Skip to comments.GOPUSA INTERVIEW WITH CONSERVATIVE FAVORITE ANN COULTER
Posted on 06/10/2002 2:56:54 AM PDT by Elkiejg
Attorney Ann Coulter is one of the most influential conservatives on the media scene today. Not only is Ms. Coulter a best-selling author, syndicated columnist, and political analyst, she is a pundit extraordinaire who captivates television viewers with her attractive style, flamboyance, and quick-witted humor. There is no denying that she is controversial in many of her opinions. Political correctness is anathema to Ms. Coutler! But whether you agree with Ann Coulter or not, her views are thoroughly intriguing and thought provoking, and that is the essence of her star quality.
Ms. Coulter graciously welcomed an interview with GOPUSA's Carol Devine-Molin. Although Ms. Coulter cannot yet discuss her new book ''Slander: Liberal Lies About The American Right'', due out on June 25th, she did agree to answer some questions regarding Homeland Security and concomitant issues. Herein is the interview conducted with Ms. Coulter on June 7, 2002:
AC: Let's do another when the book comes out though -- preferably after you've had a chance to read it!
GOPUSA: What is your overall assessment of President Bush's Homeland Security efforts to date?
AC: Not enough racial profiling.
GOPUSA: What are your initial thoughts on the formation of the Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security as announced last night (Thursday, June 6, 2002) by President Bush? Will this engender more efficiency and coordination of efforts, better inter-agency communication, less infighting among agencies, less redundancy of efforts, etc? Or is this more bureaucratic gobbledygook that is a waste of time?
AC: Not enough prospect of racial profiling. Procedural issues are ultimately secondary to the main issue of racial profiling.
GOPUSA: Most Americans are in favor of tightening immigration policies in light of 9/11. Which major immigration changes must be enacted in order to properly protect Americans? Would you like to see a 5-year moratorium on immigration so that the system can be fully evaluated?
AC: Why stop the Belgians, the Swiss, the Koreans, the Australians, the Canadians, the British, etc. etc. etc.? It's silly to talk about anything but a targeted moratorium -- also known as ''racial profiling''.
GOPUSA: We are moving toward the dismantling of the INS, to be replaced by two new Federal agencies that separate immigration enforcement and processing functions. And the President just signed recent legislation, The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. Now, there is movement toward fingerprinting and photographing Arab and Middle Eastern visitors to the US. What are your thoughts about this? Is this type of profiling discriminatory?
AC: It's a good start. Incidentally, I note that everyone, including the New York Times, supports the idea of Israel building a fence, but reacted with chaste horror at Pat Buchanan's proposal that we build a fence with Mexico.
GOPUSA: Bill O'Reilly wants to utilize our military to protect our borders. How does that breach our present laws? What is your opinion of O'Reilly's suggestion?
AC: I believe it is a stated constitutional purpose of our military to protect the borders. I am bewildered by any controversy.
GOPUSA: How about getting state and local police involved in apprehending illegal immigrants that need to be deported? Is this counter-productive in the long run, keeping police from enacting their other law enforcement duties?
AC: I have heard the inscrutable slippery slope arguments and find them unpersuasive.
GOPUSA: Bill O'Reilly is also asking for a boycott on Canadian goods and tourism if they don't tighten their ''dangerous'' immigration policies that permit terrorists to enter Canada and then filter through the US northern border. Do you think that we need to exercise more pressure against Canada?
AC: The Canadians are pretty damn loyal neighbors and deserve some respect in our negotiations with them. They sent troops to Afghanistan. They sent troops to Vietnam. There may be a problematic, dangerous leftist trend in Canadian politics, but you'd have to come up with more than that to get me to engage in Canada-bashing. (This is as opposed to France, against whom I think we should launch a preemptive nuclear strike.)
GOPUSA: The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is calling for the FBI's Mueller to resign. What are your thoughts?
AC: This is the journal's cheap purchase of nonpartisanship. There are plenty of grounds on which to attack the Bush administration -- such as no racial profiling -- but this isn't one of them. These people bore me.
GOPUSA: It's very difficult to get bureaucrats to change. How would you approach the problems facing the ''intelligence community''? How and why did the intelligence community (comprised of 13 agencies) degenerate into its current mess?
AC: 1) Stop worrying about being accused of racial profiling and 2) Liberals, who are appalled at the idea of America defending itself.
GOPUSA: Libertarian purists seem to oppose even basic immigration reforms. And many don't want to make big expenditures on the ''war on terrorism''. Are they fully cognizant of the dangers presented by terrorism?
AC: No. ''Purist'' Libertarians take spiteful Anti-American positions in the hopes that someone someday will invite them to a pot party. The only way to get the holier-than-thou Libertarians behind the war on terrorism is to remind them that Muslims oppose the legalization of marijuana.
GOPUSA: We are told that it's just a matter of time before the US is hit with another major terrorist attack. What are some of the most likely looming terrorist scenarios (SA-7 shoulder fired missiles bringing down planes, biological warfare, radiological bomb, etc.)?
AC: I haven't the first idea ''what'', but I have a pretty good idea ''where'': New York City, the Capitol, the White House or another airplane. If they are stopped, it will be entirely thanks to the one member of the Bush administration who cares more about protecting America than what Liberals say about him: John Ashcroft. Evidently, more Americans have to die before Bush will fire Norman Mineta (Secretary of Transportation).
GOPUSA: You would like to see new skyscrapers at the site of the WTC. Many people would like this also, but feel that it is too soon, that it would provide another ready target for terrorists. The site may be too vulnerable in the next few years. But you seem convinced that our military can adequately protect new structures at the WTC. Please comment.
AC: I salute you for your faith in the valiant hard hats, but it will take even those great, muscular patriots more than a few years to rebuild anything resembling the World Trade Center. By that time -- if my previous policy proscriptions are implemented -- the enemy will have been thoroughly routed.
GOPUSA: Thank you for your time.
Noteworthy, Attorney General John Ashcroft recently announced that arriving visa-holders from Arab and other Islamic nations would be subjected to fingerprinting and photographing as they entered the US. As expected, various groups advocating on behalf of civil liberties and privacy issues are voicing cogent protests. But as indicated by Dan Abrams on his MSNBC program ''The Abrams Report'' on 6/7/02, it is not unreasonable to utilize a limited type of profiling based on nation of origin (Islamic countries) in light of the heinous 9/11 assaults carried out by foreign-born Islamic extremists. And, at least for now, most Americans appear amenable to this new measure spearheaded by Ashcroft, which would better ensure our protection and homeland security. Ann Coulter appears to endorse even tighter surveillance and scrutiny of Islamic individuals than protocols currently being implemented by the Bush Administration. But if this ''war on terrorism'' really heats up with significant civilian deaths ensuing, the American public may, in fact, acquiesce to far more stringent controls on foreign-born Muslims here on American soil. And, of course, this would raise a host of profound constitutional questions.
Not to Viet Nam. A lot of Canucks volunteered in US Forces, though.............FRegards
AC: The Canadians are pretty damn loyal neighbors and deserve some respect in our negotiations with them. They sent troops to Afghanistan. They sent troops to Vietnam.
There may be a problematic, dangerous leftist trend in Canadian politics, but you'd have to come up with more than that to get me to engage in Canada-bashing. (This is as opposed to France, against whom I think we should launch a preemptive nuclear strike.)
The damage being done to the myth of crusty being the smartest woman in the world is a pleasure to watch.
Lets compare the two:
Ann Coulter - Smart, sexy, inteligent, tells the truth and has morals.
Crusty Kilton - None of the above, Fat, lier, ugly, old, did I say fat and ugly, slimey, morally bankrupt, did I say fat and ugly and also old.
Go Ann Go!
Her line about libs being against the War on Terror until they find out that Muslims are against marijuana legalization is an absolute keeper.
Be Seeing You,
Your opinions seem to be in the minority. Add mine to the majority as I think you would have to dumb yourself UP quite a bit to even get Ann in sight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.