Ann Coulter’s “Spawn of Satan Convention”

Just as Coulter claims to abhor Nazi and Fascist imagery, Coulter decries comparisons of conservatives to the Devil:

A novel released in 2004 advocated the assassination of President Bush “for the good of humankind.” Liberal columnist William Raspberry referred to President Bush as “the Devil.” Remember the good old days, during Bush’s honeymoon with the press, when he was just Hitler?”[1]

Eschewing demonization, Coulter nevertheless demonizes. Consider alone her books, Godless and Demonic, which clearly demonize the Left in spiritual terms.

One decade ago, Coulter infamously described the Democratic National Convention in near apocalyptic terms, beginning, “Here at the Spawn of Satan Convention …”

Demonic Liberals

Coulter’s first post-9/11 book, Slander, seemingly laid all the evils of the world at the feet of liberals. She began her book:

“Political ‘debate’ in this country is insufferable. Whether conducted in Congress, on political talk shows, or played out at dinners and cocktail parties, politics is a nasty sport. At the risk of giving away the ending: It’s all liberals’ fault.”[2]

Coulter ended her next book, Treason, claiming, “The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is: Conservatives believe man was created in God’s image; liberals believe they are God.” Then, in explaining a litany of liberal abuses, Coulter wrote, “because they are gods. … because they are gods. … because they are gods. … they are gods. … they are gods.”[3]

Her last words: “They instinctively root for anarchy and against civilization. The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason.”[4]

In Godless, Coulter catalogued what she considered an ungodly (anti-God?) religion of the godless:

“Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’ which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.’”[5]

Coulter emphasized the ungodly (un-biblical and un-American) nature of this false religion, writing, “Liberals swoon in pagan admiration of Mother Earth, mystified and overawed by her power. They deny the Biblical idea of dominion and progress, the most ringing affirmation of which is the United States of America.”[6]

In sneering condescension, Coulter continued: “Although they are Druids, liberals masquerade as rationalists, adopting a sneering tone of scientific sophistication, which is a little like being condescended to by a tarot card reader.”[7]

With Demonic, Coulter expanded her critique of liberalism in league with the forces of darkness, noting, “The Democratic Party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents.”[8] She then identified the techniques employed by the Left (oddly, techniques employed by Coulter):

“The Democrats’ playbook doesn’t involve heads on pikes – at yet – but uses a more insidious means to incite the mob. The twisting of truth, stirring of passions, demonizing of opponents, and relying on propagandistic images in lieu of ideas – these are the earmarks of a mob leader.”[9]

One book review made a salient observation:

“An author that accuses her opponents of doing things that she immediately, in full view of her readers, does – is either very stupid or very evil. I do not think Ann Coulter is stupid. To use the Bible to back up a pack of lies is disgusting and the devil, Jesus said, is a liar.”[10]

NOTE: A comprehensive critique of Demonic can be found in The Beauty of Conservatism at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America, Crown Forum, 2009, pg. 244.

[2]       Ann Coulter, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, Crown Forum, 2002, pg. 1.

[3]       Ann Coulter, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror, Crown Forum, 2003, pg. 292.

[4]       Ibid.

[5]       Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Crown Forum, 2006, pg. 1.

[6]       Ibid., pg. 3.

[7]       Ibid.

[8]       Ann Coulter, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America, Crown Forum, 2011, pg. 4.

[9]       Ibid.

[10]     “Ann Coulter’s Demonic,” 8/1/11, http://theroadupward.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/ann-coulters-demonic/.

Advertisement

Ann Coulter and “the Democrats’ Thousand Year Reich”

At an Eagle Forum Leadership Summit earlier this month, Ann Coulter told the youth audience, “It seems like we’re in the middle of the Democrats’ Thousand Year Reich.”

Coulter Abhors Nazi and Fascist Imagery

Coulter claims,

“We certainly don’t demonize the opponents the way they do. We may ridicule them, make jokes about them. But the way they turned George Bush into the enemy, a Nazi. George Soros and Al Gore have all compared him to Hitler. He was compared to Osama bin Laden by a New York Times op-ed writer. William Raspberry, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, a liberal, called him the devil.”[1]

“A novel released in 2004 advocated the assassination of President Bush ‘for the good of humankind.’ Liberal columnist William Raspberry referred to President Bush as ‘the Devil.’ Remember the good old days, during Bush’s honeymoon with the press, when he was just Hitler?”[2]

Coulter Employs Nazi and Fascist Imagery

If conservatives don’t demonize opponents, then Ann Coulter is not a conservative.

Having lambasted those who employ Nazi imagery, what does Coulter do? Employ Nazi imagery.

Coulter’s remarks at the Heritage Foundation come as no surprise to those who have witnessed Coulter’s regular use of Nazi imagery.

Coulter once compared both Barack Obama and John McCain to Hitler – in the same election year. Coulter asserted, “[Obama’s autobiography is] a dime store Mein Kampf” [and Obama is a two-bit Hitler].”[3] As for McCain, “I’m not comparing McCain to Hitler. Hitler had a coherent tax policy.”[4] Similarly, Coulter famously named Katie Couric “the affable Eva Braun.”

Coulter has a fascination with fascists. “[Liberals are] total fascists, but they’re going out and imposing their left-wing fascism on the rest of the country. … They’re not only fascist where they live, they’re expanding their fascism to the rest of America.”[5]

Time and time again, Coulter makes the same point: “I think that is not going to inure to the Democrats’ benefit, to be having this obviously political prosecution of a political enemy. No, that just shows them to be the fascists that they are.”[6]

Coulter’s fascination extends to Nazis, with these assertions about liberals: “They’re Nazi block watchers. … Block watchers, you know. They tattle on their parents, turn them in to the Nazis. They’re little Nazi block watchers.”[7] Ever on her mind, Coulter warns, “Those, the Nazi block watchers are coming back and attacking the Democrats now if they’re not crazy enough.”[8]

And now, a new generation of young conservatives – at a Leadership Summit – have been indoctrinated in Coulter’s ideological humor: “It seems like we’re in the middle of the Democrats’ Thousand Year Reich.”

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 6/6/11.

[2]       Ann Coulter, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America, Crown Forum, 2009, pg. 244.

[3]       Ann Coulter, Hannity & Colmes, FNC, 4/3/08.

[4]       Ann Coulter, CPAC, 2/8/08.

[5]       “Ann Coulter: The blonde assassin,” The Independent, 8/16/04.

[6]       Ann Coulter, The Big Story, FNC, 10/27/05.

[7]       Ann Coulter, O’Reilly Factor, FNC, 12/1/05.

[8]       Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck Show, 10/5/07.

Ann Coulter Condemns “Moral Show-offs”

On Wednesday, Coulter went on a half-hour Twitter rant upon reading a New York Times story about the chaos on our southern border. Her condemnation was a mixture of hatred for immigrants, hatred of liberals, and hatred of liberal Christians (who, in her mind, not only aren’t Christians at all, but don’t even believe in God).

Above all, it was an arrogant expression of self-righteous indignation.

Coulter’s Tweets

Before continuing, it would be worth reading her complete set of tweets on the subject.

Coulter’s Censorious Spirit

Notice Coulter’s intense hatred of people – church leaders and parishioners alike – whose theology compels them to adopt political positions with which she disagrees.

Because Coulter does not agree with them, they must be lying hypocrites. She claims none of them believe in God!

Coulter seems incapable of recognizing faith in action. She abhors the intended results and presumes evil motivations.

Because she regards them as “fake ‘Christians,’” then something other than biblical doctrine must be motivating them, such as personal aggrandizement. These “moral show-offs,” in her mind, are “phony, grandstanding, Bible-toting hypocrite(s).” Consequently, Coulter impugns not only their motives but their character.

Pretty tough words for people Coulter has never even met!

But that’s our Ann.

I remember when she spoke of censoriousness on MSNBC. In defense of smoking and the tobacco industry, Coulter said …

“The main overarching point I wanted to make is that I think, especially since listening to the callers, and the sort of moral fervor and censoriousness – I think it’s a strong human impulse to be self-righteous and censorious and, now, it’s gotten to the point where we can’t be self-righteous and censorious of the things that humans have been censorious for the past 5,000 years, like illegitimacy, like deserting your country in a time of war … It’s because we are not censorious and self-righteous about promiscuous sex, not to say perverted sex, all of the censoriousness comes bubbling up and it’s all directed to smokers. I mean, people who are handing out condoms in schools are the ones who are most upset about smoking.”[1]

But as we have seen, Coulter is incapable of controlling her own “strong human impulse to be self-righteous and censorious.” All of her “moral fervor and censoriousness” “comes bubbling up” – and it’s all directed at liberals!

Coulter, devoid of charitable impulses, cannot grasp simple Christian charity. She is right that the government should not be involved in dispensing compassion. But she attacks individuals, charities, and churches for doing what they are called to do. See “Ann Coulter Auditions for U.N. Ambassador” at http://t.co/R7IDzwnUJ8.

Is Coulter a Moral Show-off?

Let’s think about that. Consider a sampling of her books:

Slander (2002) – “It’s all liberals’ fault.”

Treason (2003) – All liberals are traitors.

Godless (2006) – All liberals are godless.

Demonic (2011) – All liberals are demonic.

Since even before 9/11, Coulter has portrayed and promoted herself as the premiere representative of patriotism and godliness. Would that qualify as being a “moral show-off?”

Resources:

The Beauty of Conservatism at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

The Gospel According to Ann Coulter at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 3/20/97.

Coulter Trashes Principled Patriot, Promotes Corrupt Incumbent

Ann Coulter has again trashed principled conservatives to extol a corrupt establishment Republican who used fraudulent and illegal methods to retain power.

In the midst of crises, character is forged and proven, and true leaders emerge triumphant. In the midst of the darkness of deceit and treachery, the light of truth shines most brightly.

Coulter eschews the light as she runs to the darkness.

Coulter Discounts Integrity and Principles

Coulter began her column by listing a series of current domestic crises, then asked, “why is a dime’s worth of money being wasted on trying to replace the Republican senator from Mississippi with a slightly different Republican?”[1] Because principles matter!

Slightly different Republicans? They are drastically different Republicans. One is a pro-establishment incumbent who engaged in a smear campaign and voter fraud, then covered it up. The other is an anti-establishment Tea Party candidate standing up for principles and the rule of law.

But for Coulter, the rule of law does not matter as long as her candidate wins.

She treats McDaniel supporters as if they were iceberg-deniers on the Titanic (“Honestly, I think these deck chairs look just fine. Maybe we should check on the Titanic’s hull, captain.”)

Coulter, Still Race-Obsessed, Lies About McDaniel

The majority of Coulter’s column focuses on race, Cochran’s racial bona fides, and the Left’s dark history of racial animus toward blacks. But she blames McDaniel – not Cochran – for injecting race into the campaign.

For the truth, we must turn to the National Review:

“But the ads and robocalls against McDaniel went much further. They explicitly warned that McDaniel was closely tied to people involved with the Ku Klux Klan. They said McDaniel had a ‘racist agenda.’ They specifically branded the entire tea-party movement as having ‘racist ideas.’ And even the slightly-less-explicit robocalls, which Barbour already admitted helping pay for (although he says he never listened to them in advance), tied tea partiers explicitly to disrespectful treatment of the first African-American president.”

At the onset of her racial attack against McDaniel, Coulter admitted, “Yes, it’s annoying to see a Republican appeal to Democratic voters to save his seat.” Coulter utterly ignores Cochran’s illegal and immoral methods of effecting that appeal.

Then she continued her blame game, asserting, “It also doesn’t look great having alleged Republican activists claiming that any votes from blacks in a GOP primary were fraudulent.”

Say again, “alleged Republican activists?” Disputing “votes from blacks?” But that isn’t what McDaniel alleges! McDaniel is focusing on illegal votes, not black votes. It is Coulter who is obsessed with color.[2] Color matters to Coulter.

Again attacking McDaniel, Coulter lied, ‘But it’s really fantastic to have McDaniel supporters out there denouncing Cochran for getting blacks to vote for him.” McDaniel is addressing a corrupt campaign which used fraudulent means to win a primary election.

Coulter concluded her column by asking, “Why shouldn’t Cochran ask black people for their votes in a primary? The Republican Party was once, and for some still is, the natural political home for black Mississippians.”

These are the real questions: Why is Coulter so adamant that McDaniel ignore his opponent’s voter fraud and why is Coulter so determined to have a GOP nominee who wins the primary based on the will of the Democratic base and not the Republican grassroots?

Answer: If the election were honestly run, the anti-establishment Tea Party candidate would beat the establishment incumbent Republican.

For Coulter, it’s all about results, not principles.

But if you’re principled, you’ll get the result.

Previous Essays in this Series

ESSAY 1: “Coulter Attacks Principled Conservatives” at http://t.co/npUIoRm4gt.

Coulter, called “The Manchurian Columnist” by the American Family Association, is busy attacking the Tea Party again. As Bryan Fischer notes, “her attack on McDaniel and his camp is wrongheaded and unprincipled in almost every respect.”

What does Ann Coulter have against genuine conservatives? Coulter attacks what she is not.

Standing up for principles – and for principled conservatives – seems to be very difficult for Coulter. Indeed, taking Coulter’s “pragmatic” approach has proven counterproductive for several election cycles.

ESSAY 2: “Coulter is Just Wrong About McDaniel” at http://t.co/zc4kKlqV25.

Coulter is wrong – legally and politically – about McDaniel because she supports the establishment candidate over him.

Coulter has been an establishment RINO for many, many years. In the last election cycle, she attacked every Republican who threatened the candidacy of her political savior, Mitt Romney. Indeed, she still regards his as an exemplary candidate who should run for president in 2016.[3]

As a consequence of her factually-challenged polemics, the reputations of good people have been tarnished and the conservative brand has been damaged.

ESSAY 3: “Ann Coulter, Orwell’s Protégé” at http://t.co/QYVkBapTIO.

Coulter was recently called a “Manchurian Columnist,” conjuring up images of propaganda and brainwashing. Certainly, Coulter is the consummate propagandist and her recent polemic against Republican Senate candidate Chris McDaniel is representative of her work.

Coulter utilizes many Orwellian techniques to fool her readers into believing her big lies. Among them, Newspeak, doublethink, the memory hole, and character assassination. Coulter also uses humor and ridicule to delegitimize her foes, and uses exaggeration to effect.

Let’s look at a few of the techniques she used in her attack on Chris McDaniel and his campaign. (Remember, McDaniel is a surrogate for the Tea Party and all those who oppose her establishment candidates.)

Resources:

Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, “Eyes on the Prize,” 7/23/14.

[2]       This has been true for most of the past two decades and, most recently, in her disparagement of soccer as “foreign.” See “Coulter’s Soccer Flop – Part Trois” at http://t.co/uy7FDPu79v. See also Chapter 4: “Prejudice,” in Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[3]       See “Case Study # 7: Mitt Romney – Ideal Candidate,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

Ann Coulter Auditions for U.N. Ambassador

“All countries suck compared to America.”[1]

This from the stereotypical Ugly American who recently, again, became an international sensation, this time for her repeated denunciations of soccer as un-American, succinctly encapsulated in two words: “It’s foreign.” Coulter’s antipathy toward foreigners and immigrants (legal and illegal) is legendary.

Perhaps she is auditioning for an ambassadorship to the United Nations. Wouldn’t that be a hoot!

Surprisingly, Coulter, a world-traveler, “spent summers in Spain” as a child and, as an adult, traveled worldwide to Grateful Dead concerts and ski resorts. In fact, her first soccer diatribe was published while she was in Paris (France, not Texas).

Let’s consider Ann Hart Coulter for the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Wouldn’t that be a sight to behold? Coulter favors Western Europeans (those who are non-liberal, non-feminized, and non-pacified) over the rest of the world, particularly the Third World. But English must be spoken!

Here is a sampling of classic Coulter commentary. Travel the world through Ann’s eyes.

Coulter’s If Democrats Had Any Brains contained a section entitled, “FOREIGNERS, OR THE ‘NON-SOAP-ORIENTED.’” Her lead paragraph began, “They’re no good. Don’t trust ‘em – except Denmark, Australia, the Czech Republic, and the rest of new Europe, which, amazingly enough, has recently come to include France and Germany. … Canadians, for example, are either great or awful, and at the outset of the War on Terror, the balance was swinging perilously close to awful. Better shape up, Canada! At this point, we’re only keeping you around for the beer.”

Canada

“[Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent. … We like the English-speaking Canadians.”[2]

China

Asked about invading China, Coulter replied, “Yeah!”[3]

Although she is opposed to the totalitarian regime in China, Coulter nevertheless ridiculed blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, tweeting, “Couldn’t we just tell that blind Chinese dissident that he’s in America now?”[4] Responding to the controversy she had created, Coulter joked, “I’d say they’re being a little myopic, except they’d be offended.”[5] One could say that Coulter is blind to her own insensitivity.

Europeans

Asked why “Europeans prefer liberals to conservatives,” Coulter answered, “Because you’re all a bunch of atheists, humanists, and moral relativists. Love the food, though! And don’t get me started on the shoes you wonderful people make! They’re to surrender for!”[6]

France

“Attack France!”[7] Her essay title concluded with these words: “If this is a war against terrorism and not a Eurocentric war against Islam, the conclusion is ineluctable: We must attack France. What are they going to do? Fight us?”

“This is as opposed to France, against whom I think we should launch a preemptive nuclear strike.”[8]

Iran

“Well, I keep hearing people say we can’t find the nuclear material, and you can bury it in caves. How about we just carpet bomb them so they can’t build a transistor radio?”[9]

“How about [invading Iran] right now? You have a lunatic running Iran, who’s running around claiming he has a nuke. When do we wait? Do we wait for a city to be taken out?”[10]

Coulter said, “It’s good for Wall Street if we bomb Iran,” adding, “I think it would be fun.”[11]

Coulter tweeted, “Let’s destroy Iran by giving them ObamaCare.”[12]

Lebanon

“Some have argued that Israel’s response is disproportionate, which is actually correct: It wasn’t nearly strong enough. I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still standing.”[13]

North Korea

“I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning. Boom! … I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning … to the world.”[14]

Syria

“Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran.”[15]

Third World

“It’s extremely difficult to come in if you’re coming from a Western European country. However, if you are from a Third World country, ‘Welcome.’ If your genetic ancestors did not invent the wheel, ‘Oh, well, let them come in.’ But they’re the natural Democratic voters.”[16]

Resources:

See Chapter 10: “Equality: Self-Evident Truths,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, 2012, available as a free pdf download at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf. It documents Coulter’s astonishing predilection to racism, sexism, and classism.

See also …

“Coulter’s Soccer Flop” at http://t.co/myPlCIUFpU.

“Coulter’s Soccer Flop – Part Deux” at http://t.co/QJbINYv0JF.

“Coulter’s Soccer Flop – Part Trois” at http://t.co/uy7FDPu79v.

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, Heritage Foundation, 7/11/14.

[2]       Ann Coulter, Hannity & Colmes, FNC, 11/30/04.

[3]       Ann Coulter, Hannity & Colmes, FNC, 3/13/06.

[4]       “Ann Coulter Mocks Chinese Activist’s Blindness,” New York Observer, 5/4/12, http://observer.com/2012/05/ann-coulter-mocks-chinese-activists-blindness/.

[5]       “Ann Coulter Responds To Furor Over Her Blind Man Joke By Making More Blind Man Jokes,” New York Observer, 5/4/12, http://observer.com/2012/05/ann-coulter-responds-to-furor-over-her-blind-man-joke-by-making-more-blind-man-jokes/.

[6]       Ann Coulter, Foglio, October 2004.

[7]       Ann Coulter, “Attack France!” 12/20/01.

[8]       Ann Coulter, interview, GOPUSA, 6/10/02, https://www.gopusa.com/interviews/coulter_061002.shtml.

[9]       Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity Show, ABC Radio Network, 7/21/06, http://mediamatters.org/items/200607240011.

[10]     Ann Coulter, Hannity & Colmes, FNC, 3/13/06.

[11]     Ann Coulter, Cashin’ In, FNC, 9/15/07.

[12]     Ann Coulter, tweet, 10/22/12.

[13]     Ann Coulter, “Liberals: Born to Run,” 7/19/06.

[14]     Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 1/10/05.

[15]     Ann Coulter, “Muslim Bites Dog,” 2/15/06.

[16]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 8/23/96.

Ann Coulter’s “anti-logic” is illogical

A striking comment in Ann Coulter’s latest column deserves comment. Coulter wrote, “This is something I don’t recall encountering before. It’s anti-logic.”

Yet, in Demonic, Coulter wrote: “Liberal logic is exactly backwards. They think: How do I know Lebron James just made a great shot? Answer: Because the cheerleaders cheered him. They have no capacity to reason in the absence of thunderous applause or booing from the bleachers indicating what they should think.”

Wouldn’t that be anti-logic?

On Tuesday, I urged Coulter, “Let’s be Logical, Ann.” The next day, she claimed to have encountered for the very first time something she calls “anti-logic.”

Let’s be logical. Coulter employs anti-logic all the time.

Repulsive Women

In Slander (2002), Coulter asserted, “More than any of their other hate speech, the left’s attacks on women for being ugly tell you everything.  There is nothing so irredeemably cruel as an attack on a woman for her looks. Attacking a female for being ugly is a hideous thing, always inherently vicious.”

Yet, in that very book, Coulter repeatedly attacked the looks of liberal women. Bella Abzug is high on her list. She wrote, “A blind man in America would think the ugliest women ever to darken the planet are Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, and Katherine Harris. This from the party of Bella Abzug.”

In Guilty (2009), Coulter explicitly called Abzug “physically repulsive.” In Godless (2006), Coulter wrote, “Miss Landolph, to put it as charitably as possible, is physically repulsive in appearance.”

Is it logical to condemn attacks on women’s looks – calling it “irredeemably cruel,” a “hideous thing,” and “inherently vicious” – while doing so yourself? Frequently. As occasion permits?

Stupid Liberals

Is it logical to condemn attacks on the intelligence of people – calling it childish – while doing so yourself? Frequently. As occasion permits?

In Slander (2002), Coulter wrote, “This is how six-year-olds argue: They call everything ‘stupid.’” But, also in Slander, Coulter asserted, “If a conservative says you’re stupid, you’re stupid.” And, in that very same book, she proceeded to identify all those she regards as stupid.

During her Slander book tour, Coulter spoke of liberalism’s big lie, saying, “The big [lie] and the one I, I, that is really all the same lie is – don’t listen to conservatives. They are stupid or they’re nuts.”

Coulter charged, “This is how liberals respond to arguments, to principled arguments, to facts, to figures, to studies. They respond by calling the conservatives stupid, mean.”

Continuing to elaborate on her point, Coulter said, “This is one of, I think, the biggest lies. Liberals are incredibly vicious.”

Having accused the Left of viciousness in their lies – just as she had accused them of viciousness in their attacks on women’s looks – Coulter claimed, “They accuse Republicans and conservatives of every malfeasance imaginable and then they sit back and say, ‘Oh, both sides do it.’ Both sides don’t do it, as I demonstrate in my book.”

Here again, Coulter is wrong. Both sides do do it. Coulter does it.

Resources:

Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

Ann Coulter Falsely Accuses Journalist of Plagiarism

In a stunning entry on her website, Ann Coulter falsely accused a journalist of plagiarism. On July 11^th, Coulter wrote, “When people wonder what plagiarism is, here’s a perfect example:” Her example (contained in the graphic below) certainly isn’t “perfect.” In fact, it isn’t plagiarism at all.

Where does this nonsense come from? Perhaps from far too many years defaming innocent people and getting away with it. No one ever holds Coulter accountable for her lies!

Coulter’s Plagiarism

Remarkably, while she falsely accused another journalist of plagiarism, Coulter herself has plagiarized on at least two occasions: in High Crimes and Misdemeanors (1998) and Godless (2006).

Coulter very first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, contained the words and work of her co-worker, Michael Chapman, whom she later claimed she had never even heard of.

According to Chapman (corroborated by published materials provided by him),

“From what I have seen so far, verbatim passages from my writing are found on pages 121, 122, 219 and 220 of the High Crimes book. Rewritten passages are reproduced on pages 125, 126, 127 and 220. Other material I wrote is paraphrased on pages 123, 124, 203, 204, 205, 214, and 218.”

Chapman continues:

“Furthermore, mostly all of chapter 18, ‘Wampumgate,’ is a rewrite or paraphrase of reporting I did for [Human Events].”

Coulter later privately admitted that she should have given Chapman credit, but she has never done so publicly. The paperback version omitted Chapman entirely.

Coulter’s fifth book, Godless, also plagiarized the work of others, as extensively unearthed by numerous bloggers. As noted by Rude Pundit,

“Much of what has been found in Godless has come from right wing websites or speakers, so the chances of someone suing Coulter is practically nil.” [He was right.]

“The Coulter story is about the basic acceptance of dishonesty in the conservative movement.”

Conservatives Should Be Embarrassed

This reality should embarrass conservatives. Do honesty and integrity no longer matter?

As with her first book, the publishers of Godless, of her Human Events’ column, and of her syndicated column all defended Coulter.

The golden goose had to be defended at all costs.

Resources:

Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

Let’s Be Logical, Ann

Three striking things emerged from an interview with Ann Coulter at the Heritage Foundation: 1) a passionate defense of America and national sovereignty; a surprising unfamiliarity with basic English; and the sense that it was all a performance.

Let’s Be Illogical

Coulter, the consummate wordsmith, seemed unfamiliar with elementary English, claiming, “It’s not even illogical. It’s counter-logic. It’s the opposite of logic.”

But Ann, “illogical” means “devoid of logic.” If it’s “devoid of logic,” if it’s “counter-logic,” if it’s “the opposite of logic,” then it is, in fact, “illogical.” Elementary English.

Perhaps Coulter has twisted words so often to mean so many things that she has forgotten their true meanings. We know she has distorted “establishment” to mean “anyone but Romney” and she has suggested that it is more principled to be unprincipled.

Or perhaps Ann misspoke out of the intensity of the moment. Perhaps.

Passionate Policy

With passionate zeal, Coulter vociferously championed restoring border security and developing sound immigration policy, demanding,

“We want a barbed wire fence. I want the same fence that Israel has. Let’s start with that. I’d like the same fence Israel has, and we just have to get rid of this refugee policy. What are we going to do, take in the entire world? All countries suck compared to America. Is that the standard?”

All a Performance

Immediately after making her impassioned plea for sanity in the immigration debate, Coulter – in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye – totally changed her demeanor. Check the video (at about 1 Min. 25 sec.). One moment she was on fire defending America. The next moment, a self-satisfied smile appeared on her face, growing as she panned her audience seeking approval and applause for her splendid performance – looking away from her interviewer. But then she was brought back to earth by another question. Coulter’s face turned serious and she appeared frustrated that she had not received the accolades she felt she so richly deserved.

Who is the real Ann Coulter? Find out in Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

UPDATE: One of Coulter’s colleagues suggested she just misspoke. Wrong. About 36 hours after this essay was published, Coulter posted her weekly column with this illogical absurdity: “This is something I don’t recall encountering before. It’s anti-logic.”

Instead of just admitting, as her colleague suggested, that she simply misspoke, Coulter doubled down, called it “anti-logic,” and claimed it to be a totally foreign concept to her. As we have seen, admitting error is anathema to her, as are repentance and forgiveness.

What is it about elementary English that Coulter cannot grasp?

In her column – in which she makes “anti-logic” its centerpiece – Coulter expands on her remarks of the previous Friday. Coulter continues to make a distinction between “illogical” and something more superlative, more hyperbolic: “counter-logic,” “opposite of logic,” and, now, “anti-logic.”

But Coulter’s new terms – for what she regards as a brand new concept – are merely different ways of saying the same thing: illogical – the very term she says “it’s not even!”

Illogical means “devoid of logic.” If it’s “devoid of logic,” it’s …

• “counter-logic”
• “the opposite of logic”
• “anti-logic”

Another dictionary definition of illogical: “contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic”

Sounds anti-logic to me.

Strikingly, Coulter does not “recall encountering [this concept] before.” How is that possible? It’s illogical.

Resources:

Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

Ann Coulter, Orwell’s Protégé

Ann Coulter was recently called a “Manchurian Columnist,” conjuring up images of propaganda and brainwashing. Certainly, Coulter is the consummate propagandist and her recent polemic against Republican Senate candidate Chris McDaniel is representative of her work.

Orwellian Techniques

Coulter utilizes many Orwellian techniques to fool her readers into believing her big lies. Among them, Newspeak, doublethink, the memory hole, and character assassination. Coulter also uses humor and ridicule to delegitimize her foes, and uses exaggeration to effect.

Let’s look at a few of the techniques she used in her attack on Chris McDaniel and his campaign. (Remember, McDaniel is a surrogate for the Tea Party and all those who oppose her establishment candidates.)

Coulter’s Big Lies

Since 9/11, Coulter has postulated two principle big lies which were presented in her 2003 best-seller, Treason. Treason – and the entirety of Ann Coulter’s post-impeachment work – is predicated upon a worldview encapsulated by two equations: liberalism = terrorism = treason and conservatism = McCarthyism = patriotism. No subtleties or ambiguities. No nuances. No sense.

Moreover, Coulter claimed that “The myth of ‘McCarthyism’ is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times.” In 2005, at CPAC, Coulter even called for a New McCarthyism.

But even before then, in order to ensure the candidacy of her man, George W. Bush, Coulter attacked presidential candidate Gary Bauer, calling him a fascist. Her political equation, her big lie? Christian conservative = fascist. Her essay title: “Must Christian Conservatives be Fascists?” Why were they fascists? For seeking a constitutional solution to abortion.

Now, to promote her RINO establishment Republican bedfellows, Coulter has come up with addition political equations, additional big lies:

Being Principled is Unprincipled

Tea Party is bad; Establishment Republicans are good

RINO = True Conservative

 Coulter uses Orwellian techniques to undergird her big lies.

Newspeak

For years now, Coulter has conflated Tea Party and establishment Republicans, switching identities and descriptions. She frequently denigrates members of the Tea Party – and entire organizations – to support her RINO establishment candidates.

Coulter attacked McDaniel’s team (“Clowns and nuts”), claiming selfishness and an obliviousness to endangering a potential Republican majority:

“But some McDaniel supporters can’t think about anything but winning this one primary. They don’t care that they’re gambling with a Republican majority in the Senate …”

But Coulter defended McDaniel’s rival:

“In Mississippi, they’re attempting to destroy a good Republican.”

Doublethink

Targeting McDaniel, Coulter avers that the principled thing to do is to be unprincipled. Coulter admits to election irregularities, yet she wants McDaniel to concede – and to ignore the obvious criminal activities of his opponent. Voter fraud by conservatives is unimportant to her. Coulter wants to save the GOP by destroying its soul.

Similarly, during and after the 2012 election, Coulter attacked pro-lifers for being pro-life (just as she did in 2000).

Coulter acknowledges bad blood between McDaniel and Cochran (between the Tea Party and establishment), yet she repeatedly urges McDaniel to concede so that he can be next in line.

What? The establishment doesn’t want McDaniel, who is anti-establishment. But Coulter writes, “McDaniel’s crew is going to prevent him from having any political career, ever again.” Coulter cautions, “Better to be magnanimous and live to fight another day.”

According to Coulter, his campaign is “destroying McDaniel’s future prospects. (Which could come soon – Cochran isn’t getting any younger.)”

Coulter doesn’t make any sense at all!

Memory Hole

As noted in my previous essay, Coulter “forgot” about Al Gore, Al Franken, and Lisa Murkowski, who did not fit her thesis. Many other examples could have been provided of politicians whose careers thrived after contesting election results.

Coulter also wrote of Richard Nixon, but failed to grasp two salient points. First, Nixon was from a completely different political and cultural era. Second, Nixon was an anomaly. Having lost in 1960, he won in 1968 and 1972. Nixon resigned in ignominy over Watergate, yet rehabilitated his legacy as an author and statesman.

Coulter’s Orwellian constructs emulate Big Brother’s insistence that two plus two equals five.

Additional Resources:

Free Book: Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, available at  www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

 

Coulter is Just Wrong About McDaniel

Coulter is wrong – legally and politically – about McDaniel because she supports the establishment candidate over him.[1]

The almost two-decades long legal correspondent for Human Events should know better.

Coulter’s Claim: McDaniel can’t win!

“Cochran won the runoff by 7,667 votes, according to the certified vote count announced this week. McDaniel’s partisans don’t just have to prove that more than seven-thousand ineligible voters went to the polls, but also that they all voted for Cochran, not McDaniel. Good luck with that.”

Reality: The election results should be invalidated

The validity of that election is in dispute for a variety of legal and ethical reasons. There are ample reasons for invalidating this run-off and redoing it. Among them, credible accusations of fraud, bribery, destruction of records, illegal crossover votes, and absentee ballot fraud.

The GOP establishment engaged in a multitude of shenanigans to prevent a McDaniel victory. Coulter is part of the establishment.

According to the law, “it must be shown that legal votes have been rejected, or illegal votes have been received, and that because of the one or the other, or both, the result does not conform to the will of the voters, or uncertainty has been case upon the result …”

Or consider the decision in NOXUBEE COUNTY DEMOCRATIC E. COM. v. RUSSELL, 443 So.2d 1191 (1983): “We have employed a two pronged test which though it has been stated in different ways, essentially provides that special elections will be required only when (1) enough illegal votes were cast for the contestee to change the result of the election, or (2) so many votes are disqualified that the will of the voters is impossible to discern.”

True the Vote and other organizations are seeking to prove – credibly – that this is the case.

Coulter’s Claim: Republicans wanted Cochran

“There’s no reason to think that a majority of Mississippi Republicans didn’t want Cochran as their nominee.”

Reality: More Republicans voted for McDaniel than Cochran

If Republicans were flocking to Cochran why was Cochran so desperate to reach out to Democrats?

“Coulter falsely argues that Cochran actually won the majority of Republican votes. … McDaniel won the Republican primary and Cochran won the Democratic run-off.”

Coulter’s Claim: McDaniel could be next in line

“…McDaniel’s crew is going to prevent him from having any political career, ever again.”

“They don’t care that they’re gambling with a Republican majority in the Senate – or destroying McDaniel’s future prospects. (Which could come soon – Cochran isn’t getting any younger.)”

Reality: McDaniel is anathema to GOP establishment

Say what? A compliant McDaniel toeing the party line could be Cochran’s successor? On what planet! The GOP establishment has vilified McDaniel who is opposed to them. The Tea Party wants to replace the establishment.

Coulter’s Claim: Al Gore destroyed his career by contesting election results

“Observe that no one is asking Al Gore to run again, except maybe his cardiologist. Even in cases of actual vote fraud, history shows that the contesting politicians get branded as sore losers and destroy their political careers. Better to be magnanimous and live to fight another day.”

Reality: Somehow “sore losers” become winners

Gore remained a significant force within the Democratic Party during the Bush ’43 presidency and he remains a hero to the green movement.

As for destroyed political careers, Al Franken contested his defeat (an eight-month battle) and is now a senator from Minnesota. Also consider Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski, who lost her primary but was elected to the Senate by write-in votes.

Ann Coulter – an Establishment Flack

Coulter has been an establishment RINO for many, many years. In the last election cycle, she attacked every Republican who threatened the candidacy of her political savior, Mitt Romney. Indeed, she still regards his as an exemplary candidate who should run for president in 2016.[2]

As a consequence of her factually-challenged polemics, the reputations of good people have been tarnished and the conservative brand has been damaged.

Ann Coulter lost her conservative credentials and her credibility a long, long time ago.[3]

Resources:

Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, “Tea Party: Learn From Al Gore,” 7/9/14.

[2]       See “Case Study # 7: Mitt Romney – Ideal Candidate,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[3]       See Chapter 11: “The Beauty of Conservatism,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.