Tag Archives: Supreme Court

@AnnCoulter’s Bush Derangement Syndrome

Self-described polemicist Ann Coulter is well known for embracing elimination rhetoric. She equally enjoys mocking the recently deceased and those grieving their loss.

Barbara Bush Funeral

2018 would prove no exception to the Coulter Ghastly Eulogy Rule. Coulter’s tongue-in-cheek tweet must have sliced into the hearts of the bereaved who knew of her hatred for them.

George Herbert Walker Bush Funeral

With the passing of President George H.W. Bush, Coulter kicked her Defaming the Dead and Bereaved Shtick into high gear without a moment’s hesitation.

Coulter deliberately and maliciously published her weekly column early to taint George H.W. Bush’s public funeral at the National Cathedral. She sought to coincide her smear job as closely as possible with the funeral services.

In her column, Coulter totally disparaged the accomplishments and character of a true American war hero, public servant, and an honorable, God-fearing family man.

Instead, she claimed that the Willie Horton ad was “the one thing Bush got right in his entire public career.”

In addition to a very flawed reading of the man and his presidency, Coulter got one crucial detail totally wrong: Bush did not produce the Horton ad; rather, it was the product of the National Security PAC, which, by law, was not allowed to coordinate its activities with a particular candidate.

Again, the central core point of Coulter’s columnBush’s greatest 30 seconds of his public lifewas totally wrong.

One of Bush’s most striking accomplishments was his nomination of Justice Thomas to the Supreme Court!

Coulter’s close friend, Greg Gutfeld, had this to say:

“When you thought of Mr. [George H.W.] Bush, what did you most think about? Patriotism, duty, family, faith. Isn’t that the stuff that is openly mocked today by pop culture, the media, academia? … Yet, this week, those were the things that mattered!”[1]

Well, apparently not to Coulter.

Coulter’s column (in lieu of an actual eulogy) totally misrepresented the man, his character, and his presidency. Coulter claimed that Bush’s finest moment was the 30-second Willie Horton ad that, in fact, Bush had nothing to do with.

Rather than enumerate his many accomplishments over a lifetime of public service (beginning as an American war hero), Coulter denigrated him at every opportunity.

Bush was her political foe (on her issues) and, therefore, an evil person.

Coulter even managed to get a dig in for both the McCain and Bush families. (Classy!)

This is how most Americans remember George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush.

American Thinker offered thoughtful reflections:

“In Bush’s funeral this week we remembered how long we have endured this wasteland of character.”

Continuing (emphasis added):

“Perhaps the strongest note of wistful longing in Bush’s funeral was the lifelong example of a leader who lived by a set of transcendent values.  Honor, friendship, loyalty, honesty – Americans have always believed that these immaterial attributes were the basis of a good life.”

Common human decency and honor continue to elude Coulter. Perhaps that’s why so many people regard her as heartless.

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis in this holistic exposé of how and why Coulter has become the polemicist whom people either love or hate.

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

Endnotes:

[1]              Greg Gutfeld, Greg Gutfeld Show, FNC, 12/8/18.

Coulter Lies About Supreme Court Case

Ann Coulter leads 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,[1] Coulter began to attack Cruz on his citizenship. With Cruz posing a serious threat to Trump, her new-found soul-mate,[2] Coulter has shifted into high gear, stridently claiming Cruz is ineligible to be president.[3]

Supreme Court Case

This isn’t Coulter’s first attempt at subverting the Constitution for political purposes.[4]

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.[5]

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.”[6]

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.”[7]

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.”[8]

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![9]

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,”[10] 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.”[11] 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!”[12]

Sorry, Ann, but you are the allegedly “conservative”[13] Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Endnotes:

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

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

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

[4]               See a series of case studies in Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[5]               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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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