Ann Coulter: "We Don't Trust You"

When Ann Coulter--Ann Coulter--starts cleaning your clock, it's time to reassess on a fairly fundamental level. Ann Coulter for the love of God!

  Naturally, therefore, my first instinct was to assume that our shared respect for process and decency remained. But I now realize that's wrong.
   In 1994, nearly 60% of Californians voted to deny government services to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 was approved 59% to 41%, with the votes of 56% of African Americans, 57% of Asians -- and even a third of Hispanics. It won in every county of California except San Francisco. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed by a 12-point margin.
   Liberals said: No problem, we'll take the case to a left-wing, Carter-appointed federal judge who will overturn the will of the voters! District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer held that the perfectly constitutional law was "unconstitutional" and, today, California taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars on food, housing, education, health care and prison cells for illegal immigrants.
   In 2008, Californians voted against gay marriage. Again, this was California -- not South Carolina -- and voters decided, 52% to 48%, that "marriage" is not between a mailbox and a chimpanzee, a rhododendron and refrigerator, but only between a man and woman.
   Liberals said to themselves: No problem. We'll just find a gay district court judge to overturn the vote. This will be a piece of cake.
   They also said, Not only are we going to reverse the vote, but we will name and shame the people on the other side (except African Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8, much to the embarrassment of progressives). People found to have donated to the marriage initiative would be driven out of their jobs, fired from high-tech firms they founded, and chased from Mexican restaurants.
   Apparently, everyone born in the last 5,000 years, right up until June 26, 2015, was a hateful bigot.
   Since the 1980s, nearly every time Americans have been allowed to vote on illegal immigration, they've opposed it -- denying government services to illegal aliens, denying bail to illegal aliens, imposing English language requirements, allowing police to request documentation from suspected illegal aliens and on and on and on.
All of these democratically achieved results were met with rage, insults, prejudice -- and often a court overturning the vote.
   This culminated in 2016, when Americans decided to make an utterly preposterous candidate not a mayor or congressman, not even a governor, but president of the United States based on his promise to deport illegal aliens and build a wall.
   We know how that turned out. (Don't weep for Brexit voters. Britons have only been waiting three years to get what they voted for. We've been waiting decades.)
   It's not the underlying issue in any of these examples that's the problem -- it's the flouting of the democratic process. I'm not saying: We trusted you and got a bad result. I am saying: We trusted you, but you abandoned the Constitution and the law to get the result that you could not win honestly.

Specifically, her point is that we know we can't trust them with respect to firearms. And we know this because we know we can't trust them generally. Sad to say, I'm not at all sure she's wrong.