Ann Coulter, Nativist
Ann Coulter is entitled to her own opinion but not her own facts. Lately she’s been spewing a tsunami of lies about Hispanics and immigrants. She’s liberal with the truth, much like the liberals she constantly whines about.
I am very reluctant to call anyone a racist or a xenophobe. Many liberals do that often, and often when the labels don’t fit. There are plenty of honorable conservatives who are opposed to immigration reform for policy reasons having nothing to do with race. Until a few years ago I was among those opposed to immigration reform, until I learned more about the issue. I believe many conservatives opposed to reform can be won over with credible facts and logic, but they are bombarded with myths and intentionally misleading statistics from Nativist groups.
However, when someone seems obsessed with race, ethnicity, and national origin and keeps repeating the same falsehoods from questionable sources, it becomes apparent the labels racist and xenophobe fit Ann Coulter.
Did Ann Coulter Compare Immigrants to Roaches?
I shook my head in disbelief at Ann Coulter’s 2007 piece Bush’s America: Roach Motel. The title alone insinuates that immigrants are akin to cockroaches. After accusing the highly respected conservative Linda Chavez of race baiting, Ann Coulter promptly proved Linda right by exhibiting prejudice towards Hispanics. Examples:
In 1965, Teddy Kennedy overhauled immigration law with the specific purpose of effecting a dramatic change in the nation’s demographics.
In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner.
One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population.
If liberals think Iraqis are genetically incapable of pulling off even the most rudimentary form of democracy, why do they believe 50 million Mexicans will magically become good Americans, imbued in the nation’s history and culture, upon crossing the Rio Grande? Maybe we should dunk Iraqis in the Rio and see what happens.
Ann Coulter is lying about pre-1965 immigration policy. Starting with legislation passed in 1921 and 1924, strict nation quotas were established, with quotas for European nations only, based on America’s ethnic make-up in 1890, effectively slamming shut the door on most immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, which included many Jews fleeing pogroms.
Harry H. Laughlin
Not surprisingly, Harry Laughlin, the chief architect of the 1924 legislation and a notorious racist and anti-Semite, testified that 83% of Jewish immigrants are feeble minded. Laughlin was later rewarded with an honorary doctorate by Nazi-controlled Heidelberg University, and fought all attempts to allow more Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis into the U.S. Laughlin also founded The Pioneer Fund, which later financed the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, a leading Nativist group, with millions of dollars.
The 1924 National Origins Act also banned immigration by anyone who could not become a naturalized citizen. Since only white people could become naturalized citizens, the pre-1965 immigration policy that Ann Coulter and other Nativists admire so much was blatantly racist. The 1965 law abolished quotas that were blatantly racist, something today’s Nativists whine about constantly.
Not surprisingly, Adolf Hitler was a huge admirer of U.S. immigration policy, writing in his sequel to Mein Kampf:
…the achievements of a thousand racially questionable Europeans cannot equate with the capabilities of a thousand racially first-rate Americans.
By making an immigrant’s ability to set foot on American soil dependent on specific racial requirements on the one hand as well as a certain level of physical health of the individual himself, the bleeding of Europe of its best people has become regulated in a manner that is almost bound by law.
I’m sure if Hitler and Joseph Goebbels were alive today, they would be proud of Ann Coulter and her Nativist pals at FAIR, NumbersUSA, and the Center for Immigration Studies, just as they gushed with enthusiasm for early American progressives and their eugenics agenda of forced sterilizations, anti-miscegenation laws, and limiting immigration to Europeans, heavily weighted towards Nordics. Coulter at times has cited NumbersUSA as a source of facts about immigration.
John Tanton
I call FAIR, NumbersUSA, and CIS groups Nativists, population reduction liberals, and faux conservatives, with a masterful campaign of lies, myths, and disinformation intended to mislead Americans into supporting their immigration reduction agenda. These groups have deep ties to Planned Parenthood and population reduction groups, and their Founder John Tanton has a long track record of eugenics, population reduction, and environmental activism, and bigotry, especially towards Hispanics. Just a few of his infamous quotes:
I’ve come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.
Perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!…As whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?
Ann Coulter and her weird obsession with Hispanic Women and Family Values
In her recent rants, Ann Coulter repeatedly demonstrates an obsession with Hispanic fertility. For example, in Rubio’s amnesty a path to oblivion for GOP she writes:
The vast majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic, and Hispanics have a higher teen birthrate than any other ethnic group. In California, a majority of all Hispanic births are illegitimate. That’s a lot of Democratic voters coming.
In her latest rant, Hispanicked GOP elite: They’ll respect us in the morning, Coulter shows more of her obsession with fertility:
According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2010, for every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women, 80.6 had children out of wedlock, compared to 65.3 for unmarried black women and 29 for unmarried white women.
In America Nears el Tipping Pointo she writes:
More than half of all babies born to Hispanic women today are illegitimate. As Heather MacDonald has shown, the birthrate of Hispanic women is twice that of the rest of the population, and their unwed birthrate is one and a half times that of blacks.
Ann Coulter and Heather MacDonald obviously read “How to Lie With Statistics” because their statistics are very misleading and often taken out of context with relevant facts. Coulter singles out Hispanics for special scorn, particularly teenagers, but CDC statistics show the overwhelming majority of teenage moms of ALL demographics are unmarried, and Hispanic teenage moms are more likely married. CDC statistics for marital status of teenage mothers:
- All races – 88.1%
- White Non-Hispanic – 83.9%
- Black Non-Hispanic – 97.6%
- American Indian or Alaska Native – 80.9%
- Hispanic – 86.3% (Note to Ann Coulter: 86.3% is less than 88.1%!)
The median age of U.S. Hispanics is 27, versus 42 for whites, and 35 for Asians. Younger adults of any demographic have higher birthrates. Hispanics are more likely to marry after having an out-of-wedlock child. Fewer Hispanics are divorced (8.9%) than whites (12.2%), or blacks (12.9%). The unwed birthrate of 36.3% for Hispanic immigrants is 5% less than for native born Americans (41.4%). Ann Coulter claimed the Hispanic unwed birthrate is over half, and the unwed birth rate for Hispanics is 1-1/2 times that of blacks. CDC says 53%, barely half, and far less than CDC’s 72.5% unwed birthrate for blacks. With a 15 year median age difference between whites and Hispanics, 53% is not notably different than 41.4%, as younger women tend to have more out-of-wedlock births.
47.8% of Hispanics are married versus 51.4% in general, reflecting a younger demographic. 56.2% of Hispanic immigrants are married.
82% of U.S. Hispanics are either U.S. Citizens or legal immigrants. Among unauthorized Hispanic immigrants, there is a 60/40% split of men to women. Just 7.5% of U.S. Hispanics are unauthorized immigrant women, so any statistical inferences from the entire Hispanic population are dubious at best.
Perhaps most insulting of all are her claims about Hispanics and welfare. The website Statistic Brain, using statistics from US Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the CATO Institute, reports 38.8% of welfare recipients are white, 39.8% are black, 15.7% are Hispanic, 2.4% are Asian, and 3.3% are “other.” The U.S. Census reports whites are 74.8% of our population, blacks 13.6%, Hispanics are 16%, and Asians 4.8%.
Poverty rates for whites are 13% vs. 38.8% of welfare recipients, 33% for Hispanics versus 15.7% of welfare recipients, and 35% for blacks vs. 39.8% of welfare recipients. In other words, when poverty rates – not population – are considered, the only demographic group that is significantly overrepresented on welfare rolls are whites! Even considering population only, 15.7% of welfare recipients are Hispanic, while 16% of the population is Hispanic. The large majority of Hispanics are either immigrants or 1-2 generations removed, debunking the frequent claim by Coulter and others that Hispanics immigrate here for ‘free stuff’, the vote Democrat to keep the ‘free stuff’ coming. What bunk!
Ann Coulter and her Libel of Latino Values
Coulter again repeats some of the factoids I debunked in Ann Coulter and Her Libel of Latino Family Values. For example, she cites Charles Murray:
Charles Murray recently pointed out that — contrary to stereotype — Hispanics are less likely to be married, less likely to go to church, more supportive of gay marriage and less likely to call themselves “conservative” than other Americans.
Charles Murray
Charles Murray is hardly a credible source on demographics, notorious as a cross burner, and co-author of the widely discredited The Bell Curve, which insinuates blacks are less intelligent than whites, and relied heavily on research funded by the Nazi sympathizing Pioneer Fund. Murray selected the 30-44 age group to make this claim, but the median age for Hispanics is 27. Raoul Lowery Contreras debunked that in his recent op-ed “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the 2012 Labor Participation Rates for men 20 and over are—Hispanics 81.7% and non-Hispanic Whites only 73.9%. Murray purposefully excludes a huge working cohort of the 18-29 age group to make Hispanics look bad.”
Coulter again claims Hispanics are less likely to go to church, but according to Pew Research, 68% of Hispanics say religion is important in their lives (60% for whites), and 44% attend church weekly (40% for whites). Among evangelical Hispanics, the fastest growing religious grouping among Hispanics, the same statistics are 85% and 70%.
Ann Coulter is Completely Ignorant About Hispanic and Asian Voters
Ann Coulter endlessly repeats the Nativist narrative that immigrants invariable vote Democrat. John Tanton, godfather of today’s anti-any-immigrant movement, in a letter boasted of hiring a lobbyist to manipulate Republicans:
The goal is to change Republicans’ perception of immigration so that when they encounter the word “immigrant,” their reaction is “Democrat.”
Our plan is to hire a lobbyist who will carry the following message to Republicans on Capitol Hill and to business leaders: Continued massive immigration will soon cost you political control of the White House and Congress, given the current, even division of the electorate, and the massive infusion of voters about to be made to the Democratic side. We are about to replay the Democratic hegemony of 1933-53, fueled back then by the massive immigration of 1890-1924.
However, George W. Bush and others proved Hispanics can be won over, increasing the GOP vote from 21% in 1996 to 44% in 2004. Before Bush, Abraham Lincoln won over the German immigrant vote, key factors in both is presidential victories though Germans had previously voted Democrat because Whigs and Republicans hadn’t bothered reaching out to them.
At the same time Coulter and others were driving Latinos to leave the GOP in droves, Canada’s Conservative Party woke up and realized they would remain a permanent minority party if they didn’t engage immigrant voters. The Conservative Party was losing the immigrant vote by 4:1 margins, not much different than Mitt Romney’s losses among Hispanics and Asians. By overhauling outreach and making a genuine effort to win immigrant dominant minorities over, Canada’s Conservative Party now splits this demographic with liberals 50/50%, powering Canada’s Conservative Party to become the majority party in recent years.
Ann Coulter would have us believe that immigrants are all genetically wired to vote liberal, but that simply isn’t the case. However, insulting immigrant dominant demographic groups with ridiculous claims about illegitimate births, welfare abuse, etc. does not win votes, and if you don’t ask for someone’s vote but your opposition does, guess who wins that vote?
“Stupid: Letting Your Opponent Define You” - Lin-Dai Kendall, Republican Activist
There is no better example of a prominent conservative leader giving ammunition to liberals to define Republicans as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino than Ann Coulter. When shrill rhetoric like Coulter’s is combined with weak engagement with immigrant heavy demographics, that is a prescription for disaster, just like last November’s debacle. It’s important for all conservatives to make clear Coulter and other Nativists are NOT the face of the GOP. I will continue to call out Ann Coulter and others who disgrace the Party of Lincoln with their neo-know nothing Nativist rantings.
Marco Rubio and others are the new face of the GOP. Marco Rubio grasps the importance of fixing our legal immigration system so that illegal immigration becomes a manageable problem, and also the importance of engaging with demographics that have not voted for the GOP in recent years, such as Hispanics and Asians.
####
Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans
Nice Try, Bob Quasius, at trying to pass Ann Coulter off as a Liberal – but I’m not buying your attempt – and I strongly suspect that most Liberals – won’t buy this piss poor attempt either, Bob.
Ann Coulter IS a CONSERVATIVE – supported in large part by main-stream Republicans – who HAVE a vested interest in Ann Coulter spouting off her NONSENSE from her flappin’ mouth.
I’ll say it, Bob, since you are a tad reluctant to do so – MANY of Ann Coulter’s remarks EXPRESS the RACISM that is ever present within Ann Coulter’s thinking and speaking practices.
Cut it any way that you want to, Bob, and Ann Coulter ALWAYS comes across as a Conservative – supported by the main-stream Republicans.
Just sayin’,
Robert Allen
She is conservative on most issues, but our current immigration system is very much an invention of early modern progressives, very bureaucratic with elements of government controlled labor markets.
True conservatives and libertarians prefer to let free markets determine immigrant and guest worker inflows. Polls consistently show a majority of Republicans support immigration reform including a path to legalization.
The leadership of FAIR, NumbersUSA, and CIS are all deep in bed with liberal environmental and population reduction groups, as well as Planned Parenthood.
The term “liberal with the truth” is a polite way of saying someone lies.
Recent polls, Bob, may show “a majority of Republicans support immigration reform….”, but – the Majority of Republicans in the States of Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, California before the last national election (and more states too, although I don’t have time to further research this, now) – clearly show by the passages of laws by State Houses, State Senates, and signed by Republican State Govenors – show that THESE Majority Republicans – just don’t like Hispanics very much!!!
In Obama’s State of the Union speech, where ol’ Speaker Boehner was HIGHLY visible (upper Right of screen), Speaker Boehner (elected by the majority of the Republicans in the House to be Speaker) didn’t look all that pleased while Obama was speaking about Immigration Reform and certainly did not stand up (as did ol’ Joe [upper Left of screen] did) during Obama’s speaking about Immigration Reform.
I agree with you, Bob, that Immigration Reform is absolutely necessary for this great land of ours – THE Leading Democracy of the Free World!!!
Personally, Bob, I believe that you are doing a kind of a hatchet job on Planned Parenthood by linking them with those ultra-conservative groups of FAIR, NumbersUSA, and CIS – but this is just my personal opinion – and should only be taken as such.
Again, Bob – I STRONGLY support everything that you call Ann Coulter out on — and I personally wish that the main-stream Republicans would shut her down. While they’re at it – they can shut ol’ Rush – and a host of others down too !!!!!
Just sayin’,
Robert Allen
There were at least 32 states with Arizona-style laws introduced as legislation, but how many actually passed? In most cases they failed to even get out of committee, even in states with strong Republican majorities in the legislature.
To me the term progressive refers to the role of government. Conservatives, especially libertarians, want minimal role of government beyond essential services that only government can realistically provide. Progressives view government as a social engineering tool, and thus the notion that government should decide who comes to the U.S. as an immigrant or guest worker, etc.
Groups like FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA want government to restrict immigration even further. Early modern progressives were behind establishing our current system of right quotas, etc., based on their belief in eugenics. I view them as progressive for their role in using government as a tool of social engineering. Real conservatives want labor markets to determine immigration and guest worker inflows, not government bureaucracy.
When I think of Progressives, Bob Quasius, the first person that comes to my mind is Ol’ “Fighting Bob” La Follette, Sr. (June 14, 1855 – June 18, 1925)- Republican from Wisconsin!!!!
Here are a couple of paragraphs from the Wiki on Ol’ “Fighting Bob” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette,_Sr.
Start of quote – “Robert Marion “Fighting Bob”[1] La Follette, Sr. (June 14, 1855 – June 18, 1925) was an American Republican (and later a Progressive) politician. He served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, was the Governor of Wisconsin, and was also a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin (1906 to 1925). He ran for President of the United States as the nominee of his own Progressive Party in 1924, carrying Wisconsin and 17% of the national popular vote….
“Soon after obtaining his law license, he won the Republican nomination to the general election for Dane County District Attorney and went on to win the seat in 1880. After two terms, he went on to be elected to the United States House of Representatives, where he served for three terms. There he was noted for championing Native and African-American rights. His opposition to patronage and his support for a protective tariff helped secure his appointment to the Ways and Means Committee headed by William McKinley, where he helped draft the Tariff Act of 1890 (McKinley Tariff). The Act, however, was so unpopular that he lost his seat in the 1890 Democratic landslide. La Follette championed the rights of minorities and advocated women’s right to vote, despite the unpopularity of his views at the time. After his defeat for a fourth term in the House, La Follette returned to Madison to begin a private law practice and spend more time with his wife and four children. In the early 1890s he began to believe that much of the Republican Party had abandoned the ideals of its anti-slavery origins and become a tool for corporate interests. In his home state, he was convinced industry and railroad interests had too much sway over the party To counter this, La Follette began building an independent organization within the party that stressed voter control.” – End of quote.
So, Bob Quasius – Ol’ “Fightin’ Bob” IS a Republican – and one of my all time Progressive Heros!!
The NEXT Republican Progressive that comes to MY Mind, Bob Quasius is Ol’ Teddy Roosevelt – the 26th Republican President of our Country. Bob, you can probably guess that I’m not such a big fan of Teddy’s Foreign Policies of wavin’ the American Flag, Speaking Softly, but with a Big Stick near-by, and launching America’s OWN – Great White Fleet (with a number of associations to the color of this, can I say it – “White Washed” Battle Fleet) – to circle the globe – and put America on European Maps.
However, Bob Quasius, SOME – NOT All of – Teddy’s Republican Domestic Policies – indeed do strike my fancy.
Here’s how the Wiki starts speaking about Teddy – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt – Start of quote -
“Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt (pron.: /ˈroʊzəvɛlt/ ROH-zə-velt; October 27, 1858 – January 6, 1919) was the 26th President of the United States (1901–1909). He is noted for his exuberant personality, range of interests and achievements, and his leadership of the Progressive Movement, as well as his “cowboy” persona and robust masculinity. He was a leader of the Republican Party and founder of the first incarnation of the short-lived Progressive (“Bull Moose”) Party of 1912. Before becoming President, he held offices at the city, state, and federal levels. Roosevelt’s achievements as a naturalist, explorer, hunter, author, and soldier are as much a part of his fame as any office he held as a politician. Roosevelt was 42 years old when sworn in as President of the United States in 1901, making him the youngest president ever; he beat out the youngest elected president, John F. Kennedy, by only one year. Roosevelt was also the first of only three sitting presidents to have won the Nobel Peace Prize.
“Born into a wealthy family in New York City, Roosevelt was a sickly child who suffered from asthma and stayed at home studying natural history. To compensate for his physical weakness, he embraced a strenuous life. Home-schooled, he became an eager student of nature. He attended Harvard University, where he studied biology, boxed and developed an interest in naval affairs. In 1881, one year out of Harvard, he was elected to the New York State Assembly, where he became a leader of the reform faction of his Republican Party (the “GOP”). His The Naval War of 1812 (1882) established his professional reputation as a serious historian; he wrote numerous books on hunting, the outdoors, and current political issues, as well as frontier history. In 1884, his wife and his mother died on the same day. He left politics and went to the frontier, becoming a rancher in the “Badlands” in the Dakotas. Returning to New York City, he ran for mayor in 1886, finishing third with 60,000 votes. He later gained fame by taking vigorous charge of the city police. At the national level, he was a leader in civil service reform. The Spanish–American War broke out in 1898 while Roosevelt was, effectively, running the Department of the Navy. He promptly resigned and formed the Rough Riders – a volunteer cavalry regiment that fought in Cuba. The war hero was elected governor in 1898 and in 1900 was nominated for vice president. He successfully energized the GOP base as a highly visible campaigner to reelect President William McKinley on a platform of high tariffs, the gold standard, imperialism, prosperity at home and victory abroad.” – End of Quote.
So you see, Bob Quasis, there are a number of Republican Progressives who I believe have done a great deal for this great land of ours. AND, Bob, these Republican Progressives FIRMLY BELIEVED that Government COULD and WOULD push a number of Progressive orientations into the fore-front of American Politics!!!!
Just sharin’ some American History,
Robert Allen
PS. Bob, I’m currently working on what I am labeling the “Billy Graham” chapter for my book (for lack of a catchy title) on the Cold War. I’m hot in my research on the Four Protestant Awakenings within the History of American – from the Plymouth Pilgrims to Billy Graham. Right now I’m lingering within American History from say 1835 – 1920 – and naturally, our United States’ Progressive Period falls right within that time span. The Research for this chapter is going well – and I’ve got the first eight pages or so, written.
I view progressives as those who want government to play a bigger role in our lives, running our economy, etc., while conservatives and particularly libertarians want much less government. Before the progressive era, America had few immigration laws, mostly about keeping out criminals, prostitutes, beggars, etc. During the progressive era, based on their beliefs in eugenics, Congress passed a series of laws designed to keep out nationals of nations they deemed inferior, starting with the Chinese exclusion law, and culminating in the National Origins Act of 1924, which remained largely intact until 1965.
Bob, I believe that the Progressive Period within American History is seen as from about the 1890s – 1930s – fading rather rapidly from 1920 – 1930. These were the Republican Presidents during that time:
1.)Benjamin Harrison (1889–1893);
2.)William McKinley (1897–1901);
3.)Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909);
4.)William Howard Taft (1909–1913);
5.)Warren G. Harding (1921–1923);
6.)Calvin Coolidge (1923–1929); and
7.)Herbert Hoover (1929–1933).
These were the Democratic Presidents during that time:
1.)Grover Cleveland (1885–1889), (1893–1897); and
2.)Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921).
That’s a 7 to 2 Republican margin, Bob.
AND, Bob, from 1891 – 1933 – Republicans controlled the House – for 32 years, while Democrats controlled the House for only 10 years. AND, Bob, during this same 1891 – 1933 period – Republicans controlled the Senate for 32 years, while the Democrats controlled the Senate for only 8 years.
Interestingly, Bob – Democratic controll of both the House and the Senate – happen only during – 1893-1897(House), 1895-1897(Senate); and 1911-1917.
Again, Bob, an Overwhelming Republican lead in the House and Senate and Presidency – during much of the time that the laws that you speak about – find passage into law.
So, Bob, even though 1890 – 1930 is the Progressive Era in America – Republicans have an overwhelming lead and control in this same period.
Just observin’,
Robert Allen
While I understand some of her concerns, perhaps the biggest problem with Coulter is her delivery. The old adage: It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.
There are ways to disagree without being on the constant offensive, and offensive is an appropriate word.
Ann Coulter is not only offensive in her delivery, but factually challenged on the immigration and Hispanics.
Several blog posts from our site debunk various claims she has made. A new blog post from today debunks her claim that George H.W. Bush repealed the English requirement for naturalization in 1990, which he did not. You might want to read these too:
Ann Coulter Insults Naturalized Citizens
Ann Coulter and Her Amazing Ignorance of Hispanics and Immigration
Ann Coulter and Her Libel of Latino Family Values
Ann Coulter’s Progressive Problem
And Chris Sandys – DON’T forget the oldies, but goodies. (Bob Quasius doesn’t toot his own horn nearly enough – some I’m goina do some of that)!!!
Bob Quasius – called out BOTH – Ann Coulter (Republican) and Eva Longoria (Democrat) – for saying Stupid and Obnoxious things !!!!!
Eva – appologized to Bob Quasius and to the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space – AND – indicated that she (Eva) wanted to work with Bob Q. and the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space – after the election – ON Imigration Reform issues !!!!
Ann – on the other hand – DOESN’T even Recognize – the existence of EITHER Bob Quasius or the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space !!!!!
The ONLY difference that I can see between Eva and Ann (other than Eva being Democratic and Ann being Republican) IS – that Eva has an Hispanic background – while Ann – is Lily While and Pure as the diven snow – AND RACIST !!!!!
Here’s one of several links – http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/eva-longoria-offers-an-olive-branch-to-mitt-romney-supporters – on THIS ISSUE !!
Here’s Another link – same issues – http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/ann-coulters-stupid-tweet.
Here’s Another link – same issues – http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/pro-immigrant-group-demands-apology-from-eva-longoria.
AS ALWAYS – Bob Quasius – shows a constant and steady orientation throughout all of these threads !!!!!
Enjoying memory lane,
Robert Allen
Good point Bobby… if Ann Coulter had any class at all, she would apologize. I’m not going to hold my breather waiting for that though…
Obviously, Bob, when it comes to Class – Eva, having an Hispanic background, demonstrates that she has the class and graciousness to apologize to you and the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space.
Ann, on the other hand, with her PURE Lily White, Nativist, and RACIST background – lacks both Class and Graciousness.
Eva has what it takes to make America Great and Proud. Ann – well Ann is just another Ugly American (in MORE ways than one)!!!!!