Conservative celebrity Ann Coulter turned 58 today. What has she accomplished in her nearly six decades of life?
Coulter’s life and work, worldview and self-identity, are all filled with myriad contradictions and conundrums. From whence do those arise? Hers is a fascinating story of elite privilege, hubris, and insecurity.
Almost sexagenarian Ann has both achieved her wildest dreams and squandered her life.
Raising a Narcissist
Ann’s first few weeks of life were spent in an incubator and her child and teenage years were also lived in an incubator of sorts, one which nurtured and molded the narcissist so many have grown to either love or hate. Those incubators have isolated Ann from real life and real relationships. (Now, she confesses to be an agoraphobe who reads a lot.)
As a child, Ann, the last-born baby princess, was both doted upon and the object of high expectations. Ann had much to live up to – her family name, her Puritan ancestry, and her WASP settler roots.
Higher Education and Networking
Ann was reared by elites in the elite town of New Canaan, Connecticut, and she later attended elite academic institutions: Cornell University and the University of Michigan Law School.
As a child, Ann quickly learned how to manipulate people with her looks and quick wit. In later years, she put her skills to good use, creating a vast network of useful contacts in academia, the media, and among various political organizations.
Coulter used those useful contacts to obtain jobs and, later, media gigs. Indeed, she would later all of those connections into lucrative book deals and speaking engagements, even cross-country speaking tours (and a Canadian speaking tour, as well).
Coulter would inevitably be drawn to the three power centers of America: Washington, D.C., (politics), New York (media), and Los Angeles (entertainment).
From Senate Staffer to Conservative Star
Since her teenage years (oh so long ago), Ann sought to become a star, a mover-and-shaker, a President-maker. In the late 1990s, Coulter was an obscure Senate staffer who quickly rose to prominence within conservative circles and would, in time, become close friends with multi-millionaires and billionaires.
In 1997, Coulter betrayed Paula Jones in order to impeach President Clinton. Ever since, she has sought to control the nomination process and electoral outcome of every presidential election, by whatever means necessary.
President-Maker and Pretender to the Throne
Beginning with the 2000 presidential election, Coulter sought to make a president. For fully two decades, Coulter smeared all opposition to her preferred candidates, fabricating “facts” and employing elimination rhetoric to achieve her personal, professional, and ideological goals. The politics of personal destruction became her métier.
Coulter found success in Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential victory campaign and has often claimed credit for his agenda and success. Indeed, during the first three years of Trump’s presidency, Coulter has acted as if she were president and that he should do her will.
Losing Her Moral Compass
In the end, Coulter discarded the values and principles instilled in her by Father and the grace, compassion, and generosity exemplified by Mother. Coulter abandoned the faith of Father and twisted the faith of Mother into her own unique gospel.
While despising the “godless Left” for its anti-Americanism and moral relativism, Coulter adopted the Left’s axiom of “the end justifies the means.”
Though claiming to be “totally pro-life,” Coulter has bashed the pro-life movement for over two decades, placing political pragmatism over eternal principles. Despite claiming to be “an extraordinarily good Christian,” Coulter has attacked Christians for over two decades – for behaving like Christians!
Once the fiercest neo-conservative warrior, Coulter became a strident nativist, pacifist, isolationist, and immigration hawk. With each incarnation, Coulter called those who opposed her views “traitors.”
From #InTrumpWeTrust to #NeverTrump … all over a Wall!
With Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory, Coulter’s dream of making a President (in her eyes, she gets almost all the credit) came true. But the honeymoon was over even before the election results came in.
Coulter vacillates between being #InTrumpWeTrust and #NeverTrump seemingly by the day, if not the hour. One moment she worships her “Emperor-God Trump” and the next she declares doomsday because of Trump! (Talk about mood swings!)
Beginning around 2014, Coulter’s peers, sponsors, and fans began rejecting her. President Trump called her a #WackyNutJob! Coulter became walled off from reality! Even at the end of 2019, in the midst of an American Renaissance, Coulter screamed doomsday! In effect, Coulter became the Left’s secret weapon against Trump and against America.
Coulter’s myopic view of #BuildTheWall walled her off from the reality of Trump’s 3D chess strategy. Coulter remains oblivious to Trump’s phenomenal achievements, all the more astonishing in that he is opposed by the #Resistance and a series of #WitchHunts seeking a #DeepStateCoup! Nevertheless, Trump keeps winning and winning.
Victim of Her Own Success
Power corrupts. So does fame. Coulter acquired both in a short period of time. All of the forces in her life fed her ego, puffed her up with pride, and propelled her to ever greater heights of hubris and hyperbolic polemics.
Coulter has garnered considerable attention, fame, glory, and infamy. She has achieved much, perhaps beyond her wildest imagination. She has received countless awards and accolades and strutted over many red carpets, but what has she really accomplished?
Coulter is intensely hated by the Left, is a pariah on the Right, has been rejected by those who know her best, and is at Ground Zero of the catastrophic forces which are tearing America apart – forces which she herself helped unleash!
Coulter’s perhaps well-intentioned efforts have often proved counterproductive. Justifying her extremist polemics, at CPAC 2002, Coulter argued that moving ever further right would pull people from the left to the center. Instead, her polemical approach pushed the left further left, exacerbating the political and cultural divide which plagues America today.
Coulter fuels the fires and fans the flames of hostile polemical rhetoric so palpable in contemporary America. Yet, she feels no guilt or shame and accepts no responsibility for her behavior and her role in the deterioration of political discourse in America.
Impenitent, not Irredeemable
Even though Coulter remains impenitent, she is not irredeemable. God loves … even Ann.
There are encouraging signs. Ann’s commentary appears much more factual and far less polemical than at the height of her career. Her verbal and Twitter outbursts of rage are less frequent. Certain anecdotal evidence gives me hope that Ann may be turning toward God, who alone can heal her brokenness.
My dear readers, please pray for Ann’s redemption and healing this Christmas season.
May God bless you all, bless Ann, bless President Trump, and bless this great nation.
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 positive and negative aspects of Coulter’s life and career.
Ann Coulter displays her superior logic as no one else can. She wants a candidate to pursue her immigration agenda (pro-wall, anti-amnesty) and is dead set against the one candidate who has proven he would follow that agenda.
Coulter says that immigration is all the matters, that we need to build a wall and oppose amnesty. But she also claims that Donald Trump – who actually favors amnesty and a big door in his wall – is the best candidate, indeed, the only candidate who can do what she wants done.
Moreover, Coulter adamantly opposes – and continually lies about – Ted Cruz, who has been consistently opposed to amnesty and has actually attempted to build a wall.
Coulter, who admits that Trump is a liar and fraud,, seems to believe that Trump will build a wall and stop immigration, when, in fact, Trump has consistently been inconsistent and flexible on both of those issues (as he is on all issues). (Does Ann believe in fairy dust, too?)
It’s no wonder that Coulter has gone mental over a candidate she herself has called mental.
Why Would Coulter Do This?
First, Coulter is delusional, holding a very warped self-image. Back in the late 1990s, one of her colleagues observed that she displays a “mass of contradictions.” Once regarded as a far-right conservative, Coulter has lately fervently supported RINO candidates, from Christie, to Romney, and, now, Trump. She loves wealthy, Northeastern elites.
Second, Coulter’s priorities have radically changed throughout this century. Now, she eschews conservative and Christian principles and values for something more pragmatic. Now, she opposes constitutional conservatives and pro-lifers in favor of a libertine liberal whose nomination would give Democrats the White House, and, perhaps even Congress.
Moreover, Coulter has placed self-interest ahead of her country and her God. Trump’s candidacy, conjoined with Coulter’s book tour, was a boon to her career. Speeches and book signing at Trump rallies certainly helped. The media, contrary to Coulter’s claims, has lavished attention on her.
But, Coulter has so intertwined her own career, reputation, and credibility with a Trump victory that she can’t escape culpability for his many sins. What she should do is repudiate him, but her vanity and impenitent spirit will not allow it.
If she had known then what she knows now, would Coulter have pursued a different course? We will never know. For now, she is stuck with her foolish and bullheaded choices. Will she repent and try to salvage what’s left of her reputation, or obstinately stick with her arrogant tomfoolery? (My guess: the latter.)
Already, Coulter has lost an incredible degree of credibility and, in many circles, is largely irrelevant. Many people who once held her in esteem will never trust her again. Coulter’s penchant for prevarication and propaganda over facts and truth has alienated her from huge swaths of conservatives, Christians, and patriots.
Coulter’s future rests in how she tackles the moral and spiritual dilemma she currently faces. In the meantime, Coulter cannot be trusted. (And neither can Trump!)
Ann Coulter loves the words “bimbo,” “retarded,” “idiot,” “moron,” and similar words!
Is Coulter, by her own definition, a bimbo?
Simply put, Coulter loves to offend people and, more importantly, she thinks she is smarter than and superior to everyone else. Everyone opposed to Coulter is, in her mind, a “useless idiot.”
In Slander, Coulter asserted, “If liberal propaganda didn’t work, it would be impossible to comprehend bimbo starlets and uneducated slobs attacking the intelligence of the man who won the Cold War.”
(Ironically, Coulter now attacks those “idol-worshipping Ronald Reagan” and laments, “These johnny-come-latelies to Reagan worship [who] seem to think that he was Jesus Christ and could do no wrong.” Would that make Coulter a bimbo talking head?)
Coulter’s own propagandistic version is to simply assert that everyone who disagrees with her is stupid, retarded, or a bimbo. Of course, Coulter’s ad hominem attacks actually work by shifting debates over substantive arguments to issues of free speech.
Coulter Proudly Calls Nikki Haley a Bimbo
A fascinating dialogue on the John Gibson Show is instructive of Coulter’s temperament and Trumpian sense of self-importance. Asked if she was joking about deporting Gov. Nikki Haley, Coulter replied:
“Um, no. No, no, no, no. Yeah, [I think she should be deported]. Yeah, she won’t be governor anymore, I suspect.”
Then Coulter stepped on a linguistic landmine, as is her wont:
“I think she’s a bimbo and, um, you know, having a black Indian do such a fantastic job in a response to the State of the Union, yeah, they picked her to be, to be …”
At this point, Coulter was interrupted by the host, her decades-long friend from her MSNBC days in 1996-97. Gibson asked if her characterization was “kosher.”
Coulter erupted, “What do you mean, ‘kosher?’ Is it true or isn’t it? You’re policing my language? I’m saying something I think is true. I think she is a bimbo!”
Naturally, Coulter never explained how it is true – and the host never asked. (They rarely do.)
Irate at being, in her mind, censored by political correctness, Coulter petulantly queried, “What is that? Do we have to add that to the list of words that can’t be used now, because the list is getting bigger than the dictionary?” (Proper grace and decorum never seem to register with Ann.)
Going with the flow, Coulter then defined what a bimbo is rather than use the term: “Yeah, a not very bright female. Actually, they’re not always females but they often have those qualities, the feminine qualities.”
Notice, Coulter, as she is prone to do, includes liberal men in her definition and regards those qualities as distinctly feminine in nature.
Contemptuous of being asked not to engage in name-calling, Coulter again erupted, “You’re joking!” Continuing, Coulter immediately asked, “Can you email me a list of what words can’t be used?” Then she defiantly said, “Bimbo!”
Still not done, Coulter addressed the GOP’s decision to choose Haley to give a rebuttal to Obama’s State of the Union address. Coulter pondered, “It’s going to be hard to describe how she was chosen. She’s a, a, a, a woman who was accidentally elected, um, because she’s pretty and isn’t very bright. Can we say that?”
In other words, a bimbo. However, Coulter never explained why being a bimbo would be a qualification for that choice – or for anything, for that matter.
Continuing her rant, and incorporating her unisex definition of the word in dispute, Coulter lambasted South Carolinian Republicans, saying, “they have the worst representatives. … Lindsey Graham is South Carolina. … Lindsey Graham and Nikki Haley? Lindsey Graham – also a bimbo!”
Is Ann Coulter a Bimbo?
Remember, it’s been over a decade since Coulter so eloquently said, “I’m so pleased with my gender. We’re not that bright.” Proof of Coulter’s contention regarding herself abounds!
Just a few weeks ago, Coulter claimed that the Great Depression was “the most prosperous period in American history.” Need I say more?
Consider, too, Coulter’s own self-revelation. In 2003, she admitted, “Ann Coulter engages in ad hominem attacks. Ann Coulter is insane.” 13 years later, her long-time friend, Sean Hannity, finally reached the same conclusion, saying, “You crack me up, but you’re insane.”
 Ann Coulter, quoted by Lloyd Grove, “Coulter Hates ‘the Browning of America,’” Daily Beast, 5/26/15.
 Ann Coulter, Ricochet, 6/4/15.
 Ann Coulter, John Gibson Show, Fox News, 1/14/16.
 Ann Coulter, Hannity & Colmes, FNC, 9/23/04.
 Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity Show, Premiere Radio Networks, 12/18/15.
 Ann Coulter, Scarborough Country, MSNBC, 7/7/03.
 Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity Show, Premiere Radio Networks, 1/19/16.
When she thought she could foist Romney on us again in 2016, Coulter began to attack Cruz on his citizenship. With Cruz posing a serious threat to Trump, her new-found soul-mate, Coulter has shifted into high gear, stridently claiming Cruz is ineligible to be president.
This isn’t Coulter’s first attempt at subverting the Constitution for political purposes.
Backdrop: 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.
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.”
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.”
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.
Lying About Supreme Court Cases
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 almost twenty years – Coulter lied about a Supreme Court ruling which any layman can read and see that 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.”
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!
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.
“Bald assertions about the very question under dispute,” Coulter once wrote, “is an odd method of argument,” 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.” Apparently Coulter is not above making up her own “facts.”
Strangely (or not, for Ann), Coulter recently 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!”
 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, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.
 Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 1/22/97.
 Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 1/25/97.
 Ann Coulter, “The bastardization of justice,” 4/26/00.
 Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 410 (1989).
 Ann Coulter, “Miranda Not a ‘Constitutional Straightjacket,’” 12/15/99.
 Ann Coulter, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, Regnery, 1998, pg. 3.
 Ann Coulter, John Gibson Show, Fox News, 1/8/16.
In a remarkable interview on the eve of Thanksgiving, Ann Coulter again bashed Ted Cruz, calling him a “midget” “compared to Trump!”
Extolling a Trump-Romney ticket, Coulter rejected Cruz for even the V.P. spot. The reason is astonishing!
Coulter explained her logic, claiming that Trump is being self-sacrificing in running for President while Cruz and the remainder of the candidates have “got nothing else to do.” The other candidates have “nothing else to do?”
Coulter declared (emphasis added):
“I would put Reagan, Romney, Trump in the same category in this way and that is all three of them – unlike everyone else running for President – their lives are made worse by running for and becoming President. They have fantastic lives. They’re wealthy. They have beautiful families. The fact that they run for President at all suggests to me that these three genuinely love America and would like to save it.”
That’s right, Trump is a good candidate because he’s got a “fantastic” life. In what way is his life fantastic? Well, he’s “wealthy” and has a “beautiful family.” (Don’t the other candidates have beautiful families, too?)
Coulter claimed that Trump “genuinely love(s) America and would like to save it.” Does Coulter mean that Cruz hates America and wants to destroy it?
As for the self-sacrificing nature of Trump’s presidential aspirations, doesn’t he want to be President for the sake of being President?
Coulter further asserted (emphasis added), “These guys who are running because they’re got nothing else to do, they really are such midgets compared to Trump.”