Ann Coulter Trusts The Donald. I Don't.

Wounded American Warrior ^ | February 20, 2016 | Benny Haung

[Benny Huang]

Ann Coulter’s got a crush and his name is The Donald. The Right’s queen of wit has fallen head over heels for Donald Trump, the candidate who forced the GOP to talk about the issue of illegal immigration.

My feelings about Coulter are mixed. I enjoy her columns and always buy her books when they come out, even if I don’t always agree with everything she says. She, like Trump, revels in shocking liberals, which goes a long way toward explaining the attraction. Admittedly, it’s not difficult to shock liberals, who take offense at things like colorblind hiring, the American flag, and virtue. I admire Coulter’s sass but I frequently question her judgement when it comes to picking political candidates. Over the years she’s endorsed Ron Paul, Chris Christie, and Mitt Romney; all duds in my book.

But never before has she been so enthusiastic about a candidate as she has been about Donald Trump because he speaks to the issue that she cares the most about—illegal immigration. It’s an issue that many Americans, particularly many conservative Republicans, care about. Until recently we have had no audience in Washington for our concerns. Neither party seems willing to crack down on rampant lawlessness and one party clearly encourages it by portraying the lawbreakers as victims. They told us that no one should have to “live in the shadows;” as if illegal immigrants weren’t boasting of their lawbreaking on television and being invited to the White House. Where are these “shadows” liberals are always talking about? They certainly can’t be found in our two hundred plus “sanctuary cities” where federal law is null and void.

Many of us thought that Washington would hear the cries of “enough is enough” when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost a primary to Dave Brat on account of Cantor’s go-along-to-get-along attitude toward illegal immigration. Apparently Washington didn’t hear us. I count myself among those Americans concerned with illegal immigration, and for that I will give Mr. Trump his rightful kudos. If he hadn’t run the other candidates would be talking about every other issue except that one. Even so, he’s a phony and a blowhard so he won’t get my vote in the primary or the general election.

Unfortunately, Ann Coulter has become a single issue pundit, focusing her attention for the better part of two years on illegal immigration. Her excellent book “Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole” is filled with startling facts about the Mexification (and Somalification, Hmongification) of America; but it also happens to be repetitive. It’s more of the same material she’s used in her columns since about 2014.

As someone who’s read “Adios, America” and most of her columns, I think I can summarize her views on illegal immigration, which I mostly agree with. According to Coulter, no other issue matters because if Democrats bring in poor immigrants by the boatload they will sweep to power and shape policy on everything including guns, crime, taxes, and the culture wars. As the saying goes, if immigrants and their children were destined to vote Republican even Harry Reid would join the Minutemen to defend our border. What motivates the Democrats is not compassion for the downtrodden but naked self-interest. Coulter explained her position in an interview with the Daily Signal’s Genevieve Wood: “It’s the only issue because once we have only Americans voting again we can win those other issues. If we keep dumping—and oh my gosh, if amnesty goes through well then it’s over overnight. As soon as they become voters, that’s 30 million voters for the Democrats.”

In the 2016 Republican primary Coulter has of course supported the candidate who forced the other candidates to take a stand on her pet issue. But I think Ann Coulter ought to temper her enthusiasm. Her position, if I understand it correctly, is that Trump has been consistent on the issue while the others are either amnesty shills (Bush and Kasich) or they only decided to get tough because Trump’s candidacy forced them to. As she wrote in her most recent column, “GOP Baffled as Voters Rally to Popular Candidate”: “Trump is the first presidential candidate in 50 years who might conceivably: (1) deport illegal aliens, (2) build a wall, (3) block Muslim immigration, (4) flout political correctness, (5) bring manufacturing home, and (6) end the GOP’s neurotic compulsion to start wars in some godforsaken part of the world…There is not another candidate who agrees with Trump on all these positions. Maybe one issue, but not all of them — and if it’s immigration, they would be lying.”

Maybe, but Trump would be lying too. Coulter appears not to know this, as she told Charles Cooke of National Review: “He has certainly been consistent on caring about illegal immigration.” Donald Trump has not been consistent on the issue of illegal immigration. He’s a flip-flopper, a fact that should surprise no one because Trump is the ultimate political chameleon. He’ll say whatever he has to say to secure power. In that regard he’s not unlike Barack Obama…with fewer scruples.

In 2013 Donald Trump met with some “DREAMers” (illegal aliens) and a pair of Democratic strategists at his penthouse in New York, even posing for pictures with them. They told him sob stories about parents being deported, a yarn I find very hard to believe because immigration enforcement is a joke and has been for a long time. There are no recordings of the meeting but the “DREAMers” all seem to agree that Trump was sympathetic to their cause. They say that Trump even claimed that “illegal aliens” (an accurate term that made them cringe) did landscaping for him at a golf course he owns in Miami. So the guy who employs illegal aliens—a crime in and of itself—is going to get tough on illegal immigration? Perhaps, but he’d be labeled a hypocrite if he did. And his critics would be right.

My theory is that Trump was considering a run for the White House but hadn’t yet decided which party would better serve him or which views he should pretend to hold. He doesn’t instinctively know these things because Trump has no core principles. Instead he has interests, and right now he believes that those interests are best served by focusing on this issue.

To Trump’s credit, and I don’t give him much, he has his finger on the pulse of America. He reasoned, not incorrectly, that people are sick of Obama and that he could ride the tidal wave of disgust all the way to the presidency. He zeroed in on this issue not because he gives a hoot (he doesn’t) but because he thinks that it will ultimately pay dividends, which it may. It’s just business; and Donald Trump is the consummate businessman; except for all the bankruptcies, of course.

What Ann Coulter doesn’t see is that Donald Trump fits the profile of the amnesty shill to a tee. Before he was a thorn in the side of the pro-amnesty GOP establishment he was part of that establishment; or at least he was fully qualified to be a member. He was a wealthy, secular, country club Republican who bragged of hiring illegal aliens for cripes sake! As many conservatives have argued, they can’t get the corporatist Republicans to enforce the law because they see illegal aliens as a source of cheap labor. Don’t forget that The Donald was one of those corporatist Republicans just two short years ago; and before that he was a Democrat who partied with the Clintons, praised Barack Obama, and donated to Planned Parenthood.

But surely Donald Trump will fulfill his campaign promise, right? If it suits him he will. He will of course be thinking of a second term and it might be difficult to get reelected if he angers the people who supported him the first time around, though the same could be said of a candidate like Ted Cruz, who is supposedly only jumping on Trump’s bandwagon. I would argue that Trump has jumped on Cruz’s bandwagon, a man who fought to defeat the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill.

Or maybe Trump will flip-flop again. His calculations might be a little different after the election. As his multiple bankruptcies and divorces have proven, Donald Trump thinks nothing of going back on his word. If he believed that switching sides on this issue would pave the way to a second term he’d do it; and Ann Coulter would be stiffed at the altar along with the rest of his fan club. This man has no soul.

[ShivaFan]

I don’t 100 percent trust anyone (well, I trust my wife). That is why I am voting Trump and living in the real world instead of my head in the sky. And also, because my wife told me to vote for Trump.

[stratboy]

I stopped listening to her some time ago. She definitely has lost status and visibility. If you compare Trump v Cruz to a pick up basketball game at the playground, she would be the 2nd to last one picked. Glen Beck would be the last one left that nobody wanted (except Ted).

[from occupied ga]

I don’t trust Trump either, but if it’s a choice between Trump and Hillary or Bernie, Trump wins that hands down. If the democraps win this election then this country is gone and another socialist tyrannical police state will rise in its place - ushered in by the brain dead zombies who go around in a fog of entitlement otherwise known as the Democratic base voters.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Our politicians have reduced a good life to simple terms; i.e. MONEY, PERKS and REELECTION.

[Leto]

Which has nothing to do with the article you smarmy little trumpanzee.

[avenir]

More like “trust but verify” when it comes to ANYONE jockeying for power. “Trust” is necessarily relative. The Founders didn’t trust men in general, why should we?

[traderrob6]

Mindless idolatry is a terrible thing towitness.

[dynoman]

Ad hominem - because you can’t deal with the truth.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Good job!

[tennmountainman]

I guess you trusted John Boehnir.
And you still trust Ryan and McConnell.

[pookie18]

Is that the Ann Coulter who is the lead singer of The Trumpettes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MNYQPTaCYE

[Disestablishmentarian]

“Conservative” has become a brand, like Coke or Pepsi . . . and about as meaningful.

One problem is that, in the hands of the pundits, it fails to take into account conserving jobs, conserving the American identity, conserving America as a sovereign and independent nation — not one of many adhering to a spider web of global treaties, organizations, banking priorities and victimism sensitivities.

[KC_for_Freedom]

You have the best explanation for your vote yet. I agree that Trump will need to prove himself in the office. I agree that he comes across as a egotist and a blowhard, but he also has adopted this persona to appeal to a large majority of the voters. In this regard, it is not a bad plan.

I also agree that Ann has had her ups and downs, but she is right about immigration and I don’t see any establishment politician putting up the wall. If they were going to put up a wall or change the immigration legislation, why have they not done it. Both parties have been in power with the presidency and the congress but we get nothing. This is why I believe we need to support a non-establishment candidate. And sorry, even Cruz — who has disagreed with the establishment — would not have joined the immigration argument without Trump’s success as an indication of the people’s anger. So I am going with the guy who figured out who was angry, and led the agenda. My criteria falls under the slogan, “if you are not going to lead, get out of the way”.

[lilypad]

Trump hit a chord echoing her book Adios America. The immigration fiasco has become front and center in America. I think people really are putting all the other issues on back burner right now. Some don’t care what he said about planed parenthood, Iraq, etc. because they’re so focused on the one topic of immigration. It’s kinda nice too that he is talking about America winning again too.

[moehoward]

” Cruz “helped defeat” the Gang of Eight Bill”

---

Truth is Cruz “tried to amend” the bill. Nothing more. And as in all things Cruz, he’s unanimously ignored, so in order to save face, he comes up with the absurd story of the poison pill.

[katana]

In your scenario the only kid left standing would be Michael Savage, who would proceed to bad mouth everybody from the sidelines. The opinions of these professional windbags and scribes can be interesting to listen to and read but shouldn’t really matter to anyone. Evaluate the candidates as best you can based on your own criteria and make an informed choice. My criteria might favor Cruz and yours might favor Trump. So be it.

[publius911]

What's a Benny Haung?

A new blog pimp?

[Robert DeLong]

First off Benny I want to thank you for your service to the country.

Maybe, but Trump would be lying too.

You state the above sentence to counter Ann's claims regarding Trump and immigration. You then bring up a meeting he had with Dreamers in 2013 and his sharing with them his employing illegals to tend a golf course of his. Insisting that any claims he now makes about getting tough on illegal immigration is not to be believed, and if he actually did live up to his stance he is rightly to be considered a hypocrite.

Here's the fallacy of your argument.

A couple of years is more than enough time to cause a person to alter their viewpoint by 180 degrees.

Illegal immigration has been a problem in this country for decades now. Do you think Donald actually hired the illegals himself? He obviously looked the other way since he was aware of it at that point in time he communicated it to the Dreamers. However, to say he now cannot be believed is only your opinion. Ditto with the claims of hypocrisy. Many others believe, myself included. Could I be wrong, absolutely. By the same token you could also be wrong. For we are both operating on our opinions. which is really all we have.

I respect your right to interpret his sincerity or lack thereof as you see fit, but it remains nothing more than your opinion. An opinion that has a 50/50 chance of being correct.

I even understand how you could come to that opinion. If I were just to look at certain instances to discern my opinion, it could go either way depending upon the instances I choose to view. Instead looking at the totality of it (past and present), analyzing it, and dissecting it as best as one can gives a broader base from which to form perhaps a more accurate conclusion.

Furthermore looking at motivations can aid in determining sincerity. Certainly becoming the President would be motivation for many in our society. But someone with his supposed wealth rarely desires to engage in the process. Their wealth alone gives them power. Does the President wield greater power? In certain instances yes it does. If one were concerned about the direction of the country he would certainly need that power to affect change.

Bottom line is, merely focusing on the past and then discounting the present may lead to a wrong conclusion, because people do indeed change their opinions on subjects. They might be labeled hypocrites, but much like accusations of racism, these terms are way over used and more often than not inaccurately applied. It is just a sign of the times that people try to intimidate others from straying off of a viewpoint. You have to admire Donald if for no other reason than sis willingness to subject himself to these levels of scrutiny and criticism. Does that sound like someone who is doing this for his own personal gain? It doesn't to me.

[Axeslinger]

Ok, so you support trump position on touchback amnesty. Interesting. But tell me, as, in your words, trumps position surpasses all others, which part of the Cruz strategy on immigration do you disagree with?

Or you could just admit you haven’t read it, only listen to the talking points of others and save yourself the embarrassment of admitting your ignorance.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Well Benny it looks like Donald Trump is going to get a chance to prove you wrong. Which will actually be a win for you. :-)