Adios, Ann: Coulter’s WASP Fantasy

Ann Coulter’s historical revisionism now extends to redefining what it means to be an American. Using a barrage of statistics (some real, some fabricated),[1] coupled with heart-wrenching anecdotal evidence, fanciful narrative, and a passionate zeal for her nativist perspective, Coulter is rewriting our past with an intent to change our future.

(Remember Coulter’s own fraudulent biographical information[2] and her chameleon-like self-identity[3]?)


Not Really Americans

Recently, Coulter has defamed whole groups of people, calling them “phony” – from the Tea Party[4] to Christian missionaries.[5] She has a long history of making such false accusations. Now, Coulter is targeting yet another group – immigrants – and doing so with a redefinition of (and conflation of) terms, all to advance her own agenda.

Coulter’s jaundiced view of American citizenship was on full display in her column,[6] posted yesterday, in which she again dismisses the terrorist threat in America[7] and confuses the immigration issue by conflating various groups as if they were identical.

Coulter wrote (emphasis added): “And, once again, the weekend came and went without anyone in America being killed by ISIS, but a lot of people being killed by immigrants – legal, illegal, second generation and anchor babies.”

Further on, Coulter added, “Some of these crimes were committed by legal residents – even ‘citizens.’”

In addressing crime by immigrants, Coulter lumps everyone in together: immigrants (illegal, legal, second generation, anchor babies) and “citizens” (in air quotes, so that we might know she regards them as not really citizens).

Does Coulter regard the current governor of South Carolina as an air-quote citizen? Seemingly. Coulter actually called the native-born governor an ignorant immigrant.

Coulter smeared[8] Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC) – an American citizen – for having immigrant parents, suggesting she was somehow less than a real American. Why? Because this successful governor – who is a native South Carolinian to boot – was from the wrong race! Haley’s family hails from India, not England.

Remember, Coulter calls many native-born Americans “immigrants,” not citizens.

The very nature of citizenship eludes many liberals and some conservatives, particularly Coulter. As noted by the Ashbrook Center (emphasis added):

“But in fact, of course, only Americans are American citizens. Our revolution began with a universal claim about human equality, but it culminated necessarily in the establishment of a particular nation. ‘We the People of the United States’ are distinct from the other peoples of the world not by birth, race, or religion, but by the deliberate act of establishing ourselves as a different people. By the act of consent, the people of the United States committed themselves to each other, as distinct from all the others who live outside the bond if citizenship.”[9]

An idea – liberty and equality – gave birth to America.

America – An Idea or a Race?

In her book and on her tour, Coulter dismisses the notion that America is an “idea” and claims it is the creation and culmination of an Anglicized white race. She wrote: “America is not a ‘nation of immigrants,’ it is not an ‘idea,’ it was never ‘diverse,’ and ‘diversity’ is a catastrophe.”

Further, “Without the white settlers, what is known as ‘America’ would still be an unnamed continent full of migratory tribes chasing the rear end of a buffalo every time their stomachs growled.”[10]

(What? No one but white settlers were capable of settling America?)

As Coulter put it, “The first people here, back in the 1600s, were not immigrants. They were settlers. They came to a continent that had no country. They created this country. The Dutch – mostly the British – created America.”[11]

Yes, Coulter contends that America’s greatness stems from having the correct racial composition (i.e., white, specifically British) and that her decline is a result of the wrong racial composition (i.e., non-white, non-European). If that were really true, Britannia would still rule the waves.

Coulter asserts (emphasis added): “Only white Anglo-Saxons always seem to be in the position for apologizing for being white Anglo-Saxons. Well, no: You can come in and you can be part of what is a white Anglo-Saxon-American culture, which is better than the culture that it was created from.”[12]

Coulter insists, “American culture is WASP culture.” But for Coulter, the most important component of that acronym is the beginning: White. Coulter’s almost inalterable emphasis is on race.

Coulter explained (emphasis added): “It’s a monochromatic WASP country that other ethnicities have come to and for the first 400 years of its existence, (as a colony and then as a country) the ‘wildly diverse’ immigrants were other white western Europeans. That was the extent of the diversity.”

White western Europeans.

Yes, white western Europeans created America – an America based on an idea, premised on a proposition, with the purpose of being a shining city on a hill and the last, best hope of mankind.

As Kevin D. Williamson put it, “Ultimately, we Americans are not a blood; we are a creed.”

But for Coulter, American culture remains white culture.

The Idea of America

Coulter dismisses the notion that America is an idea when, in fact, America was birthed by an idea enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. As Dana Perino recently put it, “We have our core identity and that is our independence.”[13]

The idea – freedom – is at the heart of the American Dream. That idea encompasses the biblical understanding that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

Our forefathers – whether genetically or ideologically – took a virgin continent to create a New World. Not like Hitler’s Fatherland or Stalin’s Mother Russia. Theirs was not a blood and soil philosophy, but one which built upon the collected wisdom of Western Civilization, the principles and precepts of the Bible, and the surety of God’s Providence.

The Framers of our Constitution and Founders of our Republic created a nation and a government which maximized political, economic, and religious liberty to an extent never before seen.

America’s Founders believed in the idea of liberty and equality – not race! Abraham Lincoln eloquently spoke of the “proposition that all men are created equal.” A proposition is an  idea or an ideal, not a race!

Michael Gerson notes, “Lincoln not only rejected slavery, he rejected relativism – the belief that moral standards change from culture to culture, or shift with public opinion. And he rooted his moral beliefs in two great traditions: the Enlightenment views of the Founders, and the teachings of religion.”[14]

WASP = White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

Coulter speaks of WASP culture in almost exclusively racial terms, emphasizing the first word and giving lip service to the last.

Myron Magnet notes “The Plymouth Pilgrims were only the first of many who came to the New World to escape religious persecution. … because they were accustomed to reading the Bible and feeling free to judge its meaning for themselves – to believing, that is, that they had a direct relation to God and his word independent of any worldly institution or authority – they also brought a deeply rooted culture of individualism and personal responsibility. For them, the individual and his conscience were of preeminent importance.”

Moreover, religious revivals (called “Great Awakenings”) animated the public square and reconstituted America. Kevin D. Williamson observed, “The American proposition is a theological proposition: ‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.’”

But Coulter gives short shrift to the spiritual (Christian) origins of America.[15]

Gerson emphasizes the importance Christianity had in America’s founding and maturation. Gerson explains, “The First Great Awakening, led by George Whitfield in the 1730s, promoted the doctrines of individual conscience and liberty that added momentum to the American Revolution, sending many traditional conservatives fleeing for Canada.”[16]

Gerson adds, “The Second Great Awakening, which flamed a century later, created the moral constituency for abolition, and the political constituency for Lincoln’s election.”[17]

Gerson continues, “The Third Great Awakening, at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, led to a Social Gospel that confronted the excesses of the industrial revolution with soup kitchens, homes for unwed mothers, and progressive laws.”[18]

Coulter’s Immigration Plan is Race-Based

As with everything she cares about, Coulter wants to be in charge. She foisted Romney on the nation in 2012 and wants to do so again.[19] She insists that only governors or senators should be nominated.[20] She wants to decide everything. So, too, with immigration.

Coulter has a very narrow, unidimensional perspective, shallow and superficial – literally skin deep. Don’t take my word for it. Consider Coulter’s very own criteria for determining whom to let into America.

Coulter’s plan is distinctly racial: “I want to be 100% in charge of all of our immigration. I can decide before breakfast every morning. I just need a picture, age, country of origin – that’s about it.”[21]

Coulter adds, “I’m a looksist and I like ‘em tall. Those are the two primary factors. And, obviously, English-speaking.” Moreover, her diversity would extend to, well, “I want more British and Dutch, but I would say a lot more British and less Dutch.”

And, if you don’t think race is Coulter’s primary criterion,[22] consider these words: “Send me a million people who want to come to America, and I will decide them all before breakfast. I can pretty much decide on looks; it would save a lot of money.”[23]

Dennis Prager offered insight into Ronald Reagan’s vision of America – a vision diametrically opposed to that of Ann Coulter. Prager wrote:

“Matthew’s Gospel speaks of a city on a hill, an image that captured the imagination of Ronald Reagan: ‘I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.’”

Quite a different outlook from that of Coulter.

Coulter Declares Herself Self-Evidently Not a Racist

A befuddled Ann Coulter recently defended herself with a laughable claim:

“Just out of historical accuracy, of the many, many, many hate campaigns waged against me – ah, accusing me, you know, of being anti-woman, anti-widow, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-gay – one thing I have never been called, ah, is, is, is, is a racist. Um, anyone, anyone who reads my book – or, or Mugged – will see, um, that that would be a very difficult case to make.”[24]

Huh? Coulter’s entire immigration agenda is race-based[25] – and people are calling her on it. On the one hand, she decries, “Identity politics isn’t our game. It never works. … knock off the identity politics.”[26] But then, in the same breath, she asserts, “Your base is white people, Republicans!”[27]

What is Coulter’s agenda? In her words, “The Ann Coulter Plan: The way to win is to drive up the white vote.”[28] Asked why candidates are not advocating the Ann Coulter Plan: “A combination of stupidity and cowardice.”

Coulter has never before been called a racist?

In 2001, Coulter spoke at her alma mater, Cornell University, and was confronted with those very accusations. According to David Horowitz, “Even before her arrival, campus Democrats had already sent out a flyer calling on students to protest Coulter’s talk, while another flyer from the more ardent left aggressively linked her with Adolf Hitler and David Duke.” Those accusations of racism were neither the first nor the last levied against Coulter.

Last year, Coulter was embroiled in numerous controversies of her own making. One revolved around her nativist denunciation of foreigners vis-à-vis soccer.[29] Another centered on her defamation of Christian missionaries.[30] Both incorporated racist views which Coulter again reaffirmed just this year.

The Way of the WASP

Coulter offers Americans a bait-and-switch in which she champions an idyllic WASP culture which must be restored for America to once again flourish but offers instead a white supremacist paradigm[31] which is antithetical to the very culture she champions.

America’s settlers and Founding Fathers created a new American culture distinct from, though similar to, Anglo-Saxon culture. People of all races and cultures have assimilated to – and enhanced – that foundational culture.

Richard Brookhiser, author of The Way of the WASP (1990), has written extensively about WASP culture, making many salient points which Coulter’s antics only serve to obscure. Brookhiser said,

“I think WASP values can go in a number of different political directions. Over time, there have been WASPs who were isolationists and WASPs who were imperialists. There have been WASPs who were social Darwinists, free marketeers of the most rigorous sort, and there were WASPs who were prairie socialists. WASP ideals can form different varieties of society. However, they’re all within certain limits. There are certain types of society you’re not going to get in a WASP country.”

That variety is anathema to Coulter, whose monochromatic outlook corresponds with her, in Michael Isikoff’s words, “starkly one-dimensional worldview.”

Reviewing Brookhiser’s book, Michael Novak commented on WASP characteristics totally neglected by Coulter. He writes:

“In the most interesting chapter of his book, Brookhiser lists six ‘traits’ that define the essential WASP character: conscience, industry, success, civic-mindedness, use [practicality], anti-sensuality. … More than many other cultures, WASP culture insists on a certain inner self-government; it construes freedom to mean doing not what one wishes but what one ought; it insists upon unbroken attention to the bite of guilt.”

None of these traits are racial. None of these characteristics are inherited. America’s Founding Fathers understood this. They understood that liberty, morality, virtue, godliness and the like all transcend race and ethnicity. Similarly, they grasped that the gospel – which imbued the life of colonial and early America – transcends all cultures and can impact the life of any person anywhere. They understood these things to the marrow of their bones.

Why doesn’t Coulter? (The answer may surprise you!)

(Why would Coulter lie about such basic historical facts, distort the nature of the American identity, and promote such a racialist perspective and agenda – all the while believing herself to be the opposite of a racist? You will find the truth to be absolutely astonishing! Stay tuned!)


[1]               See “Adios, Ann: Fear Mexicans, Not Jihadists” at

[2]               See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Bio Fraud” at

[3]               See “Delusional – New Ann Coulter Book” at

[4]               See “Coulter Trashes Principled Patriot, Promotes Corrupt Incumbent” at

[5]               See “Fake Christians” at

[6]               Ann Coulter, “ISIS: 0, Ted Kennedy: Too Many to Count,” 7/8/15.

[7]               See “Ann Coulter … Dangerously Wrong!” at

[8]               See “Adios, Ann: Coulter Trashes Nikki Haley” at

[9]               Ohio Farmer, A Constitutional Conversation: Letters form an Ohio Farmer, Ashbrook Center, 2011, pp. 20-21.

[10]             Ann Coulter, Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole, Regnery, 2015, , pp. 51-52.

[11]             Ann Coulter, America with Jorge Ramos, Fusion, 5/26/15.

[12]             Ann Coulter, Chronicles, 6/8/15,

[13]             Dana Perino, Fox & Friends, FNC, 7/4/15.

[14]             Michael J. Gerson, Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America’s Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don’t), HarperOne, 2007, pg. 268.

[15]             See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at

[16]             Michael J. Gerson, Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America’s Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don’t), HarperOne, 2007, pg. 263.

[17]             Michael J. Gerson, Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America’s Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don’t), HarperOne, 2007, pp. 263-264.

[18]             Michael J. Gerson, Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America’s Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don’t), HarperOne, 2007, pg. 264.

[19]             See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at

[20]             See “Coulter Dictates” at

[21]             Ann Coulter, Federalist Radio, 6/17/15.

[22]             See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Racial Confusion” at

[23]             Ann Coulter, National Press Club, 6/17/15.

[24]             Ann Coulter, Washington Journal, C-Span, 6/23/15.

[25]             See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Blood Politics” at

[26]             Ann Coulter, Daily Caller, 6/16/15.

[27]             Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham Show, 6/18/15.

[28]             Ann Coulter, Federalist Radio, 6/17/15.

[29]             See “Coulter’s Soccer Flop – Part Trois” at

[30]             See “Ann Coulter’s Xenophobic Anti-Gospel of Hate” at

[31]             See “Adios, Ann: Diversity = White” at

12 thoughts on “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s WASP Fantasy

    1. The point is that – for months – Coulter has claimed that there is NO threat from ISIS (or other Islamic terrorist groups), when that is simply not true. In fact, terrorism in America has been on the rise since Obama took office. Consider this recent headline: “There Have Been More Jihadist Terror Cases in U.S. in 2015 Than in Any Year Since 9/11″ at

    1. You are correct that Coulter is right about the impact that immigration has upon the black community. However, her comments are often racist because she herself views non-whites (especially non-WASPs) as inferior to herself. Her emphasis throughout her book tour highlighted race more than culture.

      See “Adios, Ann: Diversity = White” at

  1. She constantly states the reason why Americans are sensitive on race is because of slavery and Jim Crow,her point is that positive action is for those people not the ones who turned up yesterday.
    You will also notice she treats black people the same as everyone else,none of this liberal deference this is because she thinks them equal.
    When a liberal meets a black they first check their valuables and then treat them like children.

    1. Coulter is simply wrong! “Civil rights” are not “just for blacks.” The reason people are so sensitive about race is not because of slavery. It is because of race-mongers like Jackson and Sharpton who use lies and racial myths to incite riots create division.

      As for Coulter treating blacks equally, yes, she offends them equally as well, including using racial slurs.

      See chapter 4, “Prejudice,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, available as a free download at

  2. I stumbled on this site so hope you don’t mind me asking a question.

    Is this site solely to counter Coulters arguments ?

    I’ve just read Adios America ( I thought it was good ) and have been following up on Coulter since.

    She seems to me a fascinating character.
    I’m Irish born and bred.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s