Ann Coulter Has Sold Her Soul to Donald Trump

YAF 2009 - Meeting Ann Coulter 1For fifteen years, I was an enthusiastic, unapologetic Ann Coulter fan. I’ve expressed my share of disagreements with her, but on balance have supported and defended her many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, times—from Left and Right alike—as one of the most fearless and principled assets to the conservative movement. Her books were defining influences on my own political development. She regularly raised devastating, critical points that more than a few conservatives were too meek to say or too conventional to notice. Meeting her in 2009 (above) was one of the biggest thrills of my political career, and I counted my autographed copy of Slander as one of my most prized possessions.

So when I say that Ann Coulter has officially lost me, know that I didn’t reach this conclusion lightly.

For the better part of 2015, Coulter’s aggressive support for Donald Trump has been a source of major consternation on the Right. Contrary to what some demagogic charlatans would have you believe, her underlying rationale is entirely correct: the next president’s level of conservatism on other issues will be irrelevant if he allows mass immigration and amnesty to give the Democrats enough new voters to guarantee them a permanent national majority. If this were, say, a two-man race between him and Marco Rubio, it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that Trump is more likely to do the right thing on the issue.

Where Coulter’s conclusion breaks down is that Trump isn’t the candidate with the most credibility on fighting amnesty—Ted Cruz is. Conservatives don’t have to make a last-resort choice between an immigration hawk and a conservative; we can get both. Continue reading

Advertisements

New at Live Action: Planned Parenthood Loses It, Calls SOTU Nun Invite “Disrespect”

Pro-lifers should celebrate one of the latest public statements from Planned Parenthood. Not because it’s any good, mind you; it’s completely horrid. No, this is a positive development because it shows they have lost all semblance of self-restraint or awareness of how they sound to anyone not on their mailing list, which can only help quicken their descent to the fringes.

In response to House Speaker Paul Ryan inviting two of the Little Sisters of the Poor to attend the State of the Union Address, Planned Parenthood tweeted the following:

Folks, we are officially so far through the looking glass that it’s not in the rearview mirror anymore.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Bernie Sanders Smears Men, Belittles Women in Abortion Tweet

Bernie Sanders, the socialist Vermont senator running in the Democrat presidential primary, is a walking caricature in many ways, and recently he added abortion clichés to that reputation. On Saturday, he said:

It’s a popular slur among abortion supporters because it plays to modern radical feminism’s paranoia that misogynistic agents of the patriarchy lurk around every corner, waiting to chain America’s women to their kitchens, and because it reinforces the abortion lobby’s fantasy that abortion entails no serious moral dilemma they have to confront. But as a meaningful argument, it completely fails.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: The Moral Consistency of Peaceful Pro-Life Activism

In response to Robert Lewis Dear’s killing spree at Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, pro-abortion columnist Jill Filipovic resurrected one of abortion supporters’ most insidious (and that’s saying something!) refrains in asking:

If you actually believe abortion is legal mass murder on par with the Holocaust, then how is it 100% wrong to kill abortion providers? Answer: most prolifers don’t even believe their own claims and don’t think abortion is quite the same as murder. Because it’s not.

This pops up every now and then among abortion defenders trying to trip up pro-lifers on our own principles. Slate’s Will Saletan accused pro-lifers who condemned the slaying of George Tiller of not “mean[ing] it literally” when we call abortion murder. Evangelical pastor-turned-humanist/atheist Bruce Gerencser asks “those who say abortion is murder” if “you support the execution of murderers.” Jason Brennan of the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog thinks it’s “implausible” and “absurd” for people who equate abortion with murder to confine themselves to stopping it through legal and peaceful means. California law blogger Mike Cernovich argues that peaceful pro-lifers are suffering cognitive dissonance, basing our beliefs “on psychological comfort rather than intellectual rigor.” We see it on a fairly regular basis in comment threads.

The truth is that this isn’t a sincere argument. They know they can’t win a fair argument on whether the unborn are human or abortion is killing, so they hope to indirectly discredit the truth by conjuring up inane reasons to claim we don’t believe it. So now would be a good time for a refresher course on the just use of force in a free society.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Pelosi Drafts Pope Francis to Fund Planned Parenthood

Ready for the most preposterous manifestation yet of Nancy Pelosi’s pro-abortion devout Catholic shtick? On Thursday, the House Democrat Leader invoked pro-life Pope Francis in the name of her pro-abortion agenda:

Republicans are moving forward with a GOP reconciliation package that once again lays the groundwork for another Republican government shutdown. It’s a waste of time. It will go nowhere in the Senate. It will be their 61st vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and they will of course be wanting to defund Planned Parenthood, destroy the Affordable Care Act, dismantle newfound health security for millions of Americans.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Instead we could be working together recognizing a Republican Congress, a Democratic president, the ability for Democrats to use their leverage legislatively to have compromise for the good of the American people. That’s what Pope Francis told us to do. He said leaders should have transparency. That would be wonderful – openness, he said. He used the word openness and pragmatism, and he said we have to move forward for the good of the people. Let’s in the spirit of Francis do that.

Yes, Pelosi has devolved to arguing that the Pope wants politicians to accept a budget that gives millions of dollars to the abortion industry. Let that sink in a minute.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Media Sleaze Tries Tying Pro-Lifers to Rapist

It may sound hyperbolic to claim the pro-abortion commentariat have sunk to a new low, but if this story doesn’t warrant it, nothing does.

Websites including Jezebel, Alan Colmes, Raw Story, Liberal America, and Addicting Info have seized upon the story of a pro-life protest against the Red River Women’s Clinic abortion mill in Fargo, North Dakota, and pro-abortion counter-protestor Nik Severson, during which it was stated that one of the anti-abortion protesters, Bartholomew Schumacher, was a convicted rapist.

Severson claims that when he told protesters about Schumacher’s record:

They called me liar, they screamed at me to leave. I showed a few of them the article and still they denied it. They called the cops on me and the police officer confirmed that the man was who I said he was. The “Christians” shook his hand and hugged him. It was the most disgusting thing I had ever seen in my life.

Jezebel, Addicting Info, and Raw Story un-skeptically repeat Severson’s accusation.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action – Obama Hypocritically Lectures Christians on Inclusion

On Monday, the New York Review of Books released a feature in which Barack Obama sat down with novelist Marilynne Robinson for a chat about the themes of her work, and a few strains of the president’s commentary were astoundingly hypocritical, even for him.

He can’t be that lacking in self-awareness…can he?

[P]art of our system of government was based on us rejecting an exclusive, inclusive—or an exclusive and tightly controlled sense of who is part of the community and who is not, in favor of a more expansive one.

Like, say, a certain class of people that you have enthusiastically chosen to deprive of their constitutional rights and subject to unthinkable violence based on nothing more than their developmental stage and that a major interest group supporting you wants them dead? How do any instances of “exclusion” – real and imagined alike – that Obama might have in mind possibly compare to gerrymandering children out of every American’s most basic protection as members of the community?

Read the rest at Live Action News.