Coulter crosses line again: "The Only National Emergency Is That Our President Is An Idiot"

[enhanced_deficit]

She had recently insulted sitting POTUS by calling his presidency a "scam" and accusing him of nepotism, corruption etc.
Previously some critics had also hinted about about corruption citing his son-in-law's connections in Israel and some Israeli companies profiting from US border contracts. But no credible proof has been reported in MSM.



Ann Coulter: "The Only National Emergency Is That Our President Is An Idiot"


Coulter told KABC that she was going to change the title on the paperback version of her book to "In Trump We Trusted."

"Thank God he's released me from any responsibility for what he's been doing," she said. "That was the biggest favor anyone could do for me today. The country is over, by the way, that's why."

She said the president was "fooling the rubes with a national emergency."

"Forget the fact that he’s digging his own grave," Coulter said. "The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot."

"This is the worst open borders the country has ever had under the president who ran against open borders," she said.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/02/15/ann_coulter_the_only_national_emergency_is_that_ou r_president_is_an_idiot.html





Related

Ann Coulter: Trump Failing. Don't ask me to lie about it (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531757-Ann-Coulter-Trump-Failing-Don-t-ask-me-to-lie-about-it&)

Coulter calls Trump presidency a "scam" and border agreement Trump's 'Yellow New Deal' (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531471-“Why-would-you-vote-for-him-again-Coulter-calls-border-agreement-Trump-s-Yellow-New-Deal&)

“Why would you [vote for him again]?” the provocative author and columnist asked during a Daily Caller interview on Dec. 20. “To make sure, I don’t know, Ivanka [Trump] and Jared [Kushner] can make money? That seems to be the main point of the presidency at this point.”



https://www.healthguidance.org/hgimages/17589Tired.jpg
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?532149-GOP-Adelson-facing-defections-revolts-as-MAGA-makes-a-quot-low-energy-quot-push-on-Wall-funding&)
GOP-Adelson facing defections, revolts as MAGA makes a "low energy" push on Wall funding (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?532149-GOP-Adelson-facing-defections-revolts-as-MAGA-makes-a-quot-low-energy-quot-push-on-Wall-funding&)

[enhanced_deficit]

While Trump is not perfect, there is growing evidence that he's pretty smart and has always outclassed Pelosi, Schumer, NK's dictator, Mexico, neocons etc during recent negotiation summits and Wall Funding, NAFTA/USMCA, Iraq/Syria exit deals and knows when to hold and when to fold.

[RonZeplin]

She's trying to get on the ticket as Jeb!'s VP in 2020?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbGo8u7W0AA81SK.jpg

[enhanced_deficit]

She's trying to get on the ticket as Jeb!'s VP in 2020?



Jeb's bit low energy when it comes to deal making and negotiation abilities. He's heart is also not as big as MAGA's heart.


But there could be other stronger GOP primary challenges for 2020 depending on economy/debt/spending situation.

[Grandmastersexsay]

I didn't care for Coulter before Trump, when she liked him, and I still don't.


Ann Coulter Declares War on Ron Paul

By Ryan McMaken

June 17, 2011

Ann Coulter, that warmongering demagogue of Conservatism, has declared war on Ron Paul. Naturally, she hates Paul because he stands for peace, free markets and the rule of law. Coulter hates of all of these things since she loves war, the police state, and the destruction of the constitution in pursuit of untrammeled political power for Conservative nationalists. In other words, like most Conservatives, she loves socialism, although she prefers to cloak her socialism in words like "national greatness," "secure borders" and "family values."

In a recent column, Coulter attacks Paul for a variety of his pro-freedom positions. In this column, however, I'll focus only on her wildly inaccurate claims about how marriage is a "legal construct" and how every good American should insist that government maintain its death grip on the institution. She denounces Ron Paul for his insistence that marriage should not be controlled by government and that people should be free to contract with whomever they choose. Coulter of course insists that marriage should be socialized, regulated and controlled by government.

Coulter counters Paul with a claim that "there are reasons we have laws governing important institutions, such as marriage." Well she's right there. There is a reason that governments regulate marriage: Governments couldn't resist the urge to seize control of marriage which was a traditionally religious and non-governmental institution.

Let's briefly examine the history and nature of marriage in the West and see just why we have laws. By "laws" of course, Coulter means secular civil laws. She's not talking about Canon Law or Church Law, which is what governed marriage throughout most of the history of Christendom.

Being a sacrament, marriage was traditionally governed by religious law and was a religious matter. The Church recognized that with marriage being a sacrament, the state had no more right to regulate marriage than it had the right to regulate who could be baptized or who could be ordained a priest.

Indeed, in the Catholic Church to this day, a couple may become sacramentally married without even the presence of any clergy, let alone a government agent. If no clergy is available, couples may simply make vows in the presence of lay witnesses. The marriage is then perfectly valid according to the Church's own law. This further illustrates the traditional, religious status in the West of marriage as a private bond between two persons. There's certainly no state-sponsored marriage certificate required.

Naturally, marriage, being what it is, did nevertheless impact the distribution and ownership of property. Who were the legitimate heirs of a married couple, for example? Could Bastard Jimmy inherit the property of his father instead of First Born Tom who was the child of both dad and his wife? These considerations attracted the state's attention.

The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.

So yes, Ann, there is a reason that governments control marriage: They couldn't keep their mitts off it.

The natural outcome of widespread approval of this state of affairs is that governments are now seen as the institution that can legitimately define marriage itself. We now have civil laws deciding what marriage is and what it is not and who can be married and who can not.

For anyone who has an interest in actually defending the historically traditional status of marriage, this power should be viewed as both dangerous and illegitimate. Thanks to the secularizing efforts of Christian reformers and anti-Christian types throughout history, marriage gradually became for many a civil matter only. Many people get "married" in courthouses in totally non-religious ceremonies. Such marriage contracts are in essence no different from run-of-the-mill legal contracts. The fact that we call such unions "marriage" doesn't make them so. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a religious matter. Some government judge can't make you "married" any more than can your hair dresser. Here, we see that the so-called "traditional" marriage types who nevertheless defend government civil "marriage" (as defined by them) have already sown the seeds of their own defeat. They've already removed the institution of marriage from its traditional role and status.

What they should be arguing for is the removal of civil governments from the marriage bond altogether. Couples who wish to marry should approach their religious authorities about it. Then, if they wish they can join into some kind of civil union, which is just a contract. People who wish to have a civil union but no marriage may enter into that arrangement, and those who wish for a marriage with no civil union should be able to do that as well. Marriage, properly understood, should be considered off limits from government meddling. People are welcome to contract, but if the "defenders" of marriage had done their jobs right, there would be no confusion today about what is marriage and what is a government-approved contractual union.

Unfortunately, though, when Conservatives and Christian Right types bemoan the loss of so-called "traditional" marriage yet agitate for more government control of the institution, they really have only themselves to blame since they're therefore accepting the proposition that government has the legitimate authority to regulate and control marriage. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it.

This fact certainly doesn't stop Coulter. Coulter is such an authoritarian on marriage, in fact, that she even apparently supports government-mandated blood tests as a means of enhancing government control of the institution:

Under [Ron] Paul’s plan, siblings could marry one another, perhaps intentionally, but also perhaps unaware that they were fraternal twins separated and sent to different adoptive families at birth — as actually happened in Britain a few years ago after taking the government-mandated blood test for marriage.

Here she is apparently using a one-in-a-billion event to justify the forced government drawing and analysis of blood and, by extension, government regulation of who may or may not marry. I know that many Americans probably consider mandatory medical procedures to be no big deal, but all that tells us is how willingly Americans will approve of even the most invasive government regulations.

Nevertheless, some states in the United States, such as Colorado, do not mandate such things. In Colorado's case, we have a few vestiges of frontier traditions of freedom left, and we have yet to totally succumb to a traditions of Coulter-esque police-statism.

No blood tests are required, and indeed a couple can become common-law spouses with not much more than a public declaration that the marriage exists. In Coulter's view, this is pure chaos. How Colorado society manages to function without governments checking up on the health and genetics of our betrothed remains an inscrutable mystery.

And Coulter doesn't stop there. While a true defense of marriage would consist of putting it back in the hands of private institutions, that certainly doesn't fly for Coulter who says that "[u]nder Rep. Paul’s plan, your legal rights pertaining to marriage will be decided on a case-by-case basis by judges forced to evaluate the legitimacy of your marriage consecrated by a Wiccan priest — or your tennis coach. (And I think I speak for all Americans when I say we’re looking for ways to get more pointless litigation into our lives.)"

She seems to think that there are no disagreements about the terms and validity of marriage contracts under the present regime. Well, such disagreements do exist and disagreements over legal contracts are decided on a case-by-case basis right now. So Coulter isn't doing anything here other than simply exhibiting her ignorance about the status quo. One could also point out that, while Coulter presents this point as some kind of big deal, all she's really saying is that a more complex and decentralized system would be an inconvenience to some people, and that this therefore justifies more government regulation of our lives. .

Meanwhile, some societies do in fact base marriage decisions on the judgments of religious organizations. Marriage in Israel, for example, is founded on a system in which the validity of marriage is based on whether or not one's marriage is approved by a religious institution. In other words, this is essentially the system that Coulter says only crazy people would support.

Israel's system is far from perfect — there's far too much government involvement — but it is nevertheless a functional and decentralized system.

Why not let your Wiccan "priest" also be considered a legitimate authority for approving marriage? So what? Why is this the state's business? It certainly has no effect on my views about the validity and -dare I say it? – superiority of my own Roman Catholic marriage. Wiccans will disagree with me, but that's their business.

Of course, when you're a Conservative, everything is the state's business from whom you hire (no foreigners!) to what you smoke in your living room, to what your genitals feel like at the airport.

Coulter grudgingly is forced to admit that "eventually — theoretically — there could be private institutions to handle many of these matters" so we're forced to assume that she's unaware that private institutions handled marriage in Western Europe for at least 1,500 years. But this admission also shows that her insistence on government control of marriage isn't actually necessary. It's just her personal preference.

As with most Conservatives, Coulter can't imagine a world in which government isn't a massive overweening institution that regulates the personal decisions of millions of people every minute of every day. Only crazy people want freedom in her mind, and Coulter will be happy to condemn anyone like Ron Paul who dares challenge the status quo.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/06/ryan-mcmaken/ann-coulter-declares-war-on-ron-paul/

[Anti Globalist]

Well Coulter maybe you should have thought twice before getting behind him.

[jmdrake]

I didn't care for Coulter before Trump, when she liked him, and I still don't.

Great article!

[enhanced_deficit]

On a related note, another view that may help defend against such narratives. Beinh inexperienced or even weak is not same as being less bright.



John Bolton Shows the Dangers of a Weak President

Donald Trump is losing the battle against his own executive branch. Chaos is the result.
By Jonathan Bernstein
March 6, 2019

Just how weak a president (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-21/donald-trump-keeps-picking-losing-fights) has Donald Trump become? For an illustration, see a terrific Washington Post article on the foreign-policy decision-making process (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/john-bolton-single-minded-advocate-puts-his-stamp-on-the-national-security-council/2019/03/04/5c59517e-3609-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html?utm_term=.3451cd37444a) since John Bolton became Trump’s national security adviser. Or, rather, the absence of anything resembling a process.
As Heather Hurlburt pointed out (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/03/john-bolton-is-a-terrible-fit-for-his-new-job.html?gtm=bottom&gtm=top) when Bolton took the job, he's ill-suited for it. Bolton is a policy advocate, not the honest broker that the position calls for. That's a particular problem for Trump. Because the president is inexperienced in national-security matters, he doesn’t know whether Bolton is speaking for the experts on a policy question or just advocating for his own preferences. Because Trump knows little about the executive branch, Bolton can use his bureaucratic skills to advance his own agenda — including impeding Trump's plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria.


https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...ump-s-weakness (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-06/john-bolton-is-exploiting-donald-trump-s-weakness)

[AngryCanadian]

John Bolton calls Trump because he doesn't want start WW3, nuclear holocaust.

[enhanced_deficit]

John Bolton calls Trump because he doesn't want start WW3, nuclear holocaust.

Looks like you missed some word in this sentence?

Thought Bolton was pretty loyal to MAGA and obeyed all orders of his boss.

[enhanced_deficit]

Well Coulter maybe you should have thought twice before getting behind him.

To be fair, she wasn't just getting behind him, she was worshipping him.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.mp-cdn.net/63/78/8b2af56b6f576504c29f0dd7c844-will-trumps-change-of-position-on-immigration-the-night-of-ann-coulters-in-trump-we-trust-book-l.jpg

[AZJoe]

1096317175277576192

[Swordsmyth]

1096317175277576192

Coulter is an idiot.

[AZJoe]

Its all fake lip service by thew Idiot Trump. Idiot Trump was not interested in building a wall. He had two years with Republican House and Senate. Idiot Trump sat on his @ss for those two years. He didn’t lift a finger when he could have gotten the wall built without any effort at all.

While Idiot Trump gave two minutes of lip service opposition to Republican’ record breaking budget deficits but fully embraced the debt and spend and debt and spend policy without any hesitation. He could have vetoed and “shut down” the government when he actually had a chance of winning. Idiot Trump could have stood for fiscal responsibility when the Republicans controlled Congress and he had a chance of actually achieving it. Idiot Trump could have at least demanded wall funding before signing his U.S. destroying debt exploding record breaking deficit spending bills. These are issues that he could have mobilized the Republican base and Trumpers -- A guaranteed win with the Republican base. The Republicans would have been forced to cave. But no, Trump is an idiot who doesn’t really care about building a wall. He is only interested in pretending but not doing so he can dupe the fools for the 1547th time in row.

Welfare socialist Trump was happy to send $38 billion in welfare for Israel. He wants $5 billion for a wall. Maybe he should have diverted $5 billion of that welfare towards his wall, but no, Idiot Trump has his Israel first/screw America policy.

Idiot Trump had 100s of opportunities to get Wall funding and construction his first two years when Republican party controlled all of Congress, but no, the idiot-in-chief intentionally kept that from happening, intentionally chose not to do so when there was no problem in getting it done. But no, the idiot thought it too important to instead bomb Syria, fund Israel, occupy Syria, occupy Iraq, occupy Afghanistan, ramp up sanctions on Russia, terminate the JCPA treaty, unilaterally terminate the INF treaty, enable Saudi’s genocidal blockade and war on Yemen, fund the Israel government, appoint torture queen and criminal Haspel to head the CIA, appoint neocon poster child Pompeo to run foreign policy, appoint Bolton as Trump’s master as acting de facto president, …. – those are the things that are truly important to the Trump. A wall? – that is only worth some lip service and nothing more from Idiot Trump.

[AngryCanadian]

Its all fake lip service by thew Idiot Trump. Idiot Trump was not interested in building a wall. He had two years with Republican House and Senate. Idiot Trump sat on his @ss for those two years. He didn’t lift a finger when he could have gotten the wall built without any effort at all.

While Idiot Trump gave two minutes of lip service opposition to Republican’ record breaking budget deficits but fully embraced the debt and spend and debt and spend policy without any hesitation. He could have vetoed and “shut down” the government when he actually had a chance of winning. Idiot Trump could have stood for fiscal responsibility when the Republicans controlled Congress and he had a chance of actually achieving it. Idiot Trump could have at least demanded wall funding before signing his U.S. destroying debt exploding record breaking deficit spending bills. These are issues that he could have mobilized the Republican base and Trumpers -- A guaranteed win with the Republican base. The Republicans would have been forced to cave. But no, Trump is an idiot who doesn’t really care about building a wall. He is only interested in pretending but not doing so he can dupe the fools for the 1547th time in row.

Welfare socialist Trump was happy to send $38 billion in welfare for Israel. He wants $5 billion for a wall. Maybe he should have diverted $5 billion of that welfare towards his wall, but no, Idiot Trump has his Israel first/screw America policy.

Idiot Trump had 100s of opportunities to get Wall funding and construction his first two years when Republican party controlled all of Congress, but no, the idiot-in-chief intentionally kept that from happening, intentionally chose not to do so when there was no problem in getting it done. But no, the idiot thought it too important to instead bomb Syria, fund Israel, occupy Syria, occupy Iraq, occupy Afghanistan, ramp up sanctions on Russia, terminate the JCPA treaty, unilaterally terminate the INF treaty, enable Saudi’s genocidal blockade and war on Yemen, fund the Israel government, appoint torture queen and criminal Haspel to head the CIA, appoint neocon poster child Pompeo to run foreign policy, appoint Bolton as Trump’s master as acting de facto president, …. – those are the things that are truly important to the Trump. A wall? – that is only worth some lip service and nothing more from Idiot Trump.

It seems both parties would rather care for Israel and other destructive polices rather then fixing up America, Hench that's why leftists want Open Borders.

[enhanced_deficit]

Coulter is an idiot.

She's wrong so often about MAGA, it's incredible that Fox news still hosts her regularly:




Ann Coulter Says She ‘Bet’ That Donald Trump Would Back Down from Closing the Border
By Jessica Kwong On 4/4/19
https://www.newsweek.com/ann-coulter-chides-donald-trump-backing-down-close-border-threat-1386676




Related

Ann Coulter Says Trump May Have Been ‘Scamming Voters’ With Wall Promise, Predicts He Won’t Be Re-Elected
By Tim Marcin On 12/19/18
https://www.newsweek.com/ann-coulter-donald-trump-border-wall-1265332

[oyarde]

If trump is an idiot , then all these other presidents like Wilson , Roosevelt , Johnson , Nixon and Obama must have been great huh ?

[ATruepatriot]

She's wrong so often about MAGA, it's incredible that Fox news still hosts her regularly:




Ann Coulter Says She ‘Bet’ That Donald Trump Would Back Down from Closing the Border
By Jessica Kwong On 4/4/19
https://www.newsweek.com/ann-coulter-chides-donald-trump-backing-down-close-border-threat-1386676




Related

Ann Coulter Says Trump May Have Been ‘Scamming Voters’ With Wall Promise, Predicts He Won’t Be Re-Elected
By Tim Marcin On 12/19/18
https://www.newsweek.com/ann-coulter-donald-trump-border-wall-1265332

Coulter is an extreme racist. Anything at all that "delays" keeping brown people out pisses her off.

[Stratovarious]

Ann is over the top rude , and Trump is no 'idiot' , however I feel like he
has fkd America to no end by;

Failing to see Hillary Prosecuted,

letting the swamp deepen

Putting Israel First and allowing the robbery and war crimes to continue

Cutting aid to countries but not Israel , they should have been cut long ago

Allowing the Patriot act to continue

Not defunding DHS, TSA , NSA

Due process after taking the guns

Not killing Obama Care

I'm not seeing the upside to the nepotism either

Trump is not dumb, that's a fact, the one thing Ann is wrong about.

[Superfluous Man]

Ann is over the top rude , and Trump is no 'idiot'

I can't stand Ann Coulter. But her Adam's Apple is smarter than Trump.

[DamianTV]

Lets twist her own words against her then.

"The only real national emergency is that with all this Censorship going on, people like her are the only voices we are allowed to hear."

(For the record, I do not support Censorship)