Blunders galore!
In the wake of the horrific Islamic terrorist attack in Orlando, Ann Coulter has, once again, gone off the rails. In doing so, she further endangers every American, resident, and visitor in the United States.
Coulter denies the identity of the terrorist, wrongly claims that her solution would completely eliminate terrorism in the United States, and willfully neglects the actual and would-be terrorists currently living in our nation’s homeland.
Misidentifies the Terrorist
Coulter used very slippery phrasing in her column yesterday[1] to assert that the Islamic terrorist who committed such an horrific act in Orlando was not an American citizen (even though he was!). She insists, like Trump, that he was an Afghan.
Coulter quoted Trump: “The killer was an Afghan, of Afghan parents, who immigrated to the United States.” She then chastised the media for correctly citing what Trump had actually said.
Ironically, the theme of Coulter’s column is that the media puts words into Trump’s mouth, misrepresenting what he says. Here, she did just that with Katie Tur. She wrote: “Immediately after Trump’s speech, MSNBC’s Katie Tur ‘fact-checked’ Trump, announcing that he had incorrectly said Omar was ‘born in Afghan.’”
But Kur did not say “born in Afghan.” Kur accurately reported what Trump had said about “the shooter being born an ‘Afghan’” (“an” not “in”).
Coulter continued to attack Kur for what she did not say: “What did Tur think this meant? ‘Afghan’ isn’t a country. Didn’t she pause for a moment and realize that what she thought he said makes no sense?”
Ironically, Coulter, herself a journalist, then added, “Journalists with their outsized sense of importance say, No, no, that’s not what I heard. It says in my notes right here, you said, ‘blue carrots for Eisenhower.’ I stand by my notes.”
Just two days earlier, Coulter maintained, “He’s an Afghani!”[2] Afghani or Afghan? Afghan is more accurate to identify people from Afghanistan; Afghani is usually used as an adjective, not a noun.
In her column,[3] Coulter returned to attacking the Washington Post for writing, “The shooter was born in Queens to parents who emigrated from Afghanistan.” That Post quote is absolutely, factually correct! Coulter disapproves. (Why? Because it is accurate!)
Her soliloquy continued with (probably largely accurate) assertions that the media prefer to identify perpetrators of atrocities as “Americans” and emphasize ethnicity in benign or uplifting stories.
Coulter then got to her main point: the media was wrong and Trump was right. Except, she’s wrong about that, too. Coulter falsely claimed that the Washington Post admitted its error with its headline, “Orlando gunman said he carried out attack to get ‘Americans to stop bombing his country,’ witness says.”
The Post made no admission of error. Coulter’s probable rationale: If he was out to get Americans, he couldn’t be American. Poppycock!
Denying the obvious – that a 29-year-old American committed this atrocity – refutes Coulter’s contention that all we need to do to prevent future terrorist attacks is to stop immigration. (Yes! Omar Mateen had lived in America for almost three decades!)
On the Eric Metaxas Show,[4] an enraged Coulter rejected his American citizenship – and his birth certificate – charging: “No! He’s an Afghani! His parents were immigrants.”
Ipso facto, stop immigration and you stop terrorism.
Stop Immigrants, Not Terrorists!
Coulter has been saying this for years.[5]
Coulter continued: “He wouldn’t have been here. None of the terrorists who have committed any of the terrorist attacks, starting with 9/11, would have been in this country but for Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act.”
Again, that’s not true.
Kennedy is Coulter’s favorite bogeyman. During her interview, Coulter specifically included the Boston Marathon bombers, who were political asylees, who would have been eligible under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Moreover, since 1965, Congress has passed numerous laws and acts regarding immigrants and refugees. Nevertheless, Coulter always reverts back to 1965 to fit the thesis of her last book, even though immigration law has been radically revised since then.
How about the 9/11 hijackers? One entered the U.S. on a student visa, the remainder on tourist or business visas. None of them were immigrants!
Coulter then prescribed a three-part solution to end mass shootings and terrorist attacks: 1) arm citizens, 2) treat the mentally ill, and 3) stop immigration by Muslims. The centerpiece of her plan: “not importing Muslims – that’s how you shut all of this down.”[6] As it happens, I agree with all three aspects of her plan but not her conclusion.
A ban on all Muslims would not end the jihadist threat in America.
This has been a major flaw in Coulter’s elaborate plan to save America from itself. A moratorium on all immigration – which is her favorite proposal – would do absolutely nothing to address the jihadist threat currently entrenched in America. Under Coulter’s plan, American citizens who have lived in America for decades and been radicalized to jihad would remain in America.
Coulter sees the external, but not the internal, threat. Denying the internal threat prevents us from appropriately countering it.
Instead of dealing aggressively with this internal existential threat, Coulter has consistently and continuously opposed those who seek to do so. She has denied the threat even exists,[7] insisted that Americans need to fear Mexicans more than Islamists,[8] and is horrified at the extent of media coverage given to ISIS.[9]
Coulter demands: “Forget the terrorism.”[10] For Coulter, it’s all about immigration and nothing else.[11]
Coulter refuses to call Islamic terrorists who are American “American” and she is loath to use the term “terrorist” for acts of terror committed in America. She even referred to the Boston Marathon bombers as “murderers”[12] instead of terrorists.
Formerly the foremost neoconservative, Coulter now eschews the military intervention necessary to prevent the radicalization of potential jihadists and American citizens already living here in America. Victory on the battlefield would spell defeat for recruitment in the homeland.
Coulter will not fight ISIS either at home or abroad. Coulter wants to prevent ISIS from getting here, but they’re already here.
While the Left reflexively demands gun control to stop mass shootings and acts of terror,[13] Coulter’s matrix looks almost exclusively to immigration.
Both miss the point. Islamists seek the destruction of America because of their Islamist beliefs and they are already here![14] Any strategy to defeat the enemy must acknowledge this reality and oppose them over there and over here.
Endnotes:
[1] Ann Coulter, “Did Anyone Talking About Trump’s Speech Actually Hear It?’ 6/15/16.
[2] Ann Coulter, Eric Metaxas Show, Salem Media Group, 6/13/16.
[3] Ann Coulter, “Did Anyone Talking About Trump’s Speech Actually Hear It?’ 6/15/16.
[4] Ann Coulter, Eric Metaxas Show, Salem Media Group, 6/13/16.
[5] See “Stop Immigrants, Not Terrorists!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-b2.
[6] Ann Coulter, Eric Metaxas Show, Salem Media Group, 6/13/16.
[7] See “Coulter Denies Islamist Threat” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-69.
[8] See “Adios, Ann: Fear Mexicans, Not Jihadists” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-6A.
[9] See “Coulter Aghast at ISIS Coverage” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-aK.
[10] See “Coulter Still Doesn’t Get Terrorist Threat!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bg.
[11] See “Coulter: All Immigrants Are Bad” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8w.
[12] Ann Coulter, John Gibson Show, Fox News, 1/14/16.
[13] See “In Allah’s Name” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-fw.
[14] See “Islamists Fear Cartoons” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-9Z.
CoulterWatch 