Category Archives: Uncategorized

Wacky @AnnCoulter Mocks Tulsa Massacre

#WackyNutJob Ann Coulter exposed the hardness of her heart in a single tweet mocking the Tulsa Massacre.

Ann Coulter mocks Tulsa Massacre. What next? Holocaust? Pearl Harbor? 9/11?

With one tweet, Coulter revealed her heartlessness, racist views, and eagerness to exploit tragedy wherever she finds it (a decades-long pattern for her).

In doing so – as an acclaimed (faux) leader within the conservative movement – Coulter has tarnished the reputations of all conservatives. Moreover, Coulter has given ammunition to those who contend that all conservatives are white supremacists.

Likewise, as a once-exalted (faux) Christian leader, Coulter has besmirched all Christians and the body of Christ as heartless hypocrites lacking compassion and convictions.

The following observations on Twitter are spot on.

Ann Coulter, Tulsa Massacre, hideous human being
Ann Coulter, Tulsa Massacre, pitiful person
Ann Coulter, Tulsa Massacre, dead career, Alt-Right Queen
Ann Coulter, Tulsa Massacre, Holocaust, 9/11, stereotypical ugly American
Ann Coulter, Tulsa Massacre, hate-filled heart
Ann Coulter, Tulsa Massacre, NOT a good role model

See Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged at https://bit.ly/2TttHtF.

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis of Coulter’s worldview and character flaws which have resulted in the abhorrent pathologies she exhibits.

  • See Case Study: Politics of Death
  • See Case Study: Alt-Right
  • See Case Study: America in Black and White
  • See Case Study: WASP America

TAGS: Ann Coulter, AnnCoulter, Coulter, Tulsa Massacre, racism, heartlessness, alt-right, WASP, white supremacy

.@AnnCoulter Can’t Even Remember What She Wrote About Trump

In a bizarre tweet, Ann Coulter claimed to have only mentioned Trump twice in her columns this year. FACT CHECK: 10 times! (Several Coulter columns were devoted to Trump!)

Is Ann Coulter Going Senile?

Here are the ten times Coulter “mentioned” Trump.

(Of note, her first two columns were entirely devoted to haranguing Trump and she ferociously sought for the Senate to convict Trump on the Left’s bogus trumped-up hoax impeachment 2.0.)

January 6, 2021 title: “The Election Is Over. Here’s the Truth About Trump.”

January 13, 2021 title: “Most Disloyal Man in History Finally Finds a Cause Worth Fighting For.”

January 20, 2021 lead sentence: “Why can’t liberals ever just let Trump hang himself?”

February 10, 2021 lead sentence: “Senate Republicans should offer to convict Donald Trump in return for Democrats agreeing to fund the wall.”

February 24, 2021 phrase: “the Proud Boys officially announced they would not be attending Trump’s Jan. 6 rally

March 9, 2021 key sentence: “Here’s a tip, Democrats: Trump was all talk, no action.”

March 10, 2021 phrase: “other presumed Trump supporters

March 17, 2021 key paragraph: “Even the election of Donald Trump, a ridiculous creature who became president by promising to crack down on illegal immigration and build a wall (promises he ignored), hasn’t put a dent in Washington’s enthusiasm for overwhelming the country with the third world.”

May 5, 2021 key paragraph: “I’m one of those Republicans, having enthusiastically supported Alan Keyes in at least one of his three presidential runs, Herman Cain in 2012 (9-9-9!) and Ben Carson, as my backup to Trump, in 2016.”

May 12, 2021 sentence: “And of course there was the fact that Trump had floated the lab theory.”

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged explains why Coulter has become so bizarre and suffers from both #TDS and #PTDS.

TAGS: Ann Coulter, AnnCoulter, Coulter, #TDS, immigration, January 6th, impeachment, Post-Trump Derangement Syndrome, Trump Derangement Syndrome, #PTDS

.@AnnCoulter Trashes Elise Stefanik

In a flurry of late-night tweets, Ann Coulter trashes pro-Trump and pro-America Elise Stefanik.

Coulter’s fans and critics alike have skewered Coulter’s bizarre remarks and hypocrisy.

Why does Coulter support Lynn Cheney, who hates Trump and Trump’s base? Because Coulter hates Trump and Trump’s base.[1] They are both virulently anti-Trump and both zealously sought Trump’s impeachment.

Why is Coulter so opposed to Elise Stefanik, who is pro-Trump, pro-America, and zealously opposed Trump’s impeachment? Coulter’s #TDS provides the answer.[2]

Here is a sampling of astute observations:

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged explains why Coulter has become so bizarre and suffers from both #TDS and #PTDS.

TAGS: Ann Coulter, AnnCoulter, Coulter, Elise Stefanik, Lynn Cheney, #TDS, immigration, January 6th, impeachment, Post-Trump Derangement Syndrome, Trump Derangement Syndrome, #PTDS

Endnotes:


[1]              See @AnnCoulter’s Grand Bargain at https://wp.me/p4jHFp-uM.

[2]              See Crazy @AnnCoulter Demands Trump Conviction for Wall at https://wp.me/p4jHFp-uR.

.@AnnCoulter, Jew-Hater

Anti-Semite Ann Coulter, the Dowager Queen of the Alt-Right,[i] is at it again!

Coulter has a history of anti-Semitism going back at least three decades! If anything, her anti-Semitism has escalated since the 2020 election.

In 2021, Coulter attacks, on an almost daily basis, Jews, Israel, and Trump’s Jewish relatives, and, now, President Biden’s Jewish appointees.

Notice, of all the demographics highlighted in the article, Coulter chooses one: The Jews. Coulter obsesses over the (in her eyes) over-representation of Jews in Hollywood, the media, and politics.

Why does Coulter embrace the Left’s mantra of having a group’s composition “look like America?” Because Coulter has her very own version of identity politics, one which elevated WASPs[ii] above everyone else.

Coulter is also engaged in doublethink (cognitive dissonance), decrying the presence of too many Jews in power in the Biden administration. Coulter often contends that Jews have an alliance to Israel over America, but the leftist Jews in Biden’s world hate Israel.

Coulter has often virulently attacked the alleged Israel Lobby but, if anything, the entire Biden administration is an anti-Israel Lobby!

Responses on Twitter:

  • There are many ways to disagree with Biden’s cabinet choices on policy grounds. But pointing out their religious affiliation sends an inappropriate message. Judging by many of the Antisemitic comments to Ann Coulter’s tweet, that message was clearly received by these followers.
  • Funny that when it comes to people like Ann, it’s always skin pigment and religion before character.
  • This disgusting remark belongs in Germany 1921, not America 2021
  • Article clearly states that the bulk are Catholics. But take a pot shot at the Jews. really nice.
  • Antisemite gonna antisemite.
  • An(n)tisemite Coulter
  • Did you read the article you reposted? Because it says 22% are Jewish, not 73%.
  • Feh! This from a meshuginah blond shiksa!!!
  • Oy Ann!

Coulter’s anti-Semitic Twitter rant in 2015, on the eve of Yom Kippur, did not go unnoticed:

The hawkish Zionist Organization of America blasted Coulter’s “appalling, anti-Jewish remarks which evoked the classic, antisemitic trope about Jewish manipulation of America for the purposes of supporting Israel at America’s expense,” and the Orthodox National Council of Young Israel condemned her “ill-advised decision to spew hatred by denigrating the state of Israel and the Jewish community.” Commentary Magazine editor and conservative commentator John Podhoretz tweeted simply, “Shame on you.”

Sadly, Ann has learned nothing and has not changed!

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged explains how her Alt-Right worldview and demands for the restoration of a WASP America[iii] have instilled a deep-seated of Jews and Israel inside her very soul.

Endnotes:

[i]               See Case Study: #BlameJewsFirst in Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged at https://bit.ly/2TttHtF.

[ii]              See Case Study: Alt-Right in Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged at https://bit.ly/2TttHtF.

[iii]             See Case Study: America in Black and White in Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged at https://bit.ly/2TttHtF.

.@AnnCoulter Lies For 25 Years About #SCOTUS Cases and Nominees!

With the not unexpected passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, provocateur Ann Coulter is again stridently seeking relevance by trying to become the voice for determining her replacement on the high court.

DON’T TRUST ANN COULTER!

Since RBG’s passing, Coulter has gone on several Twitter rants in support of the only person she considers qualified, the 58-year-old Miguel Estrada. Why? They have been BFFs for 25 years and he shares her views on immigration.

Coulter’s rants include incessant attacks upon the character of Amy Coney Barrett – solely because she is a Catholic (although her being female probably also figures into the equation). Coulter falsely claims that Barrett’s Catholic faith would influence her decisions on the death penalty. The American Spectator, a one-time ally of Coulter’s, also rejects Coulter’s absurd claim.

(Coulter has opposed the Catholic faith, often with vigorous vilification, for decades.)[1]

This isn’t Coulter’s first attempt at subverting the Constitution for political purposes.[2]

(Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides a more detailed, in-depth analysis than contained in this post.)

Elián González

The Elián González case became international political theater during the 2000 presidential race. It rekindled the Cold War in miniature. Coulter fed into that political hysteria by telling lies of her own, lies which fit into her own ideological sensibilities. Those lies included turning a Supreme Court decision on its head, claiming it said the exact opposite of what the Court decided.[3]

The heart and core of Coulter’s case for denying Juan Miguel González custody of his own son rested on Coulter’s decades-long belief that fathers have absolutely no rights or responsibilities to their own children except through marriage.

On talk TV – contrary to what the law actually says – Coulter continually insisted that putative fathers have no rights to their children: “The law used to account for these things by saying the father doesn’t have rights to a child unless he’s married to the mother. That’s how a man can claim his heritage and his claims on a child. … That’s how a father gets the right to children, by being married to the mother.”[4]

Coulter reaffirmed – again and again – that only marriage confers custodial rights: “First of all, the idea that a father has rights to a child by donating sperm; No! A father gains rights to a child by being married to the mother. … He has absolutely no rights to the child! Fathers gain rights to children by marrying the mothers.”[5]

The only problem with Coulter’s claims is that they are false. The law has always upheld the biological rights of fathers, irrespective of whether the child is born out-of-wedlock.

Parental Rights

Coulter’s view of parental rights was her principal argument to separate a son from his father, but that core point of her position, that central concept, was an outright lie! To buttress that lie – which she has consistently expressed for over twenty years – Coulter lied about a Supreme Court ruling which any layman can read and see that it reaches the exact opposite conclusion. Coulter wrote:

“Let’s just consider the initial presumption that a father gets custody of his son. The law is indeed clear, at least to this extent: That ‘law’ refers only to legitimate children. … The Supreme Court last weighed in on the legal rights of unwed fathers in 1989 when it cut off all of the father’s rights to his child, including visitation.”[6]

In her essay, Coulter literally reversed the decision of the Court, falsely claiming it denied those custodial rights. Contrary to Coulter’s fiery opinion, the law says otherwise. The Supreme Court, in five cases, upheld the principle of paternity rights for putative fathers. Those cases were all cited in the Supreme Court case cited by Coulter.

In a rather remarkable display of truth twisting, Coulter took this Supreme Court case which affirms the custody rights of natural fathers and declared it the definitive denial of those rights![7]

The father in Coulter’s cited case was not denied parental rights due to illegitimacy but because his claim of fatherhood was filed after the filing deadline. That father had failed to assert his rights within two years of his daughter’s birth. Illegitimacy was never the issue. The Supreme Court has consistently confirmed custodial rights of natural fathers, both in principle and in practice. So, the case Coulter cited says the exact opposite of what Coulter claimed. (This would become a pattern for Coulter.)

“Bald assertions about the very question under dispute,” Coulter once wrote, “is an odd method of argument,”[8] yet that is precisely what Coulter did (and continues to do). According to Coulter, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion; everyone is not entitled to his own facts.”[9] Apparently Coulter is not above making up her own “facts.”

Strangely (or not, for Ann), Coulter later asserted, “Apparently that’s the way constitutional analysis goes these days. You determine, we’re all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now: Whatever you want the Constitution to say, that’s what it says, miraculously. Well, that has never been me!”[10]

Sorry, Ann, but you are the allegedly “conservative”[11] Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Birther Coulter Births More Lies

In 2015, Ann Coulter led the charge of those seeking to crush a Cruz candidacy with a lie!

When she thought she could foist Romney on us again in 2016,[12] Coulter began to attack Cruz on his citizenship. With Cruz posing a serious threat to Trump, her new-found soul-mate,[13] Coulter shifted into high gear, stridently claiming Cruz was ineligible to be president.[14]

Erstwhile anti-birther Coulter became the premiere birther attacking Ted Cruz. Why? She wanted to scuttle Cruz’s presidential ambitions and stop his burgeoning support before her own Savior, Trump, lost the nomination.

It’s Really Not About Ted, But All About Ann

Seemingly on emotional steroids, Coulter turned her attack dog persona on Trump’s most formidable Republican foe, all the while professing an “Ah, shucks, I don’t want to do this, but it’s the right thing to do” attitude even has she stuck a shiv in Ted’s side.

Coulter dodged claims that she changed position on Cruz’s eligibility solely to support Trump by asserting she took her current position prior to Trump’s candidacy. That is a red herring.

Coulter wrote: “I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy.”[15] Coulter claimed, “It’s not that I want him not to be a Natural Born Citizen.”[16] Except, Coulter’s later claim is patently false and demonstrably untrue.

In reality, Coulter was obsessed with recruiting Romney for president, so much so that her close friend, Sean Hannity, was aghast at the depth of her obsession. Cruz was becoming an impediment to Coulter’s plans for Romney.

Coulter first sought to disqualify Cruz as a presidential contender to force her idol, Mitt Romney, to run again[17] in 2016. At that time, she wanted Romney – and only Romney![18]

Later, she wanted Trump – and only Trump![19]

Later still, Coulter boasted that she still wanted a Trump-Romney ticket: “In fact, my ideal ticket is Trump-Romney. That’s what I’m really hoping for. That’s the dynamite combo.”[20]

Bob Woodward said, “History is character; behavior is character.”[21] Coulter’s history, and her behavior these past two decades, proves Coulter’s own lack of character.[22] Coulter lied about the Constitution and Supreme Court cases during the 2000 election[23] and she did the same thing during the 2016 election cycle.

Nevertheless, Coulter hypocritically attacked those who correctly interpret the Constitution, lamenting, “It’s kind of annoying me that we are all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now and people interpret the Constitution based on what they want the Constitution to say, not what it does say.”[24]

1608 or 1790; Blood or Soil?

Coulter even emulates Justice Ginsburg, who infamously used contorted and convoluted reasoning to achieve her desired partisan objectives. Andrea Widburg notes, “The worst thing about her decisions, though, was how she misused case authority to create new principles out of whole cloth.  Nothing shows that more than in her determination to bypass our American Constitution and law and look to foreign constitutions, laws, and customs.” Coulter echoes Ginsburg’s approach.

According to Coulter, “In the U.S., also in Great Britain and in France, citizenship is determined by soil. … Congress can write laws for naturalization. That is also in the Constitution. But if Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you’re not natural born. … It is determined by a law written by Congress; not by the common law, not by the Constitution. So that is not natural born.”[25]

Except, the law written by Congress (and empowered by the Constitution) establishes who is natural born! In 1790, Congress established citizenship by blood.

Coulter asserted: “The phrase ‘natural born’ is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin’s Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin – a Scot – could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.”[26]

The case which Coulter cited – Calvin’s Case (1608) – has to do with English subjects, not citizens. Americans are not subjects. Our Founders took those portions of English common law with which they agreed and modified or dispensed with those portions which were incongruent with the new American constitutional system that they were creating.

Chief Justice Joseph Story wrote, in an 1829 Supreme Court opinion (emphasis added): “The common law of England is not to be taken, in all respects, to be that of America. Our ancestors brought with them its general principles, and claimed it as their birthright; but they brought with them and adopted, only that portion which was applicable to their situation.”

Coulter claimed that a 1608 case in England is the basis for America’s definition of Natural Born Citizen.[27] Consequently, Coulter asserted that the 1790 law enacted by Congress is irrelevant. Does Coulter seriously believe that a 1790 American law enacted by the Founders is nullified by English case law from 1608? Really?

According to the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities (emphasis added), “In Britain, even before Calvin’s Case, various acts and proclamations provided that a child born out of the territory of England could also be a natural-born subject, as long as the child’s parents owed allegiance to the sovereign of England. This is an example of the jus sanguinis [blood] operating alongside the jus soli [soil]. In the history of both Britain and the United States, the jus sanguinis has always been established by statute, never by judge-made law.

The 1790 statute by Congress, which Coulter dismissed as “irrelevant,” precisely establishes the principle of right of blood which Coulter denies![28]

The Congressional Research Service published its findings on this issue (emphasis added):

“From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term ‘natural born’ in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).”

Cleverly, Coulter very subtly suggested that those defending citizenship by blood are nascent Nazis, saying (emphasis added), “The two methods are soil or blood. Curiously, in Germany, it’s, it’s blood.”[29]

Coulter Lied About Yet ANOTHER Supreme Court Case

Coulter wrote: “As the Supreme Court said in Bellei, a case about the citizenship of a man born in Italy to a native-born American mother and an Italian father: ‘It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born and at the same time to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship.’”[30]

Coulter used this case to prove her contention that Cruz is ineligible, when, in fact, it proves the opposite!

As noted in ROGERS v. BELLEI, (1971) (emphasis added):

“Section 301 (a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1401 (a), defines those persons who ‘shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.’ Paragraph (7) of 301 (a) includes in that definition a person born abroad ‘of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States’ who has met specified conditions of residence in this country.”

The plan thus adopted by Congress with respect to a person of this classification was to bestow citizenship at birth but to take it away upon the person’s failure to comply with a post-age-14 and pre-age-28 residential requirement. It is this deprival of citizenship, once bestowed, that is under attack here.”

“The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution’s Art. I, 8, cl. 4, to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization’ by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated, ‘And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.’” [Subsequent statutes extended it to either a citizen mother or citizen father.]

Ted Cruz Is Eligible!

Gary DeMar is perhaps the foremost expert on America’s Founders. DeMar offered a history of originalist thought on Natural Born Citizen and reached this stunning conclusion: “Ted Cruz [is] more of an American than some of the drafters of the Constitution.”

A chagrined Coulter lashed out: “Imagine what nightmare a Cruz presidency would be! This is now the second time Cruz has forced me to research something his supporters were lying about – the last time was on Cruz’s alleged eligibility to be president, despite being born in Canada. (He’s not a ‘natural born citizen,’ but I enjoyed reading all those Supreme Court opinions!)”[31]

Sarah P. Condor-Fisher at Politichicks disagreed: “the People of the United States have the power to recognize a ‘naturalized’ citizen as ‘natural-born’ at any time – by a Congressional declaration of ‘eligibility’ as to the particular person (Art.1, Sec.5), by means of legal interpretation from the Supreme Court – or, by a Constitutional Amendment.”

But for Coulter, this is not just political, it is personal. Seeing herself as the embodiment and perfect representative of America – the “Settler” – she could not brook an interloper gaining the presidency. Moreover, she wanted to be in control of the process and the outcome of the election.

Coulter Defames Supreme Court Nominees

With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, conservatives searched for a constitutionalist to replace him. Thomas Hardiman and Raymond Kethledge were floated as a possible replacement. Coulter chose to defame them in order to get her preferred nominee elevated to the highest court in the land.

Again, immigration was the crucial factor in her decision making. Either she doesn’t understand the law as well as she thinks or would have us believe) she does, or she deliberately defamed him (which has been a pattern of behavior she has exhibited for some 25 years).

Raymond Kethledge

Coulter defamed Raymond Kethledge in a column and a series of tweets.

Coulter concluded that Kethledge is an open borders zealot and – without evidence of any kind – that he would betray his oath of office by deliberately misjudging cases to that end.

(Why? Coulter would surely subvert the law, if given the chance, to pursue her own agenda. She has numerous times in the past.)

Coulter presumes Kethledge lacks integrity and would not keep his oath of office because she wouldn’t.

Coulter tweeted:

  • Finding that grand-theft auto is not a theft (AS LONG AS THE CRIMINAL IMMIGRANT GETS TO STAY!) kind of shoots down to the claim that Kethledge is a constitutional textualist.
  • And unlike most ppl taking sides on S. Ct nominees I don’t know any of them personally.* But I can read! *Except Kethledge, which is how I know he’s opposite of Trump on immigration.
  • FALSE! I was a lonely voice in the woods warning you about Judge Roberts. Also opposed Miers — while being attacked for it on Fox News. Now, I’m telling you Kavanaugh is stellar.
  • No commitment to originalism or religious liberty or even overturning Roe will mean a hill of beans in a country that becomes Mexico because of open-borders zealots like Kethledge. See California.
  • That’s a direct quote from the TEXT of the law Kethledge was applying, 8 U.S.C. 1101 – “Definitions”
  • Can anybody figure out what this “text” means? “The term ‘aggravated felony’ means— (G) a theft offense (including receipt of stolen property) or burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment at 5 least one year”

Matthew Downer responded to Coulter:

Kethledge applied the law CORRECTLY.

The definition: “for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.”

“He was sentenced to a three-year SUSPENDED sentence.”

He “served LESS THAN ONE YEAR in the county jail.”

Thomas Hardiman

Coulter also defamed Thomas Hardiman, again, with the exact same purpose – to get her preferred judge nominated.

As reported by Law and Crime, Coulter attacked “Third Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman, and accused him of being “subsidized” by liberal philanthropist George Soros.”

Coulter tweeted:

As noted by Law and Crime: “What the heck is up with that? Well, it’s not entirely accurate.” (See article linked above for more details.)

Leonard Leo, Coulter’s close friend and President of the Federalist Society, said (emphasis added), “Tom Hardiman … is very much in the mold of Justice Scalia, well-schooled on the doctrines of originalism and textualism, and he is very experienced.”

Ann Coulter’s #Resistance Movement

Coulter was part of the #Resistance long before it came into being. Just ask Sen. Spencer Abraham, whose policies she subverted while she was working for him on the Senate Judiciary staff in 1995-1996. Coulter boasted of creating plans and giving information to her colleagues to thwart Abraham’s immigration agenda.

Coulter is ever ready to put her thumb on the scales of justice or use a rhetorical fist to achieve her desires. Her end justifies her means.

With every election cycle and every Supreme Court nomination, Coulter becomes #FakeNews.

Over twenty years ago, Coulter said, “I’m perfectly willing to engage in wild speculation and unsubstantiated rumors[32] and her claim is even more true today.

Coulter has become a law unto herself, abandoning principles willy-nilly. She perverts language and subverts the law to undermine the election process, election results, and the will of the people. (See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at Any Age.)
Coulter was Strzok before Strzok became Strzok.

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis of Coulter’s worldview and character flaws which have led her to be so wrong in so many areas in which she regards herself as an expert.

 Endnotes:

[1]              See “First, Jews; Now, Catholics?” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-ah.

[2]              See a series of case studies in Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory.

[3]              For greater details on the González case and Coulter’s perversion of constitutional law, see “Case Study # 4: In the Name of Elián (González),” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory.

[4]              Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 1/22/97.

[5]              Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 1/25/97.

[6]              Ann Coulter, “The bastardization of justice,” 4/26/00.

[7]              Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 410 (1989).

[8]              Ann Coulter, “Miranda Not a ‘Constitutional Straightjacket,’” 12/15/99.

[9]              Ann Coulter, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, Regnery, 1998, pg. 3.

[10]             Ann Coulter, John Gibson Show, Fox News, 1/8/16.

[11]             See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age.

[12]             See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-70.

[13]             See “Coulter Hates All GOP Candidates But Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bj.

[14]             See “Coulter Claims Cruz Ineligible” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9j.

[15]             Ann Coulter, “We’re All Ruth Bader Ginsburg Now,” 1/13/16.

[16]             Ann Coulter, Hardball, MSNBC, 1/11/16.

[17]             See “Coulter Stumps for Romney – Again!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4V.

[18]             See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-70.

[19]             See “Coulter Hates All GOP Candidates But Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bj.

[20]             Ann Coulter, Hardball, MSNBC, 1/11/16.

[21]             Bob Woodward, Fox News Sunday, FNC, 1/10/16.

[22]             See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age.

[23]             See “Coulter Lies About Supreme Court Case” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bE.

[24]             Ann Coulter, Eric Metaxas Show, Salem Media Group, 1/12/16.

[25]             Ann Coulter, John Gibson Show, Fox News, 1/8/16.

[26]             Ann Coulter, “We’re All Ruth Bader Ginsburg Now,” 1/13/16.

[27]             Ann Coulter, Eric Metaxas Show, Salem Media Group, 1/12/16.

[28]             See Case Study: Natural Born Citizens in Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged at https://bit.ly/2TttHtF.

[29]             Ann Coulter, John Gibson Show, Fox News, 1/8/16.

[30]             Ann Coulter, “We’re All Ruth Bader Ginsburg Now,” 1/13/16.

[31]             Ann Coulter, “Ted Cruz: Tracy Flick With a D*CK,” 4/13/16.

[32]             Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 11/9/96.

.@AnnCoulter’s Unhinged Meltdowns over Trump!

Over Memorial Day weekend, Never Trumper Ann Coulter had a totally off-the-wall Twitter meltdown[1] over one Trump tweet.

Two days later, Coulter had an interview meltdown justifying her lunacy over the weekend.

Highlights from Coulter’s Twitter Meltdown

Highlights from Coulter’s Interview Meltdown

Analysis of Coulter’s Rationale

Let’s look at just one of Coulter’s arguments.

First, Coulter introduces “COVID” (or, she prefers, “Wuhan flu”), as if the Coronavirus pandemic has anything to do with Sessions or the Alabama election.

Second, Coulter claims that the pandemic gave Trump a chance to do something.

Third, what was that something Trump had a chance to do? Well, “to be a decent, compassionate human being.” But, isn’t that what Trump has always been throughout his presidency and, certainly, throughout this pandemic?

Fourth, Coulter indicates that Trump “pretending to be” a “decent, compassionate human being” would be enough for her. So, for Coulter, pretense is enough. Image is more important than reality – an ethos she has certainly lived by throughout her career.

Fifth, Coulter claims, “he couldn’t even do that,” without providing a shred of evidence for her bald-faced lie.

Sixth, in what way did Trump fail to be a “decent, compassionate human being?” Coulter cements her claim to the COVID crisis, but it has nothing to do with the pandemic. No, rather, Coulter is upset at Trump’s political calculus regarding Sessions and Alabama.

Seventh, so Trump is evil because Trump disagrees with Coulter!

Coulter’s meltdowns are in total agreement with her decades-long depiction of the whole of life as being a battle between good and evil, with Coulter always being in the vanguard of what is right, true, and noble. (Reality proves otherwise.)

Trump has, in fact, been battling the forces of darkness arrayed against him since before his inauguration. Remember #ObamaGate, #SpyGate, #DeepStateCoup, #Russia Hoax, #FakeImpeachment, and all of Coulter’s own attacks on Trump?

Coulter’s blind hatred and rage threaten the very outcome she purports to desire: #MAGA!

Coulter’s ever-increasing wackiness is recounted in Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged, which provides an in-depth, detailed and holistic exposé of Ann Coulter.

Endnotes:

[1]              Coulter’s Twitter meltdown is addressed in @AnnCoulter’s Memorial Day Madness at https://wp.me/p4jHFp-sh.

@AnnCoulter Trashes Trump and CPAC

Ever vindictive, Ann Coulter has trashed CPAC for the better part of a dozen years and she has trashed President Trump since even before his (first) inauguration.

Why? If she doesn’t get her way, she goes for the jugular.

CPAC (and many other conservative organizations) quietly rejected Coulter a long, long time ago. However, Trump’s rejection was very public, with him calling her, justifiably so, a #WackyNutJob!

(Ironically, hubris and arrogance have been Coulter’s downfall but she is too proud and arrogant to see it.)

Repentance and forgiveness remain utterly foreign concepts to Coulter, who claims to be a Christian.

Just this month, Coulter went on a Twitter tirade against both Trump and CPAC. As those things go, it was ugly.

Here are a few of her tweets and responses from her followers:

Here’s another set:

Consider the context of Coulter’s complaint. Trump was thanking the head of the organization – Matt Schlapp – for his repeated invitations to speak at CPAC. Trump spoke at CPAC in 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, and is scheduled to speak in 2020.

Why would Trump thank Lisa de Pasquale, an ardent Coulter fan and acolyte who betrayed CPAC to help Coulter? In fact, de Pasquale actually launched anti-CPAC events to coincide with CPAC conferences.

Coulter doesn’t know the meaning of the word “loyalty.”

Coulter’s various escapades at CPAC are recounted in Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged, which provides an in-depth, detailed and holistic exposé of Ann Coulter.

@AnnCoulter, the Left’s Secret Weapon Against America

Ann Coulter is 100% wrong about Donald Trump and the 2020 election – and here’s why!

Coulter is a brilliant writer, but she is totally wrong about the 2020 election.

Coulter has claimed throughout Trump’s presidency that unless he builds a wall, he will lose in 2020 and Democrats will forever be in power overseeing America’s demise.

Coulter’s apocalyptic prediction has far less validity than any of the polls showing Hillary winning a landslide victory in 2016.

Even without a wall, Donald Trump will win with a landslide victory.

Let’s examine the validity of each of her claims.

Trump Will Lose the 2020 Elections

Coulter absurdly contends that Trump will get less votes in 2020 than he got in 2016.

Seriously?

First, Trump is an incumbent and incumbents generally possess huge advantages from that status.

Second, every demographic has benefited from Trump’s policies, which have resulted in a roaring and soaring economy, record unemployment for every demographic and increased wages and incomes across the board. Moreover, America has become energy independent, exporting oil.

Third, Trump has fought for Americans – all Americans – most notably the working class, the unborn, and people of faith.

Fourth, Trump is the most pro-American, pro-life, pro-freedom, pro-free market, pro-liberty, pro-military, and pro-Israel president America has had in my lifetime.

Fifth, Trump has exposed the Left for who they really are, showing them to be anti-American, anti-liberty, anti-Constitution, and anti-Christian fanatics who will subvert the law and employ mob rule to achieve their Progressive utopia.

In doing so, Trump has exposed the depth of – and subversive nature of – the fake news media, the deep state, the resistance, and all those who have sought and continue to seek to overthrow the results of the 2016 election.

Americans have discovered that there was “No collusion, no obstruction” and that it truly was a Russia hoax and witch hunt. We have also learned of spygate and the shadow government, tracing back to the Obama administration and Clinton candidacy.

Sixth, Trump has clearly delineated deep distinctions between the Left and the Right, between Socialism and Capitalism, between Identity Politics and Liberty for All.

Seventh, Trump’s enemies have overplayed their hands or are no longer in play: FBI, CIA, DOJ, Fake News Media, Obama, Hillary, and Hollywood. The Deep State is dwindling and scurrying for cover.

Meanwhile, the Left has proven itself to be the party of illegal aliens, infanticide, reparations, mob rule, and many other extremist positions in a growing number of areas – all anathema to most Americans, including moderate Democrats.

The Left has moved so far left that, contrary to Coulter’s assertions that Democrats will get more votes in 2020 than they did in 2016, I predict moderate Democrats will abandon the party and simply walk away.

Far from a shrinking fan base, Trump’s base is expanding in every demographic.

Democrats Will Get More Votes in 2020

A Politico feature listed a number of ways the Left can forfeit victory to Trump in 2020. Among them: “Hold firmly to the idea that Twitter is the beating heart of the real Democrat Party,” “Embrace the weird,” “Keep promising lots of free stuff and don’t seat paying for it,” “Go ahead and abolish private health insurance,” “Spend time talking about reparations,” “Lots more focus on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” “Socialism,” and be extremist on abortion, guns, and court-packing.

A Breitbart feature contended that it is already too late for the Democrats to pivot for a 2020 election victory. Joel Pollak’s lead paragraph:

“The near-unanimous verdict across the mainstream media about last week’s Democratic debates – from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal – is that the party has moved so far to the left that it is jeopardizing its chances to unseat President Donald Trump in 2020.”

Pollak concluded: “It is not clear Democrats can right themselves. They are gambling the country will hate Trump so much by 2020, it will not matter.”

That gamble is disastrous for the Left, as Trump’s approval ratings among all demographics rises.

Philip Klein tweeted:

“There’s actually a relatively broad consensus among 2020 Dems on policies. It’s just that Biden wants to work with Rs to not get them; Warren/Harris want to steamroll Rs to not get them; and Bernie wants to start a revolution to not get them.”

To which Jonah Goldberg replied:

“This analysis is spot on, but leaves out Williamson who wants everyone to hold hands to form a human circle of love and positive energy to not get them.”

A tweet by Janie Johnson encapsulated Trump’s 2020 opposition:

“Democrat Platform 2020: Reparations, Abortion at 39 weeks, infanticide, pack the Supreme Court, Abolish the Electoral College, let 16 year olds vote, gun takeover, free healthcare to illegals, ocare for citizens with mandates, and open borders!”

Even avowed Never Trumpers might turn away from Democrats and toward Trump. In The Bulwark, Sarah Longwell admitted:

“if Never-Trump type Republicans want a candidate whose policies broadly align with their own preferences, they have one. His name is Donald J. Trump.”

There is an intense civil war within the Democrat Party, spearheaded by freshmen congresswomen hell-bent on a canvas-cleansing revolution employing scorched-earth polemics to create a progressive paradise in America. Americans do not want that and will not vote for that outcome.

Trump Hasn’t Kept Any of His Promises

Raging at reality, Coulter churlishly screams, “Trump hasn’t kept any of his promises.”

Huh?

Trump is winning by every economic indicator!

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA) provided a brief list of Trump’s accomplishments.

Charlie Kirk summarized some of Trump’s key kept promises (video here):

Immigration is All that Matters!

Whenever a prominent Democrat (e.g., Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden) evinces interest in building a wall or controlling immigration, Coulter believes them – but she doesn’t believe Trump!

Since Trump’s inauguration, Coulter has said it would have been better if any of those other Democrat candidates had become president because, then we might have a wall. In each instance, they said something she agreed with on immigration – as if any one of them would have built a wall!

No sane person believes that to be the case.

Coulter is living in an alternative reality giving Twilight Zone commentary.

Coulter claims that demography is destiny. It is not. As Erick Erickson noted,

“hispanic and black voters tend to support traditional marriage and cultural conservatism and be more religious than the rich white people making up the Democrat coalition with them.”

Erickson added:

“As cancel culture and wokeness have picked up speed and girls are suddenly fighting for their own bathrooms instead of having to let boys in or let boys into girls sports, more and more data is showing plunging rates of support for leftwing social engineering among younger voters – the post-millennial voters.”

People from every imaginable demographic are benefiting from Trump’s foreign, domestic, and economic policies – and they will reward Trump with their votes!

Trump’s Enemies!

All this in the face of astonishing opposition which would have crushed anyone but Donald Trump.

American Thinker offered its list of Trump’s enemies:

  1. The Democratic Party.
  2. The Mexican and Central American Governments.
  3. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  4. The Wall Street Journal.
  5. The Leftist News Media.
  6. Hollywood.
  7. The Deep State.
  8. RINOS.
  9. Unelected Leftist Democrat Judges.
  10. George Soros and His Open Society Foundation.
  11. Left-Wing Think-Tanks and Academia.
  12. The Lawyers Guild. 
  13. The United Nations. 
  14. The pope.
  15. Assorted U.S. Industries.
  16. The Russian and Chinese Governments.
  17. Jihadis.
  18. Labor Unions.
  19. The Mexican Crime Cartels.
  20. The Reconquista Movement.
  21. The Illegal Aliens.

One could arguably add Coulter’s name to this list (as well as the GOP establishment even today).

Given the insidious forces arrayed against him, Trump’s tremendous accomplishments are that much more breathtaking! (People of faith might suspect that God has had a hand in this – and they would be right.)

Coulter is 100% Wrong on the 2020 Election

If anything …

  • America’s prestige and power have been greatly enhanced
  • America has experienced the longest economic expansion on record under Trump’s watch.
  • Trump’s economic, judicial, and foreign policies have all been vindicated.
  • Trump’s political base has greatly expanded.
  • The Democrats’ base has significantly contracted.
  • Moderate Democrats will either stay home or vote for Trump. (#walkaway)
  • The fake news media is dying.
  • The deep state is being ever more exposed for what it is on a daily basis.
  • Christians, pro-lifers, and constitutionalists who once doubted Trump’s genuineness and commitment to their issues have had all of their doubts removed.

Coulter’s Idée Fixe

Coulter suffers from an idée fixe. For the past five years, it has been her vehement contention that immigration – and only immigration – matters. (Prior to that, for a dozen years, she claimed that terrorism – and only terrorism – mattered.)

Coulter repeatedly, ad nauseam, claims that every other problem will be solved by controlling immigration. Well, not really.

Trump has consistently proven Coulter wrong. Trump has shaken up the 3D-chessboard in a new realignment of America First priorities, exposing opponents of America First as enemies of America.

Trump has blown up political correctness and infuriated snowflakes, making it far easier for regular Americans to think more clearly and speak more freely.

Coulter’s obsession with immigration is her panic over the prospect that Democrats will have total power forever in America.

But Trump has routed the Left. They are in panic. They are desperate. They are doing everything they can to stop Trump. (And they will fail and America will succeed.)

The Left failed in 2016. The Russia Hoax and Spygate failed. Their continued Resistance continues to fail. And the American People now know the truth. The truth will set America free.

The more the Left lurches leftward, the fewer Americans will heed their siren call.

Trump can more than handle any Democrat nominee in any debate. Even with the fake news media and establishment elites against him. Even with Coulter, a #TDS-addled #NeverTrumper constantly on the attack.

A #Trump2020Landslide is just around the corner.

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis of Coulter’s worldview and character flaws which have led her to be so wrong in so many areas in which she regards herself as an expert.

Joker addresses the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, familial, sexual, and spiritual dimensions which have shaped the Ann Coulter that we know today and it highlights both the positives and the negatives of Coulter’s life and career.

The Day Ann Coulter Cried at CPAC!

In 1999, I attended my first CPAC conference as a credentialed member of the press. I had no inkling of the drama that was about to unfold before my eyes.

Although Coulter claims she hasn’t cried since she was a child, Radley Balko disagrees: “I’ve seen her cry.”[1]

Coulter, at the age of 37, cried at CPAC in 1999.

I attended that conference as a member of the press and witnessed what Balko would later describe. Coulter was part of a panel, but when the moderator asked her his first discussion question, she got up, went to the podium, and started giving a speech. After a few minutes, she was asked to sit down.

As the panel discussion ensued, it was not long before Coulter griped that she had been hooked off the stage and she was later cross with several audience questioners. Coulter – while still on the panel – sniveled: “Well, I’m already worried about the extent of the White House spin when I get hooked off the stage.”[2]

In what I’m sure the audience originally perceived as a non-event, Coulter turned into a big deal, even accusing the coordinators of skullduggery and the moderator of conspiracy. Since Coulter turned this into an event and leveled accusations against others to cover her own faux pas, let’s look at what really happened.

Gary Nolan, President of Capitol Watch, introduced the event as a panel discussion and introduced Ralph Hallow as the moderator, who, in turn, introduced the panel, and then asked Coulter a discussion question to start things off.

Coulter got up, walked around the moderator to the podium, and began a speech, saying: “I’m going to keep talking until a light goes on.”

In the midst of her soliloquy, Hallow handed her a note telling her to sit down. She ignored his note. Later, Hallow interrupted her again, this time whispering in her ear. Surprised at the interruption, she asked, “Sorry, what do you want me to do?” Puzzled, she asked, “You didn’t want a speech?”

Balko observed, “the panel concluded with Ann struggling to choke back tears. I snuck back behind the panel after the session, of course, hoping to witness more drama. And that’s when I saw Cold-Blooded Coulter in sobbing hysterics. She’d been bullied. And now she was crying.”

Don’t take Balko’s word for it. The Washington Post made a similar observation. Coulter lamented, “The moderator cut me off! I was humiliated in front of 600 people!’ Between sobs, she sucked on a cigarette.”[3]

A minor faux pas became a newspaper headline which opened a window into Coulter’s heart.

Coulter retaliated in a letter-to-the-editor.[4]

“I must write to correct a few of the many egregious misstatements in your Jan. 27 Reliable Source column.

“I am not, and have never been, arm candy for Bob Guccione, Jr. The Gooch was my arm candy – my boy toy – whom I eventually, and regretfully, had to replace with a much younger man.

“As for your report that I might run for the House in order to be taken more seriously, I am puzzled. Would becoming a member of the House really be a step up from being a New York Times bestselling author?[5] If so, I might start really dreaming. Perhaps someday I could trade in a seat on the House subcommittee on sheep-products for the dizzying heights of becoming a no-name gossip columnist for your paper.

“Ann H. Coulter”

In 1997, Coulter told me that she had trouble defending herself using letter-to-the-editor “without sounding defensive and pathetic, no matter how short and sarcastic.” She was right.

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis in this holistic exposé of how and why Coulter has become such a warped human being. This is but one of many CPAC escapades by Coulter presented in Joker.

Joker addresses the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, familial, sexual, and spiritual dimensions which have shaped the Ann Coulter that we know today and it highlights both the positives and the negatives of Coulter’s life and career.

Ann’s brokenness provides an object lesson for all of us and, hopefully, this book will act as an intervention to help Ann face her deep brokenness and motivate her to seek healing and restoration.

Endnotes:

[1]               Radley Balko, “My Lunch with Ann Coulter,” 8/6/03, http://www.theagitator.com/2003/08/06/my-lunch-with-ann-coulter/.

[2]               Ann Coulter, CPAC, 1/21/99.

[3]               Washington Post, 1/23/99, pg. C1.

[4]               Ann Coulter, “Seriously, Folks,” Washington Post, 2/6/99, pg. A19. Notice how Coulter attacked her ex-boyfriend, Congress, and the media – all because she had embarrassed herself on stage!

[5]               In reality, Coulter was preparing to run for Congress in opposition to Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) in what she would later describe as a “total sham campaign.”