Tag Archives: racism

.@AnnCoulter = MiniMikeBloomberg

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

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

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

Their words and their tweets betray them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coulter’s opening paragraph (emphasis added):

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

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

Here’s what Bloomberg said (emphasis added):

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

Coulter mirrors Bloomberg!

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more on Coulter’s dysfunctional views and commentary, see Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged, which provides an in-depth, detailed and holistic exposé of  Coulter.

@AnnCoulter and @KTHopkins – Alt-Right BFFs

Ann Coulter has long been called America’s Katie Hopkins and Katie Hopkins has likewise been regarded as the British Ann Coulter. Why? They hold extremelhy similar views and confrontational styles. They frequently retweet and support one another.

Until their infamous meeting at Politicon, some jokingly pondered whether they were the same person.

Katie Hopkins – British Ann Coulter (Alt-Right)

Like Coulter, Hopkins expresses racist views and also regards herself as a courageous heroine.

Here are a few lowlights from Katie Hopkins (whose ideas are highly congruent with those of Ann Coulter):

  • Tweet: “Dear black people. If your lives matter why do you stab and shoot each other so much”
  • “I hear cries that he is a blithering idiot. I have often been called a deranged fool. But if this were true you could ignore me, ignore us, imaging the two of us shouting naked at the rain. It’s because we articulate sentiments repressed by the politically correct consensus that we have a voice”.
  • “I asked fair questions and I think it’s important that someone has the balls to speak out.”
  • Tweet: “Little sweaty jocks, sending us Ebola bombs in the form of sweaty Glaswegians just isn’t cricket. Scottish NHS sucks.”
  • Column (4/17/15): Hopkins compared migrants to “cockroaches” and “feral humans” who are “spreading like the norovirus.”

Like Coulter, Hopkins engages in fat shaming:

“Would I employ you if you were obese? No I would not. You would give the wrong impression to the clients of my business. I need people to look energetic, professional and efficient. If you are obese you look lazy. To call yourself ‘plus size’ is just a euphemism for being fat. Life is much easier when you’re thinner. Big is not beautiful, of course a job comes down to how you look.”

Like Coulter, Hopkins is misogynistic:

“I think women are really vicious in the work place, they’re really jealous, really competitive. Women are emotional, they cry in toilets. The sisterhood only extends as far as the kitchen door. Men talk in logic and rational terms, they don’t squark and make a noise.”

Like Coulter, Hopkins hates feminism:

“Women don’t want equal treatment, they couldn’t handle it if they got it. It’s a tough world out there. What a lot of women are actually looking for is special treatment. What women need to realise is that they have to toughen up.”

Like Coulter, Hopkins is obsessed with white genocide in South Africa (but not the genocide of other races or, even, of Christians in the Middle East):

“My kind are being slaughtered. Your kind are theiving farms and failing. Your kind turned the breadbasket of Africa into a barren wasteland, less fertile than @Julius_S_Malema

Hopkins called for a “Final Solution for Muslims,” not dissimilar to Coulter’s two-decade-long jihad against Islam (remember, Coulter wanted to kill all of them!):

“Yeah, though Hopkins started off as a conservative and, over a relatively short space of time, became a fascist. She’s called for a ‘Final Solution’ for Muslims (that’s how she lost her radio job) and described migrants as ‘cockroaches’.” [[Coulter has frequently called immigrants “cockroaches.”]]

Like Coulter, Hopkins is a provocateur:

“Provocation for provocation’s sake. No wit. No humor. No intelligence. So yes, like Ann Counter without the LBD.”

Naturally, the Left despises these two individuals just as they despise the entirety of the Alt-Right. (However, the Left often lumps in mainstream conservatives with the Alt-Right, failing to distinguish between the two.)

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis of Coulter’s own Alt-Right views.

Joker addresses the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, familial, sexual, and spiritual dimensions which have shaped the Ann Coulter that we know today and it highlights both the positives and the negatives of Coulter’s life and career.

@AnnCoulter – WASP Queen

WASP Identity

Coulter, the high priestess of the Alt-Right, is obsessed with race and looks.

She boasts that she is a looksist. Why? Her family roots go back to America’s founding; they were among the first settlers.

Yes, this is personal for Coulter. Her maternal roots are primarily Anglo-Saxon.

Coulter’s self-identity as a “settler” (as if she herself were the “settler” who “created” America) drives her views on race, culture, citizenship, immigration, and the like. Coulter’s preeminent descriptor for “settler” is “WASP.” White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

WASP defines Coulter and Coulter’s idyllic America. Coulter wrote: “In fact, the natural state of the world is Darfur. The freakish aberration is America and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world.”

Not All WASPs are Equal

For a decade or more, Coulter has had a hate-on for the Bush family. I vividly remember that, during one CPAC speech, Coulter demanded, “No more Bushes or Doles.”

But the Bush family are just as much Settlers and WASPs as Coulter.

Apparently not all WASPs are equal. Indeed, the Bush family is perhaps even more WASP than the Coulter clan.

American-born Samuel Bush (1647-1733) was the son of Englishman John Bush III (1593-1670). The Bushes, like the Coulters, are of English and German stock.

Does Bush’s patriarchal lineage going back to 1647 trump Coulter’s matriarchal lineage going back to sometime after 1632?

In any event, the Bush family has a far more extensive collection of American ancestors with far more notable and illustrious members than the Coulter clan.

But Coulter snobbishly looks down on the Bushes who are far more distinguished WASPs than the Coulters.

What qualifies the Coulter clan more than the Bush family to determine America’s fate and future given that they are equally settlers and WASPs by pedigree?

Listen to the sage words of America’s 43rd president. In a heartfelt tribute to his father, President George W. Bush said, “He valued character more than pedigree.”

Citizenship

Most of America’s Founders were WASPs. Therefore, to Coulter, being a WASP is part of what it means to be an American. Thus, she loosely correlates citizenship with WASPiness.

Coulter’s jaundiced view of American citizenship was on full display in one 2015 column[1] in which she again dismissed the terrorist threat in America[2] and confused the immigration issue by conflating various groups as if they were identical.

Coulter wrote (emphasis added): “And, once again, the weekend came and went without anyone in America being killed by ISIS, but a lot of people being killed by immigrants – legal, illegal, second generation and anchor babies.” Coulter later added, “Some of these crimes were committed by legal residents – even ‘citizens.’”

In addressing crime by immigrants, Coulter lumps everyone in together: immigrants (illegal, legal, second generation, anchor babies) and “citizens” (in air quotes, so that we might know she regards them as not really citizens).

Coulter even regarded the then-current governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, as an air-quote citizen.

Coulter smeared Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC) – a native-born American citizen – for having immigrant parents, suggesting she was somehow less than a real American. Why? Because this successful governor and, later, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. – who is a native South Carolinian to boot – was from the wrong race! Haley’s family hails from India, not England.

Remember, Coulter calls many native-born Americans “immigrants,” not citizens.

The very nature of citizenship eludes many liberals and some conservatives, particularly Coulter. As noted by the Ashbrook Center (emphasis added):

But in fact, of course, only Americans are American citizens. Our revolution began with a universal claim about human equality, but it culminated necessarily in the establishment of a particular nation. ‘We the People of the United States’ are distinct from the other peoples of the world not by birth, race, or religion, but by the deliberate act of establishing ourselves as a different people. By the act of consent, the people of the United States committed themselves to each other, as distinct from all the others who live outside the bond if citizenship.

An idea – liberty and equality – gave birth to America.

Coulter’s Race-Based Immigration Plan

Coulter has a very narrow, unidimensional perspective, shallow and superficial – literally skin deep. Don’t take my word for it. Consider Coulter’s very own criteria for determining whom to let into America.

Coulter’s plan is distinctly racial: “I want to be 100% in charge of all of our immigration. I can decide before breakfast every morning. I just need a picture, age, country of origin – that’s about it.”[3]

Coulter added, “I’m a looksist and I like ‘em tall. Those are the two primary factors. And, obviously, English-speaking.” Moreover, her diversity would extend to, well, “I want more British and Dutch, but I would say a lot more British and less Dutch.”

And, if you don’t think race is Coulter’s primary criterion,[4] consider these words: “Send me a million people who want to come to America, and I will decide them all before breakfast. I can pretty much decide on looks; it would save a lot of money.”[5]

Dennis Prager (who is Jewish) offered insight into Ronald Reagan’s vision of America – a vision diametrically opposed to that of Ann Coulter. Prager wrote:

Matthew’s Gospel speaks of a city on a hill, an image that captured the imagination of Ronald Reagan: “I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind, it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”

Quite a different outlook from that of Coulter.

WASP = White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

Coulter speaks of WASP culture in almost exclusively racial terms, emphasizing the first word and giving lip service to the last.

Myron Magnet noted “The Plymouth Pilgrims were only the first of many who came to the New World to escape religious persecution. … because they were accustomed to reading the Bible and feeling free to judge its meaning for themselves – to believing, that is, that they had a direct relation to God and his word independent of any worldly institution or authority – they also brought a deeply rooted culture of individualism and personal responsibility. For them, the individual and his conscience were of preeminent importance.”

Moreover, religious revivals (called “Great Awakenings”) animated the public square and reconstituted America. Kevin D. Williamson observed, “The American proposition is a theological proposition: ‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.’”

But Coulter gives short shrift to the spiritual (Christian) origins of America.[6]

Gerson emphasized the importance Christianity had in America’s founding and maturation. Gerson explains, “The First Great Awakening, led by George Whitfield in the 1730s, promoted the doctrines of individual conscience and liberty that added momentum to the American Revolution, sending many traditional conservatives fleeing for Canada.”[7]

Gerson added, “The Second Great Awakening, which flamed a century later, created the moral constituency for abolition, and the political constituency for Lincoln’s election.”[8]

Gerson continued, “The Third Great Awakening, at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, led to a Social Gospel that confronted the excesses of the industrial revolution with soup kitchens, homes for unwed mothers, and progressive laws.”[9]

[Much more on this subject can be found in Case Study: WASP America in my new book, Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged.]

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis in this holistic exposé of how and why Coulter has become the polemicist whom people either love or hate.

Joker addresses the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, familial, sexual, and spiritual dimensions which have shaped the Ann Coulter that we know today and it highlights both the positives and the negatives of Coulter’s life and career.

Endnotes:

[1]              Ann Coulter, “ISIS: 0, Ted Kennedy: Too Many to Count,” 7/8/15.

[2]              See “Ann Coulter … Dangerously Wrong!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7x.

[3]              Ann Coulter, Federalist Radio, 6/17/15.

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

[5]              Ann Coulter, National Press Club, 6/17/15.

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

[7]              Michael J. Gerson, Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America’s Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don’t), HarperOne, 2007, pg. 263.

[8]              Ibid., pp. 263-264.

[9]              Ibid., pg. 264.

Ann Coulter: America’s Fool!

Once hailed the Goddess of the Conservative Movement and a Conservative Icon, polemicist and Alt-Right Queen Ann Coulter has become America’s Fool!

Joker cover

For over twenty years, Coulter’s preferred presidential nominee has become someone she ultimately hates.

Coulter shares astonishing similarities with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and has been called the AOC of the GOP!

Every self-identity Coulter holds is bogus.

Coulter is not a Settler, but an Immigrant.

Coulter is not a WASP purebred, but a mongrel.

In addition to two decades of presidential follies, Coulter’s fiascos are legendary, including at Berkeley, the Hamptons, CPAC, and with Delta.

How did Coulter become America’s Fool? Hubris!

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis in this holistic exposé of how and why Coulter became the person she is today.

Joker addresses the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, familial, sexual, and spiritual dimensions which have shaped the Coulter extant today and it highlights both the positives and the negatives of Coulter’s life and career.

Ann’s brokenness provides an object lesson for all of us and, hopefully, this book will act as a public intervention to help Ann to face her brokenness and seek healing and restoration.

Coulter’s Nativist Screed Against Irish

Last week, Ann Coulter again trashed Irish Catholics in a nativist screed.

Her column reveals her nativist soul. It is polemical & filled with “alternative facts.” This graphic displays her racial hierarchy. WASPs are perfect; Irish were the worst immigrants until advent of Mexicans.

Coulter_s Hierarchy

Coulter used her polemical diatribe against the Irish to justify attacks against Mexicans. Coulter effectively rejects her father’s Irish Catholic ancestry while tacitly lauding her WASP roots.

No Love for Irish

Related:

The Beauty of Conservatism at http://bit.ly/2a79k0j.

The Gospel According to Ann Coulter at http://bit.ly/2aHMmwv.

Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory at http://bit.ly/1M2z2O5.

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?

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.