Tag Archives: Ann Coulter

Trump cuckolds low information alt-right voters by reverting to 2013 pro-amnesty view

Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons
Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons

The so-called “alt-right” is a group of secular leftist white nationalists who supported Trump in the GOP primary because they thought he would be tough on immigration. They called traditional conservatives “cuckservatives” because they thought that voting for GOP primary candidates who had a record of being tough on immigration was less important than insults and vulgarity.  Well, just as policy-oriented conservatives predicted during the primary, Trump has reversed himself on his tough rhetoric and resumed the standard Democrat position on immigration: amnesty.

There are a whole bunch of posts about Trump’s reversal on immigration policy over at the Conservatives 4 Ted Cruz hub.

I want to focus on the “I told you so” comments especially.

The Hill reports:

Allies of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) say the former Republican presidential candidate saw Donald Trump’s “softening” on immigration coming.

“Everything Trump promises comes with an expiration date,” Amanda Carpenter, Cruz’s former Senate communications director, told Politico on Wednesday.

“We knew it during the primary, and now it is apparent he has duped his most loyal supporters on the issue they care about most, immigration,” she said. “Don’t say we didn’t warn them.”Chris Wilson, a top adviser during Cruz’s Oval Office bid, told the news outlet that Trump’s shift justifies Cruz’s decision not to endorse Trump, the Republican presidential nominee.

“It vindicates the speech, it vindicates what Ted Cruz warned would happen during the course of the campaign,” he said, referencing Cruz’s remarks at last month’s Republican National Convention.

“I do think, yes, the immigration point is another data point that he was right. It’s another data point that leads people to understand Ted Cruz knew what he was talking about, he was making the right decision.”

Rick Tyler, Cruz’s former campaign communications director, said that Trump’s evolving stance seems like amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“From what I have seen, he is now the pro-amnesty candidate,” he told Politico.

“If Trump is insistent on reversing himself on amnesty, then he will have fooled his entire base. He would have fooled enough people who voted for him to make him the Republican nominee. It’s deceitful; it was a betrayal.”

Cruz reminded voters during the primary: “Donald Trump will betray you on every issue. If you care about immigration, Donald is laughing at you”:

This is what Trump was saying in 2013:

In his own words: Donald Trump embraces amnesty in August 2013
In his own words: Donald Trump embraces amnesty in August 2013

The alt-right beta-male cuckservative Trump supporters were willfully ignorant, and Trump cuckolded them. Cruz supporters predicted this. The alt-right cuckolds chose a candidate based on confident words, not on proven battling for conservative causes. They didn’t know about Walker’s war against the unions over collective bargaining, or Jindal’s war against the Department of Education over vouchers or Cruz’s war against the Rubio and Obama amnesties. They listened to Trump’s words and foolishly misinterpreted his mocking insults and vulgarity as authenticity. Trump was, is and ever will be a Democrat with policies substantially similar to Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid the Democrats he donated to many, many times. If the alt-right had cared about policy and proven record, they would never have chosen Trump.

Here is everything you need to know about Trump supporters in one video:

That’s every Trump supporter right there – including populist demagogues like Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Anyone who gave Trump any time at all to pretend to be a Republican, during the primary is that fool in the clip. That clip summarizes the whole primary. We had an educated, proven conservative who was defeated by low intelligence, low information voters.

I remember having conversations with my doctor, dentist, and other senior software engineers in my office about Trump’s obvious lack of intelligence. When we saw Trump answer questions in the debate, we instantly saw that Trump was not proficient in American history, structure of government, public policy, international affairs, economics, and so on. My dentist is a Democrat and the first thing he said to me was “how can you vote for a candidate who opposes free trade?” No conservative (or Christian) could vote for that, and to make it clear, none have. Trump gets his support from people like the one in the video – people who just don’t know what they are talking about.

This is what the beta-male cucks in the alt-right voted for:

Trump’s only skill in life was ability to inherit wealth. That’s it. The rest of his life has been committing adultery, hosting beauty pageants and declaring bankruptcy several times. Trump is not qualified for any kind of professional work. The presidency is a professional job and requires experience, judgment and proven ability. If we want to have a free country with the rule of law, then we need the alt-right people to stop getting their marching orders from the National Enquirer.

Harvard Law Review: Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and is eligible to become President

Donald Trump with his buddies, the Clintons - I think that's Trump's third wife on the right
Donald Trump and his third wife pose with his radical leftist Democrat friends

Donald Trump has been questioning whether Ted Cruz is eligible to run for President because he was born in Canada. I thought it might be worth it to look at the circumstances of Cruz’s birth, then get an opinion from some legal experts.

So as far as I can tell, there are 3 people on the planet who think that Cruz is not eligible to run for President. Donald Trump, Rand Paul and Ann Coulter, a famous celebrity comedian who supported Mitt Romney, and now supports Donald Trump. She is very fond of getting attention by saying outrageous things, which she later claims are “jokes”. This week, she wanted to have the Republican governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, deported. She later said she was joking.

Ted Cruz’s mother was born in the USA

So, let’s start with the facts:

Eleanor Darragh, mother of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), was born in Delaware on Nov. 23, 1934, establishing her citizenship by birth–and, according to U.S. law, that of her son, even though he was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, on Dec. 22, 1970.

You can look at her birth certificate on Breitbart News. This is the thing that all the birthers on Daily Kos and Democratic Underground denied the existence of, until it appeared. There is no doubt that Ted Cruz’s mother is an American citizen, and she met the residency requirements to pass on birthright citizenship to baby Ted.

Ted Cruz’s mother passes the residency requirement to pass on birthright citizenship

Former assistant U.S. attorney, and law professor Andrew McCarthy explains in National Review:

Under the law in effect when Cruz was born in 1970 (i.e., statutes applying to people born between 1952 and 1986), the requirement was that, at the time of birth, the American citizen parent had to have resided in the U.S. for ten years, including five years after the age of fourteen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor, easily met that requirement: she was in her mid-thirties when Ted was born and had spent most of her life in the U.S., including graduating from Rice University with a math degree that led to employment in Houston as a computer programmer at Shell Oil.

Ted’s mother registered baby Ted with the U.S. Consulate in Calgary. Cruz moved back to the USA when he was 4 years old. Cruz was able to get a U.S. passport to travel abroad in 1986. The U.S. government does not hand out U.S. passports to non-citizens.

A legal opinion from the Harvard Law Review

Now, I didn’t think this topic was worth writing about. It was actually my friend Robb who urged me to do it.

Robb sent me this article from the Harvard Law Review, which is what made me decide to go ahead and write about it.

The article is written by two experts in the law:

Neal Kumar Katyal is an American lawyer and chaired professor of law. He served as Acting Solicitor General of the United States from May 2010[2] until June 2011… Katyal was the Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center and the lead counsel for the Guantanamo Bay detainees in the Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. While serving at the Justice Department, he argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court.

Paul Drew Clement is a former United States Solicitor General and current Georgetown University law professor. He is also an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on March 14, 2005 for the post of Solicitor-General, confirmed by the United States Senate on June 8, 2005, and took the oath of office on June 13. Clement replaced Theodore Olson. Clement resigned on May 14, 2008, effective June 2, 2008, and joined the Georgetown University Law Center as a visiting professor and senior fellow at the Supreme Court Institute.

The article says:

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

“Natural born” means no naturalization process. Ted Cruz’s mother was a citizen by birth. She meets the residency requirements to pass on birthright citizenship. We have her birth certificate. We also have Ted’s birth certificate with her name on it as his mother. This ends the issue for all the people who are governed by reason and evidence.

Ann Coulter: Casey Anthony is the single mom of the year!

She doesn't change her views in order to be liked

In her latest article, Ann Coulter makes my opposition to single motherhood look moderate and respectful. (H/T Neil Simpson)


As I described in my last book, “Guilty,” the leading cause of all social pathologies is single motherhood. One way or another, Casey Anthony’s refusal to give up Caylee for adoption was going to cost society — and cost Caylee.

The statistics are so jaw-dropping that not giving up an illegitimate child for adoption ought to be considered child abuse.

Various studies have shown that children raised by a single mother comprise about 70 percent of juvenile murderers, delinquents, teenaged mothers, drug abusers, dropouts, suicides and runaways. Imagine an America with 70 percent fewer of these social disorders and you will see what liberals’ destruction of marriage has wrought.

A 1990 study by the (liberal) Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime rates disappeared.

[…]We could wipe out chronic poverty in America tomorrow… if only women would get married before having children or give up their illegitimate kids for adoption.And yet, between 1979 and 2003, we went from about 600,000 babies being born out of wedlock, with about a quarter of them put up for adoption, to 1.5 million illegitimate births with fewer than 1 percent of them (14,000) given up for adoption. That’s why Angelina Jolie and Madonna are constantly having to break up tribal wars to adopt Third World children.

A 2008 study led by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi conservatively estimated that single mothers cost the U.S. taxpayer $112 billion every year — in addition to asking the rest of us to keep an eye on their kids while they go clubbing.

We could have had two Iraq wars — Obama could have “saved or created” half a million stimulus jobs — at that price.

But in fact, Scafidi underestimated single mothers’ burden to society by excluding additional costs of single mothers to poverty programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.

That makes his estimates very low: Single mothers are six times more likely to be in poverty than married families. More than 80 percent of homeless families are single mothers.

Scafidi’s study also did not consider the burden single mothers place on law enforcement because of their higher likelihood to neglect or kill their children.

Eighty-five percent of mothers who kill their children through neglect are single mothers.

I didn’t write this. Ann Coulter wrote this. So you can’t blame me! Speaking as a Christian man, when I read Ann Coulter, I feel an enormous burden lifted off of me. Instead of having to be the bad guy with feminism, emotivism and irresponsibility, I can step aside and let Ann be the bad gal, and maybe just buy her some flowers to reward her for protecting the children from the selfishness of the feminists. Why should I have to do all the heavy lifting all the time? I think it’s good when Christian women chastise the feminists.

She also talks about the benefits of adoption in the article, and I’m sure she would agree with me that financial inventives for adoption should be increased. I was thinking about the problem, and I think that it would be a great idea for the government to put a 50% tax on public sector pensions, and then use the money to provide adoptive parents with tax credits equal to 1% of the annual earnings of their adopted children. That would fix things pretty quickly. Put a tax on evil, and give a tax break for good. It would also be a good idea to not legalize same-sex marriage, because legalizing  same-sex marriage means putting adoption agencies out of business.

What causes single motherhood, anyway?

It’s important to remember that the elevation of premarital sex was one of the main aims of feminism. Feminism is the denial that men are supposed to perform special male roles, like being protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders. And when women deny the special roles that men play, then they lost the ability to evaluate men to perform those special roles. Instead of choosing men based on the requirements of marriage, they choose men based on the requirement of recreational sex. Naturally, this leads to fatherlessness, and increased child abuse, child neglect and child poverty. It all starts with the feminists’ decision to say that there is no special way that men ought to be – and NO ONE coerces them to say that, they freely choose to embrace this ideology that says that there is nothing special about men.

Consider this academic feminist writing in the New York Times.


If there’s anything that feminism has bequeathed to young women of means, it’s that power is their birthright. Visit an American college campus on a Monday morning and you’ll find any number of amazingly ambitious and talented young women wielding their brain power, determined not to let anything– including a relationship with some needy, dependent man– get in their way. Come back on party night, and you’ll find many of these same girls… wielding their sexual power, dressed as provocatively as they dare, matching guys drink for drink– and then hook up for hook up.

According to Bauer, the party ends with said liberated empowered inebriated woman down on her knees. As Bauer so nicely expresses it: “When they’re on their knees in front of a worked-up guy they just met at a party, they genuinely feel powerful– sadistic even.”

But not only do feminists oppose the traditional roles of men, they also oppose marriage itself. If you oppose marriage then of course you are going to get more single motherhood, which leads to fatherlessness, and increased child abuse, child neglect and child poverty.

Recall that feminist activists deliberately set up the goal of destroying marriage.


Another feminist widely read during the 1990s was Barbara Ehrenreich, a former columnist with Time magazine who now writes for The Nation.43 Throughout her work, Ehrenreich extols single parenthood and disparages marriage. Divorce, she argues, produces “no lasting psychological damage” for children. What America needs is not fewer divorces but more “good divorces.”44 Rather than seeking to strengthen marriage, policymakers “should concentrate on improving the quality of divorce.”45 In general, Ehrenreich concludes that single parenthood presents no problems that cannot be solved by much larger government subsidies to single parents.46

Ehrenreich writes enthusiastically about efforts to move beyond the narrow limits of the nuclear married family toward more rational forms of human relationship:

There is a long and honorable tradition of “anti-family” thought. The French philosopher Charles Fourier taught that the family was a barrier to human progress; early feminists saw a degrading parallel between marriage and prostitution. More recently, the renowned British anthropologist Edmund Leach stated, “far from being the basis of the good society, the family with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all discontents.”47

While Ehrenreich recognizes that men and women are inevitably drawn to one another, she believes male-female relationships should be ad hoc, provisional, and transitory. She particularly disparages the idea of long-term marital commitment between fathers and mothers. In the future, children will be raised increasingly by communal groups of adults.48 These children apparently will fare far better than those raised within the tight constraints of the nuclear married family “with its deep impacted tensions.”49

So it’s feminism that is the root cause of single motherhood, and it ends up turning into a vicious circle. Women deny that men have special roles, and they choose to have sex with men based on appearance, peer approval and entertainment value. Those men abandon them or refuse to marry them. They turn to government and vote in social programs to replace the now absent men. The state introduces single-payer health care, state-run day care, and taxpayer-funded IVF. Taxes and spending increase. Fewer men marry, because they cannot afford to marry. Feminists complain that men are irresponsible and evil. They have babies with sperm donors. Their sons and daughters have no idea what marriage is about, so they don’t marry, and just end up hurting others and themselves. And around it goes.

It all starts with feminist ideology – the denial that men have special roles as protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders.

You can read a recent interview with Ann Coulter on John Hawkins’ Right Wing News.

Related posts

More related posts

Ann Coulter takes on the progressive hosts on “The View”

From Newsbusters.


JOY BEHAR: I want to know what you think a Republican would do that the Democrats can’t do?

ANN COULTER: Well, I don’t want to sound too wonky, but it would be-. Peter Ferrara keeps writing about –

BEHAR: Who is he?

COULTER: -he’s just a brilliant writer, economist, I think he’s with CATO. And he keeps writing: “okay, this is what Reagan did to turn the Carter economy around, you know, cut regulation, cut taxes, this, that.”  He says Obama looks like he studied what Reagan did and did exactly the opposite, and when I came on your show when you were sitting in for Larry King it was about a month into the Obama administration and I believe I was pessimistic about him turning the economy around because he’s doing all of the things, micro managing from the top, big government, raise taxes.

BEHAR: But he hasn’t been able to raise the taxes, the taxes are still in place.

COULTER: The debt’s going up. Taxes are going to have to go up at some point.

BEHAR: You heard that, you heard that. That’s a Republican saying that.

COULTER: Well, because the debt’s going up because you’re spending.

BEHAR: Well how are you going to solve it if you don’t have any revenue coming in?  You’ve got to do something.

COULTER: Well what- well what this is, and this is counterintuitive, but you must trust me on this, it’s in every Thomas Sowell book ever written. When Reagan cut taxes, each year, as the taxes went down, revenue to the treasury went up. When people say, which is disingenuous and sort of a sleight of hand, is, “yes, but the deficit grew.” That’s because for each additional dollar he brought in, congress would spend three more dollars. I mean, you can’t overcome that, but more revenue came into the treasury the more you cut because people-

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Then how do you explain what happened once Bush got in? Because we had money when, when Clinton left. So what has happened?  I know you have,I know you have an idea.

COULTER: It was, and this is so going to drive your viewers away, but I mean we know

GOLDBERG: Believe me. You can’t drive them away. A lot of stuff will drive them away, but not you. Trust us.

COULTER: We do know it came from – thank you – we do know it came from the housing market crash, and you had the government – Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, pushing these politically correct,  suicidal loans, they were allowing unemployment benefits to be used as collateral for mortgages. Then you have the big banks.

BEHAR: And who allowed that?

COULTER No no no, oh, no. You cannot blame the Republicans on that. Just let me finish the train before you get to that.  The big banks –

BEHAR: You can’t?.

COULTER: – the big banks then bundled them to the mortgage-backed securities, they got spread out into everyone’s portfolio. So it was like a poison in the economy.

So she is basically reiterating the research done by Tom Sowell in “The Housing Boom and Bust”.

I don’t need to tell you about Tom Sowell – he is the official economist of the conservative movement. And Walter Williams is his wingman. If you want to see a 34-minute explanation of the housing crisis, click on this link. You can also read an article on the same topic here.

And more:

COULTER: Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, paying congressional salaries.

GOLDBERG: So are we not all guilty, then?


GOLDBERG: Isn’t it both parties that have –

BEHAR: Screwed up.

GOLDBERG: – messed this up? Messed this up?  It’s not just one. So shouldn’t we try to figure out how to fix it together?

COULTER: Yes. And Not only that, I’d even go beyond blaming the politicians. I mean, it is the people. It’s very hard to take their treats away. Once you start giving them the treats, –

GOLDBERG: That’s right.

COULTER: – to tell them we’re going to take them away is very hard.

GOLDBERG: That’s absolutely right. So it’s all of us.

BEHAR: A lot of is it is not treats. A lot of it is necessities, let’s not get on that track.   It’s not treats for some people, Ann. Some people need the money. I would not have survived. When I – when I got fired from my job from Good Morning America, I was a single, divorced mother. If I didn’t have unemployment insurance, I would [censored].

COULTER: Ok. But how about treats being Social Security going to Donald Trump, because that’s the way the system is set up right now?

BEHAR: Well, fix that part.

So you have Joy Behar finally understanding that Paul Ryan is right – that Social Security payouts NEED TO BE MEANS-TESTED. Annhas to understand all of this if she is going to answer their challenges and WIN THE DEBATE.

Here is an article by Peter Ferrara, whom she mentioned.


In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies.  As a result, I predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics.  That prediction seems to be on track.

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980.  The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%.  A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982.  In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

1.  Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone.  The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.

2.  Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today.  In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.  Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms!  Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989.  That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

3.  Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.

4.  Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices.  Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas.  Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history.  The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.  This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy.  In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.  Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%.  Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed.  Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%.  It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently.  The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years.  The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.  The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

About Peter Ferrara:

Peter Ferrara is Director of Policy for the Carleson Center for Public Policy and Senior Fellow for Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute.  He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush.  He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, forthcoming from HarperCollins, and was a contributing co-author of To Save America.

More Peter Ferrara here.

And what do we learn from this video clip? What we learn from this is that Christian women ought to be encouraged to get out there and get their degrees and become debate-enabled. Should marriage and children come along, then of course careers take a back seat to the need to produce the next generation of William Lane Craigs and Paul Ryans and Jennifer Roback Morses and Nancey Pearceys. But Ann isn’t married, and that means that winning debates is her responsibility.

And we are grateful for her because, using her prodigious intellect, she is able to go into places we could never go and build up conservatism as an intellectually-grounded movement. You can bet that the people on “The View” who have to debate Ann will have their attitudes to all conservatives subtly changed from the experience. This is how we build tolerance for ideas – one of us has to go in there and take them on, and in this case, it’s Ann Coulter.

I don’t have to agree with everything that she has said to see the value of what she did on that show. Just look at Joy Behar’s face. Joy cannot go back and demonize conservatives as easily after an experience with Ann Coulter like on this clip. This is how progressives realize that we cannot be demonized and villified and caricatured. Once they see one smarty conservative, they find it much harder to dismiss us. That’s why we need to be informed.

How did Ann Coulter do in her speech for gay conservatives?

Her best quality: not caring what leftists think

From Life Site News. (H/T Big Blue Wave)


Conservative commentator Ann Coulter stayed true to her reputation for courting controversy during an address to homosexual conservatives in New York on Saturday, telling them that they did not need special rights and that marriage was the union of a man and a woman.

According to reports, Coulter charmed her audience of 150 at the HomoCon fundraiser for GOProud with a number of jokes, admitting that it must have been difficult to come out of the closet and tell their parents that they were conservatives.

But then the outspoken pundit said to her audience, “I should warn you: I’ve never failed to talk gays out of gay marriage.”

Talking Points Memo reported that Coulter explained to the crowd that she supports marriage as the union of a man and a woman, because the institution is fundamentally about the procreation of children.

[…]The event, which was sponsored by GOProud, was held at PayPal founder Peter Thiel’s luxurious apartment overlooking New York’s Union Square. Politico described GOProud as a gay Tea Party “with well-tailored dark suits in place of revolutionary war garb.”

Coulter also went after federal social welfare policies, which she blamed for further breaking down society by breaking down marriage. Coulter credited the rise in single-parenting as a reason more young people are turning to crime, and blamed the government’s welfare policies for “the subsidization of single parenting” and causing the decline of marriage in the black community.

[…]In the lead up to the event, many speculated that Coulter would shy away from social conservative issues, and instead focus on “common ground” fiscal matters, which most of the GOProud members would support. Coulter’s decision to appear at the event was not itself without controversy; she actually lost an invite to speak at “Taking America Back” conference on September 17 in Miami, Florida, hosted by WorldNetDaily, after it was announced that she had accepted the invitation.

However, Bryan Fischer, a spokesman for American Family Association – speaking for himself on his blog – had only words of praise for Coulter’s address at the GOProud event, and apologized for criticizing her for agreeing to the appearance.

“Ann took them straight on and gave them some straight talk I doubt they were ready for,” said Fischer.

I can’t quote any of the good parts – because Obama will catch me and put me into a cage. But you can click through and read it all.

She also took some shots at no-fault divorce, which is worse than same-sex marriage for the family. I am opposed to both, as everyone knows. But that doesn’t mean you can’t talk to people whom you disagree with. I don’t want anyone to feel bad, but I sometimes have to disagree with people.

Now is time on the Wintery Knight blog when we all sing the Ann Coulter song.