America’s Greatest Blogger (for one day, anyway)

A friend sent me the link to this Ann Coulter site on which, buried in the right hand column for January 3rd, this blog as mentioned under the caption  “America’s Greatest Blogger”. Who am I to disagree, though my gratitude is tempered by the ephemeral nature of that designation.

But kind of fun – do you suppose she was inspired by my great real estate reporting?


Filed under Uncategorized

21 responses to “America’s Greatest Blogger (for one day, anyway)

  1. Anonymous

    I like your wit, thats why I come here.

  2. Walt

    Balloon Head –
    I told you this already. Don’t be getting all cocky and swell headed on us over your new found fame.

    When you start to feel that way, just read some of your “writing”, or update your skills assessment list. Better yet, just look in the mirror!! These will help you stay properly grounded. You ground hog.

    Anyways, did you know Ann was from Connecticut? I find her amusing. Did you ever see her hands? Pretty scary. And I think she may have an Adams apple. But you should ask her out. Let her play with your pistol, maybe?

    Seriously, nice job!!

    You loser.
    Your Pal,

  3. Libertarian Advocate

    BRAVO! But we already knew that. Coulter is behind the curve.

  4. Zoltan

    Ann is a graduate of Connecticut’s best school system:

  5. Peg

    I’m betting she just has the hots for you, Chris.

    Otherwise, surely she would have picked ME!🙂

  6. Al Dente

    I believe that was America’s Greatest Fogger, for your legendary wind-breaking virtuosity.

  7. GFY

    Do you really want to be associated with Ann Coulter?

  8. AJ

    Love her or hate her, she is fast on her feet.

  9. sunbeam43

    I love Ann and she was spot on with her correct estimation of you, Chris Fountain! In my judgment you are, indeed, the best of the many that I, myself, read!!!!! Plaudits!

  10. Publius

    Mr. Fountain,

    It could be proximity bias or your output. You make the call.

  11. Mickster

    How hard did you have to look to find that?
    Keep up the good work – you gun nut you!

  12. Anonymous

    By way of Montana’s Hungry Horse News…

    Because there is much discussion among gun owners of Montana about proposals by Sen. Diane Feinstein and others for Congress to enact various types of gun control, I though you would appreciate knowing what I hear from Montanans about this.

    I speak to you as a person intimately familiar with firearms, with public policy about firearms, as a person accepted in state and federal courts as an expert on firearms, firearms safety and use of force, and as the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, Montana’s primary organization asserting the right to keep and bear arms, also affiliated or associated with the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

    On behalf of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, I wish to express our unequivocal opposition to any ban on any class or type of firearms, any new registration requirements on any class or types of firearms, any restrictions on manufacture, sale or possession of ammunition feeding devices of any configuration or capacity, and any government intrusion into firearm transfers between private citizens. Any congressional actions in any of these areas would be an infringement upon the rights the citizens of Montana have reserved to themselves.

    The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 12 of the Montana Constitution — these sections of these foundational documents are not government permission to keep firearms. They are statements whereby the people have reserved these rights to themselves specifically from government interference.

    These statements do not create any rights, but simply recognize preexisting “natural rights” which are restricted from government interference. As you consider whatever “gun control” (actually people control) may be offered by Sen. Feinstein or others, I hope you will keep these facts clearly in mind.

    “Gun-free zones” are a terrible failure of public policy. Virtually all mass shootings, including the one in Connecticut that has sparked the current wave of media hysteria, happen in places where public policy has incorrectly assured people that they are safe, but where the policy has actually created risk-free zones for madmen, and pools of defenseless victims conveniently offered up for slaughter by failed policy.

    Former police officer Ron Avery says, “The only way to check violence in progress, where the victim can neither hide nor flee, is by equal or greater force in a timely manner.“ If Congress feels compelled to “do something” in the wake of the Connecticut shooting, it should repeal the pretense of all federally-mandated or federally-inspired “gun-free zones.”

    For any inside the Beltway who actually believe in the effectiveness of “gun-free zones,” I recommend that the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, the U.S. Supreme Court and all federal courthouses be declared “gun-free zones,” and that all armed guards and protective personnel in those places be removed. If “gun-free zones” are effective for our kids, they’re good enough for our servants.

    Various gun bans, licensing or registration schemes, and/or bans or restrictions of ammunition feeding devices will fail. I won’t bother you with discussion of the fact that any such restrictions will have no effect on criminals or madmen. I believe you already know that.

    I do hope to inform you about how strongly the gun owners of Montana feel about their right to keep and bear arms. I have asked around among a considerable number of friends, acquaintances and contacts in Montana. I have not learned of anyone who would comply, for example, with a new federal law requiring them to register or surrender their semi-auto rifles to authorities.

    Let me be very clear: Montanans will not comply with any new federal restrictions. The most any such restrictions would do would be to create a huge, new, armed, outlaw class of citizens. And I very much doubt that most Montana law enforcement personnel would cooperate in enforcing any such federal restrictions.

    Clearly, the vast numbers of citizens who have bought new firearms in the past month, especially the hundreds of thousands of expensive semi-auto rifles, did not buy these new firearms simply so they’d have them available to surrender if Congress should pass a law demanding they do so.

    Since Montana law enforcement personnel are unlikely to enforce any such restrictions, the effect of passage of such restrictions would ultimately be for federal officers to come to Montana to enforce them. Because most Montanans will simply not comply with any new federal restraints on a right they have reserved specifically from government interference, the obvious result would be armed conflict between Montanans and federal enforcers. (I offer this not as a threat or a challenge, but simply as an observation.)

    I certainly hope you would not set Montana on the path to an armed conflict with federal enforcers by aiding or supporting passage of any new federal restrictions. That would not be in the best interest of your constituents.

    Instead, if you feel compelled to pass some actually corrective legislation in response to the media hysteria over the Connecticut shooting, I highly recommend that you get rid of those dangerous and illusory “gun free zones.”

    Gary Marbut, of Missoula, is the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

    • Mickster

      I like the idea of creating a “gun-free” zone in DC to see how our fearless leaders would react. Methinks they would be spending far more time in their respective constituencies.

  13. Sorebone

    well earned and probably won’t be the last time!

  14. Balzac

    Great work Chris. You are throwing the bombs where deserved and helping us notice when the emperor goes a-walking without his skivvies.

    Today’s pretend local newspaper the Greenwich Time had a top-of-page-one article about the high school arts coordinator who would lose his job when the town prunes its $140 million education budget by a hair. The point of the article is that this fellow isn’t happy! Imagine that! Truly ground-breaking investigative reporting: the fellow isn’t in favor! Here’s one more indication that the press sees its role as stimulating your emotions, not providing useful information.

    Over at the silly NYTimes, the page one article is about some of those who are speaking out about the government’s exploding and unsustainable debt, which will wreck our economy. The Times wants you to know that some of these activists actually try to minimize their taxes! Again, earth-shattering revelation! One of these people actually works for GE, whose shareholders seek after-tax income (horrors!). Why, Erskine Bowles actually got a paycheck from Morgan Stanley (scandalous!) It appears the NY Times is trying to convince you that anyone who maximizes their income by minimizing their taxes is thereby disqualified from observing the obvious fact that our debt is a ticking time bomb. If the NYTimes were a real paper, they would write often about the real pain to come soon from the Obama debt hangover.

  15. Anonymous

    Ann is from New Canaan so she has a soft spot for a conservative Fairfield County blog.

  16. The Duke of Deception

    Some time ago, The Duke briefly spoke to Ann at Gates Restaurant in New Canaan. Not surprisingly, she was quite pleasant. She’s also a very pretty woman, but maybe a little scrawny for the Duke’s taste, who likes a little meat on dem bones. Is that TMI?

  17. Anonymous

    A compliment from Ann Coulter is a worrisome thing…just a quick review of her crazy, extreme comments will scare any reasonable person.