Tag Archives: treason

Ann Coulter’s Flights of Fantasy

Given her frequent flights of fantasy, one wonders why anyone listens to Ann Coulter.

Recently, Coulter insisted that she could arrange a détente which would yield her Dream Ticket: Trump-Romney.[1] Simply delusional. Since then, Coulter has been spiraling downward.[2]

Fantasy

Coulter has redefined terms, such as “real American,” traitor,” and “patriot,” spoken of vast conspiracies, and displayed paranoia.

Employing a variety of Orwellian techniques, Coulter has become a propagandist who is no longer able to discern fact from fantasy.

Real Americans!

 Yesterday, Stephen Nemo made some absurd claims. His introductory paragraph asserted: “Ann Coulter is hated by Democrats, but she’s also a pariah among Republicans. Why? She still believes in conservatism and the rule of law.”

Nemo has drunk the Coulter-aid.

In truth, Coulter abandoned Conservatism[3] and Christianity[4] many years ago. As for the rule of law, why is she constantly lying about it? Coulter continues to lie about Supreme Court[5] cases[6] in order to influence national politics.

The person Coulter said she blindly worships as her Savior,[7] The Donald, is not a conservative![8] Moreover, Trump cares about what is best for Trump,[9] not for America.

As evidence for his claim of Coulter’s fidelity to conservatism and the rule of law, Nemo quoted a recent Coulter column: “Conservative pundits keep assuring clueless [television] viewers that Trump is not a ‘real Republican.’”

Nemo omitted these words from her essay: “I certainly hope he’s not a ‘real Republican.’” Nemo did, however, continue with her next words: “I know he’s a real American. Those used to be the same thing.”

In other words, “real Republicans” are no longer “real Americans.”

For decades, Coulter has defined who “real Americans” are per her own malleable standards. As I noted last September,[10] Coulter was wrong then and she is wrong now!

Coulter defines not only who Americans are but she also pinpoints where the traitors can be found.

Treason Without Reason

Displaying both hyperbole and paranoia on steroids, Coulter tweeted (emphasis added): “Fox News & Cruz are American traitors, in league with the liberal establishment. Silent majority must face fire from a unified oligarchy.”[11]

American Thinker provided the Cruz quote which prompted “Coulter foaming at the mouth.” After condemning the violence at Trump’s rally in Chicago, Cruz said, “when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.”

American Thinker correctly observed: “Never mind that the ‘unified oligarchy’ Coulter decries is a unified oligarchy elected by the American people; the main point is that every word, every syllable, every letter of the above quote is absolutely and verifiably true.” (He then provided a surfeit of details.)

Upon hearing of Rubio’s epic defeat in his home state of Florida, Coulter again furthered her treason motif, tweeting (emphasis added), “Media’s favorite line tonight: Rubio lost because he was too optimistic. Yeah, the whole treason thing had nothing to do with it.”[12]

In 2003, Coulter declared as traitors everyone who disagreed with even just one item of the GOP platform. To her, all Democrats and liberals were guilty of treason. Now, Coulter calls Republicans, conservatives, and Christians[13] “traitors” for disagreeing with her on one single issue: immigration.

Back then, the entirety of the Left were treasonous in Coulter’s eyes. Now, a huge swath on the Right have joined their ranks. Oh, and, by the way, Coulter’s definition of “treason” is not a legal one, but an elastic one dependent upon her own personal whim. Moreover, Coulter misuses the term for its effect as emotional vernacular to bypass reason and facts.

Propaganda With Paranoia

A gifted linguist, Coulter is, indeed, adept at propaganda. She knows how to manipulate language to manipulate people. Orwell’s Newspeak and doublethink could have been designed just for her.[14]

Since the release of her latest book, Coulter’s commentary has been replete with errors[15] and outright fabrications. Who knew that the Great Depression “was the most prosperous period in American history?”[16]

One particular tweet required a great deal of chutzpah to publish (as well as a certain disdain for her readership). Gloating over Trump’s Florida victory, Coulter tweeted (emphasis added), “To beat Rubio, Trump had to beat: Fox, entire MSM, National Review, Salem Radio, every major GOP donor…MAYBE VOTERS WANT LESS IMMIGRATION!”[17]

The entire tweet in all of its particulars is incorrect. Coulter consistently claims a conspiracy among political and media elites to foil Trump’s candidacy. According to Coulter, Fox News is part of that grand conspiracy.

Fox News? Matt Walsh recently exposed her lies on this, writing, “All the other dull, blathering Trump sycophants on Fox News, like Andrea Tantaros and Eric Bolling and Kimberly Guilfoyle and other various Trump shills who’ve now taken to declaring that ‘principles don’t matter.’ The Fox morning show team hands airtime to Trump whenever he demands it, and they sit in admiration listening to him blabber on like infatuated school boys pretending to be interested in what the pretty girl in class is saying. But they’re of course not as bad as Joe Scarborough over on MSNBC, who was recently caught on camera taking instructions from Trump about what questions he can ask.”

Walsh continued: “Trump and his groupies complain that Fox is ‘unfair’ to him, but those of us who haven’t had our brains cooked by Trump fever recognize that, with the exceptions of Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier, Greg Gutfeld and a few others, the entire network slobbers over him like a cheerleader fainting when the varsity quarterback asks her to the prom.”

As of January 26, 2016, Donald Trump had already appeared on Fox News and Fox Business News 132 times[18] – far more than any other candidate. That number has undoubtedly skyrocketed since then.

Entire MSM? The mainstream media is hardly a monolith and it has provided more coverage of Trump than any other candidate in any other election in history. It covers Trump rallies and speeches, often without commentary, while overlooking other candidates. Trump gets air time whenever he wants it. Also, Trump has bullied many media outlets into acquiescence.

The Media Research Center frequently notes the disparate coverage afforded Trump at the expense of his opponents, even in GOP debates. Most recently, Breitbart, known as Trump’s personal Pravda, has come under fire for covering up Trump scandals and betraying its reporters and readers.

The Sun Times reported that the media “gave Trump $400 million worth of free coverage in just one month’s time.” In total, Trump has received about $2 billion in free air time.

Back in 1999, Coulter was incensed at any publicity that Sen. John McCain received during his 2000 election campaign. Coulter asked of McCain, “Courageous, independent, or bought?” and accused him of “shilling [for] the newspaper industry in return for favors worth millions of dollars in campaign donations.”[19]

Is Trump shilling now?

National Review? National Review is one of the few media outlets actually opposed to Trump, not out of treasonous hatred for America but, rather, with fervor for journalistic integrity, the Constitution, liberty, conservatism, and the rule of law. (Yes, conservatism and the rule of law, Mr. Nemo.)

While the “entire MSM” has failed to focus on Trump’s moral and business failings, National Review put together “a comprehensive roundup of the man’s disastrous [business] record.”

Salem Radio? Salem Radio is hardly part of a Vast Left and Right Wing Conspiracy. Sadly, many Christian leaders have actually jumped aboard the Trump bandwagon, seemingly willing to abandon both biblical and conservative principles for the elevation of someone they regard as a protector of their rights and freedoms. However, Trump is merely a bloviating bully[20] with disdain for the Constitution and he would govern with his own version of Obama’s pen and a phone.[21]

Every Major GOP Donor? GOP donors were hardly united against Trump. Many funded attacks against Cruz, Trump’s biggest rival.

Immigration? Immigration – Trump’s (and Coulter’s) signature issue – regularly places around fourth in exit polling, demonstrating that Coulter is wrong about the reason for Trump’s success thus far. Voters are outraged, want change, and are looking for a strongman to forcefully reverse the course our government is presently on.

Ironically, Coulter’s zealous devotion to Trump is itself predicated on a lie. Coulter insists that Trump is the best candidate on her core issue – immigration – yet, Trump has proven himself a fraud on immigration.[22] Trump admits he is flexible on immigration and he actually promotes amnesty (“touchback deportation”). To ensure a Trump victory, Coulter has repeatedly[23] lied[24] about Ted Cruz,[25] the one candidate who has a proven record of defending the border and preserving our national sovereignty.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Coulter’s Dream Ticket: Trump-Romney” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cB.

[2]               See “Ann Coulter’s Upside Down World” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cP.

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

[4]               See “Coulter Attacks Christians for Being Godly” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-az.

[5]               See “Coulter Lies About Supreme Court Case” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bE.

[6]               See “Birther Coulter Births More Lies” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bI.

[7]               See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[8]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[9]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

[10]             See “Ann Coulter’s ‘Real’ Americans Fallacy” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9Y.

[11]             Ann Coulter, 3/12/16, 12:16 a.m.

[12]             Ann Coulter, 3/15/16, 7:55 p.m.

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

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

[15]             See “Are Coulter’s ‘Facts’ Right?” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9E.

[16]             See “Ignorant Ideologue” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-br.

[17]             Ann Coulter, 3/15/16, 5:50 p.m.

[18]             Sean Hannity, Hannity, FNC, 1/26/16.

[19]             Ann Coulter, “When ‘reform’ means tilting the balance of influence,” 10/20/99.

[20]             See “How to Talk to a Bully (if you must)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bY.

[21]             See “Bully Boy Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cv.

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

[23]             See “Birther Coulter Births More Lies” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bI.

[24]             See “Coulter’s Desperate Lies About Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-c8.

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

Ann Coulter’s “Real” Americans Fallacy

While one can applaud Coulter’s efforts to reform America’s immigration policy, her conclusions are nonsensical and shameful.

RealAmericans

Coulter identifies immigration – both legal and illegal – as the preeminent, overarching challenge of our time, beyond which all other issues pale in comparison. Her passion and conviction may well carry the day for the hearts and minds of many Americans. But is she right?

Coulter summarized her thesis on the Joyce Kaufman Show,[1] again asserting that the only issue of importance is immigration. Every other issue is subordinated to her issue (and the subject of the book she is currently hawking.) Coulter claims that – once we have settled the immigration issue – everything else will sort itself out.

After we have resolved the immigration crisis, Coulter claims, “I am confident that America will do the right thing on all the issues we care about, from abortion to gay marriage to Iran deals. The rest will sort itself out. The biggest problem right now is that Americans are being outvoted by foreigners.”

Coulter made similar claims in the 2012 and 2014 elections, asserting that conservatives just need to elect Republicans[2] to restore the America she loves. A decisive GOP landslide in 2014[3] petered out on election night, with a Republican congress acceding to most of President Obama’s demands.[4] Coulter has yet to learn that a RINO is a RINO is a RINO.[5]

Coulter was wrong then and she is wrong now!

Does Coulter really think that “on all the issues we care about, from abortion to gay marriage to Iran deals” will be fixed once we’ve dealt with post-1970s immigration? All of the cultural issues Coulter claims to care about became issues prior to post-1970’s immigration.

Immigration is Not THE Problem

Coulter’s nativism and xenophobia[6] have gotten out of hand, as she vilifies all immigrants[7] and even condemns Christians[8] who are overseas missionaries.[9] With her latest book and book tour, Coulter is actually promoting restoration of a WASP culture – a white culture.[10]

With carefully-selected anecdotes and statistics, Coulter seeks to prove that immigration is the source of all of America’s woes. Moreover, she claims that even second-generation immigrants (especially those from non-Western European nations) are somehow not really “American.”[11] Her thesis is that, once immigration is halted and foreigners are deported, America will be restored to greatness by the “real” Americans who remain.

But immigration is not the problem Coulter makes it out to be and following Coulter’s prescription to counter that crisis will not achieve the utopia Coulter envisions. History itself disputes Coulter’s thesis. The problem is not immigrants but ideas.

The American progressive movement has been populated by “real” Americans for over a century.

American progressives brought us the New Deal, the Great Society, and Obamacare. American progressives created Planned Parenthood, enacted Jim Crow, and decided Roe. V. Wade.

American progressives were apologists for first Hitler, then Stalin, then Castro. American progressives were useful idiots throughout the Cold War and supported the communist regime in Cuba for half-a-century. (Coulter apparently forgot about that “massive” bestseller which posits Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.)

American progressives led the anti-war movement and the sexual revolution. American progressives infiltrated academia, Hollywood, the media, and government.

American progressives have ruled over major metropolitan cities for over fifty years, implementing policies which have devastated cities and incited racial violence (e.g., Detroit, Ferguson,[12] Baltimore[13]) while ignoring black-on-black violence. Changing immigration policy would not reverse those trends. These problems are, at heart, ideological and cultural,[14] not racial.

The root causes of the problems and crises America faces today predate the post-1970s immigration of Third World immigrants that Coulter vilifies. Mexicans are not the monsters Coulter depicts.[15]

Coulter’s claim to fame as a polemicist and provocateur arose from her targeting of entire groups of people as evil villains seeking to destroy America and civilization itself. With her latest book, subtitled The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole, Coulter impugns the motives, character, and patriotism of everyone who disagrees with her.[16]

A decade ago, Coulter blamed everything on the Left. Now, she blames everything on immigrants. In another decade, will she blame everything on space aliens?

Endnotes:

[1]               Ann Coulter, Joyce Kaufman Show, WFTL, 9/10/15.

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

[3]               See “GOP Triumphs Despite Voter Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-59.

[4]               See “Coulter Discovers RINOs will be … RINOs” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-56.

[5]               See “Only One Admits to Being a RINO” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-6e.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[14]             See “Propaganda Kills” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-6n.

[15]             See “Immigration More Dangerous Than ISIS” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5e.

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

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’s “Spawn of Satan Convention”

Just as Coulter claims to abhor Nazi and Fascist imagery, Coulter decries comparisons of conservatives to the Devil:

A novel released in 2004 advocated the assassination of President Bush “for the good of humankind.” Liberal columnist William Raspberry referred to President Bush as “the Devil.” Remember the good old days, during Bush’s honeymoon with the press, when he was just Hitler?”[1]

Spawn

Eschewing demonization, Coulter nevertheless demonizes. Consider alone her books, Godless and Demonic, which clearly demonize the Left in spiritual terms.

One decade ago, Coulter infamously described the Democratic National Convention in near apocalyptic terms, beginning, “Here at the Spawn of Satan Convention …”

Demonic Liberals

Coulter’s first post-9/11 book, Slander, seemingly laid all the evils of the world at the feet of liberals. She began her book:

“Political ‘debate’ in this country is insufferable. Whether conducted in Congress, on political talk shows, or played out at dinners and cocktail parties, politics is a nasty sport. At the risk of giving away the ending: It’s all liberals’ fault.”[2]

Coulter ended her next book, Treason, claiming, “The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is: Conservatives believe man was created in God’s image; liberals believe they are God.” Then, in explaining a litany of liberal abuses, Coulter wrote, “because they are gods. … because they are gods. … because they are gods. … they are gods. … they are gods.”[3]

Her last words: “They instinctively root for anarchy and against civilization. The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason.”[4]

In Godless, Coulter catalogued what she considered an ungodly (anti-God?) religion of the godless:

“Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’ which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.’”[5]

Coulter emphasized the ungodly (un-biblical and un-American) nature of this false religion, writing, “Liberals swoon in pagan admiration of Mother Earth, mystified and overawed by her power. They deny the Biblical idea of dominion and progress, the most ringing affirmation of which is the United States of America.”[6]

In sneering condescension, Coulter continued: “Although they are Druids, liberals masquerade as rationalists, adopting a sneering tone of scientific sophistication, which is a little like being condescended to by a tarot card reader.”[7]

With Demonic, Coulter expanded her critique of liberalism in league with the forces of darkness, noting, “The Democratic Party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents.”[8] She then identified the techniques employed by the Left (oddly, techniques employed by Coulter):

“The Democrats’ playbook doesn’t involve heads on pikes – at yet – but uses a more insidious means to incite the mob. The twisting of truth, stirring of passions, demonizing of opponents, and relying on propagandistic images in lieu of ideas – these are the earmarks of a mob leader.”[9]

One book review made a salient observation:

“An author that accuses her opponents of doing things that she immediately, in full view of her readers, does – is either very stupid or very evil. I do not think Ann Coulter is stupid. To use the Bible to back up a pack of lies is disgusting and the devil, Jesus said, is a liar.”[10]

NOTE: A comprehensive critique of Demonic can be found in The Beauty of Conservatism at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America, Crown Forum, 2009, pg. 244.

[2]       Ann Coulter, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, Crown Forum, 2002, pg. 1.

[3]       Ann Coulter, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror, Crown Forum, 2003, pg. 292.

[4]       Ibid.

[5]       Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Crown Forum, 2006, pg. 1.

[6]       Ibid., pg. 3.

[7]       Ibid.

[8]       Ann Coulter, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America, Crown Forum, 2011, pg. 4.

[9]       Ibid.

[10]     “Ann Coulter’s Demonic,” 8/1/11, http://theroadupward.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/ann-coulters-demonic/.