Coulter, Ann
see c2 bak 6/18
NO MERRI
see blinded
primary 3/18 trump whisperer and campus
elves conway
plus big $/slick ad combo
see Conserv Entert Cmplex: she does stand-up, male version of shockjock stern
dartmouth rev nope that was L ingraham, sis?
---
AN 5 26
On Tuesday, far-right commentator Ann Coulter spent the morning tweeting a flurry of criticisms of the White House and the wider Republican party, pointing out the hypocrisy to their recent behavior and expressing support for Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY). Coulter, a former all of President Donald Trump, is one of many high-profile MAGA figures who have broken with the president over Massie and other issues.
Coulter’s tweet storm began in the small hours of Tuesday morning. In response to a far-right podcaster asking why Democratic Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) has endorsed Massie, suggesting that the latter is not a true “America First” conservative, Coulter brought Trump and convicted sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein into the discussion.
“Because he and Massie together wrote the most universally beloved bill in the history of the Republic, vehemently resisted — then finally supported by all members of the House and Senate (but one) and signed into law by your master, Donald J. Trump, to release the Epstein files” she replied. “Why a Republican wouldn't want to release the files raises suspicions… You should probably rest your tiny brain and save it for remembering to breathe.”
Shortly after that, Coulter retweeted a video of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who was campaigning against Massie in Kentucky on Monday, taking the opportunity to deliver some all-caps mockery: “The war with Iran is existential! Iran could bomb a U.S. city! Americans must impoverish themselves to stop Iran from getting a nuke! A civilization will die tonight! ... Man in charge of war: ‘Excuse me — I need to fly to a small Kentucky county to campaign against a Republican House member.’”
Then later in the morning, she responded to a commenter who noted that Massie had only voted with the GOP around 77 percent of the time.
“This term,” she said, “House Republicans voted four times for the Iran War, passed multiple foreign aid bills totaling $50 billion, and voted to fund the Democrats' ‘Disinformation’ office. Voting 77 percent with Republicans this term is the pro-American position. He's MAGA, you're Make Other Countries, Raytheon, Boeing, Dead School Girls and Censorship Great Again.”
Coulter’s tweet eruption represents the latest in a MAGA breakup that has been underway for several months. While there has been grumbling from some of Trump allies since early in his second term, the cracks in the movement really began to show after, as Coulter noted, Congress had to force the White House to release the Epstein files, which had been a key campaign promise. Then Trump’s decision to launch war against Iran received major push back from the “America First” camp, and the resulting economic consequences further fractured MAGA. By that point, many prominent far-right figures like Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and others had experienced highly visible fallings out with the president.
Now MAGA is in full-on civil war over Massie. A former advisor to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and top conservative commentator is accusing Trump of “looting billions of taxpayer funds.” The military has no confidence in Pentagon chief Hegseth. And a former Trump advisor who attempted to help him steal the 2020 election has declared that no matter how the Massie primary turns out, Trump and the GOP lose while “the Left wins.”
---
unable to learn 4 23
https://www.alternet.org/ann-coulter-republicans-defend-trump/
abortion bad bet
https://www.alternet.org/even-ann-coulter-thinks-strict-gop-abortion-bans-are-going-too-far/
2x? https://www.alternet.org/2022/11/donald-trump-is-so-done
---
spoke at goProud but anti gay marriage so all phobes?
---
no lnx
Every revolutionary movement needs a martyr and it appears that the MAGA revolution has finally found one for itself.
Ashli Babbit, the Jan. 6th insurrectionist who was shot by a security guard as she climbed through a broken window just a few feet away from members of Congress, is Donald Trump's Horst Wessel, the German brownshirt who was murdered in 1930 and turned into a martyr by the Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels. Trump himself is making the case for Babbit, having mentioned her in every appearance he's made in the last week.
At his recent Florida rally, Trump wondered: "Who shot Ashli Babbit? We all saw the hand... Now they don't want to give the name." At his press conference on Wednesday in which he announced his laughable "class action" lawsuit against the Big Tech companies, he went a little bit farther saying, "there were no guns in the Capitol except for the gun that shot Ashli Babbitt. And nobody knows who that man were...the person that shot Ashli Babbitt right through the head, just boom. There was no reason for that."Then this past weekend he went all the way, describing the insurrection as a love fest and Babbit as an innocent victim in an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo:
Bartiromo took the ball and ran with it, saying that Babbitt climbed out of a broken window (as if she was trying to escape the vicious gunman) after which both she and Trump speculated that the officer who shot Babbitt was part of a Democratic official's security detail, casually mentioning Chuck Schumer in the process. The implication was obvious: the Democrats shot Ashli Babbitt for no good reason. The fact that we have all seen the footage of the shooting is irrelevant: We can believe them or we can believe our lying eyes.
Over the weekend, Trump appeared at his second CPAC conference in five months — this time in Texas. (Salon's Zachary Petrizzo delivered these dispatches from the event.) Trump gave his usual speech, to a notably more excited crowd than the last one in February in Florida. He's barely able to keep from announcing to his adoring fans that he's running again and they are all clamoring for him to do it. And it's clear that he will be running to avenge his bogus claims that he actually won the election. The Big Lie will never die.
It all sounds bizarre but when you talk about this stuff in the context of CPAC, it is really not all that crazy. Sure the violent insurrection gives their standard reckless rhetoric a feeling of urgency that wasn't there before, but if you look back you can see that's been there for decades.
Back in 1973 when the American Conservative Union (founded in 1964) first started holding these get-togethers, the GOP was in terrible disarray in the wake of Watergate and far-right organizers saw an opportunity to reshape the party in their conservative image. They invited Ronald Reagan to give the first keynote and the "New Right" never looked back.
CPAC has always been used as a way to take the temperature of the party activists and in that way, it's very instructive. The straw poll that's taken every year (or now, every few months, apparently) has not always been predictive of the party's nominee, but it shows what ideas and issues most excite the base. It's almost certain that the feedback loop between this group and the right-wing media guides the party as much as party officials and pollsters do.
For the first quarter-century, the conference was an ideological gathering designed to promote the conservative movement agenda of anti-communism, small government, strong military, Christian Right values, low taxes, etc. But with the rise of the right-wing media — first talk radio, then Fox News — by the turn of the century, it became much more of a right-wing celebrity spectacle that sought to shock the political media, which loved to cover it since it was always held in DC. (This is the first year they've ever held the event outside of DC.)
In fact, for the past 20 years, CPAC was basically the same circus that Trump took on the road for his beloved rallies. During the Bush years, politicians showed up and there were panel discussions of issues but the stars of the show were people like Ann Coulter, who pretty much made her name at these events.And they said things which, looking back, make January 6th seem inevitable.
At the 2002 meeting, Coulter said, "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 out to be outright traitors." A few years later she made news again with another notorious speech:
On Democrats: "Someday they will find a way to abort all future Boy Scouts."
College professors: "sissified, pussified." Harvard: "the Soviet Union." John Kerry: the other "dominant woman in Democratic politics."
Her post-9/11 motto: "Rag head talks tough, rag head faces consequences." For good measure, she threw in a joke about having Muslims burn down the Supreme Court — with the liberal justices inside.
Then came questions. A young woman asked Coulter to describe themost difficult ethical decision she ever made. "There was one time I had a shot at Bill Clinton," Coulter said.
She meant that literally. Meanwhile, down in the bowels of the hotel hosting CPAC, they sold merchandise with adorable sayings such as "Happiness is Hillary Clinton's face on a milk carton" and "Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some Assembly Required."At the next year's event, Coulter said, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'fa**ot,'" and when she was rebuked for saying it, she called it "speech totalitarianism."
There is nothing new under the right-wing sun.
In recent years, some of the acts were scrapped. Coulter was not invited in 2015, and in 2017 the right-wing provocateur Milo Yianopoulos was canceled when it was revealed that he had made positive statements about pedophilia. They were no longer needed anyway. The show was by then dominated by Donald Trump who had made his first big political splash there in 2013 spreading the "birther" lie, which the attendees ate up with a spoon. And while Coulter climbed her way back to CPAC this weekend, participating on an obscure panel going on about immigration and making grotesque racist statements, as usual, her act doesn't shock anymore and nobody cares. Who needs Coulter anyway when you have Trump?
HEATHER DIGBY PARTON
Heather Digby Parton, also known as "Digby," is a contributing writer to Salon. She was the winner of the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis Journalism.
no lnx
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/ann-coulter-credits-white-nationalist-writer-for-her-anti-immigrant-politics/
Ann Coulter Credits White Nationalist Writer For Her Anti-Immigrant Politics
ByMiranda Blue | June 9, 2015 4:43 pm
Ann Coulter has been making the rounds of conservative media over the past couple of weeks promoting her new book, “Adios America! The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hellhole,” which is about as subtle an anti-immigrant polemic as it sounds.
As the Southern Poverty Law Center pointed out when Coulter’s book came out, Coulter remains a reliable presence in right-wing media and politics, despite the fact that her comments on race in America are pretty much indistinguishable from those of the white nationalist leaders who have largely been ostracized from the conservative mainstream.
This is not just a coincidence. In fact, Coulter revealed this weekend in an interview with Chronicles, a magazine published by the conservative Rockford Institute, that she was inspired to become involved in the anti-immigrant movement after reading a 1992 National Review article by Peter Brimelow, who is now the editor of the white nationalist website VDARE.
Although Brimelow’s ideas continue to fuel anti-immigrant politics, his explicit promotion of white nationalist concepts has put him in an uneasy place in the conservative movement. In 2012, he was given a slot on a Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) panel on “the failure of multiculturalism”alongside Rep. Steve King. But the next year, he reported that the conservative conspiracy theory clearinghouse WorldNetDaily had rejected one of his columns as “too extreme.” Earlier this year, Brimelow spoke at the white nationalist American Renaissance conference, where he recommended the new slogan “whites have rights.”
In the article that inspired Coulter, Brimelow (himself an immigrant from England) lamented high levels of non-white immigration, writing, “Just as when you leave Park Avenue and descend into the subway, on entering the INS waiting rooms you find yourself in an underworld that is almost entirely colored.” He went on to warn National Review readers of the impending non-white majority in the United States:
Above all, the American ethnic mix has been upset. In 1960, the U.S. population was 88.6 per cent white; in 1990, it was only 75.6 per cent white—a drop of 13 percentage points in thirty years. (Indeed, the proportion of “European-Americans” is probably a couple of percentage points lower than that, because the Census Bureau counts all Middle Easterners as “white.”) The demographer Leon Bouvier has projected that by 2020—that is, easily within the lifetimes of many NATIONAL REVIEW readers—the proportion of whites could fall as low as 61 per cent. Among children under 15, minorities could be approaching the point of becoming the majority.
Coulter told Chronicles’ Tom Patiak that she has continued to discuss her work on immigration with Brimelow, who followed his National Review article with the bestselling anti-immigrant book “Alien Nation”:
TP: How did you first become interested in immigration?
A: Peter Brimelow’s front page article in National Review. [But] then I never wrote about it. I was practicing law then, and you know you live in a bubble in college and law school. I suppose I believed all the Jack Kemp nonsense. I read that cover story in National Reviewand realized I’d been had. I’ve been lied to. Oh my gosh! It was the only time I remember completely changing my mind about something. Of course there wasn’t that much to change because immigration wasn’t something I had ever thought about. I was like a lot of Americans to this day, you just go along: We’re a nation of immigrants, immigration is a wonderful thing, aren’t they hard workers, blah, blah, blah. And since I became a writer, Peter has been haranguing me, demanding to know why I haven’t written about immigration. I kept telling him, because you said it all. I’ve nothing new to say. So I am pleased that with this book—you have to get to chapter 7 and you start hitting things that, I think, surprised even Peter. He wanted me to start the book at chapter 7: Just skip everything before, everybody knows that first stuff, Ann. But I had to stay: If only everybody didknow that stuff.
Earlier in the interview, when Patiak asked her to list her “intellectual influences” on immigration, she responded, “Well, obviously Peter Brimelow, who is the one who started it all, God bless him.”
Brimelow’s VDARE has excitedly promotedCoulter’s Chronicles interview, perhaps because its writers don’t always get credit when their ideas get absorbed into the conservative mainstream. For instance, VDARE has been seeking credit from the GOPfor the increasing popularity of an idea put forward by its contributor Steve Sailer, who was the first to outline in detail a supposed path to victory for Republicans that relies solely on white voters.Ann Coulter, incidentally, has credited Sailer for the “Sailer strategy” and continues to heartily endorse it. Last year, Coulter cited Sailer’s work in a speech from the mainstage at CPAC.
Tags: Ann CoulterPeter BrimelowImmigrationVDARE
==
Love Affair With Evil: Is the Border Crisis All About Donald Trump Trying to Win Back Ann Coulter?
Trump keeps ramping up the hate and cruelty, and Coulter loves it. But she won’t be happy until she gets that wall!
By Heather Digby Parton / Salon June 20, 2018, 4:00 AM GMT
Everyone likes to say that the people who go on Fox News really only have an audience of one --- the president. But when President Trump speaks about immigration, he only has an audience of one as well. A couple of months ago I wrote a column about the growing rift between Trump and his most ardent admirer, Ann Coulter. She has been very upset that he hasn't yet built the border wall he promised during the campaign. To her, and Trump supporters like her, that is the most important issue beyond all others.
In that column I noted that Trump, his immigration adviser Stephen Miller also whispering in his ear, was starting to sweat. Two days later, he called for state governors to send National Guard troops to "protect the border."
Meanwhile, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been absorbing insult after insult from the president for his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation back in 2017, all so that he could fulfill their shared goal of closing the borders and deporting as many people as possible. Two days after Trump called out the Guard, Sessions distributed a new border policy requiring that anyone crossing the border illegally must be prosecuted:
Essentially, he said that because Congress had failed to "fully fund" the wall, immigration had become a crisis. That was nonsense. The only crisis was that Ann Coulter was having a fit because Trump hadn't built it yet. And because she is not afraid of Trump, she was calling him out on a daily basis.
Top Stories
Molly Crabapple turns war into art
Homeland Security must have dragged its feet, because on April 26 ICE Director Thomas Homan, Citizenship and Immigration Services Director L. Francis Cissna and Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin K. McAleenan sent a memo to DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen telling her she needed to immediately detain and prosecute all parents with children resulting in the separation of families in order to send a message:
In a memorandum that outlines the proposal and was obtained by The Washington Post, officials say that threatening adults with criminal charges and prison time would be the “most effective” way to reverse the steadily rising number of attempted crossings.
Sessions himself gave a couple of speeches on May 7 saying essentially the same thing:
Report Advertisement
If you’re smuggling a child, then we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law. If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally. It’s not our fault that somebody does that. ...
We’re not going to stand for this. We are not going to let this country be invaded. We will not be stampeded. We will not capitulate to lawlessness.
That's the kind of language that makes Ann Coulter swoon. But it's not enough. She still wants that wall.
Over the past few weeks this "zero-tolerance" policy and all it implies has resulted in thousands of kids being separated from their parents. It's considered a humanitarian disaster everywhere on the planet -- except on Fox News, where they speak to that audience of one in the White House.
Tucker Carlson has been using blatant white nationalist rhetoric on his show for some time, making the claim this week that people who are critical of this policy are "elites" who want immigrants “to change your country forever and they are succeeding." Brian Kilmeade on "Fox & Friends," Trump's favorite program, went off on a furious rant on Monday morning culminating in this odious comment:
Report Advertisement
These kids get fanned out to working-class neighborhoods, into our society, and then they have to be paid for English as a Second Language and then they have got to be schooled and a lot of them — sadly, in my neighborhood — turn into MS-13.
Laura Ingraham agrees with Kilmeade that the children being incarcerated at the border are "fresh recruits" for MS-13. As a measure of just how far gone they are, Ingraham's interview with Sessions on Monday night cleared up the difference between the Trump administration and the Nazi persecution of Jews when Sessions pointed out that the Nazis wouldn't let the Jews leave the country.
But the person who really takes it to the next level is the president himself. He's been using increasingly eliminationist language to talk about immigrants in public. Lately Trump's vocabulary has included such words and phrases as "infest," "thugs," "infiltrate," "killers," "criminals," "under siege," "massive crime," "crime-infested," "breeding," "pour into our country" and "animals." We know that in private he has said he doesn't want people coming in from "shithole countries" and worries that those who come in won't "go back to their huts."
Coulter loves that too, but she remains unsatisfied.
Trump was supposed to deliver a speech about the economy on Tuesday to the National Federation of Independent Businesses and instead turned it into a Trump rally where he demagogued American allies and immigrants alike. It was a typically ugly display but what was startling was the audience lustily cheering.
Chuck Todd of "Meet the Press" had the same reaction I did:
The NFIB, a small business association, I've never associated with that kind of nativism. I just -- it shocked me a little bit. Maybe it's just individual members, maybe it's a handful of people. I am shocked by that kind of reception.
It wasn't just a handful of people.
Trump's unctuous factotum Stephen Miller thinks being cruel to children is a winning electoral issue and Trump agrees. (He's comparing it to what he believes was a fantastically successful NFL-kneeling achievement.) It looks like we're going to find out if they're right.
But Coulter still wants her wall. And that's really what this is about, at least for Trump.
He is holding all those kids at the border for ransom. According to Politico, Trump is beside himself over the fact that Congress won't consider his request for $25 billion up front to build his wall and is instead planning to appropriate the mere $1.6 billion his budget director, Mick Mulvaney, requested. Trump is not only holding those kids hostage, he's also threatening to shut down the government in September if he doesn't get his $25 billion.
If Congress capitulates to his demands there will be no end to it. Ann Coulter's wish list is as long as it is awful and Trump will do anything to keep her happy. She and her fellow extremists have him wrapped around their little finger
coulter and F&F in trump ear?
https://www.alternet.org/media/trump-sends-national-guard-border-all-appease-ann-coulter
https://www.alternet.org/right-wing/cpac-has-always-been-odious-spectacle-year-was-special
cpac218
CPAC, seems to have gotten more attention than usual. That's saying something, since for the last 15 years or so it's gotten much more attention than it deserves. CPAC is like a 10-car pile-up — frightening and horrible, but you can't look away.
Salon's Jeremy Binckes and Matthew Sheffield have each weighed in on this year's event -- with Binckes making the case that it shows that the GOP is now thoroughly Trumpified while Sheffield argues that it's now Trump who's been absorbed by the Republican Party. I think CPAC shows that the Trump strain has always been slithering around under the rock of conservative movement politics, and 2016 just turned it over and let it run amok.
The first CPAC was organized to bring young conservatives and political activists together for a conference to map out movement and electoral strategy. It took place in 1974 in the midst of the Watergate scandal, which divided the conference between those who thought Richard Nixon was toast and those who wanted him to fight on. It was, by all accounts, a very lively disagreement. They turned to the man they all agreed was the Great Conservative Hope, Gov. Ronald Reagan of California, who was the keynote speaker and gave one of his most important speeches, heralding his strong primary run against Gerald Ford in 1976 and his winning campaign in 1980.
Reagan introduced three former U.S. military prisoners of war in that speech, one of whom was John McCain, to reverent, thunderous applause. This year the longtime Arizona senator, who has a brain tumor and may well be near the end of his life, was insulted by the president of the United States from the CPAC podium. That shouldn't have come as any surprise. The CPAC podium, for at least the last couple of decades, is where decency and humanity go to die.
I won't go into the horrors of the 1990s. The party under former House speaker Newt Gingrich was as aggressively obnoxious as it is today: That was the height of the "vast right wing conspiracy's" power. Let's just say that in 1994 CPAC was where Paula Jones made her debut and leave it at that.
It was during the glory years of the George W. Bush administration that the media started paying close attention to what was really going on there. Michelle Goldberg wrote for Salon in 2003 that there were "t-shirts with the words 'Islam: Religion of Peace' surrounding a photo of a bomb with the word 'Allah' on its timer," among dozens of other hideous anti-Muslim items for sale that were flying off the shelves. Remember, this was during the time Bush was telling his followers that Islam was a religion of peace.
But it didn't matter. CPAC attendees may have hated Muslims but they loved Bush. In fact, they loved him almost as much as the sainted Ronald Reagan, whom they continued to worship like a god. The Iraq war got their blood pumping wildly and this was how they wanted to see their president:
One of the biggest attractions at the conference for many years was the odious Ann Coulter, who packed the room with rapturous fans screaming with delight at her indecent commentary. Back in 2003, she made one of her most famous shocking statements, which has since been taken up by none other than her hero Donald Trump: "Why shouldn't we go to war for oil. We need oil." In 2006 she got into her groove with, “I think our motto should be, post-9/11, ‘raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.’” In response to a question about her biggest ethical dilemma, Coulter said, “There was one time I had a shot at [Bill] Clinton. I thought ‘Ann, that’s not going to help your career.’”
She really hit her comedic stride in 2007, however, when she dropped this bomb:
I was going to talk about the other Democratic candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word “faggot.”
She got a huge ovation for that one, but it seemed to upset some of the old guard and Coulter was disinvited the next year. Organizers replaced her with an even bigger draw in 2009, Rush Limbaugh, who gave a memorable, rambling speech bucking up the crowd to oppose anything the new President Barack Obama wanted to do. Down in the bowels of the conference where the merchandise was being flogged they were selling racist pictures of Obama dressed as a witch doctor.
In 2011, when Donald Trump made his first appearance and started the original buzz about his potential candidacy, he said in his speech, "Our current president came out of nowhere. Came out of nowhere. In fact, I'll go a step further. The people that went to school with him never saw him; they don't know who he is. Crazy." He went on Bill O'Reilly's show that night and said he had investigators in Hawaii looking for Obama's birth certificate. The rest is history.
==
am film renais:
Next up on the big screen was another Republican woman. There she was, talking to students at a campus meeting about Iraq. "Suppose, for the sake of argument, this was a war just for oil," she told them. "We need oil. Why not go to war for oil?"
This was Ann Coulter,the mind of Rush Limbaugh in the body of Lisa Kudrow, a witty and blazingly right-wing columnist and chat-show guest who cannot quite make up her mind whether she is a comedian or a serious political analyst - a combination that may be easier to get away with over there. As the star of the documentary Is It True What They Say About Ann? she had American Renaissance festival-goers rolling over and purring. They already knew her greatest moments off by heart: the time she called Joe McCarthy a great American patriot, those liberal media types she bested head to head on TV (in these clips, at least), and her most notorious opinion, expressed shortly after 9/11. She wrote: "It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
==
In one of her more unhinged rants, professional conservative banshee Ann Coulter claimed that Kwanzaa is a “made-up racist holiday” peddled by the FBI to sow division among African-Americans.
Coulter’s column, which has been republished by the likes of Breitbart, World Net Daily and Ben Shapiro’s The Daily Wire, audaciously posited an alternative history of the pan-African holiday and its creator, Dr. Ron Karenga. This isn’t her first year writing it, either — she wrote a remarkably similar column in 2013, whose main difference is that it references “Duck Dynasty.”
According to Coulter, Karenga is a “black radical/FBI stooge,” and his group United Slaves were rivals to the Black Panthers. Her analysis appears to stem from declassified documents proving that Karenga and United Slaves were targets of the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), and division between the pro-black groups was intentionally sowed by the bureau. As an extension of those efforts, Coulter’s column appeared to infer, Karenga went on to create the holiday meant to be celebrated by black people around the world to … continue to drive a wedge between black people, somehow.
Now a professor of Africana studies at California State University at Long Beach, Karenga was imprisoned for kidnapping and torturing women in 1971. Coulter curiously doesn’t mention this in her column, opting instead to muse about “whether Karenga was a willing FBI dupe, or just a dupe.”
At the end of her the alternative history she provided, Coulter even created a Kwanzaa-themed carol, set to “Jingle Bells.”
“Kwanzaa bells, dashikis sell
Whitey has to pay;
Burning, shooting, oh what fun
On this made-up holiday!”
“Only white liberals take Kwanzaa seriously,” she wrote at her conclusion. “American Blacks celebrate Christmas.”
==
harvey caused by lesbian mayor not agw
==
Ann Coulter has fallen from grace — and the reason why is terrifying
The right-wing hate-monger has fallen on hard times. This should be a cause for celebration -- but it's far from it
digby
2015 ni link
Ann Coulter has fallen from grace — and the reason why is terrifying
Ten years ago, Ann Coulter was featured on the cover of Time magazine with an article entitled “Ms. Right.” At the time she was a very big presence in the political media but the article pushed her into the realm of popular culture; thus, she became more than just a political bomb thrower. She’d always had the looks and the confidence, and now she had the imprimatur of the mainstream media. Coulter became a full-fledged star.
The article caused a tremendous stir. After all, Coulter was among the most flamboyant of the newer, edgier breed of right-wing provocateurs. In 2000, she had won the Media Research Center-presented “Conservative Journalist of the Year” award, and the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute gave her its annual conservative leadership award “for her unfailing dedication to truth, freedom and conservative values and for being an exemplar, in word and deed, of what a true leader is.” It seemed as if she and her incendiary polemics were everywhere, from daily personal appearances on television, her weekly newspaper columns and a series of books that were extremely popular among right-wingers.
From 1998 to 2005, when the magazine cover appeared, she had published a series of books — “High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton,” “Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right,” “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism,” and a collection of her columns, called “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter” — all of which were very successful. The theme of these books is obvious from the titles. She was famous for her cleverness in hating and baiting liberals. And in those heady days of conservative apotheosis, with sex scandals, stolen elections, terrorist attacks, unnecessary wars and liberalism on the run as never before, Coulter was the most deliciously vicious of all the haters. Among her famous quotes of the era were:
The “backbone of the Democratic Party” is a “typical fat, implacable welfare recipient.”
“My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that’s because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism.”
“If you don’t hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don’t love your country.”
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”
“Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave… We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males.”
And one of her most memorable (to me at least) was this one:
“We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors,”
“When I said we should ‘execute’ John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was ‘We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV’. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred.”
If that reminds you of certain fundamentalists operating today in the Middle East, you wouldn’t be alone.
“Slander” and “Treason” were filled with such vitriol. And they were also cited by numerous critics for their many inaccuracies. Coulter, like her talk radio funhouse mirror image, Rush Limbaugh, always slithered away from any such controversies simply by claiming that she’s a comedian of sorts. Here’s how that Time Magazine article illustrated her comedic talent:
People say that Jon Stewart has blurred the line between news and humor, but his Daily Show airs on a comedy channel. Coulter goes on actual news programs and deploys so much sarcasm and hyperbole that she sounds more like comedian Dennis Miller on one of his rants than Limbaugh. Consider an exchange on Fox News in June 2001 with Peter Fenn, a Democratic strategist. At the time, Barbra Streisand had suggested that Californians practice more conservation, to which Coulter responded:
COULTER: God gave us the earth.
FENN: Oh, O.K.
COULTER: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the seas.
FENN: Oh, this is a great idea.
COULTER: God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
Coulter and Fenn were both laughing. But her rape-the-planet bit would later be wrenched from context and repeatedly quoted as Coulter nuttiness. “What p_ me off,” Coulter says, “is when they don’t get the punch line.”
There was a lot of controversy over Coulter’s words in that exchange, but the author of the Time puff piece, John Cloud, helpfully explained that it was only because they didn’t understand the context. A lot of people believed him after reading that article, people like MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell who said in 2006:
Do not make the mistake of taking Ann Coulter seriously. She does fancy herself something of a comedian, a political comedian, and when you press her on a lot of these things, you find out that what’s really underneath it is the intent to make a joke. Now, it’s a joke that generally works only with the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. But she doesn’t mean a great deal of what she says.
While the Time story gave Coulter cover for her noxious commentary, it caused John Cloud a world of hurt from critics who weren’t as impressed with his light treatment of his subject. Media critic Brendan Nyhan wrote:
After working on Spinsanity for more than three years, I’ve seen a lot of bad political journalism. But John Cloud’s article about Ann Coulter in Time still shocked me (note: it’s not online yet for non-subscribers, unfortunately). It manages to bring together everything that’s wrong with contemporary political coverage: the obsession with being counter-intuitive; the pervasive unwillingness to check facts; and the focus on “fairness” and “balance” rather than critical reporting. A non-journalist might ask an obvious question: Why write a cover article about Ann Coulter in the first place? It’s widely understood that she’s a shrill, destructive demagogue. But to Cloud the distaste that both liberals and conservatives show for her is “suspicious”:
“Ann Coulter burns too fiercely for both the temples of the secular left–the New York Times–and of the religious right–[Jerry] Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church. But it’s suspicious when conventional wisdom ossifies around someone so thoroughly. Why does she make so many people itch?”
Maybe because she’s said an astonishing number of things that no reasonable person could possibly defend? Or because she’s pathologically dishonest? Call me crazy, but the answer seems pretty obvious. I doubt Cloud is running around asking why both the left and right distance themselves from out-and-out racists — is that “suspicious”?
==
Bb BS
College Republicans, YAF Demand Ann Coulter Berkeley Event Follow
The UC Berkeley College Republicans and Young America’s Foundation have demanded in a legal letter to college administrators that Ann Coulter’s upcoming event follows its original schedule.
After begrudgingly allowing the event to move forward, the university, which has previously derailed events by conservative author David Horowitz and former Breitbart senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos, attempted to change the date, time, and location of the speech so that a limited amount of students would be able to attend, prompting the Berkeley College Republicans and the Young America’s Foundation to take legal action.
It was previously reported that UC Berkeley had reversed their decision to cancel Coulter’s speech; however, the popular conservative author and commentator took to Twitter on Thursday to dispute these claims.
Follow
Ann Coulter ? @AnnCoulter
In addition to facts: We've already spent $ for 4/27 Berkeley spc & I can't do May 2...THERE ARE NO CLASSES AT BERKELEY THE WEEK OF MAY 2!!!
5:03 PM - 20 Apr 2017
1,666 1,666 Retweets 4,810 4,810 likes
Follow
Ann Coulter ? @AnnCoulter
Do not fall for b.s Berkeley press release claiming they “rescinded” cancelation. They added NEW, more burdensome condition on my const rts. https://twitter.com/REALStaceyDash/status/855190582817325061 …
5:08 PM - 20 Apr 2017
3,174 3,174 Retweets 6,108 6,108 likes
Follow
Ann Coulter ? @AnnCoulter
FAKE NEWS! https://twitter.com/MikeDelMoro/status/855151111493300225 …
8:49 PM - 20 Apr 2017
727 727 Retweets 1,936 1,936 likes
In the letter sent to UC Berkeley’s Vice Chancellor Sutton, the law firm claimed that the university was violating the First Amendment. “The University’s actions violate fundamental principles of free speech, equal protection, and due process guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and will not be tolerated,” wrote Harmeet K. Dhillon from Dhillon Law Group Inc., which is representing Young America’s Foundation (YAF) and the Berkeley College Republicans (BCR).
“Our clients meticulously followed University protocol in arranging for Ms. Coulter’s planned, on-campus speaking event,” he continued, noting YAF, BCR, and Coulter also “conceded to the University’s arbitrary, pretextual and discriminatory time-and place-restrictions which, on their face, violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Dhillon stated Dean of Students Joseph Greenwell had told BCR that he “was securing a room on campus for the Coulter event” on April 18, but the next day Interim Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Stephen C. Sutton “abruptly informed our clients that the Coulter event was cancelled due to the University’s alleged inability to ‘find a safe and suitable venue’ for the event on the scheduled April 27th date.”
Dhillon says Sutton initially suggested rescheduling Coulter’s speaking event in September and that Berkeley “would ‘need at least four weeks [sic] notice’ to re-schedule the event.” He criticized Berkeley for suddenly rescheduling Coulter’s appearance for May 2 following intense backlash to the news of her event being banned: “UC Berkeley’s newfound flexibility strains credulity, and its four-week arbitrary notice rule imposed on conservative invitees appears to be an utter sham.”
“The University’s transparently insincere offer to permit Ms. Coulter to speak during a two-hour window of time on May 2 when the students who invited here will not be in class and will instead by studying for finals, and when Ms. Coulter will no longer be in the area, is not a suitable alternative (indeed – it does not even pass the proverbial ‘smell test’ of credibility), and we hereby reject it,” he declared.
“It is ironic that UC Berkeley, known to many Americans as the birthplace of the free speech movement, is now leading the vanguard to silence conservative speech on campus,” he concluded. “We demand that UC Berkeley honor its obligation to respect the First Amendment rights of its students, without regard to their political preference or affiliation, by ensuring that Ms. Coulter be allowed to speak on campus on April 27… during late afternoon or evening hours, and in a central location.”
Coulter has repeatedly claimed that she plans to speak anyway, despite restrictions placed on the event by the university, though she has not yet elaborated as to what exactly this means.
Follow
Ann Coulter ? @AnnCoulter
I'm speaking at Berkeley on April 27th, as I was invited to do and have a contract to do. https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/855208405694271488 …
4:56 PM - 20 Apr 2017
926 926 Retweets 3,047 3,047 likes
Follow
Ann Coulter ? @AnnCoulter
GOOD NEWS FOR CA TAXPAYER! You won't be required to pay to compensate me & my crew for rebooked airfare & hotels. I'm speaking on 4/27. https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/855208689443065856 …
4:58 PM - 20 Apr 2017
1,914 1,914 Retweets 5,964 5,964 likes
The letter can be read in full below:
==
yaf bs
On March 28, Young America’s Foundation announced it had booked conservative commentator and author Ann Coulter to speak at the University of California–Berkeley on April 27.
Since 1998, Young America’s Foundation and Ann Coulter have worked together to bring a conservative viewpoint to America’s notoriously liberal college campuses. Ann is also an alumnus of the Foundation’s National Journalism Center, and is a mainstay of YAF’s campus lecture circuit.
Coulter is a twelve-time New York Times bestselling author and syndicated columnist who previously worked in the Senate Judiciary Committee and as a successful litigator defending First Amendment rights.
Ann’s qualifications would normally lead to campuses honoring her accomplishments and rolling out the red carpet for a lecture appearance. But for one reason alone–the fact that she is a bold conservative who openly shares her conservative principles–the leftists that monopolize campuses and classrooms revile her.
Young America’s Foundation and Coulter remain committed to bringing conservatism to Berkeley’s embattled campus despite past opposition to conservatives and the actions by radical leftists to lay siege to their own school and community.
In addition to providing a large portion of the funding to bring Coulter to Berkeley, Young America’s Foundation provides logistical support before the event as well as on-the-ground support from experienced staff.
We challenge UC Berkeley’s administration, staff, and students to act in accordance with their “Principles of Community” which include:
“affirm[ing] the dignity of all individuals”
not tolerating “discrimination and hate”
“ensuring freedom of expression and dialogue that elicits the full spectrum of views”
“civility and respect in [our] personal interactions.”
The only members of the Berkeley community who regularly breach these “principles” are intolerant leftists who burn trash, shatter windows, and shout down speakers they disagree with. It is the Foundation’s hope that Berkeley will hold liberals accountable if their previously exhibited childish behavior is repeated.
==
http://www.yaf.org/speakers/ann-coulter/
Coulter is the author of eight New York Times bestsellers —Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America(June 2011);Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America(January 2009);If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans (October, 2007); Godless: The Church of Liberalism(June 2006); How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (October, 2004); Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (June 2003); Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right(June 2002); and High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton(August 1998).
Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate.
She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including The Today Show, Good Morning America, The Early Show, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Hannity, The O’Reilly Factor, The Glenn Beck Show, HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper’s Bazaar, and Elle magazine. She was the April 25, 2005 cover story of Time magazine.
In 2001, Coulter was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner.
A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.
After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.
To host this speaker for your event, please call Patrick Coyle at 800-USA-1776.
11480 Commerce Park Drive
Sixth Floor
Reston, VA 20191-1556
800.USA.1776 | Phone
703.318.9122 | Fax
==
ThinkProgress
Moving news forward.
Feb 1, 2008
CPAC Organizers Dump Ann Coulter From This Year’s Speaking List
By Ben Armbruster
On February 7–9, conservatives from around the country will gather in Washington, D.C. for the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). This year, one of the darlings of the far right’s oft-distasteful and unpleasant punditry will not be invited:
She’s always been outrageous, but when conservative Ann Coulter talked of 9/11 “rag heads” at the 2006 Conservative Political Action Conference and linked the slur “faggot” to Sen. John Edwards in a 2007 speech, CPAC’s organizers decided to cut her from the list of speakers at the February 7–9 conference expected to draw 6,000.
At CPAC 2006, Coulter referred to Muslims as “raghead[s].” At CPAC 2007, she said she couldn’t “really talk about” then-Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards because “you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot.’” Watch it:
Coulter may not be a part of the formal CPAC program, but rest assured that the presence of this “great American” will still be felt.
A few of Coulter’s supporters found a way for her to appear at the conference. Five of this year’s CPAC sponsors?—?the Young America’s Foundation (YAF), Human Events, Townhall.com, Citizens United, and Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute?—?have decided to hold a “Q & A session” with Coulter that “is not part of the general sessions.”
YAF president Ron Robinson said “it’s unfortunate that Ann Coulter is not speaking at CPAC” because she is “a powerhouse for young people” and “one major reason that CPAC is so successful.”
==
rolled trump!
...Pessimistic Interpretation: Why Trump Will Probably be That Bad
Trump is a national populist with a zero-sum worldview. His long opposition to trade with Japan and now China and Mexico shows that he doesn’t understand how voluntary exchanges are mutually beneficial. Opinions on trade and immigration are tightly correlated. His 2013 statements on immigration reform could mean that he thought the Senate’s 2013 bill would destroy the Republican Party.
Trump’s immigration position paper is detailed, specific, and terrible. It supports drastic cuts in legal immigration and refugees as well as harsh new enforcement measures like a border wall, mandatory E-Verify, and a greatly expanded deportation force. Many think this plan was inspired by Ann Coulter’s recent book on the subject and some of his statementssupport that theory. In return, Coulter called Trump’s immigration position paper, “the greatest political document since the Magna Carta.”
When Trump looked like he was wavering from his immigration position in the final week of August 2016, Coulter mocked him. In her recent book In Trump We Trust, she wrote, “There’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven … Except change his immigration policies.” Trump’s response was a blistering speech in Phoenix on August 31, 2016, where he doubled-down on his immigration stance and even read out portions of his position paper. Coulter gave the speech her seal of approval, declaring it “better than Lincoln’s Gettysburg address.”
Virtually every time Trump looked like he was wavering in his opposition to legal immigration or stepped up enforcement, he quickly reversed course. When he has spoken off the cuff about immigration, it has almost always been negative and supportive of deportations, cutting legal immigration, and linking immigrants to crime. If speaking off the cuff reveals Trump’s real opinions then they are largely consistent with his policy positions.
Trump’s presumptive picks for positions in his administration are opposed to immigration reform, support more enforcement, and generally favor cutting legal immigration. Steve Bannon, the former executive chairman of the nativist Breitbart News and chief executive office of Trump’s 2016 campaign, looks to be on the shortlist for Chief of Staff. Breitbart’s immigration position is well known....
==
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/ann-coulter-calls-judge-curiel-mexican
==
early trump, existential election
==
http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/she-said-what/1035823
pj o
oward Ann Coulter I had always taken a “suffer little children to come unto me” attitude. Not that she ever came on to me or anything. It’s just that she’s a kid. She was born in 1961. I’ve got skinny Brooks Brothers neckties in the back of my closet older than that.
Ann Coulter grew up during the “I-was-conservative-after-conservatism-was-cool” era, helping found the Cornell Reviewin the early 1980s. She’s noisy and she gives me a headache. But kids are, and kids do. I have several.
She’s from Connecticut and is very upset about immigrants. I am willing to lend a sympathetic ear to people from Connecticut who are very upset about immigrants, if they have a tribal casino.
Story continues below
And I forgive her for supporting Donald Trump. Kids do that stuff. My 17-year-old daughter has wheedled the car keys and right now is out probably behaving at least as stupidly.
Other than that I’ve been, I suppose, to the extent I’ve paid attention, on the same political page as Ann Coulter. Well, in the same political book, several chapters further on, under the subhead “Grumpy Old Farts and the Libertarian/Neocon Conundrum.”
Then, during the September 16 Republican presidential candidates’ debate, Ann Coulter twittered or tweeted or whatever the verb form of that waste of time may be.
She is young, scatter-brained, and heedless, but she is not an idiot. She graduated cum laude from Cornell and has a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School. But no intelligent hike through the Minotaur’s labyrinth of politics can be made in 140-character baby steps. Especially when you’re walking in clown shoes.
What Ann Coulter tweeted was:
What Ann Coulter tweeted wa: Cruz, Huckaee Ruio all mentioned IRAL in their repone to: “What will AMRICA look like after ou are preident.” And How man f—ing Jew do thee people think there are in the United tate? Not anwhere near a man a there would and hould e if FDR hadn’t een a much of a jerk aout immigration a ou are, Ann, ou etiolated ean prout utt trumpet. A to wh Irael i important, to paraphrae John F. Kenned, “Toda, in the world of freedom, the proudet oat i ‘Ikh in a Ihral.’ ” And I mean it, even if, pope-kiing Mick that I am, m Yiddih i mae ketch. Partl thi i peronal, Ann, ou jangle-tongue, ou all-clapper- and-no-carillon, ou crack in the Liert ell. To paraphrae Jerr einfeld, “It’ not me, it’ ou.”
==
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/17/ann-coulter-seizes-on-gop-debate-to-launch-dero/205605
==
6/15
Ann Coulter Credits White Nationalist As "Intellectual Influence" On Her Anti-Immigrant Book
Conservative author Ann Coulter credited a 1992 National Review article for her attacks on progressive immigration policy, which have culminated in her latest book, Adios, America. The author of that article, Peter Brimelow, has been labeled a white nationalist by the Southern Poverty Law Center and is the editor of the anti-immigrant website VDARE.com.
...
TP: How did you first become interested in immigration?
A: Peter Brimelow's front page article in National Review. [But] then I never wrote about it. I was practicing law then, and you know you live in a bubble in college and law school. I suppose I believed all the Jack Kemp nonsense. I read that cover story in National Reviewand realized I'd been had. I've been lied to. Oh my gosh! It was the only time I remember completely changing my mind about something. Of course there wasn't that much to change because immigration wasn't something I had ever thought about. I was like a lot of Americans to this day, you just go along: We're a nation of immigrants, immigration is a wonderful thing, aren't they hard workers, blah, blah, blah. And since I become a writer, Peter has been haranguing me, demanding to know why I haven't written about immigration. I kept telling him, because you said it all. I've nothing new to say. So I am pleased that with this book--you have to get to chapter 7 and you start hitting things that, I think, surprised even Peter. He wanted me to start the book at chapter 7: Just skip everything before, everybody knows that first stuff, Ann. But I had to stay: If only everybody did know that stuff. *Chronicles*, [6/8/15, via Right Wing Watch]
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/10/ann-coulter-credits-white-nationalist-as-intell/203962
==
WT http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/26/ann-coulter-any-growing-interest-soccer-can-only-b/
nn Coulter: ‘Interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation’s moral decay’
It seems conservative pundit Ann Coulter is no fan of the World Cup, or of soccer in general, quipping in her column Thursday that, “Any growing interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation’s moral decay.”
She also took “liberal” soccer moms to task, writing that they “like soccer because it’s a sport in which athletic talent finds so little expression that girls can play with boys. No serious sport is co-ed, even at the kindergarten level.”
PHOTOS: World Cup's sexiest WAGs
Another flaw of soccer, according to Ms. Coulter? “It’s foreign,” she writes, adding, “I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer. One can only hope that, in addition to learning English, these new Americans will drop their soccer fetish with time.”
Some American journalists took issue with Ms. Coulter’s opinions. According to Mediaite, Fox’s Shep Smith, applauding America’s World Cup advancement Thursday, said, “It is a great day in the USA. The U.S. men’s soccer team is heading to the next round of the World Cup, off to the knockout stage, number two in the group, and [then] we’re through [to the next round].”
And then he paused, turned to the camera and said, “I’m told it’s a sign of moral decay,” before shaking his head and adding, “It’s not.”
:{
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/26/ann-coulter-any-growing-interest-soccer-can-only-b/#ixzz35r6m6Ohv
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter}:
==
climategate:
Climategate: When Ann Coulter and Jon Stewart agree …
| December 4, 2009 | Posted by William Dembski under Climate change, Global Warming | 27 Comments |
… then you know that the fraud is real:
new book demonic;
daily caller: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/06/top-10-shocking-things-in-ann-coulter%E2%80%99s-book-demonic-that-will-drive-liberals-crazy/
Ann Coulter’s books are never tame.
Her latest book, “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America,” will start enraging liberals with its very title – which is par for the course for the author of such liberal-bashing classics as “Godless” and “Treason.”
The Daily Caller has put together the top 10 quotes and arguments from her latest tome that are most likely to make Chris Matthews’s head explode – and possibly even disturb some on the right.
10.) Democrats are anti-science
Reversing the Democratic mantra that Republicans are “anti-science,” Coulter says it is really the Democratic mob that abhors science and technological innovation.
“The Left’s abject terror of technological development is yet another mob attribute,” she writes.
Quoting Gustave Le Bon, whose theory on mobs is the main intellectual foundation of her book, Coulter writes, “Thus, according to Le Bon, if ‘democracies possessed the power they wield today at the time of the invention of mechanical looms or of the introduction of steam-power and of railways, the realization of these inventions would have been impossible.”
But, Coulter argues, “Our liberals are even worse than Le Bon imagined. Democrats don’t merely want to block scientific progress, they want to stop scientific progress, they want to roll it back.”
She then cites, as examples, Al Gore’s call in his “global warming fantasy bookEarth in the Balance”for the elimination of the internal combustion engine within 25 years, the Democrat’s 2007 bill to eliminate the incandescent light bulbby 2014, Obamacare, which she says will hamper medical innovation, and the Democrats’ incessant hectoring of theoiland pharmaceutical industries – industries, Coulter writes, that “are two of the most innovative.”
She goes on: “Indeed, the only way to get liberals interested in novel scientific research is to propose going after human embryos,” citing liberals love of embryonic stem cell research over adult stem cell research when the science on the latter is more promising according to her.
9.) Liberals are not a part of the American tradition
“The men behind the American Revolution – the militias, the Minutemen, and the signers of the Declaration of Independence, as well as the framers of the Constitution – were the very opposite of the mob. Today we would call them ‘Republicans,’” she writes at one point in the book
“Liberals’ history is not this country’s history – theirs is the history of the mob,” she writes in another.
8.) Liberal social consciousness manifests itself in the killing of American soldiers
Though a joke, this one will still enrage:
“If the Weatherman had succeeded in transporting their bombs to the Fort Dix dance, instead of blowing themselves up, they would have murdered lots of U.S. serviceman and their dates. For liberals, that’s social consciousness,” she writes.
7.) Republican “Southern Strategy” was not racist
“The entire basis of the liberals’ ‘Southern Strategy’ myth is the sophisticated belief that anyone who votes Republican must be a racist,” Coulter writes.
“If Nixon had planned to appeal to white racists, speeding up desegregation was not an effective strategy. But he turned around and won an even bigger landslide in 1972, running against George McGovern and the party of acid, abortion, and amnesty,” she argues.
LARAMIE, Wyo. -- Ann Coulter was bringing her edgy brand of conservatism to the University of Wyoming Thursday, a year after the school drew widespread criticism for its handling of an appearance by Bill Ayers, a Vietnam-era radical who is now a professor.
Coulter is known for her biting criticism of liberals through her television appearances. Her speech topic Thursday night: "Why the liberals are wrong about everything!"
An anonymous donor upset with Ayers' April 2010 appearance in Laramie paid for half of Coulter's $20,000 speaking fee. UW's College Republicans and the Young America's Foundation, a Virginia-based group that promotes conservative ideas on college campuses, were paying the remainder and other expenses.
The university's handling of the visit by Ayers, a professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago, generated criticism from all sides. The university invited him, then canceled his speech because many residents and UW alumni threatened to withhold contributions to the school.
Ayers co-founded the Weather Underground, an anti-war group that claimed responsibility for a series of bombings, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.
He was a fugitive for years but surrendered in 1980. Charges were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct.
In Casper, U.S. District Chief Judge William Downes ordered the university to let Ayers speak. As a Vietnam veteran, Downes said he could "scarcely swallow the bile" of his contempt for the Weather Underground, but added a free society must guarantee free speech.
Ayers ultimately dealt mostly with education issues in his speech.
His past briefly became an issue during the 2008 presidential race because he once served with Barack Obama on the board of a Chicago charity. Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists."
huffpo
Ann Coulter appeared on Thursday's "O'Reilly Factor" to advance an argument that she made in a column this week: that radiation is "good for you."
There has been a high degree of concern about the levels of radiation being released into the environment due to the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan. But, in a column called "A Glowing Report On Radiation," Coulter said that many scientists have been studying the effects of radiation and have found that, as she put it," at some level--much higher than the minimums set by the U.S. government--radiation is good for you," and actually reduced the risk of cancer.
She repeated this assertion to a skeptical Bill O'Reilly, who told her that, even if there was scientific discussion going on about the effects of radiation, it was the media's job to be "responsible" and "err on the side of caution" about radiation. "You have to report the worst-case scenario," he said, adding that there is a clear scientific consensus that "some radiation will kill you."
Coulter said she disagreed, and said that the scientific consensus has changed, but that the media are not reporting it.
"So by your account we should all be heading towards the nuclear reactor," O'Reilly said.
cpac 2011 moe journalists should be in jail) b/c?
fired 2x msnbc now back?
dude; god says earth is yours, take it rape it, it's yours june 22 01, hannity and colmes fox p 241
Another example of how collegial networks such as the Federalist Society advance ideas and actions, as well as careers, is the case of author and legal commentator Ann Coulter.148(http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/clinton/Clintonculwar8-20.html#P396_112566) Coulter attended Cornell University, where she launched the conservative Cornell Review, part of the conservative Collegiate Network funded by Scaife. She trained at the National Journalism Center, run by conservative columnist M. Stanton Evans, whose lectures are sometimes sponsored by the Young America's Foundation. The Center claims no partisan bias but its lecturers and postings are skewed to the right. The center receives funding from the conservative Olin Foundation. While at the University of Michigan law school, Coulter founded the local chapter of the Federalist Society. After the Republicans Congressional takeover in 1994, Coulter joined the staff of Sen. Spencer Abraham, (R-MI), a Federalist Society activist. She then became a legal commentator for MSNBC.
Coulter's book was published by Regnery. Phillips/Eagle, a major owner of Regnery, also publishes Human Events.149(http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/clinton/Clintonculwar8-20.html#P398_113679) Coulter went to work for the Scaife-funded Center for Individual Rights, then as a legal affairs writer for Human Events, which had previously run a favorable review of her book. Coulter also played matchmaker, helping Paula Jones find lawyers and suggesting that attorney Jim Moody help Linda Tripp with her legal problems.150(http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/clinton/Clintonculwar8-20.html#P399_114201)
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/clinton/Clintonculwar8-20.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ann_Coulter
Ann Coulter is "a lawyer and author, famous for despising anyone politically left of Ronald Reagan" [1], and one of the most vitriolic right-wing ideologues currently appearing on national television. [2]
"Political positions Coulter disagrees with are briefly, brusquely, and often inaccurately described, then dismissed, often with an insult. The same steps are repeated several times per column. The technique is enthralling for readers already in agreement with Coulter. For anyone else, it is uninteresting.
"Coulter was fired from MSNBC when she told a disabled Vietnam veteran, 'people like you caused us to lose that war.' She was fired from the conservative National Review when she turned in a column offering a final solution to the Muslim problem: 'We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity'." [3]
In July 2004, USA TODAY "dropped plans" to have Coulter "write a daily column" from the Democratic National Convention "in a dispute over the first column she had written about the Democrats." [4]
In college, she was an editor of the *Cornell Review* - a part of the conservative campus news network supported by Collegiate Network - and a founder of a local chapter of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies at the University of Michigan. She did an internship at the National Journalism Center. After then-Senator Spencer Abraham - who was active in the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies - was elected in 1994, she served a stint as his aide.
Coulter also worked for the Scaife-funded Center for Individual Rights and played a role in helping Paula Jones find lawyers and, according to Chip Berlet, "suggesting that Jim Moody help Linda Tripp with her legal problems".[5]
JC Big Lies
dumped by Nat'l rev iew tho made circuit/networks w/ slander book. siad we shd invade muslim co's, kill leaders and xianize them p 31
called for assassination of nyt reporter?
also have said on many occasions that I do not like Ann Coulter. For me, the final straw was when she said:
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.
She is unapologetic about that statement, telling John Hawkins:
Of course I regret it. I should have added, “after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters.”
Ha, ha. Get it? McVeigh shouldn’t have killed everyone in the New York Times building. He should have killed only the editors and reporters.