Tag Archives: WASP

@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.

Advertisements

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.

Separated at Birth II: Joy Reid & Ann Coulter – Christian Edition

Despite their personal enmity and political differences, Joy Reid and Ann Coulter are remarkably alike in their polemical nature and viewpoints in certain areas: anti-Mexican, anti-Semitic, death threats, hate speech, rape fantasies, identity politics, and even misogyny. To that, we can add hostility toward Christians.

Separated at Birth 2

Joy Reid regards evangelical beliefs as fiction, fantasy. She decries mainstream Christianity as opportunistic and apathetic toward those in need. As noted in Christian Post, “Joy Reid’s declaration against faith and family are part and parcel of a greater spiritual movement among the liberal elite to destroy both faith in God and the family.” Indeed, Reid regards “Church … family … police … military … the national anthem” as anachronistic and old-fashioned, things to be forgotten. Reid even attacked Sarah Palin for displaying a Christmas tree – on Christmas!

Ann Coulter has opposed Christians for fully two decades (while claiming to be a Christian!) Coulter has repeatedly condemned Christian missionaries for daring to fulfill the Great Commission in foreign lands, aiding those who are poor, sick, and in need. She calls Christians heeding their consciences “fake Christians” and attacks Christians for being godly. Further, Coulter demands that Christian refugees from genocide overseas be martyred. Moreover, Coulter’s WASP worldview compels her to continually denigrate Catholics.

In many ways, Joy Reid and Ann Coulter are twins. Both are openly hostile to Christianity while one – Ann Coulter – actually claims to be a Christian. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, revealing the truth.

Separated at Birth: Joy Reid & Ann Coulter

Arch-left commentator Joy Reid and alt-right polemicist Ann Coulter hate each other (and one another’s politics), yet they have many traits in common. (One trait which markedly distinguishes the two is that Reid will actually apologize when she screws up.)

Separated at Birth

Ann and Joy have frequently butted heads on national television, with mixed results. But have they ever looked into the mirror of their own souls? If they had, they would have seen similarities in their viewpoints (Identity Politics) and polemical style.

Roseanne Barr and Joy Reid

The most recent kerfuffle began with an injudicious Roseanne Barr tweet which caused a meltdown on the Left. Just days later, Samantha Bee’s hateful attack on conservatives put a spotlight on liberal hypocrisy.

Then Joy Reid’s hateful attacks on whole groups of people bubbled up into the national consciousness.

Conservatives were quick to highlight Reid’s many attacks on Coulter, without realizing that Coulter shares Reid’s modus operandi and, in some areas, polemical perspective and nature.

Here are a few of Reid’s remarks regarding Coulter:

Joy Reid anti-Coulter tweets

What commonalities can be found between Reid and Coulter? Many. Here are just a few.

Misogyny

Reid’s misogynistic language employed against Coulter mirrors Coulter’s own decades-long style. Indeed, on Ingraham Angle (6/1/18), in response to Reid’s postings, Coulter replied:

“And then there’s the always popular calling me a man for having a beautiful swan-like neck. Liberal women, as long as we’re being frank here, aren’t used to that because they have rolls of fat on their neck. They’re really taken aback by my beautiful swan-like neck.”

Ingraham was taken aback: “Oh gosh. Okay, alright.”

But is it really “OK” and “alright?”

Coulter has, in fact, attacked women (for being women and on the basis of this looks and lack of intelligence) for around three decades. [See chapter 10,”Equality: Self-Evident Truths,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter and chapter 7, “Spawn of Satan Convention,” The Beauty of Conservatism.]

Hate Speech

Coulter calls herself a “polemicist” and says she enjoys her “vitriol.” [See Chapter 8, “Polemics R Us,” The Beauty of Conservatism.]

Anti-Mexican

I tweeted: “She sounds an awful lot like @AnnCoulter who for several years now has denounced Mexican rapist culture and illegals who take jobs & welfare from Americans. http://wp.me/p4jHFp-6A.”

[See “Adios, Ann: Fear Mexicans, Not Jihadists,” “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Blood Politics,” “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Racial Confusion,” “Coulter: All Immigrants Are Bad,” and “Stop Immigrants, Not Terrorists!”]

Anti-Semitic

I tweeted: “Reid has savagely attacked @AnnCoulter yet they both love Identity Politics and both have a long history of #Antisemitism #AnnCoulter http://wp.me/p4jHFp-f4 .”

[See “Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots,” “Effing Jews and Ann Coulter’s Waterloo (or Damascus Road?),” “First, Jews; Now, Catholics?,” “Jews: Quality, not Quantity,” and “Is Ann Coulter Anti-Semitic?”]

Death Threats

I tweeted: “Like Reid, @AnnCoulter is OK with death threats and rape jokes. Many of #AnnCoulter‘s “jokes” preceded Reid’s and Coulter has NEVER apologized. http://wp.me/p4jHFp-fY .

[See “Coulter OK with Her Death Threats” and Appendix 1, “Sampling of Coulter’s Elimination Rhetoric,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter.]

Rape Fantasies

I tweeted: “Like Reid, @AnnCoulter is OK with death threats and rape jokes. Many of #AnnCoulter‘s “jokes” preceded Reid’s and Coulter has NEVER apologized. http://wp.me/p4jHFp-fY .

[See “Ann Coulter Trivializes Rape,” “Ann Coulter Was Gang Raped!,” “Ann’s Rape Fantasies,” and “Coulter on Rape – Good for Politics.”]

Identity Politics

I tweeted: “Reid has savagely attacked @AnnCoulter yet they both love Identity Politics and both have a long history of #Antisemitism #AnnCoulter http://wp.me/p4jHFp-f4 .”

[See “Adios, Ann: Diversity = White,” “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s WASP Fantasy,” “Coulter – Face of the Alt-Right,” “Warped Alt-Right Worldview,” and an e-book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia.]

If you regard Joy Reid’s words and worldview as reprehensible, then you should so regard Ann Coulter’s.

 

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.

First, Jews; Now, Catholics?

Ann Hart Coulter is a modern-day Know Nothing.

KnowNothing

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

Coulter’s Anti-Catholic Tweets

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

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

Coulter’s WASP Nativism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholics in the Revolutionary War

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

From “Catholics and the Founding”:

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

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

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

Endnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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