Dear Ann,

I can't really say I'm your biggest fan. Beginning when you published an article two years ago that completely bashed the sport of soccer. You outlined nine points that illustrated your very obvious dislike and disrespect for the game I love. However, instead of basing your opinions on logical reasons you tended to fall back on statements that lampooned gender equality, liberalism, and incorrect statements pertaining to race that seemed to insinuate racial and cultural divides in the soccer support system. However, though I found what you stated in your article to be slightly offensive and comical, I could respect what you said because I'm a firm believer that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that our First Amendment rights should always be upheld and acknowledged.

That was my first experience with you. This past Friday you attended, and spoke at, Washington and Lee University's 2016 Republican Mock Convention. As a state delegate, I had the privilege to have a great view of the podium and was excited to hear what each speaker had to say. Unfortunately, when it was your turn to speak, I was absolutely shocked by the things you had to say. Similarly to your article regarding soccer, you failed to base your speech on the hard facts and instead you let loose a dialogue of political rhetoric that was aimed at stirring up emotions, not necessarily proving a point. Though you touched on many important topics that will certainly play a part in the upcoming presidential election, you did so in a manner that relied on crude humor and disrespectful and derogatory statements. In doing so, you shocked an extremely conservative environment of respectful, politically minded students and supporters into booing you out of the room.

Before delving into what, I believe, are the most controversial things you had to say, I will acknowledge that I can be categorized as politically liberal. However, I believe that after experiencing my fellow students' reactions to your speech that perhaps the reason you were booed off stage has more to do with the way you phrased your argument and less to do with the room aligning with either conservative or liberal ideology.

You started your speech off with a bang, insinuating that gay marriage was not legal under the constitution and bashing President Obama, who you should remember, inherited a country in the midst of an economic crisis, with mounting debt, and a costly war in Iraq that was was becoming a war of prolonged military occupation instead of a war with any type of forward progression and foreseeable end. A situation that he was left with as a result of the very republican president George W. Bush's time in office. However, that's neither here nor there because you quickly moved on to your main topic of contention: immigration.

Well Ann, you really did a number once you got to the topic of immigration. I don't really know what I expected you would say after you stated, "People from these third world countries are used to being bossed around by autocratic governments, voting tribally, and they are coming here [The United States] and voting tribally again." and "the democrats are bringing in more than a million new immigrants from very backward cultures every year, every year." but I can tell you, I didn't expect that it would become more derogatory from that point on. These statements only served to reiterate your lack of understanding regarding the state of other cultures and, from an anthropological standpoint your statements, are not only offensive but they're a perfect example of someone who can't seem to see beyond her own cultural lens.

Despite your somewhat offensive start, at times, you made sense and provided an interesting nonpartisan view to why both republicans and democrats support immigration stating, "Everyone in favor of our current immigration policies is in it for his own reasons. The democrats want it for the voters, the plutocrats, the rich, want it for the cheap labor, and the republicans want it for the campaign donations. You will notice that none of these reasons have anything to do with what's good for the country." While it may not be the most accurate explanation, it was a welcome deviation from the one-sided approach you had held, for the most part, up to that time.

However, you quickly returned to using crude analogies such as "anchor babies" saying, "Everyone was hysterical when Donald Trump used the phrase "anchor babies." They don't want people to notice what anchor babies are, that citizenship in the greatest country in the world is based on a game of Red Rover with the border patrol. Haha, haha I made it through, I dropped a baby. You can't deport me, I can collect welfare haha. That's how citizenship is decided!" Ann, I know that this concept is well talked about and does occur at times. However, "dropping a baby" is not the main way citizenship is this great nation is obtained. The United States has a lengthy naturalization process and, for the most part, it is through this old and respected practice that many citizens earn citizenship.

From here on, you made numerous other insulting analogies. Including likening extended families and considering your third cousin family to "tribal reunifications" and "third world stuff." You didn't stop there, you also brought up "blind midgets" (though there is nothing insulting or wrong about being a blind little person, you belittled their handicaps and attempted to make them the butt of a bad joke) and comparing immigrants who use to welfare to "rat feces" in food. Despite already offending numerous different groups of people you couldn't help bringing up race either could you? I would love to know exactly what you thought there was to gain by saying, "Immigrants are showing up not only with a lot of needs but a lot of grievances. They seem to think they're black." There was absolutely no reason to make a statement of that nature.

Interestingly enough, you seemed to justify all of your condescending and insulting comments under the statement that Trump is not afraid to be rude and neither are you. It's not a matter of being rude. It's not a matter of being PC or politically correct. It's a matter of being respectful of others, of understanding different viewpoints, and attempting to make our great nation a better place. When it comes to how to do that last part we obviously encounter a dichotomy in opinion, however, I don't think it's is too much to ask for you, and other people these days, to use their platform to spread positive messages. You have the power to sway opinions and instead of attempting to bring about real, positive change (again our definition of this may differ) instead all you did when you spoke on Friday was share hatred, racism, crude jokes, endorse the belittlement of countries that you deemed less important than ours. Furthermore, you made light of serious issues, such as migrant crises that are a result of very real and very dangerous and devastating circumstances that the likes of which the United States, aside from San Bernardino and 911, has barely experienced.

I'm disappointed in you Ann. At first, you had some of my respect, but on Friday you took any respect I, and I'm sure many of my peers, had for you and shattered it with your all encompassing, close minded remarks at the 2016 Republican Mock Convention. Despite my current lack of respect for you, I do acknowledge that everything you said was well within your prerogative under the First Amendment and I congratulate you for having the courage to stand up for what you truly seem to believe in. However, I just wish that your speech was as eye opening for others as it was for me. It showed me that having a narrow perspective is perhaps, one of the most dangerous things in the world. That it because of people like you that hate and discrimination are still pervasive in our great nation, and the world, today.