Monthly Archives: January 2015

CoulterWatch Goes on Hiatus

My dear readers,

CoulterWatch will go on hiatus for one month – February – taking a mini-sabbatical.

Hiatus

Would you be so kind as to do something for me?

Last year, Ann Coulter oscillated between exemplary commentary and hellish behavior. Ann appears to be on a positive path right now and my request is that you join me in prayer for her: that God may minister to her heart, soul, and spirit. Pray for her spiritual, emotional, and intellectual healing. Pray that God enlighten Ann and strengthen her to follow the path that He places before her.

And pray for me, that God continue to grant His peace, grace, and fresh insight, that He guide and direct my steps this coming year, and that my heart might be united more fully with His.

Thank you, my dear readers.

This blog will remain up and running with already published material available for your comments. Please feel free to email me with any suggestions, observations, recommendations, and – oh, alright – complaints.

In the meantime, I will continue to post items (unrelated to Coulter) on my other blog, BrotherWatch. Please feel free to check it out.

Thank you, again, in advance.

Yours in liberty,

Dan Borchers

Ann Coulter’s Cover-ups

Ann Coulter is becoming ever more brazen in her commentary, condemning elites for “covering up and protecting one another,”[1] when Coulter has herself been a recipient of and participant in any number of cover-ups.

In Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, you will discover numerous times when Coulter’s friends and colleagues have covered up her scandalous behavior.

Cover-up

In speaking about the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal, Coulter insisted, “This is a really important story,” explaining that “this is the elites getting cozy and covering up and protecting one another.”

She found it “shocking” that “thus far this has only been covered on Fox News,” and accused “the elites [of] circling the wagon and protecting” the guilty person.

But Coulter has herself been protected countless times on Fox News by her colleagues and friends, most notably Sean Hannity. Hannity routinely comes to her rescue in controversy after controversy. He devoted a series of shows (both TV and radio) to defend her when she defamed the 9/11 widows in 2006. More recently, as noted in Propaganda, Hannity leapt to Coulter’s defense over her spurious attacks on – of all things – soccer.

For well over a decade, Coulter’s colleagues have excused her plagiarism. Just last year, a colleague at Human Events repeatedly lied to me in an interview, denying her plagiarism with multiple falsehoods and specious arguments.

Christian conservatives, like Erich Erickson, have even defended Coulter’s defamation of selfless Christian missionaries serving overseas, people Coulter called ungodly traitors.

When will Fox News and other conservative organizations hold Coulter accountable for her immoral and unethical behavior?

See the new exposé on Coulter for more details. This free 245-page PDF book – Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter – is available at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]               Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 1/6/15.

Ann Coulter’s Hoaxes

In her last column of 2014,[1] Ann Coulter gave a splendid explanation of liberal hoaxes explicitly designed to further a progressive agenda. But Coulter has created her own set of hoaxes explicitly designed to further her own agenda.

Welcome to Propaganda – Ann Coulter Style.

Hoaxes

In Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, you will discover myriad ways in which Coulter distorts language, manipulates logic, and massages truth to fool people into accepting her own agenda.

Coulter’s utter fascination with Orwell’s 1984 has saturated her thought processes and permeated her rhetoric to such a degree that manipulation of language to deceive has become her subconscious modus operandi.

Her books and commentary are riddled with Orwellian constructions, and, while often expounding accurately on many subjects, Coulter infuses her own fabricated “facts” to lead her audience to erroneous conclusions.

Coulter has, throughout her journalistic career, created hoaxes both big and small to advance her personal, professional, and political agendas.

For instance, Coulter created an Orwellian term – “functionally treasonable” – which, as David Horowitz observed, “is a problematic phrase on several counts.”[2] Horowitz pointed out that “’treasonable’ is not a word but seems to suggest ‘capable of treason,’ which is different from being actually treasonous. The distinction is important.” (Think Newspeak.)

Horowitz also noted that “’functionally treasonable’ is also disturbingly reminiscent of the old Stalinist term ‘objectively fascist.’ This was how people who swore their loyalty to the cause were condemned (often to death) if they deviated from the party line. Stalinists defined all dissent as ‘objectively’ treacherous.” (Think thoughtcrime.)

Horowitz warned, “This is not a path that conservatives should follow. When intent and individuality are separated from actions in a political context, we are entering a totalitarian realm.” (Think Big Brother.)

By 2003, the year Treason was published, Coulter had become the Leni Riefenstahl of the Right.[3] At that time, Coulter launched her campaign for “a new McCarthyism.”

Last summer, Coulter contended that selfless Christian missionaries serving overseas are ungodly traitors.[4] This continued a theme she launched near the beginning of her career wherein only conservatives (Republicans) are Christians and all liberals are godless traitors.[5]

Coulter also proclaimed soccer to be inherently anti-American and an existential threat to Western Civilization.[6]

As for presidential politics, Coulter has set up her own ground rules for nomination, clearly designed to nominate the candidate of her choice. Even now, Coulter continues to extol Mitt Romney as the “ideal” GOP candidate – not as an inheritor of the Reagan mantle but superior to Reagan.

To paraphrase Coulter, “The only new rule we really need is one to stop these infernal Coulter hoaxes.”

See the new exposé on Coulter for more details. This free 245-page PDF book – Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter – is available at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, “Liberals: If the Shoe Doesn’t Fit, Make Everyone Wear It,” 12/30/14.

[2]       David Horowitz, “The Trouble with ‘Treason,’” Front Page Magazine, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=8793.

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

[4]       See “Ann Coulter Screws Up Again” at http://t.co/IfJD3YVG3o.

[5]       See The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

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

Ann Coulter’s Plagiarism – Godless

Ann Coulter’s Plagiarism – Godless

[See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter for a more detailed examination of Ann Coulter’s history of plagiarism. – DB]

Plagiarist03

Plagiarism Redux

Ann Coulter unquestionably plagiarized in her first book, High Crime and Misdemeanors. Coulter’s fifth book, Godless, also plagiarized the work of others, as extensively unearthed by numerous bloggers.

Allegations of plagiarism in Godless arose on the heels of Coulter’s “ecstatic widows” controversy. The New York Post broke the story in early July.[1] Philip Recchia reported:

John Barrie, the creator of a leading plagiarism-recognition system, claimed he found at least three instances of what he calls “textbook plagiarism” in the leggy blond pundit’s “Godless: the Church of Liberalism” after he ran the book’s text through the company’s digital iThenticate program. …

Barrie, CEO of iParadigms, told The Post that one 25-word passage from the “Godless” chapter titled “The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion” appears to have been lifted nearly word for word from Planned Parenthood literature published at least 18 months before Coulter’s 281-page book was released. … [other examples cited]

Instances of plagiarism appear throughout Godless.[2] One lengthy sentence on page five apparently came from a 1999 Portland Press-Herald article.[3] Language on page 37 appears to have been derived from a Parents Television Council report in 2002.[4] One sentence on page 95 came from a 2004 Planned Parenthood pamphlet.[5] Another lengthy sentence on page 209 was lifted from a San Francisco Chronicle article in 2005.[6]

On page 55, “Coulter employs language similar to a December, 2004 article written by Gregory D. Kesich for the Portland Press Herald[7] on convicted killer Dennis Dechaine, but offers no citations for her summation of the case.”[8]

On page 63, “Coulter employs language similar to that in a February, 2005 article published in the New York Sun,[9] written by David Salisbury, the Director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, as well as numbers used in the Sun, without citing any source at all.”[10]

Several sentences and phrases on pages 66-67 were taken from an “October 27, 1988 press conference with Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes and Cliff Barnes.”[11] Coulter “presents the exact same information in the exact same order as Barnes did back in 1988, including many directly quoted phrases, without citing anywhere the source for the information. As if it just appeared out of thin air. No footnotes. No mention in the text.”

On page 162, “Coulter apparently lifted language, along with the entire premise, primarily from the ‘executive summary’ of a 35-page report[12] written by Paul Ciotti in March of 1988 for the Cato Institute called ‘Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment.’”[13]

Chapter 7 of Godless provides 16 examples of “successful treatments achieved by adult stem cell research.” Columnist Ron Brynaert notes that 15 of those examples “are nearly identical to items in a longer list of seventeen compiled by the Illinois Right To Life website,[14] that has been available since at least September of 2003.” Brynaert adds, “For these fifteen items, Coulter appears to do little more than remove the parentheses and slightly change a word or two, such as ‘using’ into ‘with.’”[15]

Coulter’s publisher, Crown Forum, after a cursory examination of only three “snippets,” ridiculed plagiarism accusations in their official statement: “We have reviewed the allegations of plagiarism surrounding Godless and found them to be as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible. Any author is entitled to do what Ann Coulter has done in the three snippets cited: research and report facts. The number of words used by our author in these snippets is so minimal that there is no requirement for attribution. As an experienced author and attorney, Ms. Coulter knows when attribution is appropriate, as underscored by the nineteen pages of hundreds of endnotes contained in Godless.”

About those endnotes, Recchia also reported: [16]

Meanwhile, many of the 344 citations Coulter includes in “Godless” “are very misleading,” said Barrie, who holds a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley, where he specialized in pattern recognition.

“They’re used purely to try and give the book a higher level of credibility – as if it’s an academic work. But her sloppiness in failing to properly attribute many other passages strips it of nearly all its academic merits,” he told The Post.

Initially, Universal Press Syndicate claimed it would investigate these allegations, declaring, “We take allegations of plagiarism seriously. It’s something we’d like to investigate further. We’d like to see a copy of the report. We’d like to start looking into it.”[17] A whitewash was apparent in its final statement to Editors & Publishers: “In addition to looking at the columns mentioned in the New York Post story, we also reviewed a sampling of other columns that have been mentioned in the media. Like her book publisher, Crown, Universal Press Syndicate finds no merits to the allegations of plagiarism brought by the software company executive. There are only so many ways you can rewrite a fact and minimal matching text is not plagiarism.”

The websites of Coulter’s two alma maters offer definitions of plagiarism which refute the claims of Coulter’s publishers.[18] Cornell University is very clear in what constitutes plagiarism:[19] “where you reproduce part or all of someone else’s idea in your own words (commonly known as paraphrasing), where you use or summarize someone else’s research, where you use facts or data that are not common knowledge, where you reproduce source material in slightly altered form while retaining the main idea or structure. Both direct and indirect citations require proper documentation.”

The University of Michigan is equally direct and damning:[20] “Plagiarism is representing someone else’s ideas, words, statements or other works as one’s own without proper acknowledgment or citation. Examples of plagiarism are: Copying word for word or lifting phrases or a special term from a source or reference without proper attribution. Paraphrasing: using another person’s written words or ideas, albeit in one’s own words, as if they were one’s own thought. Borrowing facts, statistics, or other illustrative material without proper reference, unless the information is common knowledge, in common public use.”

Endnotes:

[1]       Philip Recchia, “Copycatty Coulter Pilfers Prose: Pro,” New York Post, 7/2/06, http://www.yuricareport.com/Religion/CoulterPlagiarismInGodless.html.

[2]       Justin Rood, ““’Complete’ List of Coulter Plagiarism Allegations,” TPMuckraker, 7/7/06, http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001070.php.

[3]       “People and events that made Maine’s century,” Portland Press-Herald, 12/12/9.

[4]       “Retraction to WWE And the Public,” Parents Television Council, 7/11/02.

[5]       “About Planned Parenthood,” Planned Parenthood Federation of America pamphlet, 2004.

[6]       “Pity This Blushing Bride-To-Be,” San Francisco Chronicle, 7/3/05.

[7]       See http://www.romingerlegal.com/newsviewer.php?ppa=8oplo_ZkrmmsspTUnjy30qbfek%5C%21.

[8]       Ron Brynaert, “More examples of ‘possible plagiarism’ from Coulter’s ‘Godless’ book,” Raw Story, 7/10/06, http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/More_examples_of_possible_plagiarism_from_0710.html.

[9]       See http://www.cato.org/research/articles/salisbury-050217.html.

[10]     Ron Brynaert, “More examples of ‘possible plagiarism’ from Coulter’s ‘Godless’ book,” Raw Story, 7/10/06, http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/More_examples_of_possible_plagiarism_from_0710.html.

[11]     “More Ann Coulter Plagiarism (Updated),” The Rude Pundit, 6/14/06, http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-ann-coulter-plagiarism-updated.html.

[12]     http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.pdf.

[13]     Ron Brynaert, “More examples of ‘possible plagiarism’ from Coulter’s ‘Godless’ book,” Raw Story, 7/10/06, http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/More_examples_of_possible_plagiarism_from_0710.html.

[14]     http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/stemcellsummary.htm.

[15]     Ron Brynaert, “In new book, Coulter ‘cribs’ stem cell list from right-to-life group,” Raw Story, 6/14/06, http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/In_new_book_Coulter_cribs_stem_0614.html.

[16]     Philip Recchia, “Copycatty Coulter Pilfers Prose: Pro,” New York Post, 7/2/06, http://www.yuricareport.com/Religion/CoulterPlagiarismInGodless.html.

[17]     Greg Sheffield, “Ann Coulter Faces Charges of Plagiarism,” NewsBusters.org, 7/7/06.

[18]     References courtesy of Rude Pundit.

[19]     http://plagiarism.arts.cornell.edu/tutorial/logistics6.cfm.

[20]     See http://www.lsa.umich.edu/lsa/detail/0,2034,53%5Farticle%5F294,00.html.