Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

@AnnCoulter Still Enraged at CPAC Rejection

Polemicist Ann Coulter remains enraged at CPAC for its six-year-long rejection of her, despite the fact that she is wholly responsible for her plight. Over many years, Coulter snookered, scammed, and betrayed CPAC … yet she still feels entitled to speak at CPAC.

How blind arrogance can be!

Since even before 2014 (her last appearance at CPAC), Coulter has disparaged CPAC for not being conservative enough. Even in 2020, Coulter has tweeted multiple times attacking CPAC.

Here’s one:

For years, Coulter’s ego fed upon her self-identity as the darling of CPAC and, now that CPAC has resoundingly rejected her, she acts like the stereotypical scorned woman.

Her devoted fans seem immune to the irony and puzzled by the fact that CPAC has also banished RINO Mitt Romney. Coulter was devoted to Romney for fully a decade or more, this despite him calling himself an “extreme conservative” (at CPAC, no less) – as if any conservative would self-identify as extreme.

Let’s review what happened. (Facts matter.)

CPAC Shunned Coulter in 2015 and Ann was Incensed

In 2015, for the first time in 18 years, Ann Coulter was not invited to speak at CPAC.

CPAC Finally Rejected Coulter, despite many factors in her favor:

Longevity. Coulter has spoken at every CPAC conference from 1998-2014.

Coulter was the author of ten books (nine were best-sellers) with an eleventh book to be released this June.

Coulter was the legal correspondent for Human Events, author with Regnery, and a speaker for the Young America’s Foundation, the Claire Boothe Luce Policy Institute, and the College Republicans, all represented at CPAC.

Many of Coulter’s powerful friends were speakers at CPAC and associated with the leadership at CPAC.

Still, CPAC snubbed Coulter. Why?

Why CPAC Rejected Coulter

After 9/11, Coulter’s CPAC appearances were continually mired in controversies of Coulter’s own making. Her provocative rhetoric became extreme. She regularly employed elimination rhetoric. Coulter seemingly sought to upstage CPAC at every turn.

One year, a host of conservative organizations and bloggers threatened to boycott CPAC if Coulter was invited to speak. Coulter was rejected as a speaker but, through slight-of-hand, spoke anyway. In both 2013 and 2014, Coulter was invited at the last minute, due to aggressive campaigns by Coulter to appear. (Friends in high places have always come to her aid.)

Coulter’s antics continued in 2014, with Coulter coordinating a phony debate, disparaging poor people, issuing death threats, and falsely claiming to have been raped.[1]

But in 2014, Coulter crossed a non-negotiable red-line: Coulter publicly betrayed CPAC.

Coulter has a long history of betraying friends,[2] colleagues,[3] and clients.[4] Then, Coulter publicly betrayed CPAC.

Within weeks of her appearance at CPAC 2014, Coulter boasted of scamming CPAC. She bragged about this “really so brilliant” scam to thwart CPAC’s agenda “despite CPAC’s best efforts.”

Nicely done, Ann.

Such is Coulter’s ego that she believes – after scamming CPAC – that CPAC would still be obligated to invite her to speak in subsequent years.

Coulter’s Ego Wounded

As a self-absorbed narcissist, Coulter feels entitled to speak at CPAC, no matter what she has said or done in the past. That sense of entitlement has been apparent for more than a decade.

In 2014, Coulter was irate that she was invited to only a debate (even though she was able to pick her debate partner, her friend, Mickey Kaus). Coulter did not want to settle for a debate. She wanted to give a speech.

Coulter then took the grace extended by CPAC and “scammed” them.

In 2015, even though she was justifiably not invited, Coulter extended her wrath toward CPAC.

Coulter on the Offensive

Coulter told the Washington Examiner: “I wasn’t invited. I might just show up anyway just to piss them off. I could be the Bibi Netanyahu of CPAC.”

Why would Coulter want to piss off CPAC? Ego? The woman scorned? A vengeful nature?

Did you notice, Coulter places herself and her situation on par with that of Bibi Netanyahu?! Coulter likens herself to the Israeli Prime Minister, renowned for his courage, his eloquence, and his principled character.

(Instead of accusing CPAC of conspiring to silence her, Coulter should have acted like a lady and either demurred to answer or acknowledged the wealth of talented professionals available to speak at CPAC. As for CPAC, ACU Chairman Matt Schlapp responded with grace: “Ann Coulter is welcome at CPAC. We come up with the agenda. There’s so many speaking slots; you go through who would be a good fit. She’s a great fit here. She’s welcome to be here.”)

But beyond that, Coulter’s tweets also reveal her own denial of reality and her self-absorption.

In the top tweet, Coulter mocked CPAC, a sure strategy to elicit their future support.

In the next tweet, Coulter boasted of her popularity, not a particularly endearing trait.

In the third tweet, Coulter again claimed that the reason for her exclusion from CPAC is amnesty. This is a red herring. That year, CPAC repeatedly addressed amnesty. Many of the speakers, including presidential candidates, spoke of amnesty. Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio were specifically queried about their views on immigration.

Coulter also tweeted what she had emailed to the Washington Examiner: “I’ll be the Bibi Netanyahu of CPAC!”

Chutzpah!

CPAC has discovered that we should Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age![5]

Even though she considers herself indispensable to CPAC (and CPAC indispensable to her standing as a great conservative leader), Coulter was missed only by herself.

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis in this holistic exposé of Ann Coulter and offers many stories of her CPAC escapades.

Endnotes:

[1]      See “Case Study # 8: Life Issues,” Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, 2014, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

[2]      See “Preface: Alamo Remembered,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

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

[4]      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.

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

Jews: Quality, not Quantity

Don’t be fooled by Ann Coulter’s lies about her anti-Semitic tweet. Her very own words betray her heart.

Coulter has repeatedly justified her anti-Semitic tweet (“f—ing Jews”) by arguing that she was addressing the quantity, not the quality, of Jews. This is nonsense! The epithet modifies “Jews,” not “many.”

She also claims she was attacking the panderers, not Jews. Poppycock!

Epithet3

Ludicrously, Coulter claims that there was nowhere else to place Effing in that sentence. If that were true – and it isn’t – then write a different sentence. But her assertions are and remain lies.

All Coulter had to do was place Effing in front of “many” (thereby modifying the quantity) instead of after it (making it a statement of quality) – or – to place it before “people” (panderers) instead of before “Jews.”

Quality or Quantity?

Coulter tweeted (emphasis added):

“How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

Coulter did not tweet (emphasis added):

“How f—ing many Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

Coulter’s actual tweet expresses the quality of Jews. To express the quantity of Jews, all Coulter had to do was move her modifier over one word to the left.

Yet, Coulter claims that the only place she could find to put Effing in that sentence was before Jews. Coupling those two words together is ipso facto anti-Semitic. In context or out, they are anti-Semitic by the very coupling of Effing with Jews.

Epithet4

Panderers or Object of Pandering?

Coulter still claims she could not express her views any other way in that short space of characters. She further claims she was talking about the panderers, not the object of their pandering. But then, why not write:

“Those f—ing candidates are pandering to Jews, who are very few in U.S.”

Simple. Easy. Anyone with a pulse could come up with that formulation.

Let’s return to Coulter’s original tweet (emphasis added):

“How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

If Coulter had truly meant Effing to condemn the panderers and not the object of the pandering, she should have placed Effing three words to the right, in front of “people.”

Coulter did not tweet (emphasis added):

“How many Jews do these f—ing people think there are in the United States?”

Again, she didn’t.

Why? Because Coulter intended that epithet for Jews.

Not quantity. Not panderers. But Jews.

Coulter’s Choice of Words and Their Placement

Writing is all about word choice and word placement. Coulter chose her words and she placed them exactly where she wanted them.

Why would she do so? Why would she attack Jews?

Because she was exasperated by what seemed to her to be too many references to Israel. Again, she did not attack the alleged pandering of GOP candidates; she attacked the object of their alleged pandering: Jews.

Coulter’s words self-evidently reveal that she believes Jews really do wield power disproportionate to their numbers, prompting the pandering she so despises and, thus, her attack on Jews.

First, Jews; Now, Catholics?

Ann Hart Coulter is a modern-day Know Nothing.

KnowNothing

Following her anti-Semitic rant[1] against Jews and Israel,[2] Coulter has now embarked upon a Know Nothing approach to Catholicism. This is especially strange as she attended a private Catholic school until she entered high school. One would think she would know better.

Coulter’s Anti-Catholic Tweets

Among Coulter’s many tweets disparaging the Catholic Church (emphasis added):

Time Tweet
9:55 a.m. Equally accurate statement to the Pope’s: The Catholic Church was “largely built by pedophiles.” twitter.com/WSJ/status/646…
10:04 a.m. I’m an American and this is why our founders (not “immigrants”!) distrusted Catholics & wouldn’t make them citizens. twitter.com/DavidLimbaugh/…
10:06 a.m. Catholics were not accepted until they became more AMERICAN Catholic less ROMAN Catholic-Harvard’s Samuel Huntington twitter.com/DavidLimbaugh/…
10:29 a.m. Yes, 55 Protestants & 1 Catholic. Can we admit immigrants in that wildly diverse proportion? twitter.com/michaelbd/stat…
10:40 a.m. No, I’m attacking the Pope. So did Martin Luther. So did America’s settlers. So did Dems when it was John Paul II. twitter.com/dmataconis/sta…
11:05 a.m. THIS Pope’s philosophy of worshiping the poor, blaming the rich leads to Latin American poverty. American Catholicism leads to success.

Coulter’s WASP Nativism

Coulter has a distinctly WASP (White and Protestant)[3] view of America. For years now, Coulter has hated immigrants.[4] Her nativism has been especially pronounced[5] this year. Coulter even hates the idea of Christians serving overseas.[6] Indeed, she insists that all other nations suck.[7]

During the 2012 election cycle, Coulter compared social conservative Rick Santorum to ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy – because of their shared Catholicism. To Coulter, Santorum was “more Catholic than conservative.”

Last year, Coulter condemned Catholics as “moral show-offs” and “fake Christians,” expressing contempt for church leaders and parishioners alike whose theology compels them to adopt political positions with which she disagrees.

Coulter claims that American Catholics are better than Roman Catholics. Yet, Coulter condemns liberal Catholics in America for their liberalism, while the traditional pro-life Roman Catholic doctrines remain extant. Ironically, Coulter has waged war on pro-lifers for defending the unborn while claiming to be totally pro-life herself. Confused? So is Coulter.

Coulter does not make sense. To reiterate, she claims that American Catholics are better than Roman Catholics because they have been assimilated. Yet, many of those Catholics who have been assimilated into American culture have become more secularized and embraced leftwing views on social issues (abortion, homosexuality, marriage, etc.) while the foreign Roman Catholics hold the views that Coulter cherishes. Reality is the exact opposite of what Coulter claims it is.

As noted by National Memo, Coulter’s ire at Latin American Catholics may stem from her anti-immigration thesis in Adios, America! They correct Coulter on the historical record:

“Catholics in the New World had easily become Americans following the Louisiana Purchase from France in 1803, and the acquisition of Florida from Spain in 1819. And Catholics did indeed play a role in the early polity of the U.S. This included one signer of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll of Maryland, and two delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Daniel Carroll of Maryland (and cousin of Charles), plus Thomas Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania.”

Catholics in the Revolutionary War

Contrary to Coulter’s assertions, Catholics were among the “American settlers” Coulter cherishes. And they fought for America! Several of America’s Founding Fathers were Catholic.

From “Catholics and the Founding”:

“The preeminent Catholic patriot was undoubtedly Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Heir to the fortune of an early Maryland Catholic family, it was said that Carroll risked more (in financial terms) than any other when he became the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence.”

“Carroll’s cousin, John, was also an important figure in Revolutionary America. John Carroll had been a Jesuit priest before the suppression of the order by Pope Clement XIV and had continued to minister as one of the colonies’ few priests. Uniquely positioned as an ardent patriot and a Catholic religious leader, he was called upon by the Continental Congress to join Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase and Charles Carroll on an unsuccessful mission to Canada to try to convince the colonies’ northern neighbor to maintain neutrality during the war with Britain. Carroll would become the first American bishop in 1789.”

“A thousand miles to the west, another Catholic with less economic clout and fewer connections would also play an important part in the military plans of the Americans. Father Pierre Gibault was a missionary of French descent in southwestern Indiana. When the Virginia militia under Colonel George Rogers Clark entered the area, Gibault and others met the American commander and pledged the support of the region to the forces of independence in return for assurances of religious freedom. Against the wishes of the bishop of Quebec, Gibault led the French residents of the Vincennes region in cooperating with the Americans.”

Endnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[7]               See “Ann Coulter Auditions for U.N. Ambassador” at http://t.co/R7IDzwnUJ8.

Effing Jews and Ann Coulter’s Waterloo (or Damascus Road?)

Ann Coulter’s incendiary “f—ing Jews” tweet was quickly countered by her claim, “I like the Jews.” Really?

As I pointed out last week,[1] Coulter’s tweet was, is, and remains indefensible. Yet, she defends herself. Before analyzing her rebuttal, let’s take a quick look at exactly what her initial tweet said.

Effing

Effing Jews – Expletive of Endearment

Coulter tweeted, “How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” Notice her exquisite courtesy in bleeping out the offensive adjective. Very polite. Who could possibly imagine what that bleeped word is?

The subject is not, as Coulter later claimed, panderers. The subject is Jews – and the modifier is an expletive! (Yet, just hours later, Coulter claimed to “like” “the Jews.”) Coulter’s criticism and wrath was directed at Jews, not GOP candidates. The adjective employed applied to Jews, not politicians.

Regardless of the context of her tweet, even taking in the totality of all of her tweets during the debate, there is no denying the anti-Semitic nature of those two words. In context or out, they are anti-Semitic by the very coupling of Effing with Jews.

Again, as I pointed out last Thursday, who (besides Ann) uses an expletive as an endearment?

Just thinking those two conjoined words is bad enough, but to actually tweet them? And, having tweeted them, to justify using them? Yes, Ann Coulter is an impenitent propagandist.[2]

Coulter and GOP Panderers

As noted in last week’s column,[3] Coulter quickly attempted to rebuff criticisms of her tweets by claiming she was attacking the GOP candidates for pandering. But prior to the fallout, Coulter never tweeted the word “pander.”

Coulter claims: “My tweet was about Republicans and the pandering. It wasn’t about Israel, it wasn’t about Jews. It’s what Republicans are thinking in their little pea brains. I could say the same thing about Evangelicals. Who are you pandering to? A lot of it is to Sheldon Adelson and the Evangelicals…. This kind of suck-uppery is humiliating.”

Wait! Effing Jews isn’t about Jews? Jews was the subject of the tweet and the object of Coulter’s wrath. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.

As Coulter has made painfully obvious, in her view, the Jews are to blame for GOP candidates pandering to them. (If that is, in fact, what the candidates were doing.) Coulter has obviously bought into the narrative that she claims other Republicans have embraced.

A column on Jerusalem Post asks why the GOP would “pander” to Jews: “As Coulter well knows, Jews overwhelmingly voted for Obama, not once but twice. She is also aware that the vast majority of Iran-deal opponents is Republican. Sheldon Adelson, whom she made a point of mentioning in her Daily Beast interview, is an exception, not the rule.”

David French noted “a small irony about Ann Coulter: Even while she was slamming the GOP for ‘pandering’ on issues like abortion and Israel, she herself was using specific language that panders to the small, race-obsessed far-right crowd that is particularly focused on those same issues.”

French continued: “We defend a culture, not a race. The foundation of that culture is a faith that makes no distinction among races but rather declares, unequivocally, ‘All are one, in Christ Jesus.’ Shunning the slur disempowers the trolls and forces the radical Left to confront the race hatred that fuels its own rage.”

Coulter: “I like the Jews”

Coulter’s defense includes the self-evidently fraudulent assertion, “I like the Jews.”

We know this is a lie for many reasons. First, is the definitive article “the” preceding “Jews.” If someone said “I like the blacks,” would you believe her? If someone claimed to like “the Hispanics” or “the Asians,” what veracity would you give their claim? (Remember, Coulter is a linguist and a wordsmith who knows how to effectively and accurately use the English language.)

Second, speaking of “the Jews,” Coulter is speaking of all Jews. But we already know from 35 years of commentary, that Coulter “hates,” “despises,” and “loathes” (her words) liberals and feminists, many of whom are Jews. Indeed, a majority of Jews in America vote Democrat. Does Coulter really “like” those “Jews?” Hardly. Coulter has often attacked liberal Jews (as a group or individually).

Binyamin Jolkovsky, the founder of Jewish World Review, wonders: “She could have been drunk, she could have been high, I don’t know, I have to give her the benefit of the doubt … but I don’t have to delude myself. Pandering to Jewish money is about as anti-Semitic a stereotype as you could put forth. Her ‘eff-ing Jews’ comment is not identifying Israel – it’s identifying Jews, plural, and all Jews. There is no excuse for that. You can’t just wiggle out of something that vile and hateful.”

Tom Sykes observes that Coulter’s “whole argument echoes a historic libel against Jews that they hold secret influence.”

Third, claiming to either like or dislike an entire race of people is, itself, a racist claim. It is called stereotyping. Does anyone like all people of a given racial or ethnic group? Or of a particular religion? Or of a particular political persuasion?

Wasn’t it Coulter who said, “All nations suck compared to America?”[4] Isn’t Israel a nation?

Coulter’s Twitter Rebuttal

On September 17th, Coulter tweeted a ludicrous assertion: “No: It’s pro-Semitic. Where is all the GOP pandering on Israel getting us? US becoming Mexico very bad for Israel. twitter.com/ANewSarah/stat…

Coulter has just redefined anti-Semitism as pro-Semitic!

Many of Coulter’s tweets reiterated her many false claims during her book tour that the only issue that matters is immigration. She uses that narrative to justify her attacks on pro-lifers,[5] on Reagan lovers,[6] and, now, on defenders of Israel.[7]

Coulter’s joke – “Boy were they wrong @ Jewish influence! I complained about pandering on Israel (Reagan & abortion) & haven’t heard a thing about it!” – merely reinforces her contention that Jews have too much power, the root of her anti-Semitic rant.

Undermining her own arguments, Coulter retweeted from her friend, Ben Shapiro: “RT @benshapiro: This I know of @anncoulter: she is far more a friend to Jews and Israel than Jewish Obama voters now jumping on her.”

Does Coulter really “like” those Obama-voting Jews? Remember, Coulter called Jews, not Israel, “f—ing!” She obviously has a high regard for Israel’s policies, but not necessarily her people (or Jewish people outside Israel).

Finally, “John Derbyshire @DissidentRight reviews indexed references to Israel in my smash bestseller “Adios, America!” – bit.ly/1V13f9x.”

Derbyshire actually promotes the anti-Semitic stereotype of a disproportionately powerful Jewish lobby –and Coulter is using that as one of her defenses!

According to the Zionist Organization of America, “Ann Coulter made appalling, anti-Jewish remarks which evoked the classic, anti-Semitic trope about Jewish manipulation of America for the purposes of supporting Israel at America’s expense.”

As for Derbyshire’s quotes from Coulter’s “smash bestseller” – they pertain to a love of Israel’s policies, not her people. In Adios, America! Coulter is not defending Jews, she is defending Israel. Moreover, she is defending Israel in the areas that pertain to her agenda for America: immigration and border security.

Coulter’s Video Rebuttal

Coulter quickly entered firestorm mode, posting a professionally produced video defense[8] of her tweets. In her condescending self-defense video, Coulter attacked her critics while lying about her tweets and the context of those tweets.

Coulter claimed, ““It’s been a long theme of mine – attacking Republicans[9] for all, you know, trying to prove – I don’t know what they’re trying to prove – by constantly praising Reagan and denouncing abortion.”[10]

Yes, Coulter asserts that her criticism of Jews is really criticism of the GOP.

But even in defending herself, Coulter convicts herself. She added, “I hadn’t even mentioned their, their incessant sucking up to Israel in my column.” So, in Coulter’s view, the GOP is always, incessantly “sucking up to Israel.” Is Coulter suggesting that Israel donates to GOP campaign coffers? Or is she arguing that American Jews – most of whom vote Democrat – will vote for the GOP?

Coulter continued, “Then I watched the debate …” and hated those few references to Israel. Moreover – in her professionally-produced video rebuttal – Coulter again lied about the last question of the GOP debate. She claimed it had to do with what America would look like. No! The object of the question was the “world,” not “America.” In her tweets and interviews, she continually misstates that crucial question.

Regarding her GOP debate questions, Coulter asserts: “That was the anti-pandering section of my tweeting debate night.” Except, her criticism was of Israel, not pandering, and her anti-Semitic tweet called Jews, not GOP panderers, “f—ing.”

Coulter’s logic utterly falls apart in the next section. She argues:

“They chopped up the tweet, sent it out, the apotheosis of which was the Daily Beast post: ‘Ann Coulter Shouts Effing Jew.’ O, come on now. I know how to use Effing in a sentence.”

Coulter then admits that using “Effing Jew” on its own is anti-Semitic, but “Saying how many Effing anything, that’s a comment on quantity. It’s not saying ‘Effing Jews,’ it’s saying ‘how many.’ Quantity, not quality.”

Balderdash! The question queried quantity, but the qualifier on the noun (Jews) denoted quality (f—ing).

Coulter continued: “Because it was chopped up, [some] may have thought that I said something unkind and, I wouldn’t want [dramatic pause] them to think that.”

First, it was not “chopped up.” Second, everyone knows what her tweet meant. It is painfully obvious to all. Third, who is “them?” Why the significant pause before saying the word “them?” Who is “them?” Jews?

Coulter concluded: “I’m pro-Israel. So is everyone in the room. So is everyone on the stage. Can you give it a rest?”

Throughout her various iterations defending her indefensible tweet, Coulter has continually conflated “Jews” with “Israel.” They are not identical.

Anyone with a pulse knows, Jews are a people (racially, ethnically, religiously) and Israel is a nation. Coulter has certainly proven her exuberance for Israel’s policies (fence, immigration, anti-terrorism) and her current leader (Netanyahu). But when has she evinced support for the Jewish people? In fact, Coulter has treated Jews in a derogatory fashion.[11]

Hollywood Reporter Interview

In an astonishing interview with Hollywood Reporter, Coulter made several outrageous (and demonstrably untrue) assertions.

“It’s totally fake outrage from frauds who want to continue the dump of third-worlders on the country, including Muslim Jihadists, and voted for the guy who just gave a nuke to Iran.”

Except, of course, much of the criticism arises from conservatives, including conservative Jews.

Coulter claims her critics are “mostly Israel-hating liberals and pro-mass-immigration Republicans. Both of whom don’t want anyone to notice how immigration is changing the country, putting Americans – and Israel – at risk.”

Except, of course, much of the criticism arises from conservatives, including conservative Jews.

“The hypocrites who are mad at me are the ones who support anti-Israel college professors, who refuse to condemn Islamic barbarism, who supported the overthrow of Mubarak for the Muslim Brotherhood, who spread the deadly libel that Jews in America are only successful because of ‘white privilege.’”

Except, of course, much of the criticism arises from conservatives, including conservative Jews.

“There has been a huge spike in anti-Semitism across Europe due to the massive influx of Muslim immigrants. The same people in a faux uproar about my tweets are also leading the charge to import Muslims into the U.S.A. Half a million girls in the U.S. are now at risk for female genital mutilation. I doubt their dads are voting for pro-Israel politics. I’m the one who just wrote a book about these problems.”

How does Coulter know that it is the same people? Because they oppose Ann?

Conservative Coulter Critics

Sarah Rumpf lamented that “Ann Coulter Broke My Heart,” arguing that Coulter’s “raison d’être is no longer the bold articulation of conservative principles but rather an ugly and small-minded vision for America.” Rumpf concluded, “Coulter is too smart not to realize the danger she is courting. Her comments, and continued justification of them, are a betrayal of the principles of not just conservatism, but America.”

David French, at National Review, objected to Coulter’s “Snide comments about GOP obsessions with abortion, insufficient attention to immigration … and obsession with Israel.” French charged Coulter with “pandering – pandering to a very small, very angry crowd that’s far more white nationalist than it is recognizably conservative.”

French continued, “[Her tweets] do not reflect conservative ideals, they do not advance conservative ideals, nor will they even advance the civilizational goals she seems to care so much about. Like it or not, if one wants to actually secure the border and impose a sensible immigration policy, extending a middle finger to conservative America – while attention-getting – is ultimately unpersuasive.”

Joseph Farah, at World Net Daily noted, “The use of the F-bomb really does put her on shaky ground in denying her comment was not anti-Semitic. This is, after all, a woman who claims to be a Christian – one who presumably worships a Jewish Messiah called Jesus. As a Christian Arab-American, I can tell you stringing together that epithet with the word ‘Jews’ puts her on very shaky grounds in denying anti-Semitism.”

Farah continued, “At the very least, one has to wonder if she ever had a nasty, twisted, repugnant thought that went unexpressed.”

Farah continued, “Is Coulter aware that of all the religion-based attacks on people in the U.S., some 60 percent are directed at Jews? Is she unaware of the rising anti-Semitism on American college campuses and elsewhere in the country? Is she blithely ignorant of the fact that the one and only Jewish state in the world is surrounded by enemies who seek its destruction?”

Jack Engelhard, a conservative Jewish author, grieved over Coulter’s words to the point of throwing away all of her books. Her former fan wrote “she happens to be a fine, witty writer, a strong Conservative – a gal after my own heart. She was near the top of my list of brainy blonde Conservative bombshells, and politically, we work the same beat.”

But Coulter’s tweet was “like a kick in the gut – from a valued and trusted friend.” Engelhard then asked, “If that is what she is thinking – what about the rest of them who are my trusted political allies?” After mourning his loss, he added, “It’s bad enough that I am at odds with my Leftist acquaintances, but now I feel estranged from the Right. Are we really on the same side?”

“What part of shared Judeo/Christian heritage doesn’t she understand? Apparently the Judeo part.”

Binyamin Jolkovsky observed: “This is about a girl who threw a tantrum … on Twitter. Having an apology that’s acceptable, especially during this time of the year for the Jewish calendar, would be the right thing to do – it would be the Jewish thing to do. This is crazy.”

An apology would also be the Christian thing to do. That’s why she won’t do it.

Supporting Israel

Israel is America’s only loyal ally in the Middle East. Israel is the only nation in the world that truly understands the nature of the Islamist threat, having experienced an existential threat since her founding. Israel and the Israeli people share in the Judeo-Christian roots of the American people.[12]

In an Open Letter to Ann, Dr. Michael Brown wrote:

“Is it that hard to connect the dots between Israel, Iran, and American security, especially when you consider the devastating worldwide effects of a completely destabilized Middle East? And when Iranians chant in the streets, ‘Death to Israel! Death to America!’ it’s not that hard to realize that we’re connected in more ways than one.”

“And, by the way, in case you forgot, the Savior of the world is a Jewish Rabbi.”

Avi Davis observed: “Every one of these candidates has been on record for years expressing unconditional support for the State of Israel and its security needs – and it is for one glaringly simple reason: they believe Israel’s security vouchsafes the United States’ security.”

Davis continued, “Making that connection may not be so patently obvious given the geographical distance between the two countries. But it is abundantly clear to anyone who has heard jihadist rantings in mosques from Oslo to Riyadh – the two countries are regarded as the hydra headed monster whose joint destruction is essential to paving the way for the re-emergence of the Caliphate.”

As reported by Hollywood Reporter, Rick Santorum also took Coulter to task for her remarks, saying, “How many Bible-believing Christians does she think are in this country, who understand the significance of the heritage of the Jewish people in the Holy Land?”

Santorum added, “I think everybody, every conservative has a right to look at that and say that this is someone who clearly doesn’t understand the significance of [the relationship between Israel and the U.S.].”

Seemingly, Coulter makes common cause with the enemies of Israel and America.

Coulter’s Motivations

Tom Sykes echoes what I have been saying for years: “Fearful of being forgotten, Coulter has reacted by becoming ever more offensive.”

Per Joseph Farah, “It’s sad to see Coulter degenerate into a slur machine, one who seems so desperate for fame at any cost that she will say anything and possibly do anything to maintain a career as, frankly, a thuggish commentator.”

Rick Santorum argues that Coulter’s rhetoric is reflective of her desires for self-promotion: “some people in the Republican Party who are in the pundit class, who are there to be controversial, and to try to make money, and sell their books. And that’s just fine – they can go sell their books.”

Dr. Brown wrote to Coulter: “You’re obviously no stranger to controversy. To the contrary, you seem to thrive on controversy. In fact, you seem to enjoy provoking it.”

My dear Jewish and Christian friends, let me commiserate with you. Betrayal hurts. But Coulter has never been a trustworthy person.[13] For at least twenty years now, Coulter has betrayed individuals, groups, and causes. Claiming to be a pro-life[14] Christian,[15] she has notably attacked both groups – all to serve her own agenda.

Ann Coulter is her own North Star.[16] Or, to put it another way, Ann Coulter ‘s North Star is Ann Coulter.

Perhaps, at one time, Coulter was guided to some degree by the values of Mother and Father, but no longer. Coulter has become a law unto herself. Her indomitable will seeks to bend the will of others to her own.[17] But she is not a force of nature because nature bends to the will of God.

Time will tell if this particular controversy (again, of Coulter’s own making) will be her Waterloo or her Road to Damascus experience.

Prayer for Ann

Karen Wolfers Rapaport has a gracious response to Coulter’s series of anti-Semitic remarks. Karen began: “Before I continue I would like to be clear that I believe most Christians and non-Jews do not agree with Ann’s remark. I do not see her as a spokeswoman or an ambassador for her religion.”

Rapaport later noted the introspective, soul-searching nature of this season of the Jewish calendar, and she expressed gratitude to Coulter:

“Thank you for being a shofar of sorts, reminding this Jew or any Jew or non-Jew who wishes to participate in a time worn, magical practice, that this is the time for us to do teshuvah; to repent and take stock in our personal character inventory. And in the spirit of forgiveness that marks this time, I solemnly, and with all my heart, forgive you for your insensitivity and ignorance on the subject of perfection.”

Please join me in prayer for Ann:

Lord, cast down Ann Coulter’s haughtiness, her pride and arrogance, her sense of superiority and sense of entitlement. Cast them down to the earth. Cast them down to depths of hell itself.

Then, Lord, lift her up to You. Open her eyes to Your Truth and open her heart to Your love. Grant her a spirit of repentance and forgiveness, a spirit of humility and grace.

Amen.

Endnotes:

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

[2]               See “Propaganda: George Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4j.

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

[4]               See “Ann Coulter Auditions for U.N. Ambassador” at http://t.co/R7IDzwnUJ8.

[5]               See “Ann Coulter Still Blind to Abortion” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9I.

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

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

[8]               “Ann Coulter Defends Her Controversial tweet,’ producer Graham Flanagan, Business Insider, 9/18/15.

[9]               See “Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3p.

[10]             See “Coulter’s Assault on Pro-Life Movement Continues” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9a.

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

[12]             See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8E.

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

[14]               See “Coulter’s Assault on Pro-Life Movement Continues” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9a.

[15]              See “Fake Christians” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5T.

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

[17]               See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, 2014, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots

Ann Coulter has come under fire for what have been described as “controversial” (i.e., anti-Semitic) tweets. Given Coulter’s long history of anti-Jewish sentiment, why are conservatives giving her the benefit of the doubt?

Jewish

Before perusing the historical record, let’s examine Coulter’s most-recent tweets.

Coulter’s Tweets on Israel

Coulter remains single-mindedly obsessed with immigration (and selling herself and her book[1]), so much so that every other cause means nothing to Coulter, who has viciously attacked pro-lifers[2] and Reaganites.[3] Now, Coulter has gone after Jews and Israel. Anything or anyone posing a threat to Coulter’s agenda or her preferred nominee is fodder.

As for her tweets (emphasis added) …

Time Tweet
8:46 pm Huckabee admirably passionate on Israel. If only he cared as much about the survival of the U.S.
8:51 pm GOP definitely wants to protect Israel! How are they going to do it when immigration turns US into CA and no GOP can be elected president?
9:00 pm So glad I’m watching debate! Learned GOP is: anti-abortion, pro-Israel, pro-Reagan. I wonder if there’s any disagreement on immigration…
11:00 pm Good grief! Huckabee is running for PM of Israel.
11:05 pm Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: “What will AMERICA look like after you are president.” [NOTE: The actual question was “world” not “America.”]
11:05 pm How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States? [NOTE: Coulter courteously bleeped out expletive so as not to offend. Answer: Almost 7 million.]
11:06 pm Maybe it’s to suck up to the Evangelicals.
11:14 pm Christie also talks @ Israel in response to the question: What will AMERICA look like after you are president? [NOTE: The actual question was “world” not “America.”]
11:18 pm How to get applause from GOP donors: 1) Pledge to start a war 2) Talk about job creators 3) Denounce abortion 4) Cite Reagan 5) Cite Israel.

In Coulter’s lopsided logic, affirmation of America’s commitment to Israel should be presumed but not expressed.

Coulter must know that there are many reasons for candidates to pledge support to one of America’s staunchest allies and the only democracy in the Middle East. Geopolitically, candidates employ “Israel” as a symbol of their worldviews and global vision: Judeo-Christian camaraderie and a united defense against terrorist, tyrannical, and rogue regimes. One’s stance on Israel presages one’s foreign-policy perspective.

If we’re not standing with Israel, we’re standing with Iran.

Notice that Coulter impugns the motives of all those who are “anti-abortion, pro-Israel, pro-Reagan.” She contends – as she has throughout her book tour – that they are “pandering” to constituencies (offering no evidence) and that they are cowards for not being single-mindedly focused on her preeminent issue: immigration.

The ease with which Coulter enters into scorched-earth polemics is astonishing.

Coulter Defends Tweets on Israel

Coulter’s self-defense began on the Kelly File, with her close friend, Megyn Kelly, lending support. Asked by Kelly, “Do you want to take that back?” Coulter said, “No” and claimed her tweet was part of a larger narrative condemning the alleged political “pandering” of GOP candidates who seek to check off “virtue boxes.”[4] Coulter again misquoted the debate question about how America would be different when the question was about how the world would be different. Kelly then quickly switched topics.

Coulter’s post-Fox interview tweets build upon her creative justification for her earlier tweets (emphasis added):

Time Tweet
1:15 am U weren’t following tweets. About pandering on RR Israel prolife. Last Q was @ AMERICA & 4 Reps talk @ Israel AGAIN! twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta… [NOTE: The actual question was “world” not “America.”]
1:16 am All GOPs = prolife, pro-Reagan, pro-Israel. Pandering on all 3 tonight was EPIC. twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta…
1:17 am There aren’t even that many Evangelicals to pander to (probably the intended Israel pander-recipients). twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta…
1:28 am I like the Jews, I like fetuses, I like Reagan. Didn’t need to hear applause lines about them all night. twitter.com/Jimbobbarley/s…
1:32 am It’s not about Jewish people; it’s about Republican panderers. twitter.com/lilenchiladas/…
2:00 am It has to be read w/ prior tweet. Only 140 characters so sometimes they continue. Not @ Jews; about GOP pandering. twitter.com/RightForLife/s…
4:24 am @JoelCRosenberg Joel! I am a huge Israel fan! See my current book. I was attacking GOP for pandering on Israel (AND Reagan AND abortion).

Anyone who is “a huge Israel fan” could not marry the words “f—ing” and “Jews.” Moreover, if it was about pandering, why an expletive for Jews instead of the pandering politicians?

Who uses expletives to express love for a loved one? Yet, Coulter tweeted, “I like the Jews.” Do you believe her?

In that very same tweet, Coulter continued, “I like fetuses.” Since when? Throughout her book tour,[5] Coulter has vilified pro-life Republicans[6] for pursuing a pro-life agenda.[7] For nearly twenty years, Coulter has subordinated pro-life concerns for her own personal or political agendas.

Don’t listen to who or what Ann Coulter claims to be. Pay attention to what she actually does. Her claims[8] and promises are worthless.[9]

Coulter’s Jewish Roots

Throughout her career, Coulter has expressed antipathy toward Jews, from writing about “oily Jews” to wanting them to be “perfected.” These are not gaffes. They reflect her heart.

Coulter has a long history of anti-Semitism, stretching back to at least the early 1990s. In his first anticonservative book, David Brock “outed” Coulter as an anti-Semite, stating, “That she wanted to leave her New York law firm ‘to get away from all these Jews’ was one of her gentler remarks.”[10]

Consider a 2003 column by Coulter (emphasis added):

“In addition to having a number of family deaths among them, the Democrats’ other big idea – too nuanced for a bumper sticker – is that many of them have Jewish ancestry. There’s Joe Lieberman: Always Jewish. Wesley Clark: Found Out His Father Was Jewish in College. John Kerry: Jewish Since He Began Presidential Fund-Raising. Howard Dean: Married to a Jew. Al Sharpton: Circumcised. Even Hillary Clinton claimed to have unearthed some evidence that she was a Jew – along with the long lost evidence that she was a Yankees fan. And that, boys and girls, is how the Jews survived thousands of years of persecution: by being susceptible to pandering.”[11]

Pandering to Jews?[12]

Only Coulter (or an MSNBC host) could write of “oily Jews”[13] and get away with it.

In an equally astonishing entry on her own personal website, captioned “Who said Jews are smart?” Coulter wrote: “NYT Letter of the Day!: ‘Astroturf’ refers to protesters who disagree with me and therefore are not rational.”[14]

Let’s not forget Coulter’s infamous dialogue with Donnie Deutsch about “perfecting” Jews. To save herself from repercussions for her faux paus, Coulter claimed to be the victim and besmirched Deutsch with a wholly fabricated claim which fellow conservatives and fellow Christians bought into as if it were holy writ.[15]

Regarding her “f—ing Jews” tweet, the Anti-Defamation League immediately condemned her remarks, noting:

“While most of America has rightly tuned out Ann Coulter’s hyperbolic and hateful rhetoric, her irresponsible tweets during the Republican presidential candidate’s debate are truly a new low and must be called out.”

“Ms. Coulter is pandering to the basest of her base. Her messages challenging the candidates’ support for Israel were offensive, ugly, spiteful and anti-Semitic.  Her tweets give fodder to those who buy into the anti-Semitic notions that Jews ‘control’ the U.S. government, wield disproportionate power in politics, and are more loyal to Israel than to their own country.”

“All decent Americans should reject Ms. Coulter’s rhetoric as simply beyond the pale.”

Coulter has often said that she sets out to deliberately offend people,[16] and offend she does. Coulter has no filters. Also bear in mind that Coulter is explicitly seeking the restoration of a WASP culture,[17] one predominated by Western European (i.e., British) peoples. Jews and Israelis need not apply.

Update: As usual, Coulter claims her innocence. She insists she “likes” Jews. Does she consider “f—ing Jews” a compliment? An expression (epithet) of love? How can she defend her choice of words and how could she even imagine marrying those words to begin with? Did she greet her father, “F—ing Father?” How does she speak to her lovers?

Coulter told the Daily Beast: “I’m accusing Republicans of thinking the Jews have so much power. They’re the ones who are comedically acting out this play where Jews control everything.” But, wait! Coulter is the one perpetuating this stereotype that no Republicans have voiced. This is Coulter’s explanation for expressing anti-Semitic thoughts – that other people (who have stated those thoughts) are thinking it.

Coulter interjected, “This episode is not going a long way to disprove that [Jews have too much power in Washington.]” Yes, Coulter laments that Jews are so powerful that they are behind the backlash against her anti-Semitic remarks.

Coulter continued: “My point was this whole culture of virtue-signaling where debates are about nothing. Look, Republicans all agree 100 percent that we are pro-Israel, pro-Life, pro-gun. So why do we spend so much time on these issues? It’s just pandering, so who are they pandering to?”

Except, as noted above, Israel is a proxy for a candidate’s entire foreign policy perspective. Moreover, at this moment in history, with Israel (and Jews) under attack throughout the world, and with Obama’s complete surrender to Iran – who wants to destroy both Israel and America – voicing support for Israel is a good, moral, and rational thing to do.

Moreover, Coulter is a consummate wordsmith. She knows language and is proud of her expertise. The adjective “f—ing” modifies the noun “Jews” – not panderers. Indeed, she only tweeted about “pandering” after fallout from her earlier tweets.

Coulter defended her choice of words – “f—ing Jews” – saying, “I don’t think it was my language. I think it was ripped out of context and lied about.” Contrary to Coulter’s assertions, her words are clear and precise – and they reveal her heart.

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

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Bio Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-6p.

[2]               See “Ann Coulter Still Blind to Abortion” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9I.

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

[4]               Ann Coulter, Kelly File, FNC, 9/17/15.

[5]               See “Coulter Disses Pro-Lifers – Again!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8J.

[6]               See “Coulter’s Assault on Pro-Life Movement Continues” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9a.

[7]               See “Ann Coulter Still Blind to Abortion” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9I.

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

[9]               See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, 2014, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[10]             David Brock, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, Crown Forum, 2002, pg. 182.

[11]             Ann Coulter, “Party of Ideas,” 11/20/03.

[12]             See Chapter 10: “Equality: Self-Evident Truths,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

[13]             Ann Coulter, “Inmates ‘Have A Plan’ To Run The Asylum,” 10/20/04.

[14]             Ann Coulter entry, http://www.anncoulter.com, 8/25/09, 2:17 p.m. (emphasis in the original).

[15]             See Chapter 6: “I Am Victim, Hear Me Whine,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[16]             See “Coulter, Simply Offensive” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5i.

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

Wrong and Foolish

Following Donald Trump’s seismic electoral victory and the Republican rout at all levels of government, Alt-Right propagandist Ann Coulter tweeted: “1928 was last time Republicans had the White House, the House and the Senate.

Not quite. Coulter’s tweet is factually wrong and foolishly composed.

wrong-and-foolish

Did she sleep through the George W. Bush years (2003-2006), when he had both a Republican House and Senate? (Perhaps Ann forgot about the presidency part of that equation given her current hatred for Bush, the president she once adored in her neoconservative phase.)

As for foolishness, it is surely foolhardy to remind Americans (and the world) that Republicans ruled when the Great Depression emerged.

Strikingly, the Alt-Right agenda – which Coulter extols and Trump apparently will pursue – includes protectionism and trade wars which exacerbated the Great Depression.

But this isn’t the first time Coulter has made an arse (a good Anglo-Saxon word) of herself with regards to the Great Depression.

Great Depression = Unparalleled Prosperity

During her Adios, America! book tour, Coulter repeatedly claimed,

“From 1924 to 1965, the United States of America virtually stopped all immigration – the most prosperous period in American history. That’s when we developed into a country with this massive, wealthy middle class.”

Putting it another way, Coulter asserted, “For example, in the twenties, 1924, basically a total moratorium for the next 40 years. It was the most prosperous period of American history.”

Somehow, Coulter forgot all about the Great Depression!

She also forgot about the historic economic boom under Ronald Reagan – a period of time during which she lived and experienced firsthand. (Perhaps Coulter’s amnesia stems from her tendency to diminish Reagan’s stature in order to elevate that of her present-day idols, first Romney, then Trump.)

Michael Novak highlighted what Coulter dismisses: the unparalleled prosperity brought about by the leadership of Ronald Reagan. Novak wrote:

“Following the economic ‘malaise’ bemoaned by President Carter, President Reagan changed the country’s direction dramatically. He ended the oil shortage, brought interest rates down by two-thirds, spurred the creation of 16 million new jobs, and put a higher proportion of American adults to work than ever before in history. Under Reagan, the American economy added to its wealth the equivalent of the whole economy of West Germany. This American boon lasted another 20 years after Reagan, through Democratic and Republican administrations. Reagan pointed out that government bureaucrats do not put more citizens to work; millions of new business startups do. He gave priority to sparking business startups.”

Coulter prides herself on her “fanatical” (her word) research. Perhaps she needs more research and less fanaticism.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, explores the Alt-Right, its origins, and its goals. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

#NeverReagan

Ann Coulter obviously never really knew the real Ronald Reagan.

Once a self-described Reagan conservative, Coulter now claims that Donald Trump is the new (and improved) Ronald Reagan.

neverreagan

In her best-failing book,[1] In Trump We Trust,[2] Coulter offers a caricature of the Gipper even as she lambastes conservatives for preserving his legacy.

Chapter 6, “You’re Not Reagan,” is replete with banalities, blunders, and bluster.

Speaking largely to those who never knew Reagan (and the politically disinterested, disaffected, and disillusioned), Coulter offers humor and false analogies in place of facts and reasons. Indeed, this chapter, in particular, employs rationalization instead of rational arguments.

Coulter’s False Claims About Reagan

Among the many ludicrous claims Coulter makes about Reagan, these two are especially laughable.

First, “Reagan was optimistic, but only after he’d been president.

To buttress her claim, Coulter proffered one quote from the Reagan-Carter debate in 1980.

Anyone who knew Reagan saw his eternal optimism. Coulter also asked, “Did Reagan ever blurt out something as insipid as ‘I have an optimistic message’?”

 In his one and only debate with Carter, Reagan actually said, “I am eternally optimistic.” He then addressed racial issues in America and pledged “that we will have total equal opportunity for all people. And I would do everything I could in my power to bring that about.”

Second, “Reagan had a few big ideas but, famously, was not a detail man.

In that same debate, Reagan was extremely familiar with not just the big picture but the details of the various subjects being debated. Reagan was an intellectual populist and visionary who thought before he spoke and his views were thoughtful because he’d given them due consideration. (One need only read his biographies or his journals to discern the depth of his knowledge, understanding, and discernment.)

Reagan could even hold his own with an intellectual giant like William F. Buckley, Jr.

Reagan, famously, knew the details and, more importantly, what those details meant and the underlying principles involved.

Coulter’s False Claims About Reagan Conservatives

Coulter derides Conservatism’s quest for the next Reagan because she does not understand or value the original. She dismisses Reaganism, writing, “(1) Reagan was president in the 1980s, and (2) today’s Republicans don’t seem to remember Reagan.”

 As to her second point, are we to consign to the ash-heap of history George Washington and Abraham Lincoln because many Americans are woefully unfamiliar with those giants?

 As to her first point, Coulter repeatedly reiterated ad infinitum (for Trump supporters, that’s “over, and over, and over again”) that Reagan’s era was 35 years ago and his solutions are old-fashioned, out-of-date, passé, from a bygone age, and no longer applicable to our modern, 21st-century, era. (Sounds remarkably 1960s countercultural, doesn’t it?)

 BT – Before Trump – Coulter claimed, “[Romney is] more conservative than Reagan.”[3] (Now the flavor of this election cycle is Trump.) Coulter also lamented, “These johnny-come-latelies to Reagan worship seem to think that he was Jesus Christ and could do no wrong.”[4]

Coulter added, “I don’t really like groupthink and mob-think. I liked Reagan a lot more when it was unpopular.”[5] (Reagan was always popular.)

 Now, Coulter reviles “Republicans [who] believe they can capture Reagan’s greatness by repeating his answers to the problems of three decades ago.” But Coulter fails to realize that Reagan governed by paying attention to eternal principles.

Human nature hasn’t changed since The Fall. People still want Liberty. The government’s primary legitimate function is security (law and order, national defense). The Constitution remains (nominally) the “law of the land.”

Yet, Coulter told the Miami Herald:

I sent the tweet halfway through a debate where there was no discussion of anything but Ronald Reagan, Israel and abortion.[6] Those things are all fine, but there’s no disagreement about them. All Republicans agree – who doesn’t love Reagan and Israel, and who doesn’t hate abortion? So what’s the point in talking about it? They all go on and on about Ronald Reagan. Yes, he’s great, but Ronald Reagan was 35 years ago. Can we move on?”

Actually, no. Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan were great American leaders, men of character, integrity, vision, and courage. The GOP is (or, at least, used to be) “the party of Lincoln and Reagan.” Trump has effectively jettisoned that legacy down a memory hole in his quest for power.

Nevertheless, Coulter argues, “It’s taken Republicans who aren’t Trump 35 years to become some Frankenstein monster of Reagan.”

 Hailing Trump as the new and improved Reagan, Coulter concluded her Reagan chapter with these words:

 “If history is any guide, in the 2046 election, Republicans will all be campaigning on the issue of who most credibly promises to build a second wall on border, to fortify the Great Wall of Trump.”[7] (Except a President Trump wouldn’t build a Great Wall of Trump.[8])

 Trump is NOT Reagan

Attempting to position Trump as just like (or better than) Reagan, Coulter attempted to favorably compare the two with these claims:

  • “Reagan opposed both the media and his own party to do what was best for the country.”
  • “Reagan refused to accept America’s inevitable decline.”
  • “Reagan was ridiculed for announcing that he would solve seemingly intractable problems, specifically the Cold War.”
  • “Reagan aggressively opposed Republican orthodoxy on a slew of issues: SALT treaties, détente, and the Equal Rights Amendment, to name a few.”
  • “Reagan had a few big ideas but, famously, was not a detail man.” [False – see above]

But Coulter’s observations miss the salient point. Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan. Trump cannot be trusted to keep any of his promises. Trump lacks the requisite character and discipline to do so.

 Indeed, Trump’s only moral compass is his own self-interest.

 As reported by The Federalist, “[Coulter’s] solution – replacing one hero with another – makes even less sense. The Great Communicator had ideas, theories, and solutions; the Great Prevaricator has nothing but his hero project on the Rio Grande.”

After the first Trump-Clinton debate, James C. Capretta observed:

“Trump has sometimes compared himself to Ronald Reagan. But it is hard to imagine Reagan sounding anything like the Republican candidate who debated Hillary Clinton on Monday. Trump never mentioned reining in an activist federal government or cutting back on wasteful spending. He never talked about the power of free markets, or individual liberty, or the importance of the Constitution. On foreign policy, he spoke of American weakness and showed no interest in continuing the U.S.’s post-war role as the leader of the democratic West. When he talked with real conviction, it was about how trade agreements such as NAFTA were broken and he alone could bring the lost jobs back to the U.S., without offering any kind of explanation (even when invited to do so) of how he would accomplish this.”

Capretta added,

“Trump has sometimes hit on traditional conservative themes during the past year, but those themes do not come naturally to him because he spent much of his adult life supporting a very different worldview. What animates him is a determination to disengage America from the world through changes in immigration, trade, and foreign policy. A lot can be said about this agenda, including that it has the support of many Americans. What cannot be said is that it is consistent with what Reagan would propose if he were running for president today.”

 The Ronald Reagan Coulter Never Knew

In the 1990s, Coulter regarded Reagan as the greatest American president of the 20th century. Now, not so much. Indeed, it turns out that Coulter never really knew Reagan.

Just last week, Coulter claimed, “[Reagan] kind of came across as a bumbling old man [in his first debate with Carter].”[9] (There you go again, Ann. Reagan and Carter had only one presidential debate and Reagan won.)

Pardon me, Ann, but the Gipper[10] was brilliant, thoroughly conversant with the issues, utterly conservative, and articulated his principles better than most, including William F. Buckley, Jr. When Reagan spoke to the American people, they could relate to him and they could grasp his message.

Reagan’s legacy is as much who he was as what he did. He accomplished what he did because of who is was and what he became.

Reagan’s Legacy

Twelve years ago, the nation mourned his passing while celebrating Reagan’s life and legacy. Hundreds of thousands of people visited the Capitol Rotunda for his lying in state.[11]

Reagan biographer Craig Shirley[12] has declared that the Republican Party is dead but that Reaganism is alive and well and living in a populist-energized Conservative Movement.

In an exclusive interview at CPAC,[13] I asked about Ronald Reagan’s legacy[14] and its relevance today. Shirley replied, “Reagan’s legacy is intellectual conservatism, a belief in the future, a belief in young Americans, and an optimistic outlook – all the things that he brought to the Republican Party which had been missing since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.”

Asked whether there are any leaders on the stage right now who could fill Reagan’s shoes, Shirley bluntly replied, “No.” He added, “Leaders like Ronald Reagan don’t grow on trees.”

But then he offered hope, saying, “in defense of the current crop of candidates, Ronald Reagan wasn’t Ronald Reagan before Ronald Reagan was Ronald Reagan.”

Shirley went on to explain, “by that I mean that very few saw his greatness before he was actually president and then afterwards. He was actually derided by the Eastern elites and by the Republican establishment and by the liberal media in the Sixties and the Seventies. It took time to understand Reagan’s greatness.”

Consequently, “in defense of the current crop of candidates, we can’t peer into the future, so I would say, if they stick to their principles, if they stick to their guns, they make their argument, they might succeed and make history, and, if they do, then they will also be seen in a different light.”

[In recognition of his Reaganesque qualities, love of America, and devotion to the Constitution, BrotherWatch endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz for President of the United States.[15]]

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Coulter’s Big Fail” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-ia.

[2]               See “Alternative Ann Coulter Book Covers” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-gr.

[3]               Ann Coulter, Joyce Kaufman Show, WFTL, 5/8/15.

[4]               Ann Coulter, Ricochet, 6/4/15.

[5]               Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham Show, 6/3/15.

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

[7]               See “Trump’s Phony Wall” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cn.

[8]               See “Coulter Logic (she wants candidate who won’t pursue her agenda)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dQ.

[9]               Ann Coulter, Good Morning Britain,  ITN, 9/27/16.

[10]             See “Remembering Reagan” at http://t.co/GYAescwhYa.

[11]             See “My Pilgrimage to Reagan” (5 pp.) for a first-hand account of that experience. See also a 1997 “Ronald Reagan Special Edition” (28 pp) with tributes from people who knew him best.

[12]             Mr. Shirley’s latest Reagan biography, Last Act, is available on Amazon and elsewhere.

[13]             See “CPAC: Reagan’s Legacy Endures” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-e1.

[14]             See “Remembering Reagan” at http://t.co/GYAescwhYa.

[15]             See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.