words to that effect.

            As for Nugent, who I said I wouldn’t mention again (at your insistence, but you brought him up again), I HAVE, on other threads, accused him of “threatening to kill” and you have pointed out that that is incorrect. OK, sure. But on THIS thread, I said he has “repeatedly hinted he would love to shoot Obama” and still think that is a reasonable interpretation of his remarks. What did you think it meant, for instance, when he said that if Obama won reelection in 2012, Nugent would be “dead or in jail” within a year?

            But Nugent himself was never the point. I mentioned him only to illustrate, in response to Brett’s reply to me, that he shouldn’t try to conflate me with this BernieBro shooter (whose action, YES, I do hereby denounce, are you happy now?), unless he is willing to be conflated with kooks like Nugent.

          • Scalia

            True, they didn’t actually ask for liberals to kill conservatives, so I should have written that I don’t think either of them approve of murder. I just think that Bruce is fixated on advancing liberalism whenever he can, and that includes making fun of or poking holes in our arguments. He hates conservatism, so he’s rarely inclined to be objective or to be “fair and balanced.”

            It’s the cause that matters to Bruce. He’s not interested in satisfying our expectations of what he should say, but he shouldn’t be surprised if he gets dinged for willfully side-stepping a topic. When he dodges after being asked to comment and instead launches into one of his predictable tu quoque tirades, it is perfectly natural to wonder why. I’ll elaborate when I reply to Bruce below. I wouldn’t normally waste my time, but since it involves Wizbang policy, I feel obligated.

          • Brucehenry

            I do not imagine that I am “advancing liberalism” by commenting on Wizbang. I visit here, as I have said many times, to vent, and to say things on the Internet you can’t say to your wingnut uncle on Thanksgiving.

  • Par4Course

    Republicans and conservatives should shun … David Robertson. Ann Coulter is only asking that the President fulfill what she and many other Trump voters considered a key campaign pledge. While I applaud the many things Trump has accomplished in the last 5 months, he must take action to secure our border, including building a wall, deportation of illegal alien criminals, better visa enforcement and all other available means.

  • Wild_Willie

    So MSNBC can state the browning of America but Ann can’t. She wants what Trump promised and that’s wrong? She is for obeying our laws and you think that is wrong? David, I believe you are a misogynist. You obviously have a problem with smart women. No one is against immigration. All are welcome, LEGALLY. IT is Central America that does not obey our laws. Put your anger where it belongs.

    Why Kevin even lets you post is beyond me. ww

    • Brett Buck

      Why Kevin even lets you post is beyond me

      His threads get a lot of hits. You could make an argument that David is a Machiavellian genius, manipulating us in just the perfect way to generate lots of page hits.

      Of course, there’s a much simpler explanation – and the word “simple” is the key.

      • Wild_Willie

        I agree. But he may be getting hits but he is acting very stupid and naive. ww

      • Vagabond661

        Based on that, he should give one of the Looney Left’s frequent bloggers here a spot.

  • Retired military

    /yawn. Another of David’s threads bashing conservatives.
    Funny how anytime democrats and indepedents tell republicans to do something it is to make them more like whoever is talking.

  • Thank you for sharing this momentous issue.

  • Brian Brandt

    “The fencing had to meet requirements of a 1970 treaty administered by the
    International Boundary and Water Commission, a joint U.S.-Mexican
    agency, which requires that structures built along the Rio Grande cannot
    disrupt its flow. The result: some U.S. property lies south of the
    fence but north of the Rio Grande.”

    Why is this a problem? The insignificant amount of U.S. land south of the fence is irrelevant. No illegal would want to stay there, and there are no jobs there.

    • Brett Buck

      It’s not a problem, just a ridiculous red herring.

  • Paul Hooson

    Ann Coulter was once a popular guest but then became too controversial for most news shows to deal with. Her best role might be as a sort of right wing Bill Maher who makes funny and outlandish political humor if she doesn’t almost immediately get herself into trouble for thoughtlessly often racist comments slamming Jews, Blacks or others.

    She was enjoyable to watch, but also seemed to show little common sense and restraint with her comments. Anything in her head seems to get said with little frontal cortex restraint…

    She should have considered becoming a stand-up comic, doing a sort of Lenny Bruce shock humor as a good gig. Comedy is tough, but it can pay the bills…

    • jim_m

      If only you could see the irony of it being you who says something like what you just posted.

  • pennywit

    David, the more you write about her, the more oxygen you give her.

    • Scalia

      Hey, I hope you’re feeling better.

      • pennywit

        I am, thanks. Hoping to see a few specialists over the next couple months to see if we can sort things out and make sure it doesn’t happen again.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Didn’t know you weren’t feeling well. Hope it’s nothing serious – of course, the only “unserious” illness is that which afflicts someone else.
          Maybe you’ve got Grammarianitis? Whom woulda thought?

  • Vagabond661

    I am tired of seeing people who are pro-America depicted as racist or a bigot. The meaning of immigration, like many other things the Looney Left attacks, is redefined to suit their political agenda.

    In comparison to all the other countries of the world, our immigration policy is the worst. Hell, we give illegals a freaking drivers license, free food and healthcare. We should be deporting them as soon as we catch them. If they are so valuable, wouldn’t the other countries be eager to get them back? Wouldn’t they be begging us to return their citizens?

    I read AC with a grain of salt. She’s not a conservative. But some things she is dead on right.