Ann Coulter is late to blossom politically (otherwise she’s very pretty). At CPAC 2013, Ms. Coulter announced that she’s become “a single-issue voter against amnesty” (and has finally crossed the crappy Chris Christie off her list of candidates).

Having avoided the immigration vexation until recently, here are Coulter’s welcome remarks:

“What public policy will harm average Americans, drive up unemployment, change America permanently in negative way, and is supported by businessmen who will never vote for a Republican anyway?

Amnesty for illegal aliens.

Half of the elected Republicans support it, most conservative talk radio and TV hosts support it: You want the Republican establishment? That’s the Republican establishment.

There are many negative consequences to amnesty. The one that I think ought to concern this crowd is: If amnesty goes forward, America becomes California and no Republican will ever win a national election [IM: that goes for libertarian candidates too].

As it is, the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan will never elect another Republican.

I can see why Democrats would want amnesty, but why are Marco Rubio and the endless Bushes supporting it? [IM: that should be obvious.]

We cannot get the votes of a dependent society without changing our principles…”

[SNIP]

(Such an attractive woman is Ann Coulter; if wish she’d buy some high-end, decent clothes.)

UPDATE (3/17): A SALLY-COME-LATELY TO MASS IMMIGRATION. Read the text above (http://barelyablog.com/ann-coulter-becomes-a-single-issue-voter/), where I transcribed Ann Coulter’s immigration comments. Are they really “brilliant”? To hail these as “brilliant,” as some conservatives are, is a testament to intellectual malaise.

The definition of “brilliant” is: “Marked by unusual and impressive intellectual acuteness.”

To describe as “brilliant” Ann Coulter’s second-hand, belated realization about the US’ “IMMOLATION BY IMMIGRATION,” first chronicled by Peter Brimelow (note the date on my hyperlinked column), is to say all there is to say about the misuse of language and the dumbing down of discourse.

A Sally-come-lately to the issue of mass immigration is Ann Coulter. Look through her column archive; it’s all, for the most, “Liberals this, liberals that.”

The most you can say is this: 1) Coulter’s delivery is brilliant—but then she’s super bright, and has had practice as one of the monopolists of the ossified conservative movement. 2) She is perhaps the most powerful ally the immigration patriot movement (Peter Brimelow’s coinage) could hope to recruit.

like tweet google+ recommend print

“The Rise of The Cr-ppy Chris Christie” is the current column, now on WND. Here is an excerpt:

“Chris Christie’s problem is not his weight, but his character. New Jersey’s popular Republican governor is the consummate backstabbing, slimy, opportunistic politician, who, for good measure, also preaches and practices the dirigiste economics of an Obama (and a “W”).

Gov. Christie is in the news a lot lately, which is just the way he likes it—and the way he has planned it. To say that Mr. Christie hungers for the plum post of US president is a redundancy on par with, “Is the Pope Catholic?”

The governor is no boob, but he knows how to handle boobs, a requirement of public office. And one crucial question Booboos Americanus asks himself when electing a president is whether he’d like to knock back a Guinness with the candidate. A doughnut is as good as a beer.

So on the “Late Night Show” went Christie for a cameo. There he squeezed into a studio seat too small for his girth and humored the hubris sitting opposite him, while scarfing down a doughnut.

Befitting a nation that considers wisdom and intellect as liabilities—cretin celebrities will carry the day in the 2016 presidential run, as they do today. Visibility on late night TV is a requirement of the highest office.

Launched by the Queen of Kitsch, day-time talker Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama has normalized the cultural carnival that sees a president cavorting with dummies like Dave Letterman and the ladies of “The View.” He now sits at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, where Chris Christie would dearly like to plunk his keister.

Like his predecessor, the next president will need the imprimatur of entertainers with canonical status. “The road to the White House goes through this chair,” a semi-serious David Letterman warned Republican presidential pick Mitt Romney. Romney had flouted the Letterman commandment. Where is he today? On the ash-heap of history.

Another chrysalis within which the American presidency takes shape is the liberal media. And it loves Chris Christie, holding him up as a paragon of the rudderless Republican the GOP ought to be running.

This wasn’t always the case…”

Read the complete column, “The Rise of The Cr-ppy Chris Christie,” now on WND.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”

like tweet google+ recommend print

In her latest column, “DON’T BLAME ROMNEY,” Ms. Coulter suggests that,

…purist libertarian Barry Goldwater … — as you will read in [her] book, ‘Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama’ — nearly destroyed the Republican Party with his pointless pursuit of libertarian perfection in his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Well, that immutably just position on private-property rights, taken by “purist libertarian Barry Goldwater,” is the position adopted in Into the Cannibal’s Pot, where I write the following:

In a free society—one not silhouetted by the State—honored is the right of the individual to associate and disassociate, invest and disinvest, speak and misspeak at will. Contrary to the civil servant, the private person’s “refusal to deal” ought to be sacrosanct. … In the encroaching American State, the right of free association has been circumscribed by crippling codes of hiring, firing, renting, and money lending. The culprit is the Civil Rights Act of 1964…

(Pages 119-120)

Cited in Into the Cannibal’s Pot is another “purist” who feels no compunction about defending a sacred individual right: the fine libertarian legal theorist Richard Epstein, author of Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws.

(“The Cannibal’s” predictive value seems to dovetail with its respectable Amazon rank below, today:
#3 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Specific Topics > Colonialism & Post-Colonialism
#23 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Specific Topics > Civil Rights & Liberties
#29 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Public Affairs & Policy > Social Policy)

UPDATE: In response to the Facebook thread: Ms. Coulter is very bright. Brilliant in many ways. But she’s not a deep thinker. I think she’s a solid writer and has a quick mind. I’ve always liked her b/c of those qualities, so rare among the the teletwats (sorry, could not help that).

like tweet google+ recommend print

Way back (in 02.13.08), I mentioned a very old suggestion I had made on a discussion list of unconventional individualists. It was this: “I’d give up my vote if that would guarantee that all women were denied the vote.” (Also here, under “Feminism & Feminization.”)

Now, don’t get confused. From the fact that one acknowledges that most women should not have the vote—it doesn’t follow that certain individual ladies are not blessed with great intelligence and should be respected for it. (This is the error of some ultra-conservatives in conceptualizing about certain women.)

On the topic of vaginas voting, the highly intelligent Ann Coulter counseled the same, during a riveting TV segment with the “retarded” and insufferably pompous Piers Morgan. (At one point, Ms. Coulter just glared at this idiot, who refused to talk about anything other than one of her tweets, and who, whenever she spoke, stopped the conversation to demand why she could not be as reasonable all the time, as if cerebrally compromised liberals like himself could detect reason.)

What prompted Ms. coulter’s comment on female suffrage (how we suffer for it) was the Hos for O commercial, in which a representative of the pox of a cohort known as young women likened voting for Obama to her first sexual experience. (Do you allow your daughters to carry on like this?)

The whole thing is repulsive down to the exaggerated, affectatious hand movements (what’s with that bit of bad breeding?).

Watch:

To the Nineteenth Amendment, which granted women the vote, add the 26th Amendment. It was smuggled into the Constitution by statute, and it artificially swelled the ranks of Democratic voters by millions of 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds. While they don’t work for a living, youngsters get to vote for dibs on the livelihood of those who do.

Naturally, CNN, which employes an army of “Harpies Hot For Big Daddy O,” went and axed a segment that offered up evidence that hormones sway female voting patterns. Hormones and a propensity for sentimentality sway most decisions women make. And this proclivity is encouraged in a culture that equates whimsy, capriciousness and silliness with creativity and individualism.

UPDATE (Oct. 28): In response to a fascinating thread on Facebook (stimulated by Brian James Smith’s comments).

BJS: Sigh.. big sigh…. I’m glad I don’t live there anymore. Rather the uncertainty of Africa then the completely plasticized construct of american political/social thought and action. We have no leadership and a pate’ -brained populace, so it seems.
IM: BJS: Perceptive points you make. Thanks. I must say that I understand what you say when I listen to your average SA little (black) girl speak about her future, usually in good English and with the sweet innocence our kids have lost (thanks to their parents and pedagogues).

AND, checkout the brave Boeremeisie (Afrikaner lass).

like tweet google+ recommend print

Mitt Romney won the second presidential debate too. That any normal person watching the brawl would have concluded. But in this country even the polls are bifurcated. GALLUP calls it for Romney (R: 50% O: 46%). An instant, non-scientific CBS poll says Obama curried favor with voters, 37% to 30%.

Because the bar for Obama had been set so low, dumbo’s passable performance fired up the base, not least the groupies at CNN. Chief cheerleader Jessica Yellin was over the moon, darting about fawning over Obama’s enthralled Democratic entourage. (She called it “interviewing.”)

I believe Ann Coulter predicted what has just unfolded. From the first debate, posited Coulter (on Hannity), liberals took away that no good would come from telling the truth about Obama’s dismal performance. Come what may they would, second time around, hail a tolerable performance as a momentous victory.

And this they’ve done, down to Andrew Sullivan, the borderline retarded crunchy con.

like tweet google+ recommend print

@AnnCoulter has a few tart tweets about Amanda Knox’s exoneration.

The noxious Knox had been convicted of murdering her British roommate based on O.J.-like evidence, which was overturned after the American’s family and their PR machine invaded Italy.

• “Amanda Knox not guilty, Casey Anthony rolls eyes, says; ‘we’ll, duh…’”
• “Amanda Knox begins search for real killer.”
• “Former OJ jurors on Mediterranean cruise, Amanda Knox not guilty… coincidence?”

like tweet google+ recommend print