Tag Archives: Alt-Right

Separated at Birth II: Joy Reid & Ann Coulter – Christian Edition

Despite their personal enmity and political differences, Joy Reid and Ann Coulter are remarkably alike in their polemical nature and viewpoints in certain areas: anti-Mexican, anti-Semitic, death threats, hate speech, rape fantasies, identity politics, and even misogyny. To that, we can add hostility toward Christians.

Separated at Birth 2

Joy Reid regards evangelical beliefs as fiction, fantasy. She decries mainstream Christianity as opportunistic and apathetic toward those in need. As noted in Christian Post, “Joy Reid’s declaration against faith and family are part and parcel of a greater spiritual movement among the liberal elite to destroy both faith in God and the family.” Indeed, Reid regards “Church … family … police … military … the national anthem” as anachronistic and old-fashioned, things to be forgotten. Reid even attacked Sarah Palin for displaying a Christmas tree – on Christmas!

Ann Coulter has opposed Christians for fully two decades (while claiming to be a Christian!) Coulter has repeatedly condemned Christian missionaries for daring to fulfill the Great Commission in foreign lands, aiding those who are poor, sick, and in need. She calls Christians heeding their consciences “fake Christians” and attacks Christians for being godly. Further, Coulter demands that Christian refugees from genocide overseas be martyred. Moreover, Coulter’s WASP worldview compels her to continually denigrate Catholics.

In many ways, Joy Reid and Ann Coulter are twins. Both are openly hostile to Christianity while one – Ann Coulter – actually claims to be a Christian. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, revealing the truth.

Advertisements

Separated at Birth: Joy Reid & Ann Coulter

Arch-left commentator Joy Reid and alt-right polemicist Ann Coulter hate each other (and one another’s politics), yet they have many traits in common. (One trait which markedly distinguishes the two is that Reid will actually apologize when she screws up.)

Separated at Birth

Ann and Joy have frequently butted heads on national television, with mixed results. But have they ever looked into the mirror of their own souls? If they had, they would have seen similarities in their viewpoints (Identity Politics) and polemical style.

Roseanne Barr and Joy Reid

The most recent kerfuffle began with an injudicious Roseanne Barr tweet which caused a meltdown on the Left. Just days later, Samantha Bee’s hateful attack on conservatives put a spotlight on liberal hypocrisy.

Then Joy Reid’s hateful attacks on whole groups of people bubbled up into the national consciousness.

Conservatives were quick to highlight Reid’s many attacks on Coulter, without realizing that Coulter shares Reid’s modus operandi and, in some areas, polemical perspective and nature.

Here are a few of Reid’s remarks regarding Coulter:

Joy Reid anti-Coulter tweets

What commonalities can be found between Reid and Coulter? Many. Here are just a few.

Misogyny

Reid’s misogynistic language employed against Coulter mirrors Coulter’s own decades-long style. Indeed, on Ingraham Angle (6/1/18), in response to Reid’s postings, Coulter replied:

“And then there’s the always popular calling me a man for having a beautiful swan-like neck. Liberal women, as long as we’re being frank here, aren’t used to that because they have rolls of fat on their neck. They’re really taken aback by my beautiful swan-like neck.”

Ingraham was taken aback: “Oh gosh. Okay, alright.”

But is it really “OK” and “alright?”

Coulter has, in fact, attacked women (for being women and on the basis of this looks and lack of intelligence) for around three decades. [See chapter 10,”Equality: Self-Evident Truths,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter and chapter 7, “Spawn of Satan Convention,” The Beauty of Conservatism.]

Hate Speech

Coulter calls herself a “polemicist” and says she enjoys her “vitriol.” [See Chapter 8, “Polemics R Us,” The Beauty of Conservatism.]

Anti-Mexican

I tweeted: “She sounds an awful lot like @AnnCoulter who for several years now has denounced Mexican rapist culture and illegals who take jobs & welfare from Americans. http://wp.me/p4jHFp-6A.”

[See “Adios, Ann: Fear Mexicans, Not Jihadists,” “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Blood Politics,” “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Racial Confusion,” “Coulter: All Immigrants Are Bad,” and “Stop Immigrants, Not Terrorists!”]

Anti-Semitic

I tweeted: “Reid has savagely attacked @AnnCoulter yet they both love Identity Politics and both have a long history of #Antisemitism #AnnCoulter http://wp.me/p4jHFp-f4 .”

[See “Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots,” “Effing Jews and Ann Coulter’s Waterloo (or Damascus Road?),” “First, Jews; Now, Catholics?,” “Jews: Quality, not Quantity,” and “Is Ann Coulter Anti-Semitic?”]

Death Threats

I tweeted: “Like Reid, @AnnCoulter is OK with death threats and rape jokes. Many of #AnnCoulter‘s “jokes” preceded Reid’s and Coulter has NEVER apologized. http://wp.me/p4jHFp-fY .

[See “Coulter OK with Her Death Threats” and Appendix 1, “Sampling of Coulter’s Elimination Rhetoric,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter.]

Rape Fantasies

I tweeted: “Like Reid, @AnnCoulter is OK with death threats and rape jokes. Many of #AnnCoulter‘s “jokes” preceded Reid’s and Coulter has NEVER apologized. http://wp.me/p4jHFp-fY .

[See “Ann Coulter Trivializes Rape,” “Ann Coulter Was Gang Raped!,” “Ann’s Rape Fantasies,” and “Coulter on Rape – Good for Politics.”]

Identity Politics

I tweeted: “Reid has savagely attacked @AnnCoulter yet they both love Identity Politics and both have a long history of #Antisemitism #AnnCoulter http://wp.me/p4jHFp-f4 .”

[See “Adios, Ann: Diversity = White,” “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s WASP Fantasy,” “Coulter – Face of the Alt-Right,” “Warped Alt-Right Worldview,” and an e-book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia.]

If you regard Joy Reid’s words and worldview as reprehensible, then you should so regard Ann Coulter’s.

 

Coulter’s Nativist Screed Against Irish

Last week, Ann Coulter again trashed Irish Catholics in a nativist screed.

Her column reveals her nativist soul. It is polemical & filled with “alternative facts.” This graphic displays her racial hierarchy. WASPs are perfect; Irish were the worst immigrants until advent of Mexicans.

Coulter_s Hierarchy

Coulter used her polemical diatribe against the Irish to justify attacks against Mexicans. Coulter effectively rejects her father’s Irish Catholic ancestry while tacitly lauding her WASP roots.

No Love for Irish

Related:

The Beauty of Conservatism at http://bit.ly/2a79k0j.

The Gospel According to Ann Coulter at http://bit.ly/2aHMmwv.

Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory at http://bit.ly/1M2z2O5.

When Will Conservatives Reject Coulter’s Anti-Semitism?

Ann Coulter tweeted: “Where are the Bernie supporters tonight? Did Hillary have them gassed?

Reject Coulter's Anti-Semitism

Coulter has a long history of anti-Semitism, stretching back to at least the early 1990s. In the wake of her Effing Jews tweets, Coulter claimed to be pro-Semitic, employing arguments worthy of an Orwellian dictator. Coulter even enlisted the aid of her conservative friends to prove her noble and just. Those efforts abysmally failed. Her Orwellian newspeak and doublethink was exposed for what it is.

Then Coulter went after Catholics. Now she has retargeted her preferred object of hatred: Jews.

Why attack Jews and Catholics? Because they do not fit into her utopian dream of a restored WASP nation. Coulter is ecstatic over Trump’s transformation of the GOP into a new Know-Nothing Party which is anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, and anti-Jew.

The Alt-Right and David Duke have eagerly embraced Donald Trump and his (and Coulter’s) message.

Will conservatives join the Never Trump movement and denounce this latest instance of anti-Semitism by Trump’s consigliere?

Coulter’s Berkeley Bluff

Ann Coulter has been undeservedly hailed a valiant heroine for the Battle at Berkeley, yet her perceived defiance of leftist mobs and censoring administrators was not really at all courageous.

In fact, Coulter never expected or intended to give a speech at Berkeley! It was all a clever ruse and publicity stunt. Bravado, not bravery, marked Coulter’s Berkeley bluff.

After successfully portraying herself as a courageous free speech warrior – having gotten exactly what she wanted: publicity and a new image – Coulter did not give what would have been a truly “free” (no honorarium) speech in what she herself insisted was the “safest place on earth” for her.

Before getting into details, let’s recall that Berkeley has justifiably been almost universally condemned (except by some on the far left) for not allowing Coulter to speak. Nevertheless, Coulter is not the courageous heroine she would have you believe her to be.

Coulter’s Last Stand

I gave Ann an Alamo Award in 1997 for her unquestioned courage – at that time – in speaking truth to power, at the risk of losing her livelihood. At Berkeley, Coulter risked nothing whatsoever. Indeed, regardless of the outcome, Coulter expected to gain that which she sought: publicity and an image of being a heroic-martyr.

This epic battle of wills pitting liberty lovers against academic censors saturated national news coverage. Coulter’s gambit was actually just a PR stunt from the very beginning. And it worked.

Her #BerkeleyBound mission perfectly suited her purposes. Whether or not she spoke, she won. If she spoke, she was heroic; if not, she was a courageous martyr. Win-win.

The Washington Post reported: “In a classic case of ‘heads I win, tails you lose,’ conservative provocateur Ann Coulter emerged from last week’s events at the University of California at Berkeley as a free-speech martyr.”

Coulter couldn’t lose. That was the plan from the start. It was all braggadocio and bravado, a marketing ploy explicitly designed to reinvigorate her reputation and career.

Lauded as the courageous conservative facing down Berkley rioters and university censors, the truth is otherwise: Coulter never intended to speak at Berkeley.

“Pranav Jandhyala, who founded [YAF’s] UC Berkeley chapter,” “acknowledged that it was now clear that Coulter’s intention wasn’t to engage in any real dialogue, but to prove her own point.”

Of course, YAF also wanted to use the entire scenario to promote itself and highlight the rampant trampling of the First Amendment on college campuses (and elsewhere).

Coulter’s Glory

Everything Coulter says or does accrues to Coulter’s benefit. That which she seeks most of all is glory. She became addicted to fame and power in late 1997 and she has never recovered from that pathology.

Coulter generated a tremendous amount of positive media coverage with her Berkeley kerfuffle, far more than during her last book tour. She gloried in her glory on The View.

Milking the situation for all it was worth, Coulter told KTVU that she was better than Milo Yiannopoulos: “I’m not even Milo. I mean, for Pete’s sake, I’m a twelve-time New York Times’ bestselling author.” (Actually, she’s only a ten-time bestselling author, as even McInnes admitted at Berkeley.)

Coulter also likened herself to heroic figures in the past: Martin Luther King, Jr. and Winston Churchill!

She boasted to Tucker Carlson: “By the way, I am giving the speech. What are they going to do, arrest me? They can put me in the Birmingham jail.” (King would have rejected both Coulter’s racial paradigm and anti-Christian behavior.)

The host on KTVU asked Coulter the most pertinent question imaginable: “Some people would say, ‘Ann Coulter is all about Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter wants to promote Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter wants to come here – and she’s gonna come here on Thursday – and she’s gonna be a rabble-rouser and she’s gonna try to incite people.’”

Usually in situations like this, Coulter reverts to using Jesus as her model of civil disobedience (upturning tables in temple, brood of vipers speech) to justify her own vitriol. On this occasion, she argued, “Winston Churchill was promoting himself with that ‘We shall fight on the beaches’ speech.”

Then she stridently claimed, “The idea that I’m trying to get publicity off of this event could not be further from the truth on the facts.”

Timeline

Here’s the actual timeline of events according to Coulter and her speech sponsors:

BridgeUSA and YAF sponsored Coulter’s speech. She knew – given riots at Milo Yiannopoulos’ event in February – that she wouldn’t be giving her speech. The university and/or rioters would surely shut it down.

Berkeley placed ever-demanding restrictions on Coulter’s speech. She insisted that YAF concede to every single demand. Coulter could not quit. She had to wait – and wait patiently she did (because she knew it was inevitable) – for Berkeley to cancel, making her a martyr. She told Tucker Carlson, “Well, they changed the rules every ten minutes. I kept agreeing to all of their conditions – they were hoping I would cancel.”

In this high-stakes game of chicken, Berkeley flinched. Berkeley caved and cancelled her speech, enabling Coulter to play the heroic victim of institutional censorship and mob rule.

Under intense media and political pressure, Berkeley offered an alternative date, which Coulter refused, keeping the pressure on Berkeley. Her sponsors filed lawsuits.

Coulter demanded her original speaking slot, insisted she would speak, and suggested she would speak in Sproul Plaza, if need be.

Berkeley announced that it could not ensure the safety of the speaker and attendees. Then YAF folded. Coulter wrote, “We were on [the] cusp of victory and YAF backed down, refused to seek a court order or allow the College Republicans to request a court order.  It’s a sad day for free speech.”

Coulter’s sponsors caved. Coulter was incensed. Why? She wanted Berkeley to cave and herself be vindicated as a heroine. Instead, she would have to speak outdoors, something she did not want to do.

In the end, Gavin McInnes, her good friend and latest knight in shining armor, gave Coulter’s extremely-short speech on her behalf in Sproul Plaza. Coulter was there, in Berkeley, but not at that peaceful event. Afterward, she joined McInnes and supporters for drinks at George and Walt’s.

Broken Vow

To KTVU, Coulter vowed: “I was invited to give a speech. I have a contract to give a speech. I’m giving a speech.” To the Hollywood Reporter, Coulter swore, “Yes, it was officially banned, but they can’t stop me. I’m an American. I have constitutional rights.”

Just the night before, Coulter told Sean Hannity: “I do think it is possible that the Berkeley campus will be the safest place on the face of the earth because so many people are flying in to defend me.”

At the airport, Coulter said, “Safest place on earth for me, but these cowards! Who has a better idea of what the campus is gonna be like than the person who’s going there as opposed to the moron sitting in Washington?”

So – both the day before and the afternoon of “the speech” – Coulter declared Berkeley “the safest place on earth for me,” yet she assigned her speech to McInnes! She gave him that assignment the day before the speech, which she emailed to him.

Coulter is there, but does not speak herself?

Gavin McInnes tweeted the day before the speech: “The @AnnCoulter event in Berkeley is NOT canceled. I will be speaking tomorrow with @Lauren_Southern @FaithGoldy @BrittPettibone #POYB.”

Two days earlier, Coulter tweeted: “Nice day for an outdoor speech at Berkeley,” implying she would give her speech in the plaza, if necessary. Coulter told AP, “I have my flights, so I thought I might stroll around the graveyard of the First Amendment.”

Five days later, Coulter told Lou Dobbs, “I would have preferred to have spoken.”

Coulter regularly advertises upcoming speeches on her website as soon as she has them booked. She never advertised her Berkeley speech on her own website – even though YAF did on theirs – complete with date, time, and location. Why?

She never intended to speak. It was all a charade. She wanted credit for courage without being courageous. She knew Berkeley would give in.

Nothing changed between Milo and Ann and the results were wholly predictable – and expected.

Coulter’s Speech

If Coulter really planned on speaking, then she must have prepared an astonishing speech. Indeed, Coulter boasted to Carlson that it would be “a searingly brilliant speech on immigration.”

McInnes said, “Ann sent me her speech,” and then he read it, breaking in with his own running commentary. Coulter’s actual speech was less than four minutes and contained nothing new, except for her comparison of immigrants to rat feces (contained in the lead paragraph). It contained zero references to Berkeley.

Hardly “searingly brilliant.”

Coulter told Carlson that her speech was about enforcement of existing immigration laws. Her speech – given by McInnes – never addressed that issue.

Earlier that week, Coulter said she would be updating her speech. Pretty good gig, $20,000 for a four-minute speech.

McInnes introduced her speech, saying, “Ann was betrayed. She was censored. They put all the legal onus upon her so that if someone gets hurt tonight, it would have been on her head. Now it’s on my head.”

If it was so dangerous that Coulter couldn’t give her speech, why did she have McInnes risk his life – and the lives of those in the audience – to do so on her behalf?

But what did she say shortly before McInnes gave her speech? “Safest place on earth for me, but these cowards!”

Yet, Coulter wasn’t about to nail her 95 Theses on Berkeley’s wall. She let her friend do it for her, while she took all the credit.

Speech Sponsors

The non-partisan BridgeUSA and conservative Young America’s Foundation co-sponsored Coulter’s speech. [Both YAF and BridgeUSA were non-responsive to my interview requests.]

The founder of BridgeUSA explained why his organization co-sponsored Coulter’s speech – “to facilitate dialogue between political opposites.” Ironically, he wrote: “Free speech isn’t about provocation, violence, publicity stunts, selling books or testing limits” – precisely what Coulter does on a regular basis.

Further, BridgeUSA “refuse[s] to invoke the right to free speech to inflame, attack and generate publicity” – exactly the modus operandi Coulter has embraced for the past two decades.

He added, “instigating controversy for publicity does not fix a broken system,” yet BridgeUSA sponsored a self-proclaimed provocateur and polemicist to do just that. How well would David Duke be received by the Black Panthers?

At CPAC 2002, Coulter posited the notion that she should keep going further and further right to draw the culture and the left toward her. Shortly thereafter, Coulter coined a series of “rules” for talking to a liberal: being as outrageous as you can be to inflame them. No reconciliation there.

Alheli Picazo writes, “People like Coulter and Yiannopoulos aren’t brought to campus to contribute substance – hearing either speak for a few minutes quickly puts lie to claims of their brilliance. They are skilled antagonists who can reliably incite backlash from a perceived enemy.”

It is unclear why Coulter is the best spokesman for YAF on anything, even immigration (the purported topic of the series of speeches spearheaded by BridgeUSA).

YAF has 100 speakers on its roster. Only five speakers are listed for immigration; Coulter is not among them. Were none of the actual “experts” on immigration available?

Moreover, only eight YAF speakers require an honorarium of $20K or more. Surely YAF could have selected a better representative of conservatism for less money.

YAF previously sponsored Milo Yiannopoulos, who isn’t even listed on its roster. Coulter claimed she is not like Yiannopoulos, yet they are both leaders of the Alt-Right and share an Alt-Right worldview. Is YAF in agreement with those views?

Unanswered Questions

One YAF tweet was particularly confusing: “At no time was there ever a space or lecture time confirmed for Ann Coulter to speak.” Yet YAF’s event page listed the location, date, and time as 110 Sprout Hall from 7:00 to 8:30 pm on 4/27/17. What really happened?

Would it be fair to say that YAF chose both Yiannopoulos and Coulter to generate controversy, anticipating a backlash which would then highlight the thuggish behavior on the Left and their threats to the First Amendment?

Coulter’s Courage

Conservative heroine Ann Coulter has proven herself a cowardly fraud. The free speech battle at Berkeley was merely a publicity stunt for this polemicist and provocateur.

As noted above, Coulter exhibited genuine courage in 1996-97. Hence her Alamo Award.

Since then, Coulter has gotten edgier and edgier while simultaneously abandoning her principles and ideals. In doing so, Coulter has actually embraced her fears. Now she is desperately grasping for the glory she once had and which increasingly eludes her.

What she fears most is facing the truth about the person she has become. Moreover, Coulter fears that she is beyond redemption, so why not continue on her downward path. (Ann, My Redeemer Lives, and so does yours!)

Ann Coulter isn’t a voice for freedom or free speech. Ann Coulter is a voice for Ann Coulter.

[#NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

RIP Nell Husbands Martin Coulter

The death of Mother devastated Ann Coulter.

Following Mother’s death, Ann published a very personal, poignant, and often political eulogy.

In her eulogy, Ann mourned the loss her of “true No. 1 fan” who “was the biggest fan of” her entire family. Mother “was a little love machine, spreading warmth and joy wherever she went.” Mother loved hugging her daughter and telling her “what a wonderful, precious daughter” Ann was.

Ann felt safe and secure in her mother’s love: “My whole life, as soon as I’d see my mother’s face I’d know I was safe, whether I was a little girl lost in a department store or a big girl with a problem, who needed her mother.”

This Mother-Daughter love was very real.

A devoted daughter, Ann took excellent care of Mother during her declining years as she battled ovarian cancer. Ann even postponed publication of her seventh book, Guilty, to tend to her mother’s needs.

Ann understandably misses Mother’s “constant, unconditional love.”

In many ways, Ann emulates Mother (often to an extreme). In other ways, Ann repudiates Mother (often in extremist ways). Today, Mother would be both proud of, and perturbed by, her daughter.

Like Mother, Like Daughter

Ann and Mother both cherished their New England and Southern roots. Coulter’s prized genealogical roots all trace through Mother: New England Puritans and Daughters of the American Revolution, coupled with a solid Southern heritage.

Mother wanted to be specifically remembered for her “contributions to the Republican Party, the New Canaan Republican Town Committee and the Daughters of the American Revolution.”

“Mother may have thought her most notable characteristic was her Republican activism,” Coulter wrote, emphasizing her “deep-seated political activism” and being “always delighted to be with people talking about politics.”

Sounds a lot like Ann.

Mother was very proud to be “a direct descendant of at least a dozen patriots who served the cause of the American Revolution.” In fact, she “traced her lineage on both sides of her family to Puritan nonconformists who came to America in 1633 seeking religious freedom on a ship led by Pastor Thomas Hooker.”

Coulter, as she typically does, takes everything to extremes. Ann is so proud of her heritage as a Daughter of the American Revolution that she regards herself as a “settler” – and a “Native American.”

Ann also regards herself – a WASP – as a true American. (Hence her nativist and xenophobic impulses.) She treasures her Puritan roots, making her a self-identified authority on all things American.

Moreover, Ann is proud of Mother’s Southern roots, praising Mother’s “fighting Kentucky spirit” and “charming Southern accent.”

Coulter lauds the Confederacy whenever she can and tweeted (8/3/16): “Southerners accounted for 38 percent of those killed in Iraq and 47 percent in Afghanistan.” She then asked Gov. Haley: “How about Nikki put their flag back up?”

In other words, Coulter contends that Southerners who died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan were fighting for the Confederacy!

Coulter continued: “The Confederate flag won’t lead to thousands of dead and maimed Americans, as Muslim immigration does. The only danger posed by the Confederate flag is that media elites will hold the South in even greater contempt than they already do, assuming that’s possible.”

Yes, Coulter equates Southerners with Confederates and believes that our brave military members from the South are currently fighting for the Confederacy and not for America!

Thus, Coulter has become the face of the Alt-Right movement, seeking restoration of a distinctly white WASP America while, simultaneously, promoting a neo-Confederate worldview.

Unlike Mother …

Mother was generous. Mother “probably contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to various conservative outfits over the years.” Ann, not so much.

Ann’s generosity extends to helping those who can help her.

If she can get something out of it – self-promotion, praise, paycheck, book sale, networking connection – Ann will do it. Otherwise – if it does not personally benefit her – forget it.

Mother was compassionate. Since she “was a little girl,” Ann saw that “friends, relatives and neighbors would bring their problems to Mother.” Why? Because Mother “had a rare combination of being completely moral and completely nonjudgmental at the same time” and would give “good counsel” without making others feel worse about themselves.

As for Ann, well, her entire career is based upon wounding other people. Given a choice between fact and polemic, Ann usually chooses the latter.

Mother valued human life. She was a “gentle lady” who “never had an unkind word for anyone.” In fact, “Father would always smile and say, ‘Your mother defends everyone.’”

Mother was proud of Ann for her pro-life speech presented before a Roman Catholic women’s group in New Canaan, CT, and later published in Human Life Review and various essay collections nationwide.

Now, though claiming, “I am totally pro-life,” Ann passionately attacks conservatives and Christians for pursuing a pro-life agenda.

As far back as the late 1990s, Coulter began attacking pro-lifers for purely political purposes. In reality, Coulter would have pro-lifers do nothing and let the unborn fend for themselves!

Mother was a devout Christian. Faith figured prominently in Mother’s life. She was very active in her local church and her faith was important enough to her that she faithfully turned her daughter to Presbyterianism.

In her moving eulogy, Ann emphasized Mother’s Republican activism and DAR lineage. Surprisingly, Ann missed Mother’s Christian beliefs. She utterly ignored her Mother’s faith.

Though claiming, “I’m an extraordinarily good Christian,” Ann has attacked Christians for most of the past two decades. She even attacks Christians for being godly!

Ann lovingly gave honor to Mother with her words, but in her life Coulter dishonors Mother.

Gone Astray

As I wrote last year:

I suspect that Ann never really believed in the Christian ideals and conservative principles she espoused. Indeed, she was not the “true believer” everyone believed her to be. Rather, she adopted those ideals and principles from her parents, whom she loved. Her father died in 2008; her mother in 2009. Since then, Ann’s moral and spiritual compass no longer exists. Ann is being tossed to and fro by the pragmatism of the moment and the passing whims of her heart.”

“Coulter hates conservatives, Christians, and pro-lifers for being what they are because she once believed she belonged in those categories. Now, whenever these people of principle act on their principles, she is put to shame as a charlatan. They expose Coulter for who she really is – a fraud.”

“Will Ann always be a fraud? Only God knows and only He can bring meaning and direction to her life. Unless and until Ann courageously faces the reality of who she has become and fights the good fight of faith to become the person God has called her to be, she will always be filled with hate and fear.”

“May God grant Ann repentance and transform her heart.”

Yes, Ann Hart Coulter has, indeed, lost the moorings of her parents’ presence, principles, and piety. Her heart is now turned in the wrong direction, away from God and opposed to His will. Whether or not she knows it, Ann has rejected God and His will for her life.

Instead, the “Emperor-God Trump” is her Savior. Coulter has rejected God and arrogantly placed her will above His.

Coulter recently said that with Mother’s passing, she can now say anything she wants to. She claimed, “I really am the freest person in America right now. I can say anything.”

The Easter season reminds us that we are all equal before the cross and that we must humble ourselves before the One who saves.

Obviously, humility eludes Ann. Her hubris abhors humility because 1) she rejects its efficacy and 2) she regards it as a sign of weakness.

Here’s the rub: Without humility, salvation is impossible. We must humbly come to the cross to accept God’s love and salvation. Until we do, we are not saved and we will never have peace.

Our Father’s Love

Ann praised Mother for her “unconditional love.” Mother was loving – and loved.

Mother’s love actually points to our heavenly Father’s perfect unconditional love. But only God perfectly expresses and exhibits unconditional love. Mothers can come close, but imperfectly.

Our Father has a perfect love, presence, and power. Trust Him!

In her eulogy, Ann expressed reassurance that Mother and Father were reunited in heaven and that she would see them both in time.

Revelation 21:4 reveals: “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

I pray that God wipes away all of Ann’s tears, from whatever source.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Got Racism?

Renowned for her racism, Ann Coulter again heralded the racial superiority of the white male over minorities (particularly women).

got-racism

In her column (1/11/17), Coulter asserted (emphasis added), “the 21st-century white American male is the most pacific – and least rock-throwing – Y-chromosomed being ever to walk the Earth..”

In contrast, Coulter contends, “Black women accusing white men of throwing rocks at them are thinking of what they would do.”

Moreover, Coulter declares rock throwing at Occupy Wall Street events was not committed by the “directionless, white (alleged) ‘men’” but “was done by their minority backup.”

During the last presidential cycle, Coulter claimed that she deserved a racism credit because of her good intentions. Her deepest desire is to recreate a WASP America, arguing that true diversity is white. Oh, and the superiority of WASP culture can be traced to its genes.

Coulter has become the high priestess of the Alt-Right movement, yet denies that its worldview and agenda emulate those of David Duke. She even confused the Confederate and American flags.

Coulter’s racist views keep bubbling out in her tweets, columns, and books because she regards herself as genetically superior to other people.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]