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:
Daniel J. Borchers
Published: December 8, 2013
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, living a privileged life, and taking full advantage of a continually expanding network of elite power-brokers, 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. 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.
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.’” 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,”  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.
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.
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.
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.”
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,” 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.”
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.”
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.”
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!
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.?”
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.]
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.” 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). 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, 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.
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.” 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.)” 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.” 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.”
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.” 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.” 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.
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.”
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.” 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, 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.”
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.
Coulter enjoys being offensive, claiming she’d be “disappointed if liberals did not spit their drinks out when they heard [her] name.” 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.” 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.”
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.”
“[Political discourse] is littered with ad hominem landmines,”  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.”
But she absolutely hates being criticized by conservatives. When Coulter abandoned Christian conservative principles to promote homosexuality, she castigated those who criticized her: “These are fake Christians trying to get publicity.”
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.”
As is widely-known, Coulter has difficulty with apologies and with repenting. 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.” At that time she even affirmed her unwillingness to forgive by adding, “I think [apologies] should never be accepted.”
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.”  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. 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.
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 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.
Ann begins by equating Breaking Bad with Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, 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.” 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.”
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.”
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.”
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” 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.
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 in two of her books 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.
 See Chapter 1: “The Seduction of Ann Coulter,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf and Chapter 1: “Roots: Ann Coulter’s Christian Heritage,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.
 See Chapter 2: “Presidential Follies.”
 Krissah Thompson, “Ann Coulter back on airwaves, reenergized by shutdown and exemplifying unhappiness of GOP,” Washington Post, 10/29/13.
 Ann Coulter, Fox & Friends, FNC, 11/9/13. She also denigrated “arrogant bureaucrats” in her 11/13/13 column.
 See Harry Shearer, “Found Objects: The Many Moods of Ann Coulter,” My Damn Channel, http://www.mydamnchannel.com/harry_shearer/found_objects/foundobjectsthemanymoodsofanncoulter_2173.aspx.
 Ann Coulter, “If not Romney, who? If not now, when?” 11/16/11.
 Ann Coulter, Book Party, Daily Caller, 10/22/13.
 Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck Radio Show, Premiere Radio Networks, 10/15/13.
 Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 10/14/13.
 Ann Coulter, “’The Plan,”” 11/05/03.
 Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 10/11/97.
 How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter, Crown Forum, 2004.
 Ann Coulter, “Democrats Bash Bush for Serving in Guard,” Human Events, 2/11/04, http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3031.
 Ann Coulter, Harvard University, 10/26/02.
 Ann Coulter, “Bush pays homage to the rituals of liberalism,” 6/20/02.
 Ann Coulter, Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terror, Crown Forum, 2003, pg. 288.
 Ann Coulter, quoted by Sholto Byrnes, “Ann Coulter: The blonde assassin,” The Independent, 8/16/04.
 Ann Coulter, Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terror, Crown Forum, 2003, pg. 270.
 Ann Coulter, “Media Muslim makeovers!” 10/30/02.
 Kevin McCullough, “No! Ann Coulter, you couldn’t be more wrong!!!” Hot Air Green Room, 11/17/11, http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/11/17/no-ann-coulter-you-couldnt-be-more-wrong/.
 “Ann Coulter’s Continuing Error on Amanda Knox and My Rebuttal,” SaberPoint, 9/10/11, http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2011/09/ann-coulters-continuing-error-on-amanda.html. 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.”
 Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 11/9/96.
 Laura M. Holson, “Outflanked on Right, Coulter Seeks New Image,” New York Times, 10/8/10.
 Ann Coulter, quoted by Toby Hamden, ‘I love to pick fights with liberals,’ The Telegraph, 7/19/02, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1401932/I-love-to-pick-fights-with-liberals.html.
 Ann Coulter interview with Bill Thompson, Eye on Books, August 2002.
 Laura M. Holson, “Outflanked on Right, Coulter Seeks New Image,” New York Times, 10/8/10.
 Ann Coulter, Red Eye, FNC, 8/20/10.
 Ann Coulter, Red Eye, FNC, 6/22/13.
 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.
 Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 3/22/97.
 Tim Graham, “Fox’s Glee Mocks Ann Coulter, Makes Femiist Wage Claims,” Newsbusters, 4/20/10, http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/04/20/foxs-glee-mocks-ann-coulter-makes-feminist-wage-claims.
 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 www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf. May Ann one day accept the liberty that God offers her in Jesus Christ.
 Ann Coulter, “Breaking Bad: A Christian Parable,” 10/2/13.
 See my (audio) sermon, “Living the Resurrected Life,” at http://www.brotherwatch.com/files/Living%20the%20Resurrected%20Life.mp3.
 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,” caffeinatedthoughts.com, 10/2/13, http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2013/10/baptism-breaking-bad/.
 To reiterate, these and subsequent references regarding Breaking Bad derive from Ann’s essay and her observations, perspectives, and paradigm – not mine.
 Teresa Mull, “Ann Coulter Offers Advice to GOP on The View,” Human Events, 10/22/13, http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/22/ann-coulter-offers-advice-to-gop-on-the-view/. The article title was mysteriously changed to “Coulter Charms Left-Leaning Ladies of the View.”
 Debbie Schlussel, “Never Trust an Ann Coulter Who Pimps Us on GOP Libs, Then Pimps Books Saying the Opposite,” 10/21/13, http://www.debbieschlussel.com/66624/never-trust-an-ann-coulter-who-pimps-us-on-liberal-gop-then-pimps-books-saying-the-opposite/.
 Ron Brynaert, “In new book, Coulter ‘cribs’ stem cell list from right-to-life group,” Raw Story, 6/14/06, http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/In_new_book_Coulter_cribs_stem_0614.html.
 See Daniel Borchers, “The Plagiarism Trap,” BrotherWatch, 2002, http://www.coulterwatch.com/files/BW2-009-Plagiarism_Trap.pdf.