Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Ann Coulter: GOP Baffled as Voters Rally to Popular Candidate
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... rs-rally-to-popular-candidate/
Published: Feb 17, 2016
Author: Ann Coulter
Post Date: 2016-02-18 06:54:16 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 13769
Comments: 88
I wish he’d stop showing off, the little scamp, but maybe the GOP establishment will finally get the message that voters have been waiting a really long time for a candidate who would put Americans first. Not donors, not plutocrats, not foreigners, and certainly not foreign plutocrats (i.e., Fox News). 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. That’s all that matters! Are you listening yet, RNC? 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. Even Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) still refuses to say he’d deport illegal aliens (unless they’re arrested for breaking some other law), build a wall (instead he talks about “border security,” which is code for: No Wall), or reduce legal immigration at all. Trump is like a greatest-hits album. The two political parties are the record companies, refusing to put all the hits on one album and instead forcing us to choose between Republicans who will depress wages through immigration and bad trade deals, or Democrats who pretend to care about working-class Americans while sacralizing abortion and gay marriage. Trump is right about President Bush not keeping us safe — though not about his “Bush lied” argument that makes me want to strangle him. This is what Trump said last October on “Coyote News Sunday” (FNC) about how things would have been different on 9/11 under President Trump: “Well, I would have been much different, I must tell you. … I am extremely, extremely tough on illegal immigration. I’m extremely tough on people coming into this country. I believe that if I were running things, I doubt … that those people would have been in the country.” And that was before Trump announced his plan for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration! (By contrast, as governor of Florida, Jeb! aggressively pushed a bill to allow illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses, less than three years AFTER 13 of 19 hijackers used Florida driver’s licenses to board the planes on 9/11.) It is apparently considered less controversial to send a million troops to the Middle East than to stop printing visas for would-be terrorists. It’s not just George W. Bush’s open-borders policy that cries out for re-examination. During a debate with Al Gore one year before the 9/11 attack — committed by Arabs on U.S. commercial airlines — he pre-emptively denounced the racial profiling of Arabs by airport security. The Wall Street Journal proclaimed that “the ‘racial profiling’ issue might help Bush win Michigan.” (Good call, WSJ! Bush lost Michigan, anyway.) In June 2001 — three months before the attack committed by Arabs on U.S. commercial airlines — the Bush administration undertook a study to ensure that Arabs were not being disproportionately stopped by airport security. When U.S. Airways ticket agent Michael Tuohey laid eyes on Mohamed Atta on the morning of 9/11, he got a “chill” and thought to himself, “If this guy doesn’t look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.” But then, he says, he gave himself a politically correct “slap,” and handed Atta his ticket. Atta proceeded to murder 3,000 Americans. But at least no undue scrutiny of Arabs was taking place at U.S. Airports! The Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)s, Nikki Haleys, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)s, Jeb!, Zeppo and Shemp Bushes of the GOP say: “Vote for me — we may have a terrorist attack, but at least we’ll know we did the right thing!” Trump says: “I’m going to protect you.” That’s why it doesn’t matter when Trump pops off and says things that are not conservative orthodoxy — or even true! Even if you think Trump is a libertine, shallow narcissist, you know he will do what no other Republican will: Go to Washington, kick ass, mock political correctness, build a wall, deport illegals, bring manufacturing home, and end the GOP’s peculiar fixation with remaking the Muslim world. This is our last chance. It’s similar to the “point of no return” global warming alarmists keep talking about, except our data isn’t fake. At our current rate of immigration/transformation, if we don’t break the donor fever grip now, we never will. This kind of correction isn’t just a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, it’s a once-in-a-millennium opportunity. The GOP didn’t hear us with Eric Cantor, with the 2014 election or with John Boehner. After all that, they still gave us Nikki Haley and Paul Ryan. President Trump is the last and only message they will understand. 
Donald Trump’s latest bombshell, claiming the Bush administration lied about weapons of mass destruction to get us into the Iraq War, is just him doing wheelies on the way to the nomination. He’s apparently decided it would be fun to taunt the entire GOP by demonstrating that he can say anything and his voters won’t care.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 56.
#1. To: cranky (#0)
Disagree. Trump is showing his true moonbattery . Clearly the Trumpsters believe the Michael Moore ,Cindy Sheehad ,Code pinko lines about "Bush lied ....... " .
Were there any WMD's. NO there were not. I knew it. Bush is a fucking liar. He lied about WMD. You support of liars is telling of your character. You make excuses for those you support. For example Tomder. The other day you lied. You flat out lied and said Al Qaueda was mentiuoned prior to 911. You said it was mentioned in 98 or something. Why couldn't you put a link to it. Because you are lying or duped. Al Qaeda was manufactured after 911. That is why you cannnot come up with one single linjk that mentions Al Qaeds prior to 911. I'm flat out calling you a liar. Prove me wrong. You can't. You're not conservative save social issues. The rest of the time you sell us out to slave labor like Obasma. Like Clinton. Like that piece of shit Bush. All the Bushes are pieces of shit. Even Barbara the idiot.
Simply not true. I am giving you internet links like this one: A history of terror: Al-Qaeda 1988-2008 However, you have quite a rare opportunity to dialogue with someone who was the DoD operations officer for the antiterrorism-force protection program from 1997- 1999. Al Qaeda was in all our information and target folders as we inspected US military facilities for compliance of anti-terror programs and force protection. So you can either come back to some semblance of reality or keep believing in carnival barkers.
A history of terror: Al-Qaeda 1988-2008 I looked at your link It is from 2008. That isn't prior to 911. Sure it mentions things from prior to 911. I'm loooking for original documents dated prior to 911 that have the word "al qaeda" in them.
Sure it mentions things from prior to 911. I'm loooking for original documents dated prior to 911 that have the word "al qaeda" in them. Frankly that's a cop out. The links gave you the history of Al Qaeda. That the NYTs or WaPo did not write about AQ prior to 9/11 shows you how much the Bush1 and Clintoon admins kept that information close hold. Also shows how they bungled threat assessments. Your assertion was that AQ was created after 9/11. That's false and I gave you the evidence to refute your claim. I think you know the right thing to do now...
Your assertion was that AQ was created after 9/11. That's false and I gave you the evidence to refute your claim. I think you know the right thing to do now... Some writing an article and talking about something is not a proof of anything. It wouldn't be admitted in any courtroom. It is not a cop out. If they existed under that name it is documented somewhere. Why did they suddenly use the name after 911? But never ever before? At least not documented. Don't feel bad everyone I ever put to this test has failed. Which makes me rightly or wrongly doubt the government story. I can find articles about Hezzbolah, the PLO and everyone else. Just not Al Qaeda.
#72. To: A K A Stone (#56)
(Edited)
I cannot vouch for he source but these guys claim: "May 30, 1993: Term ‘Al-Qaeda’ First Mentioned in International Media" May 30, 1993: Term ‘Al-Qaeda’ First Mentioned in International Media Edit event" The term “al-Qaeda” is first mentioned in the international media. An article by the French wire service Agence France-Presse on this day entitled “Jordanian Militants Train in Afghanistan to Confront Regime” uses the term, although it is spelled “Al-Ka’ida.” The article quotes a Jordanian militant who says he has been “trained by Al-Ka’ida, a secret organization in Afghanistan that is financed by a wealthy Saudi businessman who owns a construction firm in Jeddah, Ossama ibn Laden.” (The spelling is the same in the original.) [Wright, 2006, pp. 410] The term will not be mentioned in the US until August 1996 (see August 14, 1996). Might as well add this from the same source: August 14, 1996: Term ‘Al-Qaeda’ First Mentioned in US Media Edit event Based on a review of the Lexis-Nexus database, the term al-Qaeda is first mentioned in the mainstream media on this day. A United Press International article draws from a State Department fact sheet released today (see August 14, 1996) and states, “Earlier, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Usama Bin Ladin drew on his family’s wealth ‘plus donations received from sympathetic merchant families in the Gulf region’ to organize the Islamic Salvation Foundation, or al-Qaida. The group established recruitment centers in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan that enlisted and sheltered thousands of Arab recruits to fight the Soviets. ‘This network remains active,’ the State Department said.” (The spelling is the same as in the original.) [US Department of State, 8/14/1996; United Press International, 8/14/1996] The term was first used in an overseas article by the French wire service Agence France-Presse, in May 1993 (see May 30, 1993). The CIA has been aware of the term since at least the start of 1996 (see Shortly Before February 1996) and possibly by 1991, if not earlier (see February 1991- July 1992). However, the term will remain little used and little understood by the media for the next several years. For instance, the New York Times will first mention it two years later in quoting the courtroom testimony of one of the plotters of the 1998 African embassy bombings (see 10:35-10:39 a.m., August 7, 1998). It is referred to as “al-Qaeda, an international terrorist group, led by Mr. bin Laden.” [New York Times, 8/28/1998]
It wouldn't be admitted in any courtroom. It is not a cop out. If they existed under that name it is documented somewhere. Why did they suddenly use the name after 911? But never ever before? At least not documented. Don't feel bad everyone I ever put to this test has failed. Which makes me rightly or wrongly doubt the government story. I can find articles about Hezzbolah, the PLO and everyone else. Just not Al Qaeda. Sure that's because Hezbollah and the PLO were visibly active in certain geographic locations since the 80s and 70s respectively. AQ came on the scope after Khobar towers in 1996. They were mentioned as early as 1992 in defense planning guidance. You won't find that on the internet. Why? No body here in the States cared some obscure terrorist organisation was killing Embassy and military personnel overseas. Until 9/11 when everyone watched the attacks on TV. Your line of reasoning is quite unreasonable. It is akin to saying "I never heard about it so it didn't happen." Perhaps you should pick up one of the many books written on the history of AQ. Here's one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Looming_Tower
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestDonald Trump’s latest bombshell, claiming the Bush administration lied about weapons of mass destruction to get us into the Iraq War, is just him doing wheelies on the way to the nomination. He’s apparently decided it would be fun to taunt the entire GOP by demonstrating that he can say anything and his voters won’t care.
#3. To: tomder55, redleghunter (#1)
Donald Trump’s latest bombshell, claiming the Bush administration lied about weapons of mass destruction to get us into the Iraq War, is just him doing wheelies on the way to the nomination. He’s apparently decided it would be fun to taunt the entire GOP by demonstrating that he can say anything and his voters won’t care. Disagree. Trump is showing his true moonbattery .
#12. To: A K A Stone (#3)
Al Qaeda was manufactured after 911. That is why you cannnot come up with one single linjk that mentions Al Qaeds prior to 911.
#19. To: redleghunter (#12)
Simply not true. I am giving you internet links like this one:
#54. To: A K A Stone (#19)
I looked at your link It is from 2008. That isn't prior to 911.
#56. To: redleghunter (#54)
Frankly that's a cop out. The links gave you the history of Al Qaeda. That the NYTs or WaPo did not write about AQ prior to 9/11 shows you how much the Bush1 and Clintoon admins kept that information close hold. Also shows how they bungled threat assessments.
Replies to Comment # 56. At least not documented.
#78. To: A K A Stone (#56)
Some writing an article and talking about something is not a proof of anything.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 56.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]