Ann Coulter: Trump Campaigned on America First, but ‘Suddenly Goldman Sachs and Rubio Staffers Are Running Everything’ in the White House

Mansour said that just as Adios, America articulated the frustrations of the American electorate on the issue of immigration and helped propel Donald Trump to victory in 2016, Coulter’s social media posts during the past week have captured the frustration of Trump voters with the president’s apparent retreat from his tough stance on immigration reform.


“I was just reading an article by my friend John Phillips about how the California parole board is looking at releasing one of the Charles Manson killers, and people are arguing against it. I thought, ‘This is what the Trump administration is like every day.’ We have to be on red alert. We have to be drinking espresso coffee all day to make sure our leaders don’t do completely insane things,” Coulter said.

“What is more central to the Trump campaign than ‘build a wall?’” she asked.

“I can’t really watch the news anymore; it’s too depressing,” she confessed. “I think it’s time to go the route of what I’d planned to do if Hillary had won, and just decide the country is over and wash my hands of it. But I did watch Fox News Sunday, and a really great senator, Sen. Roy Blunt – I mean, he’s normally pretty good – his  proposal is that what we need first, before DACA, is a declaration from the president that the border is secure.”

“Are you kidding?” Mansour exclaimed, earning praise from Coulter for having exactly the right reaction to Blunt’s idea.

“You may have seen my Twitter indignation over this saying, ‘No, no, no, Sen. Blunt. This is not what the Trump voters are waiting for. We’re waiting for – what’s it called? What’s it called again? – oh, I know! A wall!” Coulter said.

She asked in exasperation, “Why is it so hard for them to say, ‘A wall’? It’s kind of a primitive technology. It’s been around for about 10,000 years. We want a wall. Trump ran on it. Why are we still fighting for this?”

“And then later, the beating heart of the Trump movement, Guy Benson, said, ‘No, the Trump voters, they’re going to be fine if there’s no wall and a DACA amnesty,” Coulter continued sarcastically. “I just thought, ‘How do you find guests who have been in a coma for three years?’”

Coulter and Mansour mocked the current obsession of the political class with debating the exact meaning of “wall,” much as former President Bill Clinton famously challenged the meaning of the word “is,” in a bid to find something short of building an actual wall that might placate voters.

“I mean, I knew the swamp was going to dig in, and every media outlet – well, except Breitbart News and the Daily Caller and about three talk radio hosts; we knew this was going to happen. These are the columns I was writing soon after Trump was elected – and by the way, all the Trump diehards were denouncing me for them – warning Trump why I was a little nervous when he wasn’t making Kris Kobach his Homeland Security director,” Coulter said.

Instead, she said Trump made such lamentable appointments as naming mass-immigration defender Marc Short to his White House staff.

“Marc Short not only was heavily lobbying the Koch Brothers into making an eight-figure investment into stopping the Trump Train, but Marc Short leapt on the Rubio campaign, which I could end the sentence there, and it would be bad enough,” Coulter charged. “When did he jump on the Rubio campaign? After Chris Christie batted him around like a rag doll at that New Hampshire debate!”

“Now, it’s all NeverTrumpers working there, and personnel is policy, particularly for someone like Donald Trump,” she said of the Trump White House. “I don’t understand it because his instincts have been so good. This was not a quick affectation he adopted for the campaign. He was tweeting against amnesty years before he announced, or at least back when they were pushing the Gang of Eight amnesty.”

“All of his instincts, he was attacked relentlessly, he didn’t back down during the campaign – and then he gets elected president, and suddenly Goldman Sachs and Rubio staffers are running everything, and that bimbo Nikki Haley at the U.N. How can we fight this?” she exclaimed.

Pollak asked if the White House strategy could be seen as an example of Bill Clinton’s fabled “triangulation” strategy, which essentially amounted to staking out a “centrist” position partway between the demands of the political left and right.

“No, I think it’s lazy stupidity,” Coulter replied. “For one thing, just a historical note, when did Bill Clinton triangulate, and on what sorts of things? It was after, thanks to his impressive leadership of the country for the first two years of his administration, the Democrats lost control of Congress for the first time in half a century. The pushback was pretty strong. Here we have exactly the opposite, despite running this candidate who was taking the popular issues.”

“You know, Trump came with a lot of baggage,” she reflected. “Nobody was voting for the Access Hollywood tape. I don’t know how much clearer the voters can make it: we don’t care. Just build a wall, and stop dumping the Third World on us.”

“Which they’ve been trying to communicate in various ways incessantly – blocking three amnesties in a little more than the last decade, throwing Eric Cantor out, and now we’ve put this utterly implausible candidate in the White House. Why? Because of his positions,” she added.

Coulter argued that Trump’s campaign could be seen as a form of “triangulation,” since he was not guided by either party’s dominant ideology.

“He did not take the standard Republican positions. He did not take the standard Democrat positions. What he did was look around and say, ‘Hey, I think I’ll take the popular side of every issue,’” she explained.

“Thus, for example, he didn’t want to cut entitlements. He did not run on tax-cutting. But what do we get? We’re getting all of the Paul Ryan agenda, going straight to tax cuts for the rich. Don’t get me wrong: I love tax cuts, but that’s not why Trump won. People don’t care about taxes if they don’t have jobs,” she said.

“He ran on, well, immigration, immigration, immigration, trade, and not starting any more wars. And we basically have Bush/Clinton out of this guy – because who’s he hiring? People who want to go to war constantly. What was that idiotic bombing in Syria about? At least we got him to back away from starting yet another pointless war. The human meat grinder in Afghanistan. Why do we even have troops in South Korea? He’s not doing the reaching out to Russia. And immigration is a bipartisan issue. Who does it hurt most of all? African Americans,” she argued.

Pollak amplified Coulter’s point by noting that the basic deal currently contemplated by President Trump – amnesty now in exchange for border security later, or even promises to address both issues simultaneously – has been consistently rejected by voters for more than a decade.

“Yes, and Americans aren’t stupid. You’re absolutely right. It makes zero sense to ever be talking about amnesty, or anything else about what you’re going to do with the illegals already here, until you have a wall,” Coulter told Pollak.

“First, there’s a wall. Then we’ll talk about what happens to illegals already here. I’d say deport them, but we can’t even have the discussion until you don’t have more coming, and that is what has happened after every amnesty,” she noted. “I mean, there was a big one in ’86, and there have been small ones since then. DACA led to that enormous border surge that you guys covered heroically while the mainstream media was covering it up, with all the Central Americans crashing the gates and dying in the process.”

“Number one, it has to be border security. Why Trump is doing this, I can’t imagine. Why he didn’t put Kris Kobach as Homeland Security director, why he hired the top leadership of Goldman Sachs and moved them into the White House – I don’t know, but this is not what he ran on. He’s off the Trump Train! Come back!” she cried.

Coulter agreed it was a matter of grave concern that some of the amnesty proposals currently floating around Washington would explode the federal debt by making former illegal aliens eligible for various benefit programs, including Obamacare subsidies, but ultimately, the details matter less than the principles at stake.

“It makes it a million times worse, yes. Don’t get me wrong,” she stressed.

“But Congress could pass an amnesty for one single illegal alien who has just discovered a cure for cancer, and immediately, the ACLU’s migrant rights project, La Raza, one million other organizations – of course, Catholic charities, Lutheran charities – would be bringing lawsuits. It would end up before a Hawaiian judge. He’d say, ‘Oh, no, this isn’t fair. It discriminates on, you know, ability to find cures for cancer. That’s unconstitutional.’ Then it would go to the Ninth Circuit, and suddenly, it’s amnesty for every illegal alien not only here, but all who come in the next 20 years,” she predicted.

“There is no possible way to limit an amnesty, as we found out from the 1986 amnesty. The Ninth Circuit was still accepting hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants under the 1986 amnesty in 2006, 20 years later. Their argument was, ‘It isn’t fair we missed out on the first amnesty just because we weren’t here,’” she noted.

Coulter warned that an amnesty deal could trigger a “chain migration” flood of millions even “before the Ninth Circuit gets ahold of it” because extended family members would quickly be swept into the program along with the much-heralded “Dreamers.”

“They all get to come, and they get to bring all of their extended relatives,” she said. “What else do we have to do to say, ‘No, stop; no more? We put Donald Trump in the White House.’”

Asked what strategy she advised opponents of DACA amnesty to pursue, Coulter chuckled, “I really enjoyed the burning of the MAGA hats.”

“What Breitbart is doing: interviews with the Angel Moms,” she continued. “Long-term, it’s for Trump to have a total housecleaning at the White House and have more than one person any place in the Trump administration who agrees with his entire campaign, as opposed to all the ones who opposed it and lost, or would have lost.”

“That’s short-term, we need a White House housecleaning,” she corrected herself. “Longer term, I think we may have to look at a third party. These are the popular ideas. Trump may not follow his own campaign strategy, but there it is, for any politician willing to take up the cause.”

“As I pointed out recently, even that crazy little fellow Ross Perot, he was ahead in the polls until he started talking about crazy stuff, and that was 20 years ago,” she recalled. “Things have gotten so much worse with immigration. I think the idea of a third party would be absolutely viable now.”

“You don’t have to call it the Trump Party, but it would be the Trump Party because the issues Donald Trump won on – I think it’s a fantastic idea to not have to take the suicidal positions of the Republican Party or the suicidal identity politics of the Democratic Party, and just say, ‘I’m going to run on the popular side of every issue. Does anybody else want to take this issues from me?’ because apparently, neither party does, nor does Trump himself,” Coulter said.

Breitbart News Sunday airs on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 on Sunday evenings from 7-10:00 pm Eastern.

Views: 20

Reply to This


Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester


Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.


Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors. adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service