"...rights are to be conferred not on the basis of whether or not a being can reason or talk, but on the basis of whether or not an animal “can suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do.” Since dogs can suffer in the same way as humans do, we have no right to deny them their right to sexual intimacy with another consenting creature." I'm just guessing that all men Ms. Mikles had contact with considered intimate contact would be suffering. Thus her romance with Rover. I think she probably subjected the poor dog to cruel and incanine punishment. Talk about screwing the pooch!

Jen, I agree with you 'dumbographics' for the MSM. However, the 2012 election showed the clueless and stupid are now the majority.

Ms. Chavez is leaving out some key facts. The AP told the Feds about the story before publishing the story. At the Fed's request, they held it for a few days, until the govt. told them it was no longer a national security threat, but wanted AP to hold it until Obama could announce his greatness in foiling the plot. They no to that, and that's when they got in hot water. Let's face it, there has to be a very limited number of people of the Fed side that had the clearance, and need to know about this operation. Why didn't Holder focus his attention on that side of the investigation? It smacks of a petulatnt vendetta on Obama's part, because the AP stole his thunder. I too, hate leaks, but I also never trust Obama and his thugs to be looking out for our country's best interests.

Well, to paraphrase Mae West, "Is that smoke detecting underwear, or are you just happy to see me?" Now, I could really get behind this waste of taxpayers' money if they could find some way to tailor this smoke detecting underwear to fit that little shrimp running on the treadmill. Because no one should have to eat shrimp that spent their entire life smoking cigarettes or cigars underwater. We all know the danger of whatever-hand smoke from shellfish. If even one life can be saved...

Paul Bunion, After you get through goring your ox, Big Blue, please provide us with real numbers. First of all, you can’t support your “billions of dollars” claim. Second, it’s only because the federal government has insisted in sticking its nose into health care that taxpayers have to pay for any of this. Third, there are several valid scientific studies that show that long-term smokers actually save on healthcare costs by dying earlier than health-Nazis who insist on eating tree bark, and driving others to contemplating suicide by spewing their silly nonsense.

Bill, Excellent point! And how about all those misunderstood self-radicalized terrorists? As Herbet Hoover said, "A chicken in every pot, and explosives in every pressure cooker!" Or, something like that...

Kirk, No, I don't really believe those numbers. As I stated, they were based on Ann saying the Heritage Foundation study projected out to 50 yrs. I think she meant 10 yrs., but I was just trying to compare apples to apples. I don't really believe any numbers the government or think tanks spew. My whole point was, don't compare green peas to watermelons just to make the story more scary, when it's already scary enough. The left does that too often to confuse the low-info types, and I don't like to see smart conservatives like Ann Coulter stooping to those tactics. But, overall the rest of the column was Ann at her best!

Thomas, I think I see what you're saying, but I still don’t think we’re on the same page. First, my low numbers were based on Ann quoting Heritage’s numbers as being projected for 50 yrs. I think you’re correct with the 10 yr. number. But either way, it’s wrong to compare a debt accumulation (Heritage) vs. the $1.4T single year deficit which Ann mentioned. It’s not the same as your tall/short glass analogy. It’s more like giving a thirsty little kid an 8 ounce glass of water, then taking him out to Olympic size pool and telling him that’s how much water he’ll have to drink in lifetime to keep from being thirsty. WARNING: My swimming pool analogy is not based on any scientific calculations! DISCLOSURE: I’m an ardent Ann Coulter fan, so I don’t mean my nitpicking to disparage her.

Sd, You and Ann are both correct. Where Congress seems to get it wrong is to believe there’s an immediate emergency that requires a "Comprehensive" bill to cure all the problems that their lack of attention for previous decades actually created. By now, they should know that any comprehensive bill is doomed to never actually solving the problem. They should be focusing on one well written law (under 100 pages) dealing with REAL border enforcement and employment regulation. Then, a few years later (assuming the first bill worked), then reexamine ways to address the remaining illegals that didn’t already self-deport.

Thomas, I'm sorry, but I can't quite understand the point of post. I don't really know they, theirs and ours are. Please try to clarify, if you wish.

I don't know if anyone pointed this out, but Ann (like many pundits on both sides do) is playing number games here. I'm all against the current immigration bill, but I don't like anyone screwing with numbers in order to scaremonger, or make a point. If Heritage is correct, and 11.5 M immigrants will add $6.3 T to the deficit (she really means debt) over 50 yrs., that's “only” $0.126 T a year to the deficit. Even the higher number (based on 33 M immigrants, which I think is closer to the truth), that would still “only” result in a yearly deficit increase of $0.360 T. Where she goes wrong is comparing those big numbers to the $1.4T deficit in 2009. Now, none of this new debt is acceptable in order to give the illegal immigrants amnesty, but I think Ms. Coulter (and others) should be more honest in presenting the data.