Tag Archives: big lie

Coulter Bass Ackwards on Elections

Ann Coulter has uttered absurdities which would make even Homer Simpson blush.

Coulter = Homer Simpson

Coulter’s lies about caucuses and opened and closed primaries are easy to refute with a little logic and a few facts. Same with her lies about “voter-less” and “stolen” elections.

Erstwhile law-and-order zealot and federalism advocate suddenly hates both the rule of law and federalism. Why? Because they are thwarting Trump’s efforts to win the GOP nomination.

Suddenly, Coulter sees nonexistent “voter-less elections” and “stolen elections” where none exist. Moreover, she regards primaries as infinitely superior to caucuses and conventions, which she claims are somehow illegitimate. Coulter disparages the freedom that each state has under the Constitution to hold elections and select its delegates.

Coulter is more of a fraud[1] than Donald Trump.[2] To salvage Trump’s quest for the GOP nomination, Coulter engages in full-blown Orwellian propaganda.[3] Her column last week blasted Ted Cruz for following the rules and winning delegates[4]legally and ethically!

In that column[5] (and subsequent Facebook postings), makes Homer Simpson-blushing assertions which are utterly absurd and eminently disprovable.

“Voter-less elections” are not voter-less. Coulter claims that “state Republican parties disregard the voters and give all their delegates to Cruz,” except, the voters in those states elected the delegates. She alleges “procedural loopholes” and charges “corrupt backroom maneuvering” by “tiny groups of insiders.”

The facts are otherwise. Election laws in many of these states are similar to when the Party of Lincoln and Reagan was founded. Each state determines how it will hold elections: (open or closed) primary, caucus, convention. All eligible voters can be part of the process to support or become delegates.

Coulter defends Trump’s ineptitude by claiming, “Trump keeps winning elections, and Cruz keeps winning sneaky procedural victories.” Except, Trump also keeps losing elections and Cruz’s “procedural victories” are neither sneaky nor illegal.

Coulter claims that only primaries are “elections,” and that caucuses are somehow fraudulent.

A caucus is an election. People vote. Everyone who is an eligible voter is able to vote. Not without irony, Coulter favors poll taxes and literacy tests for voting, so, Coulter should prefer caucus voters, who tend to be more informed and more engaged voters.

Nevertheless, Coulter claims: “General election is winner take all; General election is NOT a little meeting of party insiders.”

Repeating a lie does not make it true. Caucuses and conventions are not little meetings of party insiders.

Coulter also asserts, “Caucuses & conventions are not ELECTIONS.”

Except, caucuses and conventions are elections! People vote. People vote.

According to Coulter, “GOP has to beat Hillary in an ELECTION, not a little meeting. Trump keeps winning all the ELECTIONS; Cruz wins little meetings. Who cares if those were the rules??? That’s not how to pick a winner!”

Each state, in its own way, selects its preferred candidate. That’s the way it has always been. The nomination is not being stolen from Trump. Rather, Trump is failing to win it.

Confronted with the reality that over 1.3 million people voted in UT, ND, WI, CO & WY and Trump lost all five, Coulter posted: “Only one of those, WI, was what we call an ‘election.’ Does Cruz think he beats Hillary by winning over GOP insiders?”

All were elections. “GOP insiders” did not steal those elections. Cruz won because more people voted for him.

Coulter hates the results so she fudges the facts.

Let’s remember: More Republicans have voted against Trump than for him.[6]

Remember, Trump did better in open primaries (where Democrats – who will vote Democrat in November – voted for Trump) and worse in closed primaries (where liberal spoilers were foiled).

Remember, a larger percentage of early-voters, than late-voters, voted for Trump. The more the electorate learns about Trump the less it likes him.

Donald Trump, Coulter’s current Savior,[7] is a Clintonesque RINO posing as a conservative populist. A Trump nomination would ensure a Democrat victory in this election.[8]

Update: In her April 20th column, Coulter reprised her absurd election-stealing charges, distinguishing between “elections, not party-rigged conferences or caucuses.” The truth evades those who dwell in lies.


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

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

[3]               See “Coulter’s Orwellian Opus” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-e0.

[4]               See “Coulter Hates ‘THE RULES’ That Thwart Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-e6.

[5]               Ann Coulter, “Ted Cruz: Tracy Flick With a D*CK,” 4/13/16.

[6]               See “Only Trump Can Lose!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dA.

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

[8]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

Obamacare’s Orwellian Birth and Inevitable Collapse

Obamacare was born in ideological sin and is destined to die a catastrophic failure just as every socialist endeavor deserves to experience.

Orwellian constructs were crucial to foist Obamacare on the American people.


In retrospect, the truth is obvious. But, in his legendary dystopia, 1984, Orwell described a system of propaganda techniques which work to serve the purposes of Big Brother, the ruler of a totalitarian, centralized, bureaucratic big government controlling every facet of the lives of its subjects.

From the beginning, the Obama administration promulgated a series of Big Lies: if you like your insurance/plan/doctor/hospital/etc., you can keep your insurance/plan/doctor/hospital/etc.


Newspeak ruled the debate. Is a penalty a tax? Can the government require its citizens to buy a product – Obamacare – that it does not want? How are individual and employer mandates operative in a free society?

Doublethink was essential to get people to believe the impossible: that millions of more people could enter the system and receive better care at a lower cost despite adding layer upon layer of additional bureaucracy.


Gone down the memory hole, the debacle that was Hillarycare in the 1990s. Also dispatched to oblivion, the high quality of American health care and the poorer quality, higher cost, and rationing of socialized healthcare in other nations. Further, the abject failures of centralized planning and socialized governments worldwide wherever implemented were either forgotten and ignored.


But – as this system invented and implemented by elite central planners who glibly and arrogantly think that they know better than American citizens how those citizens should live their own lives – now, that Americans are experiencing the effects of Obamacare, they don’t like it.



Alyene Senger, “Ten Broken Obamacare Promises,” Heritage Foundation, 12/18/13, at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/12/10-broken-obamacare-promises.

John Hayward, “Grubermania continues: it’s awesome how Ted Kennedy ripped you off, isn’t it?” Human Events, 11/14/14, at http://humanevents.com/2014/11/14/grubermania-continues-its-awesome-how-ted-kennedy-ripped-you-off-isnt-it/.

“Hope & Change,” and Other Orwellian Clichés

Candidate Obama promised hope and change without defining either. He received a Nobel Peace Prize for what he would do and he was hailed a political Messiah. That was an Orwellian “big lie” heralded amidst a number of derivative lies, such as the stimulus was a success and Obamacare works.


The most recent derivative lies include these pretzel-twisted contortions:

  1. The world is a more tranquil place. (Read: “Peace in our time.”) White House press secretary Josh Earnest claimed, “I think that there have been a number of situations in which you’ve seen this administration intervene in a meaningful way, that has substantially furthered American interests and substantially improved the, uh, you know, the – the tranquility of the global community.”
  2. The reset with Russia worked. (Read: “Hey, dude, the Cold War is so 1980s.”) Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claims, “What I think I demonstrate in the book, is that the reset worked.”
  3. The border is secure and there is no border crisis. (Read: “The Emperor’s clothes are magnificent!”) Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), among many on the Left, claimed “The border is secure.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), alleges, “It’s not a crisis, it’s an opportunity.”

You will remember that it was not so long ago that the Obama administration was touting Iraq as a success story, too. Obama bragged, “We’re leaving behind a stable and self-reliant Iraq.”

Another – continuing – derivative lie remains politically operative: Bush is to blame.

Obama and his cronies blame the Bush administration for the collapse of Iraq and the establishment of an ISIS caliphate, despite the peaceful and stable situation Obama inherited from Bush. Obama left a power vacuum in Iraq which ISIS capitalized on.

Obama and his cronies blame the Bush administration for Putin’s invasion/annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine when it is Obama’s weakness which has emboldened Putin’s imperialistic ambitions.

Obama and his cronies blame the Bush administration for the humanitarian crisis on the border when it is Obama’s own immigration policies and unilateral executive orders which precipitated the crisis.

This all stems from Obama’s deeply flawed view of America and his consequent inability to decisively lead the nation. Obama’s indecision arises from internal confusion. Obama facetiously claims, “I’m not partisan!” despite the reality that no one is more partisan than Obama.

During his entire presidency, reality has bludgeoned his worldview. Ideologically, he cannot change course or change policy. Psychologically, he cannot admit error and pursue another approach.

Words are all that remain. Lies, misdirection, altered definitions, threats, bold bluffs, polemical attacks, humor. All designed to enable Obama to stay the course and refute the reality that Obama is to blame.

Cosmos: A Cosmic Lie

Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey is the Obamacare of science. Proponents of universal health care promised the impossible: insuring tens of millions more people who would get better coverage at less cost. Those impossible claims proved, well, impossible to deliver.

Like Obamacare, Cosmos tells tall tales. It presents a worldview asserted to be scientifically sound – proven to be true – despite the impossibility of science to ever prove its accuracy.

The Big Lie


The Big Lie is a propagandistic term invented by Hitler, who wrote that people are inclined to believe a “colossal” lie because “It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

Satan’s biggest lie is denying the existence of God even though the heavens and the earth testify to His existence and glory. The host and producers of Cosmos have fallen for that lie and they present several colossal lies of their own in this series: among them, the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution.

Cosmos treats those two theories – both of which deny the existence of a Creator God – as if they were scientific fact despite the fact that science is literally incapable of ever proving those theories to be true.

Why are those theories unprovable? Because no one living here today was alive at the birth of the universe or the birth of life. Science observed neither event and can never recreate either event.

In explaining the existence of a creation without a Creator and of life without a Life-giver, Cosmos upends reality.

Moreover, in denying the existence of a Creator and a Life-giver, Cosmos contends that the Earth is insignificant and humanity is inconsequential. As a direct consequence of those conclusions, animal rights activists, population control proponents, and the environmental movement wage war on mankind in the interests of saving the planet and non-human life from human beings.

Godlike Powers

The very first words of the series reiterate Carl Sagan’s famous epigram: “The cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be.”

Those pseudo-religious words are catchy, but are they true?

Sagan’s words mirror and mock the biblical identity of the God he denies. Revelation 1:8 says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

But could Sagan be right? “The cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be.”

How could anyone possibly know? In order to know, one would have to have experienced the cosmos in all of its fullness from beginning to end – every second of every particle in every portion of the cosmos.

Only God could do that!

But the producers of Cosmos can’t see that because in accepting Sagan’s assumption, they deny the very existence of the spiritual realm, a realm which cannot be measured or quantified.

Objectivity Redacted

Choosing to deny even the possibility that there might be a Creator is a theological decision, not a scientific one.

The Cosmos host, Dr. Tyson, offered “a simple set of rules: test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail, follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything.”

Sounds great. But science cannot observe the origin of either the Earth or of life. Science cannot replicate either. Science cannot do what Tyson claims it should do.

Tyson repeatedly asserts “question everything,” without questioning his own worldview, assumptions, and conclusions.

Tall Tales

Using slick visuals to capture the imagination, Cosmos tells one big lie after another – all unprovable, untestable, unbelievable. (Except, people tend to believe big lies because they seem too big to be wrong.)

One such tale is that the infinite universe sprang from the infinitesimal. Tyson claimed, “Our entire universe emerged from a point smaller than a single atom. Space itself exploded in a cosmic fire, launching the expansion of the universe and giving birth to all the energy and all the matter we know today.”

This is the wonder of creation without the wonderful Creator.

Which requires greater faith: a staggeringly immense universe of beauty, intricacy, structure, design, and order purposefully created by a wise God out of nothing – or, out of nothing, everything spontaneously and randomly appeared, with design, with order, but without the existence of a higher being?

Consider, what science does observe is entropy: order decaying into chaos – the exact opposite of how the cosmos should be if the Big Bang and evolution were true.

Where did the order come from? Why is it decaying now? Science cannot say, though Christians know.

Another Tyson tall tale: “every living thing is a masterpiece written by nature and edited by evolution.”

Tyson has excised the Creator from the equation, transforming a personal and providential God into an impersonal and mindless process – evolution in nature.

Notice the poetic structure of his scientific claim. Tyson has imbued nature with the ability to write, and evolution with the ability to edit, the “masterpiece” of the cosmos.

Cosmological Faith

Yet another Tyson fantasy: “Our ancestors worshipped the sun. They were far from foolish. It makes good sense to revere the sun and stars because we are their children. … We are made by the atoms and the stars [and] our matter and our form are forged by the great and ancient cosmos of which we are a part.”

The Big Lie on steroids. We are “children” of the stars? We “are forged by the great and ancient cosmos?” Poetry? Yes. Scientific? No.

Stripping God out of existence, evolutionists imbue nature with divine power. They deny the existence of the One who created everything out of nothing but they have faith in evolution and in nature. However, the whole of creation testifies to the existence of a Creator, not the absence of one.

Science and Faith

Cosmos not so subtly likens Christianity to primitive pagan religions. Contrary to history, Cosmos presents faith as inalterably opposed to science, whereas, Christian faith has actually been the inspiration and motivation for many of the major scientific advances of the past millennium.

But Cosmos substitutes the Christian faith of the founders of science for a faith in something that is not science (while calling it science). It has faith in materialistic theories of the universe, not in science.

Claiming Christianity has always opposed science and martyred its leaders, Cosmos attempts to demonize and silence people of faith, even likening us to Nazis and calling us “science-deniers” (equivalent to Holocaust-deniers).

It is their denial of God and of the spiritual realm which animates their unscientific, materialistic worldview. In denying the spiritual dimension, they negate the meaning and purpose of life. If God does not exist, then man is unimportant. Cosmos actually dwells upon the non-special nature of humanity.

One wonders why this so appeals to them? Could it be that the absence of God and the insignificance of man absolves them of accountability?

If there is no God, then there is no moral law.

If there is no moral law, then there are no absolute values.

If there are no absolutes, then we can live life as we choose.

The Cosmos Right Side Up

But Cosmos has it backwards!

The biblical paradigm reveals that all of creation testifies to God’s existence and to His glory. Yet, despite the unfathomable power, wisdom, and glory of a God who can create out of nothing a universe that seemingly has no end, that God chose to fashion human beings in His image so that He might have fellowship with us.

The universe did not randomly materialize out of nothing by itself and life did not appear by chance on our planet for no purpose. Rather, the Creator brought the cosmos into existence to proclaim His existence, and He breathed life into us that we might worship Him and have eternal fellowship with Him.

The Big Lies of the big bang and evolution obscure the incredible truth that God has revealed through His creation, His Bible, and Jesus Christ. Those lies deprive people of the knowledge of God and of the relationship that He wants to have with them.

Far from the purposeless human existence propounded by Cosmos, we should rejoice every day for the gift of life that God has granted us and the relationship that we can now have with Him.

Now that is a cosmic truth.

Update. Nine Scientific Facts Prove the “Theory of Evolution” is False.

Scientific Fact No. 1 – Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 2 – Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 3 – Missing Inferior Evolutionary Branches

Scientific Fact No. 4 – Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 5 – Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 6 – DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 7 – Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 8 – Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 9 – Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Resource: Answers in Genesis special section on Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation-debate/cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey.

Update: Scientists discover God.

Update: Science concedes Earth must have had a Creator.

Best-selling author Eric Metaxas wrote in the Wall Street Journal article “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God” (Dec. 25, 2014): “In 1966 … astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion – 1 followed by 24 zeros – planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion – 1 followed by 21 zeros – planets capable of supporting life. … But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. … As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis – 0 followed by nothing. …”

Eric Metaxas continued: “What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. … Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: ‘In light of new findings … we should quietly admit that the early estimates … may no longer be tenable.’

“As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero. … In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. … Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life – every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing. Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? … At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? …”

Eric Metaxas ended: “Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that ‘the appearance of design is overwhelming’ … Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said ‘the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator … gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.’”