Tag Archives: birther

.@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.

Ann Coulter: Wisconsin Sucks

In her latest column,[1] Ann Coulter called Wisconsin a “mean-as-a-snake” “Soviet” state.

Wisconsin Sucks

Her evidence?

Point One: Donald Trump lost. (We could just stop right there. Just like Trump, anyone opposed to her or her agenda is ipso facto evil.)

Point Two: Thugs from across America joined with teachers unions to besiege and takeover the state capitol in 2011.

Coulter fails to explain her non-sequitur, namely, how liberal activists from across the nation are representative of conservatives running a Republican convention.

Moreover, Coulter concludes that those  very same thugs represent the whole of Wisconsin. How, then, does Coulter account for Gov. Scott Walker’s tremendous popularity in his home state. Walker won three elections there!

Point Three: Because Wisconsin has “virtually no immigrants,” they cannot understand the reality contained in Trump’s message and her latest book.[2]

It would behoove Coulter not to disparage “cantankerous Wisconsin” for – horror of horrors – disagreeing with Coulter. Moreover, Coulter’s own opening paragraph cites “Trump’s rough style,”[3] one which a growing number of conservatives deplore. There is more to a Trump candidacy than a phony immigration platform.[4]

Coulter once said, “All countries suck compared to America.”[5] Now, apparently so does Wisconsin.

Coulter should look in the mirror before casting any more stones!

Endnotes:

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

[2]               See “Coulter Logic (she wants candidate who won’t pursue her agenda)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dQ.

[3]               See “Bully Boy Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cv.

[4]               See “Trump’s Phony Wall” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cn.

[5]               See “Ann Coulter Auditions for U.N. Ambassador” at http://t.co/R7IDzwnUJ8.

Coulter Bass Akwards on Elections

Ann Coulter has uttered absurdities which would make even Homer Simpson blush.

Coulter’s lies about caucuses and opened and closed primaries are easy to refute with a little logic and a few facts. Same with her lies about “voter-less” and “stolen” elections.

Coulter = Homer Simpson

Erstwhile law-and-order zealot and federalism advocate suddenly hates both the rule of law and federalism. Why? Because they are thwarting Trump’s efforts to win the GOP nomination.

Suddenly, Coulter sees nonexistent “voter-less elections” and “stolen elections” where none exist. Moreover, she regards primaries as infinitely superior to caucuses and conventions, which she claims are somehow illegitimate. Coulter disparages the freedom that each state has under the Constitution to hold elections and select its delegates.

Coulter is more of a fraud[1] than Donald Trump.[2] To salvage Trump’s quest for the GOP nomination, Coulter engages in full-blown Orwellian propaganda.[3] Her column last week blasted Ted Cruz for following the rules and winning delegates[4]legally and ethically!

In that column[5] (and subsequent Facebook postings), makes Homer Simpson-blushing assertions which are utterly absurd and eminently disprovable.

“Voter-less elections” are not voter-less. Coulter claims that “state Republican parties disregard the voters and give all their delegates to Cruz,” except, the voters in those states elected the delegates. She alleges “procedural loopholes” and charges “corrupt backroom maneuvering” by “tiny groups of insiders.”

The facts are otherwise. Election laws in many of these states are similar to when the Party of Lincoln and Reagan was founded. Each state determines how it will hold elections: (open or closed) primary, caucus, convention. All eligible voters can be part of the process to support or become delegates.

Coulter defends Trump’s ineptitude by claiming, “Trump keeps winning elections, and Cruz keeps winning sneaky procedural victories.” Except, Trump also keeps losing elections and Cruz’s “procedural victories” are neither sneaky nor illegal.

Coulter claims that only primaries are “elections,” and that caucuses are somehow fraudulent.

A caucus is an election. People vote. Everyone who is an eligible voter is able to vote. Not without irony, Coulter favors poll taxes and literacy tests for voting, so, Coulter should prefer caucus voters, who tend to be more informed and more engaged voters.

Nevertheless, Coulter claims: “General election is winner take all; General election is NOT a little meeting of party insiders.”

Repeating a lie does not make it true. Caucuses and conventions are not little meetings of party insiders.

Coulter also asserts, “Caucuses & conventions are not ELECTIONS.”

Except, caucuses and conventions are elections! People vote. People vote.

According to Coulter, “GOP has to beat Hillary in an ELECTION, not a little meeting. Trump keeps winning all the ELECTIONS; Cruz wins little meetings. Who cares if those were the rules??? That’s not how to pick a winner!”

Each state, in its own way, selects its preferred candidate. That’s the way it has always been. The nomination is not being stolen from Trump. Rather, Trump is failing to win it.

Confronted with the reality that over 1.3 million people voted in UT, ND, WI, CO & WY and Trump lost all five, Coulter posted: “Only one of those, WI, was what we call an ‘election.’ Does Cruz think he beats Hillary by winning over GOP insiders?”

All were elections. “GOP insiders” did not steal those elections. Cruz won because more people voted for him.

Coulter hates the results so she fudges the facts.

Let’s remember: More Republicans have voted against Trump than for him.[6]

Remember, Trump did better in open primaries (where Democrats – who will vote Democrat in November – voted for Trump) and worse in closed primaries (where liberal spoilers were foiled).

Remember, a larger percentage of early-voters, than late-voters, voted for Trump. The more the electorate learns about Trump the less it likes him.

Donald Trump, Coulter’s current Savior,[7] is a Clintonesque RINO posing as a conservative populist. A Trump nomination would ensure a Democrat victory in this election.[8]

Update: In her April 20th column, Coulter reprised her absurd election-stealing charges, distinguishing between “elections, not party-rigged conferences or caucuses.” The truth evades those who dwell in lies.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “No Better Than Trump!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dW.

[2]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[3]               See “Coulter’s Orwellian Opus” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-e0.

[4]               See “Coulter Hates ‘THE RULES’ That Thwart Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-e6.

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

[6]               See “Only Trump Can Lose!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dA.

[7]               See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[8]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

Coulter Hates ‘THE RULES’ That Thwart Trump

In her Trumpmania column of the week, Trump apologist Ann Coulter decries the various state and local election laws (“THE RULES,” as she emphasized nine times) which have frustrated and may well thwart Trump’s presidential ambitions.[1]

The RULES

Coulter regurgitates the false narrative of the election being stolen from Trump and she reprises her own fabrication that Cruz is ineligible to be elected president.[2] That birther claim has been consistently debunked by constitutional law, history, and logic,[3] as well as in every court where it has been tested.

Coulter, who has inexplicably and inextricably linked[4] her career and reputation[5] to yet another failed candidacy,[6] now frantically seeks to prevent a Cruz victory, even if it means the destruction of the conservative movement[7] and the further suicidal transformation of America from what we once knew to, as Coulter puts it, a “Third World Hellhole.”

Actually, there is reason in her madness. Coulter latched onto Trump as a means to promote herself, her book, and her agenda. Now that the real Donald Trump has emerged[8]a Donald Trump who would never pursue her agenda[9] – Coulter is in denial and desperately deflects attention from the truth and from her own culpability. When Trump falls, so does Coulter.

Foisting RINO Romney on America[10] was bad enough (at least Romney is an honorable man), but libertine liberal Donald Trump?[11] Shame on you, Ann![12]

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Only Trump Can Lose!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dA.

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

[3]               See “Birther Coulter Births More Lies” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bI.

[4]               See “Coulter Trumped Up” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7Q.

[5]               See “Coulter Crazy Over Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-c5.

[6]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

[7]               See “Coulter Wants to Destroy GOP” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bn.

[8]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[9]               See “Coulter Logic (she wants candidate who won’t pursue her agenda)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-ex.

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

[11]             See “Coulter Goes Mental Over Her ‘Mental’ Candidate” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-d8.

[12]             See “No Better Than Trump!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dW.

Coulter’s Orwellian Opus

Ann Coulter seeks to impose her will on the American people by using a variety of Orwellian propaganda techniques.

Orwellian Opus

Her column, “Moonie for Cruz,” is a perfect example. In it, she employs a host of Orwellian constructs to turn reality upside-down.

With just 1,241 words, polemicist Ann Coulter provided an excellent example of Orwellian rhetoric.

Primaries vs. Caucuses

Coulter began her column contending that Trump winning primaries is better than Cruz winning caucuses, which she regards as inferior and somehow illegitimate. She neglected to point out that open primaries enabled Democrats to vote for Trump, people who will arguably vote Democrat in November.

Coulter even ludicrously claimed “that a brokered Republican convention is more likely to end with Bernie as the nominee than Cruz.” Coulter is desperate to prevent a Cruz victory,[1] truth be damned.

Big Lie

This leads to Coulter’s Big Lie: Donald Trump is the real deal and a true American patriot who will win, win, win;[2] Ted Cruz is a liar and a fraud and he cannot win. Reality is, of course, the exact opposite.[3]

Coulter claims “that Trump was the choice of a majority of Republican voters,” when, in fact, the majority of Republican voters have voted against Trump. (Coulter and Trump both need to grasp the difference between “majority” and “plurality.”)

Two Minutes Hate

In Orwell’s world, Big Brother orchestrated a daily “Two-Minutes Hate” and a periodic “Hate Week” to demonize political foes. Big Brother’s campaign was intensely emotion-laden and reason free.

Utterly ignoring the very real and indisputable cult of Trump, Coulter lambasted imaginary “Cruz cultists,” claiming they “don’t even care about plain honesty.” (Yes, Ann, honesty is “a conservative value.” Try it sometime.)[4]

Coulter blasted the apocryphal “Cruz cultists” as “guttersnipe, lying political operators like the Clintons.” Her column is replete with such ad hominem invective.[5]

Emmanuel Goldstein

Coulter’s archenemy, Emmanuel Goldstein, is a composite “Cruz cultist” which bears no resemblance to reality.

Coulter quipped, “If James Carville and Paul Begala had a baby, it would be a Cruz supporter.” Physically impossible (does Ann know anatomy?), neither progenitor is apt. Indeed, both would be far more apropos of a Trump, not a Cruz, supporter. Projection?[6]

No one has likened Cruz to either Carville or Begala. However, Cruz has been likened to Ronald Reagan.

A more factually-based quip would be something like, “If Twiggy and Miley Cyrus had a baby, it would be Ann Coulter.” After all, Coulter has been called[7]Twiggy with Tourette’s” and “the Miley Cyrus of political commentary.”

According to Coulter, “Cruz has flipped to Trump’s side on every important political issue of this campaign.” She asserts that Cruz favored “Legalizing illegal aliens” and “now is against it.” In the non-Orwellian universe, Cruz has always opposed amnesty and he courageously introduced a “poison pill” amendment to prevent legalization of illegal aliens. One of Coulter’s citations actually proves that point.

Coulter also claims Cruz opposed a wall before he was for it, but her citation does not support her conclusion. Cruz has always favored a wall.[8]

Still, Coulter lies, claiming Cruz has changed all of these positions “since being a senator – most of them he’s flipped on only in the last year.” But Cruz has not flipped. Cruz has been consistent.

2 + 2 = 5

Don’t believe your lying eyes. That’s the message from Coulter and that’s the message from Trump.

Coulter has changed Orwell’s formulation – “whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth” – to “whatever Ann and The Donald hold to be truth, is truth.” With this crucial corollary, “especially if it is not.”

Coulter offered a series of alleged lies by the Cruz camp. But every alleged lie about Trump really is true! [See hyperlinks for truth!]

Coulter spent considerable time (six paragraphs) defending Trump’s irrefutable pro-abortion record, actually claiming that he is now “fully pro-life.” Coulter avers, “But to claim Trump is pro-choice today – present tense – is what’s known as a ‘lie.’”

Coulter’s whopper is obviously so!

Coulter’s Claims

Coulter devoted another four paragraphs to Trump’s desire for universal health care, claiming it isn’t what we all know it is. Trump wants to replace Obamacare with Trumpcare, but Coulter calls this an “insane lie” by “Cruz and his cult-like followers.”

Typically Orwellian, in Coulter’s world, Trump’s opponents are somehow not just wrong, but either evil or crazy. (Coulter has applied that very dichotomy – evil or crazy – to the Left for two decades!)

Coulter devoted a lengthy paragraph to defending an assault by “Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.” Coulter’s characterization of the event: “criminal battery for brushing past a female reporter.” Actually, it is misdemeanor battery for intentionally grabbing Michelle Fields’ arm and jerking her backward.[14] Coulter denies the video proof and absurdly compares it to Clinton apologists who claimed Clinton “did not commit perjury when he denied having ‘sexual relations’ with Monica Lewinsky.”

Two additional paragraphs addressed Coulter’s criticism of Trump for his Heidi Cruz retweet. Coulter affirmed her slavish devotion to Trump, despite calling him “mental.”[15] If Coulter supports a “mental” Trump, what does that say about Coulter?

Why would Coulter tell such big and small lies? Because she believes that “Trump is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime who will build a wall, deport illegals and pause the importation of Muslims.”

The problem, for those who are familiar with Trump’s views, is that Trump actually favors amnesty[16] and wants a “big, fat beautiful door right in that wall” to allow the immediate return of those illegals that he deports. In fact, Trump is the one candidate who won’t do what Coulter wants done![17]

Ann Coulter = Leni Riefenstahl

Coulter has often been accurately compared to Leni Riefenstahl,[18] the infamous Nazi film propagandist. She really is a propagandist par excellence. With her razor-sharp mind, quick wit, and extensive vocabulary, Coulter is adept at the manipulation of truth and people. (However, Coulter is sadly lacking in wisdom and honesty.)

On radio and talk shows, Coulter made the audacious claim that the Great Depression was part of “the most prosperous period in American history.”[19] No one challenged her on this. Everyone accepted her claim as true. Coulter said it, therefore 2 + 2 = 5.

For this reason[20] (and others),[21] a growing number of conservatives and Christians[22] no longer trust Coulter.[23]

Donald Trump is a libertine liberal masquerading as a conservative.[24] Coulter, who once championed constitutional and cultural conservatism, now knowingly embraces the vulgar and bullying nature of Trump’s candidacy,[25] proving that she is no better than Trump.[26]

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Birther Coulter Births More Lies” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bI.

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

[3]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[4]               See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[5]               See “Coulter Admits Her Column Is Fraudulent” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dT.

[6]               See Chapter 2, “The Cuckolding of Conscience,” The Beauty of Conservatism, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[7]               See Chapter 2: “Xenophobia: Soccer Flops and Nativism Gone Amok,” Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

[8]               See “Trump’s Phony Wall” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cn.

[9]               See “Coulter’s Desperate Lies About Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-c8.

[10]             See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

[11]             See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[12]             See “Will Ann Coulter Apologize to Michelle Fields?” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-di.

[13]             See “Ann Coulter Was Gang Raped!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dp.

[14]             See “Will Ann Coulter Apologize to Michelle Fields?” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-di.

[15]             See “Coulter Goes Mental Over Her ‘Mental’ Candidate” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-d8.

[16]             See “Trump’s Phony Wall” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cn.

[17]             See “Coulter Logic (she wants candidate who won’t pursue her agenda)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dQ.

[18]             See “Ann Coulter = Leni Riefenstahl” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5w.

[19]             See “Ignorant Ideologue” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-br.

[20]             See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

[21]             See Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[22]             See “Ann Coulter’s Growing Irrelevancy” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8Y.

[23]             See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[24]             See “How to Talk to a Bully (if you must)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bY.

[25]             See “Bully Boy Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cv.

[26]             See “No Better Than Trump!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dW.

Birther Coulter Births More Lies

Erstwhile anti-birther Ann Coulter, worshiping at the idol of The Donald, has become the premiere birther attacking Ted Cruz. Why? She wants to scuttle Cruz’s presidential ambitions and stop his burgeoning support before her own Savior, Trump, loses the nomination.

Birther Ann Coulter

(Coulter has, after all, tied her future – and that of America[1]to a Trump victory,[2] however wise or foolish that might be.)

Just two days ago, Coulter burst out, “Thank God for raising up Donald Trump and giving us a chance to save the country.”[3]

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

Seemingly on emotional steroids, Coulter has 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 sticks a shiv in Ted’s side.

Coulter dodges 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.

Just yesterday, Coulter wrote: “I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy.”[4] Coulter claims, “It’s not that I want him not to be a Natural Born Citizen.”[5] 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. Ted 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[6] in 2016. At that time, she wanted Romney – and only Romney![7]

Now, she wants Trump – and only Trump![8]

In fact, just three days ago, Coulter boasted that she still wants 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.”[9]

Bob Woodward recently said, “History is character; behavior is character.”[10] Coulter’s history, and her behavior these past two decades, proves Coulter’s own lack of character.[11] Coulter lied about the Constitution and Supreme Court cases during the 2000 election[12] and she is doing the same thing now.

Why would Ann lie? Donald Trump[13] is her new political savior.[14] In Ann’s words: “[Donald Trump is] America’s savior.”[15]

Nevertheless, Coulter hypocritically attacks 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.”[16]

1608 or 1790; Blood or Soil?

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.”[17]

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

Coulter asserts: “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.”[18]

The case which Coulter cites – 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: “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 claims that a 1608 case in England is the basis for America’s definition of Natural Born Citizen.[19] Consequently, Coulter asserts 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 an 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 dismisses as “irrelevant,” precisely establishes the principle of right of blood which Coulter denies!

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 suggests that those defending citizenship by blood are nascent Nazis, saying, “The two methods are soil or blood. Curiously, in Germany, it’s, it’s blood.”[20]

Coulter Lies About ANOTHER Supreme Court Case

Coulter writes: “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.’”[21]

Coulter uses 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.]

Cruz Is Eligible!

Gary DeMar is perhaps the foremost expert on America’s Founders. DeMar recently 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.”

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11]             See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, 2013, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

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

[13]             See “Coulter Trumped Up” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7Q.

[14]             See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

[15]             Ann Coulter, Peter Tilden Show, KABC, 8/28/15.

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

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

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

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

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

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