It’s time for another old-school fisking.
Today it’s this week’s column in The Daily Caller by Ann Coulter. As you may recall, half of the reason we have this partial government shutdown over “border security” is because Coulter browbeat Viceroy Trump when it looked like he was going to take Mitch McConnell’s escape route and sign the Senate bill that McConnell set up without funding for Trump’s wall.
So now, we have the shutdown, and this is Coulter’s opinion of Mr. Trump’s political strategy so far:
“The media are trying to convince Trump that if he abandons the wall, he’ll be a statesman, so that as soon as he folds, they can start making fun of him as an untrustworthy liar. “
Well, here’s the first error right here. Not that the media would portray Trump as an untrustworthy liar, but that they never had before. Because they were calling him an untrustworthy liar in 2015 and 2016, they have been calling him an untrustworthy liar all through his presidency and they will continue to do so. You wanna know WHY? CAUSE HE’S AN UNTRUSTWORTHY LIAR.
Glad that you’re starting to figure this out, Ann. And while we’re at it, Mexico will never pay for the wall, there is no Easter Bunny, and those guys with Mumford are not his Sons.
“Everyone knows that we can
never have a secure border without an impermeable barrier —
something like a wall—
across all of it.”
Seriously, review your history. The
Wall didn’t work for East Germany. And to the extent that border
control did work for totalitarian socialist countries – and by the
way, how are they worth emulating all of a sudden? – the Warsaw Pact
border in Western Europe was a lot less territory to reinforce and
defend, and most of the much longer borders of the Soviet Union
proper were either at geographically inaccessible points or were
adjacent to other totalitarian states that were no improvement.
“The Democrats know it, the voters know it, and the millions of illegals hurtling toward our border like cannonballs know it. “
This is an example of engaging prose that makes absolutely no sense when you think about it.
“The Democrats’ latest idea is to call a wall “immoral, ineffective and expensive. If they think a wall is “immoral,” then they’re admitting it’s effective. “
Derp.
For one thing, it does not logically follow that a thing that is immoral is necessarily effective. The conclusion here being that a thing that is effective must be immoral, and the immorality of a thing is proof of its effectiveness. Which is par for the course with Ann Coulter. But for another thing, isn’t the usual conservative critique of government action that it’s (often) immoral, ineffective and expensive?
As a libertarian, I agree with conservatives that government is often immoral and ineffective. The problem with conservatism in action is that government is made more immoral and ineffective because of conservatives, and in the case of the Trump Administration, that is undeniably ON PURPOSE.
For example: This article in the Washington Post details how one direct result of the shutdown is that the border security work that WAS going on hitherto is now on hold:
“The paralysis in bank accounts extends to overburdened U.S.
immigration courts. New filings are piling up on dockets already
backlogged by nearly 1 million cases, but many of the judges and
clerks who process them have been sent home.:
“And when U.S.
companies and employers want to check the immigration status of
potential hires, they are greeted by a red banner across the top of
the government’s E-Verify website. Those services are “currently
unavailable due to a lapse in government appropriations,” it says.”
Why? Because border control and immigration processing are not considered essential government services.
You can’t make this up. Trumpniks really would saw off their own nads with a butter knife if they thought it would own the libs, wouldn’t they?
“To keep the third-world masses flowing across our un-walled border, the media are demanding that Trump agree to nonspecific “border security.” It’s like ordering a Starbucks and instead of getting a coffee, you’re told to have more “pep.” Now move along. Here’s your change. “
There are specific measures for border security already. They may be inadequate by conservative standards, but they do exist. They can indeed be improved. What are those measures? The ones I mentioned in the story above. The very measures, like E-Verify, that are currently suspended even as people can slip through cracks in the Border Patrol, because YOU, Ann, pussywhipped your Dear Leader into this dickwaving contest.
Now move along, Ann. Here’s your change.
“Would liberals accept such airy statements of intent in lieu of clear legal commands for any of the things they care about? (Not to be confused with “our country,” which they do not care about.)
Instead of EPA emissions standards, with specific parts per million of pollutants allowed into lakes and rivers, how about a law promoting “enhanced appreciation of God’s bounty”? Emissions standards are immoral and ineffective!“
See that last part? Now go back to the part where Ann says that Democrats call the wall “immoral, ineffective and expensive.” This is proof that Ann, like her President, is either too stupid to go back and recall her own words before she contradicts herself, or is cynical enough to think that the rubes won’t notice.
You can say that government is generally immoral, ineffective and expensive (the usual right-wing position), you can say that government is often immoral, ineffective and expensive but can be regulated and reformed (the moderate to liberal position), or you can try to claim that the same government that you claim is generally immoral, ineffective and expensive is suddenly moral, effective and fiscally prudent solely on the basis of whether you like the policy and it fits your ideology, which is pure horseshit.
“Democrats’ backup argument is to cite — every four minutes on MSNBC — Trump’s claim that Mexico would pay for the wall.”
They can do that because every four minutes during his speeches, Trump claims that Mexico will pay for the wall.
Once again, Ann: Those guys with Mumford aren’t his sons. Seriously, they’re like the same age, and everything.
“We’re all baffled by Trump not having already taxed remittances to Mexico to pay for the wall (100-percent within the president’s authority under various banking regulations), “
You’re baffled, Ann. The rest of us in the category of “all” are not baffled, we’re disgusted but not surprised.
“but if we’re going to start listing the promises Trump hasn’t kept, this is going to be a long column. “
Understatement.
“In point of fact, however, he never said Mexico would pre-pay. We can tax remittances anytime.”
Well, I’m with you there, Ann. If Trump could do these things, why doesn’t he?
It couldn’t be because your precious little boy never had a plan, has no idea what he’s doing, has no idea how to run a business, let alone a government, and is ultimately just a modern snake-oil salesman with a career pattern of bluffing his way through life, finding out what the suckers want to hear, continuing to lie past the point that everyone knows he’s lying, and hoping that he’ll avoid prosecution because the marks are too ashamed to admit they were conned?
Nah, that can’t be it.
“Nearly every Republican presidential candidate tried to con voters with these meaningless catchphrases about “border security.”
Here are The Des Moines Register’s summaries of some of the candidates’ positions on immigration a few weeks before the 2016 Iowa caucus:
- Jeb Bush: “has called for enhanced border security.”
- Marco Rubio: “proposes …
improved security on the border.”
John Kasich: “believes border security should be strengthened.” - Chris Christie: “urges … using technology to improve border surveillance …”
- Rand Paul: “would secure the border immediately.”
- Carly Fiorina: “would secure the border, which she says requires only money and manpower.”
They all lost.”
Yes. And the fact that Trump won with “Wall good. Fire bad” is all we need to know about the intellectual character of the “conservative” movement today. Especially in regard to opinion makers like Ann Coulter, who know how to write polysyllabic, grammatically correct paragraphs (unlike Trump) but who still insist on acting like tribal cave dwellers.
“But instead of doing what he said and building a wall, Trump has hired people who don’t even grasp that the point is to make it unattractive to break into our country.
On ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, Trump’s head of Customs and Border Protection, Kevin McAleenan, announced plans to give illegal alien kids free medical care at the border: “What we’ve done immediately, (Homeland Security) Secretary (Kirstjen) Nielsen and I have directed that we do medical checks of children 17 and under as they come into our process.”
Apparently, our working class is rolling in so much free health care that now, our country is diverting medical resources to treat other countries’ sick kids.”
I’m sorry, you guys keep saying that
these people are full of diseases. Now you’re saying you don’t WANT
them to have medical screenings?
I suppose we could just shoot the
motherfuckers like a horde of invading zombies if we want to make
sure they never cross the border at all. Ann, I’m sure that Sarah
Sanders would appreciate you making her job more entertaining!
“McAleenan boasted that we — that’s you, taxpayer — will be providing “doctors, physician assistants, paramedics to do an initial intake check so that we know if a child is healthy as they arrive at the border and then make sure they can get medical care if they need it.”
Luckily, this won’t hurt any Americans because the doctors they’re sending to the border are not currently treating any U.S. citizens. Oh, wait! This just in: They will be taken away from sick Americans!”
“[citation needed]” – Wikipedia
“Doctors aren’t like the Petroleum Reserve. We don’t keep them cryogenically frozen, waiting to be unfrozen so they can treat illegals demanding free medical care as the price of hating us. If we rush doctors to the border, they are being rushed away from Americans who need medical care.
How about Democrats compile a list, by name, of the Americans they would like not to see their doctors anymore?”
This is another example of engaging prose that fails to make any sense. Even before thinking about it.
“As a result of this boundless compassion for anyone who is not an American, how many more sick kids are going be dragged by their parents across hundreds of miles of desert just to see an American doctor?…”
There’s a lot of kids within our borders who have to go miles just to see a doctor. And Ann is right, their parents do have to pay out the ass while prisoners, migrants and other freeloaders get care for free. Now, is she saying it’s a BAD thing that the average American can’t afford medical care? What does she propose to do about that?
“And when those kids die, Secretary Nielsen can demand more free medical care for illegals breaking into our country. Instead of having a wall, we’ll have a series of interlocking charity hospitals on the border treating the poor of the world before crossing into a country that didn’t ask for them and doesn’t want them.
“Sorry, America. You lose again. “
Yes. And America will keep on losing as long as the only alternative to liberalism is the “conservative” movement, because if the whip hand of conservatism thinks that Kirstjen Nielsen is too mushy and compassionate, then we’ll never get anything done in this country.
“Ann Coulter is a syndicated columnist and lawyer. “
https://www.theonion.com/law-school-applications-increase-upon-realization-that-1828464779