.@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:

• /1 Judge Kethledge rigorously enforces all laws as they are written, including the immigration laws. He knows that faithfully applying the Immigration and Nationality Act means respecting Congress’s decision to give federal courts only a limited role in the immigration process.
• /2 In Mora v. Holder, the petitioner entered the US legally at age 14 but then overstayed his visa. Kethledge noted that if the petitioner had been a citizen, “we would call him a model one.” But Judge Kethledge recognized that the courts lacked authority to grant him relief.
• /3 In Khalil v. Holder, Kethledge upheld a finding that the petitioner was not entitled to asylum because he was not a credible witness. Kethledge pointed out multiple inconsistencies in the petitioner’s story that undermined his asylum claim.
• /4 In Japarkulova v. Holder, Kethledge recognized—over a dissent from a liberal judge—that courts must defer to the executive branch’s determination that an immigrant is not eligible for asylum. Even though the petitioner had a compelling life story, Kethledge upheld the law.
• /5 In his more than 10 years on the bench, Judge Kethledge has encountered hundreds of immigration cases. He shows no favoritism to immigrants–or to the government, for that matter–and instead focuses only on applying the laws passed by Congress as they are written.

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:

• Even if you’re not picky about S. Ct nominees, can we please find one who hasn’t been SUBSIDIZED BY GEORGE SOROS? https://t.co/svuyuF9MQA.
• Now, I’m less angry about the nominees than about the people sending names to @realDonaldTrump. How did Hardiman, SUBSIDIZED BY G. SOROS, get on his list? https://t.co/svuyuF9MQA.
• Hardiman help these illegals, among others, get asylum: Ernesto Orellana-Hercules (allegedly from El Salvador) & Mauricio Edgardo Valdiviezo-Galdamez (allegedly Honduras). How about a “WHERE ARE THEY NOW?” piece?
• It just gets better & better. Judge Hardiman worked for Ayuda … FUNDED BY GEORGE SOROS. https://t.co/svuyuF9MQA.
• Even the NYT isn’t this ridiculous! Judge Hardiman calls illegals, “persons of Hispanic origin who entered the country without inspection.”

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.

Jews: Quality, not Quantity

Don’t be fooled by Ann Coulter’s lies about her anti-Semitic tweet. Her very own words betray her heart.

Coulter has repeatedly justified her anti-Semitic tweet (“f—ing Jews”) by arguing that she was addressing the quantity, not the quality, of Jews. This is nonsense! The epithet modifies “Jews,” not “many.”

She also claims she was attacking the panderers, not Jews. Poppycock!

Ludicrously, Coulter claims that there was nowhere else to place Effing in that sentence. If that were true – and it isn’t – then write a different sentence. But her assertions are and remain lies.

All Coulter had to do was place Effing in front of “many” (thereby modifying the quantity) instead of after it (making it a statement of quality) – or – to place it before “people” (panderers) instead of before “Jews.”

Quality or Quantity?

Coulter tweeted (emphasis added):

“How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

Coulter did not tweet (emphasis added):

“How f—ing many Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

Coulter’s actual tweet expresses the quality of Jews. To express the quantity of Jews, all Coulter had to do was move her modifier over one word to the left.

Yet, Coulter claims that the only place she could find to put Effing in that sentence was before Jews. Coupling those two words together is ipso facto anti-Semitic. In context or out, they are anti-Semitic by the very coupling of Effing with Jews.

Panderers or Object of Pandering?

Coulter still claims she could not express her views any other way in that short space of characters. She further claims she was talking about the panderers, not the object of their pandering. But then, why not write:

“Those f—ing candidates are pandering to Jews, who are very few in U.S.”

Simple. Easy. Anyone with a pulse could come up with that formulation.

Let’s return to Coulter’s original tweet (emphasis added):

“How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

If Coulter had truly meant Effing to condemn the panderers and not the object of the pandering, she should have placed Effing three words to the right, in front of “people.”

Coulter did not tweet (emphasis added):

“How many Jews do these f—ing people think there are in the United States?”

Again, she didn’t.

Why? Because Coulter intended that epithet for Jews.

Not quantity. Not panderers. But Jews.

Coulter’s Choice of Words and Their Placement

Writing is all about word choice and word placement. Coulter chose her words and she placed them exactly where she wanted them.

Why would she do so? Why would she attack Jews?

Because she was exasperated by what seemed to her to be too many references to Israel. Again, she did not attack the alleged pandering of GOP candidates; she attacked the object of their alleged pandering: Jews.

Coulter’s words self-evidently reveal that she believes Jews really do wield power disproportionate to their numbers, prompting the pandering she so despises and, thus, her attack on Jews.

First, Jews; Now, Catholics?

Ann Hart Coulter is a modern-day Know Nothing.

Following her anti-Semitic rant[1] against Jews and Israel,[2] Coulter has now embarked upon a Know Nothing approach to Catholicism. This is especially strange as she attended a private Catholic school until she entered high school. One would think she would know better.

Coulter’s Anti-Catholic Tweets

Among Coulter’s many tweets disparaging the Catholic Church (emphasis added):

Time	Tweet
9:55 a.m.	Equally accurate statement to the Pope’s: The Catholic Church was “largely built by pedophiles.” twitter.com/WSJ/status/646…
10:04 a.m.	I’m an American and this is why our founders (not “immigrants”!) distrusted Catholics & wouldn’t make them citizens. twitter.com/DavidLimbaugh/…
10:06 a.m.	Catholics were not accepted until they became more AMERICAN Catholic less ROMAN Catholic-Harvard’s Samuel Huntington twitter.com/DavidLimbaugh/…
10:29 a.m.	Yes, 55 Protestants & 1 Catholic. Can we admit immigrants in that wildly diverse proportion? twitter.com/michaelbd/stat…
10:40 a.m.	No, I’m attacking the Pope. So did Martin Luther. So did America’s settlers. So did Dems when it was John Paul II. twitter.com/dmataconis/sta…
11:05 a.m.	THIS Pope’s philosophy of worshiping the poor, blaming the rich leads to Latin American poverty. American Catholicism leads to success.

Coulter’s WASP Nativism

Coulter has a distinctly WASP (White and Protestant)[3] view of America. For years now, Coulter has hated immigrants.[4] Her nativism has been especially pronounced[5] this year. Coulter even hates the idea of Christians serving overseas.[6] Indeed, she insists that all other nations suck.[7]

During the 2012 election cycle, Coulter compared social conservative Rick Santorum to ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy – because of their shared Catholicism. To Coulter, Santorum was “more Catholic than conservative.”

Last year, Coulter condemned Catholics as “moral show-offs” and “fake Christians,” expressing contempt for church leaders and parishioners alike whose theology compels them to adopt political positions with which she disagrees.

Coulter claims that American Catholics are better than Roman Catholics. Yet, Coulter condemns liberal Catholics in America for their liberalism, while the traditional pro-life Roman Catholic doctrines remain extant. Ironically, Coulter has waged war on pro-lifers for defending the unborn while claiming to be totally pro-life herself. Confused? So is Coulter.

Coulter does not make sense. To reiterate, she claims that American Catholics are better than Roman Catholics because they have been assimilated. Yet, many of those Catholics who have been assimilated into American culture have become more secularized and embraced leftwing views on social issues (abortion, homosexuality, marriage, etc.) while the foreign Roman Catholics hold the views that Coulter cherishes. Reality is the exact opposite of what Coulter claims it is.

As noted by National Memo, Coulter’s ire at Latin American Catholics may stem from her anti-immigration thesis in Adios, America! They correct Coulter on the historical record:

“Catholics in the New World had easily become Americans following the Louisiana Purchase from France in 1803, and the acquisition of Florida from Spain in 1819. And Catholics did indeed play a role in the early polity of the U.S. This included one signer of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll of Maryland, and two delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Daniel Carroll of Maryland (and cousin of Charles), plus Thomas Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania.”

Catholics in the Revolutionary War

Contrary to Coulter’s assertions, Catholics were among the “American settlers” Coulter cherishes. And they fought for America! Several of America’s Founding Fathers were Catholic.

From “Catholics and the Founding”:

“The preeminent Catholic patriot was undoubtedly Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Heir to the fortune of an early Maryland Catholic family, it was said that Carroll risked more (in financial terms) than any other when he became the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence.”

“Carroll’s cousin, John, was also an important figure in Revolutionary America. John Carroll had been a Jesuit priest before the suppression of the order by Pope Clement XIV and had continued to minister as one of the colonies’ few priests. Uniquely positioned as an ardent patriot and a Catholic religious leader, he was called upon by the Continental Congress to join Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase and Charles Carroll on an unsuccessful mission to Canada to try to convince the colonies’ northern neighbor to maintain neutrality during the war with Britain. Carroll would become the first American bishop in 1789.”

“A thousand miles to the west, another Catholic with less economic clout and fewer connections would also play an important part in the military plans of the Americans. Father Pierre Gibault was a missionary of French descent in southwestern Indiana. When the Virginia militia under Colonel George Rogers Clark entered the area, Gibault and others met the American commander and pledged the support of the region to the forces of independence in return for assurances of religious freedom. Against the wishes of the bishop of Quebec, Gibault led the French residents of the Vincennes region in cooperating with the Americans.”

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a1.

[2]               See “Effing Jews and Ann Coulter’s Waterloo (or Damascus Road?)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a9.

[3]               See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s WASP Fantasy” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7H.

[4]               See “Coulter’s Soccer Flop – Part Trois” at http://t.co/uy7FDPu79v.

[5]               See “Coulter: All Immigrants Are Bad” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8w.

[6]               See “Ann Coulter’s Xenophobic Anti-Gospel of Hate” at http://t.co/aQGhLuWwtD.

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

Effing Jews and Ann Coulter’s Waterloo (or Damascus Road?)

Ann Coulter’s incendiary “f—ing Jews” tweet was quickly countered by her claim, “I like the Jews.” Really?

As I pointed out last week,[1] Coulter’s tweet was, is, and remains indefensible. Yet, she defends herself. Before analyzing her rebuttal, let’s take a quick look at exactly what her initial tweet said.

Effing Jews – Expletive of Endearment

Coulter tweeted, “How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” Notice her exquisite courtesy in bleeping out the offensive adjective. Very polite. Who could possibly imagine what that bleeped word is?

The subject is not, as Coulter later claimed, panderers. The subject is Jews – and the modifier is an expletive! (Yet, just hours later, Coulter claimed to “like” “the Jews.”) Coulter’s criticism and wrath was directed at Jews, not GOP candidates. The adjective employed applied to Jews, not politicians.

Regardless of the context of her tweet, even taking in the totality of all of her tweets during the debate, there is no denying the anti-Semitic nature of those two words. In context or out, they are anti-Semitic by the very coupling of Effing with Jews.

Again, as I pointed out last Thursday, who (besides Ann) uses an expletive as an endearment?

Just thinking those two conjoined words is bad enough, but to actually tweet them? And, having tweeted them, to justify using them? Yes, Ann Coulter is an impenitent propagandist.[2]

Coulter and GOP Panderers

As noted in last week’s column,[3] Coulter quickly attempted to rebuff criticisms of her tweets by claiming she was attacking the GOP candidates for pandering. But prior to the fallout, Coulter never tweeted the word “pander.”

Coulter claims: “My tweet was about Republicans and the pandering. It wasn’t about Israel, it wasn’t about Jews. It’s what Republicans are thinking in their little pea brains. I could say the same thing about Evangelicals. Who are you pandering to? A lot of it is to Sheldon Adelson and the Evangelicals…. This kind of suck-uppery is humiliating.”

Wait! Effing Jews isn’t about Jews? Jews was the subject of the tweet and the object of Coulter’s wrath. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.

As Coulter has made painfully obvious, in her view, the Jews are to blame for GOP candidates pandering to them. (If that is, in fact, what the candidates were doing.) Coulter has obviously bought into the narrative that she claims other Republicans have embraced.

A column on Jerusalem Post asks why the GOP would “pander” to Jews: “As Coulter well knows, Jews overwhelmingly voted for Obama, not once but twice. She is also aware that the vast majority of Iran-deal opponents is Republican. Sheldon Adelson, whom she made a point of mentioning in her Daily Beast interview, is an exception, not the rule.”

David French noted “a small irony about Ann Coulter: Even while she was slamming the GOP for ‘pandering’ on issues like abortion and Israel, she herself was using specific language that panders to the small, race-obsessed far-right crowd that is particularly focused on those same issues.”

French continued: “We defend a culture, not a race. The foundation of that culture is a faith that makes no distinction among races but rather declares, unequivocally, ‘All are one, in Christ Jesus.’ Shunning the slur disempowers the trolls and forces the radical Left to confront the race hatred that fuels its own rage.”

Coulter: “I like the Jews”

Coulter’s defense includes the self-evidently fraudulent assertion, “I like the Jews.”

We know this is a lie for many reasons. First, is the definitive article “the” preceding “Jews.” If someone said “I like the blacks,” would you believe her? If someone claimed to like “the Hispanics” or “the Asians,” what veracity would you give their claim? (Remember, Coulter is a linguist and a wordsmith who knows how to effectively and accurately use the English language.)

Second, speaking of “the Jews,” Coulter is speaking of all Jews. But we already know from 35 years of commentary, that Coulter “hates,” “despises,” and “loathes” (her words) liberals and feminists, many of whom are Jews. Indeed, a majority of Jews in America vote Democrat. Does Coulter really “like” those “Jews?” Hardly. Coulter has often attacked liberal Jews (as a group or individually).

Binyamin Jolkovsky, the founder of Jewish World Review, wonders: “She could have been drunk, she could have been high, I don’t know, I have to give her the benefit of the doubt … but I don’t have to delude myself. Pandering to Jewish money is about as anti-Semitic a stereotype as you could put forth. Her ‘eff-ing Jews’ comment is not identifying Israel – it’s identifying Jews, plural, and all Jews. There is no excuse for that. You can’t just wiggle out of something that vile and hateful.”

Tom Sykes observes that Coulter’s “whole argument echoes a historic libel against Jews that they hold secret influence.”

Third, claiming to either like or dislike an entire race of people is, itself, a racist claim. It is called stereotyping. Does anyone like all people of a given racial or ethnic group? Or of a particular religion? Or of a particular political persuasion?

Wasn’t it Coulter who said, “All nations suck compared to America?”[4] Isn’t Israel a nation?

Coulter’s Twitter Rebuttal

On September 17^th, Coulter tweeted a ludicrous assertion: “No: It’s pro-Semitic. Where is all the GOP pandering on Israel getting us? US becoming Mexico very bad for Israel. twitter.com/ANewSarah/stat…”

Coulter has just redefined anti-Semitism as pro-Semitic!

Many of Coulter’s tweets reiterated her many false claims during her book tour that the only issue that matters is immigration. She uses that narrative to justify her attacks on pro-lifers,[5] on Reagan lovers,[6] and, now, on defenders of Israel.[7]

Coulter’s joke – “Boy were they wrong @ Jewish influence! I complained about pandering on Israel (Reagan & abortion) & haven’t heard a thing about it!” – merely reinforces her contention that Jews have too much power, the root of her anti-Semitic rant.

Undermining her own arguments, Coulter retweeted from her friend, Ben Shapiro: “RT @benshapiro: This I know of @anncoulter: she is far more a friend to Jews and Israel than Jewish Obama voters now jumping on her.”

Does Coulter really “like” those Obama-voting Jews? Remember, Coulter called Jews, not Israel, “f—ing!” She obviously has a high regard for Israel’s policies, but not necessarily her people (or Jewish people outside Israel).

Finally, “John Derbyshire @DissidentRight reviews indexed references to Israel in my smash bestseller “Adios, America!” – bit.ly/1V13f9x.”

Derbyshire actually promotes the anti-Semitic stereotype of a disproportionately powerful Jewish lobby –and Coulter is using that as one of her defenses!

According to the Zionist Organization of America, “Ann Coulter made appalling, anti-Jewish remarks which evoked the classic, anti-Semitic trope about Jewish manipulation of America for the purposes of supporting Israel at America’s expense.”

As for Derbyshire’s quotes from Coulter’s “smash bestseller” – they pertain to a love of Israel’s policies, not her people. In Adios, America! Coulter is not defending Jews, she is defending Israel. Moreover, she is defending Israel in the areas that pertain to her agenda for America: immigration and border security.

Coulter’s Video Rebuttal

Coulter quickly entered firestorm mode, posting a professionally produced video defense[8] of her tweets. In her condescending self-defense video, Coulter attacked her critics while lying about her tweets and the context of those tweets.

Coulter claimed, ““It’s been a long theme of mine – attacking Republicans[9] for all, you know, trying to prove – I don’t know what they’re trying to prove – by constantly praising Reagan and denouncing abortion.”[10]

Yes, Coulter asserts that her criticism of Jews is really criticism of the GOP.

But even in defending herself, Coulter convicts herself. She added, “I hadn’t even mentioned their, their incessant sucking up to Israel in my column.” So, in Coulter’s view, the GOP is always, incessantly “sucking up to Israel.” Is Coulter suggesting that Israel donates to GOP campaign coffers? Or is she arguing that American Jews – most of whom vote Democrat – will vote for the GOP?

Coulter continued, “Then I watched the debate …” and hated those few references to Israel. Moreover – in her professionally-produced video rebuttal – Coulter again lied about the last question of the GOP debate. She claimed it had to do with what America would look like. No! The object of the question was the “world,” not “America.” In her tweets and interviews, she continually misstates that crucial question.

Regarding her GOP debate questions, Coulter asserts: “That was the anti-pandering section of my tweeting debate night.” Except, her criticism was of Israel, not pandering, and her anti-Semitic tweet called Jews, not GOP panderers, “f—ing.”

Coulter’s logic utterly falls apart in the next section. She argues:

“They chopped up the tweet, sent it out, the apotheosis of which was the Daily Beast post: ‘Ann Coulter Shouts Effing Jew.’ O, come on now. I know how to use Effing in a sentence.”

Coulter then admits that using “Effing Jew” on its own is anti-Semitic, but “Saying how many Effing anything, that’s a comment on quantity. It’s not saying ‘Effing Jews,’ it’s saying ‘how many.’ Quantity, not quality.”

Balderdash! The question queried quantity, but the qualifier on the noun (Jews) denoted quality (f—ing).

Coulter continued: “Because it was chopped up, [some] may have thought that I said something unkind and, I wouldn’t want [dramatic pause] them to think that.”

First, it was not “chopped up.” Second, everyone knows what her tweet meant. It is painfully obvious to all. Third, who is “them?” Why the significant pause before saying the word “them?” Who is “them?” Jews?

Coulter concluded: “I’m pro-Israel. So is everyone in the room. So is everyone on the stage. Can you give it a rest?”

Throughout her various iterations defending her indefensible tweet, Coulter has continually conflated “Jews” with “Israel.” They are not identical.

Anyone with a pulse knows, Jews are a people (racially, ethnically, religiously) and Israel is a nation. Coulter has certainly proven her exuberance for Israel’s policies (fence, immigration, anti-terrorism) and her current leader (Netanyahu). But when has she evinced support for the Jewish people? In fact, Coulter has treated Jews in a derogatory fashion.[11]

Hollywood Reporter Interview

In an astonishing interview with Hollywood Reporter, Coulter made several outrageous (and demonstrably untrue) assertions.

“It’s totally fake outrage from frauds who want to continue the dump of third-worlders on the country, including Muslim Jihadists, and voted for the guy who just gave a nuke to Iran.”

Except, of course, much of the criticism arises from conservatives, including conservative Jews.

Coulter claims her critics are “mostly Israel-hating liberals and pro-mass-immigration Republicans. Both of whom don’t want anyone to notice how immigration is changing the country, putting Americans – and Israel – at risk.”

Except, of course, much of the criticism arises from conservatives, including conservative Jews.

“The hypocrites who are mad at me are the ones who support anti-Israel college professors, who refuse to condemn Islamic barbarism, who supported the overthrow of Mubarak for the Muslim Brotherhood, who spread the deadly libel that Jews in America are only successful because of ‘white privilege.’”

Except, of course, much of the criticism arises from conservatives, including conservative Jews.

“There has been a huge spike in anti-Semitism across Europe due to the massive influx of Muslim immigrants. The same people in a faux uproar about my tweets are also leading the charge to import Muslims into the U.S.A. Half a million girls in the U.S. are now at risk for female genital mutilation. I doubt their dads are voting for pro-Israel politics. I’m the one who just wrote a book about these problems.”

How does Coulter know that it is the same people? Because they oppose Ann?

Conservative Coulter Critics

Sarah Rumpf lamented that “Ann Coulter Broke My Heart,” arguing that Coulter’s “raison d’être is no longer the bold articulation of conservative principles but rather an ugly and small-minded vision for America.” Rumpf concluded, “Coulter is too smart not to realize the danger she is courting. Her comments, and continued justification of them, are a betrayal of the principles of not just conservatism, but America.”

David French, at National Review, objected to Coulter’s “Snide comments about GOP obsessions with abortion, insufficient attention to immigration … and obsession with Israel.” French charged Coulter with “pandering – pandering to a very small, very angry crowd that’s far more white nationalist than it is recognizably conservative.”

French continued, “[Her tweets] do not reflect conservative ideals, they do not advance conservative ideals, nor will they even advance the civilizational goals she seems to care so much about. Like it or not, if one wants to actually secure the border and impose a sensible immigration policy, extending a middle finger to conservative America – while attention-getting – is ultimately unpersuasive.”

Joseph Farah, at World Net Daily noted, “The use of the F-bomb really does put her on shaky ground in denying her comment was not anti-Semitic. This is, after all, a woman who claims to be a Christian – one who presumably worships a Jewish Messiah called Jesus. As a Christian Arab-American, I can tell you stringing together that epithet with the word ‘Jews’ puts her on very shaky grounds in denying anti-Semitism.”

Farah continued, “At the very least, one has to wonder if she ever had a nasty, twisted, repugnant thought that went unexpressed.”

Farah continued, “Is Coulter aware that of all the religion-based attacks on people in the U.S., some 60 percent are directed at Jews? Is she unaware of the rising anti-Semitism on American college campuses and elsewhere in the country? Is she blithely ignorant of the fact that the one and only Jewish state in the world is surrounded by enemies who seek its destruction?”

Jack Engelhard, a conservative Jewish author, grieved over Coulter’s words to the point of throwing away all of her books. Her former fan wrote “she happens to be a fine, witty writer, a strong Conservative – a gal after my own heart. She was near the top of my list of brainy blonde Conservative bombshells, and politically, we work the same beat.”

But Coulter’s tweet was “like a kick in the gut – from a valued and trusted friend.” Engelhard then asked, “If that is what she is thinking – what about the rest of them who are my trusted political allies?” After mourning his loss, he added, “It’s bad enough that I am at odds with my Leftist acquaintances, but now I feel estranged from the Right. Are we really on the same side?”

“What part of shared Judeo/Christian heritage doesn’t she understand? Apparently the Judeo part.”

Binyamin Jolkovsky observed: “This is about a girl who threw a tantrum … on Twitter. Having an apology that’s acceptable, especially during this time of the year for the Jewish calendar, would be the right thing to do – it would be the Jewish thing to do. This is crazy.”

An apology would also be the Christian thing to do. That’s why she won’t do it.

Supporting Israel

Israel is America’s only loyal ally in the Middle East. Israel is the only nation in the world that truly understands the nature of the Islamist threat, having experienced an existential threat since her founding. Israel and the Israeli people share in the Judeo-Christian roots of the American people.[12]

In an Open Letter to Ann, Dr. Michael Brown wrote:

“Is it that hard to connect the dots between Israel, Iran, and American security, especially when you consider the devastating worldwide effects of a completely destabilized Middle East? And when Iranians chant in the streets, ‘Death to Israel! Death to America!’ it’s not that hard to realize that we’re connected in more ways than one.”

“And, by the way, in case you forgot, the Savior of the world is a Jewish Rabbi.”

Avi Davis observed: “Every one of these candidates has been on record for years expressing unconditional support for the State of Israel and its security needs – and it is for one glaringly simple reason: they believe Israel’s security vouchsafes the United States’ security.”

Davis continued, “Making that connection may not be so patently obvious given the geographical distance between the two countries. But it is abundantly clear to anyone who has heard jihadist rantings in mosques from Oslo to Riyadh – the two countries are regarded as the hydra headed monster whose joint destruction is essential to paving the way for the re-emergence of the Caliphate.”

As reported by Hollywood Reporter, Rick Santorum also took Coulter to task for her remarks, saying, “How many Bible-believing Christians does she think are in this country, who understand the significance of the heritage of the Jewish people in the Holy Land?”

Santorum added, “I think everybody, every conservative has a right to look at that and say that this is someone who clearly doesn’t understand the significance of [the relationship between Israel and the U.S.].”

Seemingly, Coulter makes common cause with the enemies of Israel and America.

Coulter’s Motivations

Tom Sykes echoes what I have been saying for years: “Fearful of being forgotten, Coulter has reacted by becoming ever more offensive.”

Per Joseph Farah, “It’s sad to see Coulter degenerate into a slur machine, one who seems so desperate for fame at any cost that she will say anything and possibly do anything to maintain a career as, frankly, a thuggish commentator.”

Rick Santorum argues that Coulter’s rhetoric is reflective of her desires for self-promotion: “some people in the Republican Party who are in the pundit class, who are there to be controversial, and to try to make money, and sell their books. And that’s just fine – they can go sell their books.”

Dr. Brown wrote to Coulter: “You’re obviously no stranger to controversy. To the contrary, you seem to thrive on controversy. In fact, you seem to enjoy provoking it.”

My dear Jewish and Christian friends, let me commiserate with you. Betrayal hurts. But Coulter has never been a trustworthy person.[13] For at least twenty years now, Coulter has betrayed individuals, groups, and causes. Claiming to be a pro-life[14] Christian,[15] she has notably attacked both groups – all to serve her own agenda.

Ann Coulter is her own North Star.[16] Or, to put it another way, Ann Coulter ‘s North Star is Ann Coulter.

Perhaps, at one time, Coulter was guided to some degree by the values of Mother and Father, but no longer. Coulter has become a law unto herself. Her indomitable will seeks to bend the will of others to her own.[17] But she is not a force of nature because nature bends to the will of God.

Time will tell if this particular controversy (again, of Coulter’s own making) will be her Waterloo or her Road to Damascus experience.

Prayer for Ann

Karen Wolfers Rapaport has a gracious response to Coulter’s series of anti-Semitic remarks. Karen began: “Before I continue I would like to be clear that I believe most Christians and non-Jews do not agree with Ann’s remark. I do not see her as a spokeswoman or an ambassador for her religion.”

Rapaport later noted the introspective, soul-searching nature of this season of the Jewish calendar, and she expressed gratitude to Coulter:

“Thank you for being a shofar of sorts, reminding this Jew or any Jew or non-Jew who wishes to participate in a time worn, magical practice, that this is the time for us to do teshuvah; to repent and take stock in our personal character inventory. And in the spirit of forgiveness that marks this time, I solemnly, and with all my heart, forgive you for your insensitivity and ignorance on the subject of perfection.”

Please join me in prayer for Ann:

Lord, cast down Ann Coulter’s haughtiness, her pride and arrogance, her sense of superiority and sense of entitlement. Cast them down to the earth. Cast them down to depths of hell itself.

Then, Lord, lift her up to You. Open her eyes to Your Truth and open her heart to Your love. Grant her a spirit of repentance and forgiveness, a spirit of humility and grace.

Amen.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a1.

[2]               See “Propaganda: George Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4j.

[3]               See “Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a1.

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

[5]               See “Ann Coulter Still Blind to Abortion” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9I.

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

[7]               See “Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a1.

[8]               “Ann Coulter Defends Her Controversial tweet,’ producer Graham Flanagan, Business Insider, 9/18/15.

[9]               See “Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3p.

[10]             See “Coulter’s Assault on Pro-Life Movement Continues” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9a.

[11]             See “Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a1.

[12]             See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8E.

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

[14]               See “Coulter’s Assault on Pro-Life Movement Continues” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9a.

[15]              See “Fake Christians” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5T.

[16]              See Vanity: Ann Couler’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[17]               See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, 2014, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots

Ann Coulter has come under fire for what have been described as “controversial” (i.e., anti-Semitic) tweets. Given Coulter’s long history of anti-Jewish sentiment, why are conservatives giving her the benefit of the doubt?

Before perusing the historical record, let’s examine Coulter’s most-recent tweets.

Coulter’s Tweets on Israel

Coulter remains single-mindedly obsessed with immigration (and selling herself and her book[1]), so much so that every other cause means nothing to Coulter, who has viciously attacked pro-lifers[2] and Reaganites.[3] Now, Coulter has gone after Jews and Israel. Anything or anyone posing a threat to Coulter’s agenda or her preferred nominee is fodder.

As for her tweets (emphasis added) …

Time	Tweet
8:46 pm	Huckabee admirably passionate on Israel. If only he cared as much about the survival of the U.S.
8:51 pm	GOP definitely wants to protect Israel! How are they going to do it when immigration turns US into CA and no GOP can be elected president?
9:00 pm	So glad I’m watching debate! Learned GOP is: anti-abortion, pro-Israel, pro-Reagan. I wonder if there’s any disagreement on immigration…
11:00 pm	Good grief! Huckabee is running for PM of Israel.
11:05 pm	Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: “What will AMERICA look like after you are president.” [NOTE: The actual question was “world” not “America.”]
11:05 pm	How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States? [NOTE: Coulter courteously bleeped out expletive so as not to offend. Answer: Almost 7 million.]
11:06 pm	Maybe it’s to suck up to the Evangelicals.
11:14 pm	Christie also talks @ Israel in response to the question: What will AMERICA look like after you are president? [NOTE: The actual question was “world” not “America.”]
11:18 pm	How to get applause from GOP donors: 1) Pledge to start a war 2) Talk about job creators 3) Denounce abortion 4) Cite Reagan 5) Cite Israel.

In Coulter’s lopsided logic, affirmation of America’s commitment to Israel should be presumed but not expressed.

Coulter must know that there are many reasons for candidates to pledge support to one of America’s staunchest allies and the only democracy in the Middle East. Geopolitically, candidates employ “Israel” as a symbol of their worldviews and global vision: Judeo-Christian camaraderie and a united defense against terrorist, tyrannical, and rogue regimes. One’s stance on Israel presages one’s foreign-policy perspective.

If we’re not standing with Israel, we’re standing with Iran.

Notice that Coulter impugns the motives of all those who are “anti-abortion, pro-Israel, pro-Reagan.” She contends – as she has throughout her book tour – that they are “pandering” to constituencies (offering no evidence) and that they are cowards for not being single-mindedly focused on her preeminent issue: immigration.

The ease with which Coulter enters into scorched-earth polemics is astonishing.

Coulter Defends Tweets on Israel

Coulter’s self-defense began on the Kelly File, with her close friend, Megyn Kelly, lending support. Asked by Kelly, “Do you want to take that back?” Coulter said, “No” and claimed her tweet was part of a larger narrative condemning the alleged political “pandering” of GOP candidates who seek to check off “virtue boxes.”[4] Coulter again misquoted the debate question about how America would be different when the question was about how the world would be different. Kelly then quickly switched topics.

Coulter’s post-Fox interview tweets build upon her creative justification for her earlier tweets (emphasis added):

Time	Tweet
1:15 am	U weren’t following tweets. About pandering on RR Israel prolife. Last Q was @ AMERICA & 4 Reps talk @ Israel AGAIN! twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta… [NOTE: The actual question was “world” not “America.”]
1:16 am	All GOPs = prolife, pro-Reagan, pro-Israel. Pandering on all 3 tonight was EPIC. twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta…
1:17 am	There aren’t even that many Evangelicals to pander to (probably the intended Israel pander-recipients). twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta…
1:28 am	I like the Jews, I like fetuses, I like Reagan. Didn’t need to hear applause lines about them all night. twitter.com/Jimbobbarley/s…
1:32 am	It’s not about Jewish people; it’s about Republican panderers. twitter.com/lilenchiladas/…
2:00 am	It has to be read w/ prior tweet. Only 140 characters so sometimes they continue. Not @ Jews; about GOP pandering. twitter.com/RightForLife/s…
4:24 am	@JoelCRosenberg Joel! I am a huge Israel fan! See my current book. I was attacking GOP for pandering on Israel (AND Reagan AND abortion).

Anyone who is “a huge Israel fan” could not marry the words “f—ing” and “Jews.” Moreover, if it was about pandering, why an expletive for Jews instead of the pandering politicians?

Who uses expletives to express love for a loved one? Yet, Coulter tweeted, “I like the Jews.” Do you believe her?

In that very same tweet, Coulter continued, “I like fetuses.” Since when? Throughout her book tour,[5] Coulter has vilified pro-life Republicans[6] for pursuing a pro-life agenda.[7] For nearly twenty years, Coulter has subordinated pro-life concerns for her own personal or political agendas.

Don’t listen to who or what Ann Coulter claims to be. Pay attention to what she actually does. Her claims[8] and promises are worthless.[9]

Coulter’s Jewish Roots

Throughout her career, Coulter has expressed antipathy toward Jews, from writing about “oily Jews” to wanting them to be “perfected.” These are not gaffes. They reflect her heart.

Coulter has a long history of anti-Semitism, stretching back to at least the early 1990s. In his first anticonservative book, David Brock “outed” Coulter as an anti-Semite, stating, “That she wanted to leave her New York law firm ‘to get away from all these Jews’ was one of her gentler remarks.”[10]

Consider a 2003 column by Coulter (emphasis added):

“In addition to having a number of family deaths among them, the Democrats’ other big idea – too nuanced for a bumper sticker – is that many of them have Jewish ancestry. There’s Joe Lieberman: Always Jewish. Wesley Clark: Found Out His Father Was Jewish in College. John Kerry: Jewish Since He Began Presidential Fund-Raising. Howard Dean: Married to a Jew. Al Sharpton: Circumcised. Even Hillary Clinton claimed to have unearthed some evidence that she was a Jew – along with the long lost evidence that she was a Yankees fan. And that, boys and girls, is how the Jews survived thousands of years of persecution: by being susceptible to pandering.”[11]

Pandering to Jews?[12]

Only Coulter (or an MSNBC host) could write of “oily Jews”[13] and get away with it.

In an equally astonishing entry on her own personal website, captioned “Who said Jews are smart?” Coulter wrote: “NYT Letter of the Day!: ‘Astroturf’ refers to protesters who disagree with me and therefore are not rational.”[14]

Let’s not forget Coulter’s infamous dialogue with Donnie Deutsch about “perfecting” Jews. To save herself from repercussions for her faux paus, Coulter claimed to be the victim and besmirched Deutsch with a wholly fabricated claim which fellow conservatives and fellow Christians bought into as if it were holy writ.[15]

Regarding her “f—ing Jews” tweet, the Anti-Defamation League immediately condemned her remarks, noting:

“While most of America has rightly tuned out Ann Coulter’s hyperbolic and hateful rhetoric, her irresponsible tweets during the Republican presidential candidate’s debate are truly a new low and must be called out.” “Ms. Coulter is pandering to the basest of her base. Her messages challenging the candidates’ support for Israel were offensive, ugly, spiteful and anti-Semitic.  Her tweets give fodder to those who buy into the anti-Semitic notions that Jews ‘control’ the U.S. government, wield disproportionate power in politics, and are more loyal to Israel than to their own country.” “All decent Americans should reject Ms. Coulter’s rhetoric as simply beyond the pale.”

Coulter has often said that she sets out to deliberately offend people,[16] and offend she does. Coulter has no filters. Also bear in mind that Coulter is explicitly seeking the restoration of a WASP culture,[17] one predominated by Western European (i.e., British) peoples. Jews and Israelis need not apply.

Update: As usual, Coulter claims her innocence. She insists she “likes” Jews. Does she consider “f—ing Jews” a compliment? An expression (epithet) of love? How can she defend her choice of words and how could she even imagine marrying those words to begin with? Did she greet her father, “F—ing Father?” How does she speak to her lovers?

Coulter told the Daily Beast: “I’m accusing Republicans of thinking the Jews have so much power. They’re the ones who are comedically acting out this play where Jews control everything.” But, wait! Coulter is the one perpetuating this stereotype that no Republicans have voiced. This is Coulter’s explanation for expressing anti-Semitic thoughts – that other people (who have stated those thoughts) are thinking it.

Coulter interjected, “This episode is not going a long way to disprove that [Jews have too much power in Washington.]” Yes, Coulter laments that Jews are so powerful that they are behind the backlash against her anti-Semitic remarks.

Coulter continued: “My point was this whole culture of virtue-signaling where debates are about nothing. Look, Republicans all agree 100 percent that we are pro-Israel, pro-Life, pro-gun. So why do we spend so much time on these issues? It’s just pandering, so who are they pandering to?”

Except, as noted above, Israel is a proxy for a candidate’s entire foreign policy perspective. Moreover, at this moment in history, with Israel (and Jews) under attack throughout the world, and with Obama’s complete surrender to Iran – who wants to destroy both Israel and America – voicing support for Israel is a good, moral, and rational thing to do.

Moreover, Coulter is a consummate wordsmith. She knows language and is proud of her expertise. The adjective “f—ing” modifies the noun “Jews” – not panderers. Indeed, she only tweeted about “pandering” after fallout from her earlier tweets.

Coulter defended her choice of words – “f—ing Jews” – saying, “I don’t think it was my language. I think it was ripped out of context and lied about.” Contrary to Coulter’s assertions, her words are clear and precise – and they reveal her heart.

See also “Effing Jews and Ann Coulter’s Waterloo (or Damascus Road?)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a9.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Bio Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-6p.

[2]               See “Ann Coulter Still Blind to Abortion” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9I.

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

[4]               Ann Coulter, Kelly File, FNC, 9/17/15.

[5]               See “Coulter Disses Pro-Lifers – Again!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8J.

[6]               See “Coulter’s Assault on Pro-Life Movement Continues” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9a.

[7]               See “Ann Coulter Still Blind to Abortion” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9I.

[8]               See “Ann Coulter’s Crazy Funhouse Mirror” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8n.

[9]               See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, 2014, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[10]             David Brock, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, Crown Forum, 2002, pg. 182.

[11]             Ann Coulter, “Party of Ideas,” 11/20/03.

[12]             See Chapter 10: “Equality: Self-Evident Truths,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

[13]             Ann Coulter, “Inmates ‘Have A Plan’ To Run The Asylum,” 10/20/04.

[14]             Ann Coulter entry, http://www.anncoulter.com, 8/25/09, 2:17 p.m. (emphasis in the original).

[15]             See Chapter 6: “I Am Victim, Hear Me Whine,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[16]             See “Coulter, Simply Offensive” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5i.

[17]             See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s WASP Fantasy” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7H.

Normal People

Ann Coulter’s definition of “normal” is someone just like her.

In her latest column (11/16/16), Coulter argued that “the consequence of the Democratic Party’s decision in the 1970s [was] to get rid of all the normal people.”

Hearing Coulter – lover of words like “retarded” and defender of going “full-on spastic retard” – (for the sheer joy of being offensive) – use the word “normal” with regard to people almost be deemed Hitlerian.

Taken in the context of the Alt-Right’s rise to power this election cycle – an Alt-Right which would relish jettisoning the majority of mankind into the dustbin of history – Coulter speaking of “normal people” takes on far greater significance.

Remember, Coulter truly hates soccer – because it is “foreign” – and hates all foreigners and immigrants. especially Mexicans. Coulter even hates Christian missionaries for going to foreign countries.

She hates Gov. Nikki Haley for being an ignorant second-generation immigrant (meaning, she is a native-born American with foreign parents).

Coulter’s views can arguably be called anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic. She even attacks war heroes and Gold Star families.

Coulter’s hatred also extends to other Americans. She loves to call Democrats Nazis, crazy, and demonic.

Coulter hates Carly Fiorina and the GOP. Ben Carson does not fare well with Coulter. She has had a love-hate relationship with Ted Cruz. Once a Reagan-lover, Coulter now derides Reagan and his legacy.

For Coulter, “normal people” are just like her. But there aren’t too many of them because she is genetically superior to us.

The Alt-Right’s view of the world is distinctly nativist, racist, and supremacist. Ann Coulter is its high priestess and its muse.

Welcome to Ann Coulter’s world.

[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.]

Great Wall of Trump Crumbles

The Donald’s “Great Wall of Trump” was a lie from the beginning, a clever marketing ploy to tap in to the legions of Americans who are deeply concerned about America’s national sovereignty and her obeisance to the open borders lobby.

Nevertheless, this huckster succeeding in grasping the GOP nomination based on lies.

Trump will not erect an impenetrable wall to stop illegal immigration.

Trump will not oppose amnesty.

We knew those two truths before the GOP Convention.

David French put it well: “There’s the bizarre wall fantasy, as if we’re going to get – for free! – some combination of the Great Wall of China and the Maginot Line on our southern border.”

Final Presidential Debate

The Great Wall of Trump is, like the Statue of Liberty, symbolic. It symbolizes the substance of the debate over national identity, national sovereignty, border control, and amnesty.

And, like Trump himself, it is a sham.

In the final 2016 presidential debate, Trump started out strong, definitively declaring, “We need strong borders. We need absolute – we cannot give amnesty.”

Then, moments later, Trump rambling equivocation should give his supporters pause (emphasis added):

“Now, I want to build the wall. We need the wall. And the Border Patrol, ICE, they all want the wall. We stop the drugs. We shore up the border. One of my first acts will be to get all of the drug lords, all of the bad ones – we have some bad, bad people in this country that have to go out. We’re going to get them out; we’re going to secure the border. And once the border is secured, at a later date, we’ll make a determination as to the rest. But we have some bad hombres here, and we’re going to get them out.”

So, Trump pledges to “secure the border” and get the “bad hombres” out (the “drug lords”) and, “at a later date,” figure out what to do with the rest. Sounds a lot like amnesty and a lot like an insecure border.

Shifting Goal Posts

Ann Coulter famously championed Trump for his alleged Great Wall of Trump and his alleged “mass deportation” of millions of illegal aliens.

Responding to the Hollywood Reporter’s question – “What’s the top thing you like about Trump? – Coulter replied:

“In this order: Immigration, immigration, immigration, flagrantly violates all the rules of political correctness, immigration, no more pointless wars, will bring back manufacturing, immigration and immigration.”

Coulter was so cocksure of herself that she declared, “If there’s one thing we’re going to get out of a Trump presidency, it’s a wall.”

In her book, Coulter confided, “Until the bleeding has stopped, there’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven. Except change his immigration policies.”

That’s exactly what Trump started to do.

On the very day her hagiography of Trump was published, the Trump campaign began its reversal of his immigration policy positions.

Heather Wilhelm noted, “Trump appears to be breezily selling out his stances on Coulter’s favorite policy topics – those would be immigration and mass deportation – on the very week of her ‘In Trump We Trust’ book release.”

Wilhelm continued, “Trump has spent the last week – again, the week of Coulter’s book release! – signaling there’s no way he’s going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants,” telling Sean Hannity that illegals would have to “pay back taxes.”

Trump explained to Hannity, “But when I go through and I meet thousands and thousands of people on this subject, and I’ve had very strong people come up to me, really great, great people come up to me, and they’ve said, ‘Mr. Trump, I love you, but to take a person who’s been here for 15 or 20 years and throw them and their family out, it’s so tough, Mr. Trump,’ I have it all the time! It’s a very, very hard thing.”

As reported in New York Magazine, Coulter quickly expressed the first two stages of grief: denial and anger. In fact, she experienced all five stages in little more than one day.

In denial, Coulter told Extra TV: “I don’t think he really did [soften his immigration position]. He just said something stupid, which he’s done before, and he will do again… he does need a little slap now and then. But no, his policy is to put Americans first on everything. If he does that, he’s fine.”

But Coulter rapidly moved on to the final stage of grief – acceptance. Coulter said, “If [Trump] got rid of deporting illegals altogether, which he is not, it would still be better than any Republican who has run for president in my lifetime.” (Didn’t Ronald Reagan run for president in her lifetime?)

Coulter told the Washington Examiner, “The policy is anyone who’s here illegally is here illegally, does not have the right to be here. We’ll decide whether it’s in our best interest to let them stay or not. Perhaps it is in our interest to let some of them stay.”

So much for mass deportation.

And the wall.

Trump’s magnificent wall was a fraud from the beginning. Indeed, he stole some of his ideas from his biggest rival, Sen. Ted Cruz.

Trump’s own Op-Ed from 2013 refutes his recently manufactured respect for American sovereignty. Trump wrote:  “We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability.” Sounds an awful lot like Hillary’s “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.”

Trump continued: “The future of Europe, as well as the United States, depends on a cohesive global economy. All of us must work toward together toward that very significant common goal.”

Amnesty, yes. Wall, no.

Trump Brought Amnesty Back to Life

Just as his entire presidential campaign can be reasonably interpreted as a sham to give the presidency to Hillary, so, too, his hostile opposition to amnesty appears to have been counterproductive, perhaps purposely so.

Red State’s Neil Stevens spotted a disturbing trend. Looking at Fox News polls from July 2010 to the present, Stevens discovered a dramatic shift in support for amnesty.

According to Stevens, “in July 2010, amnesty was only up 4 points, 49-45.” When Trump launched his campaign, the pro-amnesty cohort gained momentum: “64-30.” What about now? Stevens noted, “In the newest Fox poll, Amnesty’s lead has increased by 22 points since Trump’s campaign launched and now leads by an amazing 74-18 supermajority.”

Stevens concluded:

“Donald Trump’s core campaign issue is to boot the Mexicans out, but over the course of his campaign, nearly half the people who used to support deportations no longer do so. Amnesty has taken an overwhelming lead of support. This is why Republicans are losing: they’ve picked a loser of a candidate who is driving people away.”

#NeverReagan

Ann Coulter obviously never really knew the real Ronald Reagan.

Once a self-described Reagan conservative, Coulter now claims that Donald Trump is the new (and improved) Ronald Reagan.

In her best-failing book,[1] In Trump We Trust,[2] Coulter offers a caricature of the Gipper even as she lambastes conservatives for preserving his legacy.

Chapter 6, “You’re Not Reagan,” is replete with banalities, blunders, and bluster.

Speaking largely to those who never knew Reagan (and the politically disinterested, disaffected, and disillusioned), Coulter offers humor and false analogies in place of facts and reasons. Indeed, this chapter, in particular, employs rationalization instead of rational arguments.

Coulter’s False Claims About Reagan

Among the many ludicrous claims Coulter makes about Reagan, these two are especially laughable.

First, “Reagan was optimistic, but only after he’d been president.”

To buttress her claim, Coulter proffered one quote from the Reagan-Carter debate in 1980.

Anyone who knew Reagan saw his eternal optimism. Coulter also asked, “Did Reagan ever blurt out something as insipid as ‘I have an optimistic message’?”

 In his one and only debate with Carter, Reagan actually said, “I am eternally optimistic.” He then addressed racial issues in America and pledged “that we will have total equal opportunity for all people. And I would do everything I could in my power to bring that about.”

Second, “Reagan had a few big ideas but, famously, was not a detail man.”

In that same debate, Reagan was extremely familiar with not just the big picture but the details of the various subjects being debated. Reagan was an intellectual populist and visionary who thought before he spoke and his views were thoughtful because he’d given them due consideration. (One need only read his biographies or his journals to discern the depth of his knowledge, understanding, and discernment.)

Reagan could even hold his own with an intellectual giant like William F. Buckley, Jr.

Reagan, famously, knew the details and, more importantly, what those details meant and the underlying principles involved.

Coulter’s False Claims About Reagan Conservatives

Coulter derides Conservatism’s quest for the next Reagan because she does not understand or value the original. She dismisses Reaganism, writing, “(1) Reagan was president in the 1980s, and (2) today’s Republicans don’t seem to remember Reagan.”

 As to her second point, are we to consign to the ash-heap of history George Washington and Abraham Lincoln because many Americans are woefully unfamiliar with those giants?

 As to her first point, Coulter repeatedly reiterated ad infinitum (for Trump supporters, that’s “over, and over, and over again”) that Reagan’s era was 35 years ago and his solutions are old-fashioned, out-of-date, passé, from a bygone age, and no longer applicable to our modern, 21^st-century, era. (Sounds remarkably 1960s countercultural, doesn’t it?)

 BT – Before Trump – Coulter claimed, “[Romney is] more conservative than Reagan.”[3] (Now the flavor of this election cycle is Trump.) Coulter also lamented, “These johnny-come-latelies to Reagan worship seem to think that he was Jesus Christ and could do no wrong.”[4]

Coulter added, “I don’t really like groupthink and mob-think. I liked Reagan a lot more when it was unpopular.”[5] (Reagan was always popular.)

 Now, Coulter reviles “Republicans [who] believe they can capture Reagan’s greatness by repeating his answers to the problems of three decades ago.” But Coulter fails to realize that Reagan governed by paying attention to eternal principles.

Human nature hasn’t changed since The Fall. People still want Liberty. The government’s primary legitimate function is security (law and order, national defense). The Constitution remains (nominally) the “law of the land.”

Yet, Coulter told the Miami Herald:

“I sent the tweet halfway through a debate where there was no discussion of anything but Ronald Reagan, Israel and abortion.[6] Those things are all fine, but there’s no disagreement about them. All Republicans agree – who doesn’t love Reagan and Israel, and who doesn’t hate abortion? So what’s the point in talking about it? They all go on and on about Ronald Reagan. Yes, he’s great, but Ronald Reagan was 35 years ago. Can we move on?”

Actually, no. Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan were great American leaders, men of character, integrity, vision, and courage. The GOP is (or, at least, used to be) “the party of Lincoln and Reagan.” Trump has effectively jettisoned that legacy down a memory hole in his quest for power.

Nevertheless, Coulter argues, “It’s taken Republicans who aren’t Trump 35 years to become some Frankenstein monster of Reagan.”

 Hailing Trump as the new and improved Reagan, Coulter concluded her Reagan chapter with these words:

 “If history is any guide, in the 2046 election, Republicans will all be campaigning on the issue of who most credibly promises to build a second wall on border, to fortify the Great Wall of Trump.”[7] (Except a President Trump wouldn’t build a Great Wall of Trump.[8])

 Trump is NOT Reagan

Attempting to position Trump as just like (or better than) Reagan, Coulter attempted to favorably compare the two with these claims:

• “Reagan opposed both the media and his own party to do what was best for the country.”
• “Reagan refused to accept America’s inevitable decline.”
• “Reagan was ridiculed for announcing that he would solve seemingly intractable problems, specifically the Cold War.”
• “Reagan aggressively opposed Republican orthodoxy on a slew of issues: SALT treaties, détente, and the Equal Rights Amendment, to name a few.”
• “Reagan had a few big ideas but, famously, was not a detail man.” [False – see above]

But Coulter’s observations miss the salient point. Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan. Trump cannot be trusted to keep any of his promises. Trump lacks the requisite character and discipline to do so.

 Indeed, Trump’s only moral compass is his own self-interest.

 As reported by The Federalist, “[Coulter’s] solution – replacing one hero with another – makes even less sense. The Great Communicator had ideas, theories, and solutions; the Great Prevaricator has nothing but his hero project on the Rio Grande.”

After the first Trump-Clinton debate, James C. Capretta observed:

“Trump has sometimes compared himself to Ronald Reagan. But it is hard to imagine Reagan sounding anything like the Republican candidate who debated Hillary Clinton on Monday. Trump never mentioned reining in an activist federal government or cutting back on wasteful spending. He never talked about the power of free markets, or individual liberty, or the importance of the Constitution. On foreign policy, he spoke of American weakness and showed no interest in continuing the U.S.’s post-war role as the leader of the democratic West. When he talked with real conviction, it was about how trade agreements such as NAFTA were broken and he alone could bring the lost jobs back to the U.S., without offering any kind of explanation (even when invited to do so) of how he would accomplish this.”

Capretta added,

“Trump has sometimes hit on traditional conservative themes during the past year, but those themes do not come naturally to him because he spent much of his adult life supporting a very different worldview. What animates him is a determination to disengage America from the world through changes in immigration, trade, and foreign policy. A lot can be said about this agenda, including that it has the support of many Americans. What cannot be said is that it is consistent with what Reagan would propose if he were running for president today.”

 The Ronald Reagan Coulter Never Knew

In the 1990s, Coulter regarded Reagan as the greatest American president of the 20^th century. Now, not so much. Indeed, it turns out that Coulter never really knew Reagan.

Just last week, Coulter claimed, “[Reagan] kind of came across as a bumbling old man [in his first debate with Carter].”[9] (There you go again, Ann. Reagan and Carter had only one presidential debate and Reagan won.)

Pardon me, Ann, but the Gipper[10] was brilliant, thoroughly conversant with the issues, utterly conservative, and articulated his principles better than most, including William F. Buckley, Jr. When Reagan spoke to the American people, they could relate to him and they could grasp his message.

Reagan’s legacy is as much who he was as what he did. He accomplished what he did because of who is was and what he became.

Reagan’s Legacy

Twelve years ago, the nation mourned his passing while celebrating Reagan’s life and legacy. Hundreds of thousands of people visited the Capitol Rotunda for his lying in state.[11]

Reagan biographer Craig Shirley[12] has declared that the Republican Party is dead but that Reaganism is alive and well and living in a populist-energized Conservative Movement.

In an exclusive interview at CPAC,[13] I asked about Ronald Reagan’s legacy[14] and its relevance today. Shirley replied, “Reagan’s legacy is intellectual conservatism, a belief in the future, a belief in young Americans, and an optimistic outlook – all the things that he brought to the Republican Party which had been missing since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.”

Asked whether there are any leaders on the stage right now who could fill Reagan’s shoes, Shirley bluntly replied, “No.” He added, “Leaders like Ronald Reagan don’t grow on trees.”

But then he offered hope, saying, “in defense of the current crop of candidates, Ronald Reagan wasn’t Ronald Reagan before Ronald Reagan was Ronald Reagan.”

Shirley went on to explain, “by that I mean that very few saw his greatness before he was actually president and then afterwards. He was actually derided by the Eastern elites and by the Republican establishment and by the liberal media in the Sixties and the Seventies. It took time to understand Reagan’s greatness.”

Consequently, “in defense of the current crop of candidates, we can’t peer into the future, so I would say, if they stick to their principles, if they stick to their guns, they make their argument, they might succeed and make history, and, if they do, then they will also be seen in a different light.”

[In recognition of his Reaganesque qualities, love of America, and devotion to the Constitution, BrotherWatch endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz for President of the United States.[15]]

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Coulter’s Big Fail” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-ia.

[2]               See “Alternative Ann Coulter Book Covers” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-gr.

[3]               Ann Coulter, Joyce Kaufman Show, WFTL, 5/8/15.

[4]               Ann Coulter, Ricochet, 6/4/15.

[5]               Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham Show, 6/3/15.

[6]               See “Jews: Quality, not Quantity” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-al.

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

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

[9]               Ann Coulter, Good Morning Britain,  ITN, 9/27/16.

[10]             See “Remembering Reagan” at http://t.co/GYAescwhYa.

[11]             See “My Pilgrimage to Reagan” (5 pp.) for a first-hand account of that experience. See also a 1997 “Ronald Reagan Special Edition” (28 pp) with tributes from people who knew him best.

[12]             Mr. Shirley’s latest Reagan biography, Last Act, is available on Amazon and elsewhere.

[13]             See “CPAC: Reagan’s Legacy Endures” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-e1.

[14]             See “Remembering Reagan” at http://t.co/GYAescwhYa.

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

GOP Base is Fringe

Coulter recently gave a stunning description of the GOP base. She claims it is a “teeny, tiny base” composed of religious zealots and extremist pro-lifers!

Coulter defended charges that Trump is “not a real Republican” by saying (emphasis added), “I don’t want someone appealing just to the base. Somebody appealing just to the base is, you know, handling tongues and having raptures on stage and is saying, like Marco Rubio, correcting Megyn Kelly, that, ‘No, I don’t support abortion in the case of rape and incest.’ Oh, good grief. Did he not remember – did he not live through Todd Akin? No, that’s sucking up to a teeny, tiny base.”

Yes, Coulter’s gunsights are aimed at Christian conservatives and pro-lifers – whom she claims represent “a teeny, tiny base.” Alert readers will gather that Ted Cruz is the specific object of her wrath. (Cruz, of course, is solidly pro-life and unabashedly Christian.)

Beginning with the 2000 presidential election cycle, Coulter has actively opposed pro-lifers for what she regards as politically pragmatic purposes. Nevertheless, Coulter told a Politicon audience, “I’m an evangelical pro-lifer. I don’t need my president speaking in tongues.” Yes, she again blended the pro-life movement with evangelical Christians. (Coulter even claims to be an “evangelical pro-lifer,” even though evidence for her being either a Christian or a pro-lifer is scant.)

Using her recurring ugly stereotype on the Nowman Show (6/25/16), Coulter argued, “[Trump] doesn’t have religious ecstasies on stage. He doesn’t speak in tongues.” Coulter will say anything to destroy Cruz.

Sadly, time after time, Coulter attacks Christians for behaving as Christians are supposed to behave – in a godly manner. Why? Political expediency? To justify her own ungodly behavior?

Coulter hated every GOP candidate but Trump – who isn’t even a Republican! Moreover, her mission was and remains to destroy the GOP. Coulter’s latest broadside against the GOP base is in keeping with her ultimate goal. She does, after all, want to form a New Trump Party.

Ann Coulter Pence-ive

With Conservatism and the American Dream on the precipice of disaster, will Ann Coulter choose to save herself or America? Will she continue to place pride above principles[1] or, in an abrupt about face, to actually do the right thing.

Donald Trump’s selection of pro-immigration Gov. Mike Pence (IN) as his running mate places Coulter in a predicament, especially since her primary (if not sole) reason for supporting Trump is what she perceives as his strong stand against immigration.

For over a year,[2] Coulter has insisted – promised, vowed – that Donald Trump[3] is the only one we can trust to build a wall and stop immigration.[4]

Early this May, Coulter astonishingly claimed: “I’m bitter and cynical enough on immigration that I don’t trust anyone not to betray us. But if there was ever a candidate we could believe will build a wall and stop the mass importation of the Third World, it’s Trump.”[5]

But Trump has already proven that his immigration policy is malleable in order to reach consensus with the establishment. His pledge for a wall and deportation of illegal aliens are merely starting points for negotiation and will be retracted for expediency and making deals with Congress.

Even as Trump spoke of being flexible and willing to negotiate a grand deal (“comprehensive immigration reform” anyone?), Coulter continued to extol his virtues (as invisible as they might be) while besmirching all his detractors as corrupt or crazy[6] – all the while opposing the one conservative candidate with a proven record on immigration – Ted Cruz.[7]

Aghast at the very thought of Trump choosing Pence for vice president, Coulter erupted with a tirade.[8]

For a fleeting moment, I hoped that she would see through Trump’s flimflam and realize that he will never fulfill her dreams. Immigration remains the single issue that matters most to her, yet she continues – to this day – to support Trump, the one candidate who has proven himself untrustworthy on this (and every other) issue.[9]

Will Coulter now abandon her commitment to a border wall and a moratorium on immigration – national policies she claims are essential to saving America as we know it – merely to salvage her pride and sell more books?

If Coulter has any integrity at all, she will denounce Trump, support a delegate revolt at the GOP Convention, and endorse Sen. Ted Cruz (TX), the only conceivable candidate who could both defeat Hillary this November and, once in office, be trusted to follow the Constitution and to make preservation of national sovereignty and American identity a top priority.

It will take more than integrity for Coulter to do the right thing. It will also take incredible courage – courage to admit that she was wrong about Trump[10] and that she lied about Cruz.[11]

Will Coulter place her own pride above the best interests of this nation (and the world), continuing to do what she has always done by taking the path of least resistance?[12]

Or will Ann do what she knows in her heart is the right thing to do? Will she trust in God, seek His will, and do it?

Ann regards Trump as her Savior.[13] If she would look to her real Savior – Jesus Christ[14] – then she could be filled with courage to do the right thing.[15] Will she?

(Have a little faith, Ann.)

Endnotes:

[1]               See “An Open Letter to Ann Coulter” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cK.

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

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

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

[5]               Ann Coulter, “And Then There Was the One,” 5/4/16.

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

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

[8]               See “Trump Ignores Coulter, Ann Irate” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-eT.

[9]               See “Why Brad Thor is #NeverTrump! Litmus test is liberty!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-fb.

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

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

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

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

[14]             See “Resurrection: Life & Liberty, Power & Purpose” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-z.

[15]             See “Is Ann Coulter a Courageous Christian?” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-60.