FBI is too Distracted by Watchlists

From Ann Coulter/Breitbart:

Amazing New Breakthrough to Reduce Mass Shootings

As fun as it is to ridicule the FBI for devoting massive resources to chasing down Hillary Clinton’s oppo research while blowing off repeated, specific warnings about school shooter Nikolas Cruz, we’ve put a lot on the agency’s plate.

We’re hauling in nearly 2 million manifestly unvetted Third World immigrants every year, leading to a slew of FBI “Watch Lists” with a million names apiece. In 2015, Director James Comey said that there were ISIS investigations in all 50 states — even Idaho and Alaska! And that’s just one terrorist organization.

Maybe the FBI brass would still be a bunch of incompetent, PC nincompoops if we weren’t dumping millions of psychotic and terrorist foreigners on the country. But even the most efficient organization would have trouble keeping track of the Nikolas Cruzes when our immigration policies require approximately one-third of the country to be constantly watching another third of the country. read more

The Establishment Almost Had Me

By: the Common Constitutionalist:

Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter almost had me convinced the other night. They almost had me. I think even Mark Levin hinted at it.

Elect Republicans, any republican, to Stop Obama’s agenda and get rid of Harry Reid.

Ann Coulter was so animated over it I thought she was going to melt down. She was visibly and mockingly furious with anyone stupid enough not to vote for those like Mitch McConnell, or her love, as she describes him, Scott Brown. All the republicans she is pushing are Chamber of Commerce, big government hacks.

Anyway, this seems to be the refrain from the right, not just from the establishment, but also from conservatives. We must halt the Obama surge and throw out Harry Reid, so let’s hold our collective noses once again and pull the lever.

And then what? And then no one has an answer, because there is no answer and they will not allow that question to be asked.

So, I guess I’ll ask it again. And then what? Republicans take control of the House and Senate and then what? read more

Ann Coulter: The Manchurian Columnist

from GOP USA:

After reading Ann Coulter’s all-out scathing attack on Chris McDaniel and grassroots conservatives yesterday, the question must be asked: What in the world has happened to her? Has her brain been mysteriously rewired by the political elite, like the vice-presidential candidate in Denzel Washington’s remake of The Manchurian Candidate?

First she takes a big fat fee to be the keynote speaker at a big pro-gay extravaganza, Homocon, then endorses Mitt Romney early in the 2012 campaign, and now she condescendingly attacks the tea party. With friends like this …

Worse, her attack on McDaniel and his camp is wrongheaded and unprincipled in almost every respect.

Coulter begins her column this way: read more

Of Ann & Rand

by: the Common Constitutionalist


Ann Coulter was recently on the Sean Hannity television program.


The interview started friendly but quickly turned rather contentious. Coulter told Sean, “If we don’t elect Republicans; I don’t care which Republicans, we will not repeal Obamacare.”


So Ann, are you saying if we elect a Senate full of John McCains, Mitch McConnells and Lindsey Grahams, we will repeal Obamacare? Really?


I’ll answer that. Not a chance! That’s the answer.


She went on to say that we shouldn’t be fighting against Republicans. And then said, actually shouted, that the Republicans, if they gain a majority will balance the budget and do all these conservative things.


Where’s the proof of that? There is none. As a matter of fact, there is the exact opposite, solid proof that they won’t. read more

Christie’s Need to be Loved…By the Left


from: Ann Coulter:

New Jersey governor Chris Christie deserves to be defended. The gravamen of the media’s case against Christie on Bridgegate seems to be that he is a “bully” — which I painstakingly gleaned from the fact that the governor is called a “bully” 1 million times a night on MSNBC and in hundreds of blog postings and New York Times reports.

Christie is not a bully. If anything, he’s a pansy, a man terrified of the liberal media, of Wall Street, of Silicon Valley, of Obama, of Bruce Springsteen, of Mark Zuckerberg, of Chuck Schumer. It’s a good bet he’s afraid of his own shadow. (In fairness, his shadow is probably pretty big and scary.) About the only thing Christie doesn’t seem afraid of is the buffet at Sizzler.

Even Christie’s defenders call him a bully, but in an admiring way. Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly recently said of the governor: “One reason Mitt Romney lost to President Obama was that Governor Romney is too much of a gentleman. He apparently did not have the ‘fire in the belly’ to deliver a knockout blow. But Christie does and is therefore a threat to the Democratic Party.” read more

No Law Like Obamacare

No major legislation has ever been passed like Obamacare — and I’m using the word “passed” pretty loosely.

It became law without both houses ever voting on the same bill. (Say, is the Constitution considered “settled law”?) Not one Republican voted for it — and a lot of Democrats immediately wished they hadn’t.

Historically, big laws have been enacted with large, bipartisan majorities. In 1935, President Roosevelt enacted Social Security with a 372-33 vote in the House and 77-6 in the Senate.

In 1965, Medicare passed in the Senate 70-24 and the House 307-116, with the vast majority of Democrats supporting this Ponzi scheme and Republicans roughly split.

Reagan’s magnificent tax cuts in 1981 — which Democrats now denounce as if they’d been appalled at the time — passed with a vote of 89-11 in the Senate and even 323-107 in the hostile Democratic House. read more

The Kennedy Myth

from: Ann Coulter

Does anyone read anymore? I mean, besides tweets from Anthony Weiner?

During his otherwise excellent commentaries on race in America, Bill O’Reilly, host of the No. 1 cable news show, claimed on Tuesday night that the one person who tried to help African-Americans more than any other was … Robert F. Kennedy!

No one laughed. I guess that’s what they’re teaching these days at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. (I can’t wait to hear how Ted Kennedy helped eradicate drunk driving!)

According to O’Reilly’s Bizarro-World history, Bobby Kennedy was “the guy who was really concerned about African-Americans” and “who really DID SOMETHING. … He went in with the federal government and he cleaned out the rat’s nest that was abusing African-Americans in the South.”

Although this myth has been polished to perfection by the Kennedy PR machine (requiring all Kennedy stories to illustrate either courage or adorableness), it is simply a fact that helping blacks was not the Democrats’ priority. Even the ones who wanted to, such as Bobby and John Kennedy, couldn’t risk upsetting the segregationists, more than 90 percent of whom were Democratic.

The job of actually enforcing civil rights and desegregating Southern schools fell to Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon.

Five years after Eisenhower had shown the Democrats how its done by sending federal troops to desegregate Central High School in Little Rock, Ark., President Kennedy and brother Bobby still dragged their feet in helping James Meredith enter the University of Mississippi.

Continue Reading


A Beltway Moderate Speaks

By: Robert Bowen

With comments by the Common Constutionalist [ ]

Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan staffer Peggy Noonan said in a Wall Street Journal video released Thursday that Mitt Romney “looked Weak today.” She added, “At one point, he had a certain slight grimace on his face when he was taking tough questions from the reporters. And I thought, ‘He looks like Richard Nixon.’ ”

Noonan was referring to Romney’s news conference Wednesday morning were he doubled down on his attacks on President Obama after the killing of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya.

On Fox News Wednesday Noonan said “I don’t feel that Mr. Romney has been doing himself any favors, say in the past few hours, perhaps since last night,” She added, “Sometimes when really bad things happen, when hot things happen, cool words or no words is the way to go.” [ And sometime things just have to be said, whether moderates recoil from it or not ]

She tried to give Romney some advice saying “I think… that in times of great drama and heightened crisis, and in times when something violent has happened to your people, I always think discretion is the better way to go,” Noonan said. “When you step forward in the midst of a political environment and start giving statements on something dramatic and violent that has happened, you’re always leaving yourself open to accusations that you are trying to exploit things politically.” [ Hey Peggy; news flash. Romney will not get a fair hearing from the press, no matter what he says or does not say, as plainly demonstrated by last weeks audio of reporters colluding against him. ]

Noonan knows what she is saying. She worked for Ronald Reagan. In 1980 when the effort to free the hostages in Iran failed because U.S. helicopters crashed in the desert, Reagan did not come out blasting President Carter. Instead, he said that “this is a time for all Americans to come together and mourn the dead Americans and pray for the hostages.” [ There is a difference. Carter was just wholly inept. Obama doesn’t care, nor, it appears, does Hilary Clinton.]

It was not until six full days later that Ronald Reagan made a political statement about how he disagreed with President Carter’s policies. Reagan is Romney’s hero but perhaps not a role model.

Romney came out Tuesday night with a political statement blasting Obama before he knew any of the facts. The next morning after he knew the identity of just one of the victims, he doubled down on his attacks. [ Yes, and it was much worse after just some of the facts were revealed. Frankly he should’ve heve triple-downed, if there is such a thing. ]

When asked about Romney’s statements, President Obama told CBS’s Steve Kroft “Governor Romney has a tendency to shoot before he aims, and as President I learned you can not do that.” [ Really Mr. President? Not like the time when you’re buddy, the professor from Cambridge was arrested, and before anything was known of the incident, you claimed the police acted stupidly. That was a calculated and thoughtful response.]  

Most Republican leaders and politicians have taken a muted posture on the Embassy killings focusing instead on sending condolences and prayers to the families of the slain. However, Romney’s and his running mate Paul Ryan have continued to double down on criticism of the President. [ Well goody for them. We all know, most of the republican leaders are afraid of their own shadows.]

Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and Ann Coulter have come to Romney’s defense, however. The problem with that is that the people that listen to Coulter, Palin, and Limbaugh would vote for Romney over Obama even if Mitt were arrested nude on the Capitol steps for a sex crime, high on drugs, shooting at the police.

The people that listen to Peggy Noonan and other sane and thoughtful voices are independents and persuadable voters that Romney needs. He already has the anti-Obama far right wing and the anti-Islam faction. [ Ah yes. Here we go with the beloved independents. That’s where the election is won. NOT! If old Peggy was such an expert on Reagan she would know that’s not what Ronaldus Magnus did. He boldly proclaimed his

The Number of Great Moderates in History

conservative ideals and ideas and the people followed him, because they knew he meant it. He did not try to couch his speech or move to the beloved center. Ms. Noonan, you may have been a conservative once upon a time, but you’ve been inside the beltway for too long. You, my dear, are a moderate, which is simply a liberal without the courage to admit it.] 

Romney does not look like he is ready for prime time. He looks amateurish and insensitive. He has an empathy problem and this just reinforced that. Obama is President and he is looking Presidential. Romney and Ryan look desperate, political, opportunistic, and unsteady. Romney has failed a test on national TV, in prime time, but he keeps on digging in deeper. [ Wow. Romney is one the most caring and sensistive people in public view that I know of. Here is just one example. From what I understand there are dozens more like it that the general public knows nothing of. ]

Romney’s statement was not a spur of the moment event. He and his campaign had over 12 hours to think it over before he issued the first statement. The reason is conservatives like Limbaugh, Coulter, Palin, and Laura Ingram have been screaming at Romney to “get ideological on Obama.” They want him to attack, attack, and attack–with gloves off. So, that is what he is doing. [ And good for him. Someone needs to call the president out for who he really is.]

Time will tell, but it looks like Romney is getting bad advice. A strong leader would get that advice, but have the wisdom to ignore it given the nature and gravity of the situation. It does not appear right now that Romney is winning hearts and minds with his approach.

[ Peggy, my advice to you is to check in at the nearest moderates nursing home and leave the real conservative thought to those of us that see this country is in real trouble and Romney is our best hope for possibly taking it back from radicals that have taken over.  Maybe the home will give you a group discount if you bring some others with you, like John McCain, John Boehner, Bill Kristol, Mitch McConnell, et al.]

Ann’s Pretzel Logic

I would like to first apologize for the length of this article, but I thought it too important to cut down. Anyway, here we go.

Has the once great conservative voice, Ann Coulter, become a moderate loving, Romney Zombie?

I’d say, evidently so, but you may judge for yourself.

I was going to disect this article myself, when I heard Mark Levin had already done it.

Knowing I could never compete with the intellect of Levin, I will instead pull some exerpts from his brilliant rebuttal of the following.

Due to the length of Levin’s rebuttal, I will, at times, paraphrase.

Three cheers for RomneyCare

by Ann Coulter

If only the Democrats had decided to socialize the food industry or housing, Romneycare would probably still be viewed as a massive triumph for conservative free-market principles — as it was at the time.

Levin: No it wasn’t a triumph for the free-market. Ted Kennedy was one of the main collaborators. He didn’t view it as conservative free-market principles.

It’s not as if we had a beautifully functioning free market in health care until Gov. Mitt Romney came along and wrecked it by requiring that Massachusetts residents purchase their own health insurance.

Levin: I don’t think we have a perfectly functioning  free-market in anything we do. The free-market accepts successes & failures & that there are many imperfect people within that system. That’s part of the brilliance of the free-market. That imperfection is not a justification to detroy it.

In 2007, when Romneycare became law, the federal government alone was already picking up the tab for 45.4 percent of all health care expenditures in the country.

Levin: So…what does that have to do with anything. Did all the other states say, “Hey, that’s a great idea, individual mandates. Let’s all copy Romneycare.” Have any of them copied Romneycare? No.

Until Obamacare, mandatory private health insurance was considered the free-market alternative to the Democrats’ piecemeal socialization of the entire medical industry.

In November 2004, for example, libertarian Ronald Bailey praised mandated private health insurance in Reason magazine, saying that it “could preserve and extend the advantages of a free market with a minimal amount of coercion.”

Levin: Apparently Ronald was wrong, Ann.

A leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped design Romneycare, and its health care analyst, Bob Moffit, flew to Boston for the bill signing.

Levin: What Ann leaves out of her column is that Heritage has since renounced the individual mandate.

Romneycare was also supported by Regina Herzlinger, Harvard Business School professor and health policy analyst for the conservative Manhattan Institute. Herzlinger praised Romneycare for making consumers, not business or government, the primary purchasers of health care.

Levin: Really, Ann. So Herzlinger supported it. But you left somebody out, didn’t you. Jonathan Gruber. Why did you leave Jonathan Gruber out, Ann? Because he’s a leftist? Jonathan Gruber had the biggest role in designing Romneycare of anybody and he was also one of the main architects of Obamacare. He has said publically that there is little difference between the two. Somehow Mr. Gruber didn’t make it into Ann’s piece. Anyway, why does it matter what any of these people thought. We can all think for ourselves, can’t we? The fact is, the only one who bit, was Mitt Romney. If any other Governor adopted such a thing, they’re awfully quiet about it.

The bill passed by 154-2 in the Massachusetts House and unanimously, 37-0, in the Massachusetts Senate — including the vote of Sen. Scott Brown, who won Teddy Kennedy’s seat in the U.S. Senate in January 2010 by pledging to be the “41st vote against Obamacare.”

Levin: So now we’re going to sight Scott Brown who’s feet are firmly planted in the air. Scott Brown voted for Romneycare and against Obamacare. You know why that is? Because his constituants are turning. The more people are invloved in Romneycare, the less they like it. But again, what does that have to do with anything, particularly if you are a Constitutionalist. The fact that anything like Romneycare empowers any government to interfere with your private medical decisions, who cares how many people vote for it. Politicians imposing their will on the people. The Founders rejected all of that.

But because both Obamacare and Romneycare concern the same general topic area — health care — and can be nicknamed (politician’s name plus “care”), Romney’s health care bill is suddenly perceived as virtually the same thing as the widely detested Obamacare. (How about “Romneycare-gate”?)

Levin: You can mock it, Ann, but the architect of both, which you left out of your column, he said they were the same.

As The New York Times put it, “Mr. Romney’s bellicose opposition to ‘Obamacare’ is an almost comical contradiction to his support for the same idea in Massachusetts when he was governor there.” This is like saying state school-choice plans are “the same idea” as the Department of Education.

Levin: No it’s not like saying that. It is like saying it’s the same mind set, that government knows best. Government can and will pass laws and has no respect for the circle of liberty.

One difference between the health care bills is that Romneycare is constitutional and Obamacare is not. True, Obamacare’s unconstitutional provisions are the least of its horrors, but the Constitution still matters to some Americans. (Oh, to be there when someone at the Times discovers this document called “the Constitution”!)

Levin: So what, who cares. Romney says it’s different. You (Romney) says he believes in the tenth amendment, but you don’t believe in the individual and that’s the proiblem. You believe in Utopianism, these impossible fantasies, State run healthcare.

As Rick Santorum has pointed out, states can enact all sorts of laws — including laws banning contraception — without violating the Constitution.

That document places strict limits on what Congress can do, not what the states can do. Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally.

Levin: Well, good for him. It’s a bad idea, period.

The only reason the “individual mandate” has become a malediction is because the legal argument against Obamacare is that Congress has no constitutional authority to force citizens to buy a particular product.

The legal briefs opposing Obamacare argue that someone sitting at home, minding his own business, is not engaged in “commerce … among the several states,” and, therefore, Congress has no authority under the to Commerce Clause force people to buy insurance.

Levin: There is absolutely nothing in American history, including the examples Ann has given, that compels two private parties, an individual & a business to enter into a private contract for goods or services the individual may not want nor the business may not want to give, and none of the examples Ann provides, disputes that.

No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance.

Levin: No, what we’re saying is that people should free to pursue their own interests and to be unmolested by government a much as possible. I’m not even sure why she’s mixing the Constitution with state issue. Maybe she thinks she’s on to something? She’s on to nothing.

States have been forcing people to do things from the beginning of the republic: drilling for the militia, taking blood tests before marriage, paying for public schools, registering property titles and waiting in line for six hours at the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to drive.

Levin: None of these are examples of entities being forced to enter into private contracts with other entities against their will. That has never been done in the history of this country. Are we to reject our principles to defend this man? I don’t believe in three cheers for socialism.

There’s no obvious constitutional difference between a state forcing militia-age males to equip themselves with guns and a state forcing adults in today’s world to equip themselves with health insurance.

The hyperventilating over government-mandated health insurance confuses a legal argument with a policy objection.

If Obamacare were a one-page bill that did nothing but mandate that every American buy health insurance, it would still be unconstitutional, but it wouldn’t be the godawful train wreck that it is. It wouldn’t even be the godawful train wreck that high-speed rail is.

Levin: Some of us have been arguing to the Supreme Court, that this individual mandate changes the relationship of the individual to the government. That government can order you to enter into private contracts against your will, or fine you, penalize you, sick the IRS on you. There is not a single example in history of that. None! What then, would prevent the government from ordering to buy anything? I don’t know. I’ll have to wait for Ann’s next column.

It would not be a 2,000-page, trillion-dollar federal program micromanaging every aspect of health care in America with enormous, unresponsive federal bureaucracies manned by no-show public-sector union members enforcing a mountain of regulations that will bankrupt the country and destroy medical care, as liberals scratch their heads and wonder why Obamacare is costing 20 times more than they expected and doctors are leaving the profession in droves for more lucrative careers, such as video store clerk.

Nothing good has ever come of a 2,000-page bill.

Levin: Really. She just gave a explaination for what is beginning to happen in Massachussetts, albeit, on a smaller level, because it’s a state.

There’s not much governors can do about the collectivist mess Congress has made of health care in this country. They are mere functionaries in the federal government’s health care Leviathan.

Levin: So every governor is compelled to do what Romney did, right? There’s evidently only one response, Romneycare.

A governor can’t repeal or expand the federal tax break given to companies that pay their employees’ health insurance premiums — a tax break denied the self-employed and self-insured.

A governor can’t order the IRS to start recognizing tax deductions for individual health savings accounts.

A governor can’t repeal the 1946 federal law essentially requiring hospitals to provide free medical services to all comers, thus dumping a free-rider problem on the states.

Levin: While a state does have to deal with these things like free hospital care, there are ways to deal with it. Why can’t they garnish wages, seize assets, do all those things for people who really can afford there hospital & medical care, but simply refuse to pay for it.

It was precisely this free-rider problem that Romneycare was designed to address in the only way a governor can. In addition to mandating that everyone purchase health insurance, Romneycare used the $1.2 billion that the state was already spending on medical care for the uninsured to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance for those who couldn’t afford it.

Levin: So as Governor, he was concerned about those poor. It’s just unfair. Sounds just like a liberal. So in the name of fairness & equity, we will create a whole top down government run system. That’s what every Governor would do, right? Problem is, every Governor didn’t do that. You want to look at a Governor whose making real  progress, fighting like hell. Look at Scott Walker in Wisconsin. Where as Teddy Kennedy stood shoulder to shoulder with Mitt, you won’t find anyone like that standing with Scott Walker. Tells you something, doesn’t it.

What went wrong with Romneycare wasn’t a problem in the bill, but a problem in Massachusetts: Democrats.

Levin: That’s precisely the problem. When George Bush opened the door to bailouts, did he think would end with him? Did Mitt really think when he opened the flood gates the water would stop when he left? Just as Bush did, you and he only laid the foundation and set the precedent for future governors and presidents to run with it, as it were.

First, the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature set the threshold for receiving a subsidy so that it included people making just below the median income in the United States, a policy known as “redistribution of income.” For more on this policy, see “Marx, Karl.”

Levin: Gee, that was utterly unpredictable!

Then, liberals destroyed the group-rate, “no frills” private insurance plans allowed under Romneycare (i.e. the only kind of health insurance a normal person would want to buy, but which is banned in most states) by adding dozens of state mandates, including requiring insurers to cover chiropractors and in vitro fertilization — a policy known as “pandering to lobbyists.”

Levin: We know they do these things in advance, Ann, don’t we? DON”T WE!

For more on “pandering” and “lobbyists,” see “Gingrich, Newt.” (Yes, that’s an actual person’s name.)

Romney’s critics, such as Rick Santorum, charge that the governor should have known that Democrats would wreck whatever reforms he attempted.

Levin: Gee, ya think?

They have, but no more than they would have wrecked health care in Massachusetts without Romneycare. Democrats could use a sunny day as an excuse to destroy the free market, redistribute income and pander to lobbyists. Does that mean Republicans should never try to reform anything and start denouncing sunny days?

Levin: That’s your defense? Liberals & democrats will do what they always do. Is this why we elect republicans? This isn’t reform, it’s big government. This is absurd!

Santorum has boasted of his role in passing welfare reform in the 1990s. You know what the Democrats’ 2009 stimulus bill dismantled? That’s right: the welfare reform that passed in the 1990s.

Levin: Isn’t that interesting. Santorum tried to undo the welfare state. She says because liberals can undo it, why bother. Liberals try to undo a lot, but we must fight the good fight. Romneycare was not the good fight.

The problem isn’t health insurance mandates. The problem isn’t Romneycare. The problem isn’t welfare reform. The problem is Democrats.

Levin: Actually, Ann, the problem is leftists and republicans who play along with them. Shame, shame, shame.

What’s Ann Been Smokin?

What’s Happened to Ann Coulter?
From Godfather Politics:

On a Sunday morning appearance on “Fox & Friends,” conservative columnist Ann Coulter tried unsuccessfully to explain why Romney got beaten by Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina GOP presidential primary. Here’s what she said:

“Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall.”

When I first heard this, I thought the article was about Catherine Coulter, the mystery writer.

Ann Coulter is the queen of the “snotty remark.” Her entire career has been built on the quick retort, the turn of a clever phrase, and buckets of snotty remarks. Coulter is the epitome of the put down. She has described herself as a polemicist who likes to “stir up the pot” and does not “pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do.”

Consider some of her books: Slander, Treason, and Godless. They are appropriately snotty titles. Maybe Coulter
doesn’t like the competition from a politician who can out-snot her.

Who is Coulter supporting? Romney. You all know the run-down on Romney. This is not to say that Gingrich doesn’t have his own load of excess baggage. What many people like about Gingrich is that he’s not afraid to take on the media.

Something has happened to Coulter in the past year or two. She began to move leftward. Maybe she was trying to broaden her speaking options. She used to get pies in the face by liberal groups. Now she’s invited to speak at their conferences.

For example, she spoke at GOProud’s HOMOCON
2010. This engagement resulted in her removal from World Net Daily’s “Taking America Back” conference. It is unfortunate that Coulter is willing to be a vehicle of legitimacy for a group that certainly goes against the foundation of conservatism.

Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, had this to say about the incident:

“Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about ‘taking America back’ when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very ‘unconservative’ agenda represented by GOProud. The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning.”

Asked by Farah why she was speaking to GOProud, Coulter said: “They hired me to give a speech, so I’m giving a speech. I do it all the time.”

She went on to say, “I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don’t endorse their views. I’ve spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion.”

Soon after, Coulter joined the board of the pro-homosexual GOProud. “I am honored to serve in this capacity on GOProud’s Advisory Council, and look forward to being the queen of fabulous,” Coulter said in a statement.

Coulter can’t be trusted as a reliable conservative voice.