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

New at Live Action: Rare Pro-Choice Attempt at Fair-Mindedness

One of the most frustrating things about dialogue between pro-lifers and pro-choicers is that only one side truly understands where the other is coming from. We can fully understand that support for abortion (among the non-extremists, at least) is rooted in a reluctance to not force women to undergo something perceived to be needless (because they erroneously believe the fetus isn’t alive), but pro-choicers rarely acknowledge compassion for preborn children as our driving force, instead constantly insisting we simply hate women.

At Refinery29, Kelsey Miller has what seems to be a rare pro-choice effort to actually understand pro-lifers, in the form of an extended ride-along and discussion with Students for Life coordinator Emily Wilkinson.

It contains a number of revelations that the truth is more complicated than pro-aborts would like, which will hopefully push some of the site’s more moderate readers to reassess their own assumptions—for instance, she acknowledges the problems with Planned Parenthood’s “abortions are only 3% of what we do” lie and the counter-argument to the belief that more contraception would reduce abortion rates, and admits that we don’t call abortion murder “for dramatic effect; that’s simply what they see.”

But Miller also unintentionally illustrates several ways that even more reasonable pro-choicers are avoiding the fundamental questions about their position.

Read the rest at Live Action News.