Tag Archives: doublethink

.@AnnCoulter = Bernie Sanders

What can arch-conservative Ann Coulter and Bolshevik Bernie Sanders possibly have in common? Surprisingly, a great deal.

Ann Coulter and Bernie Sanders are far closer than one would think in temperament, disposition, and ideology.

Both are New England elites who think that they alone have all the answers.

They would both force their own will upon others.

Both would weaponize the Deep State to their own ends.

Neither forgives nor repents.

Both are anti-Semitic.

Both are obsessed with Identity Politics, but from different perspectives. While Sander’s version is steeped in class warfare, Coulter’s viewpoint is distinctly WASP Supremacy.

Sanders claimed, “Italians are gangsters, Jews are greedy, Irish are drunk and blacks smell.”

Here is Coulter version:

Though one is an avowed Socialist and the other purportedly champions the free market, Coulter is willing to vote for a Socialist in order to get her Wall for the express purpose of preventing America from becoming Socialist.

This is called cognitive dissonance, or, in Orwell’s vernacular, Doublethink.

Coulter told Bill Maher (video) and Margaret Hoover (video) that she would vote for Sanders. It almost seems as if Coulter is a Socialist (or, at least, a Statist) at heart.

Notice, Coulter doesn’t “care about the rest of the socialist stuff.” But it is the “socialist stuff” which would complete Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America into something real Americans do not want. All that “socialist stuff” would permanently solidify the Deep State and destroy what remains of the constitutional structure of our government and the Judeo-Christian ethos of our culture.

Like Sanders and many far-left activists, Coulter has repeatedly called for a wealth tax – a pernicious tax which confiscates wealth and inevitably diminishes the health of a nation’s economy (more on that below).

Coulter has even mirrored many of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s views.

And they call Bernie crazy! Trump was right to label Coulter a #WackyNutJob!

Like a true Socialist, Coulter believes in, operates from, and lives her life in accordance with the Marxist Maxim: The end justifies the means.

We see this exhibited throughout her career, from lying on her resume, to betraying clients, to attempts to subvert the American election process. Coulter will do and say whatever she has to do in order to accomplish her goals. The atheistic “will to power” is strong in this one.

Coulter is Radically Wrong About Radical Sanders!

In her weekly column (BERNIE IS STILL TRUMP’S NIGHTMARE, 3/4/20), Coulter made some utterly ludicrous claims (emphasis added).

“Bernie Sanders is [Trump’s] greatest nightmare.”

Actually, no. Even Democrats fear his fatal flaws with the American electorate, hence the Left’s coalescence around Biden.

“True, the media, the donors and the Democratic Party are convinced that Sanders is a sure loser – just as, four years ago, Fox News, the donors and the Republican Party knew that Trump was a sure loser.”

There is simply no reasonable comparison between the two campaigns or candidates, as addressed below.

“What made both Trump and Sanders unique in their respective primaries was their voluble opposition to Wall Street, war and immigration. I’m beginning to suspect that Americans hate Wall Street, hate war and hate mass, low-wage immigration.”

Actually, Trump was the pro-America candidate; Sanders the anti-America one.

“Recall that, in 2016, Trump and Sanders were the only presidential candidates opposed to the mass importation of low-wage workers immiserating our working class.”

Wrong. Ted Cruz and others also opposed illegal immigration.

“Sadly, they both moved left on the issue at about the same time: Bernie when he went from being a Socialist to a Democrat, and Trump when he went from the campaign to the White House.”

Wrong. Trump has made considerable, quantifiable progress on reversing the tide of illegal immigration (to be addressed in future columns).

“Then Trump became president, and the only people working overtime on his war stance became his own voters, constantly on edge that he’s about to start a war with Syria or Iran.”

Wrong. Trump has been the most anti-war president in generations.

“Maybe a Fidel-admiring revolutionary was never the best champion of even the most popular ideas – just as a vulgar reality TV star wasn’t. Maybe Bernie is dead. But the universal popularity of hating Wall Street, war and immigration will never die.”

Who on the Right hates Wall Street? Besides Ann, of course. Coulter’s is becoming a rabid Leftist.

“It could be that a ‘safe’ choice is all the Democrats need. But I think Trump just dodged a bullet.”

According to Coulter, “Trump dodged a bullet” with Sanders delegate failure on Super Tuesday. Actually, No.

Coulter supplemented her column with an interview with Breitbart News. Coulter claimed (emphasis added):

“[Bernie Sanders] really would have helped himself if he had not flipped on immigration.”

Sanders didn’t crash and burn over immigration! The Left loves open borders. No, his anti-Semitism and defense of totalitarian regimes, such as Cuba, did him in.

Coulter’s Tyrannical Wealth Tax

In her Breitbart News interview, Coulter warned (emphasis added):

“The one saving grace from this – because I’m just about to the point of writing my final book Screw It, We’re Doomed – at which point all there really is left for us to is take revenge on the people who have wrecked our country. And we’re getting the initial taste of it right now.”

How would Coulter take revenge (apart from using her oft-repeated firing squad scenario)?

Coulter has repeatedly proposed an unconstitutional wealth tax to target, specifically, the Koch Brothers. That’s right, Coulter would politicize and weaponize the IRS and specific people she does not like.

According to Coulter (emphasis added):

“Hispanics are voting for Bernie, not because of immigration, he’s had the toughest position on immigration, just like they voted in Venezuela, they want socialism. When the country’s over, I’m volunteering to go work for Sanders and AOC to make sure we have a really strict wealth tax. I want to clean out the Chamber of Commerce-types, I want to bankrupt the Koch brothers.

Coulter’s wacky proposal, reminiscent of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other far-left radicals, is blatantly unconstitutional, tyrannical, and something Bolshevik Bernie would love. Moreover, Trump – not Sanders – has the toughest position on immigration.

As noted by American Thinker (emphasis added):

“The Sixteenth Amendment of 1913 gave the federal government an additional right to tax income, and only income.”

“That is because the Constitution includes caveats as to how direct taxes can be applied, most notably in Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, which reads, ‘No Capitation or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.'”

“A direct tax on assets held without any ‘transmission’ of property having taken place is the arbitrary confiscation of property by a federal government which clearly has no right enumerated in the Constitution to do so.”

One economist put it to me this way:

“It’s especially destructive and immoral. Morally It’s just plain old theft, practically discourages production and encourages hiding wealth. It’s safer to hide it than invest it with a wealth tax.”

#BolshevikBernie could learn a thing or two from Coulter about really going Marxist.

Sanders is Nothing Like Trump

American Thinker provided an excellent analysis debunking the myth that Sanders and Trump are comparable “populist” leaders.

He writes (emphasis added):

“While Trump’s early performance in 2016 signified crossover appeal for the Republican ticket, Bernie has shown no crossover appeal at all.

Bernie is unappealing in critical swing states because he’s openly miles to the left of moderate Democrats and independent voters, and he’s generally unappealing to most Americans because he’s an ideological lunatic whose entire adult life has been devoted to thinking and talking about the magnificence of socialism.”

“His promise to pay for it consists of higher income taxes and an unconstitutional wealth tax to finance the unfathomable amount of debt his proposals demand.”

“And far from being out of touch with the American people, Trump seemed to have his finger firmly on the nation’s pulse.”

“[Trump] shared many other conservative positions with them, too, such as unequivocally declaring himself to be pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-military, and in favor of tax cuts. … He ran on his longstanding opposition to the Iraq War, protectionist trade policies to shield domestic manufacturing jobs from outsourcing (which earned him strong union support), relative protection of federal entitlement programs, and an unmistakable lack of emphasis on reductions to federal spending.”

Bernie Sanders is a revolutionary whose ideas are radically socialistic and entirely un-American, and he doesn’t seem to like this country much, either. Trump, on the other hand, is not on the political fringe, and there’s certainly nothing un-American about him. His very visage hearkens back to the Reagan era, which many Americans fondly look back upon as a time of patriotic prosperity, where America waged and won a war against the ideology to which Bernie Sanders is devoted.”

Ann Ocasio-Coulter = Bernie Sanders

So much of what Coulter says about Sanders is wrong, perhaps because she actually agrees with so much of his ideological and programmatic perspectives.
For more on Coulter’s dysfunctional views and commentary, see Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged, which provides an in-depth, detailed and holistic exposé of  Coulter.

.@AnnCoulter – Wackier Than Ever!

#WackyNutJob Ann Coulter both claims that she is “the head of Trump’s re-election campaign” and declares that she will attack Trump more than ever in 2020.

Last year, I exposed Coulter as the Left’s secret weapon against Trump and against America.[1]

Coulter was also exposed as a betrayer extraordinaire![2] Nevertheless, Coulter has the audacity to charge Trump with disloyalty.

Cognitive dissonance reigns in Coulter’s mind. Doublethink prevails.

Coulter continually attacks Trump for pursuing our #AmericaFirst agenda (in a holistic and not compartmentalized manner), consistently denounces Trump’s character and integrity, yet, somehow, this is helping him get re-elected?

Coulter has – for years – been a liability to Conservatism, America, and Trump’s #AmericaFirst agenda. (This series of essays will flesh that out in more detail.)

Coulter is virulently anti-Trump (she hates his entire family), is crazy about a wall and only a wall, and loves his “Mexican rapists” line – which is the line which the Left points to as proof of Trump’s racism.

Thanks a lot, Ann.

Trump Keeps His Promises

Every day, we see more evidence that Trump already has an amazing record of extraordinary achievements[3] toward Making America Great Again, and most Americans – apart from Coulter and the #TDS-addled Left – can see those accomplishments and want to reward him with a #Trump2020LandslideVictory!

Unlike Coulter, Trump keeps his promises. Yet, Coulter absurdly contends that Trump hasn’t kept any of his promises.

In contrast, last year Charlie Kirk highlighted many of those kept promises:

(Question for Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA: If Coulter has continually blatantly lied about President Trump for almost four years and is siding with the #FakeNewsMedia against Trump, then why are you sponsoring Coulter’s speeches?)

American Thinker recently reported on a Trump rally, writing (bold and underlined emphasis added):

When Trump spoke about outreach to the black community, the whole crowd roared its approval.  People there clearly believe that blacks have been enslaved by the Democrat party for too long. It’s time for them to break free and come to a community that welcomes them as fellow Americans who can enjoy this land’s bounty, rather than as a victim class that can reliably be played for votes as needed.

While the crowd may have been mostly white, there was nothing else “mostly” about it. Judging by looks, there were young families, retirees, current and former military, cops, blue-collar workers, white-collar workers, bikers, farmers, scads of “women for Trump,” high school and college students, polished urban people, and rough hewn country people.  What bound them together was a shared love of country and, because he is serving this country well, love of Trump.

In 2020, they’re supporting him more fervently than ever because he kept those promises. That was the theme they came to over and over again: he kept his promises.

And they agreed with his policies: a controlled border protects us from criminals, job-takers, and disease; socialism is bad; the Second Amendment is good; law enforcement is good; Trump’s economic policies are great; skin color shouldn’t matter; and Israel deserves America’s support. They see only good coming from Trump having four more years – and, given how Congress and the press treated him during three of his first four years, they jokingly agree that he should get a do-over.

To the above list, I would add his revamping of the judiciary, incredible support for the pro-life movement, opposition to human trafficking, and restoration of America’s position on the world stage.

In contrast, Coulter attacks Trump whenever he deals with anything which is not related to the wall or immigration. Coulter’s tunnel vision blinds her to the reality of what Trump is doing – an end run around the #DeepState, #Resistance, and #FakeNewsMedia.

Moreover, President Trump is for all Americans, not just the white Americans Coulter demands he cater to.

Trump’s Kept Promises!

American Thinker provided superb analysis of Trump’s economic achievements, writing (emphasis added):

When Trump took office, the U.S and World economies were slowing. The CBO projected job growth of 1.8 million in Trump’s first three years. We were told that the labor force was aging and that is all we could get.  Economic “experts” like Paul Krugman and Mark Zandi, who always shill for Democrats, predicted a severe recession with millions of job losses.

Instead, in the first three years we got around seven million new jobs, one million fewer part time jobs, a higher labor participation rate, a record high around seven million job openings and we finally got rising wages, especially for those at the bottom.

We also got record oil production because of Trump’s policies, and despite rising interest rates, we have had soaring stock markets, until the current coronavirus scare, because of Trump’s tax cuts.

We also got stabilized health care insurance rates after Trump got rid of the individual mandates – despite predictions prices would soar. Freedom of choice and more competition always work. We have a lot of slow earners. Life expectancy finally ticked back up after getting rid of the individual mandates.

We also have fewer people on food stamps because more people, especially minorities, the disabled, blue collar workers and the less educated, have more economic opportunities and are earning more. Many categories of workers have reached record low unemployment. No, President Obama, it did not take magic to bring back manufacturing jobs, it just took good policies.

We were told that the tax cuts would only help the rich and would cause revenues to go down trillions. Those were both lies.

It is not luck that the U.S economy is doing so much better than Europe and other countries around the World. It is because Trump’s policies focus every day on getting the power and purse back to the people as fast as possible instead of building up the greedy, powerful government. He is the opposite of the dictator and fascist that he is called.

American Thinker also outlined many of Trump’s judicial accomplishments, writing:

In the two to three years since that rash of decisions, Trump and Sen. Mitch McConnell have been working steadily to break the stranglehold activist judges have on the federal judicial system. To that end, they have placed 193 new judges in the federal system.

These are judges who do not believe that it is their role to legislate from the bench, who do not believe that the Constitution is a “living document” that can be folded, spindled, and mutilated to justify any outcome they want, and who do not believe that their emotional responses override the law.  Instead, strict constructionists believe that it is their responsibility to interpret the Constitution and the law as written, and as the drafters intended, regardless of their preferred outcome.

Donald Trump is finally able to fulfill his promises regarding immigration. And unlike what Obama did, when he unconstitutionally implemented his “DREAMer” policies, Trump is not rewriting or ignoring existing law. Instead, Trump has been working to enforce federal immigration laws as written. It took getting a majority of strict constructionist judges on the federal bench to stop activist judges from blocking his efforts to enforce the law.

But Coulter still vilifies Trump for not building a wall on her timetable!

#RussiaHoax Continues

American Thinker also had a feature which addressed the illogical and ideological fallacy of the whole spectrum of #RussiaHoax claims that we have seen over the past four years. He writes (emphasis added):

It is relatively easy to surmise the kind of leader whom Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping would love to see leading America.

That leader would be weak, show little interest in a militarily strong America or its allies, and implement policies that would weaken America and American influence. That leader would be skeptical of capitalism and would be advocating the dismemberment of the U.S. energy sector, since this would significantly boost Russia’s economic prospects and global influence while crippling America. That leader would propose obscene levels of government spending to bury the country under a mountain of debt. He would be all in on open borders.  He would be groovy with unfair trade agreements and would seek to tie America’s hands behind its back with ineffective international treaties and agreements. That leader would be a committed globalist inclined to see America as the problem. He might even own a flexible red plastic reset button.

Notably, there are candidates aplenty in the race who check the right boxes, and none of them is named Trump. Anyone who is telling you Russia wants Trump to be re-elected is telling the big lie, one that is so absurd that only a university-educated fool would believe it. It also demonstrates that the media and their fellow Democrat travelers are convinced that Americans really are a special kind of stupid.

Coulter ignores the daily and hourly onslaught of attacks against President Trump and foolishly adds to those attacks!

#DeepStateCoup

Is Coulter unmindful of the depth to which the Left has sought to undo the 2016 election and prevent a #Trump2020LandslideVictory?

In fact, Coulter seems sure that he will lose if he doesn’t build a wall to her liking.

American Thinker offered highlights from 2015 to the present. Here are a few selected paragraphs:

The Justice Department then used this fictitious document to commit fraud on the FISA Court. The DOJ needed to lie in order to spy on and infiltrate the Trump campaign. Its agents needed insurance to make sure Hillary won. They didn’t care how many people and families they destroyed and how many crimes they had to commit to achieve their only goal, which was to elect Hillary. So far, few, if any, of the criminals in the Justice Department have been charged.

Most of the media never cared about any of the crimes or unrelenting attacks on Trump. In fact, they were a major participant.

Then, Heaven forbid, Trump beat the odds and won, and the attacks escalated. Most of the media, bureaucrats, and other Democrats set out to impeach Trump, no matter how many fictional charges they had to bring. The investigations and fake articles have been unrelenting. The number of people Democrats are willing to destroy as they quest for power is pathetic.

Still, Coulter joins the chorus of far-left activists denouncing Trump, while claiming she is helping him!

Coulter’s ever-increasing wackiness is recounted in Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged, which provides an in-depth, detailed and holistic exposé of Ann Coulter.

Endnotes:

[1]      See @AnnCoulter, the Left’s Secret Weapon Against America at https://wp.me/p4jHFp-oh.

[2]      See @AnnCoulter: Betrayer Extraordinaire at https://bit.ly/2GzovR1.

[3]      For a partial list of Trump’s many accomplishments, see https://www.docdroid.net/KDaSuMo/trumpaccomplishments.pdf.

When Will Conservatives Reject Coulter’s Anti-Semitism?

Ann Coulter tweeted: “Where are the Bernie supporters tonight? Did Hillary have them gassed?

Reject Coulter's Anti-Semitism

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?

Coulter’s Terrorist Protection Racket

Seeking to protect America from terrorists, Ann Coulter actually protects terrorists who are already in America.

coulters-terrorist-protection-racket

Coulter wants to ban immigration to prevent people who are or might become terrorists from entering our homeland. She cites specific examples of “second-generation immigrants” (e.g., native-born Americans) who have committed terrorist attacks. Yet, at the very same time, Coulter denies the existence of terrorists in America.

Coulter has repeatedly denied (again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again) the threat that ISIS poses to Americans in America.

As she has done for the last several years, Coulter primary – indeed, only – concern is immigration. Hence her repeated denials that ISIS is not in America and ISIS poses absolutely no threat to Americans.

  • “I don’t even care about ISIS!” – Ann Coulter, 2/19/15
  • “ISIS is not on our doorstep.” – Ann Coulter, 2/25/15
  • “If you don’t want to be killed by ISIS, don’t go to Syria.” – Ann Coulter, 2/25/15
  • “ISIS: 0; Ted Kennedy: Too Many to Count” – Ann Coulter, 7/8/15
  • “Are you worried about an attack from ISIS in America? I’m not. [ISIS attacks in America] are an immigration problem.” – Ann Coulter, 8/22/16

This, even as she decries the influx of non-WASP immigrants who might become radicalized Islamists.

Classic Orwellian doublethink. The terrorists are immigrants (who must be banned and banished) but, because they’re immigrants, they’re not terrorists.

Confused, Coulter can’t grasp that we are facing an immigration and terrorism crisis. Moreover, Coulter redefines “immigrant” to include native-born Americans.

Coulter wrote (9/21/16): “This is the doubletalk the public has been forced to endure after every terrorist attack.”

Yes! After every terrorist attack, Coulter claims we must stop immigrants, not terrorists!

Does @AnnCoulter Love #BLM?

Nativist Ann Coulter recently reaffirmed her view that America “owes blacks” for the “legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.”

Coulter Loves BLM

Black Lives Matter would be proud. Those who value truth cringe.

This is polar opposite of the position she took in 1997 when she (quite accurately) said:

“I don’t understand the principle under which I’m supposed to be responsible for what some white people may have done six generations back. I mean, on that theory we oughta be punishing the children of criminals. We don’t even hold one – the next generation – responsible for what that person’s precise father did, much less some white guy 200 years ago.”[1]

(Indeed, today we don’t even hold the culprit accountable for his own actions.)

Only Blacks Have Civil Rights?

Now, two decades later, Coulter contends that America will be forever in debt to blacks. Coulter’s revised paradigm first emerged in her book, Mugged.[2]

Coulter claimed “civil rights are for blacks” because “We owe black people something, we have the legacy of slavery.” Yes, Coulter has fallen for the cult of victimhood and entitlement which is devastating so much of America today.

Civil rights are not, as Coulter contends, a function of victimization, but rather the consequence of a compact between citizens within a nation. For instance, the Constitution provides the foundation for our civil rights, with equal protections to all under the law. One could say these civil rights complement our universal human rights.

Coulter frequently cites the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, none of which claim that civil rights are for blacks only. Rather, they apply to all citizens of the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not limit civil rights to blacks (it doesn’t even use the word “blacks”), but actually prohibits discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” a pretty all-encompassing cohort of the population.

The Amendments and Act Coulter refers to were designed to include blacks – and others – into the pool of individuals whose civil rights are guaranteed. Coulter seemed to understand this in 1997, when she commended California’s Proposition 209[3] “to prohibit racial discrimination, much like the equal protection clause under the Civil Rights Act.”[4]

Legacy of Slavery and Jim Crow?

Coulter is simply wrong.

Dysfunctional blacks communities in America today are not the result of the “legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.” Rather, they are the direct consequence of the legacy of identity politics[5] and the welfare state.[6]

For fifty years, every failed big city has been run by Democrats pursuing liberal policies. Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Milwaukee, and Washington, DC, spring to mind. Their liberal policies and perspectives have wreaked havoc on those communities, often erupting in violence, riots, and murder.

This is irrefutable,[7] yet Coulter continues her own version of racial demagoguery which acts as if the Union lost the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement failed.

Coulter tacitly supports Black Lives Matter ideology by promoting a fallacious set of root causes for contemporary cultural pathologies within the black community. In effect, Coulter contributes to the escalating racial divide among Americans.

Black Lives Matter seized upon a false racial narrative in Ferguson[8] which literally fueled fires as the city erupted in flames.[9] Truth succumbed to a racial hoax.[10] Coulter perpetuates the core foundation of that hoax.

Strangely, Coulter once accurately condemned the racial grievance industry[11] and outed white liberals for their complicity and collusion.[12] Nevertheless, Coulter continues to grossly distort racial reality[13] and claim that civil rights are only for blacks and that blacks, in effect, have special rights. Apparently she never heard of Rev. King’s vision of a colorblind society.[14]

Coulter’s Own Racial Grievance Industry

As it turns out, Coulter is actually in the vanguard of a white version of the racial grievance industry[15] which asserts that America’s changing racial demographics will destroy America[16] as we once knew it and that we must restore a pristine WASP (white) America.[17]

Coulter’s nativist and xenophobic[18] views – fully expressed in Adios, America! – demonize all immigrants,[19] particularly Third World immigrants, especially Hispanics,[20] and those views have permeated Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Indeed, Coulter trumpets the advent of a New Trump Party[21] remarkably similar to the defunct Know-Nothing Party of antebellum America, one which is isolationist, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic,[22] and anti-Catholic.[23]

Coulter has repeatedly likened Trump’s fight for freedom for American workers to Lincoln’s fight for liberty for enslaved blacks. Strikingly, Coulter recently confused the Confederate flag for the American flag,[24] raising the question of which side she would have supported in that war.

It is possible that Coulter is compensating for her xenophobic, nativist views[25] (anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic) by extoling her love for blacks.

Regardless of her motives, her views suffuse the Trump campaign and threaten American values of liberty for all irrespective of race, gender, and class. We are all “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” because “all men are created equal.”

Let us all return to our roots – the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – and reject the nonsense of Black Lives Matter, the New Trump Party, and Ann Coulter.

Endnotes:

[1]               Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 6/14/97.

[2]               See Chapter 4: “Prejudice,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[3]               Proposition 209 was modeled on, and mirrored, the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[4]               Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 4/12/97.

[5]               See “Identity Politics Is the Problem” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1l.

[6]               See “Baltimore ‘Purged’” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8S.

[7]               See “Race Myths Exposed!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8Z.

[8]               See “Ferguson: Justice, Race, and Reason” at http://t.co/ksowFPCx62.

[9]               See “Ferguson in Flames” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-5I.

[10]             See “I’m Black: Truth Does Not Matter” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-5t.

[11]             See “Ann Coulter Takes on the Racial Grievance Industry” at http://t.co/YgG2rpgZIc.

[12]             See “Coulter Hates White Liberals” at http://t.co/NyvQ3KFhS9.

[13]             See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Racial Confusion” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7f.

[14]             See “King’s Dream Realized (sort of)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-76.

[15]             See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Blood Politics” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-6H.

[16]             See “Adios, Ann: Diversity = White” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7j.

[17]             See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s WASP Fantasy” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7H.

[18]             See “Ann Coulter’s Xenophobic Anti-Gospel of Hate” at http://t.co/aQGhLuWwtD.

[19]             See “Coulter: All Immigrants Are Bad” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8w.

[20]             See “Adios, Ann: Fear Mexicans, Not Jihadists” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-6A.

[21]             See “Coulter’s Know-Nothing American Party” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bP.

[22]             See “Jews: Quality, not Quantity” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-al.

[23]             See “First, Jews; Now, Catholics?” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-ah.

[24]             See “Coulter Confuses Confederate and American Flags” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-fg.

[25]             See “Ann Coulter’s ‘Racism Credit’” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7V.

When Will Conservatives Reject Coulter’s Anti-Semitism?

Ann Coulter tweeted: “Where are the Bernie supporters tonight? Did Hillary have them gassed?

Reject Coulter's Anti-Semitism

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?

Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter

For almost two decades, Ann Coulter has proven herself untrustworthy.[1] From betraying her own client[2] and scamming voters,[3] to using lies and employing elimination rhetoric,[4] Coulter has shown herself to be unscrupulous – all in the pursuit of self-promotion and self-glory.[5]

A new book – Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter – delves into the various ways in which Coulter promotes herself and her worldview, and it examines why so many people can come to believe her distortions and lies, even when confronted with a wealth of irrefutable evidence.

FrontCover

That Coulter retains any credibility at all – despite her pathological prevarication, her eager employment of elimination rhetoric, and her enmity to all who do not fit into her scheme of life – is perhaps the mystery of the ages. Propaganda endeavors to explain the seemingly inexplicable.

In a startling manner, Coulter audaciously adopted Orwell’s iconic 1984[6] as a blueprint for her own career. What totalitarian governments and dictators do on a national and international level, Coulter does on a somewhat smaller scale. Ever ideological, always self-promoting, Coulter uses the tactics and techniques, the verbiage and the principles, of 1984 to pursue her own agenda. Where that agenda collides with conservative principles or Christian values, those interests become subservient to her own.

If George Orwell is the Father of Big Brother, then he is the cherished uncle of Ann Coulter. Coulter certainly seems more at home with 1984 then she does with either the Bible or the Constitution.

Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter is structured in a simple fashion.

Chapter One compares and contrasts Coulter with Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.

Chapter Two provides a humorous review of a fictitious Ann Coulter book, Delusional, in which all of the quotations contained therein are from Coulter, demonstrating the schizophrenia of Coulter’s own self-identity.

Chapter Three examines Coulter’s first distinctly Orwellian book, Slander, and its incorporation of many Orwellian propaganda techniques. It further looks at Coulter’s own addiction to addictive thinking and its implication in her work.

With Chapter Four, we see the pervasiveness of Orwellian thinking as it is exhibited in Coulter’s third book, Treason, which is steeped in the thought processes of 1984. This chapter explores the many and varied Orwellian techniques and constructs employed by Coulter in Treason.

Chapter Five looks at Coulter’s first compilation of essays, How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must), which is an instruction book – or, How To manual – for conservatives.

A series of case studies then fleshes out the reality of Coulter’s utilization of propaganda and its political and cultural impact.

An Epilog renders hope possible in the life and work of Coulter.

An Appendix critiques an (almost) perfect piece of propaganda by Coulter.

Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter is available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, 2013, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[2]       See “Case Study #1: Oh, Paula (Jones)! Ann Coulter’s Betrayal,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[3]       See “Case Study #3: Coulter for Congress: Only Scoundrels Need Apply,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[4]       See “Appendix 1: Sampling of Coulter’s Elimination Rhetoric,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

[5]       See Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[6]       The full text of Orwell’s 1984 is available at http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/0.html.

Coulter Right on Rape, Wrong on Treason

With a stunning display of logic, Ann Coulter recently observed, “If we’re in the middle of a college-rape epidemic, why do all the cases liberals promote keep turning out to be hoaxes? Maybe I’m overthinking this, but wouldn’t a real rape be more persuasive?”[1]

She made that very same point on Hannity: “If we’re drowning in this epidemic of rape on college campuses, why are all the cases they keep giving us hoaxes? Could they give us a real one? And in fact, what it illustrates is an epidemic of false claims of rape.”[2]

RapeTreason

A Townhall promotion praised Coulter, exulting, “Ann Coulter slams the left for minimizing actual rape.” Funny, I don’t recall anyone on Townhall slamming Coulter for minimizing actual treason.

Minimizing Actual Treason

Ever since 9/11, Coulter has constantly and continually condemned liberals, calling them traitors. Her reward: accolades and best-sellers.

If “rape” has a specific meaning, so does “treason.” What exactly is treason? The Constitution defines treason thus:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

When confronted with the actual Constitutional definition of treason, Coulter blustered, “Right. I’ve heard that definition like a billion times since the book [Treason] came out.”

Then Coulter completely ignored that definition, adding, “I’m answering now to the question. … look, there are millions of suspects here. I am indicting an entire party. I am indicting the entire Democratic Party.”[3]

Coulter’s Criteria for Treason

Nonetheless, Coulter has cried “Treason!” for years, using criteria at once elastic and evanescent. Treason, per Coulter, consists of rejecting any portion of the Republican Party’s agenda. Moreover, mere failure to applaud appropriately is treasonous in her eyes.

Treasonable offenses, per Coulter, include (this is a partial list to save space):

  • Opposition to tax cuts
  • Opposition to ANWR oil drilling
  • Opposition to the new “Star Wars” defense system
  • Opposition to racial profiling
  • Opposition to invasion of Iraq
  • Being a Democrat
  • Being a moderate Republican
  • Being a liberal

For those of you who think I am kidding, here are a few gems from Ann Coulter herself:

  • “I think they are worse than Democrats. I mean there really is nothing so despicable as a weak-kneed Republican. They’re always trotted out when these Democrats are coming up with the most heinous, treasonous Whenever you hear, you know – ‘Even Chris Shays, even Lawrence Walsh’ – you know treason is afoot.”[4]
  • “Liberals are up to their old tricks again. Twenty years of treason hasn’t slowed them down.”[5]
  • “I think everyone should be patriotic Americans right now, which Democrats are not being. … Democrats [make] these obstructionist objections to reasonable domestic security measures. They refuse to pass a tax cut in order to pull us out of this recession. And they won’t let us drill in Alaska to preserve some mud flat. I would like the Democrats to be Americans.”[6]
  • “… in my next book, [I’m] going through 50 years of treason by Democrats.”[7]
  • “When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn into outright traitors.”[8]
  • “Democrats adore threats to the United States. Bush got a raucous standing ovation at his State of the Union address when he announced that ‘this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field a defense to protect this nation against ballistic missiles.’ The excitement was noticeably muted on the Democrats’ side of the aisle. The vast majority of Democrats remained firmly in their seats, sullen at the thought that America would be protected from incoming ballistic missiles. To paraphrase George Bush: If this is not treason, then treason has no meaning.”[9]

But treason does have meaning – only not the meaning Coulter gives it.

Coulter has seemingly determined, through her own unique “strict constructionist” interpretation of the Constitution, that anyone who disagrees with her about anything is a traitor. Since most Americans at some point disagree with Ann Coulter on most issues then most Americans must be traitors.

If the emperor had no clothes then Treason (2003) has no traitors – at least no contemporary ones. In fact, for her book, Coulter had to go back to the McCarthy era to find any treason (thus necessitating making McCarthyism the “linchpin” of her book).

Coulter conveniently skipped Republican traitor Robert Hanson – “the Spy of the Century” – because he didn’t fit her thesis of liberal treachery. Likewise, Jonathan Pollard and Aldrich Ames are absent from her book because they fail to support her paradigm.

Unable to unearth any actual contemporary traitors, Coulter redefined “treason” with rhetorical sleight-of-mouth to magically lead her audience to her preconceived conclusions.

Evidence be damned. If liberals aren’t really traitors they should still be regarded as such. Why? Because they are liberals. (Horror of horrors!)

David Horowitz Criticizes Coulter’s Analysis

David Horowitz gallantly (and laboriously) defended Treason while pointing out a number of flagrant flaws. A repentant Marxist, Horowitz recognized one glaring aspect of Coulter’s Orwellian constructs. Horowitz wrote:

“Equally disturbing was Coulter’s use of the phrase, ‘functionally treasonable’ – as in ‘[the Democratic Party] has become functionally treasonable.’ This is a problematic phrase on several counts. In the first place, ‘treasonable’ is not a word but seems to suggest ‘capable of treason,’ which is different from being actually treasonous. The distinction is important.”[10]

“But ‘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. 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.”

We see here the very same totalitarian impulses which are reflected in Coulter’s musing over what she would do as “czar of the universe” or desire to be the “ayatollah of the conservative movement.”[11]

William F. Buckley, Jr., Criticizes Coulter’s Analysis

Finally – after months and months of being unable to name a single contemporary traitor, Coulter did: the publisher of the New York Times.

Conservative giant William F. Buckley, Jr., responded, “But even as Ms. Coulter clearly intends to shock, why shouldn’t her reader register that shock? By wondering whether she is out of her mind, or has simply lost her grip on language.”[12]

Buckley explained:

“What except that prompts her to come up with (or the Post to publicize) her syllogism? The man who heads the paper that employs an editorial writer who dangles the proposition that a thought given to moral equivalency is appropriate and humbling on September 11, 2003 is a ‘traitor’? That end-of-the-road word, bear always in mind, is hers. Coulter is a law school graduate and isn’t using the ‘T’-word loosely. The opening sentences of her article reject any such explanation. She means to charge that Sulzberger is engaged in traitorous activity. That, after all, is what traitors engage in.”

Buckley continued:

“The thought-process used here is everywhere in evidence in her best-selling book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. The book’s central contention is that liberals critically situated on the American scene aren’t fatuous asses – that’s baby talk. They are enemies of the United States and of American freedom.”

But that is precisely what Coulter wants to convey: “there are millions of suspects here. I am indicting an entire party. I am indicting the entire Democratic Party.”[13]

When will the conservative movement and conservative media take Coulter to task for minimizing actual treason? Do conservatives no longer care what words mean? Have they, in Buckley’s parlance, “simply lost their grip on language?”

The renowned historian, Paul Johnson, observed:

“A man who deliberately inflicts violence on the language will almost certainly inflict violence on human beings, if he acquires the power. Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure the truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honorable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status.”[14]
Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, “The College Rape Club, 12/10/14.

[2]       Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 12/9/14.

[3]       Ann Coulter, Buchanan and Press, MSNBC, 7/25/03.

[4]       Ann Coulter, YAF Conference, 7/20/00.

[5]       Ann Coulter, “Mothers Against Box Cutters speak out,” 10/17/01.

[6]       Ann Coulter, Hannity & Colmes, FNC, 12/10/01.

[7]       Ann Coulter, America Now, 1/3/02.

[8]       Ann Coulter, CPAC, 2/2/02.

[9]       Ann Coulter, “War-torn Dems,” 1/29/03.

[10]     David Horowitz, “The Trouble with Treason,’” Front Page Magazine, 7/8/03.

[11]     See “Delusional – New Ann Coulter Book” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3z.

[12]     William F. Buckley, Jr., “Tailgunner Ann,” Claremont, 12/1/03.

[13]     Ann Coulter, Buchanan and Press, MSNBC, 7/25/03.

[14]     Ann Coulter, Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terror, Crown, 2003, pg. 292. Quoting from Paul Johnson, Enemies of Society, Atheneum, 1977, pg. 259.

Ann Coulter Trivializes Rape

Ann Coulter’s lead paragraph in her latest polemic would be hilarious if it weren’t so Coulteresque.

“Sorry this column is late. I got raped again on the way home. Twice. I should clarify – by ‘raped,’ I mean that two seductive Barry White songs came on the radio, which, according to the University of Virginia, constitutes rape.”[1]

RapeTrivial

If anyone else had written that, one could say it beautifully encapsulates the folly of redefining terms to the point where they cease to have meaning. Like Rush Limbaugh, Coulter is using absurdity to illustrate the absurd. But Coulter has no credibility on this issue to make that point.

In her column, Coulter does makes a superb point, “If we’re in the middle of a college-rape epidemic, why do all the cases liberals promote keep turning out to be hoaxes? Maybe I’m overthinking this, but wouldn’t a real rape be more persuasive?”[2]

However, Coulter’s brilliant analysis of the alleged “rape crisis” on college campuses makes one’s mind boggle over Coulter’s own disingenuous on rape.

The previous night on Hannity, Coulter lamented the trivialization of rape by all of these rape hoaxes. But Coulter herself has – for years – trivialized rape.

No matter what Ann Coulter says, it is hard to believe that she cares about rape victims or the offspring of rape. She does not.

Coulter blithely speaks of raping the planet as our God-given duty, and, just this year, made numerous accusations of rape. Indeed, Coulter claimed that she was being raped.

Immigration = Rape

At a conference in March, Coulter likened immigration to rape. In her own words:

“No, [immigration] isn’t a natural process. It’s like you’re being raped and the guy is telling you, ‘Sorry, my penis is in you. Nothing you can do about it.’ … No, you’re raping me! Demographics are changing by force. There is nothing natural about it.”[3]

Those bolded words – “you’re raping me” – were shouted, with gasps from the audience!

Rape01

For nearly two decades, Coulter has railed against rape hoaxes, such as Tawana Brawley, which were perpetrated to make political points. But Coulter’s real attitude toward rape is cavalier. Babies conceived in rape have no value in her eyes. Coulter speaks favorably of raping the planet. And, now, she claims immigrants are raping her!

Rape02

“Rape Us Again”

Only a month later, Coulter again diluted the meaning and diminished the significance of rape by making false accusations against the mayor of New York City. Coulter marred an otherwise exemplary column on the rapists of the Central Park jogger by invoking the Rape Card again. Coulter concluded that column with these words:

“But now de Blasio wants to hold down our legs while the ‘Central Park Five’ rape us, again.”[4]

Rape03

When did the “Central Park Five” rape Ann, how is de Blasio raping her again, and how are immigrants now raping Coulter? (Let’s be clear: only one person was raped and it was not Coulter!)

Coulter, the consummate wordsmith, should know better! Lacking sense and sensibilities, Coulter – again! – diminishes and trivializes the reality of actual rape.[5]

Astonishingly, her column (and a large section in in her book) describes the 1989 rape in question, yet Coulter is inured to the reality of what she describes.

Rape Exception for Abortion

Moreover, Coulter thinks life in the womb is a “philosophical” argument and wants pro-lifers to be pragmatic by permitting human beings who are conceived in rape to be aborted.

She insists, “Can you learn to say, ‘no exceptions’ or rather, ‘no abortions with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother?’ Learn that. Memorize that. Stop waxing philosophical when you’re running to make laws.”[6]

Rape04

Absolving Romney for his disastrous defeat in 2012, Coulter blamed pro-lifers:

“The last two weeks of the campaign were consumed with discussions of women’s ‘reproductive rights,’ not because of anything Romney did, but because these two idiots [Akin and Mourdock] decided to come out against abortion in the case of rape and incest.”

Coulter’s disregard for human life is clear in her pretzel-twisted logic:

“No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist. Yes, it’s every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape. But sentient human beings are capable of drawing gradations along a line.”

A child of rape is “every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape,” yet that child’s life is forfeit for political reasons.[7]

Ethics have never been Coulter’s forte.

Update: Not long after this column was posted, Coulter suggested that physical violence usually accompanies rape, like “being hit on the head with a brick. People know what a rape is, and to have girls trying to get attention from Lena Dunham to this poor psychotic at UVA … ( Lars Larson Show, 12/11/14).

Coulter has a surprisingly different perspective when it comes to her own safety:

“Men’s hands are lethal weapons. Every male I walk past, every male I walk past, I look at him knowing with his bare hands he could kill me, and I can do nothing. But I have no option. I can’t kill somebody with my bare hands (MSNBC, 11/10/96).”

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, “The College Rape Club, 12/10/14.

[2]       Ann Coulter, “The College Rape Club, 12/10/14.

[3]       Ann Coulter, Eagle Forum panel, 3/8/14.

[4]       Ann Coulter, “What You Won’t Read in the Papers About the ‘Central Park Five,’” 4/23/14.

[5]       As brilliant as Coulter can be, she lacks sound judgment, which is one of many reasons why we should Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[6]       Ann Coulter, “Don’t Blame Romney,” 11/7/12.

[7]       See Rebecca Kiessling, “Rebecca Kiessling’s Reply to Ann Coulter – Save the 1,” 11/9/12, http://rebeccakiessling.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/rebecca-kiesslings-reply-to-ann-coulter-save-the-1/.