Sympathy For Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter has long been one of the right’s most controversial, yet effective, provocateurs. She was also one of the first to recognize what so many of us missed—that Donald Trump’s third-grade grasp of the English language could somehow effectively convey to his supporters promises of his own greatness that they so wanted to hear. He was the only one that could make their lives better.

The great wall along the southern border would be majestic and quickly constructed. Millions of illegal immigrants would be booted. Everyone would have beautiful healthcare, taxes would be cut, airports would be glorious and the nation’s debt would be wiped away, big-league. Coulter cared little for most of Trump’s promises, save for issues of immigration and border security. On that, she pledged to Trump her unwavering support. She wrote a book, “In Trump We Trust,” during the 2016 presidential campaign and professed her blind loyalty, the same way North Koreans worship their Dear Leader.

So the White House had to notice Coulter’s interview with The Daily Caller on Sunday. It was a “canary in the coal mine,” moment from one of the most visible figures representing the right’s far edge. “Where is the great negotiation? Where is the bull in the china shop we wanted? That budget the Republicans pushed through was like a practical joke… Did we win anything? And this is the great negotiator?” Coulter asked Alex Pfeiffer during his interview with her.

If you listen closely enough, you can almost hear Mick Jaggar softly singing Trump’s favorite campaign song in the background. “You…can’t…always git whatcha waont…but iffu try sometimes…ya git whatcha neeid…”

Coulter continued:

Trump was our last shot. I kind of thought it was Romney, and then lo and behold like a miracle Trump comes along. I still believe in Trumpism. I have no regrets for ferociously supporting him. What choice did we have?

We had no choice. Yeah, I mean, my fingers are still crossed. It’s not like I’m out yet, but boy, things don’t look good. I’ve said to other people, “It’s as if we’re in Chicago and Trump tells us he’s going to get us to LA in six days. But for the first three days we are driving towards New York. Yes, it is true he can still turn around and get us to LA in three days, but I’m a little nervous.

The entire interview is worth a read, particularly when she returns to her North Korea/Dear Leader comparison, only this time with a new, surprising twist. I vehemently disagreed with Coulter in her support of Trump, but the despair in her words almost deserves sympathy. As a proud Never-Trumper, the words WE TOLD YOU SO! rages inside me, but we can be better than that. Personally, I’d like to convey to Coulter my understanding. That discombobulating feeling borne from a Trump presidency fell over some of us sooner than others. But make no mistake, it will hit everyone in due time. Let’s just hope there are more Coulters out there—canaries brave enough to warn the less-informed of the coming discombobulating, toxic Trump air.


The ACLU’s Split Personality Disorder

By now, you’ve probably heard that Ann Coulter has canceled the speech she was supposed to give at Berkeley today.  Even though she had expressed a determination to go through with it in spite of all the barriers the university tried to place in her way, Coulter said she had to cancel after the Young America’s Foundation–which had been sponsoring her appearance–withdrew its support, saying that it could not “jeapordize the safety of [the university’s] staff or students.”  In other words, because mobs threatened violence, and because the Berkeley town government and police refuse to do their jobs and protect people and property from that mob, an American citizen will not be allowed to excercise her First Amendment rights at an institution of higher learning that is supported by tax dollars.

“It’s a sad day for free speech,” Coulter said.  “Everyone who should believe in free speech fought against it or ran away.”

In the midst of this bad news, however, there was a tiny ray of light.  The American Civil Liberties Union, which all too often sits on the sidelines when it comes to protecting the rights of conservatives, actually expressed support for Coulter’s right to express her views without fear of harm:

Naturally, the ACLU couldn’t resist tossing in the “hateful” canard–but it is a relief to know that they can still recognize a grave threat to the First Amendment when they see it.  It just remains to be seen whether their support ends with a single tweet, or if they’re willing to take up the fight on Coulter’s behalf.  If they are, I welcome them as allies.  The best way to face down wannabe fascists in black bandanas is to present a united front, and make sure they understand in no uncertain terms that civil liberties are not a partisan issue.

But when the ACLU goes and does something like this, you really have to question if their commitment to the First Amendment only extends to the parts that they like:

Dignity Health’s Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a private Catholic hospital in Sacramento, California, is currently embroiled in a lawsuit brought on by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) after the hospital refused to perform a sex transition surgery.


According to the suit, Evan Michael Minton, a 35-year-old woman who wishes to be a man, wanted to have an elective surgery done on her that would have her vagina removed. The suit says that Minton was denied the hysterectomy because, as Minton claims, the hospital was discriminatory due to his lifestyle.

The hospital, however, tells a different story:

“At Dignity Health Mercy San Juan Medical Center, the services we provide are available to all members of the communities we serve without discrimination. We understand how important this surgery is for transgender individuals, and were happy to provide Mr. Minton and his surgeon the use of another Dignity Health hospital for his surgery within a few days.”


The hospital itself says that they could not perform the transition surgery ” in accordance with the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs) and the medical staff bylaws.”

So basically, a Catholic hospital said that they could not allow the sex reassignment surgery to be performed there because it would violate its religious bylaws–but they were perfectly happy to refer the patient to another one of their non-Catholic affiliated hospitals, where there would be no conflict.

And yet the ACLU is suing the hospital anyway.

In case they need reminding, here’s what the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It looks an awful lot like the ACLU is helping this patient to prohibit a Catholic hospital from freely exercising its religious rights.  And considering that Dignity Health offered the patient a convenient alternative, this lawsuit can’t have any other purpose but to steamroll religious institutions into getting with the transagenda.  Sure, they’ll probably lose in court–but not before they put the hospital through the social media grinder and make them pay a steep price for standing up for their rights.

How this squares with the ACLU’s stance on Ann Coulter is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a beef burrito.  On the one hand, they’ll defend Coulter’s right to say mean things to college students.  On the other, they’ll crush Dignity Health’s right to not perform a surgery that violates its religious charter.  Both rights are guaranteed under the First Amendment.  How is it possible that the ACLU can hold both these stances, which directly contractict one another, at exactly the same time?

It’s a state of confusion that would give that guy from Split a run for his money.

Cheers for Bernie Sanders, Jeers for Howard Dean

Lest anyone get the wrong idea from the headline of this article, make no mistake:  I think Bernie Sanders is a nut.  This is the same man, remember, who so loved the Soviet Union that he actually spent his honeymoon there.  He’s also a self-avowed socialist whose policy prescriptions lie somewhere between Angela Davis and Che Guevara on the political spectrum, and seems to have invented Fifty Shades fan fiction long before there was a Fifty Shades.

But, when it comes to matters of free speech, Crazy Bernie actually has his noggin screwed on straight.  Speaking with the Huffington Post, he weighed in on the controversy surrounding Ann Coulter and her upcoming speech at Berkeley, which the university had wanted to reschedule to a time better suited to late-nite informercials because they had “concerns” about “security”.  To his credit, Bernie was having none of it, and said that free speech shouldn’t be subject to a rioter’s veto:

I don’t like this. I don’t like it.  Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation.

Let’s set aside the notion that Bernie Sanders calling anyone “off the wall” is a lot like Anthony Weiner telling Kim Kardashian that she might be sharing a bit too much on Instragram.  We give praise here when praise is due, and in this observation Bernie is absolutely correct.  Moreover, given the kind of climate we’re in, for him to take such a stand is brave and commendable.

To me, it’s a sign of intellectual weakness.  If you can’t ask Ann Coulter in a polite way questions which expose the weakness of her arguments, if all you can do is boo, or shut her down, or prevent her from coming, what does that tell the world?


What are you afraid of ― her ideas?  Ask her the hard questions.  Confront her intellectually.  Booing people down, or intimidating people, or shutting down events, I don’t think that that works in any way.

Can I get an amen?  Well said, Bernie!  Have you ever considered going on tour with Mark Steyn?

Anyway, even though he doesn’t understand the first thing about economics, Bernie seems to have a pretty decent grasp of the First Amendment (at least until you get him going about Citizens United–but that’s an argument for another day).  Contrast that with serial bloviator Howard Dean, who decided to dish on Ann Coulter and proved yet again that it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt:


Hey, Howard–I guess this means they should have hauled you away that time you said, “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.”  Let me know if need any money for bail, pal.

Luckily for Dean, I don’t think he needs to worry about Donald Trump sending the goon squad to collect him, because–unlike Bernie Sanders–he is spectacularly wrong about what the First Amendment protects.  That includes the stuff he doesn’t like, such as when Ann Coulter says something incendiary, and the stuff he does, like when he suggested that George W.Bush might have known about the 9/11 attacks in advance.

Or, as a wise editor at the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten once wrote, “Free speech is free speech is free speech.  There is no but.”

Thanks, for defending it, Bernie.  Howard, you can go away now.

Berkeley Cancels Coulter Speech, Ann Tells Them to Stick It

There’s a quintessential moment in Star Trek III when Admiral James T. Kirk, upon being asked by his crew if Starfleet Command will allow them to attempt a rescue of their fallen comrade Mr. Spock, tells them, “The word is no.  I am therefore going anyway.”  I don’t know if Ann Coulter has ever seen the movie, but she definitely appears to be channeling that spirit in her dealings with the University of California at Berkeley.

Here’s the story.  When the local chapter of the College Republicans and BridgeUSA invited Coulter to give a speech there, the university presented long list of demands that she would have to meet, supposedly to ensure security at the event.  These included having the speech in the middle of the day and making it open only to students.  On top of that, the time and the venue could only be announced shortly before the speech began, so potential troublemakers wouldn’t have time to organize a violent protest.  Coulter thought that the university imposed those rules because they believed she would never accept them, so she did what any self-respecting, free speech firebrand would do.

“I called their bluff,” she said, agreeing to everything.  Berkeley, the weaselly institution that it is, responded by canceling her speech.

Or, as the Dean Wormers of the university put it:

Vice Chancellor Scott Biddy and student affairs Vice Chancellor Stephen Sutton wrote to the Berkeley College Republicans Tuesday saying, “We have been unable to find a safe and suitable venue for your planned April 27th event featuring Ann Coulter. We therefore must now work together to reschedule her appearance for a later date.”

By “later date” they apparently meant “never.”

Coulter, meanwhile, took a page from the history of the free speech movement at Berkeley and decided that the best course of action was to stick it to the man:

In their own statement, the College Republicans and BridgeUSA made clear their support for Coulter:

This is as clear-cut a case as it gets that public universities are using taxpayer dollars to shut down conservative speech, while allowing liberal speech only. UC-Berkeley has for example, welcomed the corrupt former President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, who has cursed at and mocked Donald Trump, currently the President of the United States.


The university, and U-C chancellor Janet Napolitano personally, have revealed themselves to be using taxpayer money for an unconstitutional purpose. Even after Coulter went along with their ruses and guises to shut down her speech, they simply announced, like Kim Jung Un, that it was cancelled.”

They saved the best for last, though.

We have no intention of acceding to these unconstitutional acts. The Ann Coulter lecture sponsored by Young America’s Foundation will go forward.

So Berkeley will have to deal with Ann Couter whether they want to or not.  That’s what I call power to the people, man!

It also sends a very clear message to Berkeley, and other universities that have been so craven by giving in to leftist mobs who would rather burn the joint down than engage in a free flow of ideas:  If you want to avoid riots, you aren’t going to do it by branding conservative speech as too dangerous for campus.  You’ll have to do it by enforcing the law, and making an example out of anyone who engages in violence.

Ann Coulter Is Melting, Melting, Oh My Beautiful World

Ann Coulter is so far up Donald Trump’s nether end that she doesn’t know what time it is until he yawns. So it’s no surprise that she would tweet something both offensive and bat guano crazy at the same time.

The latest one is a doozy, even by her, ahem, loose standards.

Let’s say Ann was correct here. Lets give her the benefit of her mendacious wish.

In that Nativist America, it would mean that Donald Trump would not be able to vote for himself, his grandparents being born in Scotland and Germany, respectively. Brilliant.

And how would someone have more than four grandparents? I would really like to know, Ann, because your tweet kind of makes it seem like you support cuckolds, the real kind. Your constituency would not approve.

I think Erick had the proper response to this America First fantasy in which Coulter dreamed a dream of “Alt-Right-Amerika” full of pure blood and soil Aryans.

I have never seen someone go from mere meshugah to straitjacket nuts as quickly and thoroughly as Coulter in the last 16 months. Knowing her chances of ever being taken seriously again, along with her book sales, are about to meet at zero, she’s finally melted into a puddle.

Or rather, she will when a bucket of water is thrown on her.*

*Note that I do not advocate the throwing of buckets of water on bloggers, celebrities, authors, or witches without their prior approval. In other words, laugh and mock Coulter, but don’t throw water on her. She likely wouldn’t really melt, but she might react in other very negative ways.

When Trump Apologists Lie For Him, It Does Matter

It was a wonderful weekend for the magical mystery Trump apology tour. Circle the wagons! Let’s redefine “amnesty.” Poor Ann Coulter wishes she were a character in Farenheit 451 so she could properly burn her new book.

Jonah Goldberg mused:

Perhaps the only silver lining in any of this is watching Ann Coulter grapple with this calamity. If Tom Wolfe had written a novel where the Coulter character was defenestrated like this on the night of her book party at Breitbart HQ, the editor would have said, “C’mon, Tom.”

And yet Ann is sticking with her guy. I spent much of the last year writing how Trump was corrupting conservatism by forcing so many Republicans and conservatives to jettison their principles in order to get on the right side of a popular demagogue who would ultimately lead the GOP to catastrophic defeat at the hands of a corrupt and untalented Democratic candidate. There is a kind of pyrrhic schadenfreude, a tragic fremschämen, to watching the demagogues get corrupted too as their idol morphs into Jeb Bush before our eyes.

But the winner of the Pretzel Award for Incoherence in a News Program is Chris Christie speaking to Martha Raddatz on This Week:

RADDATZ: I’m joined now by Governor Chris Christie, a former presidential candidate and one-time Trump opponent, now the chair of Trump’s transition team.

And, Governor, let me start with this simple question: Will Donald Trump try to deport all undocumented workers or just those he refers to as the bad ones?

CHRISTIE: Listen, I think that he has been very clear on this. We’re not going to have amnesty . What we’re going to do is to get those who are breaking the law out of the country as quickly as possible to make sure then that you deal with people in a humane way. I think that’s what he’s been saying. He’s been saying that I think for as long as I’ve been listening to him of late, and that’s what he’s going to do.

RADDATZ: Well, dealing with them in a humane way, does that mean taking all of those 11 million undocumented workers, pushing them out of the country?

CHRISTIE: Well, I think what he has said is that people are not going to be eligible for legalization or citizenship unless they leave the country and get back in line. Now there’s going to be, you know, some decisions he’s going to have to make as president regarding those folks, and I think what he’s said let’s first get all of the bad actors out of the country. And I think that’s what’s really important.

And then he wants to look at this situation and deal with it in a humane way, and quite frankly, you know, I think this is the kind of thing people expect from a president of the United States, that they will approach these things thoughtfully and smartly and I’m confident that that’s exactly what a President Trump will do.

RADDATZ: Would you acknowledge then that that does sound like a softening from his original statements about getting everyone, 11 million undocumented workers, out of the country with a deportation force?

CHRISTIE: Listen, I think that the key to this, Martha, and the way to look at it, is that this is a guy who has been very consistent on no amnesty, no legalization, for folks who have been coming to the country illegally. And that has always been the underpinning of his policy along with the building of the wall on the United States-Mexican border. And those things have remained completely consistent.

I think what you expect of every candidate and ultimately of a president is to listen to the facts and to deal with things in a way that’s smart and direct. I’m confident that’s exactly what President Trump will do.

“Those who are breaking the law” are people who are here illegally. A former federal prosecutor should be able to discern that you can’t say you’re not deporting illegal aliens (“those who are breaking the law”) and claim it’s not amnesty at the same time.

Apparently, now Christie is relying on Donald Trump, who treats lawyers like a trip to Baskin Robbins for his 31 flavors, to determine which laws are “hard” and which ones are “soft.”

But the worst part is that Trump’s new immigration spin sounds a lot like what we’ve seen for the last 27 years. A lot of talk and then a lot of doing nothing at all.

You might think that none of this will matter come November 9 because there won’t be a President Trump. But it will matter, because the GOP will have Christie, Jeff Sessions, and all the rest of the crowd who backed Trump and lied for him with soiled laundry hanging out for all to see. They want to blame those of us who have consistently told the truth to cover their own lies.

We in the #NeverTrump camp are not the ones having to pretzel ourselves into complete incoherent nonsense.

Ann Coulter Just Learned Her New God is Fallible

Ann Coulter, high priestess of the new religion that exalts Donald Trump as a new god, just learned that her god is fallible, presumably raising questions about his ability to continue to have god-like status. On the heels of the news “leaking” that Trump is naming Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) as his vice presidential running mate on Friday morning, Coulter went on Twitter and completely lost it. Here is sample of her Tweets:
Screen Shot 2016-07-14 at 12.50.47 PM

Coulter’s forthcoming book is titled “In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome.” Judging from her Twitter feed, it appears that Coulter’s faith in Trump has been deeply shaken. No word yet on whether or not she or her publisher will be able to cancel the rollout of the book, which is set to hit shelves in August.

Ann Coulter Trades God for Trump

Ann Coulter is the high priestess of a new religion, one that swaps a perfect eternal Judeo-Christian God for a new, flashy leader whose self-worship is exceeded only by the adoration of his faithful adherents. Over at a fawning new review of Coulter’s forthcoming book includes a look the tome’s cover, which boldly declares: “In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome.”

The title is a not-so-subtle play on the national motto of “In God We Trust,” and it reveals the extent to which some so-called “conservatives” believe that Trump is a messianic figure who can do no wrong and who deserves to be worshiped and adored without question.

From his bizarre assertion last week that Saddam Hussein was a great guy because he killed terrorists, to his confident declaration that he’s never needed to ask God for forgiveness, Trump’s candidacy has been an utter trainwreck of political and religious orthodoxy.

Coulter’s book title was first released earlier this year, and the praise it has earned from some who consider themselves to be conservative is remarkable, given the outrage that is regularly directed at far-left assaults on the national motto. When an atheist proposes to rid currency of the phrase “In God We Trust,” social conservatives predictable and appropriately push back. Conservatives rightfully cheer when efforts to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance fall short in federal court. But when a prominent self-styled populist and quasi-conservative decides to quite literally and purposefully swap God for Trump in the title of a book, conservatives generally remain silent.

Before conservatives in the GOP rush to ratify Trump’s nomination in Cleveland next week at the Republican National Convention, they would do well to exhaust every option available for finding another presidential nominee. Trump is no messiah, and what the RNC needs are a few Shadrachs, Meshachs and Abednegos who refuse to make Trump their new god.

“There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou has set up.” – Daniel 3:12