Ann Coulter tweeted: “Where are the Bernie supporters tonight? Did Hillary have them gassed?”
Coulter has a long history of anti-Semitism, stretching back to at least the early 1990s. In the wake of her Effing Jews tweets, Coulter claimed to be pro-Semitic, employing arguments worthy of an Orwellian dictator. Coulter even enlisted the aid of her conservative friends to prove her noble and just. Those efforts abysmally failed. Her Orwellian newspeak and doublethink was exposed for what it is.
Then Coulter went after Catholics. Now she has retargeted her preferred object of hatred: Jews.
Why attack Jews and Catholics? Because they do not fit into her utopian dream of a restored WASP nation. Coulter is ecstatic over Trump’s transformation of the GOP into a new Know-Nothing Party which is anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, and anti-Jew.
The Alt-Right and David Duke have eagerly embraced Donald Trump and his (and Coulter’s) message.
Will conservatives join the Never Trump movement and denounce this latest instance of anti-Semitism by Trump’s consigliere?
Don’t be fooled by Ann Coulter’s lies about her anti-Semitic tweet. Her very own words betray her heart.
Coulter has repeatedly justified her anti-Semitic tweet (“f—ing Jews”) by arguing that she was addressing the quantity, not the quality, of Jews. This is nonsense! The epithet modifies “Jews,” not “many.”
She also claims she was attacking the panderers, not Jews. Poppycock!
Ludicrously, Coulter claims that there was nowhere else to place Effing in that sentence. If that were true – and it isn’t – then write a different sentence. But her assertions are and remain lies.
All Coulter had to do was place Effing in front of “many” (thereby modifying the quantity) instead of after it (making it a statement of quality) – or – to place it before “people” (panderers) instead of before “Jews.”
Quality or Quantity?
Coulter tweeted (emphasis added):
“How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”
Coulter did not tweet (emphasis added):
“How f—ing many Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”
Coulter’s actual tweet expresses the quality of Jews. To express the quantity of Jews, all Coulter had to do was move her modifier over one word to the left.
Yet, Coulter claims that the only place she could find to put Effing in that sentence was before Jews. Coupling those two words together is ipso facto anti-Semitic. In context or out, they are anti-Semitic by the very coupling of Effing with Jews.
Panderers or Object of Pandering?
Coulter still claims she could not express her views any other way in that short space of characters. She further claims she was talking about the panderers, not the object of their pandering. But then, why not write:
“Those f—ing candidates are pandering to Jews, who are very few in U.S.”
Simple. Easy. Anyone with a pulse could come up with that formulation.
Let’s return to Coulter’s original tweet (emphasis added):
“How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”
If Coulter had truly meant Effing to condemn the panderers and not the object of the pandering, she should have placed Effing three words to the right, in front of “people.”
Coulter did not tweet (emphasis added):
“How many Jews do these f—ing people think there are in the United States?”
Again, she didn’t.
Why? Because Coulter intended that epithet for Jews.
Not quantity. Not panderers. But Jews.
Coulter’s Choice of Words and Their Placement
Writing is all about word choice and word placement. Coulter chose her words and she placed them exactly where she wanted them.
Why would she do so? Why would she attack Jews?
Because she was exasperated by what seemed to her to be too many references to Israel. Again, she did not attack the alleged pandering of GOP candidates; she attacked the object of their alleged pandering: Jews.
Coulter’s words self-evidently reveal that she believes Jews really do wield power disproportionate to their numbers, prompting the pandering she so despises and, thus, her attack on Jews.
Ann Hart Coulter is a modern-day Know Nothing.
Following her anti-Semitic rant against Jews and Israel, Coulter has now embarked upon a Know Nothing approach to Catholicism. This is especially strange as she attended a private Catholic school until she entered high school. One would think she would know better.
Coulter’s Anti-Catholic Tweets
Among Coulter’s many tweets disparaging the Catholic Church (emphasis added):
|9:55 a.m.||Equally accurate statement to the Pope’s: The Catholic Church was “largely built by pedophiles.” twitter.com/WSJ/status/646…|
|10:04 a.m.||I’m an American and this is why our founders (not “immigrants”!) distrusted Catholics & wouldn’t make them citizens. twitter.com/DavidLimbaugh/…|
|10:06 a.m.||Catholics were not accepted until they became more AMERICAN Catholic less ROMAN Catholic-Harvard’s Samuel Huntington twitter.com/DavidLimbaugh/…|
|10:29 a.m.||Yes, 55 Protestants & 1 Catholic. Can we admit immigrants in that wildly diverse proportion? twitter.com/michaelbd/stat…|
|10:40 a.m.||No, I’m attacking the Pope. So did Martin Luther. So did America’s settlers. So did Dems when it was John Paul II. twitter.com/dmataconis/sta…|
|11:05 a.m.||THIS Pope’s philosophy of worshiping the poor, blaming the rich leads to Latin American poverty. American Catholicism leads to success.|
Coulter’s WASP Nativism
Coulter has a distinctly WASP (White and Protestant) view of America. For years now, Coulter has hated immigrants. Her nativism has been especially pronounced this year. Coulter even hates the idea of Christians serving overseas. Indeed, she insists that all other nations suck.
During the 2012 election cycle, Coulter compared social conservative Rick Santorum to ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy – because of their shared Catholicism. To Coulter, Santorum was “more Catholic than conservative.”
Last year, Coulter condemned Catholics as “moral show-offs” and “fake Christians,” expressing contempt for church leaders and parishioners alike whose theology compels them to adopt political positions with which she disagrees.
Coulter claims that American Catholics are better than Roman Catholics. Yet, Coulter condemns liberal Catholics in America for their liberalism, while the traditional pro-life Roman Catholic doctrines remain extant. Ironically, Coulter has waged war on pro-lifers for defending the unborn while claiming to be totally pro-life herself. Confused? So is Coulter.
Coulter does not make sense. To reiterate, she claims that American Catholics are better than Roman Catholics because they have been assimilated. Yet, many of those Catholics who have been assimilated into American culture have become more secularized and embraced leftwing views on social issues (abortion, homosexuality, marriage, etc.) while the foreign Roman Catholics hold the views that Coulter cherishes. Reality is the exact opposite of what Coulter claims it is.
As noted by National Memo, Coulter’s ire at Latin American Catholics may stem from her anti-immigration thesis in Adios, America! They correct Coulter on the historical record:
“Catholics in the New World had easily become Americans following the Louisiana Purchase from France in 1803, and the acquisition of Florida from Spain in 1819. And Catholics did indeed play a role in the early polity of the U.S. This included one signer of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll of Maryland, and two delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Daniel Carroll of Maryland (and cousin of Charles), plus Thomas Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania.”
Catholics in the Revolutionary War
Contrary to Coulter’s assertions, Catholics were among the “American settlers” Coulter cherishes. And they fought for America! Several of America’s Founding Fathers were Catholic.
From “Catholics and the Founding”:
“The preeminent Catholic patriot was undoubtedly Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Heir to the fortune of an early Maryland Catholic family, it was said that Carroll risked more (in financial terms) than any other when he became the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence.”
“Carroll’s cousin, John, was also an important figure in Revolutionary America. John Carroll had been a Jesuit priest before the suppression of the order by Pope Clement XIV and had continued to minister as one of the colonies’ few priests. Uniquely positioned as an ardent patriot and a Catholic religious leader, he was called upon by the Continental Congress to join Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase and Charles Carroll on an unsuccessful mission to Canada to try to convince the colonies’ northern neighbor to maintain neutrality during the war with Britain. Carroll would become the first American bishop in 1789.”
“A thousand miles to the west, another Catholic with less economic clout and fewer connections would also play an important part in the military plans of the Americans. Father Pierre Gibault was a missionary of French descent in southwestern Indiana. When the Virginia militia under Colonel George Rogers Clark entered the area, Gibault and others met the American commander and pledged the support of the region to the forces of independence in return for assurances of religious freedom. Against the wishes of the bishop of Quebec, Gibault led the French residents of the Vincennes region in cooperating with the Americans.”
Ann Coulter’s incendiary “f—ing Jews” tweet was quickly countered by her claim, “I like the Jews.” Really?
As I pointed out last week, Coulter’s tweet was, is, and remains indefensible. Yet, she defends herself. Before analyzing her rebuttal, let’s take a quick look at exactly what her initial tweet said.
Effing Jews – Expletive of Endearment
Coulter tweeted, “How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” Notice her exquisite courtesy in bleeping out the offensive adjective. Very polite. Who could possibly imagine what that bleeped word is?
The subject is not, as Coulter later claimed, panderers. The subject is Jews – and the modifier is an expletive! (Yet, just hours later, Coulter claimed to “like” “the Jews.”) Coulter’s criticism and wrath was directed at Jews, not GOP candidates. The adjective employed applied to Jews, not politicians.
Regardless of the context of her tweet, even taking in the totality of all of her tweets during the debate, there is no denying the anti-Semitic nature of those two words. In context or out, they are anti-Semitic by the very coupling of Effing with Jews.
Again, as I pointed out last Thursday, who (besides Ann) uses an expletive as an endearment?
Coulter and GOP Panderers
As noted in last week’s column, Coulter quickly attempted to rebuff criticisms of her tweets by claiming she was attacking the GOP candidates for pandering. But prior to the fallout, Coulter never tweeted the word “pander.”
Coulter claims: “My tweet was about Republicans and the pandering. It wasn’t about Israel, it wasn’t about Jews. It’s what Republicans are thinking in their little pea brains. I could say the same thing about Evangelicals. Who are you pandering to? A lot of it is to Sheldon Adelson and the Evangelicals…. This kind of suck-uppery is humiliating.”
Wait! Effing Jews isn’t about Jews? Jews was the subject of the tweet and the object of Coulter’s wrath. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.
As Coulter has made painfully obvious, in her view, the Jews are to blame for GOP candidates pandering to them. (If that is, in fact, what the candidates were doing.) Coulter has obviously bought into the narrative that she claims other Republicans have embraced.
A column on Jerusalem Post asks why the GOP would “pander” to Jews: “As Coulter well knows, Jews overwhelmingly voted for Obama, not once but twice. She is also aware that the vast majority of Iran-deal opponents is Republican. Sheldon Adelson, whom she made a point of mentioning in her Daily Beast interview, is an exception, not the rule.”
David French noted “a small irony about Ann Coulter: Even while she was slamming the GOP for ‘pandering’ on issues like abortion and Israel, she herself was using specific language that panders to the small, race-obsessed far-right crowd that is particularly focused on those same issues.”
French continued: “We defend a culture, not a race. The foundation of that culture is a faith that makes no distinction among races but rather declares, unequivocally, ‘All are one, in Christ Jesus.’ Shunning the slur disempowers the trolls and forces the radical Left to confront the race hatred that fuels its own rage.”
Coulter: “I like the Jews”
Coulter’s defense includes the self-evidently fraudulent assertion, “I like the Jews.”
We know this is a lie for many reasons. First, is the definitive article “the” preceding “Jews.” If someone said “I like the blacks,” would you believe her? If someone claimed to like “the Hispanics” or “the Asians,” what veracity would you give their claim? (Remember, Coulter is a linguist and a wordsmith who knows how to effectively and accurately use the English language.)
Second, speaking of “the Jews,” Coulter is speaking of all Jews. But we already know from 35 years of commentary, that Coulter “hates,” “despises,” and “loathes” (her words) liberals and feminists, many of whom are Jews. Indeed, a majority of Jews in America vote Democrat. Does Coulter really “like” those “Jews?” Hardly. Coulter has often attacked liberal Jews (as a group or individually).
Binyamin Jolkovsky, the founder of Jewish World Review, wonders: “She could have been drunk, she could have been high, I don’t know, I have to give her the benefit of the doubt … but I don’t have to delude myself. Pandering to Jewish money is about as anti-Semitic a stereotype as you could put forth. Her ‘eff-ing Jews’ comment is not identifying Israel – it’s identifying Jews, plural, and all Jews. There is no excuse for that. You can’t just wiggle out of something that vile and hateful.”
Tom Sykes observes that Coulter’s “whole argument echoes a historic libel against Jews that they hold secret influence.”
Third, claiming to either like or dislike an entire race of people is, itself, a racist claim. It is called stereotyping. Does anyone like all people of a given racial or ethnic group? Or of a particular religion? Or of a particular political persuasion?
Coulter’s Twitter Rebuttal
On September 17th, Coulter tweeted a ludicrous assertion: “No: It’s pro-Semitic. Where is all the GOP pandering on Israel getting us? US becoming Mexico very bad for Israel. twitter.com/ANewSarah/stat…”
Coulter has just redefined anti-Semitism as pro-Semitic!
Many of Coulter’s tweets reiterated her many false claims during her book tour that the only issue that matters is immigration. She uses that narrative to justify her attacks on pro-lifers, on Reagan lovers, and, now, on defenders of Israel.
Coulter’s joke – “Boy were they wrong @ Jewish influence! I complained about pandering on Israel (Reagan & abortion) & haven’t heard a thing about it!” – merely reinforces her contention that Jews have too much power, the root of her anti-Semitic rant.
Undermining her own arguments, Coulter retweeted from her friend, Ben Shapiro: “RT @benshapiro: This I know of @anncoulter: she is far more a friend to Jews and Israel than Jewish Obama voters now jumping on her.”
Does Coulter really “like” those Obama-voting Jews? Remember, Coulter called Jews, not Israel, “f—ing!” She obviously has a high regard for Israel’s policies, but not necessarily her people (or Jewish people outside Israel).
Derbyshire actually promotes the anti-Semitic stereotype of a disproportionately powerful Jewish lobby –and Coulter is using that as one of her defenses!
According to the Zionist Organization of America, “Ann Coulter made appalling, anti-Jewish remarks which evoked the classic, anti-Semitic trope about Jewish manipulation of America for the purposes of supporting Israel at America’s expense.”
As for Derbyshire’s quotes from Coulter’s “smash bestseller” – they pertain to a love of Israel’s policies, not her people. In Adios, America! Coulter is not defending Jews, she is defending Israel. Moreover, she is defending Israel in the areas that pertain to her agenda for America: immigration and border security.
Coulter’s Video Rebuttal
Coulter quickly entered firestorm mode, posting a professionally produced video defense of her tweets. In her condescending self-defense video, Coulter attacked her critics while lying about her tweets and the context of those tweets.
Coulter claimed, ““It’s been a long theme of mine – attacking Republicans for all, you know, trying to prove – I don’t know what they’re trying to prove – by constantly praising Reagan and denouncing abortion.”
Yes, Coulter asserts that her criticism of Jews is really criticism of the GOP.
But even in defending herself, Coulter convicts herself. She added, “I hadn’t even mentioned their, their incessant sucking up to Israel in my column.” So, in Coulter’s view, the GOP is always, incessantly “sucking up to Israel.” Is Coulter suggesting that Israel donates to GOP campaign coffers? Or is she arguing that American Jews – most of whom vote Democrat – will vote for the GOP?
Coulter continued, “Then I watched the debate …” and hated those few references to Israel. Moreover – in her professionally-produced video rebuttal – Coulter again lied about the last question of the GOP debate. She claimed it had to do with what America would look like. No! The object of the question was the “world,” not “America.” In her tweets and interviews, she continually misstates that crucial question.
Regarding her GOP debate questions, Coulter asserts: “That was the anti-pandering section of my tweeting debate night.” Except, her criticism was of Israel, not pandering, and her anti-Semitic tweet called Jews, not GOP panderers, “f—ing.”
Coulter’s logic utterly falls apart in the next section. She argues:
“They chopped up the tweet, sent it out, the apotheosis of which was the Daily Beast post: ‘Ann Coulter Shouts Effing Jew.’ O, come on now. I know how to use Effing in a sentence.”
Coulter then admits that using “Effing Jew” on its own is anti-Semitic, but “Saying how many Effing anything, that’s a comment on quantity. It’s not saying ‘Effing Jews,’ it’s saying ‘how many.’ Quantity, not quality.”
Balderdash! The question queried quantity, but the qualifier on the noun (Jews) denoted quality (f—ing).
Coulter continued: “Because it was chopped up, [some] may have thought that I said something unkind and, I wouldn’t want [dramatic pause] them to think that.”
First, it was not “chopped up.” Second, everyone knows what her tweet meant. It is painfully obvious to all. Third, who is “them?” Why the significant pause before saying the word “them?” Who is “them?” Jews?
Coulter concluded: “I’m pro-Israel. So is everyone in the room. So is everyone on the stage. Can you give it a rest?”
Throughout her various iterations defending her indefensible tweet, Coulter has continually conflated “Jews” with “Israel.” They are not identical.
Anyone with a pulse knows, Jews are a people (racially, ethnically, religiously) and Israel is a nation. Coulter has certainly proven her exuberance for Israel’s policies (fence, immigration, anti-terrorism) and her current leader (Netanyahu). But when has she evinced support for the Jewish people? In fact, Coulter has treated Jews in a derogatory fashion.
Hollywood Reporter Interview
In an astonishing interview with Hollywood Reporter, Coulter made several outrageous (and demonstrably untrue) assertions.
“It’s totally fake outrage from frauds who want to continue the dump of third-worlders on the country, including Muslim Jihadists, and voted for the guy who just gave a nuke to Iran.”
Except, of course, much of the criticism arises from conservatives, including conservative Jews.
Coulter claims her critics are “mostly Israel-hating liberals and pro-mass-immigration Republicans. Both of whom don’t want anyone to notice how immigration is changing the country, putting Americans – and Israel – at risk.”
Except, of course, much of the criticism arises from conservatives, including conservative Jews.
“The hypocrites who are mad at me are the ones who support anti-Israel college professors, who refuse to condemn Islamic barbarism, who supported the overthrow of Mubarak for the Muslim Brotherhood, who spread the deadly libel that Jews in America are only successful because of ‘white privilege.’”
Except, of course, much of the criticism arises from conservatives, including conservative Jews.
“There has been a huge spike in anti-Semitism across Europe due to the massive influx of Muslim immigrants. The same people in a faux uproar about my tweets are also leading the charge to import Muslims into the U.S.A. Half a million girls in the U.S. are now at risk for female genital mutilation. I doubt their dads are voting for pro-Israel politics. I’m the one who just wrote a book about these problems.”
How does Coulter know that it is the same people? Because they oppose Ann?
Conservative Coulter Critics
Sarah Rumpf lamented that “Ann Coulter Broke My Heart,” arguing that Coulter’s “raison d’être is no longer the bold articulation of conservative principles but rather an ugly and small-minded vision for America.” Rumpf concluded, “Coulter is too smart not to realize the danger she is courting. Her comments, and continued justification of them, are a betrayal of the principles of not just conservatism, but America.”
David French, at National Review, objected to Coulter’s “Snide comments about GOP obsessions with abortion, insufficient attention to immigration … and obsession with Israel.” French charged Coulter with “pandering – pandering to a very small, very angry crowd that’s far more white nationalist than it is recognizably conservative.”
French continued, “[Her tweets] do not reflect conservative ideals, they do not advance conservative ideals, nor will they even advance the civilizational goals she seems to care so much about. Like it or not, if one wants to actually secure the border and impose a sensible immigration policy, extending a middle finger to conservative America – while attention-getting – is ultimately unpersuasive.”
Joseph Farah, at World Net Daily noted, “The use of the F-bomb really does put her on shaky ground in denying her comment was not anti-Semitic. This is, after all, a woman who claims to be a Christian – one who presumably worships a Jewish Messiah called Jesus. As a Christian Arab-American, I can tell you stringing together that epithet with the word ‘Jews’ puts her on very shaky grounds in denying anti-Semitism.”
Farah continued, “At the very least, one has to wonder if she ever had a nasty, twisted, repugnant thought that went unexpressed.”
Farah continued, “Is Coulter aware that of all the religion-based attacks on people in the U.S., some 60 percent are directed at Jews? Is she unaware of the rising anti-Semitism on American college campuses and elsewhere in the country? Is she blithely ignorant of the fact that the one and only Jewish state in the world is surrounded by enemies who seek its destruction?”
Jack Engelhard, a conservative Jewish author, grieved over Coulter’s words to the point of throwing away all of her books. Her former fan wrote “she happens to be a fine, witty writer, a strong Conservative – a gal after my own heart. She was near the top of my list of brainy blonde Conservative bombshells, and politically, we work the same beat.”
But Coulter’s tweet was “like a kick in the gut – from a valued and trusted friend.” Engelhard then asked, “If that is what she is thinking – what about the rest of them who are my trusted political allies?” After mourning his loss, he added, “It’s bad enough that I am at odds with my Leftist acquaintances, but now I feel estranged from the Right. Are we really on the same side?”
“What part of shared Judeo/Christian heritage doesn’t she understand? Apparently the Judeo part.”
Binyamin Jolkovsky observed: “This is about a girl who threw a tantrum … on Twitter. Having an apology that’s acceptable, especially during this time of the year for the Jewish calendar, would be the right thing to do – it would be the Jewish thing to do. This is crazy.”
An apology would also be the Christian thing to do. That’s why she won’t do it.
Israel is America’s only loyal ally in the Middle East. Israel is the only nation in the world that truly understands the nature of the Islamist threat, having experienced an existential threat since her founding. Israel and the Israeli people share in the Judeo-Christian roots of the American people.
In an Open Letter to Ann, Dr. Michael Brown wrote:
“Is it that hard to connect the dots between Israel, Iran, and American security, especially when you consider the devastating worldwide effects of a completely destabilized Middle East? And when Iranians chant in the streets, ‘Death to Israel! Death to America!’ it’s not that hard to realize that we’re connected in more ways than one.”
“And, by the way, in case you forgot, the Savior of the world is a Jewish Rabbi.”
Avi Davis observed: “Every one of these candidates has been on record for years expressing unconditional support for the State of Israel and its security needs – and it is for one glaringly simple reason: they believe Israel’s security vouchsafes the United States’ security.”
Davis continued, “Making that connection may not be so patently obvious given the geographical distance between the two countries. But it is abundantly clear to anyone who has heard jihadist rantings in mosques from Oslo to Riyadh – the two countries are regarded as the hydra headed monster whose joint destruction is essential to paving the way for the re-emergence of the Caliphate.”
As reported by Hollywood Reporter, Rick Santorum also took Coulter to task for her remarks, saying, “How many Bible-believing Christians does she think are in this country, who understand the significance of the heritage of the Jewish people in the Holy Land?”
Santorum added, “I think everybody, every conservative has a right to look at that and say that this is someone who clearly doesn’t understand the significance of [the relationship between Israel and the U.S.].”
Seemingly, Coulter makes common cause with the enemies of Israel and America.
Tom Sykes echoes what I have been saying for years: “Fearful of being forgotten, Coulter has reacted by becoming ever more offensive.”
Per Joseph Farah, “It’s sad to see Coulter degenerate into a slur machine, one who seems so desperate for fame at any cost that she will say anything and possibly do anything to maintain a career as, frankly, a thuggish commentator.”
Rick Santorum argues that Coulter’s rhetoric is reflective of her desires for self-promotion: “some people in the Republican Party who are in the pundit class, who are there to be controversial, and to try to make money, and sell their books. And that’s just fine – they can go sell their books.”
Dr. Brown wrote to Coulter: “You’re obviously no stranger to controversy. To the contrary, you seem to thrive on controversy. In fact, you seem to enjoy provoking it.”
My dear Jewish and Christian friends, let me commiserate with you. Betrayal hurts. But Coulter has never been a trustworthy person. For at least twenty years now, Coulter has betrayed individuals, groups, and causes. Claiming to be a pro-life Christian, she has notably attacked both groups – all to serve her own agenda.
Perhaps, at one time, Coulter was guided to some degree by the values of Mother and Father, but no longer. Coulter has become a law unto herself. Her indomitable will seeks to bend the will of others to her own. But she is not a force of nature because nature bends to the will of God.
Time will tell if this particular controversy (again, of Coulter’s own making) will be her Waterloo or her Road to Damascus experience.
Prayer for Ann
Karen Wolfers Rapaport has a gracious response to Coulter’s series of anti-Semitic remarks. Karen began: “Before I continue I would like to be clear that I believe most Christians and non-Jews do not agree with Ann’s remark. I do not see her as a spokeswoman or an ambassador for her religion.”
Rapaport later noted the introspective, soul-searching nature of this season of the Jewish calendar, and she expressed gratitude to Coulter:
“Thank you for being a shofar of sorts, reminding this Jew or any Jew or non-Jew who wishes to participate in a time worn, magical practice, that this is the time for us to do teshuvah; to repent and take stock in our personal character inventory. And in the spirit of forgiveness that marks this time, I solemnly, and with all my heart, forgive you for your insensitivity and ignorance on the subject of perfection.”
Please join me in prayer for Ann:
Lord, cast down Ann Coulter’s haughtiness, her pride and arrogance, her sense of superiority and sense of entitlement. Cast them down to the earth. Cast them down to depths of hell itself.
Then, Lord, lift her up to You. Open her eyes to Your Truth and open her heart to Your love. Grant her a spirit of repentance and forgiveness, a spirit of humility and grace.
 “Ann Coulter Defends Her Controversial tweet,’ producer Graham Flanagan, Business Insider, 9/18/15.
Ann Coulter has come under fire for what have been described as “controversial” (i.e., anti-Semitic) tweets. Given Coulter’s long history of anti-Jewish sentiment, why are conservatives giving her the benefit of the doubt?
Before perusing the historical record, let’s examine Coulter’s most-recent tweets.
Coulter’s Tweets on Israel
Coulter remains single-mindedly obsessed with immigration (and selling herself and her book), so much so that every other cause means nothing to Coulter, who has viciously attacked pro-lifers and Reaganites. Now, Coulter has gone after Jews and Israel. Anything or anyone posing a threat to Coulter’s agenda or her preferred nominee is fodder.
As for her tweets (emphasis added) …
|8:46 pm||Huckabee admirably passionate on Israel. If only he cared as much about the survival of the U.S.|
|8:51 pm||GOP definitely wants to protect Israel! How are they going to do it when immigration turns US into CA and no GOP can be elected president?|
|9:00 pm||So glad I’m watching debate! Learned GOP is: anti-abortion, pro-Israel, pro-Reagan. I wonder if there’s any disagreement on immigration…|
|11:00 pm||Good grief! Huckabee is running for PM of Israel.|
|11:05 pm||Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: “What will AMERICA look like after you are president.” [NOTE: The actual question was “world” not “America.”]|
|11:05 pm||How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States? [NOTE: Coulter courteously bleeped out expletive so as not to offend. Answer: Almost 7 million.]|
|11:06 pm||Maybe it’s to suck up to the Evangelicals.|
|11:14 pm||Christie also talks @ Israel in response to the question: What will AMERICA look like after you are president? [NOTE: The actual question was “world” not “America.”]|
|11:18 pm||How to get applause from GOP donors: 1) Pledge to start a war 2) Talk about job creators 3) Denounce abortion 4) Cite Reagan 5) Cite Israel.|
In Coulter’s lopsided logic, affirmation of America’s commitment to Israel should be presumed but not expressed.
Coulter must know that there are many reasons for candidates to pledge support to one of America’s staunchest allies and the only democracy in the Middle East. Geopolitically, candidates employ “Israel” as a symbol of their worldviews and global vision: Judeo-Christian camaraderie and a united defense against terrorist, tyrannical, and rogue regimes. One’s stance on Israel presages one’s foreign-policy perspective.
If we’re not standing with Israel, we’re standing with Iran.
Notice that Coulter impugns the motives of all those who are “anti-abortion, pro-Israel, pro-Reagan.” She contends – as she has throughout her book tour – that they are “pandering” to constituencies (offering no evidence) and that they are cowards for not being single-mindedly focused on her preeminent issue: immigration.
The ease with which Coulter enters into scorched-earth polemics is astonishing.
Coulter Defends Tweets on Israel
Coulter’s self-defense began on the Kelly File, with her close friend, Megyn Kelly, lending support. Asked by Kelly, “Do you want to take that back?” Coulter said, “No” and claimed her tweet was part of a larger narrative condemning the alleged political “pandering” of GOP candidates who seek to check off “virtue boxes.” Coulter again misquoted the debate question about how America would be different when the question was about how the world would be different. Kelly then quickly switched topics.
Coulter’s post-Fox interview tweets build upon her creative justification for her earlier tweets (emphasis added):
|1:15 am||U weren’t following tweets. About pandering on RR Israel prolife. Last Q was @ AMERICA & 4 Reps talk @ Israel AGAIN! twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta… [NOTE: The actual question was “world” not “America.”]|
|1:16 am||All GOPs = prolife, pro-Reagan, pro-Israel. Pandering on all 3 tonight was EPIC. twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta…|
|1:17 am||There aren’t even that many Evangelicals to pander to (probably the intended Israel pander-recipients). twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta…|
|1:28 am||I like the Jews, I like fetuses, I like Reagan. Didn’t need to hear applause lines about them all night. twitter.com/Jimbobbarley/s…|
|1:32 am||It’s not about Jewish people; it’s about Republican panderers. twitter.com/lilenchiladas/…|
|2:00 am||It has to be read w/ prior tweet. Only 140 characters so sometimes they continue. Not @ Jews; about GOP pandering. twitter.com/RightForLife/s…|
|4:24 am||@JoelCRosenberg Joel! I am a huge Israel fan! See my current book. I was attacking GOP for pandering on Israel (AND Reagan AND abortion).|
Anyone who is “a huge Israel fan” could not marry the words “f—ing” and “Jews.” Moreover, if it was about pandering, why an expletive for Jews instead of the pandering politicians?
Who uses expletives to express love for a loved one? Yet, Coulter tweeted, “I like the Jews.” Do you believe her?
In that very same tweet, Coulter continued, “I like fetuses.” Since when? Throughout her book tour, Coulter has vilified pro-life Republicans for pursuing a pro-life agenda. For nearly twenty years, Coulter has subordinated pro-life concerns for her own personal or political agendas.
Coulter’s Jewish Roots
Throughout her career, Coulter has expressed antipathy toward Jews, from writing about “oily Jews” to wanting them to be “perfected.” These are not gaffes. They reflect her heart.
Coulter has a long history of anti-Semitism, stretching back to at least the early 1990s. In his first anticonservative book, David Brock “outed” Coulter as an anti-Semite, stating, “That she wanted to leave her New York law firm ‘to get away from all these Jews’ was one of her gentler remarks.”
Consider a 2003 column by Coulter (emphasis added):
“In addition to having a number of family deaths among them, the Democrats’ other big idea – too nuanced for a bumper sticker – is that many of them have Jewish ancestry. There’s Joe Lieberman: Always Jewish. Wesley Clark: Found Out His Father Was Jewish in College. John Kerry: Jewish Since He Began Presidential Fund-Raising. Howard Dean: Married to a Jew. Al Sharpton: Circumcised. Even Hillary Clinton claimed to have unearthed some evidence that she was a Jew – along with the long lost evidence that she was a Yankees fan. And that, boys and girls, is how the Jews survived thousands of years of persecution: by being susceptible to pandering.”
Only Coulter (or an MSNBC host) could write of “oily Jews” and get away with it.
In an equally astonishing entry on her own personal website, captioned “Who said Jews are smart?” Coulter wrote: “NYT Letter of the Day!: ‘Astroturf’ refers to protesters who disagree with me and therefore are not rational.”
Let’s not forget Coulter’s infamous dialogue with Donnie Deutsch about “perfecting” Jews. To save herself from repercussions for her faux paus, Coulter claimed to be the victim and besmirched Deutsch with a wholly fabricated claim which fellow conservatives and fellow Christians bought into as if it were holy writ.
Regarding her “f—ing Jews” tweet, the Anti-Defamation League immediately condemned her remarks, noting:
|“While most of America has rightly tuned out Ann Coulter’s hyperbolic and hateful rhetoric, her irresponsible tweets during the Republican presidential candidate’s debate are truly a new low and must be called out.”
“Ms. Coulter is pandering to the basest of her base. Her messages challenging the candidates’ support for Israel were offensive, ugly, spiteful and anti-Semitic. Her tweets give fodder to those who buy into the anti-Semitic notions that Jews ‘control’ the U.S. government, wield disproportionate power in politics, and are more loyal to Israel than to their own country.”
“All decent Americans should reject Ms. Coulter’s rhetoric as simply beyond the pale.”
Coulter has often said that she sets out to deliberately offend people, and offend she does. Coulter has no filters. Also bear in mind that Coulter is explicitly seeking the restoration of a WASP culture, one predominated by Western European (i.e., British) peoples. Jews and Israelis need not apply.
Update: As usual, Coulter claims her innocence. She insists she “likes” Jews. Does she consider “f—ing Jews” a compliment? An expression (epithet) of love? How can she defend her choice of words and how could she even imagine marrying those words to begin with? Did she greet her father, “F—ing Father?” How does she speak to her lovers?
Coulter told the Daily Beast: “I’m accusing Republicans of thinking the Jews have so much power. They’re the ones who are comedically acting out this play where Jews control everything.” But, wait! Coulter is the one perpetuating this stereotype that no Republicans have voiced. This is Coulter’s explanation for expressing anti-Semitic thoughts – that other people (who have stated those thoughts) are thinking it.
Coulter interjected, “This episode is not going a long way to disprove that [Jews have too much power in Washington.]” Yes, Coulter laments that Jews are so powerful that they are behind the backlash against her anti-Semitic remarks.
Coulter continued: “My point was this whole culture of virtue-signaling where debates are about nothing. Look, Republicans all agree 100 percent that we are pro-Israel, pro-Life, pro-gun. So why do we spend so much time on these issues? It’s just pandering, so who are they pandering to?”
Except, as noted above, Israel is a proxy for a candidate’s entire foreign policy perspective. Moreover, at this moment in history, with Israel (and Jews) under attack throughout the world, and with Obama’s complete surrender to Iran – who wants to destroy both Israel and America – voicing support for Israel is a good, moral, and rational thing to do.
Moreover, Coulter is a consummate wordsmith. She knows language and is proud of her expertise. The adjective “f—ing” modifies the noun “Jews” – not panderers. Indeed, she only tweeted about “pandering” after fallout from her earlier tweets.
Coulter defended her choice of words – “f—ing Jews” – saying, “I don’t think it was my language. I think it was ripped out of context and lied about.” Contrary to Coulter’s assertions, her words are clear and precise – and they reveal her heart.
See also “Effing Jews and Ann Coulter’s Waterloo (or Damascus Road?)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a9.
 Ann Coulter, Kelly File, FNC, 9/17/15.
 David Brock, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, Crown Forum, 2002, pg. 182.
 Ann Coulter, “Party of Ideas,” 11/20/03.
 Ann Coulter, “Inmates ‘Have A Plan’ To Run The Asylum,” 10/20/04.
Ann Coulter has been undeservedly hailed a valiant heroine for the Battle at Berkeley, yet her perceived defiance of leftist mobs and censoring administrators was not really at all courageous.
In fact, Coulter never expected or intended to give a speech at Berkeley! It was all a clever ruse and publicity stunt. Bravado, not bravery, marked Coulter’s Berkeley bluff.
After successfully portraying herself as a courageous free speech warrior – having gotten exactly what she wanted: publicity and a new image – Coulter did not give what would have been a truly “free” (no honorarium) speech in what she herself insisted was the “safest place on earth” for her.
Before getting into details, let’s recall that Berkeley has justifiably been almost universally condemned (except by some on the far left) for not allowing Coulter to speak. Nevertheless, Coulter is not the courageous heroine she would have you believe her to be.
Coulter’s Last Stand
I gave Ann an Alamo Award in 1997 for her unquestioned courage – at that time – in speaking truth to power, at the risk of losing her livelihood. At Berkeley, Coulter risked nothing whatsoever. Indeed, regardless of the outcome, Coulter expected to gain that which she sought: publicity and an image of being a heroic-martyr.
This epic battle of wills pitting liberty lovers against academic censors saturated national news coverage. Coulter’s gambit was actually just a PR stunt from the very beginning. And it worked.
Her #BerkeleyBound mission perfectly suited her purposes. Whether or not she spoke, she won. If she spoke, she was heroic; if not, she was a courageous martyr. Win-win.
The Washington Post reported: “In a classic case of ‘heads I win, tails you lose,’ conservative provocateur Ann Coulter emerged from last week’s events at the University of California at Berkeley as a free-speech martyr.”
Lauded as the courageous conservative facing down Berkley rioters and university censors, the truth is otherwise: Coulter never intended to speak at Berkeley.
“Pranav Jandhyala, who founded [YAF’s] UC Berkeley chapter,” “acknowledged that it was now clear that Coulter’s intention wasn’t to engage in any real dialogue, but to prove her own point.”
Of course, YAF also wanted to use the entire scenario to promote itself and highlight the rampant trampling of the First Amendment on college campuses (and elsewhere).
Everything Coulter says or does accrues to Coulter’s benefit. That which she seeks most of all is glory. She became addicted to fame and power in late 1997 and she has never recovered from that pathology.
Milking the situation for all it was worth, Coulter told KTVU that she was better than Milo Yiannopoulos: “I’m not even Milo. I mean, for Pete’s sake, I’m a twelve-time New York Times’ bestselling author.” (Actually, she’s only a ten-time bestselling author, as even McInnes admitted at Berkeley.)
Coulter also likened herself to heroic figures in the past: Martin Luther King, Jr. and Winston Churchill!
She boasted to Tucker Carlson: “By the way, I am giving the speech. What are they going to do, arrest me? They can put me in the Birmingham jail.” (King would have rejected both Coulter’s racial paradigm and anti-Christian behavior.)
The host on KTVU asked Coulter the most pertinent question imaginable: “Some people would say, ‘Ann Coulter is all about Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter wants to promote Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter wants to come here – and she’s gonna come here on Thursday – and she’s gonna be a rabble-rouser and she’s gonna try to incite people.’”
Usually in situations like this, Coulter reverts to using Jesus as her model of civil disobedience (upturning tables in temple, brood of vipers speech) to justify her own vitriol. On this occasion, she argued, “Winston Churchill was promoting himself with that ‘We shall fight on the beaches’ speech.”
Then she stridently claimed, “The idea that I’m trying to get publicity off of this event could not be further from the truth on the facts.”
Here’s the actual timeline of events according to Coulter and her speech sponsors:
BridgeUSA and YAF sponsored Coulter’s speech. She knew – given riots at Milo Yiannopoulos’ event in February – that she wouldn’t be giving her speech. The university and/or rioters would surely shut it down.
Berkeley placed ever-demanding restrictions on Coulter’s speech. She insisted that YAF concede to every single demand. Coulter could not quit. She had to wait – and wait patiently she did (because she knew it was inevitable) – for Berkeley to cancel, making her a martyr. She told Tucker Carlson, “Well, they changed the rules every ten minutes. I kept agreeing to all of their conditions – they were hoping I would cancel.”
In this high-stakes game of chicken, Berkeley flinched. Berkeley caved and cancelled her speech, enabling Coulter to play the heroic victim of institutional censorship and mob rule.
Under intense media and political pressure, Berkeley offered an alternative date, which Coulter refused, keeping the pressure on Berkeley. Her sponsors filed lawsuits.
Coulter demanded her original speaking slot, insisted she would speak, and suggested she would speak in Sproul Plaza, if need be.
Berkeley announced that it could not ensure the safety of the speaker and attendees. Then YAF folded. Coulter wrote, “We were on [the] cusp of victory and YAF backed down, refused to seek a court order or allow the College Republicans to request a court order. It’s a sad day for free speech.”
Coulter’s sponsors caved. Coulter was incensed. Why? She wanted Berkeley to cave and herself be vindicated as a heroine. Instead, she would have to speak outdoors, something she did not want to do.
In the end, Gavin McInnes, her good friend and latest knight in shining armor, gave Coulter’s extremely-short speech on her behalf in Sproul Plaza. Coulter was there, in Berkeley, but not at that peaceful event. Afterward, she joined McInnes and supporters for drinks at George and Walt’s.
To KTVU, Coulter vowed: “I was invited to give a speech. I have a contract to give a speech. I’m giving a speech.” To the Hollywood Reporter, Coulter swore, “Yes, it was officially banned, but they can’t stop me. I’m an American. I have constitutional rights.”
Just the night before, Coulter told Sean Hannity: “I do think it is possible that the Berkeley campus will be the safest place on the face of the earth because so many people are flying in to defend me.”
At the airport, Coulter said, “Safest place on earth for me, but these cowards! Who has a better idea of what the campus is gonna be like than the person who’s going there as opposed to the moron sitting in Washington?”
So – both the day before and the afternoon of “the speech” – Coulter declared Berkeley “the safest place on earth for me,” yet she assigned her speech to McInnes! She gave him that assignment the day before the speech, which she emailed to him.
Coulter is there, but does not speak herself?
Gavin McInnes tweeted the day before the speech: “The @AnnCoulter event in Berkeley is NOT canceled. I will be speaking tomorrow with @Lauren_Southern @FaithGoldy @BrittPettibone #POYB.”
Two days earlier, Coulter tweeted: “Nice day for an outdoor speech at Berkeley,” implying she would give her speech in the plaza, if necessary. Coulter told AP, “I have my flights, so I thought I might stroll around the graveyard of the First Amendment.”
Five days later, Coulter told Lou Dobbs, “I would have preferred to have spoken.”
Coulter regularly advertises upcoming speeches on her website as soon as she has them booked. She never advertised her Berkeley speech on her own website – even though YAF did on theirs – complete with date, time, and location. Why?
She never intended to speak. It was all a charade. She wanted credit for courage without being courageous. She knew Berkeley would give in.
Nothing changed between Milo and Ann and the results were wholly predictable – and expected.
If Coulter really planned on speaking, then she must have prepared an astonishing speech. Indeed, Coulter boasted to Carlson that it would be “a searingly brilliant speech on immigration.”
McInnes said, “Ann sent me her speech,” and then he read it, breaking in with his own running commentary. Coulter’s actual speech was less than four minutes and contained nothing new, except for her comparison of immigrants to rat feces (contained in the lead paragraph). It contained zero references to Berkeley.
Hardly “searingly brilliant.”
Coulter told Carlson that her speech was about enforcement of existing immigration laws. Her speech – given by McInnes – never addressed that issue.
Earlier that week, Coulter said she would be updating her speech. Pretty good gig, $20,000 for a four-minute speech.
McInnes introduced her speech, saying, “Ann was betrayed. She was censored. They put all the legal onus upon her so that if someone gets hurt tonight, it would have been on her head. Now it’s on my head.”
If it was so dangerous that Coulter couldn’t give her speech, why did she have McInnes risk his life – and the lives of those in the audience – to do so on her behalf?
But what did she say shortly before McInnes gave her speech? “Safest place on earth for me, but these cowards!”
Yet, Coulter wasn’t about to nail her 95 Theses on Berkeley’s wall. She let her friend do it for her, while she took all the credit.
The non-partisan BridgeUSA and conservative Young America’s Foundation co-sponsored Coulter’s speech. [Both YAF and BridgeUSA were non-responsive to my interview requests.]
The founder of BridgeUSA explained why his organization co-sponsored Coulter’s speech – “to facilitate dialogue between political opposites.” Ironically, he wrote: “Free speech isn’t about provocation, violence, publicity stunts, selling books or testing limits” – precisely what Coulter does on a regular basis.
Further, BridgeUSA “refuse[s] to invoke the right to free speech to inflame, attack and generate publicity” – exactly the modus operandi Coulter has embraced for the past two decades.
He added, “instigating controversy for publicity does not fix a broken system,” yet BridgeUSA sponsored a self-proclaimed provocateur and polemicist to do just that. How well would David Duke be received by the Black Panthers?
At CPAC 2002, Coulter posited the notion that she should keep going further and further right to draw the culture and the left toward her. Shortly thereafter, Coulter coined a series of “rules” for talking to a liberal: being as outrageous as you can be to inflame them. No reconciliation there.
Alheli Picazo writes, “People like Coulter and Yiannopoulos aren’t brought to campus to contribute substance – hearing either speak for a few minutes quickly puts lie to claims of their brilliance. They are skilled antagonists who can reliably incite backlash from a perceived enemy.”
It is unclear why Coulter is the best spokesman for YAF on anything, even immigration (the purported topic of the series of speeches spearheaded by BridgeUSA).
YAF has 100 speakers on its roster. Only five speakers are listed for immigration; Coulter is not among them. Were none of the actual “experts” on immigration available?
Moreover, only eight YAF speakers require an honorarium of $20K or more. Surely YAF could have selected a better representative of conservatism for less money.
YAF previously sponsored Milo Yiannopoulos, who isn’t even listed on its roster. Coulter claimed she is not like Yiannopoulos, yet they are both leaders of the Alt-Right and share an Alt-Right worldview. Is YAF in agreement with those views?
One YAF tweet was particularly confusing: “At no time was there ever a space or lecture time confirmed for Ann Coulter to speak.” Yet YAF’s event page listed the location, date, and time as 110 Sprout Hall from 7:00 to 8:30 pm on 4/27/17. What really happened?
Would it be fair to say that YAF chose both Yiannopoulos and Coulter to generate controversy, anticipating a backlash which would then highlight the thuggish behavior on the Left and their threats to the First Amendment?
Conservative heroine Ann Coulter has proven herself a cowardly fraud. The free speech battle at Berkeley was merely a publicity stunt for this polemicist and provocateur.
As noted above, Coulter exhibited genuine courage in 1996-97. Hence her Alamo Award.
Since then, Coulter has gotten edgier and edgier while simultaneously abandoning her principles and ideals. In doing so, Coulter has actually embraced her fears. Now she is desperately grasping for the glory she once had and which increasingly eludes her.
What she fears most is facing the truth about the person she has become. Moreover, Coulter fears that she is beyond redemption, so why not continue on her downward path. (Ann, My Redeemer Lives, and so does yours!)
Ann Coulter isn’t a voice for freedom or free speech. Ann Coulter is a voice for Ann Coulter.
[#NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]