Tag Archives: Newspeak

When Will Conservatives Reject Coulter’s Anti-Semitism?

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

Reject Coulter's Anti-Semitism

Coulter has a long history of anti-Semitism, stretching back to at least the early 1990s. In the wake of her Effing Jews tweets, Coulter claimed to be pro-Semitic, employing arguments worthy of an Orwellian dictator. Coulter even enlisted the aid of her conservative friends to prove her noble and just. Those efforts abysmally failed. Her Orwellian newspeak and doublethink was exposed for what it is.

Then Coulter went after Catholics. Now she has retargeted her preferred object of hatred: Jews.

Why attack Jews and Catholics? Because they do not fit into her utopian dream of a restored WASP nation. Coulter is ecstatic over Trump’s transformation of the GOP into a new Know-Nothing Party which is anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, and anti-Jew.

The Alt-Right and David Duke have eagerly embraced Donald Trump and his (and Coulter’s) message.

Will conservatives join the Never Trump movement and denounce this latest instance of anti-Semitism by Trump’s consigliere?

Does @AnnCoulter Love #BLM?

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

Coulter Loves BLM

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

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

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

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

Only Blacks Have Civil Rights?

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

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

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

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

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

Legacy of Slavery and Jim Crow?

Coulter is simply wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coulter’s Own Racial Grievance Industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Will Conservatives Reject Coulter’s Anti-Semitism?

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

Reject Coulter's Anti-Semitism

Coulter has a long history of anti-Semitism, stretching back to at least the early 1990s. In the wake of her Effing Jews tweets, Coulter claimed to be pro-Semitic, employing arguments worthy of an Orwellian dictator. Coulter even enlisted the aid of her conservative friends to prove her noble and just. Those efforts abysmally failed. Her Orwellian newspeak and doublethink was exposed for what it is.

Then Coulter went after Catholics. Now she has retargeted her preferred object of hatred: Jews.

Why attack Jews and Catholics? Because they do not fit into her utopian dream of a restored WASP nation. Coulter is ecstatic over Trump’s transformation of the GOP into a new Know-Nothing Party which is anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, and anti-Jew.

The Alt-Right and David Duke have eagerly embraced Donald Trump and his (and Coulter’s) message.

Will conservatives join the Never Trump movement and denounce this latest instance of anti-Semitism by Trump’s consigliere?

Ann Coulter’s Cover-ups

Ann Coulter is becoming ever more brazen in her commentary, condemning elites for “covering up and protecting one another,”[1] when Coulter has herself been a recipient of and participant in any number of cover-ups.

In Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, you will discover numerous times when Coulter’s friends and colleagues have covered up her scandalous behavior.

Cover-up

In speaking about the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal, Coulter insisted, “This is a really important story,” explaining that “this is the elites getting cozy and covering up and protecting one another.”

She found it “shocking” that “thus far this has only been covered on Fox News,” and accused “the elites [of] circling the wagon and protecting” the guilty person.

But Coulter has herself been protected countless times on Fox News by her colleagues and friends, most notably Sean Hannity. Hannity routinely comes to her rescue in controversy after controversy. He devoted a series of shows (both TV and radio) to defend her when she defamed the 9/11 widows in 2006. More recently, as noted in Propaganda, Hannity leapt to Coulter’s defense over her spurious attacks on – of all things – soccer.

For well over a decade, Coulter’s colleagues have excused her plagiarism. Just last year, a colleague at Human Events repeatedly lied to me in an interview, denying her plagiarism with multiple falsehoods and specious arguments.

Christian conservatives, like Erich Erickson, have even defended Coulter’s defamation of selfless Christian missionaries serving overseas, people Coulter called ungodly traitors.

When will Fox News and other conservative organizations hold Coulter accountable for her immoral and unethical behavior?

See the new exposé on Coulter for more details. This free 245-page PDF book – Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter – is available at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]               Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 1/6/15.

Ann Coulter’s Hoaxes

In her last column of 2014,[1] Ann Coulter gave a splendid explanation of liberal hoaxes explicitly designed to further a progressive agenda. But Coulter has created her own set of hoaxes explicitly designed to further her own agenda.

Welcome to Propaganda – Ann Coulter Style.

Hoaxes

In Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, you will discover myriad ways in which Coulter distorts language, manipulates logic, and massages truth to fool people into accepting her own agenda.

Coulter’s utter fascination with Orwell’s 1984 has saturated her thought processes and permeated her rhetoric to such a degree that manipulation of language to deceive has become her subconscious modus operandi.

Her books and commentary are riddled with Orwellian constructions, and, while often expounding accurately on many subjects, Coulter infuses her own fabricated “facts” to lead her audience to erroneous conclusions.

Coulter has, throughout her journalistic career, created hoaxes both big and small to advance her personal, professional, and political agendas.

For instance, Coulter created an Orwellian term – “functionally treasonable” – which, as David Horowitz observed, “is a problematic phrase on several counts.”[2] Horowitz pointed out that “’treasonable’ is not a word but seems to suggest ‘capable of treason,’ which is different from being actually treasonous. The distinction is important.” (Think Newspeak.)

Horowitz also noted that “’functionally treasonable’ is also disturbingly reminiscent of the old Stalinist term ‘objectively fascist.’ This was how people who swore their loyalty to the cause were condemned (often to death) if they deviated from the party line. Stalinists defined all dissent as ‘objectively’ treacherous.” (Think thoughtcrime.)

Horowitz warned, “This is not a path that conservatives should follow. When intent and individuality are separated from actions in a political context, we are entering a totalitarian realm.” (Think Big Brother.)

By 2003, the year Treason was published, Coulter had become the Leni Riefenstahl of the Right.[3] At that time, Coulter launched her campaign for “a new McCarthyism.”

Last summer, Coulter contended that selfless Christian missionaries serving overseas are ungodly traitors.[4] This continued a theme she launched near the beginning of her career wherein only conservatives (Republicans) are Christians and all liberals are godless traitors.[5]

Coulter also proclaimed soccer to be inherently anti-American and an existential threat to Western Civilization.[6]

As for presidential politics, Coulter has set up her own ground rules for nomination, clearly designed to nominate the candidate of her choice. Even now, Coulter continues to extol Mitt Romney as the “ideal” GOP candidate – not as an inheritor of the Reagan mantle but superior to Reagan.

To paraphrase Coulter, “The only new rule we really need is one to stop these infernal Coulter hoaxes.”

See the new exposé on Coulter for more details. This free 245-page PDF book – Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter – is available at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, “Liberals: If the Shoe Doesn’t Fit, Make Everyone Wear It,” 12/30/14.

[2]       David Horowitz, “The Trouble with ‘Treason,’” Front Page Magazine, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=8793.

[3]       See “Ann Coulter, Orwell’s Protégé” at http://t.co/QYVkBapTIO.

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

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

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

Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter

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

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

FrontCover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coulter Right on Rape, Wrong on Treason

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

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

RapeTreason

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

Minimizing Actual Treason

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

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

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

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

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

Coulter’s Criteria for Treason

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Horowitz Criticizes Coulter’s Analysis

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

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

“But ‘functionally treasonable’ is also disturbingly reminiscent of the old Stalinist term ‘objectively fascist.’ This was how people who swore their loyalty to the cause were condemned (often to death) if they deviated from the party line. Stalinists defined all dissent as ‘objectively’ treacherous. This is not a path that conservatives should follow. When intent and individuality are separated from actions in a political context, we are entering a totalitarian realm.”

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

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

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

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

Buckley explained:

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

Buckley continued:

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

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

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

The renowned historian, Paul Johnson, observed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[8]       Ann Coulter, CPAC, 2/2/02.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann Coulter Trivializes Rape

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

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

RapeTrivial

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration = Rape

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

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

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

Rape01

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

Rape02

“Rape Us Again”

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

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

Rape03

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

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

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

Rape Exception for Abortion

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

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

Rape04

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics have never been Coulter’s forte.

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

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

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

Endnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann Coulter, Orwell’s Protégé

Ann Coulter was recently called a “Manchurian Columnist,” conjuring up images of propaganda and brainwashing. Certainly, Coulter is the consummate propagandist and her recent polemic against Republican Senate candidate Chris McDaniel is representative of her work.

Protege

Orwellian Techniques

Coulter utilizes many Orwellian techniques to fool her readers into believing her big lies. Among them, Newspeak, doublethink, the memory hole, and character assassination. Coulter also uses humor and ridicule to delegitimize her foes, and uses exaggeration to effect.

Let’s look at a few of the techniques she used in her attack on Chris McDaniel and his campaign. (Remember, McDaniel is a surrogate for the Tea Party and all those who oppose her establishment candidates.)

Coulter’s Big Lies

Since 9/11, Coulter has postulated two principle big lies which were presented in her 2003 best-seller, Treason. Treason – and the entirety of Ann Coulter’s post-impeachment work – is predicated upon a worldview encapsulated by two equations: liberalism = terrorism = treason and conservatism = McCarthyism = patriotism. No subtleties or ambiguities. No nuances. No sense.

Moreover, Coulter claimed that “The myth of ‘McCarthyism’ is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times.” In 2005, at CPAC, Coulter even called for a New McCarthyism.

But even before then, in order to ensure the candidacy of her man, George W. Bush, Coulter attacked presidential candidate Gary Bauer, calling him a fascist. Her political equation, her big lie? Christian conservative = fascist. Her essay title: “Must Christian Conservatives be Fascists?” Why were they fascists? For seeking a constitutional solution to abortion.

Now, to promote her RINO establishment Republican bedfellows, Coulter has come up with addition political equations, additional big lies:

Being Principled is Unprincipled

Tea Party is bad; Establishment Republicans are good

RINO = True Conservative

 Coulter uses Orwellian techniques to undergird her big lies.

Newspeak

For years now, Coulter has conflated Tea Party and establishment Republicans, switching identities and descriptions. She frequently denigrates members of the Tea Party – and entire organizations – to support her RINO establishment candidates.

Coulter attacked McDaniel’s team (“Clowns and nuts”), claiming selfishness and an obliviousness to endangering a potential Republican majority:

“But some McDaniel supporters can’t think about anything but winning this one primary. They don’t care that they’re gambling with a Republican majority in the Senate …”

But Coulter defended McDaniel’s rival:

“In Mississippi, they’re attempting to destroy a good Republican.”

Doublethink

Targeting McDaniel, Coulter avers that the principled thing to do is to be unprincipled. Coulter admits to election irregularities, yet she wants McDaniel to concede – and to ignore the obvious criminal activities of his opponent. Voter fraud by conservatives is unimportant to her. Coulter wants to save the GOP by destroying its soul.

Similarly, during and after the 2012 election, Coulter attacked pro-lifers for being pro-life (just as she did in 2000).

Coulter acknowledges bad blood between McDaniel and Cochran (between the Tea Party and establishment), yet she repeatedly urges McDaniel to concede so that he can be next in line.

What? The establishment doesn’t want McDaniel, who is anti-establishment. But Coulter writes, “McDaniel’s crew is going to prevent him from having any political career, ever again.” Coulter cautions, “Better to be magnanimous and live to fight another day.”

According to Coulter, his campaign is “destroying McDaniel’s future prospects. (Which could come soon – Cochran isn’t getting any younger.)”

Coulter doesn’t make any sense at all!

Memory Hole

As noted in my previous essay, Coulter “forgot” about Al Gore, Al Franken, and Lisa Murkowski, who did not fit her thesis. Many other examples could have been provided of politicians whose careers thrived after contesting election results.

Coulter also wrote of Richard Nixon, but failed to grasp two salient points. First, Nixon was from a completely different political and cultural era. Second, Nixon was an anomaly. Having lost in 1960, he won in 1968 and 1972. Nixon resigned in ignominy over Watergate, yet rehabilitated his legacy as an author and statesman.

Coulter’s Orwellian constructs emulate Big Brother’s insistence that two plus two equals five.

Additional Resources:

Free Book: Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, available at  www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.