Monthly Archives: August 2014

Coulter Hates White Liberals

This week, in a beautifully titled column (“No Facts, No Peace”), Ann Coulter brought some much needed perspective to the turmoil taking place in Ferguson, Missouri. (Her laudable column was marred, however, by a foolish posting on her website.)

HatesWhites

Drawing from her best-selling book, Mugged, Coulter accurately attacked the default media narrative – “Racist until proved innocent” – and she provided numerous examples of the media’s jihad against white America and local authorities.

Coulter also offered up a rationale for this deplorable dynamic: “Stirring up racial hatred is how journalists make up for sending their own kids to lily-white private schools.” (Personally, I suspect the Sixties counter-cultural mindset pervades the mainstream media.)

She further noted the necessarily changing media narrative as actual facts emerged. (Though the minds of many still remain committed to the false narrative.)

My one criticism has to do, not with her column, but with a website posting she made around the time she posted her column. (This morning I stumbled upon Ann’s posting, and I find I must address it.)

On Wednesday, Coulter announced the posting of her column via twitter. Eighteen minutes earlier, on her website, she had posted remarks related to that column with the caption “I hate white liberals.”[1]

“I hate white liberals.”

Really? Racism is bad, phony charges of racism are bad, riots are bad, but hatred is good?

Coulter only hates “white” liberals? Black liberals and race hucksters like Sharpton and Jackson create this strife, but Coulter doesn’t hate them?

There was a time when Coulter was equal opportunity in her hatred, hating everyone on the Left (as well as some on the Right).

Perhaps this is really a sign of spiritual growth. Perhaps next week she will only hate white male liberals.

It’s a start.

Once again, I don’t have any criticisms of her column, or her evaluation of the situation at Ferguson. (Rich Lowry might not like her jab at him in her opening paragraph, but, since he’s not a girly-boy, I’m sure he can take it.)

It is only Coulter’s profession of hatred that I address here.

Endnotes:

[1]       Why does Coulter single out “white liberals?” Coulter provides an excerpt from Mugged (see graphic). Her excerpt is extremely disingenuous. Coulter cites a poll concerning the 1992 Los Angeles riots and compares those who disapproved of the riots with white liberals who thought “the riots were great TV.” Her citation does not say those liberals approved of the riots or thought they were justified. One could reasonably suspect that most people – whether liberal or conservative, black or white, male or female – thought “the riots were great TV,” irrespective of whether they approved of them or not. After all, the riots were a major story and most people watched. Sort of the definition of “great TV.”

Ann Coulter Screws Up Again

Blunders!

How can someone who is so intelligent, so gifted, so quick-witted, so linguistically adroit, and so accomplished, say and do so many things that are so foolish, so often, and so consistently?

Summer

Desperate for both attention and acclaim, and to reinvigorate her career and stature, Coulter’s antics only serve to further erode her already tarnished credibility, exacerbate her vastly diminished books sales, and enervate her flagging speaking engagements.

Coulter grows increasingly irrelevant as she becomes more and more self-absorbed. As a consequence, her arrogance damages herself, Christianity, Conservatism, and the nation.

“Don’t Do Stupid Stuff”

Coulter seems to have inversely adopted Obama’s “don’t do stupid stuff” strategy by, well, doing stupid stuff. So far this summer we’ve seen:

  • 6/25/14   Essay: Coulter’s first soccer diatribe
  • 7/02/14   Essay: Coulter’s second soccer diatribe
  • 7/09/14   Essay: Coulter’s first defamation of Chris McDaniel
  • 7/11/14   Interview: Coulter’s first discovery of “anti-logic”
  • 7/11/14   Interview: Coulter claimed all other nations “suck”
  • 7/11/14   Website: Coulter falsely accused journalist of plagiarism
  • 7/16/14   Essay: Coulter’s second “discovery” of “anti-logic”
  • 7/23/14   Essay: Coulter’s second defamation of Chris McDaniel
  • 7/23/14   Twitter: Coulter condemned compassionate Christians as “moral show-offs”
  • 7/30/14   Essay: Coulter discovery of grand conspiracy over a nonexistent (in her eyes) loophole
  • 8/06/14   Essay: Coulter’s first Christian missionary diatribe
  • 8/12/14   Interview: Coulter demands conservatives elect crap-ass Republicans
  • 8/13/14   Essay: Coulter’s second Christian missionary diatribe

One could call it Coulter’s summer of stupidity. (My prediction: we’re see more.)

Patterns of Behavior

Displayed before us are dizzying arrangements of behavioral patterns which Coulter has exhibited for well over a decade. But now, those patterns appear to be intensifying and they seem virtually uncontrollable on Coulter’s part. Ironically, the person who wants to control every aspect of her life – and the lives of others, the political process, etc. – seems to be incapable of controlling the one thing she is responsible for controlling: herself. As the apostle Paul, instructed, we are to “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5, NIV).”

Proverbs 16:32 says, “He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city.” Proverbs 25:28 makes it even clearer, “Whoever has no rule over his own spirit is like a city broken down, without walls.”

Ann Coulter is breaking down before our eyes.

Consider these patterns observed in recent weeks:

  • Nativism and xenophobia. Coulter repeatedly denigrated soccer as foreign, said that every other nations “sucks,” and chastised missionaries for going to foreign lands. Indeed, to her, helping people overseas is treason.
  • Defamation. Coulter repeatedly defamed Chris McDaniel, falsely accused another journalist of plagiarism, and impugned the motives of missionaries and other Christians. Indeed, to her, those Christians are really “atheists.”
  • Narcissism. Coulter “discovered” something she illogically claimed to have never seen before (“anti-logic”) and then discovered that an immigration loophole really doesn’t exist when it really does. Her explanation for the latter is a massive conspiracy by all political parties and the entirety of the press for the purpose of achieving open borders. All things revolve around her
  • Impenitence. When confronted with her errors and foolishness on a whole range of matters, Coulter reasserted her accuracy and upheld her own righteousness. From soccer, to McDaniel, to the concept of anti-logic, to Christian missionaries, Coulter heralds her preeminence in these matters. She will not acknowledge error or issue an apology.

Why So Foolish?

Why has Ann Coulter’s foolishness run amok? Because Coulter has turned her back on God. Although she claims to be “an extraordinarily good Christian,”[1] she rejects the basic doctrines of the Christian faith. Coulter eschews love and embraces enmity. Coulter refuses to either repent or forgive. Coulter elevates her own will over that of God.

The apostle Paul shared a spiritual principle with the Thessalonian congregation, writing, “And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thess. 2:11-12).”

Coulter, who in 2000 said that she would deny God’s personal revelation to her if it conflicted with her own political beliefs (“If God himself came down from heaven and told me … I would not believe it”[2]) has made a habit of elevating her own preferred opinions to God’s divine truth. Quoting Proverbs 14:12 (Coulter’s favorite proverb), “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”

Many psychological factors mirror and mesh with the spiritual ones already addressed.[3] Additionally, matters of character and integrity grow out of all of these forces, resulting in the observed patterns of behavior we have addressed.[4]

Let’s Pray for Ann

My dear readers, please indulge me.

Please lift up Ann before the throne of heaven and pray that God pierce her heart with His love, prick her conscience with His righteousness, open her mind with His truth, give her understanding with His Spirit, and topple her pride with the humility of Jesus.

Thank you!

Resources:

Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       “Church Militant: Ann Coulter on God, Faith, and Liberals,” beliefnet.com, 2006, http://www.beliefnet.com/story/196/story_19646.html.

[2]       Ann Coulter, “A liberal lynching,” 2/16/00.

[3]       For an in-depth look into Coulter’s family background, upbringing, and various psychological forces at work during her career, see The Beauty of Conservatism at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf. For greater insight into Coulter’s theology – and why she believes what she believes – see The Gospel According to Ann Coulter at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

[4]       For insight into Coulter’s narcissism and how it manifests itself in the real world, see Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf. Coulter’s foolishness exposes her desertion from God and the things of God, her narcissistic quest for self-glory and repudiation of basic Christian morality and conservative principles, and her consequent lack of character and integrity, which are discussed in Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

Ann Coulter to God: “STFU”

In yesterday’s column, Coulter told God to shut up. Coulter lambasted all of her Christian critics – those whom God is using to prophesy truth into her life. But Coulter has not rejected them. She has rejected God.

STFU

Ann Coulter boasts, “I’m an extraordinarily good Christian,”[1] and she goes to great lengths to show how unchristian every other Christian is. Compassionate Christians are “moral show-offs.” Christian missionaries are traitors doing it for their own self-glory. And, now, Coulter calls those selfless missionaries – and all those who defend them – atheists!

With but a few notable exceptions, Coulter has spent most of her professional career contradicting God, while claiming to be “an extraordinarily good Christian” and being regarded as a Christian leader.[2]

At the turn-of-the-millennium, Coulter laid down the gauntlet before her audience – and her Creator – writing, “If God himself came down from heaven and told me these cops intentionally murdered Amadou Diallo knowing he was unarmed, I would not believe it.”[3]

Who would deny the very words of God spoken personally to them? Coulter!

Coulter has been contradicting God throughout this century, whether in denying His gospel of grace and love or disavowing repentance and forgiveness. Truth (and Jesus is the “Truth”) is a casualty in most Coulter columns. False witness is one of Coulter’s most prevalent sins. Her pride is perilously persistent.

Twisting Scripture and Logic to Defend Herself From Truth

For the second time, Coulter attacked Christian missionaries. Coulter clever but deceptive essay title, “Let He Who is Without Ebola Cast the First Stone,”[4] parodies a statement and concept by Christ which she clearly cannot grasp. Oh, by the way, it is Coulter who has been throwing stones.

Coulter again turned the gospel – and Christianity – upside down. Her gospel is political and nationalistic.[5] Coulter chastises missionaries “who abandon America to do much-praised work in Third World countries.” Abandon? Do it for the glory and praise?

Again, Coulter “assailed” “the whole concept of American Christians fleeing their own country.” But, Ann, Christians are pilgrims and sojourners in this life whose citizenship is in heaven. Sadly, Coulter is too much a part of this world to see the heavenly glories.

Coulter’s assault on missionaries continued: “I set forth evidence for what I’m saying about there being glory-seeking and cowardice in Christian missions to Third World hellholes.”

Abandon. Glory-seeking and cowardice.[6]

What a ghastly human being Coulter has become!

Coulter’s first essay attacking Christian missionaries displayed an incredible lack of judgment and discernment, as if it were a good idea to impugn the work and the motives of the Little Sisters of the Poor. Her follow-up essay was equally as belligerent, impenitent, and arrogant, and – confronted by the truth of her errors – willfully evil. How else to characterize purposeful defamation of innocent, indeed, selfless Christian missionaries serving those desperately in need in Third World countries?

Substantive Criticism

Coulter denied there had been any substantive criticism of her column, claiming, “there’s nothing to respond to.” She continued, “Missing from these alleged refutations is what we call a ‘point.’” Then Coulter called these Christians stupid and incapable of making rational arguments.

Coulter again asserted, “No one has responded to that argument. It was a major strategic error for my critics to ignore one of my central points, while beating a straw man to death.” But dozens of people did just that – responded to her centrals points with facts, reason, examples, and Scripture.

Scriptures Coulter chooses to ignore.

Here’s the Point!

Coulter claimed there was no “point” to criticisms of her.

Here’s the point, Ann. You are wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Demonically wrong. And you will not admit it. You would rather thumb your nose at God and His people than repent. You would rather hate those who tell you the truth than accept the love of God offered you.

Every Christian could ask you, Ann, what Paul asked the Galatians in Galatians 4:16: “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?”

Ann, your hubris compels you to boast: “Liberals have been trying to insult me into submission for more than a decade. These guys think they can succeed where Vanity Fair failed?”

How about this, Ann? Faithful Christians – Jesus’ disciples who actually look to His guidance and seek His will in their lives – have spoken the truth to you and you will not hear. You will not hear because that would mean having to choose between doing His will and your will. But, you made that choice long ago, didn’t you?

Coulter’s Conceit

Coulter’s entire column is worth reading for insights into the person she has become. This section reveals both Coulter’s conceit and her ignorance of spiritual discernment. Coulter wrote:

“Third, I strongly advise against using one-size-fits-all arguments that can be turned back against you.”

“They say: ‘How do you know whether God called Dr. Brantly to go to Liberia?’”

“Ah ha! But then I riposte: ‘How do you know whether God called me to write that column?’”

[Great use of humor to mock her critics and lovely word choice: riposte! But my response follows Ann’s next sentence.]

“And there we are, stuck at an impasse.”

Ann, there is no impasse. We know that God did not call you to write your column because He is a God of truth and love and your column contained neither. (Though it is quite likely that His will was to expose the hardness of your heart through that column and the next one.)

Coulter continued:

“This is the weakest technique of my critics, and one that is sadly common among certain types of Christians. (We usually call them ‘atheists.’)”

Here again, Coulter resorts to name-calling, saying “certain types of Christians” (e.g., those who are not hard-core conservatives, nativists, and Coulter-lovers) are really “atheists.”

At heart, Coulter wants the people of God to worship a god who has been created in her image.[7]

Resources:

The Gospel According to Ann Coulter at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       “Church Militant: Ann Coulter on God, Faith, and Liberals,” beliefnet.com, 2006, http://www.beliefnet.com/story/196/story_19646.html.

[2]       For an examination into how Coulter – a self-proclaimed conservative Christian – deviates from Christian orthodoxy and conservative philosophy, see The Beauty of Conservatism at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[3]       Ann Coulter, “A liberal lynching,” 2/16/00.

[4]       Ann Coulter, “Let He Who is Without Ebola Cast the First Stone,” 8/13/14.

[5]       For a detailed analysis of Coulter’s peculiar theology, see The Gospel According to Ann Coulter at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

[6]       Coulter is projecting here. She is the vainglorious coward. See Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[7]       Coulter’s own desperate pursuit of self-glory is examined in Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

Ann Coulter’s Ebola Fallout

Ann Coulter has been almost universally criticized for her supremely anti-gospel Ebola polemic against faith-filled Christians seeking to do God’s will in overseas missions. She was almost uniformly excoriated across the Christian community – from biblical scholars, to evangelists, to missionary leaders, to lay members.

Those rare individuals who defended Coulter did so almost uniformly in support of her accurate observations about America’s need for spiritual reformation. Coulter accurately diagnosed a set of serious cultural problems in America that are at root spiritual in nature. But Coulter’s solution – that Christians should be less Christian and not follow God’s call in their lives – is ludicrous.

Ebola

I have culled the best and most interesting excerpts from commentary on Coulter’s column and the subjects she raised. Your comments would be most welcome.

 

Free Republic

Free Republic was once a repository of libertarian-conservatives who almost literally worshiped Ann Coulter. No longer. Here are just a few of their observations:

  • “I think she’ had an Ann-eurysm.”
  • “Coulter and Pelosi belong in the same psychiatric ward.”
  • “Christian missionaries have been going to the uttermost parts of the earth for centuries. Perhaps Ann would prefer that Islam or paganism or some such thing have total sway over the lost of the world. Jesus Christ has a different preference.”
  • “Ann seems to think snarky equals clever. This is just peevish and mean.”
  • “I think the ignorance of Ann is stunning and I think your fears are irrational. I work in hospitals on a daily basis and have as much fear of Ebola as I do of KmRSA. Which is none. Respect and common sense is good. Phobia is bad. Ann is phobic. Are you as well?”
  • “Ann, you blew it big time! It isn’t narcissists that go where they sense the Lord is sending them, it takes a servant heart with a total sacrifice of self to answer the call of God. We have no business condemning those who are willing to go anywhere for the gospel!”
  • “This was an attack on Christianity, and Evangelical Christians, which is a huge leap forward into the direction that Ann has been moving into for years.”
  • “How about Ann Coulter’s narcissism? It’s all that has ever held her together.”

 

For the remainder of this column, the headings are actual hyperlinked titles of commentary on the Internet. The quotes below are all excerpted from those sites.

 

“Ann Coulter to Jesus: Fix Bethlehem First!”

[Isn’t that a great title? – DB]

It seems that she believes that Dr. Brantly, who is a medical doctor, has some mysterious power as a Christian to evangelize “Hollywood power-brokers,” and it’s only his vanity (“Christian narcissism,” she calls it) that sent him off to the third world with his medical supplies, rather than – what, trotting up to Quentin Tarrantino’s gate, introducing himself as an M.D., and suggesting that Mr. Tarantino repent? And this would have been more effective than ministering to the dying in Liberia.

 

“Ann Coulter: The World’s Worst Theologian”

Mark Twain famously said, “To a guy with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Perhaps “to a woman with a political column, everything looks like the Democrats did it.” Here, without any knowledge of Brantly or his politics, she writes that Christian doctors are “tired of being called homophobes, racists, sexists and bigots. So they slink off to Third World countries, away from American culture to do good works…”

Apparently, Coulter couldn’t be bothered to do any research about Brantly before writing her article. And haven’t Christians been serving overseas well before anyone ever heard of Jerry Falwell?

 

“The Gospels rewritten”

Apparently, his altruism didn’t measure up to Coulter’s brand of superior morality.

 

“Ann Coulter, Stop Speaking for Jesus”

Instead, she dresses up her vitriol in an feeble attempt to appear a caring Christian, lamenting the lost in this nation who are not cared for while this doctor apparently flitters about in Africa, as if to say Jesus cares more for Americans than He does for the lost in other nations.

This would be sad if not so sickening and jingoistic. …

But minus the venom in her sentiment, why does it have to be either/or?  Why would we ever think that we need to ignore one group while focusing on the other?  Can’t it be that the Church is far big enough to reach lost Americans AND lost Africans (and lost Europeans and lost South Americans and lost Asians and….)?

In Jesus’ last earthly words, as recorded in Acts 1:8, he encourages His disciples that “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

The last time I checked a map, the U.S. is not the sum-total of the end of the earth.  I believe that Africa can be included in that description.

 

“Are Christian Missionaries Narcissistic Idiots? – A Response to Ann Coulter”

And yet from a Christian concern we cannot leave the issue of the Ebola outbreak without turning to another kind of atrocity. In this case the atrocity was an opinion piece published just yesterday by conservative commentator Ann Coulter. …

Well the real annoyance here, indeed outrage, is not over the service of these two missionary doctors. It is over this kind of column that flies in the very face of everything Christ taught his disciples. The logic of the Christian church and of Christian missions has nothing to do with American nationalism. Some parts of Ann Coulter’s article where she speaks especially of Africa come very close to racism, but she certainly falls directly into nationalism when she says that American Christians need to “serve their own country.” …

Coulter has written a very sad and infuriating article – an article that should lead to outrage in Christian circles. It reveals a radical nationalistic and libertarian worldview that is fundamentally incompatible with evangelical Christianity, with the Scripture, and with the command of Christ. …

True gospel missionaries – those faithful to the command of Jesus Christ – are not driven by “narcissism” to use Ann Coulter’s word, they are indeed heroic. More than heroic, they are simply faithful.

 

“Ann Coulter Plays God”

In Coulter’s world, charity is measured in dollars. Any lives Brantley may have physically saved, any comfort he may have given, any love of Christ he may have reflected toward those lost is now irrelevant and pales in comparison to … money spent. Coulter’s “god” is sadly small and limited. It doesn’t occur to her that possibly the $2 million was part of a bigger plan. Possibly it was specifically earmarked by God to be the means to get an infected Brantley back to one of America’s premier hospitals where first-world medical professionals and pioneers would have the opportunity to study and observe the disease firsthand, which in turn could play a major part in finding an effective vaccine. And as it goes, said vaccine or medicine could then circle back to West Africa. All things are indeed possible with God.

Further, would Coulter tell the people whose lives were touched by Brantley, people whose broken bodies were repaired by the doctor and people who may have come to know God as a result of his witness, that in light of the money it cost to bring him home, they weren’t worth it? …

Of course it doesn’t occur to Coulter that perhaps God Himself directed the path of Dr. Brantley to serve in a land far away. … Did God share the road map of Brantley’s life with Coulter? Did she know something he *should* have known? …

[Coulter] cannot know the Hollywood power-broker would be saved. He could as easily reject Christ as the Liberian. Likewise, she cannot know that the Liberians will not experience a spiritual revival as a result of the ministry of Dr. Brantley and others. And yes, Ebola kills the body, but even the body being killed by Ebola can house a soul that is at peace and in communion with God. Further, Coulter forgets that it is God who opens the eyes of the unbeliever to see their need, not man. Who and where He chooses to deliver the message is His business. …

So, choosing to leave the most extraordinary country in the world and all the comforts that come with a first-world existence to go help others in a third-world place which often comes with huge built-in risk and sorrow factors, is because ooh, name calling! For the Christian in America, name calling, mockery and being maligned comes with the territory. For the Christian in other parts of the world, being killed for their faith comes with the territory. And likely they would say the risk posed is a small price to pay to show the love of Christ to those in need.

The Christians I have known who have served in faraway places are a humble lot. They choose to do what they do because they care deeply about those in need. They want to give back for having been given so much and they want to know God more fully through their service. The last thing they would ever want to hear themselves described as is “heroic.”

 

“Ann Coulter’s no voice for Christian conservatism”

Coulter isn’t a spokesperson for any brand of Christian conservatism. Her statement directly contradicts one of the things that Christians think is most important – the inherent dignity of all people. We believe that every single human person is made in the image of God, is worthy of dignity, and has an eternal soul. That eternal soul has a destination, and the message of Jesus is for them.

 

“Ann Coulter Becomes Unhinged”

Has Ann Coulter become unhinged? It looks as if she may have. …

Pardon me for taking a moment to vomit.

Apparently, Coulter has read neither the New Testament parable about the sheep and the goats nor the parable about the Good Samaritan, both parables having been told by Jesus himself. Had she read and understood them, the Coulter would know that Dr. Brantly was doing exactly what living out the Gospel message requires, which requires taking personal risks when necessary. …

Only time will tell if Coulter feels enough shame to apologize for what she wrote, or if she will be too narcissistic to make such an apology.

 

“A Failed Test of Compassion: Whatever Ann Coulter has, It’s Worse than Ebola”

Like a lot of people, I would like to think I have developed a natural immunity against Ann Coulter and her dreadful attention-seeking declarations. I try believe that whatever she has – and by the looks and sounds of it, it’s quite lethal, I won’t catch it.

As any doctor will tell you, reducing one’s exposure decreases the chances of infection and subsequent transmission.

So, I do my best to avoid reading or hearing anything from Ms. Coulter. It’s not easy. Coulter’s the Bird Flu of the Right Wing. …

Like so many things that Coulter writes about, this article begins with a false premise and runs wild from that point. Is she trying to claim there are there no Christian charities working inside the US? If so, she needs to do a little more research before picking up her poison pen.

Here’s an easily-found website that offers a list of Christian charities and I assume that most of them work inside the US. (I will not vouch for any of them but that is surely enough evidence to scrap the Coulter article at its inception.)

But perhaps I have misread: is she trying to claim that American-based Christian charities have no business helping the poor outside of American borders? I don’t happen to remember Jesus saying any like that. …

The most ironic part of this particular Coulter rant is that the lack of empathy that Coulter herself promotes on a daily [basis] is the best example why more and more people have simply stopped caring about what happens to the poor and the needy.

If there is a culture war in the US then Coulter should be looking in the mirror to find who is firing the salvos.

 

“Ann Coulter Channels Margaret Sanger”

You see Ann Coulter is angered that an American Doctor went abroad to West Africa to confront the recent Ebola infestation when he could have been treating sick people here in the United States. She sees it as foolish … I’m reminded of one Jesus’ parables at this juncture. Something about a doctor going to where people are sick. That could involve a risk factor. Bless Ann’s heart for pointing that out. …

Ann, Americans who feel entitled to tell a man like Dr. Brantley who he should save and who he shouldn’t be bothering with are about one-step removed from the morality of eugenicists. One of Margaret Sanger’s big arguments in favor of Planned Parenthood involved the Malthusian conceit that resource constraints gave us the right to predetermine which of God’s Children should be permitted to breed. If only Dr. Brantly had treated the Burt Reynolds character from the movie “Boogie Nights” – the guy who gave the world Dirk Diggler and Chest Rockwell. What a wonderful service to humanity that would have been. They could have co-founded a charity together: “Dildos for Jeebus!” But no, he had to go waste his talents on poor people from Africa.

 

“Ann Coulter’s Casual Cruelty”

(The irony of Coulter accusing anyone of narcissism seems lost on her.) …

Helping people in lands other than America, Coulter argues, is not only cowardly and selfish, but unbiblical as well. …

Even grading on the Coulter curve, the column is cruel, biblically illiterate and morally incoherent. Cruel because she’s mocking a man who has contracted a brutal and often lethal disease, a man whose family is now terrified for his life. It takes an unusually callous and malicious heart to devote an entire column to attacking a husband and father who, while serving others, is stricken with a virulent disease. And as an added grace note, Coulter divines Dr. Brantley’s heart, accusing him – without a shred of evidence – of being both a coward and vainglorious. …

Ms. Coulter’s biblical illiteracy is evident in taking a verse from Deuteronomy (15:11) and building a doctrine that argues that serving people outside of your nation is a violation of God’s word and ways. The logic of her column is that until every problem in your nation is solved, no person should serve as a missionary to other lands. This doctrine would surprise St. Paul, whose missionary journeys took him to (among other places) modern-day Syria, Turkey, Greece and Rome. If Ms. Coulter wants to defend her peculiar missiology and hyper-nationalism, she needs to find sources other than the Bible. …

Ms. Coulter seems unaware of the fact that the global medical missions movement is one of the great achievements of Christianity. But then again, there is much about Christianity she seems unaware of. Let’s just say that when one thinks about what St. Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control – Ann Coulter’s name doesn’t leap immediately to mind. …

The poor we shall always have among us. The cruel and heartless, too.

 

“Why is Ann Coulter mean?”

Is pundit Ann Coulter unloved and do inner demons tell her she’s unlovable forcing the conservative pundit to project a disturbing meanness onto others? …

Coulter projects emotional demons and insecurities and doesn’t seem to realize it. …

[Coulter asks, “But why do we have to deal with this at all?”] But she doesn’t. No one asked her to engage in Christian mission work in Africa. In addition, this isn’t about Ann Coulter. …

Jesus isn’t an American and what he taught was universal and transcendental not to be contained within artificial borders or boundaries. The holy author doesn’t make a distinction by loving some children more than others depending on the disease, country, continent, or overall wealth of a nation. …

Should Father Damien who helped lepers in Hawaii in the 19th century and Mother Teresa who cared for the sick and hungry in India in the 20th century have both stayed in Europe? Should American Christian workers in Haiti, after one of the country’s worse natural disasters, stayed away in 2010?

 

“Are You ‘Idiotic?’ Ann Coulter Might Think So”

Wow. So basically, anyone who helps anyone, and it happens to involve personal sacrifice, is “idiotic.” …

Unfortunately, in the majority of the world, you can have all the desire and drive to change or improve yourself, but there are no programs, there is no government assistance, there is no hope. Places such as Liberia, where the average income is about $400 a year. … thousands do it to honestly help others, and we never hear anything about them. They go to “risky” places to help people, where there is no other help available. Guess what. Some people, Christians and non-Christians alike, who serve within the United States are narcissistic. Some do it for attention, a free t-shirt, and an instagram photo. Thousands do it to help others as well, without the thought of being “heroic.” God calls us in Mark 16:15 to “go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel” just as much as He commands us to help our brothers. If all of us serve in one capacity or another, we are all obedient to the individual desires and callings God has put in our hearts. And there’s nothing idiotic about serving each other.

 

“Can Christ Not Spare One Man?”

I also think had St. Thomas stayed in Jerusalem instead of journeying to India, many Indians would have never found salvation through Christ. Had Paul stayed in Tarsus instead of going on his missionary journeys, we would not have his contribution to the body of faith or the churches he planted along the way. …

Should Jim Elliott have never gone into the jungle? He was savagely killed there. His death inspired countless Christians to follow in his footsteps delivering the gospel to places it had not been delivered. …

Liberals treat prosperity in America as a zero sum game – if there are winners, there must be losers. They are wrong. Christians should not do the same with Christianity – surely a Christian may lose his life, but even then he is a winner. There are no losers except the Devil himself when a Christian goes therefore unto all the nations. …

Christians should be focused on saving souls where the Lord leads them and lends them talent and we should all praise the work of the Holy Spirit in so doing.

 

“Ann Coulter causes firestorm for her attack on Ebola victim Kent Brantly”

One might also make the point, besides the notion that Christians believe that both the bodies and souls of Africans have equal worth in the eyes of the Almighty as those of Americans, that the suffering of Brantly and of his nurse Nancy Writebol is likely going to have a beneficial effect far and beyond the current outbreak of Ebola. Research and testing for treatments of the deadly disease have been fast tracked because of them having been infected. This means that many thousands of lives will likely be saved from an agonizing death as a result of their sacrifice. …

The consensus seems to be that she is missing a basic tenet of the Christian faith, that one is called to go and do good wherever one is called to go, no matter where in the world, no matter where that happens to be.

 

“Forget EBOLA: The Greatest Threat To Africa’s Medical Missionaries Is Ann Coulter!”

It’s easy to take cheap shots at Ann Coulter these days: Ann Coulter is without a soul. Ann Coulter is heartless. Ann Coulter is evil. Ann Coulter is … Ann Coulter. …

… her mockery was aimed at the heart of her own self-professed religion: Christianity. And not just any Christianity, but Evangelical Christianity and its missionaries: Dr. Kent Brantly was part of Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse. If Coulter had mocked Pat Robertson’s Operation Blessing, she could not have picked a more overtly Christian missionary team to add to her list of enemies. She also compounded her anti-Semitism by insinuating that Hollywood was controlled by Jews who needed to be saved (or rather, “perfected“). …

Writing about the latest Coulter outrage may seem to be futile since even her supporters know the obvious: Coulter is for Coulter is for Coulter is for Coulter. But oddly enough, she does have followers/readers who live vicariously through her outrage and mockery: most of them do not dare to enact her opinions for fear of seeming too un-Christian or inhuman. …

Yes, a “provocateur” is always worth the effort to focus upon when one knows the people she is provoking.

 

“Ann Coulter teaches us, ‘better hate than ever’”

This story is about Coulter being dead wrong, again.  I know first-hand there are plenty of Christian do-gooders that get into the business because they want to right wrongs and help miserable people be less miserable, here and all over the planet. These people have two things that Coulter doesn’t: charity and compassion. … they work to feed starving people, take care of the sick, build houses, bury the dead, stuff like that. I’ve known these people first hand. …

Coulter would never listen to the likes of someone like me. Perhaps somewhere in history someone could speak to Coulter. Someone she could relate to.  Maybe she and Marie Antoinette might have cake and tea together and talk about what can happen when the little people are expected to be someone else’s problem.

 

“Ann Coulter and Our Mission”

Many Christians were horrified because they rightly understood that Coulter’s comments are a repudiation of the gospel and the Great Commission. Many felt betrayed. We should not feel betrayed, any more than we would when Howard Stern mocks us on the radio. The same thing is at work. …

The church is built on the rock foundation of apostles and prophets, not hucksters and outrage artists.

 

“Ann Coulter’s American Christianity”

Coulter, in her rant, was terribly insulting to Africa, Liberia, and every third-world country on the planet. She was almost equally insulting to Dr. Brantly’s hometown, calling it a town of deadbeats. Finally, she was incredibly insulting to Dr. Brantly, accusing him of being a Christian narcissist. …

Ann Coulter has presumed to know Brantly’s motives for the work he did. And from that basis, she offers her stinging criticism of Brantly and not just Brantly, but now every American missionary that enters the foreign mission field. Ann is flat out wrong. In fact, she could not be more wrong. She is arrogant on a number of fronts. She is arrogant when she portends to know Dr. Brantly’s heart motives. The fact is that she hasn’t a clue as to anyone’s heart motives. …

Ann is also why so many in our culture view conservatives as cold and uncaring. Just look at her attitude toward third-world countries! She places them in an entirely different category than Americans as if God does the same thing. She refers to these human beings as a cesspool! How could any Christian ever love God and see helpless women and children as a cesspool? Add to this her description of the small struggling town in Texas as a “deadbeat” town. What? Clearly there is nothing godly about an attitude that pretends to know the motives of Christian missionaries, and that categorizes people less fortunate than them in the way Ann Coulter does in her article. Here is a man who put himself in harm’s way and he is classified as a Christian narcissist. Liberia is a third world cesspool. And the doctor’s little town in Texas is a deadbeat town.

In her attempt to preach to Dr. Brantly, Christian missionaries, and other Christians living in America about the evil that resides in our culture, Ann Coulter has demonstrated in so many ways that that very evil resides in her own heart as well. The only difference is that Ann’s evil displays itself differently from the evil she doesn’t like. And that is what we call self-righteous hypocrisy. The only evil that is really evil is the evil I don’t like.

 

“Coulter’s ‘Idiotic’ Response to Christian Missions”

It is ironic that someone as so publicity-obsessed as Coulter would have the gall to assert that if missionaries weren’t so “narcissistic” and had courage or weren’t burned out over all the social problems in the U.S., they’d stay in “some deadbeat town” in the U.S. and forego all the “superlatives” they get for serving as foreign missionaries.

It probably is a waste of time to ask the question: did you really mean to reveal how shallow your thinking can be? …

As a former member of the Board of Trustees for a mission organization for over a decade and marrying into a family of missionaries, I have learned a lot over the years about the sacrifices that missionaries make to answer God’s call to services overseas.  Several generations have been inspired by Jim Elliott, who responded to the challenge: “There is one Christian worker for every 50,000 people in foreign lands, while there is one to every 500 in the United States.”  In addition, reading church history reveals the enormous contributions that missionaries have made to bring education and health care to nations around the world.  The biographies of many national leaders reveal how missionaries and the education provided by mission-run schools have had profound influence in developing international leaders.

 

“Ann Coulter calls US Ebola doc ‘idiotic,’ Africa ‘disease-ridden cesspool’”

Lead Republican thinker Ann Coulter has declared war on American Ebola victims. …

Yes, imagine a doctor going where there is disease. What was he thinking? …

Except one problem. While Ann Coulter divides the world up into Americans and others, and Republicans and others, and good Republicans and others, actual good human beings see people as, you know, human beings. And a Liberian in need of medical care is no different from an American in need of the same. They’re both human beings, and Dr. Brantly doesn’t lower the value of the social good by helping a cesspool Liberian instead of a vainglorious American.

 

“Ann Coulter And The Spiritual Poverty In America”

The Gospel is poured out on our society in great quantity via some 1,000 Christian radio stations.  Despite this America is becoming more and more godless. …

I learned a valuable lesson that day:  missionary service isn’t always about doing the safe thing; it’s about being obedient to God. …

Coulter … clearly is convinced that Christians from this country go for short stints to “disease-ridden cesspools” as a form of missionary tourism.  As I learned in the harshest way from my former best friend, it is not tourism but a peek into God’s Heart.

Coulter’s jingoism is her god.  …

Coulter’s passionate deprecation of Dr. Brantly is swaddled in the American flag.  She has determined which acts of sacrifice are worthy of undertaking and which souls are worth saving.  Her tortured thinking, calling Dr. Brantly a narcissist for following the call to God, is wrong.

 

“An Open Letter to Ann Coulter Regarding that “Idiotic” Ebola Doc”

Reading your article in which you put so much emphasis on Dr. Brantley’s potential influence a Hollywood power broker, I wondered why you spend your time tearing down the work of Dr. Brantly rather than building up the ones doing the very thing you wish the Ebola doctor would do? …

This is the point where I think you may have skipped a regiment of medication, or had too much red bull, or spent too much time in the sun.  Let me tell you, Ann, international mission work is the last enterprise one goes into for the purposes of being perceived as heroic. …

The dirty little secret is that most missionaries go overseas knowing that they will be serving in virtual anonymity, that they will spend an inordinate amount of time struggling to understand a culture and a language that is not their own, that they are choosing to watch from afar as family members back home are born, others marry, and still others die – while they are absent.  And they do it because it is their calling. …

I know it’s not your style, but I would finally recommend that you consider writing an article where you take back most of the things you said in your August 6th article, and possibly even – shudder – apologize.

 

“Don’t Wanna Be an Evangelical Idiot”

… right wing warrior princess Ann Coulter managed to pen what is perhaps the most virulent anti-Christian column ever seen by this author. …

This is not a man on the public dole, he is a Christian using his gifts to carry out, not some merely humanitarian mission, but the Great Commission of Christ. Who is Ann Coulter to object to the volunteer work of a Christian missionary? …

But Coulter doesn’t stop there. She also manages to betray her inner Pharisee when she has the gall to recommend to Dr. Brantly and presumably other Christians the proper object of their evangelistic efforts. No surprise, it’s not the poor. …

In her mind, the Pharisees were right to criticize Jesus for spending so much time with the poor, diseased and downtrodden of Judea. If only he had focused his energies on opening the eyes of a single Sadducee, Pharisee or other member of the ruling elite, he would have done infinitely more good than he did by wasting so much of his time with the sinners, tax gatherers, harlots, crippled, diseased, dying and poor people that he seemed to have so much misplaced compassion for, none of whom had the status or ability to change the corrupt culture of Second Temple Judaism or the larger pagan Greco-Roman world. What a fool Jesus was. If only he had been more like Ann Coulter. …

When it comes to hatred, Coulter needs to get the log out of her own eye. For by her comments she shows herself to be one of those who hate the servants of Christ. And if she hates the servants of Christ, she hates him as well. The words of the Apostle Paul are applicable to Coulter, “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand” (Rom.14:4).

As for Coulter, in the view of this writer her condition has been downgraded to clueless.

 

“How Should We Respond to Ann Coulter’s Article on the Ebola Doctor?”

I think the answer is: grace. God is a God of grace, and since grace is unmerited favor, it by definition cannot be clearly seen if the primary focus is on helping those who seem most influential. For then it looks like there are conditions – namely, how influential you are. To show manifestly and decisively that grace is grace – that is, without conditions of merit or influence or ability – God serves (and commands us to serve) those who seemingly have nothing to offer, even at great risk.

This, in turn, allows us to see those with seeming influence (in Coulter’s example, Hollywood power-brokers) in the right light as well – namely, as those who in fact do not have anything to offer of their own either, but rather who are just as dependent on God as those visibly in great need and without influence.

So God isn’t creating an us vs. them scenario where people of influence don’t matter but those of no influence do, or where people next door don’t matter but those 8,000 miles away do. Rather, he is doing exactly what it takes to make it clear that we are all equally and fully dependent on grace. 

That’s why we read “God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God” (1 Corinthians 1:28-29). …

In sum, the problem is not first of all Coulter’s pragmatic argument that helping influential people here in the U.S. is better because it will be more effective (as insensitive as that is).

The problem is that she is failing to recognize that when people like Dr. Brantly go help those who have nothing to offer in faraway lands, it helps those of us in America as well. For it helps us see that we are all equally dependent on God’s grace. That’s the message America needs. It’s the message we all need to grasp to the core of our being, and something that can’t happen if we avoid helping the sick worldwide.

In this sense, then, Dr. Brantly’s going to Liberia is indeed far more influential for God’s kingdom than had he focused on helping turn Hollywood power-brokers to God. For it shows that God is not dependent on such power-brokers, and that those with influence in the world are not in any special category before him.

That’s the message of grace, it’s the message we all need to hear, and it’s exactly what Dr. Brantly has demonstrated in his life.

 

“Are Missionaries Idiots and Narcissists?: a Response to Ann Coulter”

Her most scathing comments are aimed at motive.  Why would anyone do such an idiotically wasteful thing as try to help Liberians? …

To me, the most shocking aspect of Ann Coulter’s article is the allegation of cowardice and narcissism. …

Church history is filled with inspiring stories of missionary exploits.  From William Carey to Hudson Taylor, from the Moravians to the “Auca Five”, the Spirit of Jesus shines brightly in these tales of courage and commitment.

I believe we must re-commit ourselves to standing strong in America, loving our land, and caring for our own nation.  We must win back the heart of our country.  But in doing so, we cannot back away from our world mandate.  Jesus said, “Go into all the world…”  It will be costly.  It will be dangerous.  But, please let’s not crucify and criticize our own.

God bless Dr. Kent Brantly and Mrs. Nancy Whitebol.

 

Why Ann Coulter Has It All Wrong About Missions

I have spoken to literally hundreds of missionaries and have yet to meet one who was timid to speak the truth, in their own country or otherwise. The missionaries I have met are bold and ready to share the gospel with anyone who will listen – whether in America, Europe or Asia, it really doesn’t matter. They just want to spread the gospel. …

Every missionary I have met has had a call. A deep, undeniable call to take the gospel to the world – anywhere: at home, at work, and on a foreign field.  Most would be embarrassed to receive accolades and honor for what they do.  They don’t serve for that reason – they serve to please an audience of One – Jesus Christ. …

Whether you are called to take the gospel to Hollywood or the Bronx, to Africa or Europe, to your neighbor or your co-worker, you have to answer the call. Staying at home to “care for your fellow countryman” would be disobedient if God called you to medical missions in Liberia; just as it would be disobedient to travel to China if God called you to be a missionary in your hometown. …

And I have news for Ann – the angels rejoice in heaven just as much when a leprosy-ridden body in a jungle someplace receives Christ as when a multi-million dollar executive in a corner office prays the sinner’s prayer.

 

“Coulter owes Ebola doc an apology: priest”

Presented with Ms. Coulter’s absurd dichotomy – as if the Church must choose between serving at home or abroad – we have an opportunity to remember how the Church is poorly served by those who reduce her or her teaching to merely ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ labels. Ms. Coulter has no idea what motivated Dr. Brantly, and mocking a father who faces death for his service is simply reprehensible. At the very least, she owes him and his family an apology.

Resources:

The Gospel According to Ann Coulter at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

Ann Coulter is Not a “Good Person” – An Open Letter to Erick Erickson

Dear Mr. Erickson,

In your recent criticism of Ann Coulter,[1] you stressed how much you like her, as if that is relevant. Perhaps you are trying to reassure Ann not to take your criticism personally. I do not have the same luxury. While there is much about Ann that I, too, like (and, unlike many Coulter critics who hate her, I do not), my opinion matters not to her. So, perhaps I can be a bit more blunt than you.

Good

You unequivocally began your column: “I like Ann Coulter. There is no ‘but’ after that. I like Ann Coulter, period.”

Yes, we get it, you like Ann. Period.

As for me, Erick, while I do value your views and your website, I must say that your concluding paragraph is nonsense. You wrote:

“I have no reservations or caveats in liking Ann Coulter. She is a warm, kind, and generous person. I know this from my own experience. I must, however, disagree with her in this.”

Once again, we get it: You like (with no “buts,” “reservations or caveats”) Ann. Period.

But your personal observation – “She is a warm, kind, and generous person” – does not comport with either your analysis of her column nor Coulter’s observed behavior. Is Ann Coulter really a good person?

Are you confusing charm with character? Personality with integrity? A quick wit with a pure heart?

Coulter cannot – by any reasonable measure – be described as a good person. Just consider the column you yourself critiqued. In it, Ann blamed an altruistic and selfless medical missionary for contracting Ebola (in the course of doing God’s will as he saw it), blamed Samaritan’s Purse for sending him to Liberia (in accordance with its mission), and castigated all foreign missionaries for having the audacity to do God’s work and follow His will by evangelizing overseas.

Last March, you criticized Ann’s myopic support of Mitch McConnell,[2] again stressing how much you like her: “But I like Ann and I find myself with her more often than not.”

In your critique of that column, you chided Ann for falsely accusing Jim DeMint and the Senate Conservatives Fund of being charlatans and a right-wing mob.

Didn’t Ann just falsely accuse Christian missionaries of being charlatans? Does that establish an ungodly pattern of behavior? Yes!

Bearing false witnessfalsely accusing Christian missionaries and falsely accusing the Tea Party of being charlatans – is hardly proof that Ann is a good person, or, in your words, “a warm, kind, and generous person.”

Ann said those Christians missionaries were cowards egotistically seeking to be viewed as heroic. Just days before that, she condemned compassionate Christians, calling them “moral show-offs.” Surprisingly, Ann once claimed, “I’m an extraordinarily good Christian.”[3] Do you agree?[4]

But Ann has also falsely accused a fellow journalist of plagiarism and she has besmirched the reputations of Chris McDaniel and his supporters.

These are but a few examples of how Ann is not a good person.

Might I suggest a reevaluation of your perspective on Ann as well as your prayers on her behalf?

Sincerely,

Daniel Borchers

Resources:

The Gospel According to Ann Coulter at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       Erick Erickson, “Can Christ Not Spare One Man?” Red State, 8/6/14, http://www.redstate.com/2014/08/06/can-christ-not-spare-one-man/.

[2]       Erick Erickson, “Right-Wing Mobs? No, A Cleaning Crew,” Red State, 3/13/14, http://www.redstate.com/2014/03/13/right-wing-mobs-no-a-cleaning-crew/.

[3]       “Church Militant: Ann Coulter on God, Faith, and Liberals,” beliefnet.com, 2006, http://www.beliefnet.com/story/196/story_19646.html.

[4]       If you do, then check out The Gospel According to Ann Coulter at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

Ann Coulter’s Xenophobic Anti-Gospel of Hate

Ann Coulter is on a roll. Her commentary is becoming more deplorable by the week. Yesterday’s column hit an all-time low.[1]

Ebola Ann

Ann Coulter, meet Dr. Livingstone.

Dr. Livingstone was not a fake Christian. He lived out his Christianity, taking to heart the apostle Peter’s admonition, “you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 2:5).” As a renown explorer and missionary in Africa, Dr. Livingstone’s motto was “Christianity, Commerce, and Civilization.”

I suppose that Ebola Ann Coulter would also have chastised medical missionary Albert Schweitzer and the selfless humanitarian, Mother Teresa, who lovingly devoted herself to the “least of the least.”

None of these people were deterred by, as Ann so delicately put it, “medieval diseases of the Third World.” Nor would they have shirked their divine calling based on risk factors “listed by the Mayo Clinic.”

Highlighting the absurdity of Coulter’s theology, Erick Erickson remarked, “St. Thomas should have never gone to India and Jim Elliott should have never gone into the jungle. Sigh.”

Regarding Dr. Kent Brantly’s trip to Liberia, Coulter asked, “What was the point?” Her having to ask the question suggests she would not understand the answer.

Coulter’s essay title, “Ebola Doc’s Condition Downgraded to ‘Idiotic,’” tells us exactly where she stands! Anything she doesn’t understand or agree with is automatically “idiotic.”

Christian Narcissism

From the onset of her discourse, Coulter impugned the motives of Dr. Brantly – and other Christian missionaries – suggesting pride and self-interest in enduring the hardships of overseas missionary work. Ann, this is just plain silly. But then, Coulter does not mind defaming innocent people.

Coulter began her column asking, “I wonder how the Ebola doctor feels now that his humanitarian trip has cost a Christian charity much more than any services he rendered.”

She then detailed some of the costs to his charities and alluded to, of all things, Obamacare. (I don’t recall Coulter complaining about the extensive cost – to the American people – of search and rescue operations to find her boss and one-time mentor, John F. Kennedy, Jr., in 1998.)

Coulter asks, “Why did Dr. Brantly have to go to Africa?” Following up with, “Can’t anyone serve Christ in America anymore?”

According to Coulter, overseas missionaries 1) seek the rewards of feeling and being perceived as “heroic” and 2) are really cowards, fearful of combating political correctness and engaging in the culture wars at home.

Coulter’s conclusion: all of these overseas missionaries are guilty of “Christian narcissism.”

(I would submit that the narcissist is Coulter herself.)

The whole matter of self-sacrifice seems, too, to be foreign to Coulter. But aren’t Christians supposed to live a sacrificial life, to die daily to oneself as Jesus put it? Yet, when Christians sacrifice for what they believe God has called them to do, Coulter goes on the offensive. Why? Because they are what she is not.

False Gospel

For well over a decade, Coulter has preached a false gospel, calling herself “a mean Christian” and declaring “being nice is an incidental tenet of Christianity.” Never one to promote the compassionate course of action, Coulter also eschews the principled course of action.

Coulter is at war with Christians and conservatives! (Yet, she claims to be a Christian conservative.)

Coulter condemns the principled, excoriates the compassionate.

In yesterday’s assault on principled, compassionate Christians zealous to do God’s work, Coulter distorts the gospel to achieve her ends. Coulter claimed that countries are “like your family” and, of course, charity begins at home. But then her thesis seems to be that it should also end at home.

Coulter wrote, “The same Bible that commands us to ‘go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel’ also says: ‘For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, “You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.”’”

Naturally, Coulter conflates Old and New Testament theology. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus made it pretty clear that everyone is our “neighbor.” Moreover, the Samaritan reached out to help what many would consider a helpless “foreigner.” Also, in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25), Jesus commends those who have helped what Mother Teresa called “the least of the least” as if they had helped Jesus Himself.

But for Coulter, none of that matters.

Only America Counts

Typical Coulter, xenophobia fills her Ebola column. Nativism at its worst. Coulter, however accurately, observed, “America, the most powerful, influential nation on Earth, is merely in a pitched battle for its soul.” Coulter accurately detailed aspects of that “pitched battle.”

Coulter boasted, “America is the most consequential nation on Earth … If America falls, it will be a thousand years of darkness for the entire planet.”

A millennium of darkness will engulf the Earth if America falls? A bit hyperbolic, what? Yet, I suspect Coulter doesn’t think she is exaggerating.

In order to save America – and thus the planet, too – Christians “need to buck up, serve their own country.” (Actually, Christians need to serve their Lord and Savior – wherever He leads them. Moreover, Coulter appears to see America as the Savior of the world, instead of Jesus, whose very title is “Savior of the world.”)

The worst epithet Coulter could say about soccer was “It’s foreign.” Her hatred of immigrants (legal and illegal) stems from their foreignness. Now the future of mankind is at stake – get rid of all the foreigners!

Let Them Hate Us

Coulter’s metric for one’s spiritual state of being has been – for over a decade – whether one is hated and the depth of that hatred. Consider Coulter’s words:

“[Christians need to] remind themselves every day of Christ’s words: ‘If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.’”

Well, yes, Christians are often hated because they are Christians. But some Christians (or fake Christians) are hated because they do not behave as Christians should behave. Sin and hypocrisy breed hatred and contempt.

Coulter has for so long worn the hatred of others as a badge of honor that she now sees herself as righteous because others criticize or hate her. Could the criticisms be called for? The hatred be earned? Wherein does Ann’s righteousness really lie? If she in in Christ, then it is in Christ alone.

Is Ann Coulter displaying the righteousness of Jesus or the self-righteousness of Ann Coulter?

The really sad thing is that Coulter thinks she is taking the high road!

Resources:

The Beauty of Conservatism at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

The Gospel According to Ann Coulter at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf

Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

“Ann Coulter Plays God” at http://patterico.com/2014/08/07/ann-coulter-plays-god/.

“Are You ‘Idiotic?’ Ann Coulter Might Think So” at http://bewarethecomfortzone.com/2014/08/07/are-you-idiotic-ann-coulter-might-think-so/.

“Ann Coulter, Stop Speaking for Jesus” at http://matt-burton.blogspot.com/2014/08/ann-coulter-stop-speaking-for-jesus.html.

“Ann Coulter causes firestorm for her attack on Ebola victim Kent Brantly” at http://www.examiner.com/article/ann-coulter-causes-firestorm-for-her-attack-on-ebola-victim-kent-brantly.

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, “Ebola Doc’s Condition Downgraded to ‘Idiotic,’” 8/6/14.

Coulter’s Scoop That Never Was

This may be Ann Coulter’s worst summer ever. First, she wrote a series of inane diatribes attacking soccer. Then she defamed principled conservatives and supported corrupt establishment Republicans. Coulter falsely accused another journalist of plagiarism, a charge utterly without merit. She later vilified liberal Christians as “moral show-offs” for exhibiting compassion toward illegals on the border.

Coulter claimed to have discovered a hitherto unknown concept which she called “anti-logic.”

Scoop

Now Coulter claims to have uncovered the truth about the border crisis – a truth conspiratorially hidden by both political parties and a complicit press.

In her most recent column, Coulter accused the entire media – from the New York Times to Fox News – of lying about the loophole which allows Central American children to receive special treatment at the border.

According to Coulter, “But there is no such loophole.”

Having made that startling claim, she frets, “The fact that people on both sides of the aisle are telling the same lie about this law is worrisome. Are Republicans being tricked into thinking we need an emergency bill …”?

She claims to have read the law (implying others have not), citing the relevant portion:

“Any unaccompanied alien child sought to be removed by the Department of Homeland Security, except for an unaccompanied alien child from a contiguous country shall be – placed in removal proceedings … eligible for relief … at no cost to the child and provided access to counsel.”

The Loophole’s Definition

Coulter denied this “non-existent loophole” and argued for its non-existence due to the definition of “unaccompanied alien child,” which, according to the 2008 law she cites, is defined thus:

“(g) Definitions

(2) the term ‘unaccompanied alien child’ means a child who –

(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;

(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and

(C) with respect to whom –

(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or (ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.”

Coulter’s Wrong Analysis

Coulter concludes that the bulk of this massive group of children crossing our border can be immediately returned because they don’t fit the definition of “unaccompanied alien child.”

Coulter asserts, “But the law’s definition of ‘unaccompanied alien child’ limits the hearings to kids who have no relatives in the United States.”

She continues, “No law needs to be fixed. The only thing that needs to be fixed is the president.”

She adds, lest we fail to get the point, “Any Republicans pushing for an immigration bill to seal an imaginary loophole aren’t fighting Obama; they’re helping him.”

Where Coulter Went Wrong

At first blush, her reasoning seems sound. Sounds reasonable. And legal.

But it isn’t.

Her statement about limiting “the hearings to kids who have no relatives in the United States” is flat out wrong – on two counts.

(In full disclosure, I am not a lawyer, and I do not play one on TV.)

First, there are matters of the law’s interpretation and implementation.

The Bipartisan Policy Center put out a paper, “Unaccompanied Alien Children: A Primer,” which addresses the salient issues. It notes,

Although many of the children may already have family inside of the United States, current practice by DHS classifies children as unaccompanied ‘if neither a parent or legal guardian (with a court-order to that effect) is with the juvenile at the time of apprehension, or within a geographical proximity’ to care for the juvenile. According to interviews conducted with DHS officials in 2006, ‘if a parent or legal guardian is not present to provide care (or cannot be present within a short period of time) that child is technically considered unaccompanied and processed accordingly.’”

Remember the definition: “no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.” That qualification addresses the humanitarian concerns involved and resulted in the implementation noted above.

Coulter’s non-existent loophole exists.

Second, the definition is specific to “no parent or legal guardian.” That specificity created unintended complications. What about non-parent family members? Coulter expanded the law to read: “no relatives in the United States.” But the law expressly addresses “parents.”

As noted by BPC, the “Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act of 2014 would change the “definition of UAC. Children will not be considered unaccompanied if they have a sibling, aunt, uncle, grandparent, or cousin over 18 years of age available to provide care. Currently only children without a parent or legal guardian are considered unaccompanied.”

Yes, Coulter’s non-existent loophole exists.

UPDATE: Upon further reflection, Coulter’s loophole column is rather loopy. Being a lawyer for more than a quarter-century and a journalist for almost two decades, Coulter should now know how to do basic fact-checking.

Coulter should have asked herself whether she might be wrong or there might be more to the story. Instead, Coulter chose to believe that she and she alone – of all the people in the world – both knew there was no loophole and had the courage to speak the truth about it.

Coulter chose to believe that everyone else – from CNN to Fox News, from Harry Reid to Ted Cruz, from Nancy Pelosi to Michele Bachmann – was lying about a phony loophole. Furthermore, this grand conspiracy – among establishment Republicans and Tea Party alike – was designed to open the U.S. borders to all people.

Checking facts, Ann, is easier than you think. You might try it sometime.

Resources:

Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.