Ann Coulter is too “black pill” sometimes

Ann Coulter plays a valuable role vis-à-vis Trump: She keeps him honest on immigration. It’s good to have people on your side who always remember to keep the pressure on in the right direction.


Coulter’s latest Goes Too Far.

She has believed the hysterical worst-case interpretations of the recently signed budget deal without reading what it actually says. I understand the reaction because that was my reaction at first too. But check out the links below that actually get into the details. The upshot is that while it has some bad features, it’s not the disaster that some on the right believe. Read the actual text, and listen to what actual LEOs say, people!

(1) At Fox News, a DHS official provides a per contrarum on the poison pill alarm:

(2) Your humble blog proprietor: Wall Good, Budget Bill Bad, But Maybe Not as Bad as Feared:

The second problem with Coulter’s piece is that she simply ignores that Trump has gotten funding for the wall, and has declared an emergency to free up more funding!

She says,

“Trump also promised an executive order on anchor babies. As with the wall, we’re still waiting.”

President Trump has declared a state of emergency, you silly goose! He’s doing it! Coulter, you don’t have to worry that he might not declare a state of emergency to build more wall: He did it! He. Has. Done. It. It has been done!

You can relax about that! Yes, we on the right have been burned many times over the decades. Yes, we must always stay vigilant for betrayal; we can never let our guard down. But it’s counterproductive, and bad for morale, when your vigilance is so extreme that you won’t let yourself perceive victories, but force yourself to hallucinate that they’re actually defeats.

It’s one thing to have a sensitive betrayal detection system. That’s appropriate, given how often we’ve been betrayed in the past.

But it’s another thing to have a betrayal detection system that always says “This is a betrayal!” no matter what happens. That’s not a “detection system.”

When your “detection system” looks like this:


Then something has gone wrong.

For fuck’s sake, Coulter, false negatives are a problem, but so are false positives! We’ve got to try to be accurate.

And when you shriek that everything is a poison pill, your warnings about the real poison pills – there are some in the bill – will be drowned out in the noise, or simply ignored.

Now get back on track, will you? Year in and year out, you’re one of the more valuable voices on the right. And a major reason for this is that you’re usually so fact-based and knowledgeable.

Stay vigilant, but please, cut out the hysteria.


The bill contains a poison pill. Trump should use Emergency funds to get around it.

The short version: The bill says that in certain areas in Texas, “You can’t spend this bill’s wall money before September 30, 2019, and you can’t spend it after September 30, 2019 either.” And you can’t spend it on September 30, 2019 unless the word “until” is interpreted in a certain way.

The details:

From the bill:

7 The following sums in this Act are appropriated, out
8 of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
9 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019.


SEC. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in
this Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the
current fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.

Here are the specifics on the already-infamous “negotiate until September” part of the bill:

SEC. 232. (a) Prior to use of any funds made avail-
able by this Act for the construction of physical barriers
within the city limits of any city or census designated place
described in subsection ( c)
[SEE BELOW], the Department of Homeland
Security and the local elected officials of such a city or
census designated place shall confer and seek to reach mu-
tual agreement regarding the design and alignment of
physical barriers within that city or the census designated
place (as the case may be). Such consultations shall con-
tinue until September 30, 2019 ( or until agreement is
reached, if earlier) and may be extended beyond that date
by agreement of the parties, and no funds made available
in this Act shall be used for such construction while con-
sultations are continuing.

This literally runs down the clock until the funds can no longer be spent.

SEC. 505. Except as otherwise specifically provided
by law, not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances
remaining available at the end of fiscal year 2019, as re-
corded in the financial records at the time of a reprogram-
ming notification, but not later than June 30, 2020, from
appropriations for “Operations and Support” for fiscal
year 2019 in this Act shall remain available through Sep-
tember 30, 2020, in the account and for the purposes for
which the appropriations were provided…

So if I understand all this, it means that any amount of money that Trump would like to apply to wall in the specifically-mentioned areas in Texas (see below), cannot be spent, unless

(1) the “local elected officials” in those areas are amenable to an agreement before 9/30/19 (I suspect they’re all heavily Hispanic that near the border, and therefore Dem. One of them, Salineno, is more than 99% Hispanic.)
(2) Trump can swing a way to build the wall outside of the “city or the census designated place”
(3) he simply uses funds freed up by the emergency declaration
(4) we can use half the desired funds, up through 9/30/2020. Hmm, does that mean the good guys can simply request double the money they think they need for those areas, then get half of that?

Also, what exactly does it mean for funds to be appropriated, obligated, encumbered, and/or authorized? All these terms come up in budgeting, and it’s not clear what exactly their import would be in this context. Can funds be requested/ encumbered/ whatever for wall even while “consultations” are underway? Any accountants out there who want to chime in?

Let’s look at the specific places mentioned. From later in Section 232:

(c) The cities and census designated place described
in this subsection are as follows:
(1) Roma, Texas.
(2) Rio Grande City, Texas.
(3) Escobares, Texas.
( 4) La Grulla, Texas.
(5) The census designated place of Salineno, Texas.

The second hit in Google for Roma, Texas is

Roma, Texas: A Smuggler’s Paradise

Fucking great.

Roma borders the Rio Grande, i.e. borders Mexico:,+TX+78584/@26.4217324,-99.039651,13z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86646e1008049ee3:0xe66708d7b6fcc558!8m2!3d26.4088523!4d-99.0156554
so there’s no way to build wall along that stretch of border without it being within city limits.

This is a naked, blatant requirement that illegal immigration be allowed to continue in that town. Presumably it’s the same for the others.

From online maps:
I guesstimate the total Mexican border of Roma at 3 miles.
Escobares, 1 mile.
Rio Grande City, about 3 miles.
La Grulla, less than 500 feet. The city is weirdly gerrymandered so that it has a long, thin arm that stretches to the Rio Grande.
The census designated place of Salineno, Texas. About 1.5 miles.

There are things that can be done, as noted above, and this bill doesn’t make the situation worse. But still:

President Trump should make public the cheap trick in this bad faith bill. Use Twitter, use a special address, use the White House web page, everything. By any reasonable standard, he now has carte blanche to stop “negotiating” with Democrats and to go “unilateral” on anything pertaining to immigration and border security.

Wall Good, Budget Bill Bad, But Maybe Not as Bad as Feared

Wall good. “Compromise budget bill” bad, but perhaps not nearly as bad as early reports indicated.

Here’s the text of the bill, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019.” It’s more than 1,000 pages, pdf file:
(Note if you’re re-directed to, the word search function doesn’t work. I had to download a copy to do searches.)

(Found via Props to CBS for providing the link, which no other “news” source did.)

1) I did a word search for sponsor in the text of the bill, found this:

SEC. 224. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act
12 or any other Act, or provided from any accounts in the
13 Treasury of the United States derived by the collection
14 of fees available to the components funded by this Act,
15 may be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to
16 place in detention, remove, refer for a decision whether
17 to initiate removal proceedings, or initiate removal pro-
18 ceedings against a sponsor, potential sponsor, or member
19 of a household of a sponsor or potential sponsor of an un-
20 accompanied alien child ( as defined in section 462 (g) of
21 the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g)))
22 based on information shared by the Secretary of Health
23 and Human Services.

I think that “based on information shared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services” is key. If you ignore that, then this says that an illegal just has to say “I live in a household with a potential sponsor of a minor, so you can’t deport me.” But look at that last clause. That seems to just mean that if a person shows up in an HHS database of STDs or something and ICE gets their hands on that database, they can’t deport the person based solely on that info. Hmm. Why the fuck Congress wants to protect people running around with herpes (or fucking Ebola or whatever) is beyond me, but hey, they’re leftists: The less sense it makes, the more they like it.

2) SEC. 231. None of the funds made available by this Act or prior Acts are available for the construction of pedestrian fencing-
(1) within the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge;
(2) within the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park;
(3) within La Lomita Historical park;
(4) within the National Butterfly Center; or
(5) within or east of the Vista del Mar Ranch tract of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge.

First, note that “None of the funds made available by this Act or prior Acts are available for the construction.” That doesn’t say anything about funds re-allocated by, oh I don’t know, let’s say an Emergency declaration by the President! For those of you who just got back from a trip to Epsilon Eridani, he pulled the trigger on that earlier today! FUCKING SWEET!

Second, I checked the size and location of these areas, to get at their importance to invaders. To an extent, enforcement manpower can be substituted for a wall, of course. So it depends on the length of border that’s left un-walled by this part. Here’s what I found, which is basically that it only amounts to a few miles:

(1) The Santa Ana one: This border is on the Rio Grande. It’s hard to judge scale, but I think, judging from Google maps, the arc length of the winding river border would work out to a couple of miles.,-98.1685208,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xb06ad8e91077e584!8m2!3d26.0732056!4d-98.1495308

(2) the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park looks to be about 1,500 feet of border:,-98.3895777,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86650759cb11cce1:0x3b257ea3108a5124!8m2!3d26.185498!4d-98.3794443

And the park does not actually abut the Rio Grande. There’s some space in between the edge of the park and the river. Now read the language again: barrier cannot be built “within the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park.” So this is fine as long as Trumpy and his homies realize it. And of course they will, since the first thing they’ll do is bust out a map and look at all this stuff. In fact, one hopes that’s what they did in the first place.

(3) within La Lomita Historical park: This is a tiny little thing, and it doesn’t abut the border anyway:,+Mission,+TX+78572/@26.1575951,-98.3330924,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x86650794d543f425:0xf6c385194f8a9c4c!8m2!3d26.157631!4d-98.330918

(4) within the National Butterfly Center: The Google map only shows the main building, and you can’t tell whether the park abuts the US-Mexico border.,-98.3675923,18z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x8665a9d8fb962ef9:0x4f83ecdabad3ac0d!8m2!3d26.179835!4d-98.3664926
Here’s the map at the Center’s webpage. It looks like it abuts the Rio Grande, so yes, it abuts the border:

And apparently wall segments were going to go up there, so it was a desirable place for a wall. Grrr.

“Heavy equipment operators began bulldozing trees in recent days near the city of Mission under a contract to build 6 miles of wall that eventually was to cut through the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley park and the butterfly center.
The 6-mile section is part of a project approved by Congress last year to build 33 miles of wall in the Rio Grande Valley.
Cuellar’s budget amendment voids wall-construction contracts in the protected areas.
…The sites hug the Rio Grande…”

Asshole. But manageable.

(5) within or east of the Vista del Mar Ranch tract of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Not sure about this. Doesn’t seem to be anywhere near the border. This is puzzling, or it’s a clever ploy to literally forbid any wall “east of” that point at all, as opposed to “east of” it within the Refuge.,+vista+del+mar/@26.1152364,-97.8131186,11z
The Refuge does not border Mexico. A prohibition on a wall “east of” the refuge can simply be avoided by noting that one would want to build a wall to the southeast, not to the east.

So yeah, some stretches will be wall-less, but they only amount to a few miles, and with wall going up elsewhere, manpower can be re-assigned to wall-less stretches to an extent. So, an inconvenience, not a disaster.

3) Requires Trump Admin to try to negotiate with local officials until September 2019 or until an agreement is reached. As a practical matter, this means we can’t start building it in certain places until September:
Well, that’s obnoxious, but some people were resigned to waiting that long anyway.

I want to check some other shit then maybe will update or add a second post later.

Addendum February 23, 2019: A DHS official explains why people shouldn’t panic over this bill:

Red Pill in Fiction: Cheesy Romance Novel Covers

…with a couple of non-romance ones because I was on a roll.

“If I apply pressure to her carotid artery, like so, I can knock her out and make off with the cash.”

And stop stealing novel titles from Rush songs!

“The name’s Black Lily. My pronouns are them and they, and with a few more weeks of hormone treatments, my doctor says I’ll start lactating.”


Matteo was more muscle than brain, and the evening went downhill when he attempted intercourse with her neck vertebrae.

Vanessa was beautiful, but her hearing wasn’t so great.

“And must you play Van Halen’s ‘House of Pain’ on auto-repeat?”


Um, what? (The funny thing is, this is the actual title.)


“Maybe now he’ll finally notice my boob job.”

“Hopefully if I carry her like this she won’t notice that I’m cross-eyed.”


Answer: No.

“…And once I’ve subdued you like so, I can push you into the water.”


Index page for my Red Pill in Fiction posts:

C. S. Lewis and Clinical Narcissists

C. S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce is about a final split between all things heavenly and all things hellish.

It is told in first person, as an account of a dream. The narrator comes to his senses in a dreary town. The general mood of the inhabitants is quarrelsomeness. Later we learn that this is, of course, hell.

He gets into a conversation with someone who has been there longer, who mentions that he knows two people who journeyed to the house of Napoleon Bonaparte in hell.

“They went up and looked through one of the windows. Napoleon was there all right.”

“What was he doing?”

“Walking up and down— up and down all the time— left-right, left-right— never stopping for a moment. The two chaps watched him for about a year and he never rested. And muttering to himself all the time. ‘It was Soult’s fault. It was Ney’s fault. It was Josephine’s fault. It was the fault of the Russians. It was the fault of the English.’ Like that all the time. Never stopped for a moment. A little, fat man and he looked kind of tired. But he didn’t seem able to stop it.”

Does this remind you of anyone?

Try this:

“They went up and looked through one of the windows. She was there all right.”

“What was she doing?”

“Walking up and down— up and down all the time— left-right, left-right— never stopping for a moment. The two chaps watched her for about a year and she never rested. And muttering to herself all the time. ‘It was Comey’s fault. It was WikiLeaks’s fault. It was Pepe the Frog’s fault. It was the fault of the Russians. It was the fault of misogynists.’ Like that all the time. Never stopped for a moment. A little, fat woman and she looked kind of tired. But she didn’t seem able to stop it.”

Women Hate the Idea of Men Having Standards

Women hate the idea of men having attractiveness standards for women. They freak out at the very idea of men being attracted to some women and not attracted to others.

Many women even seem to think it’s evil, even though, aside from the general outrageousness of that opinion, it’s astonishingly hypocritical – women have pickier standards than men, for fuck’s sake. And it’s not as if one can help one’s attractions. “Attraction is not a choice,” as the dictum goes.

Indeed, this crazy opinion is mostly held by feminists, the vast majority of whom would tell you that we should respect gays’ sexual preference, since they can’t help it. I wonder why they think men can help being attracted to young, healthy women, instead of old or fat ones.

Whatever. I know, I know, it’s not as if feminists care whether feminism makes sense. I should stop being surprised by this sort of shiznit.

Funny how you never see beautiful girls flipping out about male standards, isn’t it?

Enter man-hating whackjob Amy Dickinson, a syndicated “advice columnist.” In March 2018 a female reader wrote to Dickinson that some male students in her MBA program were rumored to have created some sort of hot-or-not list of chicks in the program. The reader admitted that she hadn’t seen the alleged list.

Insane fuckwit Dickinson told the reader that this unseen and possibly non-existent list constituted “harassment,” a “toxic environment,” and “predatory behavior.”

Yes, per this hate-filled crackpot, you’re “harassed” by something that hasn’t happened to you, something that’s not in your environment creates a “toxic environment,” and not wanting to date you constitutes predation.

Here are excerpts from the reader’s insane complaint and Dickinson’s insane response. (If you want to read this puddle of barf, connect the following two strings to re-create the URL:

Dear Amy: I am part of an international MBA program… I just found out that [i.e., heard a rumor that] the men in the program have put together a list, ranking all the women in the program by their looks. I’m furious… that the men… have subjected the women in the program to this.

What do you mean, “subjected”? No woman has seen the list, or you would have mentioned it.

I have been told who [allegedly] started the list, and it has been talked about by a few people, but I haven’t seen this list.

[Emphasis added.]

Others have suggested asking for the expulsion of the men who have contributed to the list…


Dickinson responds:

You have every right to be angry.

What the fuck?

normalizing harassment…

It’s not harassment, shitbrain! The woman hasn’t experienced anything! Other than hearing a rumor that a list might exist somewhere!

creates toxic environments…

…defined as “things that aren’t part of your environment”…

and havens for predatory behavior (which this list absolutely is).

“Predatory behavior” is defined as a lack of any verifiable “behavior” at all. Dickinson wrote that with a straight face. Also, I like how she apparently thinks that a brazen piece of nonsense can be made to seem credible if you add the word “absolutely.” Good one, genius!

Amy Dickinson has not only thought thoughts which I find abhorrent (really, I find them abhorrent), she has written those thoughts down. Furthermore, there is no doubt that she has written them down, because she has deliberately disseminated them in public under her own name. Therefore, according to Dickinson herself, I now have the right to engage in “retaliation” against her. Seriously, the title of her piece is MBA “hot list” calls for retaliation.

The only way this could get any more extreme is if Dickinson said that alleged behavior in the Andromeda galaxy, that’s not even in your backward light-cone, “predates” upon you. (Yes, I know you don’t know what that means, Dickinson; look it up.)

This needs to stop.

WHAT needs to stop!? Someone, somewhere, having an opinion that the reader doesn’t like? WTF?

If you can obtain hard evidence that this list exists,

LOL, yeah, that would be a necessary step, wouldn’t it? Ideally, that step would come before the outrage.

If you aren’t able to receive hard proof of the list, make an appointment with a faculty member and the dean. Insist that they investigate your allegation.

Da fuck? If the university administrator has any balls, the conversation will go something like this:

Insane feminist lunatic: “I heard a rumor that some male students may not find all women equally attractive, and may have expressed opinions about it in a list. I want you to punish those men!”

Administrator: “Have you seen the list?”

Insane feminist lunatic: “Well, I mean, no, I haven’t technically, y’know seen it, but I’ve heard that such a thing exists.”

Administrator: “Get out of my office.”

Dickinson continues,
Don’t get discouraged… be fearless…

Not that there’s anything to be afraid of, but it’s too late for that advice. The chick is sent into paroxysms of hate, fear, and rage that some man, somewhere, may have opinions she doesn’t like. If you’re stressing out over someone thinking something, it’s far too late for “be fearless.”

“I am Woman; hear me roar! I mean, until I get wind of a rumor that someone might have written down an opinion about my attractiveness. Then I collapse into a neurotic mass of quivering nerves, and can’t muster the gumption to do anything but complain to authorities, and hope they solve the problem for me.
But other than that, I am a strong, confident, assertive person!”

When I was in school, at a picnic that had male and female students present, there was a pickup game of touch football among the male students. There was some discussion of the possibility of dividing the players into Shirts and Skins, which was ultimately abandoned. But later, one of the chicks who was there recalled that the female students off on the sideline had had a little chat about which dudes should be Skins and which should be Shirts. So I ran off to the Provost of the University and tried to have those female students expelled. Ha, no. Can you imagine a man doing that? That kind of petty freak-out psychotic blue-nosed totalitarianism is almost entirely a female thing.

As Heartiste has noted, a major purpose of feminism is to restrict male sexuality as much as possible while freeing female sexuality as much as possible. The exchange between Dickinson and her reader is a good illustration of the first half of that observation.