Tag Archives: elitism

.@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 = MiniMikeBloomberg

What do mega-billionaire Mike Bloomberg and multi-millionaire Ann Coulter have in common? Far too much.

Both are affluent and privileged New York elites who believe they are superior to the rest of us. Both abuse their wealth, power, and affluence to force their will and their ideologies on others.

In unfiltered moments of candor, each has revealed a failure to identify with Middle America and those whom they deem beneath them.

Their words and their tweets betray them.

Both get rattled when confronted with the reality they cannot deny. Coulter has fled from people who could effectively refute her arguments and she eschews callers calling in to talk shows she is on. Bloomberg hates being challenged and, for most of his candidacy, avoided interviews.

Bloomberg wants to subvert the Constitution in a number of ways, including gun confiscation, a abridgment of Americans second amendment rights.

Coulter wants Trump to do a series of unconstitutional Executive Orders like Obama did. Trump wisely chose patience and discretion.

Both Coulter and Bloomberg are elites who want to tell everyone else what to do while being exempt from their own standards. Both are bullies, trying to force others to yield to their will. They are filled with hubris and devoid of compassion.

Bloomberg has been all over the political map, going from Democrat to Republican to Independent and back to Democrat.

Coulter has a similarly unstable ideological history: From paleo-conservative to neo-conservative to Alt-Right; a former Tea Partier who now attacks the Tea Party; and a former pro-lifer to one hostile to the pro-life movement.

Remarkably, Coulter has denounced every single presidential candidate she once endorsed for over the past two decades. She even has harsh words for Ronald Reagan, whom she once idolized.

Coulter devoted a whole column (2/12/20) to defending Bloomberg’s racist remarks (which strangely mirror Coulter’s) under the guise of defending Bloomberg’s anti-crime policies.

Coulter’s opening paragraph (emphasis added):

Idiot conservatives were doing the idiot thing this week, screaming “racism!” in response to an old tape of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg defending stop-and-frisk, one of the policies that drove New York City murder rates down to Mayberry levels. They weren’t being ironic.

Bloomberg’s policy (stop-and-frisk) was not racist; his words and beliefs were.

Here’s what Bloomberg said (emphasis added):

Ninety-five percent of murders, murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take a description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops.”

Coulter mirrors Bloomberg!

Similarly, just as every American hero looks like a conservative to Coulter, all terrorists look alike. According to Coulter, “they all look identical!” She would use “a paint chip for their skin color” to determine their guilt or innocence. In reading and listening to her commentary on terrorist profiling, it’s as if Coulter knows of only two paint chips: white and non-white.

Coulter’s obsession with racial profiling began in mid-September, 2001. By March of the following year, she had developed her bizarre, viscerally-offensive, and self-evidently false paint chip theory. Paint chips to profile? Coulter’s own unique contribution to racial demagoguery – paint chips – exceeds even South Africa’s apartheid which incorporated a complex system of racial categories.

(See Chapter 5: Paint Chip Profiling in Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age.)

In the end, Bloomberg crashed and burned. Coulter has suffered the same fate at the hands of President Trump.

Americans were relieved when Bloomberg ended his campaign, with many marking themselves save from Bloomberg ads.

Similarly, many conservatives want to mark themselves safe from Coulter’s commentary.

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.

Coulter Lies About Supreme Court Case

Ann Coulter leads the charge of those seeking to crush a Cruz candidacy with a lie!

When she thought she could foist Romney on us again in 2016,[1] Coulter began to attack Cruz on his citizenship. With Cruz posing a serious threat to Trump, her new-found soul-mate,[2] Coulter has shifted into high gear, stridently claiming Cruz is ineligible to be president.[3]

Supreme Court Case

This isn’t Coulter’s first attempt at subverting the Constitution for political purposes.[4]

Backdrop: Elián González

The Elián González case became international political theater during the 2000 presidential race. It rekindled the Cold War in miniature. Coulter fed into that political hysteria by telling lies of her own, lies which fit into her own ideological sensibilities. Those lies included turning a Supreme Court decision on its head, claiming it said the exact opposite of what the Court decided.[5]

The heart and core of Coulter’s case for denying Juan Miguel González custody of his own son rested on Coulter’s decades-long belief that fathers have absolutely no rights or responsibilities to their own children except through marriage.

On talk TV – contrary to what the law actually says – Coulter continually insisted that putative fathers have no rights to their children: “The law used to account for these things by saying the father doesn’t have rights to a child unless he’s married to the mother. That’s how a man can claim his heritage and his claims on a child. … That’s how a father gets the right to children, by being married to the mother.”[6]

Coulter reaffirmed – again and again – that only marriage confers custodial rights: “First of all, the idea that a father has rights to a child by donating sperm; No! A father gains rights to a child by being married to the mother. … He has absolutely no rights to the child! Fathers gain rights to children by marrying the mothers.”[7]

The only problem with Coulter’s claims is that they are false. The law has always upheld the biological rights of fathers, irrespective of whether the child is born out-of-wedlock.

Lying About Supreme Court Cases

Coulter’s view of parental rights was her principal argument to separate a son from his father, but that core point of her position, that central concept, was an outright lie! To buttress that lie – which she has consistently expressed for almost twenty years – Coulter lied about a Supreme Court ruling which any layman can read and see that reaches the exact opposite conclusion. Coulter wrote:

“Let’s just consider the initial presumption that a father gets custody of his son. The law is indeed clear, at least to this extent: That ‘law’ refers only to legitimate children. … The Supreme Court last weighed in on the legal rights of unwed fathers in 1989 when it cut off all of the father’s rights to his child, including visitation.”[8]

In her essay, Coulter literally reversed the decision of the Court, falsely claiming it denied those custodial rights. Contrary to Coulter’s fiery opinion, the law says otherwise. The Supreme Court, in five cases, upheld the principle of paternity rights for putative fathers. Those cases were all cited in the Supreme Court case cited by Coulter.

In a rather remarkable display of truth twisting, Coulter took this Supreme Court case which affirms the custody rights of natural fathers and declared it the definitive denial of those rights![9]

The father in Coulter’s cited case was not denied parental rights due to illegitimacy but because his claim of fatherhood was filed after the filing deadline. That father had failed to assert his rights within two years of his daughter’s birth. Illegitimacy was never the issue. The Supreme Court has consistently confirmed custodial rights of natural fathers, both in principle and in practice. So, the case Coulter cited says the exact opposite of what Coulter claimed.

“Bald assertions about the very question under dispute,” Coulter once wrote, “is an odd method of argument,”[10] yet that is precisely what Coulter did (and continues to do). According to Coulter, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion; everyone is not entitled to his own facts.”[11] Apparently Coulter is not above making up her own “facts.”

Strangely (or not, for Ann), Coulter recently asserted, “Apparently that’s the way constitutional analysis goes these days. You determine, we’re all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now: Whatever you want the Constitution to say, that’s what it says, miraculously. Well, that has never been me!”[12]

Sorry, Ann, but you are the allegedly “conservative”[13] Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-70.

[2]               See “Coulter Hates All GOP Candidates But Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bj.

[3]               See “Coulter Claims Cruz Ineligible” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9j.

[4]               See a series of case studies in Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[5]               For greater details on the González case and Coulter’s perversion of constitutional law, see “Case Study # 4: In the Name of Elián (González),” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[6]               Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 1/22/97.

[7]               Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 1/25/97.

[8]               Ann Coulter, “The bastardization of justice,” 4/26/00.

[9]               Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 410 (1989).

[10]             Ann Coulter, “Miranda Not a ‘Constitutional Straightjacket,’” 12/15/99.

[11]             Ann Coulter, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, Regnery, 1998, pg. 3.

[12]             Ann Coulter, John Gibson Show, Fox News, 1/8/16.

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

Coulter Bashes Cruz – Again!

In a remarkable interview on the eve of Thanksgiving, Ann Coulter again bashed Ted Cruz, calling him a “midget” “compared to Trump!”

Extolling a Trump-Romney ticket, Coulter rejected Cruz for even the V.P. spot. The reason is astonishing!

CruzMidget

Coulter explained her logic, claiming that Trump is being self-sacrificing in running for President while Cruz and the remainder of the candidates have “got nothing else to do.” The other candidates have “nothing else to do?”

Coulter declared (emphasis added):

“I would put Reagan, Romney, Trump in the same category in this way and that is all three of them – unlike everyone else running for President – their lives are made worse by running for and becoming President. They have fantastic lives. They’re wealthy. They have beautiful families. The fact that they run for President at all suggests to me that these three genuinely love America and would like to save it.”

That’s right, Trump is a good candidate because he’s got a “fantastic” life. In what way is his life fantastic? Well, he’s “wealthy” and has a “beautiful family.” (Don’t the other candidates have beautiful families, too?)

Coulter claimed that Trump “genuinely love(s) America and would like to save it.” Does Coulter mean that Cruz hates America and wants to destroy it?

As for the self-sacrificing nature of Trump’s presidential aspirations, doesn’t he want to be President for the sake of being President?

Coulter further asserted (emphasis added), “These guys who are running because they’re got nothing else to do, they really are such midgets compared to Trump.”

Coulter, ever the elite, knows no better!

Coulter’s “Useless Idiots” and Other Foolishness

Over the past week, Coulter has exposed the foolishness of her heart in countless ways.

Coulter posted[1] anti-Semitic tweets[2] and then denied doing so.[3] Later, her anti-Catholic tweets[4] decried the anti-Americanness of Catholicism. In her weekly column, Coulter added to her foolishness by “sneering” at people who have not gone to elite universities.

Foolish

An elite’s elite, Coulter’s closest friends and colleagues are elites. She regularly associates with millionaires and billionaires.[5] As a teen, she wanted the “cream to rise” and, now, she regards herself as the crème-de-la-crème.[6] Elitism is in Coulter’s genes.

Consequently, Coulter’s ego knows no bounds and her arrogance no limits. Coulter, a very intelligent person, often acts like a fool.

Coulter’s “Useless Idiots”

Coulter’s most recent essay title, “Useless Idiots,”[7] is reminiscent of Scrooge’s “surplus humanity,” and it brings to mind Jesus’ admonition in Matthew 5:22 – “… whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ [empty-headed] shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.”

Jesus admonished his audience to refrain from calling or deeming other people worthless (the meaning of Jesus’ words). Coulter’s “Useless Idiots” seemingly denies the humanity of those she condemns even as it certainly denies their utility. But we should not be surprised. Throughout her career,[8] Coulter has sought out useful relationships and discarded those she deemed were worthless.

In this column, Coulter again championed her latest hero, Donald Trump, as the new and improved Ronald Reagan. Trump, after all, is a successful multi-billionaire who went to an elite school. In other words, the Donald has the right credentials.

Moreover, Coulter explicitly equates intelligence with going “to top schools.” In fact, Coulter redefines “elite” to exclude “utter mediocrities” who went to ordinary schools. It must be a horror of horrors to attend “a third-rate college in the era of need-blind admissions.”

Ironically, Coulter once adored Reagan, who did not go to an elite school.

From that column (and other of her writings), it appears Coulter would like to establish an aristocracy in which elites (as defined and selected by Coulter)[9] would rule.

Sneering at the Unwashed Masses

In a rebuttal entitled, “Ann Coulter’s sneering at ‘bush-league colleges’ is unbecoming of a true conservative,” Matt Lewis demolishes Coulter’s elitist pretensions.

Lewis acknowledges the importance of “Intelligence and academic performance,” but adds that “they must also be tempered with virtues like wisdom, prudence, and humility – not to mention leadership skills.” He notes that throughout history, many evil people have been intelligent. According to Lewis, “The most dangerous person isn’t a dumb person – it’s more likely a highly intelligent person who lacks wisdom, or has selfish motivations.”

The Founding Fathers would have agreed with Lewis. They knew that the success of our Republic depends upon a virtuous people and without that, it will ultimately fail.

Lewis quotes economist and philosopher Walter Williams, “The opposite of intellect isn’t dullness or slowness, but the opposite of wisdom is foolishness, which is far more dangerous.”

Building upon Williams’ insight, Lewis adds, “Intelligence is important, but without other virtues, it’s more dangerous than ignorance. The unadulterated worship of elite academic achievement employs a brand of tunnel vision that is not only wrong, but dangerous.”

Given Coulter’s hatred of political correctness and the far-left views which permeate academia, one wonders why she would extol the supremacy of those very institutions. Indeed, the Stanford Trinity (racism, sexism, classism) and an environment hostile to Christianity and traditional values pervade many of these universities which deny the conservative and Christian views Coulter purports to embrace.

What’s up with that? Coulter is herself among their alumni. (In an indirect manner, Coulter is praising herself as qualified because she is among the elite as she defines it.)

Coulter’s views, as expressed in her column, reveal an incredibly bizarre perspective for one who claims to be a constitutional conservative. As Lewis notes, Coulter is “condescendingly dismissing the value of … 99 percent of the country.” Just as Coulter would disenfranchise women from voting, she would dismiss the views of most Americans because they don’t measure up to her standards.

As Lewis puts it, “This is not only morally contemptuous and politically stupid – it’s flat out wrong.” He adds that it is “unbecoming of a conservative.” The American Dream has always been something achievable by people from every strata of society who, with determination and hard work, strive to attain their goals.

But not in Coulter’s world.

Open Letter to Ann

Dear Ann,

My dear sister in Christ (if you are, in fact, in Christ)[10],

You have – for far, far too long – trusted in yourself and not in God.

Very intelligent people, like you, Ann,[11] can become extremely foolish when they turn their backs on God. That’s just dumb. God gives His wisdom to those who seek and do His will.

Hence, your many imbroglios.[12]

The apostle James tells us, in James 4:6, “Therefore He says: ‘God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.’” In the very next verse, he urges us, “Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.”

Ann, are you bedeviled?

James advises us and assures us, in verse 8, “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.” That is a promise direct from the heart of God. Yes, Ann, he is speaking to you and to me.

How do we draw near to God? James tells us: “Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.” We obey Him and seek to become more like Him. As we draw near to God, He reciprocates. In that process, we yield our lives to Him.

I understand, Ann, that being in control is all important to you. You want to control every aspect of your life. Self-sufficiency[13] (except when you depend upon your powerful friends to help you when you screw up) is part of your self-identity.[14] But, Ann, you constantly and continually elevate your will about God’s.

Therefore, God has not shared His wisdom with you and He has given you over to your own foolishness.[15]

In verse 10, James encourages each of us with these words: “ Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.”

Humility is another Christian trait which remains foreign to you. In point of fact, humility is inimical to your proclivity, your self-perception, and your preferred way of being. But, unless you humble yourself, God will continue to resist you.

Your brother in Christ,

Dan

Endnotes:

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

[2]               See “Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a1.

[3]               See “Effing Jews and Ann Coulter’s Waterloo (or Damascus Road?)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a9.

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

[5]               See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-70.

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

[7]               Ann Coulter, “Useless Idiots,” 9/23/15.

[8]               See The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free download at http://www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[9]               See “Coulter Dictates” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3E.

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

[11]             See “Ann Coulter – Smartest Person in the World” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-59.

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

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

[14]             See “Ann Coulter’s Crazy Funhouse Mirror” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8n.

[15]             See “Fifty Shades of Coulter” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5E.

Coulter’s Soccer Flop – Part Deux

Why Coulter Trashed Soccer and What It Reveals About Coulter

With her second soccer column,[1] Coulter performed a strategic retreat without retracting anything. Whereas her first column emphasized the foreign – the anti-American – nature of soccer, the second placed far greater emphasis on its un-masculine nature and boring qualities. Both columns asserted that soccer is not a real “sport,” just as some say that Coulter is not a real “journalist.”

Soccer02

As noted in my commentary on her first column,[2]Coulter’s Soccer Flop,” her polemic against soccer exhibited shoddy journalism – she was incorrect in every significant point – and expressed a xenophobic spirit. All of her commentary on soccer exposes her ignorance of that sport, one she clearly detests and can’t comprehend because it is so foreign to her. (This is surprising as she is a world traveler who, as a child, spend her summers in Europe.)

Montserrat Algarabel is representative of bloggers critical of Coulter.[3] She makes a number of salient points in response to Coulter’s assertions, among them:

  • Coulter claimed soccer fans become violent because they’re bored, which, Algarabel notes, is “psychologically, sociologically, culturally, and even historically inaccurate.”
  • As to Coulter’s claim that soccer is a sissy’s game because there is no danger of injury, many players have died or been maimed as a result of playing.
  • Coulter’s confusion over how much time is left in a game prompted this suggestion: “Just look at the clock on the screen and heed the referee’s announcements.”

Coulter’s Soccer Tweets

 Before continuing with an analysis of Coulter’s commentary – the root causes of her hatred of soccer – here are Coulter’s tweets regarding that sport (so you don’t have to search for them). These will give you a sense of the flavor of her humor and of her low regard for both soccer and liberals. Pay especially close attention to her sixth tweet.

 

Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter June 25, 2014, 4:35 pm via Twitter Web Client10283

Anti-soccer evidence pours in! Smug creep at IRS, John Koskinen, served as President of the U.S. Soccer Foundation from 2004-2008.

Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter June 25, 2014, 4:36 pm via Twitter Web Client5763

RT @gloomycon: @AnnCoulter Overheard at 0-0 soccer game: “now I know why soccer fans riot.”

Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter June 26, 2014, 3:45 am via Twitter Web Client255185

More evidence soccer is for girls. Player from Uraguay caught BITING an opponent yesterday. Not punching. Not a cross-body block. BITING!

Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter June 27, 2014, 3:22 pm via Twitter Web Client1616

RT @theMRC: Excited George Stephanopoulos Rides Air Force One With Obama, Watches Soccer bit.ly/1qQznN2

Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter June 30, 2014, 6:32 pm via Twitter for iPhone39128

I’m on @seanhannity tonight from Paris, where I am not watching the Germany-Algeria game.

Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter July 2, 2014, 8:56 am via Twitter Web Client6645

Doing the job Americans just won’t do: Immigrants fill up roster of “U.S.” soccer team – bit.ly/TOADlO

Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter July 2, 2014, 8:12 pm via Twitter for iPhone14

RT @djholzem: @cockacolo @RDubThree @AnnCoulter Soccer lovers have awesome comebacks

Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter July 2, 2014, 9:13 am via Twitter Web Client3346

WAPO: “only a measly 17% of Americans are watching the World Cup very closely” – wapo.st/1qfBIj4 100% R unatheletic journalists.

Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter July 2, 2014, 8:12 pm via Twitter for iPhone16

RT @djholzem: @cockacolo @RDubThree @AnnCoulter Got me with that zinger Arturo. I guess you had four hours during the soccer game to come …

Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter July 2, 2014, 8:26 pm via Twitter Web Client2445

NEW COLUMN IS POSTED! SOCCER: PART DEUX -www.anncoulter.com

Xenophobia

Coulter’s tweet (July 2nd) on the U.S. soccer team being composed of immigrants was as wrong as Pelosi’s tweet from over two weeks earlier.[4] Christine Rousselle reports:

“While five members of the team were born and raised in Germany, four of those are the sons of U.S. servicemen who were stationed there and were granted U.S. citizenship at birth because at least one of their parents is an American citizen. Another, Mix Diskerud, was born to an American mother in Norway. The others featured in [Pelosi’s] tweet are first-generation Americans who were all born on U.S. soil, making them U.S. citizens by default. They are not immigrants and never had to undergo a naturalization process – their parents did.”

But in Coulter’s mind – despite the furor caused over Pelosi’s erroneous tweet – anyone with a foreign-sounding name or non-American family members can’t be a real American. So, let’s call them all immigrants and lump them into the current immigration crisis.

Coulter condemns soccer as a foreign, European, socialist, and liberal phony “sport” designed to subvert American morality. She encapsulated her thesis in two words: “It’s foreign” – the very definition of xenophobia. (Yet, Coulter loves Mexican food – prepared by foreigners, those immigrants she so despises.)

A number of commentators took Coulter to task for her xenophobia:

  • “Releasing a reactionary hit piece on the next great American success story is not constructive to the cause.”[5]
  • “… we turn to the last paragraph of her column, where we observe some deep-seated xenophobia: … This xenophobic tone can be explained in one way and one way only: she’s literally scared of the foreign.”[6]
  • “… (like many on the far right, Coulter takes pride in endorsing xenophobia).”[7]

Notice that Coulter’s words tarnish conservatism!

Immigration Obsessed

Coulter has been immigration obsessed since the mid-1990s. From 1994-1996, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee. As Coulter recently explained on Hannity:

“When I worked for Senate Judiciary Committee this was my issue. It wasn’t at all for illegal immigrants. It was for immigrants who come to this country and commit felonies. They’re convicted. Their convictions are upheld. If they committed an aggravated felony the law said they were supposed to serve time and then be deported. At that time, they were being deported at a rate of four percent a year because they could go into endless hearing. Once they finished all the immigration hearings they could have their habeas corpus hearings. That’s, you know, a decade in the United States, at which point they’ve married and then they throw themselves on the mercy of the court, saying, ‘Oh, but I have an American spouse, I have an American child.’ Well, that is because you’ve been living here.”[8]

Coulter offered her expertise on MSNBC in 1996, claiming, “Democrats don’t want all immigrants. What they want is welfare recipient immigrants, which is why they’ve rigged the rules.”[9] Even then, Coulter demonstrated her bias against foreigners from non-white nations, adding, “It’s extremely difficult to come in if you’re coming from a Western European country. However, if you are from a Third World country, ‘Welcome.’ If your genetic ancestors did not invent the wheel, ‘Oh, well, let them come in.’ But they’re the natural Democratic voters.”

Coulter’s disdain for Third World countries in 1996 was mirrored in her commentary last week, when she wrote: “The only risk of death in a soccer game is when some Third World peasant goes on a murderous rampage after a bad call.”

Third World peasant.

Classic Coulter. A xenophobic elite.

Narcissistic Elite

In 1996, Coulter commended America’s colonists, saying, “The reason this country has ended up with such stellar immigrants throughout the years, is that, absolutely – stellar … [they were] religious protesters.”[10]

As an American who champions an American exceptionalism which arose from our Judeo-Christian heritage, I appreciate Coulter’s perspective on our Founding Fathers. But Coulter goes many steps further, especially in light of her own family pedigree. Her ancestry goes back to the Puritans.[11]

Coulter takes our present-day immigration crisis personally. And a racial tinge inhabits her worldview. Her commentary consistently alludes to the racial composition of new (legal and illegal) immigrants. In contrast, the colonial immigrants that were “stellar” immigrants from Western Europe were her people. These foreigners from other parts of the world are interlopers.

Coulter’s narcissism and elitism are noticeable in both of these columns as well.

One blogger provided an accurate psychological critique of Coulter:[12] “Every inch of her is covered with the criticism-resistant armor of narcissism, Teflon-grade shamelessness, Kevlar-quality self-confidence so unearned as to be unfathomable.”

Noting that Coulter wants sports to be more violent, he asks, “Why is she so callous?” (Callousness is one of the traits of narcissism.)[13]

He continues, “When Ann Coulter doesn’t like something, that thing is immoral and un-American. That means Ann Coulter’s caprices, tastes, and predilections are, for Ann Coulter, the guiding lights of Americanness.”

Precisely! Coulter, in her mind, embodies what it means to be an American. Her pedigree tells her so.

He adds, “Point of fact, soccer from England. But the point isn’t the origin, for Coulter. Foreignness is a class- and race-based criteria for discrimination: you know who to hate by knowing what they like!”

Soccer Moms

Coulter took traits she believes characterize liberals and superimposed them on soccer and, then, exclaimed, “Voila! See, soccer is evil!”

Soccer03

Consistently, since before 9/11, Coulter has denigrated those with whom she disagrees, disparaging women as “soccer moms” and men as wimps, sissies, girly-boys, pantywaists, and the like. Intriguingly, Coulter’s dispersions against liberals typically contain what she would regard as feminine or effeminate qualities.

As with immigration, Coulter also has a split personality on “soccer moms.” In 1996, she claimed real soccer moms are Christian conservatives, saying, “The real-life soccer moms I know are all members of the Christian Coalition, They’re right-wing crazies.”[14] As for liberal soccer moms, you know, the fake ones, well, she has much to say.

Two columns from the beginning of this century are worth examining. The first essay utterly trashed liberal soccer moms. It’s sentiments were summarized by its title, “No shadow of a doubt – liberal women are worthless.”[15] Unmistakably pejorative. (If they are worthless, then Coulter’s frequent death threats take on even greater significance.)

What is Coulter’s vision of a typical liberal soccer mom? “They sit at home waiting for their husbands to bring home the money, or toil away at little jobs dreamed up to assuage the egos of bourgeois women living in the suburbs.”

Coulter’s ego required her to add a parenthetical remark lifting herself up: “(I eagerly await such a station in life. But when I’m there, I won’t forget how horrible – horrible – it was to wake up to an alarm clock, respond to bosses, and be responsible for my own rent.)”

Her peculiar historical revisionism is astonishing: “As a class, women have never borne collective responsibility for work, they have never had to store food for the winter, and they have not generated economic growth.” Did Coulter’s female Puritan ancestors sit around all day watching soap operas?

For Coulter, “Liberal suburban soccer moms are impervious to logic.”

The second Coulter essay addressed here likened both liberal men and women to emasculated eunuchs, calling them “girls.” Her essay title: “The eunuchs are whining.”[16] Perhaps they were also throwing “hissy-fits.”

Echoing her claim that “Liberal suburban soccer moms are impervious to logic,” Coulter declared, “Liberal soccer moms are precisely as likely to receive anthrax in the mail as to develop a capacity for linear thinking.”

Speaking of all liberals, Coulter wrote of “stereotypes of liberals as mincing pantywaists” who “whine.” They are hysterical, scared girls.

Note her misogynistic argument here (and throughout her essay): “Women – and I don’t mean to limit that to the biological sense – always become hysterical at the first sign of trouble. They have no capacity to solve problems, so instead they fret.”

Contrasting liberals and conservatives, Coulter contended: “Men are out in the driving rain trying to change a tire, while the womenfolk sit in a warm roadside cafe demanding to know what’s taking so long. Just pipe down! The men are working as fast as they can.” Coulter succinctly concluded her essay: “You just stay warm, girls … the men are fixing the car.”

Would that make Ann a man whose fixing Western Civilization? Yes! Coulter declared, “I’m more of a man than any liberal.”[17]

Irrational Fears

Coulter claimed that all liberals are “hysterical,” “scared,” and “whining.” Projection?[18]

Coulter appeared on Inside Edition to defend both of her anti-soccer screeds. Coulter explained her underlying motivation for writing those columns: “What got my gourd was the force-fed nature of it. Every year I have to read in The New York Times, ‘Soccer is catching on!’ Take 27, ‘Soccer is catching on!’ No it’s not! Americans hate soccer!”[19]

The utter indefensibility of her position is self-evident in that demonstrably false statement which expressed the animating animus for her rants.

No one is forcing anyone to watch soccer – or anything else. Countless sports channels offer a dizzying variety of programming to suit any taste. No one forced anyone to participate in block parties across the nation, or view soccer in sports bar, or gravitate to TV sets in stores and malls. And, most indisputably, Americans don’t “hate soccer.” OK, in Coulter’s worldview, “real Americans” do.

Part III continues this examination of Coulter’s espoused hatred for soccer (and liberals), its roots, its implications, and its consequences.

Resources:

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

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, “Soccer: Part Deux,” 7/2/14.

[2]       Ann Coulter, “America’s Favorite National Pastime: Hating Soccer,” 6/25/14.

[3]       Montserrat Algarabel, “A letter for Ann Coulter on the ‘evils’ of soccer, part deux,” 7/6/14, http://nimbemon.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-letter-for-ann-coulter-on-evils-of.html.

[4]       Christine Rousselle, “Nancy Pelosi’s Twitter Calls Natural-Born Citizens ‘Immigrants’ in Latest Fail,” Townhall, 6/17/14, http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2014/06/17/nancy-pelosis-twitter-calls-naturalborn-citizens-immigrants-in-latest-fail-n1852664.

[5]       Lindsay Boyd and Chris Burger, “’Soccer Operative’ Ann Coulter Should Stick to Bashing Liberals,” Townhall, 7/2/14, http://townhall.com/columnists/lindsayboyd/2014/07/02/soccer-operative-ann-coulter-should-stick-to-bashing-liberals-n1857924/page/full.

[6]       Stan Veuger, “Is Ann Coulter a closet soccer fan?” Daily Caller, 7/1/14, http://www.aei.org/article/economics/is-ann-coulter-a-closet-soccer-fan/?utm_source=web&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=070114.

[7]       Chris Osterndorf, “An annotated history of Ann Coulter trolling America: She is the best at being the worst,” The Daily Dot, 7/1/14, http://theweek.com/article/index/263990/an-annotated-history-of-ann-coulter-trolling-america.

[8]       Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 6/30/14.

[9]       Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 8/23/96.

[10]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 9/29/96.

[11]     See Daniel Borchers, The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, 2012, at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

[12]     “Ann Coulter is not so much wrong as stupid about Soccer,” 6/26/14, http://flowbear.blogspot.com/2014/06/ann-coulter-is-not-so-much-wrong-as.html.

[13]     See Daniel Borchers, Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[14]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 12/28/96.

[15]     Ann Coulter, “No shadow of a doubt – liberal women are worthless,” 4/19/00.

[16]     Ann Coulter, “The eunuchs are whining,” 10/31/01.

[17]     Ann Coulter, O’Reilly Factor, FNC,

[18]     See Daniel Borchers, The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf. Specifically, Chapter 5: “… and Balls!” and chapter 6: “I Am Victim, Hear Me Whine.”

[19]     Ann Coulter, Inside Edition, CBS, 7/3/14.