Monthly Archives: November 2014

Coulter Wrong Again! Romney Caves on Amnesty!

Ann Coulter is wrong again!

In the wake of a GOP election tsunami with a decisive anti-Obama mandate, Mitt Romney caves to a lame-duck president whose policies and agenda were repudiated at the ballot box.


Romney caves on amnesty!

Romney envisions a multi-pronged approach to immigration reform which one could call “comprehensive,” a code-word for amnesty (because the Obama administration would ignore border security provisions in any law and solely enforce amnesty provisions).

Indeed, Romney “indicated that he still felt the new Congress should pass a more permanent amnesty bill.”[1]

For years, Ann Coulter has extolled Romney’s virtues, calling him a perfect, magnificent, and ideal candidate. Amnesty was Coulter’s primary issue.

According to Coulter, “Amnesty is a winner for Republicans and it will only help in 2016, and I would use Romney as an example. That was the reason I supported Romney. He was very good on immigration.”[2]

Coulter has repeatedly claimed that Romney was and remains the very best GOP candidate on immigration. Repeatedly, in 2014 alone, Coulter has championed Romney, asserting, “that’s why Mitt Romney was my favorite candidate, he was the most aggressive on immigration.”[3]

Now that Romney has adopted the very same comprehensive immigration strategy as Sen. Marco Rubio once did – a strategy Coulter ridiculed from a senator she excoriated – what will Coulter do? Excoriate her presidential beau?

Remember, Coulter continually favors establishment Republicans over Tea Party candidates. And she falls in love with RINOs for president, from Romney to Christie.

Coulter desperately wants to be a president maker and she has long contended that she knows better than most Americans and better than most politicos. Her hubris – and her many errors in presidential prognostication – dictate that we should Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, at


[1]       Tony Lee, “Mitt Romney: Republicans Should ‘Swallow Hard,’ Pass “Permanent’ Amnesty Bill,” Breitbart, 11/27/14, See also, Tony Lee, “Mitt Romney; Not Healthy Congress Hasn’t Passed Amnesty,” Breitbart, 5/30/14, See Also, Mike Lillis, “GOP hardliners won’t attack Romney’s ‘amnesty’ plan on illegal immigration,” The Hill, 6/23/12,

[2]       Ann Coulter, Kelly File, FNC, 6/10/14.

[3]       Ann Coulter, CPAC 2014, 3/8/14.


Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age

A fixture on the political scene for almost two decades, author Ann Coulter has made a name for herself and given Conservatism a bad name. While many on the Right hail her as a heroine, a growing number of conservatives have discovered that Ann Coulter cannot be trusted.

As documented in my previous books, Coulter – seemingly without a conscience – will say and do whatever she needs to in order to accomplish her goal. Lies, betrayal, defamation, hate speech, elimination rhetoric – all are justified by her to achieve her end.

In a word, unscrupulous.


Here is a sampling from Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age:

Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age

Daniel J. Borchers

Published: December 8, 2013

78 pages


Arrogance of Power

Never Trust Ann Coulter – at Any Age briefly examines Coulter’s latest book, Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 – Especially a Republican, and it looks at the various ways in which Coulter herself cannot be trusted!

Many of the essays reprinted in her latest book – as with so many of her earlier works – are filled with projection: projecting her negative attitudes, attributes, and articulations unto those she targets for destruction.

Conservatives rightly decried the politics of personal destruction during the Clinton years, but Coulter has taken that destructive practice to a new level – all in the name of Christ and of Conservatism!

Born and bred an elite,[1] living a privileged life,[2] and taking full advantage of a continually expanding network of elite power-brokers,[3] Coulter has seemingly sought glory from the advent of her birth.

Arrogance definitively describes Coulter’s latest book and the substance of her book tour appearances.[4] More than usual, Coulter thinks she knows what is best for everyone else and insists we subscribe to her edicts, foisting her innate superiority upon us mere mortals. For instance, she – and she alone – creates the criteria for conservative electoral victory: only senators and governors can run for national office. Exhorting party unity – and condemning previous primarying of officeholders and candidates – Coulter nonetheless provides lists of Republicans she wants primaryed and removed from office.[5]

As reported in a Washington Post Style section profile during her book tour, while she was being escorted to a TV studio for an interview, she complained “about not getting booked on the big-time programs,” asking, “Is this an Internet show? I want to be on ‘George Stephanopoulos.’”[6] Coulter’s sense of entitlement tells her – and us – that she thinks she deserves to be on the biggest and best talk shows.

As I was completing this preface, Coulter repeatedly accused the Obama administration of “arrogance,” [7] seemingly oblivious to that word’s relevance to herself. She then described why they are so arrogant:Obama and the people around him thought he would get away with it the same way he got away with Benghazi, the same way he got away with the IRS being used to, to, to harass Obama’s political enemies. He has been able to count on what I call the non-Fox media until now to just, just treat him like some cult figure.”

Sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it? For over a dozen years, Coulter has said the most outrageous things – which would have prompted the firing of just about anyone else – but she brags about surviving those controversies, all enabled by her well-placed friends and colleagues.

Chapter 1

Never … at ANY Age

Since before 9/11, Ann Coulter has proven herself untrustworthy. Her lies and hate speech are legendary because they are real – they are not figments of her opponents’ imaginations as she claims. One can arguably lay a large measure of blame to Coulter for the 2012 GOP presidential debacle (see next chapter). Yet, Coulter wants to – again – choose for conservatives the best “electable” conservative candidate. Hubris! Run from it!

An utterly fascinating video of Coulter, posted by Harry Shearer, shows her in-studio wearing a whole series of masks within the space of 74 seconds.[8]

Shearer’s video introduction is explicitly to the point: “It’s not just liberals she castigates. Here, Ann Coulter veers from deriding the intelligence of her debating opponent to reviling a certain Mr. Limbaugh, and finishes off with a sweet photo-op smile.”

At the beginning of this short clip, Coulter responds to the interviewer: “You don’t even know what the Republican approach was. That isn’t what Bush did (laughter and eye rolls).”

Seconds later, apparently, referring to her interlocutor, she mutters, “God, she’s stupid,” followed by her realization that the interview was over: “I think that’s it.”

To, apparently the sound technician, she explains, “No, I wanted to get to them dissing the queen. I had a lot of jokes on that.” Hearing something off-camera, Coulter asks, “What’s that noise?” and then says, “Oh.” Noticing someone off-camera, she exclaims, “You’re still here! … I think so.” Responding to comments from her earpiece, she says, “Thank you!”

While disengaging herself from the microphone paraphernalia, she laments, “I should have given them a line from my column, but I thought it sounded too self-promoting. I already said, ‘Start attacking me instead of Rush.’ I’m getting sick of defending him. He doesn’t defend me. Fuck him!”

A smiling Coulter then quickly poses for a photo.

Say what? Consider Coulter’s last two words: “Fuck him.” To think it is one thing, to express it another. But Coulter is without inhibitions. She loves expressing the inexpressible. It has become her trademark. The more outlandish, the better – for her notoriety and her bank account.

Chapter 2

Presidential Follies

Beginning with the 2000 presidential election cycle, Coulter has insisted that she knows best and that only her criteria matters. From a field of 12 Republican candidates in 1999, Coulter anointed George W. Bush the clear winner and denounced any Republicans who got in his way, even before Bush had announced his platform.

Even though conservatives clearly rejected Romney in 2008 and did not want him in 2012, Coulter foisted him on the party through character assassination of his opponents and mischaracterization of Romney. Electoral disaster ensued.

Hearkening back to CPAC 2007, in a private conversation with Romney, a smitten Coulter gushed, “You have great answers on everything. The Reagan position on abortion is brilliant. … No, they don’t understand; we hate these liberal atheists. You can’t get these sectarian wars going with us. We’re all Christians. … You’re SO wonderful.”

Four years later, her devotion to Romney remained unquenched. Amidst a series of essays praising Romney and vilifying his foes, Coulter penned this paragraph:

“Among Romney’s positives is the fact that he has a demonstrated ability to trick liberals into voting for him. He was elected governor of Massachusetts – one of the most liberal states in the union – by appealing to Democrats, independents and suburban women… Also, Romney will be the first Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan who can talk. Liberals are going to have to dust off their playbook from 30 years ago to figure out how to run against a Republican who isn’t a tongue-tied marble-mouth.”[9]

Already, Coulter was comparing Romney to Reagan, but, at the same time lauding Romney’s “ability to trick liberals into voting for him.” In other words, Romney pretended to be liberal to get elected, but is really a true conservative in disguise. Coulter still believes this nonsense.

To this day, Coulter insists, “Romney was the ideal candidate,”[10] comparing him favorably to Ronald Reagan: “Romney was a magnificent candidate and it enrages me that people will never see it because he narrowly lost to an incumbent. If this were the same demographics, as I’ve said a million times, the same demographics as 1980, Romney would have won bigger than Reagan did.”[11]

Yes, Romney was better than Reagan!

Having been wrong on Romney (twice), wrong on other presidential candidates, and wrong on congressional candidate Mark Sanford, Coulter deigns to dispense her superior wisdom to us mere mortals and insist that we embrace it.

Coulter began her latest book tour lambasting Republicans for failing to run the right candidates for office. Instead of standing for principles, she contends that the GOP should run electable candidates. Pragmatism over principle. “All that matters is winning, winning, winning.”[12]

Coulter’s strategy for winning future elections is fraught with convoluted reasoning. Indeed, she gets it backwards! On Hannity, Coulter explained her strategy: “My point is, and these Republicans looking ahead, I’m talking mostly about Senate and House elections, in 2016 we are not going to be nominating a congressman, an inspirational leader, a businessman, only look at governors and senators.”[13]

Coulter clearly articulated the primary thrust of her candidate selection process: she would nominate only governors and senators for president. But, wait, what does recent history tell us?

Senator McCain and Governor Romney each lost – on multiple occasions (two for Romney, three for McCain) – their bids for President of the United States. By Coulter’s current criteria, they should have won. They lost because they were moderates!

Chapter 3

The Capitol is Under Attack

Coulter is widely regarded as the conservative queen of sound-bites and her colorful rhetoric catches the imagination. Snappy sound-bites and clever comparisons catch one’s attention and beguile readers. Over the years, The Federalist Society (as but one example) has often commended Coulter’s commentary, extracting – as examples of brilliancy – her most inane views. Just as other fans, the Federalist Society often accepts Coulter’s words without examination when they are actually without merit.

The following example exemplifies Coulter’s technique.

“The U.S. military has had considerably more success in turning Iraq around than liberals have had in turning the ghettos around with their 40-year ‘War on Poverty.’ So far, fewer troops have been killed by hostile fire since the end of major combat in Iraq than civilians were murdered in Washington, D.C., last year (239 deaths in Iraq compared to 262 murders in D.C.). How many years has it been since we declared the end of major U.S. combat operations against Marion Barry’s regime? How long before we just give up and pull out of that hellish quagmire known as Washington, D.C.?”[14]

Many neoconservatives latched onto Coulter’s analogy with relish, treating nonsense as genius. This analogy formed the centerpiece for Coulter’s defense of America’s reconstruction in Iraq. Coulter’s analogy sparkles, but it is deceptive and is, indeed, a lie.

Nothing in it is, in fact, true!

Considered bold and brilliant, Coulter’s analogies are bold and they do sparkle, yet their brilliance is as deceptive as fool’s gold. Far from profound, this analogy is profoundly meaningless. Let’s examine this nugget to discover its true worth.

[Detailed analysis follows.]

Chapter 4

War Heroes & Villains

In October 1997, Coulter debated Bobby Muller, President of Vietnam Veterans for America, over the efficacy of banning landmines. Muller said to Ann, “In 90 percent of cases that U.S. soldiers got blown up – Ann, are you listening? – they were our own mines.” Coulter derisively replied, “No wonder you guys lost.”[15] Coulter blamed Muller, a disabled Vietnam veteran, for losing the Vietnam War.

MSNBC fired Coulter for defaming that disabled Vietnam veteran. Seven years later, she repeatedly defamed yet another disabled Vietnam War veteran, Max Cleland, and Human Events did nothing about it.

In 2004, two back-to-back Coulter polemics denied the recognized heroism of Vietnam veteran and triple-amputee Max Cleland. She would compound her defamation later that year by publishing four chapters on Cleland in her book, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).[16] For the purposes of this book, it is sufficient to address only her first two essays.

Before delving into the errors contained in both columns, a comparison of the two would prove useful.

On February 11,[17] Coulter lashed out at Cleland:

Max Cleland is the Democrats’ designated hysteric … basking in the affection of liberals who have suddenly become jock-sniffers for war veterans, and working himself into a lather about President Bush’s military service. … Cleland testily remarked … what Cleland sneeringly calls … maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero.

But Cleland is a war hero!

For Coulter, there are no liberal patriots, no liberal war heroes. She ferociously denied that world-renown war hero Pat Tillman could possibly be a liberal. A visit to Arlington Cemetery or the Vietnam Memorial leaves one head-scratching in wonder. Where are the Rs and Ds on the tombstones and crosses or next to their names? How can we determine which soldier was a “real” American and “real” patriot without knowing their party affiliation?

Even before 9/11, Coulter defined patriotism and love of country as a peculiarly Republican prerogative. In her words, anyone who objects to any facet of the Republican agenda is patently un-American.

Thus, Coulter, and others like her, feels at home demonizing Bobby Muller, Max Cleland, Wesley Clark, John McCain, John Murtha, and other American patriots who bravely served their country but do not subscribe to Coulter’s ideological beliefs.

Coulter has re-instituted the McCarthyite concept of “litmus tests” for Americanism. Clearly, some patriots need not apply.

Chapter 5

Paint Chip Profiling

Just as every American hero looks like a conservative to Coulter, all terrorists looks alike. According to Coulter, “they all look identical!” She would use “a paint chip for their skin color” to determine their guilt or innocence. In reading and listening to her commentary on terrorist profiling, it’s as if Coulter knows of only two paint chips: white and non-white.

Coulter’s obsession with racial profiling began in mid-September, 2001. By March of the following year, she had developed her bizarre, viscerally-offensive, and self-evidently false paint chip theory. Paint chips to profile? Coulter’s own unique contribution to racial demagoguery – paint chips – exceeds even South Africa’s apartheid which incorporated a complex system of racial categories.

In a speech at Harvard in 2002, Coulter said, “After Manhattan is nuked by Muslims, then should we give an extra look to swarthy Middle Eastern men? … They have all had the same eye color, hair color, skin color and half of them have been named Muhammad. This is not racial profiling; it’s a description of the suspect.”[18] Her speech title: “Liberalism and Terrorism: Different Stages of the Same Disease.” (Yes, Coulter equates liberalism and terrorism.)

Anyone with eyes to see can see that Coulter is wrong. Even a casual glance at the Department of Defense’s photo of the 19 hijackers reveals stark differences in skin color and facial features. From the particular (those 19 hijackers) – where she is wrong – Coulter extrapolates to a universal paint chip profile for identifying all terrorists.

Coulter continually conflates race and religion, alternately denouncing “Muslim terrorists” and demanding “racial profiling,” all the time ignoring the non-Arab traits of John Walker Lindh, Robert Reid, and, Jose Padilla, to name a few

Even though the racial profile doesn’t fit, Ann Coulter wants others to wear it.

One particular gaffe is worthy of note. Coulter wrote, “(This is excluding Sirhan Sirhan, the first Muslim to bring the classic religion-of-peace protest to American shores, when, in support of the Palestinians, he assassinated Robert Kennedy.)”[19] Of course, Coulter undermined both of her major points – the necessity for racial (religious) profiling and the Islam-is-inherently-evil paradigm – since Sirhan Sirhan was not a Muslim but a Christian.

From the onset of the war on terror, Coulter has religiously promoted racial profiling – for religious extremists! Once again, she seeks implementation of racial profiling to catch religious extremists. Did you catch that? Racial profiling for religious extremists? In Coulter’s mind – or at least, in her commentary – race and religion are synonymous.

Most Muslims are not Arabs at all. Moreover, most of the 3.5 million Arab Americans were Christian (77%). Further, the Muslim population worldwide was approximately 1.7 billion in 2003. Are they all really terrorists?

Still, Coulter writes that profiling Arabs will prevent Muslims from terrorizing Americans. Her essays regularly interchange “Arab” and “Muslim,” as if they are identical. Failure to accept this fact – race does not equal religion – suggests either a willful ignorance or an obliviousness to reality.

In 2003, Coulter wrote, “European barbarism baffles Americans, since they look like us.”[20] How do Europeans “look like us?” White? The following year, Coulter again accentuated race: “When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we’re up against absolutely insane savages.”[21]

Coulter commended the FBI efforts against Islamic terrorism in Treason: “The FBI had been on the Arab community like white on rice with wiretaps, informants, arrests, and interrogations. By the end of 2002, the Department of Justice had disrupted terrorist cells in Buffalo, Portland, and Detroit.”[22] What Coulter failed to mention is that a number of those suspects were non-Arabs and women. Terrorist cells in other locations (Newburgh, Miami, North Carolina) similarly included non-Arab jihadists.

The Beltway Snipers terrorized the D.C. for some time. Coulter castigated Homeland Security and the politically correct liberal media during and after the shootings took place, correctly linking the terrorists to the jihadist mentality that inspired the 9/11 attacks. Yet, Coulter continued to promote racial profiling to prevent religious extremists from committing evil. (Apparently, she is really is colorblind, not noticing the Beltway snipers were black.)

Coulter emphasized the sniper’s religion and ignored his race, writing, “He is a Muslim. He converted to Islam 17 years ago. He changed his name to John Muhammad. He belonged to Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. He cheered the terrorist attack of Sept. 11. He registered his getaway vehicle with the DMV on the anniversary of Sept. 11 – writing down the time of registration as 8:52 a.m.”[23] Coulter failed to mention that his accomplice was a Jamaican.

In that same essay, Coulter pounded away at his religion – “He’s a Muslim. That’s his condition and his diagnosis. It may be time to update the DSM-IV by adding ‘Jihad Impulse-Control Disorder’ to its index of official diagnoses” – but she ignored the inconvenient truth that this terrorist is a non-Arab.

The Beltway snipers – two black Muslim men (non-Arabs!) – could not have been apprehended using Coulter’s racial profiling paradigm.

Chapter 6

Amanda Knox Convicted by Coulter After Being Exonerated by Court

Ann Coulter will say whatever she wants about whomever she wants irrespective of the truth. From almost the beginning of the sensational murder case in 2007 Coulter defamed Amanda Knox, “an innocent American girl,” whom Coulter turned into a poster child for her thesis of left-wing leniency in the criminal justice system (“criminal apologists,” to use her words).

Coulter needed a face, a cause célèbre, to represent her grandiose theory – liberals are evil, love criminals, and hate the police – and Knox fit the bill.

At the time, Coulter friend and radio talk show host Kevin McCullough astutely observed serious character flaws in his friend, particularly regarding Coulter’s slander of Amanda Knox and her defenders [emphasis added].

“Often she throws rhetorical temper tantrums over issues she has no relationship to. In the Amanda Knox case she sided against an innocent American girl, who had wrongfully been skillfully framed for the murder of a roommate. In doing so she called Knox’s defenders ‘liberals and progressives’ doing so from a framework of ignorance or negligence – neither an attractive quality. But she was materially and expressly false in those assumptions and refused to apologize to the conservative, Christian, Republican families she slandered in the process.”[24]

Nevertheless, Coulter insists “that Amanda Knox was guilty of murder, in spite of an almost complete absence of evidence or motive tying Knox to the crime.”[25] It is Coulter’s impenitence which prevents her from apologizing or admitting error.

Coulter’s defamation continues to the very present – defaming not only Knox, but all her defenders and those who believe in the rule of law. To date, Coulter has written a series of essays condemning Knox, given scores of interviews on the subject, and repeated her defamation in Never Trust a Liberal Over 3.

As I noted in The Gospel According to Ann Coulter,[26] Coulter defended the execution of prisoners for crimes they did not commit! Ignorant of the meaning of “exact justice,” constitutional attorney Coulter once declared, “Sometimes people are innocent of the crime they were sentenced to death for, but perhaps not all crimes.”[27]

In the press, Coulter subtly but quickly convicted Rep. Gary Condit (D-CA) of murdering his intern, Chandra Levy, and disposing of her body. Years later, the real murderer was caught. The truth matters little to Coulter. She will do whatever it takes to get those nasty Democrats and to promote her worldview – and herself – in the process.

Yes, Coulter will even besmirch an innocent American who served four years in an Italian prison for a crime she did not commit – just to sell more books and prove the thesis of those books. Coulter claims liberals “defend the guilty and impugn the innocent,” which is precisely what Coulter has done to Amanda Knox.

Chapter 7

Embracing Liberty

Coulter enjoys being offensive, claiming she’d be “disappointed if liberals did not spit their drinks out when they heard [her] name.”[28] She says that’s what she’s “shooting for.” Being offensive is her goal. In doing so – in justifying herself in her own eyes – she tries to disassociate herself from her actions: “But that does not relate to the reality of me. It relates to me creating a reaction in godless traitors.” Just what is the meaning of “is?”

She seeks to enrage the Left and then excoriates the Left for being enraged. Coulter said, “Normally, when I write columns I am specifically baiting liberals and I know exactly which line they are going to scream blue murder about.”[29] She later provided an example: “In retrospect, that phrase [‘affable Eva Braun’] was a one-punch knockout. I think that a lot of people really hate her and I was just the first one to pop her.”[30]

Indeed, Coulter enjoys being hated. It’s fun! “Most of the time, I just think of Chairman Mao’s saying that it’s a good thing to be attacked by the enemy. The more vicious they are, the happier I am.”[31]

“[Political discourse] is littered with ad hominem landmines,” [32] Coulter affirmed. “When they call me [Coulter lists names], I find it like the first sip of champagne. I enjoy nothing so much as being attacked by liberals.”

Responding to a query from a friend asking “How do you get used to being hated by so many people?” Coulter said that her “first paragraph was bubbling over with how fun it was to be hated by liberals,” but then she realized “at the end of it, maybe I am getting too into being hated by liberals.”[33]

But she absolutely hates being criticized by conservatives. When Coulter abandoned Christian conservative principles to promote homosexuality, she castigated those who criticized her:[34] “These are fake Christians trying to get publicity.”[35]

Joseph Farah responded to Coulter’s remarks, saying, “Ann is angry. I hope she calms down and there can be some restoration, repentance and forgiveness. She said some mean things about me, but I can sleep at night knowing I did the right thing in God’s economy.”[36]

As is widely-known, Coulter has difficulty with apologies and with repenting.[37] As far back as 1997, Coulter said, “I’ve never backed off anything.” Her fourth rule in her 2005 book, How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must), is “never apologize.” In 2013, she affirmed her convictions, declaring, “I am strongly anti-apology.”[38] At that time she even affirmed her unwillingness to forgive by adding, “I think [apologies] should never be accepted.”[39]

Christian apologist C.S. Lewis said, “Above all else, the Devil cannot stand to be mocked.”

Throughout human history, shame has been used to bring people to their senses. In 1997, Coulter lamented, “there is a problem with people becoming less and less capable of being shamed.” [40] She added, “There is one sort of type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom, you know, consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing, you know, in the Hood, to be flogged publicly.”

Coulter made it explicitly clear, “I have to say I’m all for public flogging” and insisted, “I’m all in favor of punishment being something unpleasant.” The express purpose of the public flogging is to instill shame in the person behaving immorally and criminally.

Newsbusters once asked why anyone should mock Coulter.[41] Arrogant people need to be mocked in order to shame them, to cause them to wake up to who they’ve become, and to lead them to repentance and liberty – freedom from their patterns of wrong behavior.

Arrogant people are unrepentant people and Ann Coulter is surely arrogant, unrepentant, and unforgiving.

Coulter needs to be mocked, to be embarrassed, to be shamed, to be brought to her knees before God for forgiveness, for restoration, for liberty.[42]

Appendix 1

Is Breaking Bad Breaking Good for Ann Coulter?

Many people are puzzled by Coulter’s contention that Breaking Bad is a “Christian parable” since Christ is absent from the series and no one is redeemed.

Breaking Bad was intended to show the dark side of human nature spiraling downward in its descent to depravity, raising the question of whether it truly is a Christian parable.

If Breaking Bad is Coulter’s theological benchmark and framework for morality, then that explains much regarding her personal and professional conduct over the last couple of decades.

Ann Coulter’s essay[43] on “AMC’s smash TV series,” Breaking Bad, is a must read – for perplexed fans and for practicing Christians.

From her second sentence onward, Ann extols the God of the Bible, forgiveness, and the godly character His children should be developing. Strangely, she ignores repentance and how to actually live a godly life.[44]

Ann begins by equating Breaking Bad with Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ,[45] claiming that Breaking Bad contains both conservative and Christian themes, and exhorting her readers to “READ THE BIBLE!” Knowing that human nature has not changed since the Bible was written, Ann observes: “It’s chockablock with gore, incest, jealousy, murder, love and hate,” thus proving the Bible’s relevancy for today and confirming that there truly is nothing new under the sun, but utterly failing to prove the Christian paradigm of Breaking Bad.

Ann also correctly observes – counter to the prevailing moral relativism pervading our culture – that “the Bible tells the truth, the lessons are eternal,” remarking that this “also marks the difference between great literature and passing amusements.”

Next, Ann forays into the realm of forgiveness, describing the show’s Jesse Pinkman as that “sweet, soulful druggie” who “illustrates – heartbreakingly – the monumental importance of the cross.”[46] Ann’s word choices are faultless.

Having for years heralded the importance of the cross and the forgiveness upon which her salvation rests, Ann nevertheless departs from Christian orthodoxy by suggesting that Jesse should go to the cross to be able to forgive himself. Instead, Ann says he enters “some godless hippie rehab center” and, consequently, “is still unable to forgive himself.”

Ann contends that – because Jesse has been “unable to forgive himself” – he returns to an ungodly lifestyle which intensifies his descent into darkness. Ann writes, “Mayhem, murder and disaster ensue.”

Why? Because Jesse did not “forgive himself” and, instead, accepted that he’s “the bad guy.”

But is that what the cross is all about? No. It is about receiving forgiveness from God and then living a transformed life. The problem for Jesse was not a failure to forgive himself but a failure to repent, thereby receiving forgiveness from God.

But Ann continues with her nonsense, writing, “There’s only one thing in the world that ever could have allowed Jesse to forgive himself.” Except, once again, the cross isn’t about self-forgiveness. Indeed, even forgiven Christians – those who have genuinely repented with godly sorrow – should still feel a measure of guilt until they have done all they can do to right the wrongs they have committed (Matthew 5:23-24). (Making amends is one of the principal recovery steps, after all, in Alcoholics Anonymous and other addiction treatment programs.)

Therein lies the dilemma for those seeking to do God’s will but still loving the sins to which they are addicted. Whom will they serve? Jesus and the disciples frequently asked that question. In the Old Testament, Joshua answered, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Ann recognizes there is only one Master, yet she fails to place her own life into the biblical perspective of that reality. She introduces Jesse’s wife, Skyler, as a perfect illustration of “why Scripture instructs us to flee evil and admonishes: ‘You shall have no other gods before me.’”

Discovering Jesse’s criminal activities – and hating them – Skyler keeps his secret and even becomes a “partner in crime.” Ann writes, “Her husband and son have become her ‘gods,’ whom she values more than the one true God.”[47]

Then Ann segues to “the greatest sin of all: pride,” which she calls “the most incessantly proved lesson” of this television series, contending “there is no better study of the sin of pride than … Walter White.”[48]

For Ann, “Walt starts out as a sympathetic character … But throughout five seasons, we watch him become irredeemably evil because of his pride.”

Throughout the series, viewers witness “Walt’s descent into darkness,” ostensibly with benevolent motives to help his family. But, as Ann noticed, “[Walt] hadn’t made any of these increasingly depraved moral choices for ‘his family’ – as he finally admits in the last episode. It was for himself, to feed his pride.” Narcissism and pride.

The Bible repeatedly says, “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

Appendix 2

Ann Coulter’s Trust Busted

Controversialist Ann Coulter’s 10th book was launched as her books typically are – in the midst of controversy. But, atypically, Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 – Especially a Republican is unique among her portfolio. It is the only one which failed to make the New York Times best-seller list.

This third in her series of essay collections also ranks third in its successfulness, indicating, perhaps, that its author’s cachet and clout are indeed dramatically diminishing among conservatives. Recently touted as “conservatism’s darling”[49] by her journalistic home, Human Events, many of her most loyal fans have become disenchanted with their heroine due to her proclivity for prevarication and her inappropriate attacks against fellow conservatives.

In recent years, Coulter has alienated many Libertarians, Tea Party members, establishment Republicans, and social conservatives. Columnist Debbie Schlussel’s clever re-titling of Coulter’s latest book says it all: Never Trust an Ann Coulter Who Pimps Us on GOP Libs, Then Pimps Books Saying the Opposite.[50]

Comparing like to like, here we examine only three of Coulter’s ten books – those which are essentially essay collections with additional material thrown in. All three, coincidentally, were published in the month of October in their respective years.

How to Talk to a Liberal contained a number of new essays and several previously-unpublished ones, while If Democrats Had Any Brains included interviews from a large number of domestic and foreign news outlets. Never Trust a Liberal includes very dated material which she tries desperately to promote as both descriptive in the past and predictive of the future.

In 2004, How to Talk to a Liberal populated the best-seller list for 16 weeks, more than any other Coulter book, but, just three years later, her second collection, If Democrats, appeared only four times. By then, tech-savvy fans knew they could read her columns in various archived collections sprinkled around the Internet. Moreover, even by that time, her credibility was in steep decline, suffering from credible allegations of plagiarism[51] in two of her books[52] and continual controversies (ad hominem attacks, hate speech, prevarication, etc.).

Now, six years later, too few people are interested in too many columns from too long ago. Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 has little to offer, especially for those Coulter has alienated. Her own trust deficit now plagues her work.

Given that each of Coulter’s previous nine books ranked at least six on the best-seller list, Trust is an abysmal failure. Even more so when you consider that, as of this writing, Charles Krauthammer’s Things That Matter – a collection of his essays spanning three decades – is currently number one on that list. Krauthammer has credibility and gravitas. Coulter does not.

Each of Coulter’s books tries to outdo the last; each promotional campaign raises already superlative expectations that much higher. Coulter’s approach is to continually push the envelope, to extend the parameters of normative political dialogue, to top herself in order to stay relevant.

I suspect that a lot of people who would normally be predisposed to buy and promote her books are put off by the arrogance of her book title, it’s theme, and her current commentary. She’s back to her old self – untrustworthy.

Coulter crows that each time critics contend “this time she has gone too far,” she has survived and thrived. But her shtick is wearying and people are looking for someone to trust.

Since Coulter busted the trust of her readers, they have busted her Trust.


[1]       See Chapter 1: “The Seduction of Ann Coulter,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free download at and Chapter 1: “Roots: Ann Coulter’s Christian Heritage,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, available as a free download at

[2]       See Chapter 2: “The Cuckolding of Conscience,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free download at

[3]       See Chapter 9: “Goddess of the Conservative Movement,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free download at

[4]       See Daniel Borchers, Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, available as a free download at

[5]       See Chapter 2: “Presidential Follies.”

[6]       Krissah Thompson, “Ann Coulter back on airwaves, reenergized by shutdown and exemplifying unhappiness of GOP,” Washington Post, 10/29/13.

[7]       Ann Coulter, Fox & Friends, FNC, 11/9/13. She also denigrated “arrogant bureaucrats” in her 11/13/13 column.

[8]       See Harry Shearer, “Found Objects: The Many Moods of Ann Coulter,” My Damn Channel,

[9]       Ann Coulter, “If not Romney, who? If not now, when?” 11/16/11.

[10]     Ann Coulter, Book Party, Daily Caller, 10/22/13.

[11]     Ibid.

[12]     Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck Radio Show, Premiere Radio Networks, 10/15/13.

[13]     Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 10/14/13.

[14]     Ann Coulter, “’The Plan,”” 11/05/03.

[15]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 10/11/97.

[16]     How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter, Crown Forum, 2004.

[17]     Ann Coulter, “Democrats Bash Bush for Serving in Guard,” Human Events, 2/11/04,

[18]     Ann Coulter, Harvard University, 10/26/02.

[19]     Ann Coulter, “Bush pays homage to the rituals of liberalism,” 6/20/02.

[20]     Ann Coulter, Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terror, Crown Forum, 2003, pg. 288.

[21]     Ann Coulter, quoted by Sholto Byrnes, “Ann Coulter: The blonde assassin,” The Independent, 8/16/04.

[22]     Ann Coulter, Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terror, Crown Forum, 2003, pg. 270.

[23]     Ann Coulter, “Media Muslim makeovers!” 10/30/02.

[24]     Kevin McCullough, “No! Ann Coulter, you couldn’t be more wrong!!!” Hot Air Green Room, 11/17/11,

[25]     “Ann Coulter’s Continuing Error on Amanda Knox and My Rebuttal,” SaberPoint, 9/10/11, The blogger adds, “The prosecution’s “evidence” has been thoroughly debunked by former FBI agent Steven Moore and Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry, Mark Waterubury, PhD, among others.”

[26]     See Daniel Borchers, The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, 2012, available as a free PDF download at

[27]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 11/9/96.

[28]     Laura M. Holson, “Outflanked on Right, Coulter Seeks New Image,” New York Times, 10/8/10.

[29]     Ann Coulter, quoted by Toby Hamden, ‘I love to pick fights with liberals,’ The Telegraph, 7/19/02,

[30]     Ibid.

[31]     Ibid.

[32]     Ann Coulter interview with Bill Thompson, Eye on Books, August 2002.

[33]     Laura M. Holson, “Outflanked on Right, Coulter Seeks New Image,” New York Times, 10/8/10.

[34]     “WND Drops Ann Coulter From Miami Event Over Homo Conflict,” WorldNetDaily, 8/17/10,

[35]     Ann Coulter, Red Eye, FNC, 8/20/10.

[36]     “Ann Coulter on WND: ‘They’re a Bunch of Fake Christians,” WorldNetDaily, 8/21/10,

[37]     See Chapter 5: “… and Balls!” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free PDF download at

[38]     Ann Coulter, Red Eye, FNC, 6/22/13.

[39]     Repentance and forgiveness have always co-existed in an intricately intertwined symbiotic relationship. Repentance compels forgiveness and forgiveness entreats repentance. The impenitent rarely forgive others while the unforgiving rarely seek forgiveness. In that regard, repentance and forgiveness are complementary measures of the state of one’s heart.

[40]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 3/22/97.

[41]     Tim Graham, “Fox’s Glee Mocks Ann Coulter, Makes Femiist Wage Claims,” Newsbusters, 4/20/10,

[42]     Spiritual, emotional, and intellectual healing is my hope for Coulter. Though she is impenitent, she is not irredeemable. See Chapter 20: “It Really IS a God Thing,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, 2012, available as a free PDF download at May Ann one day accept the liberty that God offers her in Jesus Christ.

[43]     Ann Coulter, “Breaking Bad: A Christian Parable,” 10/2/13.

[44]     See my (audio) sermon, “Living the Resurrected Life,” at

[45]     It does seem strikingly odd (and “counterintuitive”) that Ann would claim that a show which is seemingly (indeed, deliberately) irreligious is really religious, but, again, being unfamiliar with Breaking Bad, I must reserve judgment. Still, equating a television series devoid of God with a movie extolling Him does seem rather odd. See Andy Graham, “The Baptism of Breaking Bad,”, 10/2/13,

[46]     To reiterate, these and subsequent references regarding Breaking Bad derive from Ann’s essay and her observations, perspectives, and paradigm – not mine.

[47]     The subject of idolatry is addressed in several chapters of Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, available as a free PDF download at

[48]     The subject of pride is addressed in several chapters of Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, available as a free PDF download at

[49]     Teresa Mull, “Ann Coulter Offers Advice to GOP on The View,” Human Events, 10/22/13, The article title was mysteriously changed to “Coulter Charms Left-Leaning Ladies of the View.”

[50]     Debbie Schlussel, “Never Trust an Ann Coulter Who Pimps Us on GOP Libs, Then Pimps Books Saying the Opposite,” 10/21/13,

[51]     Ron Brynaert, “In new book, Coulter ‘cribs’ stem cell list from right-to-life group,” Raw Story, 6/14/06,

[52]     See Daniel Borchers, “The Plagiarism Trap,” BrotherWatch, 2002,

Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory

Ann Coulter – a “conservative icon” whose words and controversies make headlines around the world – glories in having the distinction of being “the most hated woman in America”[1] and, still, wielding considerable clout as a conservative diva.

From the beginning, Coulter has sought fame and fortune and, having acquired both, she still finds an emptiness within her soul which she cannot fill – no matter how hard she tries.

Coulter has discovered that fame is fickle and glory is glaringly fleeting. Only in the moment does it satisfy. Absent the spotlight, reality sets in. Despite all the accolades and all the trappings of power, emptiness blankets her heart and soul.

Moreover, hard as she tries to promote her own preferred image of herself, Coulter is confronted with the reality that the truth will always come out – people will come to see her as she really is. No amount of fame, fortune, power, or prestige can hide the person she truly is.


Here is a sampling from Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory:

Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory

Daniel J. Borchers

Published: December 31, 2012

194 pages


Image Obsessed

Two weeks after meeting Coulter in 1997, Ann sent me several multi-page emails urging me to aid her by writing letters-to-the-editor on her behalf to George magazine, TV Guide, and the New York Times. Ann was distraught over how she was portrayed in those publications, incensed over minor issues, and very concerned about her image. She wanted me to correct what she perceived as mischaracterizations of her in those publications.

As she told me, “it’s a good idea that someone besides Ann writes a letter because otherwise it’ll just appear self-serving.” Ann later thanked me for writing the letters, explaining that “a letter would be good to put my name in that magazine another week,” adding, “I was tempted to write a letter myself for this purpose, but thought it would be hard to do without sounding defensive and pathetic, no matter how short and sarcastic.”[2]

It was quickly impressed upon me that Ann was passionate about, even obsessed with, her image.[3] I would soon discover that Ann would scour the media for references to herself and would shoot off emails to counter anything of which she disapproved. That pattern still continues to some degree today with Coulter either directly defending herself or, more often, enlisting the aid of surrogates within her network of friends and colleagues to do so for her.


Object of Adoration

The structure of Vanity is simple. Chapter one lays the foundation – narcissism – as not just a human proclivity but as an overwhelming operating psychological principle in Coulter’s life. As documented elsewhere, the psychological formula which appears to have created the Ann Coulter so many love and so many hate is …

Beauty + Brains + Background → Narcissism.[4]

Chapter two shows how narcissism can lead to and become idol worship, with the narcissist becoming the object of idolatry for both the narcissist and her devotees. Chapters three through five address the psychological triplets of pride, prejudice, and power, all of which reinforce narcissism. Chapters six and seven examine the twins of fame and fortune, which similarly reinforce and intensify narcissistic patterns of thinking and behavior. Combined, these factors and forces all create a synergistic cycle which can seem unbreakable, as represented in the following formula:

Pride → Prejudice → Pursuit of Power → Fame → Fortune → Pride → …

Chapter eight gazes into the mirror of Ann Coulter’s soul by examining perhaps the most revelatory essays a person can write: her eulogies to family, friends, and colleagues. In many of those eulogies, Coulter is literally the center of attention.

Chapter nine delves into the nature of conscience and innocence; the former can put a brake on narcissism and its devastating consequences while the latter is a state to which narcissists can return with repentance and healing.

Afterwards, seven case studies in narcissism are provided. They reveal various ways in which Coulter has, through treachery and deceit, attempted to subvert the electoral process to achieve her desired electoral outcome, all the while elevating herself, her goals, and her desires for glory.

Those case studies, chronologically presented, include Coulter’s betrayal of her client (Paula Jones), her illegal possession of (and perhaps contamination of) evidence in a case involving President Clinton (the “Tripp tapes”), her attempt to run a “total sham campaign” for Congress to oust a sitting Republican, and her attempts to subvert the presidential election process in the 2000, 2008, and 2012 election cycles.

We conclude with three appendices. The first features Coulter impersonators, the second is an interview with Katherine Black, author of her own book about Coulter. My sermon, “The Success of the Godly,” in Appendix 3, completes this book.

Chapter 1

Rising Crème: Narcissism – A Primer

Ann Coulter epitomizes narcissism. She has been both favorably and unfavorably compared to Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Lady Gaga, and Madonna (not the Virgin). Coulter’s ascendancy to celebrity and her longevity as a sensationalist who nonetheless is somehow taken seriously attest to the demise of Western Civilization as we once knew it.[5]

Self-promotion is where it’s at these days. Self-promotion sells. At least the kind in which Coulter engages. Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media stated the obvious about Coulter’s then most recent controversy: “The political equivalent of Britney Spears shaving the hair off her head, Ann Coulter made headlines at Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) by calling Democrat John Edwards a faggot.” Kincaid then connected the incongruity of Coulter’s behavior, her attire, and her espoused Christian beliefs: “Wearing a leather dress and a Christian cross around her neck, Coulter must be a liberal infiltrator whose purpose is to give conservatism a bad name.”[6]

Deeply conflicted, with a remarkably dynamic internal ambivalence, Coulter believes herself to be the crème de-la crème (wanting “the cream to rise to the top”) while simultaneously questioning her own self-worth, especially when confronted by people who are brighter and more accomplished than her, or by situations which are beyond her ability to resolve.

Several formative stages emerged as Coulter strove to both prove herself and rise to the level of accomplishment to which she felt entitled. The first stage was bracketed by her graduate and post-graduate education and her legal experience as first an intern for a circuit court judge and then working briefly for two New York law firms. The second stage succeeded in bringing her dreams to fruition while the third stage heralds the dangers of getting what we seek.

In the Beauty of Conservatism,[7] I addressed the various traits of addictive thinking, which include denial, projection, and rationalization. It may seem counterintuitive, but those traits are all self-focused. In denial, the person obsessively looks away from self to another for the source of her problems, all the while seeing herself as the victim of those creating the problem. Using projection, the person projects one’s own patterns of thinking and feeling onto others. And using rationalization, the person rationalizes her own behavior to justify herself.

Chapter 2


Some fans call Coulter their idol, or wear clothes emblazoned with “Ann Coulter is my idol!” In response to a fan who gushed, “You’re my idol,” Coulter exclaimed, “God bless you! See, all the pretty girls are on my side.”[8] It would appear that Coulter is also an idol to herself.[9]

(One of Coulter’s continuing contradictions is claiming that only conservatives are attractive and liberals are not, yet admitting that liberal “air-head actresses” have beauty. Speaking to those actresses, Coulter said, “God gave you the gift of genetic beauty and nothing between your ears.”[10])

In her 2004 biographical documentary, Coulter bragged, “My hobby has become my life. I have the greatest life imaginable. I think I have a greater life than anyone in the universe. I sleep till noon. I work in my underwear. I’m my own boss. No one can fire me. The only people who can fire me are the American people.”[11]

Yes, that’s right, Coulter speaks for the American people! All of them? Peter T. King put it nicely, “Ann Coulter has become a legend in her own mind.”[12]

Narcissism is, at heart, self-worship.[13] Narcissists are enraptured with themselves.

According to Patrick X. Coyle of Young America’s Foundation, “Ann Coulter is a star among conservative students! Her books are best sellers. Her campus lectures are the most popular events on campus. Swooning fans wait hours to hear her speak.”[14]

Chapter 3

Pride – All is Vanity

In 1999, Coulter admired John F. Kennedy, Jr.’s admiration for her, and she said so in her eulogy for the fallen liberal icon (see Chapter 8). Not surprisingly, in addition to being full of acrimony, Coulter’s Kennedy eulogy praised Coulter. In one surprising interview, Coulter boasted:

“I really did admire and respect him a lot and … I think what he was doing was very important and that is taking a lot of the acrimony out of political dialogue. For example, by having me write for him and proposing article ideas. He was very enthusiastic about my articles, and I’m a Republican.”[15]

Yes, that’s right – the deceased heir of Camelot was worthy of admiration and respect because he hired Coulter! [The accompanying photo is of Coulter flirting with the married Kennedy just a few weeks before his death.]

In a 2004 interview,[16] Coulter was asked, “What are the top five books you’d recommend to become an informed voter?” Coulter’s humble reply listed the Bible first, followed by her own four books: “The Bible, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Slander, Treason, and How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).” She ignored the secondary question, “And what can your new book contribute?”

Asked about her book titles in 2011, Coulter replied, “Zippy titles, aren’t they?”[17] Responding to a caller’s question in that interview, Coulter said, “You need to read my book, Godless, where this point is made more pithily, I think.”[18] Asked about the process of writing a book, Coulter joked, “It’s a lot more fun to read it over and over again if I’m using myself [with her trademark humor].”[19]

Marketing herself and her book, Coulter repeatedly insisted that Mugged is “IT’S SO GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it’s a blockbuster”[20] and “It’s soooo good!”[21] Indeed, she insisted it was a “smash book” even before its release. She even claimed her previous book, Demonic, was a “smash best-seller.”

Chapter 4


There’s a reason polemics come so easily for Coulter. She looks down on so many people. Coulter typically denigrates specific individuals (even if she does not know them). For instance, she burst out, “Hang on! Back down! Look, would you two hatchet women back off for five minutes! I can’t even finish a statement.”[22] Hatchet women?

Coulter’s ill-disguised contempt for specific individuals in particular is paralleled by similar views of humanity as a whole. According to Coulter, “humans are fascist by nature,” with an “instinct to fascism,”[23] and “humans are stupid.”[24]

Yes, it’s official! Coulter has hatred. Coulter said, “I’m glad that I didn’t do the interview yesterday. I didn’t want to be on radio yesterday because I couldn’t officially hate Todd Akin until the 5 p.m. deadline. Once he refused to resign — not even resign. He doesn’t hold the office — to withdraw as the candidate. Now I can officially hate him. … Now I officially hate him.”[25]

Chapter 5

Pursuit of Power

Coulter’s control of her own life and career exerts itself in numerous ways and is strikingly revealed in a 2004 documentary about her life: “My hobby has become my life. I have the greatest life imaginable. I think I have a greater life than anyone in the universe. I sleep till noon. I work in my underwear. I’m my own boss. No one can fire me. The only people who can fire me are the American people.”[26]

With her power and control, Coulter believes “I can say whatever I want to say.”[27] Coulter boasts, “I am the illegal alien of commentary. I will do the jokes that no one else will do.”[28] Coulter promises, “A word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can.”[29]

Asked in 2003, whether interviewers try to provoke her into saying outrageous things just because of who she is, Coulter responded, “No. I do that on my own.”[30]

With a distinct air on invincibility, Coulter boasts, “The American people like me; editors don’t. I’ve arranged my life so that I am unfireable. I don’t have any bosses. The only people who can fire me are the American people.”[31] Coulter contends, “I have set up my life so that I cannot be fired, I cannot be edited.”[32] Yes, these are all things she has done. She has acquired total control to accomplish these things.

Unfazed by criticism, filled with pride, Coulter possesses neither humility nor humanity. Her response to her critics and victims: “Oh, screw them!”[33] Coulter continued, “I feel they’re being authoritarian bullying victims.” They’re the bullies!?

Chapter 6


An excessive desire for fame and glory can wreak havoc in a person’s life and psyche. It has certainly done so in Coulter’s life. As noted in the Introduction, I asked a colleague of Coulter’s about the “mass of contradictions” in Ann’s life. This colleague sees these contradictions linked to her desire for fame: “Part of it has to do with being a celebrity, but part of it has to do with being the kind of person who so wants to be a celebrity.”[34]

Coulter has been on her own quest for fame and glory, her own journey to the stars. Indeed, early in her career, Coulter claimed that stardom is something to be desired, sought, acquired, and she has purposely pursued it with vigor.

Dan Travers, a long-time friend of Coulter’s, observed, “She likes the attention and the fans. She thrives on the whole thing.”[35] To those who have seen Coulter in person at rallies and conferences, this is a self-evident truth.

A colleague and confidante of Coulter’s explained her transient career, hopping from one job to the next, this way: Coulter’s job-hopping was one of “ticket-punching” to “build a legal career” and become credentialed – “Justice Department, Capitol Hill, private-sector legal, public-sector legal, non-profit legal, media. She’s done it all. She’s an aim high kind of person. All of these appointments and jobs have been very prestigious opportunities.”[36] All in pursuit of glory.

According to former Newsweek editor and political correspondent Howard Fineman, “Ann Coulter is getting exactly what she wants, which is attention.”[37] From Fineman’s perspective, “Coulter often has intriguing and provocative things to say about the clash between liberalism and conservatism,” adding that “some of [her] personal comments were just over the line.” If anything, in subsequent years Coulter has redrawn the line, continually pushing the envelope, going further and further over the edge.

Chapter 7


Coulter was born in the then-richest county in America[38] to a blue-bloodline tracing back to the Puritans with a father who was a professional elite. Graduate of an Ivy League college (Cornell) and the elite University of Michigan Law School, Coulter was a frequent flyer crisscrossing America to attend concerts and enjoy ski weekends.[39]

In today’s parlance, Coulter is a One-Percenter. According to Forbes, “The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, compared to the average income of the rest of the population, which is around $51,000. The real disparity between the classes isn’t in income, however, but in net value: The 1 percent are worth about $8.4 million, or 70 times the worth of the lower classes.”[40] According to some sources, Coulter’s net worth is approximately $8.5 million.[41]

By most culturally-recognized standards, Coulter is successful: she has fame, power, and wealth. She is wont to say that you can never be too thin or too rich. A multi-millionaire herself, Coulter’s closest friends are also multi-millionaires, with several billionaires thrown in for good measure.

Apparently money can buy you happiness. Coulter insists, “Yes, life is better if you have money than if you don’t have money, and the more money you have the better off you are.”[42] And, as for prioritization in one’s life, “Your money is private – that is more private than anything else.”[43] If wealth is your primary or sole criteria for the “good life” then doesn’t the acquisition of wealth become your primary goal, often at the expense of character development?

The love of money, fame – and the accompanying prestige and power – is central to the real Ann Coulter.

Numerous profiles note Coulter’s aristocratic origins and current lavish lifestyle. Consider this paragraph from a profile of Coulter in the Westchester WAG:[44]

“During the summer, she frequents ‘The Hamptons – I have lots of friends with places there – and Connecticut, where I visit with family.’ For winter getaways, Coulter can be found on the slopes. ‘Skiing is my biggest extravagance. I usually go to Aspen or Vail over New Year’s.’”

Chapter 8

The Lost Art of the Eulogy: It’s ALL About ME!

During the span of about a decade, Coulter has written a number of eulogies – for her family, friends, colleagues, and heroes. Those eulogies contain certain patterns. Naturally, being of a personal nature, personal aspects of the eulogizer inevitably emerge. What is striking about the eulogies which Coulter has written is just how out-of-the-norm they are.

Coulter often seems to be unrestrained in the expression of her thoughts and emotions. In her eulogies, she reveals a darkness within which gives one pause concerning her sanity and her humanity.

Before taking a look at those eulogies – primarily paeans to people she knew and loved – it behooves us to see how she treats those who have recently passed away.

You may recall that Coulter was briefly fired from MSNBC in early 1997 for calling the then recently-deceased Pamela Harriman, U.S. Ambassador to France, a whore (or, in Coulter’s more delicate nomenclature, a “round heel”). A few years later, Coulter was far more explicit: “Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let’s just call it for what it is. They’re whores.”[45]

Also in 1997, Coulter repeatedly lambasted the just-deceased Princess Diana as an unfit mother and whore. Again, using her own unique verbiage, “I still think [Princess Diana was] a round heel.”[46] One week later, Coulter embellished her remarks: “Her children knew she’s sleeping with all these men. That just seems to me, it’s the definition of ‘not a good mother.’ … Is everyone just saying here that it’s okay to ostentatiously have premarital sex in front of your children?” After a caller asked Coulter to cite her own accomplishments, an enraged Coulter erupted: “[Diana was] an ordinary, and pathetic, and confessional. I’ve never had bulimia! I’ve never had an affair! I’ve never had a divorce! So I don’t think she’s better than I am.”[47]

Fast-forwarding to 2006, in Godless, Coulter viciously attacked the liberal survivors of 9/11 victims, writing:

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. … I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much … the Democrat ratpack gals endorsed John Kerry for president … cutting campaign commercials… how do we know their husbands weren’t planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they’d better hurry up and appear in Playboy.”[48]

As backdrop for an utterly astounding essay on the movie theatre massacre, consider Coulter’s words just two weeks after 9/11:

“I really am sick of [the candle lighting]. I think the candle lighting is bad. It’s womanly. It’s hugging. It’s mourning. Mourning is the opposite of anger, and we’re supposed to be angry right now. A flag, that’s like a manly thing. … It’s the candle lighting. … I like the flag, and I don’t like the candles.”[49]

Now consider her words in the wake of a tragedy which stunned the nation. Coulter began her essay[50] – to date, her only written words on the massacre – by diminishing the need for the victims to mourn: “I feel awful about what happened in Colorado, but can we stop the hugging and the teddy bears?” Grief? Forget it. Remember, Coulter brags that her family culture isn’t into “emotional welfare.”

Coulter’s very next words attempted to present a bigger picture perspective in order to deflect the reader from the pathos of the event: “Just as society can become inured to violence, it can also become inured to sentiment.” But do we want society – and the individuals which comprise it – to “become inured” to the very sentiments which Coulter decries? Published just six days after the mayhem, Coulter would have the victims just, what, get on with life?

Clarifying exactly what she means by “sentiment,” Coulter continued, “There is nothing so hackneyed in the world of photojournalism as pictures of the hugging and the shrines with candles and teddy bears after a tragedy, with a piano softly trilling in the background.” Of what is Coulter afraid? Compassion? Oh, I almost forgot, Coulter claims that “being nice to people” isn’t part of the gospel of Christ, and we can surely sense that “being nice” is foreign to Coulter’s lexicon.[51]

With her virgin foray into published eulogizing, Coulter commemorated the tragic death of one of her employers, John F. Kennedy, Jr., for his praise of her, and repaid his kindness to her by attacking his grieving family. Immediately in the wake of 9/11, Coulter eulogized her fallen friend, Barbara Olson, by using Olson to praise herself, using the Olson marriage to attack the Clintons, and seeking to incite a Christian crusade.

Coulter’s eulogy for Ronald Reagan was utterly unworthy of the hero whom she worshipped, quite contrary to his gracious and magnanimous spirit, and vituperative toward his loved ones. Her self-serving eulogies for Jerry Falwell and William F. Buckley, Jr. lacked the poignancy of personal anecdotes and exploited both their character and their careers to buttress her own.

Her eulogy to her father, John Vincent Coulter, provided a bright spot among her eulogies, containing touching memories in an engaging fashion, yet, somehow exploited her father’s legacy in order to defend her own views of the Cold War and the McCarthy Era. Described as “creepy” by some critics, she used a tribute in honor of her father to do what she instinctively does: demonize liberals.

In eulogizing her courageous liberal friend, Ron Silver, Coulter again regaled readers with many interesting and poignant personal anecdotes, doing well in showing the character and temperament of her friend, yet using him as a cudgel to bludgeon those she hates (and those toward whom Silver held no animosity).[52]

Her eulogy to her mother, Nell Husbands Martin Coulter, was a praiseworthy paean to someone obviously deeply cherished and deeply missed and it provides a model for anyone wanting to give homage to a loved one. One could hope that the emotional maturity exhibited in Mother’s eulogy would be indicative of larger, more substantive spiritual and emotional growth in Ann Coulter’s life. One could hope.

Fully three and a half years after her eulogy to Mother, Coulter was elated over the death of retired Sen. Arlen Specter (PA), who died of cancer at the age of 82. Her first unseemly tweet appeared within hours of his death: “Arlen Specter has just switched to the Dead Party” (10/14/12). Doubling down, Coulter tweeted, “Arlen Specter’s diagnosis – breathing ‘not proven,’” (10/15/12) and “Arlen Specter Accused of Flip-Flopping on the ‘Alive or Dead?’ issue” (10/17/12).

Coulter loathed Specter for years for political reasons, but for her the political is personal. Moreover, Coulter hated him not because he was evil but because he was worse than evil – he was a moderate, a potential threat and political impediment to her utopian dream. Coulter’s tweets reveal an unrepentant and unforgiving heart.

Chapter 16

Conscience and Innocence

Ann Coulter is defective – as is every single human being. But Coulter is not like most people. Idols and goddesses cannot admit to being human. In trying to be – or pretending to be – perfect (without actually changing her behavior), Coulter has become a hypocrite while searing her conscience which recognizes the faults that she cannot confess even to herself.

To hide herself from herself, Coulter employs multiple layers of addictive thinking: denial that she has faults, projection of her negative thoughts, emotions, and behaviors unto others, and rationalization of her irrational and immoral beliefs and behaviors.

Unwilling to admit her faults and failures, ignoring and searing her stricken conscience, Coulter cannot bring her brokenness – and every human being has some brokenness – to God for healing and restoration.[53]

Needing to be – or at least appear – perfect, because of her ethos of performance-based love,[54] Coulter not only cannot admit wrong, she exhibits a judgmental attitude toward others, truly seeming “to despise weakness of any kind.”

Coulter’s pride is magnified as she turns a blind eye to her own faults and judges others for theirs. Her prejudice is heightened as others fail to meet her standards. She pursues power, in part, to control her self-image and how others view her. Fame and fortune add positive reinforcement of her self-identity. All of these facets of her life serve to enslave her to herself.

My original working title for this book was Ego: Looking into the Mirror of Ann Coulter’s Soul, but I soon realized that the subject matter was much deeper and broader than suggested by that title. Certainly ego is a huge part of the book, but only part. The futility of ego is important to grasp. Coulter’s is a fraudulent life based upon lies and deception. For all that she has accomplished, what has she really achieved? In gaining the world, what remains of her soul?

When Coulter looks into the mirror, who or what does she see?

Former colleague Eric Alterman once asserted that Coulter is a “true believer.”[55] Yet Coulter has consistently proven that she is not a true believer. Coulter has demonstrated that she has absolutely no faith in the principles she espouses.

Rather, what Coulter believes in is what serves her interests best. Self-centered, Coulter parades pride as she pursues fame and glory. Ever concerned with her reputation – engaging in spin to turn events and controversies to her advantage – Coulter seems to be creating a specific self-identity, one she feels comfortable with, so that she can feel at home in her own skin. What masks does Coulter wear to hide from others and from herself?

Case Studies

  1. Oh, Paula (Jones)! Ann Coulter’s Betrayal.

In the summer leading up to Clinton’s impeachment, Coulter boasted of doing pro-bono work for her law firm: “Pro-bono work is all I do these days. My law firm is a non-profit law firm.”[56] According to a spokesman at the Center for Individual Rights, Coulter provided no pro-bono work for them.[57] Long after Clinton’s impeachment took place, Coulter again boasted of her pro-bono work for Paula Jones. That year, she also boasted of her betrayal of Jones and took credit for getting Bill Clinton impeached.

  1. (Linda) TRIPPed Up – Tripp Tapes Compromised

One of Coulter’s “greatest moments” had national implications and international repercussions. In the early morning hours of January 16, 1998, Coulter illegally listened to illegally-recorded audiotapes of conversations between Linda Tripp and her friend, Monica Lewinsky, who was President Clinton’s lover. Those tapes would prove crucial to impeaching Clinton. To this day, it remains unknown whether Coulter tampered with those tapes prior to them being turned over to the OIC.

  1. Coulter for Congress: Only Scoundrels Need Apply

Seeking to unseat her Republican Congressman from Connecticut, Chris Shays, Coulter attempted to run for Congress herself. The Republicans and Libertarians rejected her efforts to run a “total sham” campaign. In retribution, Coulter attacked the Libertarians for being true to their principles.

  1. In the Name of Elián (González)

The future of Cuban refugee Elián González, a five-year-old boy, garnered international attention, became a campaign issue, and may have impacted Florida’s electoral outcome. Coulter made the custody battle all about fighting the Cold War over again, and lied about constitutional law to serve her agenda. She further boasted of her eagerness to break the law, thereby potentially endangering the child and his family.

  1. Raising Cain for McCain and Fascist Christians (2000 Election)

Promoting George W. Bush for president – even before knowing his platform – Coulter besmirched the reputations of John McCain, Gary Bauer, and anyone else endangering a Bush candidacy.

  1. Let’s Get Drunk and Vote for McCain (2008 Election)

After trying to destroy John McCain, once he was nominated, Coulter boasted of helping McCain improve in the polls.

  1. Mitt Romney – Ideal Candidate (2012 Election)

Coulter boasted of being able to prevent another electoral defeat by Republicans and attacked true believers (pro-lifers) for their integrity.


[1]           Headline on the cover of the National Enquirer, 6/26/06.

[2]       Even then, in 1997, Coulter valued sarcasm as a primary means of conveying her thoughts (and emotions).

[3]       See Chapter 4 (“… Brains …”) and Appendix 2 (“The Wisdom of Godliness”), in my free PDF book, The Beauty of Conservatism: The Seduction of Ann Coulter and the Cuckolding of Conscience, at

[4]       There are certainly many people who are attractive, articulate, intelligent, and have a distinguished background but who are not elf-absorbed and do not seek self-glory. However, the factors identified in my first two books have certainly significantly impacted Coulter emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually.

[5]       As Coulter can attest, I am using a literary device known as hyperbole.

[6]       Cliff Kincaid, “Ann Coulter: The Britney Spears of the Right,” The National Ledger, 3/4/07,

[7]       In particular, see Chapter 5 (“… and Ball!”) in my free PDF book, The Beauty of Conservatism: The Seduction of Ann Coulter and the Cuckolding of Conscience, available at

[8]       Ann Coulter, quoted in Patrick Wright’s 2004 documentary, Is It True What They Say About Ann? A more correct response would have been to express gratitude for the compliment but observe that no human being qualifies for that honor. The only One who can be idolized or worshipped is God.

[9]       Coulter fans who object to my characterization of Coulter in this way will have to reconcile their views with Coulter’s. In her 2002 book, Slander, Coulter asserted that all liberals are godless and have turned themselves into gods, and in her 2006 book, Godless, Coulter again claimed that all liberals are godless and that they have created an elaborate idolatrous religious system. In contrast, my thesis is that some (not all) on the Right regard Coulter as a goddess (they even say they do!) and that she herself (an individual, not a collective) talks and behaves as if she is a goddess.

[10]     Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 10/15/12. One should note Coulter’s continuing claims of liberal stupidity – “nothing between your ears” – as a major criterion of self-worth. She obviously considers herself of worth. Perhaps most significantly, Coulter is concerned only with the head, not the heart.

[11]     Ann Coulter, quoted in Patrick Wright’s 2004 documentary, Is It True What They Say About Ann?

[12]     Peter T. King, quoted in Susan Estrich, Soulless: Ann Coulter and the Right-Wing Church of Hate, William Morrow, 2006, pg. 71.

[13]     See Dr. Sam Vaknin, Malignant Self-Love: Narcissism Revisited, Narcissus Publications, 1991, 2001, 2003 and Drew Pinsky, The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism is Seducing America, HarperCollins, 2009.

[14]     Patrick X. Coyle, “Ann Coulter and the Young America’s Foundation: Partners in Changing Campuses,” Libertas, Winter 2005, pg. 16,

[15]     Ann Coulter, Rivera Live, CNBC, 7/23/99.

[16]     “Election 2004: The Ann Coulter Interview,”,

[17]     Ann Coulter, In Depth, C-Span, 8/7/11.

[18]     Ibid.

[19]     Ibid.

[20]     Katie Pavlich, “Ann Coulter Takes on Obama’s Racial Demagoguery in Mugged,” Townhall, 7/10/12,

[21]     Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 8/2/12.

[22]     Ann Coulter, Rivera Live, CNBC, 2/4/99.

[23]     Ann Coulter, “Air Travel Made Unpleasant By Overbearing Personnel,” 8/4/99.

[24]     Ann Coulter, Political Malpractice,” 10/6/99

[25]     Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity Radio Show, Premiere Radio Networks, 8/22/12.

[26]     Ann Coulter, quoted in Patrick Wright’s 2004 documentary, Is It True What They Say About Ann?

[27]     “Interview with Ann Coulter,” JD Jungle,

[28]     Ann Coulter, If Democrats had Any Brains, They’d be Republicans, Crown Forum, 2008.

[29]     Ann Coulter, “Be patient, I am working as fast as I can to offend,” 6/22/06.

[30]     Lev Grossman, “10 Questions for Ann Coulter,” Time, 7/14/03.

[31]     George Gurley, “Coultergeist,” New York Observer, 8/25/02,

[32]     Ann Coulter, In Depth, C-Span, 8/7/11.

[33]     Ann Coulter, Alan Colmes Radio Show, Fox News Talk Radio, 10/26/12.

[34]     Author interview.

[35]     Ann Coulter, quoted by Howard Kurtz, “The Blonde Flinging Bombshells at Clinton,” Washington Post, 10/16/98.

[36]     Author interview.

[37]     Howard Fineman, quoted in Susan Estrich, Soulless: Ann Coulter and the Right-Wing Church of Hate, William Morrow, 2006, pg. 71.


[39]     Howard Kurtz, “The Blonde Flinging Bombshells at Clinton,” Washington Post, 10/16/98.

[40]     Alan Dunn, “Average America vs. One Percent,” Forbes, 3/21/12,

[41]     See, accessed 12/3/12.

[42]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 2/1/97. Ironically, (for a fervent free marketer) this is paradoxically a capitalist form of Marxism, a variant of “economic determinism” which equates wealth with success, happiness or any other goal you care to plug into the equation. Wealth cannot buy happiness, nor is it a building block of character.

[43]     Ann Coulter, Rivera Live, CNBC, 4/10/98.

[44]     Emily Freund, “Ann Coulter: She May Be Right …” Westchester WAG, October 2002.

[45]     Ann Coulter, Salon, 11/16/00.

[46]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 9/12/97.

[47]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 9/19/97.

[48]     For an analysis of Coulter’s diatribe, see “Chapter 6: I Am Victim, Hear Me Whine,” in my free PDF book, The Beauty of Conservatism, which is available for download at

[49]     Ann Coulter, Politically Incorrect, ABC, 9/25/01.

[50]     Ann Coulter, “Obscurity: No Crueler Punishment!” 7/25/12.

[51]     Evangelist and missionary Franklin Graham provides an example of how all of this silly candle-lighting stuff (with balloons, too) in official and unofficial memorial services following the tragic Columbine massacre provided comfort and healing for the grieving and an opportunity to proclaim the One who is sovereign on His throne in heaven. See Chapter Two of Franklin Graham, The Name, Thomas Nelson, 2004.

[52]     Ironically, Silver, a non-Christian who actually attended church with Coulter, exhibited greater Christian charity and forgiveness than Coulter, an avowed evangelical Christian.

[53]     Looking at some of the very flawed ancestors of Jesus listed in Matthew chapter 1, Christian author Beth Moore asks a relevant question: “How do you respond to the fact that the only perfect person in Christ’s genealogy is Christ Himself?” Speaking for herself, she answers, “To me, Christ’s flawed family history serves as a continual reminder of the grace of God in my life.” (See Beth Moore, A Heart Like Him: Intimate Reflections on the Life of David, B&H Publishing Group, 1999, 2003, 2012, pg. 10.)

[54]     Ann, God’s perfect love perfectly loves even those who are imperfect, like you and me.

[55]     Annys Shin, “Blond Ambition on the Right,” National Journal, 5/31/97, pg. 1088.

[56]     Ann Coulter, Washington Journal, C-Span, 6/8/98.

[57]     Author interview.

The Gospel According to Ann Coulter

At the turn of this millennium, conservative pugilist Ann Coulter became a leader of the Religious Right, even as she denied its existence. With the publication of Godless (2006), Coulter was recognized as a Christian authority, despite displaying a pattern of unchristian behavior and promoting unbiblical doctrines.

Coulter’s false theology invaded both the Church and Conservatism.

The Gospel According to Ann Coulter highlights the good, the bad, and the downright evil theological pronouncements of Ann Coulter.


Here is a sampling from The Gospel According to Ann Coulter:

The Gospel According to Ann Coulter: How Coulterism Corrupts Christianity and Conservatism

Daniel J. Borchers

Published: June 10, 2012

159 pages


Speaking the Truth in Love

Über-conservative Ann Coulter appeared as an angel of light in the midst of the darkness of contemporary American politics. Among a new generation of political pundits to emerge in the mid-1990s, Coulter was one of the few to openly express her religious beliefs, defend the faith of her forefathers, and extol the Creator.

In 2006, Coulter was recognized as a religious leader with the publication of her fifth book, Godless. That year she was also called “the most hated woman in America”[1] whose book should have been entitled Heartless.[2] Oddly, a person perceived to be heartless became the arbiter of godliness.

The Gospel According to Ann Coulter seeks to differentiate between sound Christian doctrine and incorrect interpretation of Scripture, between espoused beliefs and exhibited behaviors – to affirm the truth correctly espoused by Coulter and to correct the many errors, in style and in substance, conveyed by Coulter.

The structure of this book is simple. The Preface provides my own personal testimony, my own faith journey. Chapter one offers background and insight into Coulter’s own Christian heritage and the evolution of her faith. Chapter two provides a brief overview of the importance of the faith once delivered. Chapters three through 13 evaluate Coulter’s accuracy in conveying specific key Christian doctrines. Chapter 8 also incorporates a case study in how Coulterism corrupts Christianity, causing otherwise godly people to become hypocritical or heretical, demonstrating the importance of this book and the spiritual dimensions it addresses.

Chapters 14 through 18 examine the intersection of religion and politics as they appear in Coulter’s writings and professions of faith. Chapter 19 summarizes key points of this book and contrasts authentic and disingenuous expressions of faith. Chapter 20 highlights Coulter’s growing spiritual schizophrenia over the past couple of years. Finally, Chapter 21 offers up a prayer for Coulter, her acolytes, the body of Christ, and the nation. Four appendices build upon the themes of this book.

Since, from the beginning, Coulter has melded religious faith and political policies, we will necessarily address the interplay between the two. For the purposes of our narrative, using broad strokes, the Christian Right can be likened to “truth Christians” who emphasize the truth of God, while the Christian Left can be likened to “love Christians” who accentuate the love aspect of the gospel. Broadly speaking, conservative Christians tend to emphasize truth over love and can appear legalistic and insensitive, while liberal Christians tend to emphasize love over truth and can become permissive and overly tolerant.

Chapter 1

Roots: Ann Coulter’s Christian Heritage

Her greatest personal influences, according to Coulter, were “Parents, brothers, and Jesus – not necessarily in that order.”[3] Asked to prioritize the order, she said, “Obviously, Jesus has to be number one,” adding that she had “great Christian parents and great Christian brothers,” and concluding “ultimately all you have is God.”

Ann is a Daughter of the American Revolution. In fact, she can trace her lineage back to the Puritans!

Born literally of Puritan blood, proud of her Puritan ancestry, and raised theologically and politically in a quasi-Puritan environment, Coulter found that being a Puritan is harder than it looks. It requires actually taking up one’s cross and following Him. It requires self-sacrifice, something abhorrent to one who is seemingly self-consumed. And it requires an active, living faith in the One who makes it all worthwhile.

So, what’s a girl to do? Proclaim doctrines while twisting truth to enable one’s own hypocritical behavior. Create an ever-narrowing worldview which shuts out all opposing views to provide an emotional and spiritual safety zone. Engage in patterns of addictive thinking to deceive oneself and incorporate Orwellian propaganda techniques to deceive others. Lie, while claiming to speak the truth (see Chapter 8). Defame, while adopting the mantle of victimhood (see Chapter 8). Hate, while claiming hatred a good thing, and, simultaneously, asserting that the hatred is coming from others (see Chapter 7).

But, what’s a Christian to do? A Puritan to do? Sadly, Coulter missed the true significance of her Puritan heritage. The heart of a Puritan was one of piety and humility, honor and integrity, devotion to God and not to self. Seemingly enslaved to self, Coulter refuses to yield to God, yet she seeks the benefits of appearing godly and proclaiming godliness.

As we will see, Coulter squeezes her religious beliefs into her rigid political template instead of adapting her political paradigm to fit into her faith template. Instead of letting faith inform politics, Coulter has politicized faith itself, subordinating it to partisan purposes.

Consequently, Coulter is quick to subordinate biblical principles for partisan purposes or to further her personal and professional pursuits.[4]

Chapter 2

Faith: Once Delivered for All

Coulter once opined, “I’m not a Catholic – but, [standing up for principles is] something that’s admirable about the Catholic church.”[5] Coulter added, “If it’s true, it’s true, and it’s not just some consciousness-raising rap session. … What the Church is supposed to tell you – or religion is supposed to tell you – is how to behave in your particular life.” As Coulter (and every Christian everywhere) would soon find out, knowing what is right and doing what is right are two entirely different things.

A standard-bearer for the traditional family and traditional values, Coulter once boasted of her “total slutty look”[6] and the appropriateness of having serial sexual relationships (“Let’s say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I’m not married”).[7]

A proponent of truth-telling and opponent of hate speech, Coulter readily employs lies and ad hominem in her work. In one telling radio interview,[8] Coulter declared “Lying is never OK,” but then, when asked “What are your views on honesty and civility in political discourse and personal relationships?” she abruptly asserted “I’m against it!”

Most hypocritically, while condemning hypocrisy on the left, Coulter invariably justifies hypocrisy by Christians and conservatives, saying “At least we have standards,” thus totally missing the point of the purpose of standards and the dangers of hypocrisy itself (see Chapter 12).

As for heresy, Coulter frequently turns the gospel on its head (see Chapter 13). In her impassioned defense of Mel Gibson’s controversial movie, The Passion of the Christ, Coulter inexplicably denied the very purpose of Jesus’ passion by treating the Golden Rule as virtually irrelevant in human relationships and by titling one essay “WWJK: Whom Would Jesus Kill?” – when the entire purpose of Jesus’ sacrificial love exhibited on the cross was to save humanity.

Chapter 3

Creator: Author and Finisher of Everything

In the mid-1990s, Coulter observed that traditional national monuments, such as the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, are “suffused with the idea of God and our Maker.”[9] In debates over character education, she exclaimed, “I just can’t really see how you can teach values separate from God.”[10] Coulter also observed, “we’re now living off of the moral capital of the last two centuries of this country. It was really an incredibly novel concept this idea that our Creator endowed us with inalienable rights. That’s what mutual respect comes from.” She added, “We all have these inalienable rights that come from the Creator.” She further clarified, “I’m talking about the Creator. I’m talking about our religion, this country’s founding religion.”

Coulter devoted several chapters of her 2006 bestseller, Godless, to debunking evolution and she frequently writes and speaks on that subject. In fact, she became an “expert” for Coral Ridge Ministries’ DVD documentary, Darwin’s Deadly Legacy. The producers were seemingly unaware of the incongruity of Coulter espousing a link between Darwinism and the Nazi’s dehumanizing Final Solution when she herself has a propensity to engage in using Orwellian techniques of hate speech, character assassination, elimination rhetoric, and dehumanization of anyone who disagrees with her (see Chapter 11 and Appendix 1).[11]

Coulter condemns those who worship the creation while denying the Creator. Ironically, while mindful of her Lord and Savior, Coulter still distorts His words of instruction to mankind regarding the Earth: husbandry, not savagery. Even while acknowledging the Creator’s craftsmanship over His creation, Coulter somehow presumes that He would have us abuse that which He created. She infamously asserted, “God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”[12]

Chapter 4

Forgiveness: Required For All Believers

Coulter insists that she herself has not changed (because change would necessitate admitting past imperfection): “I have friends I went to summer camp with who say I haven’t changed in that respect. I’ve always talked this way, and I always will.”[13] Ironically, Coulter only regrets being nice: “I’ve never said anything so outrageous that I regret it. Though I’ve regretted things that were too tame.”[14] Moreover, Coulter says, “This is the shocking thing for your readers: I believe everything I say.”[15]

When asked if she regretted any of her more controversial remarks, Coulter replied: “You can quote anything I’ve said back to me and ask me if I have reservations, if I would have done it differently, if I would have said it differently, do I have any regrets. The answer is no!”[16]

Expressions of regret or contrition, and admissions of change, would require an acknowledgement of either growth or of decline. If growth, then an admission of prior imperfection is necessary, and for a person for whom flaws are anathema, such an admission is unthinkable. If decline, then those very flaws are growing worse. In either case, admission of warts and wrinkles is emotionally and psychologically unacceptable to a person who must appear perfect. Consequently, Coulter’s ego and her wounds impede her personal growth.

In her eyes, Coulter is never wrong and never repents. On 5/4/12, Coulter posted a series of tweets which ridiculed Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng’s blindness (isn’t he one of the good guys?), displaying both tastelessness and impenitence. To wit, Coulter joked “Couldn’t we just tell that blind Chinese dissident that he’s in America now?” Under fire, Coulter said, “Wow. I felt worse about making light of Communist hellholes known for slaughtering their own people, but it still made me laugh.” Attacking her critics, including those from the National Federation for the Blind, Coulter added, “I’d say they’re a little myopic, except they’d be offended.”[17]

Chapter 5

Redemption: The Power Of His Blood

Coulter once opined, “Once a child commits a crime like that [four-year-old killing his younger brother] what are the odds that he could be taken back [redeemed] in any event, no matter where he’s put?”[18]

Say what? Jesus, who said that nothing is impossible with God, provided His own mission statement at the beginning of His ministry, saying, “The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD” (Luke 4:18-19). Indeed, during His earthly ministry, Jesus healed lepers, exorcised demons, and raised people from the dead. Nothing is impossible! That is our assurance and our hope.

Perhaps Coulter’s hopelessness about redemption informed her desire following 9/11 “to kill them. And we will kill them.”[19] But who was she talking about killing? Terrorists – whom she defines as “the people cheering and dancing in the street.”[20] Her scythe seems sharpened to kill a vast number of people.

Chapter 6

Transformation: By His Spirit

Speaking to a college audience, Coulter confessed, “Jesus died for my sins – that’s all that matters.”[21] That sounds nice, but is it true? Yes – and no. Yes, Jesus died for our sins. No, it is not all that matters. What really matters is a person’s response to the grace God exhibited in Jesus’ atoning sacrifice.

Coulter’s confession of faith is a crucial first step for all Christians. But it is only a first step. Godly repentance requires bearing the fruit of repentance – a transformed life. According to the apostle James, “Faith without works is dead” (Jas. 2:20). An unrepentant life is spiritually barren. Jesus’ sacrificial atonement for our sins (salvation) was followed by the power of His resurrected life (transformation).

Spiritual growth depends upon two things: 1) repentance, turning toward God, putting off the old man, and 2) transformation, living by faith and in the spirit of God, putting on the new man. GOGI: Garbage Out, Godliness In.

Chapter 7

Love: God’s Desire and Goal for Us

Readers may recall Coulter’s humorous admission from 1997: “[I’m a] right-wing crazy and proud of it. I’m included in a hate group – what do they call them? ‘The right-wing haters.’”[22] Coulter, once chastised for having “an ice cube for a heart,”[23] has become the Left’s caricature of a mean-spirited Republican. She acknowledges that she is viewed as a” hard-hearted and mean-spirited conservative.”[24]

On the eve of the 2000 election, a Coulter rant appeared on National Review: “Oh, how I hate them! And, oh, how I hate the waiting. To quote wacky comic Prof. Irwin Corey, when asked about his feelings on the subject of love: ‘I like love, because it’s so close to hate. And without hate, there could be no revenge.’ Tomorrow, we take revenge.” [25]

Coulter feels free to hate indiscriminately. Taking pride in her polemics, loving her loathing, and fomenting hatred in others, she apparently does not know how to love.[26] While well-versed in the art of hatred, Coulter seemingly knows nothing about love. Her espoused enmity for John McCain bares the barrenness of love in her heart. Coulter claims she once loved McCain – but as early as 1999, came to despise him.

Regarding McCain, she said, “I used to love him [John McCain], then I liked him, now I despise him.”[27] (Ann, if you “despise” him now, you didn’t “love” him then.) Remember, Coulter’s hatred of McCain stems from his politics, not who he is as a person!

Kevin McCullough, a Coulter colleague and confidante, recently acknowledged, “She draws large crowds at both conservative and homosexual political conferences. She speaks openly of her own faith (Christianity), while regularly misinterpreting and/or misleading others as to the meanings of Christ, specifically the most important Christian doctrine – Grace.”[28]

Chapter 8

Truth: True Freedom in Christ

In her first post-9/11 book, Slander (2002), Coulter bore false witness against numerous individuals and whole groups of people.[29] Outright lies, falsehoods, exaggerations, and fabrications filled its pages, so much so that scores of websites documented its lack of veracity.[30] Subsequent Coulter books have had their own problems with truth. At times, her truth deficit even strains the grace of her defenders.

Coulter’s worldview seems premised upon a whole series of big lies: all liberals are stupid, evil, traitors seeking to destroy civilization; all Arabs and Muslims are terrorists; “liberalism and terrorism are different stages of the same disease” (her actual speech title); all liberals are godless, all conservatives are godly.

In Slander, Coulter condemned the politics of personal destruction and the vitriolic public square by concluding, “At the risk of giving away the ending: It’s all liberals’ fault.” With the publication of Treason (2003), Coulter posited her propositions that liberalism = terrorism = treason and conservatism = McCarthyism = patriotism. In How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (2004), Coulter asserted, “Nothing too extreme can be said about liberals because it’s all true.” These are all truth claims which are demonstrably false. Indeed, Coulter’s own rhetoric disproves her assertions.

Chapter 9

Reconciliation: Our Ministry as Peacemakers

In 1999, Coulter declared, “There’s nothing more attractive than a rabid conservative.”[31] In 2006, on the quest for unlimited freedom of expression, Coulter admitted, “I’ve always told my friends if only I could be a black Jewish homosexual – then we could really have some fun! Then I could say anything!”[32] In 2007, Coulter asserted her own leadership in outré oratory, exclaiming, “I am the illegal alien of commentary. I will do the jokes that no one else will do.”[33]

Two days before the release of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans (2007), Coulter published a pre-emptive essay to frame the debate.[34] That essay – excerpting what Coulter considered the key point in her book – emphasizes the accuracy of the themes addressed thus far in this book. Her essay title – “Liberals and the Woman Who Hates Them” – reiterates enmity as the fanatical fuel which drives Coulter. Notice the modifier – “the Woman” – as if she alone of all women hate liberals. Her ego posits herself as the solitary “gyno-American” standing up for truth, justice, and the American way.

The Orwellian memory hole almost immediately came to fore with Coulter making this astonishing claim: “Liberals spend so much time hating, hating, hating that they can’t get anything done. I mean, we all thought that Clinton was a cheap pervert, but we didn’t hate him.”[35] What happened to “the Woman Who Hates Them?” Or, for that matter, the woman who, in 2000, declared, “If you don’t hate Clinton, and those who labored to keep him in office, you don’t love your country?” Couldn’t she remember the title of her own essay meant to propel her book to the top of the best-seller list? But then, on Fox & Friends,[36] Coulter again remembered.

Brian Kilmeade asked, “How could you possibly pull off a book with this type of genre, and this type of theme, Ann Coulter? Where does it come from? The anger? The directness? The bluntness?” Coulter replied, “Thank you, thank you. Pure resentment and hatred.” As she had years earlier, Coulter redefined hate speech: “‘Hate speech’ is telling the truth about liberals.”[37]

Chapter 10

Equality: Self-Evident Truths

Despite her assertions of equality, Coulter has a tendency to express racist views. In 1996, she lauded white Europeans while belittling minorities: “It’s extremely difficult to come in if you’re coming from a Western European country. However, if you are from a Third World country, ‘Welcome.’ If your genetic ancestors did not invent the wheel, ‘Oh, well, let them come in.’”[38]

American Indians have fared poorly in Coulter’s worldview: “The Indians were savages. … they were nomads, scalping people. … We [white people] don’t eat people. We don’t engage in human sacrifice.”[39] On that occasion, she added, “Thank God the white man did win or we would not have the sort of equality and freedom, or life, that we have now.”

White supremacy was an underlying theme in several Coulter columns. For example, Coulter wrote, “And manifestly, white men have no political power in modern America. They just rush in to save us when the nation is attacked.”[40]

In Slander (2002), Coulter wrote: “More than any of their other hate speech, the left’s attacks on women for being ugly tell you everything. There is nothing so irredeemably cruel as an attack on a woman for her looks. Attacking a female for being ugly is a hideous thing, always inherently vicious.”[41] Having condemned those who attack “people personally for what they look like,” Coulter attacked people for what they look like, with Bella Abzug being her poster girl for liberals.

Although Coulter claims to eschew groupthink,[42] groupthink pervades her thinking. Far from regarding all human beings as self-evidently equal in God’s eyes and, therefore worthy of the civility due to anyone created in His image, Coulter uses racial, ethnic, gender, and class constructs as criteria to judge the worth of individuals and whole groups of people. Her complex criteria matrix is further complicated by political partisanship and personal prevarication.

Chapter 11

Life: Choosing the Abundant Life

Of the murder of abortionists, Coulter said, “Those few abortionists were shot, or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure with a rifle performed on them. I’m not justifying it, but I do understand how it happened.”[43]

Furthermore, Coulter has defended the execution of prisoners for crimes they did not commit! She once declared, “Sometimes people are innocent of the crime they were sentenced to death for, but perhaps not all crimes.”[44] Investment banker Judith Aidoo then briefly lectured Coulter on the law, specifically, “exact justice.” She also favors capital punishment for teenagers: “I enthusiastically embrace the death penalty [for 14-year-olds convicted of murder].”[45]

Coulter even defended a Democrat – of My Lai Massacre infamy – for the wanton slaughter of innocent civilians, saying, “Even on the worst version, I think it’s a little scurrilous to sit back and attack [Bob Kerrey]. That’s why they say ‘War is hell.’ Civilians get killed.”[46]

In a chilling clarification of her views on the murder of abortionist George Tiller, Coulter boldly stated, “I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester.”[47] Morally tone-deaf, Coulter added a macabre twist: “I’ve noticed there haven’t been a lot of [conservatives] talking about [abortion]. I’d like to think it’s because they’re hung over from the ‘Hurray, George Tiller is Dead Party.’”

Chapter 12

Hypocrisy: Defaming Our Lord and Savior

With Rush Limbaugh’s admission of prescription drug abuse in 2003, some conservatives unabashedly defended him. Rationalizations ran rampant on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country,[48] that discussion being emblematic of the debate within the larger conservative community. Coulter offered a whole series of justifications for Limbaugh’s illegal drug use:

  1. Rush is the beloved father of talk radio.
  2. Rush was experiencing back pain.
  3. No one is perfect like Jesus.
  4. Rush should be praised for doing so well while on drugs.
  5. Rush is my friend.

Sean Hannity frequently attacks the Left for its “hate speech” and “hyperbole,” even calling liberal depictions of conservatives throwing grandmothers over a cliff as “vile,”[49] yet defends Coulter’s hate speech and hyperbole. Coulter’s rhetoric is often far more pejorative and hyperbolic than that which Hannity condemns.

Chapter 13

Heresy: Appearing as an Angel of Light

Perhaps the two most perverse aspects of Coulter’s gospel are her expression of enmity for fellow human beings (including people of faith) and her defense of hypocrisy (at least when committed by conservatives). Indeed, Coulter’s hatred extends to issuing frequent death threats against people, all in the name of advancing civilization and the gospel of life. Further, Coulter politicizes faith (as she does patriotism) by proclaiming its existence exclusively within the province of only one political party. Moreover, Coulter does this through demagogy, deception and deceit, thus turning the gospel of Jesus Christ – a gospel of truth and love – into one of lies, hatred and hypocrisy.

Coulter has declared her hatred for feminists (“I hate the feminists. The real reason I loathe and detest feminists …[they] are also marauding, bloodthirsty vipers”),[50] the media (“It just reminded me of my hatred for the media”),[51] the government (“I think I’m second to none in my hatred for the government”),[52] Bill Clinton (“I’m part of the Clinton hate group”),[53] John McCain (“I used to love him, then I liked him, now I despise him”),[54] and, of course, liberals (“If you don’t hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don’t love your country.”),[55] liberals (“Oh, how I hate them!”),[56] and liberals (“I for one bolted past indifference straight into loathing long ago”).[57]

Coulter’s enmity erupts into death threats against individuals and organizations, such as Elizabeth Dole (assault weapons), John Walker Lindh (execution, burned alive), Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta (assassination), the New York Times building (truck bomb), John Kerry (carpet-bombing), Vice President Al Gore (friendly fire), California Governor Gray Davis (friendly fire), Senator John Edwards (strangling), Senator John Kerry (carpet bombing), American journalists in Iraq (assassination), Supreme Court Justice Stevens (poisoning), all the liberal Supreme Court justices (terrorist attack). (See Appendix 1.)

Chapter 14

Godless: Exhibiting the Works of the Flesh

Coulter herself has turned Christian theology on its head by claiming that “being nice to people is an incidental tenet of Christianity.” Coulter denies the Christian imperative given by Jesus Christ Himself in the Sermon on the Mount – the Golden Rule. Surprisingly, Coulter cites both Ronald Reagan and Jesus Christ as role models, yet the former embraced the Golden Rule while the latter commanded it.

Coulter even transformed the evangelical “What Would Jesus Do?” into a sacrilegious question: “Who Would Jesus Kill?” Boasting of being a “mean Christian” doesn’t seem to register on her conscience as the oxymoron that it is, an oxymoron which only makes sense through newspeak and doublethink. Coulter redefines Christianity in political terms and uses cognitive dissonance to reshape the gospel of Christ.

Sadly, Coulter has a one-dimensional vision of liberalism and of Christianity. Incapable of discerning an intersection of the two, she has developed a convoluted hodgepodge of viewpoints to support her theory of liberal godlessness. In the ultimate definition of demonization, Coulter places liberals on the side of demons. Coulter disparages liberal motives and actually asserts, “Liberals just want to kill humans.”

Chapter 15

Religious Right: Warriors for Truth

Coulter once observed that the mainstream media criticizes the “religious right” and “portrays us as an obscure cult of skinheads. … But we are a very powerful force.”[58]

Amazingly, just a few years earlier, Coulter denied the very existence of the “Religious Right” based on 1) conflicting definitions for “Religious Right” and 2) leadership differences within the “Religious Right.”[59] More astonishing, leaders of the Religious Right accepted her absurd premise.

According to Coulter, the “Religious Right” is “nonexistent,” a “mythical enemy,” “bogeyman,” a “meaningless concept,” “the left’s imaginary enemy” and “ghosts of liberal imaginations” “invented” by the Left to strike “terror” in the hearts of Americans.

Coulter even claims she is unable to locate a single person who is a member of the Religious Right. I did a Google search on “Religious Right” and, within a few minutes, came across Christianity Today. Christianity Today has written dozens of articles about the Religious Right and has devoted whole issues to the Religious Right with articles written by people from the Religious Right.[60]

As I wrote in 2002, “Coulter’s greatest fault, however, is not her provocative policy ideas or discriminatory remarks. … Coulter’s offense rather is that she portrays herself as a Christian conservative, a representative of the views and principles of the Religious Right, and then uses that adopted identity to spread hate and fear, thus stigmatizing all those who embrace Christian conservatism.”[61]

Chapter 16

Religious Left: Ambassadors for Love

Where Coulter’s views on the Religious Right have been confusing and contradictory, her views on the Religious Left have been constant: it does not exist. As early as 1998, Coulter asserted that there are no liberal Christians. According to her, the Religious Left does not exist! In Slander (2002), Coulter denied the existence of the Religious Right (see previous chapter), while simultaneously attacking the Atheist Left as its nemesis. (If the former does not exist, how can the latter be its nemesis?)

The atheist left is Coulter’s straw man. Most Americans are religious and there are very few atheists in America. Coulter herself gives the lie to her fabrication when she cites statistics which show Christians in America are relatively split, politically, left and right. A more apropos dichotomy is Religious Right versus Religious Left. Christian author David Aikman notes that according to a 2007 Newsweek poll, roughly 3% of Americans are atheists.[62]

In the fall of 2010, Coulter again asserted, “All liberals are atheists. Only the ones who have to stand for election even bother pretending to believe in God.”[63] To date, no Christian or conservative leader has yet to dispute her assertion.

Chapter 17

Perfected: The End of Sanctification

During her book tour for If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans (2007), Coulter was embroiled in yet another controversy of her own making. Talking with Jewish talk show host Donnie Deutsch, who had treated her very favorably in previous interviews, Coulter made the astonishing claim, “That is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews.”[64]

A Fox News Channel lead paragraph remarkably declared, “Slash-and-burn columnist Ann Coulter shocked a cable TV talk-show audience Monday when she declared that Jews need to be ‘perfected’ by becoming Christians, and that America would be better off if everyone were Christian.”[65] Yes, Fox News!

The tipping moment quickly arrived when Coulter claimed, “No, we think – we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.” She added, “That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws.”

Immediately following the taped interview – long before it even aired – Coulter began her campaign against Deutsch. Playing the victim for radio talk show host Kevin McCullough, Coulter claimed that she had been set up. McCullough fell for it. Indeed, McCullough accused Deutsch of being an “angry anti-Christian bigot.”

Chapter 18

Victimhood: Christian Persecution Complex

Coulter frequently likens herself to Jesus Christ and heroic martyrs of past and present. Everyone knows her moral and political views, from being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, and pro-abstinence and pro-traditional values, to favoring a strong military with limited government and low taxes. However, Coulter’s controversies inevitably arise not from her stated Christian/conservative commentary or biblical views but are due entirely to her own carefully-constructed manner of conveying them, with an avowed intent to incite rage.

Virtually every “firestorm of controversy” circling around Coulter has been contrived by Coulter herself, or is the direct consequence of her own unchristian behavior and rhetoric. Rarely are these controversies sparked by conservative principles or Christian doctrines. Rather, the catalyst is almost invariably Coulter’s own deliberate provocation (she calls herself a polemicist and provocateur with good reason). And, with good reason, reasonable people are outraged at her use of hate speech, character assassination, elimination rhetoric, lies, and slurs (racial, ethnic, gay, misogynist). These behaviors – which are antithetical to Jesus’ teachings – are rightly condemned.

Coulter even views constructive criticism as a badge of honor and proof that she is always right (one of the hallmarks of addictive thinking). Denial demands that all criticism be false. As the Daily Telegraph observed: “This is a woman who likes being loved but loves to be hated. ‘Most of the time, I just think of Chairman Mao’s saying that it’s a good thing to be attacked by the enemy. The more vicious they are, the happier I am.’”[66]

In a 2002 interview with World magazine, Coulter said, “I tell the truth, relentlessly. In addition, I thrive on their attacks, which seems to annoy them.”[67] With the publication of How to Talk to a Liberal (2004), Coulter crystallized her self-identity as a conservative martyr. The promotion for How to Talk to a Liberal (and the book itself) portrays Coulter as a heroic victim, even victimized by those conservative publications which “censor” her. By a psychological quirk, everything Coulter does and everything said about Coulter is proof of Coulter’s self-image as a heroic victim.[68]

Chapter 19

Confessions of Faith

In the mid-1990s, Coulter correlated character development with a belief in God. She asserted that it is virtually impossible to “teach values separate from God,”[69] amplifying that our “common character attributes” derive from “a belief in a higher being.” Questions to consider are whether Coulter and her acolytes exhibit the character Coulter professes to promote and whether their own beliefs in a higher being have developed godly character within them. Beliefs which are not internalized, which are not practiced, are dead beliefs. A transformed life is an engaged life, one engaged with the things of God.

In a 2009 essay,[70] Coulter offered astonishing clarity on the gospel message: “Christians aren’t people who believe they are without sin; they’re people who know they’re sinners and are awestruck by God’s grace in sending his only Son to take the punishment they deserve.” However, as we have seen, Coulter has difficulty in living in the grace she claims to have received from God. Humility and moral integrity are hallmarks of a grace-filled life.

Her very next sentence is equally astonishing, this time for its spiritual naivety and for the psychological projection contained within it: “This is in contradistinction to liberals, all of whom believe they’re on a fast track to heaven on the basis of being ‘basically good’ people – and also believe that anyone who disagrees with that theological view is evil.”

Coulter exists somewhere within the four spheres of orthodoxy, hypocrisy, heresy, and apostasy. In her truly unique gospel, Coulter embraces some degree of orthodoxy (the person believes and lives the truth) mixed with large measures of hypocrisy (the person believes truth but lives a lie) and even heresy (the person believes and lives a lie). Coulter has even flirted with apostasy (the person forsakes the truth and embraces a lie), once 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.”[71]

May God sweetly sift the chaff from her soul and spirit and reap an abundant harvest of wheat in her life.

Chapter 20

It Really Is a God Thing

Published on January 6th, in her extraordinary essay, “If You Can Find a Better Deal, Take It!”[72] Coulter cogently and succinctly encapsulated the central precepts of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In a relatively non-polemical fashion. Suggesting a new and improved Ann Coulter may be on the horizon. Which would be the handiwork of God. Let’s all give glory to God.

In her essay, Coulter observed that faith in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for our sins freed us to be forgiven. She concluded with these exquisite words, “With Christianity, your sins are forgiven, the slate is wiped clean and your eternal life is guaranteed through nothing you did yourself, even though you don’t deserve it. It’s the best deal in the universe.” Truth and humility in one paragraph!

Coulter also wrote that spiritual transformation is the natural consequence of being forgiven by God. All Christians, having been forgiven by God, should therefore live transformed lives in which they no longer dwell in sin. As Coulter put it, “Christianity is also the hardest religion in the world because, if you believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead, you have no choice but to give your life entirely over to Him. No more sexual promiscuity, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no killing inconvenient old people or unborn babies – no doing what all the other kids do.”

Does Coulter believe what she writes? Will she practice what she preaches? Time will tell.[73]

Chapter 21


On December 2, 1997, a deranged student of New Freedom Christian High School in Paducah, KY, shot eight fellow students who were participating in a prayer circle. In discussing the tragic shooting and death of three of those students, Coulter exclaimed, “guns are great things. … If one of those kids in Paducah, Kentucky, if all of them had been emerging from a gun-training class rather than a prayer class, only one person would be dead and it would be the culprit.”[74]

Apparently not grasping the fact that these were children, Coulter later reemphasized her point: “If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman,” concluding with her own words of wisdom, “Don’t pray. Learn to use guns.”

In contrast to Coulter’s dismissive approach to fellowship with our providential Father in heaven, Scripture is replete with exhortations to communicate with the One who can change the circumstances of our lives and, indeed, our very beings.


[1]     Headline on the cover of the National Enquirer, 6/26/06.

[2]       Hillary Rodham Clinton, “Sen. Clinton: Coulter’s 9/11 remarks ‘vicious, mean-spirited,’” USA Today, 6/7/06.

[3]       Ann Coulter, In Depth, C-Span, 8/7/11.

[4]       For greater insight into Coulter’s family and religious origins, see “Chapter 1: The Seduction of Ann Coulter,” in my free PDF book, The Beauty of Conservatism, which is available for download at

[5]       Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 3/30/97.

[6]       Ann Coulter, quoted by Toby Harnden, “I love to pick fights with liberals,” Daily Telegraph, 7/19/02.

[7]       Ann Coulter, Rivera Live, CNBC, 6/7/00.

[8]       Ann Coulter, Jerry Hughes Show, 2/5/99.

[9]       Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 12/1/96.

[10]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 2/2/97.

[11]     See also my free PDF book, The Beauty of Conservatism, which is available for download at Notwithstanding Coulter’s inclusion in Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, a valid case is made for the danger of negative consequences arising whenever the creation divorces itself from its Creator.

[12]     Ann Coulter, Hannity & Colmes, FNC, 6/20/01.

[13]     Ann Coulter, “Coulter, sweetly disemboweling the left wing,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/30/03.

[14]     Lynda Wright, “Ms. Right,” People, 7/29/02, pg. 107.

[15]     “Ann Coulter: The blond assassin,” The Independent, 8/16/04,, accessed 9/19/07.

[16]     Ann Coulter, The Mike Rosen Show, KOA News Radio 850.

[17]     Hunter Walker, “Ann Coulter Responds To Furor Over Her Blind Mane Joke By Making More Blind Man Jokes,”, 5/4/12.

[18]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 11/17/96.

[19]     Ann Coulter, Crossfire, CNN, 11/23/01.

[20]     Ibid.

[21]     Marvin Olasky, “South Park vs. Ann Coulter,” World, 8/13/05.

[22]     Ann Coulter, Vantage Points: Issues for Women, Amazon City Radio, 12/5/97.

[23]     Gerry Spence, Rivera Live, CNBC, 11/19/99.

[24]     Ann Coulter, Fox Face Off, FNC, 6/18/99.

[25]     Ann Coulter, National Review, 11/7/00,

[26]     John, the apostle of love, wrote, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (1st John 4:8).

[27]     Ann Coulter, quoted in Washington Post, 8/1/00.

[28]     Kevin McCullough, “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Ann Coulter?” Hot Air, 11/17/11.

[29]     See John C. Cotey, “Bestseller trampled under footnotes,” St. Petersburg Times, 8/26/02; Michael Scherer and Sarah Secules, “How Slippery is Slander?” Columbia Journalism Review, Nov/Dec 2002. For a precise, detailed analysis of Slander, check out the July and August 2002 archives for Daily Howler (

[30]     Though reluctant to apply the term “pathological liar” to Coulter, that application is validated by the plethora of prevarication contained in all of her post-9/11 books. Slander alone has been amply documented as replete with lies, falsehoods, fabrications, mischaracterizations and the like all to prove her thesis – see, July 2002 entries for and April 2005 entries in

[31]     Ann Coulter, speech, 6/8/99.

[32]     Gaby Wood, “Lethally Blonde,” The Observer, 6/11/06,,,1794552,00.html.

[33]     Ann Coulter, O’Reilly Factor, FNC, 6/28/07,,2933,287381,00.html.

[34]     Ann Coulter, “Liberals and the Woman Who Hates Them,”, 9/30/07,

[35]     Ann Coulter, Cleary University, 10/1/07.

[36]     Ann Coulter and Brian Kilmeade, Fox & Friends, FNC, 10/2/07.

[37]     Ann Coulter, Newsmax, 10/2/07,

[38]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 8/23/96.

[39]     Ann Coulter, Oregon State University, 11/19/01.

[40]     Ann Coulter, “The color of demagogy,” 1/16/02.

[41]     Ann Coulter, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, Crown Forum, 2002, pg. 17.

[42]     Ann Coulter, In Depth, C-Span, 8/7/11.

[43]     Ann Coulter, Reclaiming America for Christ Conference, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 3/3/07. Coulter said something similar at a Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C.: “For two decades after Roe, no abortion clinic doctors were killed. But immediately after Planned Parenthood v. Casey, after working within the system did not work, produced no results…for the first time an abortion doctor was killed. A few more abortion clinic workers were killed in the next few years. I’m not justifying it, but I understand when you take democracy away from people, some of them will react violently. The total number of deaths attributable to Roe were seven abortion clinic workers and 40 million unborn babies.” (See See Daniel Borchers, “Ann Coulter Speeches Scrubbed by Conservative Groups,” Bradblog, 5/1/07,

[44]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 11/9/96.

[45]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 4/10/97.

[46]     Ann Coulter, Politically Incorrect, ABC, 4/26/01.

[47]     Ann Coulter, The O’Reilly Factor, FNC, 6/22/09.

[48]     Scarborough Country, MSNBC, 10/10/03.

[49]     Sean Hannity, Hannity, Premiere Radio Networks, 5/7/12.

[50]     Ann Coulter, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Crown Forum, 2004, pp. 324-325.

[51]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 9/21/96.

[52]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 4/19/97.

[53]     Ibid.

[54]     Ann Coulter, quoted in Washington Post, 8/1/00.

[55]     Ann Coulter, George, July 1999.

[56]     Ann Coulter, National Review, 11/7/00.

[57]     Ann Coulter, Human Events, 8/18/00.

[58]     Ann Coulter, Foreword for Rev. Donald Wildmon, Speechless: Silencing the Christians, Pathway Book Service, 2009, pg. xvi.

[59]     See chapter nine (“Shadowboxing the Apocryphal ‘Religious Right’”), Ann Coulter, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, Crown Forum, 2002.

[60]     See, and

[61]     Daniel Borchers, “Columnist does conservatives a disservice,” Palladium-Item, Richmond, IN, 9/14/02, pg. A6,

[62]     David Aikman, The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism Is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, Salt River, 2008, pg. 4, referencing “The Latest Numbers,” Newsweek, 3/13/07.

[63]     Ann Coulter, “Obama is not a Muslim,” 9/1/10.

[64]     Ann Coulter, The Big Idea with Donnie Deutsch, CNBC, 10/8/07. See video at

[65]     “Columnist Ann Coulter Shocks Cable TV Show, Declaring ‘Jews Need to Be Perfected by Becoming Christians,’” FNC, 10/11/07,,2933,301216,00.html.

[66]     Ann Coulter, Daily Telegraph, 7/19/02.

[67]     Ann Coulter interview, World magazine, 10/5/02.

[68]     These dynamics are explained in greater detail in “Chapter 6: I Am Victim, Hear Me Whine,” in my free PDF book, The Beauty of Conservatism, which is available for download at

[69]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 2/2/97.

[70]     Ann Coulter, “Liberal Taliban Issues Fatwa Against Miss California,” 5/13/09.

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

[72]   Ann Coulter, “If You Can Find a Better Deal, Take It!” 1/6/10.

[73]    Within just a few weeks, hopes were dashed by the concluding eliminationistic paragraph of an otherwise laudatory Coulter column: “Republicans should defend any investment houses that never benefited from a government bailout. But anyone who took huge gambles, lost and got bailed out with taxpayer money should be tortured and then shot, miraculously brought back to life, tortured some more, then shot a few more times.” – Ann Coulter, “Obama’s Owned – You Can Bank On It,” 2/10/10. With her very next column (“Ahmadinejad: ‘Yep, I’m Nuclear!’” 2/17/10), Coulter reverted back to the hostile polemics which have been her métier since before the turn of the millennium.

[74]     Ann Coulter, Politically Incorrect, ABC, 12/18/97.

Ann Coulter: The Beauty of Conservatism

Ann Coulter was the freshest face of Conservatism, or so I thought in the fall of 1996. Ann was passionate, articulate, and courageous in espousing her Christian faith and conservative principles.

But I soon discovered that in every facet of her career, this self-described provocateur and acclaimed right-wing diva has proven herself a hypocrite or a charlatan (or both).

Within a short span of time, Coulter would become the premiere spokesman for Conservatism – despite – or, perhaps because of – the dysfunctional aspects of her character and life.

Now she has been regarded as a Conservative Icon for over a decade. Young America’s Foundation distributed a popular poster, The Beauty of Conservatism, solely showcasing its premiere polemicist as the quintessential exemplar of conservatism.

Beauty cover

Early in her speaking career, the Claire Boothe Luce Policy Institute (CBLPI) gave Coulter an award for her “unfailing dedication to truth, freedom and conservative values and for being an exemplar, in word and deed, of what a true leader is.”

Many of Coulter’s colleagues and most of her fans regard her as a heroine; some even call her a goddess. To them, she has won the Trifecta of beauty, brains, and balls. Moreover, they treat her as a victim of left-wing bias and hatred. Indeed, in their eyes, she can do no wrong.

The Beauty of Conservatism hones in on those charismatic qualities which catapulted Coulter to the top and highlights the dark side of Ann Coulter, which has astonishingly been exalted and emulated by many of her colleagues and fans.

The Beauty of Conservatism: The Seduction of Ann Coulter and the Cuckolding of Conscience

Daniel J. Borchers

Published: December 8, 2011

201 pages

Chapter One of The Beauty of Conservatism portrays Coulter as both seductress and seduced. The next chapter examines the cuckolding of conscience in both Coulter’s life and her spheres of influence. Chapters Three through Six explore major facets of Coulter’s image: beauty, brains, balls, and heroic victim.

Chapter Seven examines Coulter’s views of female liberals, while Chapter Eight looks at the polemical nature of her work in general. Chapter Nine highlights Coulter as the Goddess of the Conservative Movement – a theme prevalent within Conservatism since the Clinton presidency.

Chapter 10 examines Coulter’s then latest book, Demonic, and its author. Chapter 11 contends that Coulter is not really a conservative. Finally, four appendices complete this book: one looks at Coulter as her fans view her – a “totally hot babe”; two examine the issues of beauty and wisdom from a spiritual perspective; and one callers the reader to “Take Action.”

The Beauty of Conservatism reminds the reader – regardless of political persuasion or spiritual sensibilities – to what Conservatism aspires and how that aspiration can be attained.

Here is a sampling from The Beauty of Conservatism.

Chapter 1

The Seduction of Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter is both seduced and seducer. She is seduced by success, captivated by celebrity, driven to achieve acclaim, and she will do anything to accomplish her goals, using her charm, charms, and charisma to great effect.

Many factors from Coulter’s childhood and life as a young adult have had an enormous impact upon the person she would become. Those genealogical, familial, and socio-economic roots grew the person who would become the Ann Hart Coulter we know today.

Ann takes pride in her pedigree and in her perfect family. She emerged from her personal petri dish of family, pedigree, prosperity, and ideological purity with an intense desire to succeed. As her close friend, Jim Moody, told me, “She was always a high aimer.”

Coulter wanted to be the best, to prove herself – to have all lights shone upon her. Her sense of needing to perform to be loved would forever haunt her. Her need to satisfy an authoritarian father and a trophy mom, the last born urge to be better than the rest, the burden of living up to her family heritage and to adhere to strict religious standards, these all converged to create a person who would become a conservative celebrity and puritanical prima donna.

Virtually all of my sources confirm that Coulter’s personality traits have remained constant, or increased in degree. She has always been a fun-loving, talkative, provocative person, an on-the-edge traditionalist tweaking her foes. Engaging and energetic, the life of sorority parties at Cornell, Coulter vivified affairs in Michigan and would become the perfect host at her own get-togethers in the 1990s. Those personality traits were well ingrained long before she entered law school. However, her character traits would dramatically change upon the cusp of becoming a star.

Chapter 2

The Cuckolding of Conscience

Coulter was one of MSNBC’s most flamboyant personalities. Her outrageousness garnered both love letters and hate mail. “According to producers, Coulter gets more fan mail than any other contributor.”[1] But Coulter’s colorful rhetoric offended her employer (and their audience). Coulter puts her own unique spin on things: “They kept firing me, but then they’d rehire me. People just went mental when they saw a real conservative on TV.”[2] In her eyes, she was “a real conservative,” not “too extreme.”

Beginning in October 1996, Coulter became a ubiquitous guest on radio and television talk shows and frequently flew to Hollywood to appear on Politically Incorrect. As it turns out, Coulter had dated its host, Bill Maher, several years earlier, in 1994.[3] Moreover, Coulter’s close friendship with Geraldo Rivera enabled her to appear weekly on his television talk show.

The character flaws noted earlier in her life were more aberrational, not normative. However, with her success, politically and professionally, and her growing grassroots and elitist clout, Coulter became a victim of the success syndrome. An MSNBC Health News article, titled “Power: the greatest aphrodisiac?” provides greater insight into this affliction.[4] The Success Syndrome describes “a set of symptoms characterized by power-driven compulsive behaviors.” “Sexual compulsives are but one subgroup of success syndrome sufferers.”

Success Syndrome sufferers experience denial, as well as a belief they can get away with it. Al Cooper, a clinical director in California, concludes, “It’s about power. It’s about gratification. It’s about grandiosity.” Whichever symptoms are manifested, power remains at the root of the syndrome.

Virtually from her birth, a nexus of forces would mold and shape Ann in diverse, and even opposing, ways. Birth order would ensure that Ann would grow up with ambivalence while being the center of attention, a pampered prima donna in the making, while her experience as a baby in an incubator[5] would both magnify her protective family environment and deaden Ann’s own ability to reciprocate compassion towards others. Ann would grow to feel a loneliness within which could not be filled by others.

Every one of these initial forces from the moment of her birth were inward-focused, emphasizing Ann Hart Coulter as the center of her universe. Additional transformational forces further exacerbated Ann’s tendency towards developing a narcissistic personality.

Author and evangelist Chuck Swindoll has contrasted living a godly life with pursuing and absorbing four worldly traits: fortune, fame, power, and pleasure. Swindoll notes that some people prostitute character for fame.[6] Ironically, in her 2011 best-seller, Demonic, Coulter wrote, “For some people, nothing is more important than fame.”[7] Was she writing from experience?

Image – her own self-image and that which she strives to project to others – is exceptionally important to Coulter. As we will see, the four worldly traits mentioned by Swindoll – fortune, fame, power, and pleasure – are manifested to one degree or another in Coulter. Meanwhile, her projected image – one which is at the root of how she wants to perceive herself and be perceived by others – features the quartet of beauty, brains, courage, and heroic victim.

Chapter 3

Beauty …

Being among – and considered one of – the beautiful people is integral to Coulter’s self-identity.

Coulter is deeply invested in her beauty, psychologically and professionally. From her youth onward, beauty has been a formative and pervasive part of her life. Indeed, in many respects her own self-identity would revolve around her real and perceived pulchritude.

Since 1998, Coulter has been regarded as a conservative sex symbol and conservative goddess, an image Coulter meticulously embraces and enhances. Indeed, much of her fame can be attributed to her “conservative pinup”[8] status.

As a “conservative” sex symbol, Coulter declared, “‘I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn’t.”[9] A few years later, she amplified her self-description: “I’m a female as opposed to a boy commentator, and that emboldens me. If I were a liberal, I’d be described as looking like a high-fashion model.”[10]

Parlaying pulchritude into power, Coulter’s beauty would frequently insulate her from criticism. Her wit and humor would likewise cover a multitude of sins. Yet, Coulter simultaneously encourages her sex symbol status while denying doing so. Howard Kurtz introduced a Washington Post profile of Coulter this way: “The woman on the bar stool – long blond hair, short black skirt, spiky heels, chain-smoking Carltons – looks like she’s waiting to be picked up.”[11] Just one year later, as an essayist for George magazine, Coulter posed for a photo at a bar, as if she were waiting to be picked up.

Coulter certainly appears extremely comfortable with her looks, boasting, “I think I’m totally telegenic.”[12]

Chapter 4

… Brains …

Coulter chortled over MSNBC host John Gibson’s remark about her 1997 profile photo in George magazine: “It’s like the centerfold for intellectuals, right? She’s got a staple across her brain now.”[13] As Susan Estrich would later prophetically put it, “They are blinded by the blonde.”[14]

Indeed, even the conservative weekly Human Events for which Coulter writes, hawked her very first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, with a promotional ad which similarly dwelt on brains and beauty, boldly declaring: “She’s blonde. She’s brilliant. She’s Bill Clinton’s worst nightmare come true.”

A remarkable YAF Video released in 2007 – “Smart Woman, Short Skirt” – explicitly links beauty and brains with Conservatism – which, in turn, parrots YAF’s Poster, “The Beauty of Conservatism.” This video’s opening question, “What do the looks and ideas of these [liberal] women have in common?” is answered, “They’re all scary.” The video then exclaims, “Thank God for conservative women,” with the remainder of this short promotional video being wholly devoted to Coulter.

Coulter concurs: “We conservative women really do have the best looking women on our team. We’re smart too, which is why we are conservative.”[15]

“I am the illegal alien of commentary,” boasted Coulter, explaining, “I will do the jokes that no one else will do.”[16] Those jokes – those polemics – include cavalier condescension towards those she asserts are retarded. Being beneath her, the objects of her derision are denied the humanity which God has given them.

Coulter is wont to use the R-word – “retarded” – without hesitation. Forever asserting that liberals are stupid, idiots, morons, and the like, for many years one of Coulter’s most popular speeches declared liberalism a mental defect. Naturally, “retarded” is apropos for her lexicon.

In Guilty, Coulter called Scott McClellan an “idiot,” “retarded press secretary,” and “butterball.”[17] In 2011, alluding to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Coulter joked, “I think these programs to mainstream the learning disabled may have gone too far.”[18]

A few months later, she said, “To quote the great Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic base are ‘F-ing retards.’”[19] Coulter insists on insisting that “Liberalism is a mental defect,”[20] and asserts, “It’s as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting bloc.”[21]

Chapter 5

… and Balls!

In Ann Coulter, conservatives appeared to win the punditry Trifecta, possessing the perfect synthesis of beauty, brains and balls.

In a Time cover profile, John McCloud asked whether Coulter is “a brave warrior or a shallow hack?” McCloud asserted that she is a “combination of hard-charging righteousness and willowy, sex-kitten pulchritude.”[22]

Comfortable with her femininity, Coulter often exhibits what one could describe as masculine behavior, which is essential to her goal of projecting courage. She often acts like the prototypical alpha male, even claiming to have – and being praised for having – balls.[23]

She has been called “a fire-breathing conservative,”[24] “the fearless Ann Coulter,”[25] and “Ann, the only male in the Republican party.”[26]

The Claire Boothe Luce Policy Institute confidently promotes her as, “Ann Coulter: Provocative. Brilliant. Fearless. If you bring her, they will come.” Coulter’s “journalistic home,” Human Events, advertises Coulter’s column with these words: “First. Fearless. Free.”[27]

Having given literally thousands of interviews, Coulter is more than comfortable on camera, before a microphone, or talking with a reporter. However, on the odd occasion, she has been known to walk off the set – while on the air – and to abruptly cancel scheduled interviews for fear of being bested.

While on-air on Hannity and Colmes, Coulter literally walked off the set. Having just said something stupid – “As for catching Osama, it’s irrelevant. Things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan.”[28] – Coulter could not defend her position and simply ran away. That strategy has been used a few times during radio interviews as well.[29]

But Coulter doesn’t just run from liberals, she runs from conservatives! On numerous occasions, Coulter simply hangs up when an interview is going badly, or in a direction she does not want.

For instance, she has repeatedly hung up on pro-life talk show hosts who question her support of Mitt Romney. The American Right to Life created a website[30] and posted a video[31] to hold Coulter accountable for her inconsistency within the pro-life movement.

According to these conservative pro-lifers: Coulter even fled from fellow conservative Mike Huckabee, who “assertively called her inaccuracies into question.”[32] Consequently, “she walked out after one segment, though she had been booked for two.” It’s no wonder Coulter runs away from her critics, especially those who can most effectively refute her: she runs away from herself. Coulter fears looking in the mirror – more so as time goes by.

Is Ann Coulter courageous? Coulter has nothing to fear. She is rewarded when she does well, and she is hailed as a heroine when she behaves poorly. Coulter is slick. She knows how to divert attention from her faults and foibles, and she counterattacks with the best of them. Being a consummate wordsmith, versatile in delivery, charismatic in conversation, Coulter well knows how to manipulate individuals and audiences for her own benefit.

Still, the sheen on her armor is growing dull and rusty. Even some of her friends are coming to see the “real” Ann Coulter. Conservative author, activist, and radio talk show host, Kevin McCullough – a close Coulter friend who has defended some of her most indefensible conduct – recently wrote a rare and remarkable dissent[33] in which he pondered: “Maybe Ann is lazy. She is certainly disadvantaged. She definitely shrinks when challenged.”

Chapter 6

I Am Victim, Hear Me Whine

Ann Coulter desires to be seen as possessing beauty, brains, and balls – the typical conservative narrative for Coulter – but, of necessity, she also wants to be viewed as a heroic victim in order to use that perception as a fig leaf to clothe her own wrong behavior.[34] Coulter wants to be seen as a courageous, beleaguered, yet victorious, underdog – one who is completely innocent in her actions and absolutely pure in her motivations.

Coulter claims, “[The mainstream media has] certainly tried to [destroy] me, but that’s why I go through ten years of my allegedly career-ending statements and even if Washington politicians currently there can’t learn, perhaps some young right wingers will.”[35] Obviously, the reverse is true.

The mainstream media actually courts Coulter, who has appeared on innumerable programs on major television networks. As reported by Media Matters of America, from April 28, 1997 through October 2, 2007, Coulter appeared at least 195 “times on at least 13 individual programs on MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC.”[36] That study ignored Coulter’s ubiquitous presence on the Fox News Channel and her frequent appearances on CNN, ABC, CBS , and other networks.

Far from being the victim that she likes to portray herself as, Coulter has victimized countless people without consequence to herself or her reputation. As Coulter’s cachet within the Conservative Movement grows, Conservatism itself diminishes. Contrary to the prevailing conventional wisdom among conservatives who tout Coulter’s celebrity status, the success of Conservatism is indirectly proportional to Coulter’s success.

Describing the essence of Guilty (2009), Coulter said it is “basically about how victimhood is rewarded and everyone wants to be a victim. It’s about the rewards and praise you get for being a victim and the way liberals use victimhood and they oppress others.”[37]

In a 1997 profile of Coulter, columnist Mary Jacoby made one of the most perceptive observations about her subject: “[Coulter] seems to despise weakness of any kind.”[38]

Although Coulter is far more than the sum of all her fears, those fears seem to bubble up into every aspect of her life. She loves being regarded at one of the brightest, most beautiful, and most courageous people, and she certainly despises the notion of even being perceived as weak or inadequate. In her theology and in her humanity, the weak and the base are unlovable – perhaps even irredeemable – and for someone who, from her childhood onward, has sought to earn love, to be seen as imperfect and, therefore, unworthy of love, is anathema.

Whenever Coulter embraces her own victimology she does so in the context of being courageous or heroic. The beauty with the brains and the balls cannot accept being seen as a victim. That would admit to being weak and insufficient.

The shame of being a victim is too much for her ego.

Chapter 7

Spawn of Satan Convention

Ann Coulter is an irredeemably cruel person. Not sure? Ask Ann.

Coulter, who claims to be a victim even as she victimizes others, insists, “There is nothing so irredeemably cruel as an attack on a woman for her looks. Attacking a female for being ugly is a hideous thing, always inherently vicious.”[39]

Coulter is the mistress of irredeemable cruelty.[40]

Coulter’s contention was published in her second book, Slander (2002). Later, on the very same page, Coulter engaged in the very same rhetoric she decried, suggesting Maxine Waters, Chelsea Clinton, Janet Reno, Madeleine Albright and Bella Abzug should be called ugly.

Rephrasing and expanding upon her point in Slander, Coulter elaborated, “I think one [thing] that tells you more than anything else about [liberals is] their regularity with which they attack women for their looks. Attacking a woman for her looks is always inherently vicious. It’s a nasty thing to do. These are not comments that are meant to be funny, they’re meant to make their victims hurt. … There is no equivalent of that on the Right … That is a vicious, ugly thing and it tells you everything you need to know about liberals.”[41]

Doing an “irredeemably cruel” thing is what Coulter habitually does, with the aid and comfort of her colleagues who also occasionally engage in that identical form of demonization. One could call it character assassination, except that would imply that one’s looks determine one’s character.

Perhaps there’s a personal reason for Coulter’s generic assertion, “I think women are more vicious than men.”[42]

By the turn of the millennium, Coulter’s hate speech had become customary, so much so that former congressman John Kasich, while guest-hosting The O’Reilly Factor, courageously confronted Coulter. On January 11, 2001, Coulter both engaged in and denied using hate speech. Coulter went ballistic when Kasich suggested her own rhetoric was inappropriate: “No! No, that is not true and I really think it is important to distinguish any attacks I’ve ever leveled at, at public officials have had to do with what they’re doing. I haven’t made fun of someone for makeup.”

Chapter 8

Polemics R Us

Ann Coulter is the archetypical polemicist of the 21st century. Her preferred self-description is that of polemicist, though controversialist and provocateur will do.

Two days before the release of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans (2007), Coulter published a pre-emptive essay to frame the debate.[43] That essay – excerpting what Coulter considered the key point in her book – emphasizes the accuracy of the psychological forces analyzed thus far in The Beauty of Conservatism. Her essay title – “Liberals and the Woman Who Hates Them” – reiterates enmity as the fanatical fuel which drives her.

Notice the modifier – “the Woman” – as if she alone of all women (or of all people) hates liberals. Her ego posits her as the solitary “gyno-American” standing up for truth, justice, and the American way.

The Orwellian memory hole almost immediately came to fore with Coulter making this astonishing claim: “Liberals spend so much time hating, hating, hating that they can’t get anything done. I mean, we all thought that Clinton was a cheap pervert, but we didn’t hate him.”[44]

What happened to “the Woman Who Hates Them?” Or, for that matter, the woman who, in 2000, declared, “If you don’t hate Clinton, and those who labored to keep him in office, you don’t love your country?” Didn’t she remember the title of her own essay meant to propel her book to number one on the best-seller lists?

But then, on Fox & Friends,[45] Coulter again remembered:

KILMEADE:    How could you possibly pull off a book with this type of genre, and this type of theme, Ann Coulter? Where does it come from? The anger? The directness? The bluntness?

COULTER:      Thank you, thank you. Pure resentment and hatred.

Recall Coulter’s words: “The only rational reason for anyone to run for a house seat is that great human motivator: fire-breathing, deep-seated, Fred Goldmanesque loathing. … Hate – the fuel that powered the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.”[46]

Rationalization also reemerged with a Coulteresque redefinition of hate speech: “‘Hate speech’ is telling the truth about liberals.”[47]

“You must outrage the enemy. If the liberal you’re arguing with doesn’t become speechless with sputtering, impotent rage, you’re not doing it right. … Start with the maximum assertion about liberals and then push the envelope, because, as we know, their evil is incalculable. … Nothing too extreme can be said about liberals, because it’s all true.”[48]

Going back to 2002, Coulter declared, “It doesn’t take much to provoke liberals. But, yes, I do find it fun. Usually I know when I’m baiting them, how I’m baiting them, what they will react to.”[49]

In If Democrats Had Any Brains, Coulter affirmed: “Uttering lines that send liberals into paroxysms of rage, otherwise known as ‘citing facts,’ is the spice of life. When I see the hot spittle flying from their mouths and the veins bulging and pulsing above their eyes, well, that’s when I feel truly alive.”[50]

Truly alive?

Chapter 9

Goddess of the Conservative Movement

Ann Coulter has become the Conservative Idol, deemed worthy of worship by her groupies. Today, many conservatives decry sexism on the Left without recognizing it on the Right.

The subject line for an email promotion from Patriot Depot (8/31/11) read “Why Conservative Girls Look Better Than Libs.”[51] At CPAC 2010, Young America’s Foundation spokesman Jason Mattera boasted: “This is our Woodstock, but our women are beautiful and we don’t snort cocaine.”[52]

During the Q&A session at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2002, Coulter was queried as to whether her good looks prevented people from taking her seriously. Denying any such treatment by her conservative comrades, Coulter asserted, “Liberals are total sexists.”[53] Coulter’s short-term memory skills were decidedly lacking as had just been introduced to that very audience with Roy Orbison’s “Pretty Woman” echoing throughout the auditorium.

A considerable cohort of conservatives consider Coulter beautiful. Many of those so enamored are blinded by that perceived beauty and incapable of seeing any moral faults or ideological imperfections in their icon. Blinded to her blemishes, they have forgotten the timeless adage, beauty is as beauty does.

Kevin McCullough, conservative author and blogger, made a striking observation regarding the impact of Conservatism’s premiere spokesman on those within the Conservative Movement. He observed:

“She draws large crowds at both conservative and homosexual political conferences. She speaks openly of her own faith (Christianity), while regularly misinterpreting and/or misleading others as to the meanings of Christ, specifically the most important Christian doctrine – Grace.”[54]

“Too hot to handle” Coulter, considered by some to be a goddess and an idol, is continually portrayed by conservatives as a brainy, blonde bombshell. Townhall magazine’s cover profile of Coulter for her Demonic book tour featured a “Bombshell” centerfold which was well received by Coulter fans who now treat her as “America’s Sweetheart.”[55]

Yes, Coulter herself is obsessed with looks. Per Coulter, “You know, when I tour college campuses, I always find that the prettiest girls in the room are the ones in the College Republicans.”[56]

Coulter believes, “One huge advantage they already have – and I see this from my speeches on college campuses – is that 90% of them are drop-dead gorgeous. So, totally use that to your advantage! That’s how the College Republicans keep growing.”[57]

In an earlier book, Coulter claimed, “Not being a liberal, I don’t particularly care what people look like, but I note that Miss America Pageant winners are almost always from the conservative South.”[58] Despite her assertion of aesthetic apathy, Coulter praised the beauty of conservatives: “Wow, I haven’t seen so many hot women! Conservative women are hands down more beautiful, inside and out!”[59]

In 1999, one of Ann Coulter’s Internet representatives repeatedly referred to his heroine as the “Free Republic goddess.”[60] One of her fans asked him, “I wonder how Ann feels about being the goddess at the center of this weird cult?”[61] The reply: “Last time I talked with her, she didn’t seem to mind it very much.”[62]

Although Coulter is often treated as a goddess by conservatives, is she really a conservative? She has after all been deified as the “goddess of the conservative movement.” Let me share a secret with you: any movement with a goddess is not conservative. If conservatives don’t have goddesses and goddesses aren’t conservative, what does that make Coulter?

Chapter 10

Taking a Demonic Turn

Demonic is a superbly written book, reinforcing my initial admiration for Coulter in 1996-97. Its flaws stem from the progressively polemical nature of Coulter’s style, her partisan/puritanical perspective, and the various psychological dysfunctions that have run rampant in her life and that emerge in her commentary. As she routinely does, Coulter condemns all for the failings of a few and dismisses (or lies about) any relevant evidence which disputes any aspect of her paradigm. Coulter highlights far-left personalities and organizations as representative of the whole of liberalism.

When asked, on C-Span’s In Depth, why she began her book with Scripture, Coulter analyzed Mark chapter 8 and asserted, “There you have it – from the Holy Bible – the mob is demonic!”[63] Wrong!

Coulter preceded her claim by saying that her book began with Scripture because it is central to her thesis and spiritually foundational to her book. But neither the words of Jesus nor the gospel she cites make the claim she asserts. The Gospel of Mark tells us a story about a man who was possessed by a “Legion” of demons; it is neither a political treatise nor a psychological evaluation of what happens when a number of people assemble together into a large group.

The quoted Scripture is a descriptive narrative of an event, not a prophetic pronouncement of the future nor a psychological textbook on human nature in isolation or in large groups.

Still, Coulter claims – based on her cited Scripture – “That really is the theme of the whole book: that the mob is demonic and the demons are always a mob.”[64]

Coulter’s definition of “mob” is problematic at best – both intrinsically demonic and uniformly liberal in nature. Coulter’s definition of a mob is uniformly one-dimensional (it is large and unruly) and unipolar (it is always liberal). Indeed, her definition of a mob defines nothing. It is purely circular logic: “the mob is demonic and the demons are always a mob” – the mob is liberal and only liberals are a mob.

Per Coulter, what factors define a mob in Coulter’s view? First and foremost, they are liberal. Second, they are violent. Third, they may be large. Fourth, they use slogans. Fifth, they have revered leaders.

Per Coulter, slogans are evidence of a mob and unique to liberals. Coulter preposterously claimed, “It is striking how many slogans liberals have and how pathetic conservatives are at even coming up with slogans.”[65] Yes, she claims that only the Left uses slogans. This is demonstrably false.

The American revolutionaries, whom Coulter holds in such high esteem, certainly used slogans as political shorthand: 1) No taxation without representation, 2) Don’t tread on me, 3) United we stand, divided we fall, and 4) If we don’t hang together, we’ll all hang separately.

Moreover, today’s Tea Party, of whom Coulter considers herself a member, uses slogans![66] A multitude of slogans (here’s a flavor of what’s out there): 1) Born free, taxed to death, 2) Cut taxes, not deals, 3) Don’t mortgage the future, 4) Don’t stimulate … liberate, 5) Fair tax or no tax, 6) Foreclose the White House, 7) Give us liberty, not debt, 8) More taxes = less jobs, 9) No more bailouts, 10) TEA – Taxed Enough Already, and 11) Where’s the fence?

Snappy slogans and revered leaders are natural ingredients of any large group of people gathered together with a common purpose.

Being the recipient of hero worship herself (literally!), it is astonishing to hear her assert that only liberals have adoration for their heroes. Isn’t Coulter a Conservative Idol and a Goddess? Still, on Hannity, Coulter claimed, “We don’t worship our leaders. We don’t turn them into idols, probably because we have a real Savior.”[67]

A few days later, she said, “The most striking aspect of liberal behavior that is stunningly a part of mob mentality is their creation of Messiahs and their tendency to demonize all those that disagree with them.”[68]

When asked in 2004 what it was “like to meet a man you admired so much, Ronald Reagan,” Coulter beamed, “It was like an orthodox Jew meeting Moses.”[69] Sounds almost messianic to me.

In 2001, a captivated Coulter “swooned for” Bush 43: “When I began swooning for George W. Bush during the Republican primaries, my friends warned me that I was going to have to eat my words. It’s now a month into his presidency, and I’m even more doe-eyed about Bush than ever.”[70]

Was Christie a messiah figure for Coulter? World Net Daily thought so: “(And somewhere, someplace, a coquettish Ann Coulter lent a helping hand by simpering sexually over her candidate, Gov. Chris Christie.)”[71]

In the end, Coulter returned to her favorite contemporary hero, endorsing Mitt Romney for president. In a recent essay, conservative author Steve Baldwin explained her long-term infatuation with Romney: “You have great answers on everything. … You’re SO wonderful.”[72]

Chapter 11

The Beauty of Conservatism

For many conservatives, Coulter is the epitome of Beauty and of Conservatism. Indeed, for them, she is the beauty and the personification of Conservatism. Coulter is the model – beauty, brains, balls – and the penultimate success story of the heroic martyr at the vanguard of warriors fighting the evil forces of our times.

Author and attorney Mark W. Smith has fulsome praise for Coulter, who provided a cover endorsement of his book, Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (2004). Smith wrote, “Ann Coulter is perhaps the second most famous woman (after Hillary) in American politics today. … [the] conservative diva who sets the standard against which all other conservative commentators should be compared.”[73]

Bewitched by her beauty, mesmerized by her mind, and captivated by her courage, most conservatives fail to see beneath the smoke and mirrors of style to the substance below. They fail to discern the contradictions and conundrums which form the basis of, and flow from, the life and career of Ann Hart Coulter. Hailed as the epitome of conservatism, Coulter is not.

Caught up in the glitz and the glamour, conservatives have all too often failed to look beneath the surface.

As we have seen, there is a lack of completeness, or wholeness, in the person and personality we know as Ann Coulter. All is not well in the world according to Ann Coulter. Indeed, much is wrong in her world. And she ushers those ills – those personal dysfunctions – into the Conservative Movement itself.

Coulter admirers are most frequently enraptured by her beauty, charm and wit. Those three qualities emerge at the top of every laudatory list of attributes attributed to Coulter. But Solomon wrote, “Charm is deceitful and beauty is fleeting.”[74]

However, the inner beauty of a godly person, which is so prized by God, is genuine and enduring. Recently, Peter Schweizer, author of Makers and Takers, warned, “Virtue is vital for the moral health of individuals and for the survival of our society.”[75]

Virtue, the substance of the soul, is far more important – indeed, vital – than the fleeting allure of beauty and charm, fame and fortune, or power and success. Who we are (and are becoming) outshines and outlasts what we do (or seek to accomplish). And what we believe is meaningless unless it is lived, given life by the transforming power of truth and love energized in lives devoted to those beliefs and to the One who actualizes those beliefs into action.

In one of her best essays, Coulter observed, “Evil does not advertise with a flashing sign [it’s evil nature] … Evil presents itself like a beautiful banquet.”[76] Her observation is most salient: “People don’t commit acts of great evil or great courage out of thin air. Character is developed out of a lifetime of choices. Almost every decision you make, however small, will be a step closer to God or a step closer to the devil.”[77] Her words of encouragement are equally germane: “But it’s never too late to stop and begin taking steps toward God.”

The character of political and cultural movements, like the character of individuals, “is developed out of a lifetime of choices.” The choices we now make, whether for truth and honor or for expediency and power, will determine our future.

As human beings, we tend to see what we want to see and believe what we want to believe. Many of Coulter’s most ardent fans want to see her as a courageous heroine, they want to believe in her. They often engage in addictive thinking, just as she does. Except, they are projecting their ideals and their aspirations unto her and they are rationalizing her wrong behavior to justify her to others.

X-Files aficionados recognize the famous “I Want to Believe” motto of those who seek proof of extraterrestrial life, UFOs, alien abductions, and the like. They believe – without proof. But more than that, they want to believe – even in their doubts.

So many Coulter apologists defend the indefensible because they want to believe. They have invested so much time, or energy, or enthusiasm, or adoration that they fear disillusionment. They fear being wrong. They fear that the truth will disprove their belief. But the truth is a good thing – it sets us free from wrong beliefs. The truth frees us to live in truth.

For those who are enthralled, an idol is a terrible thing to waste and it is the iconoclasts who must be feared.

Integrity is at the heart of Conservatism and Conservatism’s heart should be of integrity. Indeed, integrity is integral to everything conservative. One’s personal moral realm should be filled with integrity, responsibility and accountability. The integrity of individuals should overflow into local communities and beyond. A healthy integrity founded upon a Judeo-Christian worldview and principles should animate the personal, professional, communal, and civic spheres of our lives.

As a conservative, I am deeply distressed to be part of a movement which calls itself conservative yet so emphatically embraces Ann Coulter as a “conservative” icon when she so clearly is not conservative. That contradiction leads many to question the principles and integrity of the Conservative Movement and the Conservative Movement’s faith in and commitment toward those principles.


[1]       Annys Shin, “Blond Ambition on the Right,” National Journal, 5/31/97.

[2]       Howard Kurtz, “The Blonde Flinging Bombshells at Bill Clinton,” Washington Post, 10/16/98.

[3]       See, accessed 4/13/07.

[4]       Charlene Laino, “Power: the greatest aphrodisiac?” MSNBC, 2/3/98.

[5]       Ann Coulter, “Who Nobody Is Really Pro-Choice,” Human Life Review, Spring 1992, pp. 7-20.

[6]       Chuck Swindoll, Insight for Living, WAVA, 6/24/11.

[7]       Ann Coulter, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America, Crown Forum, 2011, pg. 171.

[8]       Susan Lehman, “conservative pinup battles ‘arm candy’ canard,” Salon, 3/4/99,

[9]       Mary Murphy, “Look Who’s Talking,” TV Guide, 8/9-15/97, pg. 52.

[10]     Quoted by Karen E. Duda, “Ann Coulter,” Current Biography, September 2003, pg. 20.

[11]     Howard Kurtz, “The Blonde Flinging Bombshells at Clinton,” Washington Post, 10/16/98, pg. D1.

[12]     Aileen Jacobson, “Ann Coulter says she’s baiting liberals to read her book,” Newsday, 8/19/02.

[13]     John Gibson, MSNBC, 6/27/97.

[14]     Susan Estrich, Soulless, Regan Books, 2006, pg. 43.

[15]     Ann Coulter, speech, 6/24/11.

[16]     Ann Coulter, O’Reilly Factor, FNC, 6/28/07,,2933,287381,00.html.

[17]     Ann Coulter, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America, Crown Forum, 2009, pp. 115, 118, 134.

[18]     John Hawkins, “Interviewing Ann Coulter About Her New Book, ‘Demonic,’” Right Wing News, 6/23/11.

[19]     Ann Coulter, Joy Behar, HLN, 7/27/11.

[20]     Ann Coulter, interview by Jamie Glazov, Front Page Magazine, 1/12/04.

[21]     Ann Coulter, “Fork Replaces Donkey as Democratic Party Symbol,” 1/11/06.

[22]     John McCloud, “Ms. Right,” Time, 4/18/05.

[23]     Coulter’s detractors frequently use disparaging anatomical terms to attack Coulter in puerile and juvenile ways. Conversely, Coulter’s defenders often employ such terms as accolades.

[24]     Linda Vaccariello, “What the (Bleep) Was Jerry Thinking?” Cincinnati Magazine, 9/03, pg. 80.

[25]     Peter Worthington, “The Sky is Not Falling,” Frum Forum, 9/1/11.

[26]     Sean Carpenter, “Summer Reading,” 8/29/11,

[27]     One of its ads declares, “our courageous legal correspondent Ann Coulter.” (

[28]     Ann Coulter, Hannity & Colmes, FNC, 8/24/06. See “Coulter: Bin Laden Is ‘Irrelevant,’ ‘Things Are Going Swimmingly In Afghanistan’,” Think Progress, 8/25/06, Video at

[29]     See a video compilation produced by the American Right to Life,

[30]     See

[31]     See

[32]     Kevin McCullough, “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Ann Coulter?” Hot Air, 11/17/11.

[33]     Kevin McCullough, “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Ann Coulter?” Hot Air, 11/17/11.

[34]     Under the linguistic couplet “wrong behavior,” I lump in the various realms: emotional (fears, insecurities, hatreds), intellectual (lies, hate speech, elimination rhetoric), ideological (puritanical partisanship), spiritual (hypocrisy, heresy), etc.

[35]     Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck Show, 10/5/07,

[36]     “NBC still promoting Coulter’s books, despite Fox & Friends’ claim to the contrary,” Media Matters for America, 10/2/07,

[37]     Ann Coulter, Early Show, CBS, 1/6/09.

[38]     Mary Jacoby, “The Pundettes,” Capital Style, December 1997, p 45.

[39]     Ibid.

[40]     Not to belabor the point, but it would behoove us not to overlook Coulter’s other characterization of such language as “inherently vicious.”

[41]     Ann Coulter, “What’s Your Beef,” KUSP, 7/12/02.

[42]     Ann Coulter, Al Rantel Show, KABC, 5/5/04.

[43]     Ann Coulter, “Liberals and the Woman Who Hates Them,”, 9/30/07,

[44]     Ann Coulter, Cleary University, 10/1/07.

[45]     Ann Coulter and Brian Kilmeade, Fox & Friends, FNC, 10/2/07.

[46]     Ann Coulter, “The Seduction of Ann Coulter,” George, July 1999.

[47]     Ann Coulter, Newsmax, 10/2/07,

[48]     Ann Coulter, How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must), Crown Forum, 2004, pg. 10.

[49]     Aileen Jacobson, “Coulter brings flair and fire from the right,” Newsday, 8/23/02.

[50]     Ann Coulter, Crown Forum promo,

[51]     See also Michael Nace, “Why Conservative Women Are Hot and Liberal Women Are Not,”, 9/19/10,

[52]     Jason Mattera, CPAC 2010, 2/18/10.

[53]     Ann Coulter, CPAC 2002, 2/2/02.

[54]     Kevin McCullough, “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Ann Coulter?” Hot Air, 11/17/11.

[55]     Gregory, letter-to-the-editor, Townhall, August 2011, pg. 14.

[56]     See, accessed 10/2/07.

[57]     Ann Coulter, Daily Caller, 8/7/11.

[58]     Ann Coulter, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America, Crown Forum, 2009, pg. 228.

[59]     Ann Coulter, CPAC 2010.

[60]     Examples which have since been deleted include:, 12/30/99;, 1/15/99;, 2/1/99. “Mojo” was an official representative for Coulter and provided her schedule of appearances for her fans.

[61]     Post # 7, Free Republic Forum, 2/4/00, (deleted).

[62]     Post # 8, Free Republic Forum, 2/4/00, (deleted).

[63]     Ann Coulter, In Depth, C-Span, 8/7/11.

[64]     Ibid.

[65]     Ann Coulter, In Depth, C-Span, 8/7/11.

[66]     See

[67]     Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 6/6/11.

[68]     Ann Coulter, Newsmax interview, 6/12/11.

[69]     Ann Coulter, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans, Crown Forum, 2007, pg. 236; 2004 interview with the American Enterprise Institute. See also Coulter’s tribute to Reagan at

[70]     Ann Coulter, “How to Talk to a Liberal,” 2/22/01.

[71]     Ilana Mercer, “Media top-dogs kick underdog Ron Paul,” WorldNetDaily, 8/18/11.

[72]     Steve Baldwin, “Ann Coulter and her hero Mitt,” World Net Daily, 11/23/11,

[73]     Mark W. Smith, The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, Regnery, 2004, pg. 215.

[74]     Proverbs 31:30 (NIV).

[75]     Peter Schweizer, Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less … and Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals, Doubleday, 2008, pg. 212.

[76]     Ann Coulter, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Crown Forum, 2004, pg. 342.

[77]     Ibid., pg. 343.

Ann Coulter’s Scott Brown Out

This year’s GOP election wave left New Hampshire candidate Scott Brown in the undertow. Brown – Ann Coulter’s favorite candidate – lost, despite Coulter’s valiant efforts to push him to victory.


Enraptured with Brown, Coulter gushed, “Scott Brown in New Hampshire – my total love.”[1]

“[Scott Brown is] a fantastic candidate” Coulter enthusiastically told a talk show audience.[2] “He’s fantastic on immigration. He’s fantastic on Obamacare. … Scott Brown is such a fantastic candidate. … I think he’s fantastic on the single most important issue that he’s raised.”

Coulter’s primary, overarching issue – amnesty – failed to garner the election outcome she envisioned, even with such a “fantastic” candidate.

Coulter continued her praise: “And he’s well-spoken.”

Coulter devoted an entire column promoting Brown by attacking his rival. In it, she concluded, “The time to vote for freedom – for Scott Brown – is now.”[3]

In one election-focused column, Coulter highlighted and endorsed Brown, writing,

“Everyone reading this column has got to donate to Scott Brown immediately.”[4] Lest anyone underestimate the urgency of her plea, Coulter added another emphatic sentence:

Donate. Right now!”

Explaining that Brown, “a very strong candidate,” was “‘the 41st vote’ against Obamacare,” Coulter underscored, “but more than any other Senate candidate this year, Brown is running against amnesty. Even with a tidal wave of new welfare cases pouring across our border, Brown is one of the few candidates smart enough to make immigration an issue.”

Brown, the “smart” candidate, lost.

Supports Fake Conservatives

Conservatives have long questioned Coulter’s obsession with RINOs, from Chris Christie to Mitt Romney. Even now, Coulter supports Romney for president in 2016. When recently asked about that possibility, Coulter exclaimed, “I hope so. Oh, I hope so.[5]

Coulter also thought Romney was a fantastic and ideal candidate.

As a Massachusetts senator, Brown voted against tax cuts, supported gun control legislation, considered same-sex marriage and Roe v. Wade settled law, and voted with the Republicans only 54% of the time.

Principles matter. But it appears principled conservatives do not matter to Coulter. She is too quick to follow after the money, the glitter, and the charm, and to thereby overlook the importance of substance.

Hopefully, she will shed her RINO affections, stop attacking the Tea Party, and start embracing the Conservatism that she once so eloquently championed.

Update. In her post-Election Day column, Coulter defended Scott Brown at length, again asserting that he “was such a fantastic candidate, aggressively denouncing amnesty and open borders, that he managed to single-handedly turn a safe-seat for the Democrats into a bloodbath. He is surely responsible for at least one Republican senate win by forcing Democrats to divert precious resources to New Hampshire.”

But Coulter repeatedly urged her readers to contribute to Brown’s campaign, thereby diverting precious resources from other GOP campaigns. Most winning GOP candidates opted against emulating Brown’s immigration stance, while Brown, following Coulter’s immigration-as-the-single-issue strategy, lost.

GOP winners took advantage of national disapproval with Obama and his policies while emphasizing significant local issues of the moment.


[1]       Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 10/21/14.

[2]       Ann Coulter, Howie Carr Show, 10/23/14.

[3]       Ann Coulter, “Jeanne Shaheen’s Ebola Opportunities Team,” 10/22/14.

[4]       Ann Coulter, “Your ‘To Do’ List to Save America,” 9/17/14.

[5]       Ann Coulter, O’Reilly Factor, FNC, 10/18/14.