Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOPUSA INTERVIEW WITH CONSERVATIVE FAVORITE ANN COULTER
GOPUSA email ^ | 6/10/02 | GOPUSA - Carol Devine-Molin

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; profileamust; profiling; racialprofiling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: Elkiejg
When I grow up I wanna' be just like Ann. I usually crack people up with that since I'm going on 53. I wish someone had told me when I was growing up that I could say the kinds of things she does and get away with it. I admire her "in-your-face, take it or leave it, but no hard feelings" attitude about matters of importance. She's got game. Her statements about Dems being "cute," still leaves me in stitches -- mostly because I agree.
21 posted on 06/10/2002 9:56:42 AM PDT by Constitutions Grandchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elkiejg
She is a conservative and for racial profiling but the impression I get is that she like most women feels rather than thinks. She supports the black fiscal hole known as the WOD( no I don't use drugs and I am pro war).
22 posted on 06/10/2002 10:40:10 AM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
No Hannity is ussually smarter than her.
23 posted on 06/10/2002 10:40:52 AM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
Since the best the majority can do is say "we're in the majority", the fact that they think Ann knows how to make a good argument is further evidence for my case. She can't.
24 posted on 06/10/2002 12:16:55 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Where is Ann on record as supporting the fiscal black hole known as WOD??? The last place I saw her argue against drug legalization was an article called "Burning Down My Neighbor's House" (or something close to that). The message I took from that title and the anecdote behind that title was that she was trying to spite the libertarians by opposing one of their chief positions in print even if it really wasn't something she cared a whole lot about. The reason she was pissed at the libertarians is that she was willing to be their nominee against RINO Chris Shays who represents her district in Connecticut. But they wouldn't have her unless she was willing to go all out for drug legalization. Knowing Ann's sarcastic and hyperbolic style (and perhaps because I was projecting my own views upon her, since her world view seems identical to mine on virtually every other issue), I saw that article as her way of getting back at those libertarians. Perhaps she will clear this up in a future article.
25 posted on 06/10/2002 12:34:26 PM PDT by JG52blackman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JG52blackman
Well why didn't she support drug legalization then? Let the crackheads kill themselves off.
26 posted on 06/10/2002 12:55:05 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: section9
I'm not a libertarian you ninny. In fact I'm right up there with Kevin Curry when it comes to libertarian bashing as a sport.
27 posted on 06/10/2002 12:56:15 PM PDT by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Sean Hannity's entire schtick basically boils down to him taking notes on Rush Limbaugh, selecting a few main issues, and re-packaging them with less bravado. Sean Hannity is nothing compared to Rush, the man, the legend.
28 posted on 06/10/2002 12:59:07 PM PDT by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Yeah I like Rush too.
29 posted on 06/10/2002 1:02:19 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I don't think Rush would much like Kevin Curry.
30 posted on 06/10/2002 1:03:02 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: weikel
Why not? I suspect Rush is pro-drug war. I notice he *never* broaches the subject.
32 posted on 06/10/2002 1:39:13 PM PDT by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I noticed he never broaches it too. But Rush unlike the drug warriors has subordinated his emotions to his logic( you will never catch liberals or Kevin Curry using logic). And logic says that the drug war is just a fiscal black hole.
33 posted on 06/10/2002 1:47:02 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: weikel
I'll have to play both sides here. On the pro-legalization side, there is no question that WOD is Prohibition of the 20's and 30's transplanted to today with almost identical effects. It finances a number of powerful criminal empires and it drives a high percentage of the robberies, burglaries, muggings, etc. that are perpetrated by users trying to get enough money for their next fix. So what would we get if these drugs were legal? On the relatively harmless side, the crackheads might very well take their places alongside the winos on skid-row, and finance their habits with aluminum cans and odd jobs until their hearts explode or they meet their doom in a bumfight. On the more harmful side, the fear is that we would get the same really bad things that we now have with legal alcohol. Even now, about 20,000 people are killed on the highways every year by drunk drivers, down from almost 30,000 per year a few decades ago before we started to get serious about drunk drivers. Another well known problem is the dramatic drop in IQ and good judgement that occurs when people drink past "moderation" and the various acts of stupidity and criminality that occur as a result. The only way to combat the feared increase in this sort of thing is to attack both drug and alcohol mis-use from the demand side. The reduction in highway deaths due to alcohol indicates the possibilities here. The full force of the law must hammer the crap out of DUI's and abusers who endanger or harm others. Various barriers to getting a good job like drug/alcohol testing in the work-place should be allowed by any organization who wishes to blatantly discriminate for any reason against drug users and alcohol abusers. Drug use or alcohol abuse should be a legal cause for immediate revocation of child custody/visitation rights or any other desired privileges like driver's licenses, insurance policies, loan approvals, etc. These are things that should be made ALLOWABLE FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION by organizations other than criminal law enforcement. The fear of those who oppose legalization is that this won't happen and people will not be held accountable for their drug- or alcohol-fueled behavior that endangers or harms the innocent.
34 posted on 06/10/2002 1:47:56 PM PDT by JG52blackman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: VoiceOfBruck
ANN COULTER BUMP
35 posted on 06/10/2002 1:48:46 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JG52blackman
Great analysis.
36 posted on 06/10/2002 1:50:52 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Maybe it is. I'll take the fiscal black hole over the social one any day. Besides, since when does the ineffectiveness of an effort automatically mean that effort should be abandon? Can we not modify and/or reform said effort?
37 posted on 06/10/2002 1:55:17 PM PDT by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Oh there are ways to win the WOD Chairman Mao had a WOD he won but its not really possible in a free society.
38 posted on 06/10/2002 1:57:07 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: weikel
I've always felt that capitol punishment fit the crime of drug dealing quite nicely. I don't see how that would impose on anyone's freedom. After all, when you violate the laws you often forfeit your freedom.
39 posted on 06/10/2002 2:01:02 PM PDT by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Mao ignored the dealers he targetted the addicts drugs are a demand problem.
40 posted on 06/10/2002 3:43:42 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson