Skip to comments.Ann Coulter: Did I Move?
Posted on 02/12/2014 5:55:19 PM PST by jazusamo
With all the smirking on the left about their electoral victories, it's important to remember that Democrats haven't won the hearts and minds of the American people. They changed the people. If you pour vinegar into a bottle of wine, the wine didn't turn, you poured vinegar into it. Similarly, liberals changed no minds. They added millions of new liberal voters through immigration.
So why are Republicans like Trey Gowdy, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and John Boehner making fools of themselves in order to spot the Democrats three more touchdowns?
The House Republicans' "Standards for Immigration Reform," for example, contains this fat, honking nonsense: "One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents."
As the kids say: WTF?
That may be a pleasant-sounding sentiment, but it has absolutely nothing to do with our country's history. Not the first thing. Did Republicans really think they could pawn off the idea that our forefathers fought and died at Valley Forge so that illegal aliens wouldn't have to live in the shadows?
Yeah, it was a long shot. We didn't know you guys had read the Constitution. We'll be quiet now.
Apart from the fact that protecting children from the mistakes of their parents has not the slightest connection with the nation's founding, it's a ridiculous concept.
Yes, children suffer when their parents break the law. Also when their parents get divorced, become alcoholics, don't read to them at night, feed them junk food and take them to Justin Bieber concerts. None of that is the child's fault.
But it's not the country's fault either.
If we have to excuse lawbreaking so as not to "punish the children," there's no end to the crimes that have to be forgiven -- insider trading, theft, rape, murder and so on.
How do you think kids feel when their father has to "live in the shadows" because he committed a rape? The kids did nothing wrong, but they have to go to bed every night wondering: Is tomorrow the day Dad is going to be caught?
How do you function like that? And how awful it must be when their dad is sent to prison! How do you think Jack Abramoff's kids felt? What about Martha Stewart's kid?
Why not just forgive the crimes of all perpetrators who have kids? At a minimum, shouldn't we allow criminals to defer their sentences until their kids turn 26 so they can stay on Dad's health insurance? Or at least until their kids have gone to college? Chris Christie can give them in-state tuition!
"It's not the kids' fault" proves too much. People can get away with anything if they're willing to use their children as trump cards to avoid the force of law.
The once-respected Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., compared illegal aliens brought here as kids to children who steal a grape or scream in a restaurant:
"When children wander into neighborhood yards, we don't call that trespassing. When children cry and yell and scream at restaurants or on airplanes, we don't call that a violation of the noise ordinance. When children eat a grape at the grocery store or eat a piece of candy waiting in line before Mom or Dad pays for it, we don't have them arrested for petty larceny."
Yes, but in those cases, both the child and his parents had a right to be where they were -- the yard, restaurant or grocery store -- when the child suddenly behaved like a child. With illegal aliens, the parents are more like gypsies teaching their kids to beg and pick pockets. The parents forced the kids into being lawbreakers.
Similarly, Palestinians use their children to commit acts of terrorism against Israel, so that when Israel responds, the parents can wail, "They're bombing children!"
(I thought only liberals couldn't do analogies.)
Americans are under no moral obligation to admit huge numbers of people who have no particular right to be here just because the Democrats need 30 million new voters.
Why shouldn't Republicans oppose mass immigration on the grounds that immigrants will vote Democratic? The only reason the Democrats want mass immigration is because they know immigrants will vote Democratic. (Also for the cheap nannies and gardeners.)
Immigration is the "single issue" that decides every other issue. If this country were the same demographically today as it was in 1980, Romney would have won a bigger victory in 2012 than Reagan did against Carter. And we wouldn't have to hear about soccer all the time.
We're living in a different country now, and I can't recall moving! Had I wanted to live in Japan, I could have moved there. Had I had wanted to live in Mexico, Pakistan or Chechnya -- I could have moved to those places, too.
(Although maybe not. They all have stricter immigration policies than we do.)
I'm sure they're lovely, but I wanted to live in America. Now I can't. At the current rate of immigration, it won't exist anymore. The Democrats couldn't win elections there, so they changed it.
With the repeal of Obamacare in the balance, I have argued that it's insane for Republicans to waste resources primarying their own guys in 2014. Even the most heinous Republican can usually argue, "Would you really rather have a Democrat in this seat?"
But any Republican who supports mass immigration -- whether with Marco Rubio's amnesty bill, or idiotic arguments about "not punishing the children" -- has forfeited that claim. If the country is going to be ruined anyway, it could not matter less who wins any particular seat on this Titanic.
Good job calling out Gowdy.
Lou Barletta is more conservative than Gowdy.
Gowdy is another fake. How much money has he taken to support amnesty? Another whore.
Gowdy too! ?.......where does it end
She’s right here!
BOOM!!! Coulter is back!
You're right. Ann nailed this one.
Agreed, she’s writing like her old self and am glad to see it.
Really. Then why do liberals try to punish us today for slavery and for broken treaties with Indians?
Coulter had a rare (these days) moment of clarity. Well said, Ms. Coulter!
Behold, the amorality of the fascist left in a nutshell, regardless the geography.
Nice job, Ann.
Wow! I would like to hear his response if a FOX reporter asked him about this.
No, the Body Snatcher's had you for a while. Glad to see you're back safe, Ann.
I can only say I don’t believe liberals were part of our founding principles, for the most part the founders were God fearing people.
Its good to finally see well known pundits saying what many of us were saying here five years ago.
I was surprised to hear Gowdy looks like he is inclined to go over to the Dark Side on amnesty.
——I can only say I dont believe liberals were part of our founding principles——
Depends on how you define liberal.... But yes some of our founding fathers and their brethren were federalist... Some in a big way....
Large central government control....
I hear you and couldn’t agree more.
They are not wasting resources I am wasting mine or not. Get over it Ann. I’ll support who the h@ll I want to. The pubbies had me all my adult life. Now they have to earn it. And they won’t do it kow-towing to illegal aliens. Even if it is to finance my retirement.
And no, they were not part of the founding.
That is a GREAT pic, love it!
“So why are Republicans like Trey Gowdy, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and John Boehner making fools of themselves in order to spot the Democrats three more touchdowns?”
Because they are traitors?
Not grand, capital-T Traitors who betray their country in a time of war.
No, they are small cheap traitors- who will sell out their country and its language and its culture to satisfy their big campaign donors.
These are the smallest of men, with no real love of country. They just love personal gain, and like all frauds of their sort they wrap their treason in all sorts of ‘noble’ excuses.
The Bolsheviks didn't win the hearts and minds of the Russian people either but that didn't stop them.
Indeed. I almost screamed when I read that.
Click on the pic, it links to an old thread you’ll enjoy. B^)
Yes, and he seems to be supportive if Linda Graham.
Thanks, I didn’t realize it was a link.
...but was willing to put up with it if he was one of the good guys.
Well, it's better to find this stuff out now...
..disappointing as can be....but at least we know.
Lemme see now, where’s that list at....
I don’t know what the hell is going on with Gowdy on this. He has ACU ratings of 96 and 100% for 2011 and 2012 (compared to Barletta with 72% and 74% for the same years).
That’s a great thread, saw some FReeper names I haven’t seen in some time.
Federalists like Hamilton, Adams, even Washington, though not officially a party member were for big federal centrally controlled government....
They were called the Federalist Party....
Much like today’s liberals....mind you I didn’t say progressives....an entirely different animal...
Loyalists were not liberals or part of any early political party or better said “movement” as the concept of a political party was not really an actual organization yet....
Loyalists didn't mind being controlled by a faceless monolith a thousand miles away as long as they were kept safe and well fed. Sounds like socialism to me.
When children wander into neighborhood yards, we dont call that trespassing.” - Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
Is Trey Gowdy retarded, or does he just come across that way in speech and print?
When parents and children set up a tent on your property, demand food, welfare, and education they are doing far more than trespassing. They are invading.
Slackjawed hicks love those corporate silver coins.