Voters on the Conservative Book Club website chose ¡Adios America! as the best political book of 2015 with a whopping 62% of the vote.
It's a little strange, though, that the Conservative Book Club ranked ¡Adios America! as #2, and Clinton Cash as #1. Voters, on the other hand, voted Clinton Cash as #6 with only 3% of the vote. That is 21 to 1 in favor of ¡Adios America!
The decision by the Conservative Book Club was supposedly "based on sales data, wider impact, and editorial discretion."
The poll was put on by Bradley Matthews and the article was written by Matthews. Why did Matthews specifically ignore the will of the people?
(There are not timestamps on the pages, so maybe the poll was put up after Matthews ranked the books.)
On Friday, December 11, 2015, David Frum wrote an article about Donald Trump. It says that he is winning because of immigration, which he didn't even care about until he read ¡Adios America! Here's a quote:
"Until he read Ann Coulter’s book this spring, Trump seemed to have been a perfectly conventional business Republican on immigration. In a 2012 interview, in fact, he blamed Romney’s loss on taking a too-tough line on the issue..." [Hyperlinks removed.]
On Sunday, November 8, 2015, Christie Poitra wrote a piece about why Ann is wrong to claim the status of a Native American.
First off, Ann, for the past year or two, has been speaking primarily on the topic of immigration (and this is what Ann is discussing when she makes the claim she is Native American). Here is a question for Poitra: "While discussing immigration, we call immigrants 'immgrants.' What should we call non-immigrant Americans?" The easiest thing to say is "Native American" (which happens to be a grammatically correct designation.) Ann has been saying she's a "Native American" for months and using the term to mean "non-immigrant American." It's pretty simple to comprehend.
Poitra destroys her own argument when she quotes the interview:
"Padma Lakshmi: “That’s not a Native American...”
Ann Coulter: "No, if you mean Indian...""
That settles it.
Now let's continue with a nonsensical quote of Poitra:
"The core of Coulter’s argument against immigration... is that there exists two classifications of immigrants, (1) the early settlers that predate the United States, and (2) everyone else."
Ann never said that and in no way means or implies that she thinks that.
On Monday, November 2, 2015, at 11:13am, the LA Times published Gary Jacobs' fake transcript about how the next Republican debate might look like if the GOP could make all of the decisions. It almost perfectly represents the stereotypical moderator questions and candidate answers. Ann is one of the moderators.
On Sunday, November 1, 2015, at 10:43pm, Michael Beato encouraged Ann to speak at the University of Florida. Beato said:
"I want to make my intentions perfectly clear: I want Ann Coulter, the conservative firebrand and provocateur, to speak at UF. In fact, the event should be required for everyone to attend. If a student values his or her education, listening to Coulter speak is a must."
"To be fair, I do not support all of the ideas Coulter mentions in her book and I do not necessarily agree with her pugnacious approach to issues. But I do appreciate the fact that such a talented individual gave such a full-throated, passionate and unapologetic account of an extremely divisive stance on an extremely divisive issue. Such an account takes bravery, especially when our culture and media are so willing to haphazardly throw words like "nativist" and "racist" around."
"We need this voice on campus. We need this teachable moment. We need Ann Coulter to speak on campus. Our education depends on it."
Just a few days later (on Thursday, November 5, 2015, at 12:11am) Kevin Foster explained why Ann should not be allowed to speak. Foster lists three examples of Ann's "racism": the Jew tweet (not racist), the soccer article (not racist), and Ann recently saying that the increase in the mortality rate of poor white people was because of immigrants (not racist). Here is a quote:
"This is someone who does not need to be anywhere close to our campus. This is someone who profits on divisiveness and hate..."
For the past couple of months, Ann has explained that she is not an immigrant or descendant of immigrants; she says she is descended from settlers. Well, on Monday, October 19, 2015, Huffington Post published Megan Smolenyak's article that is about Ann actually descending (at least partly) from recent German and Irish immigrants. Smolenyak says:
"...it's inconvenient that [Ann]'s descended from the kind of immigrants she'd like to deny entry to."
It's not "inconvenient," considering the fact that Ann wants to stop English and Dutch (what she claims to be) immigration also. Ann wants all immigration to stop.
On Saturday, October 3, 2015, at 10:43am, Christian Post published Erica Wanis' piece: "For True Conservatism, See Pope Francis and John Boehner, Not Ted Cruz and Ann Coulter." Unfortunately, the author neglects to actually give any good facts/reasons to support the theory (besides saying Ann is harsh and the Pope is kind). Those are not actual arguments.
On Saturday, September 26, 2015, Ann went to a book signing at Barnes & Noble in the Villages, FL. This event was 10 days after Ann's "f---ing Jews" tweet, but the protesters are mainly there because of the tweet. There are 3 articles about the event (each includes its own photos). Here are some quotes:
1. Mel Madarang posted this report on Villages-News.com.
"[Coulter said] that her new book includes a chapter that the protestors could read because of its "Pro-Israel" sentiments and comments on Israel’s policy on immigration. Coulter joked by saying that she was finished with the Israel comment and had moved onto commenting on Pope Francis. She was then informed that the protestors were also present because of her anti-Catholic statements. "It’s not about the Pope, not about Israel, it’s about immigration," Coulter in an interview with Villages-News.com in a back room at the Lake Sumter Landing bookseller." [Mistakes original.]
"Demonstrators held up American and Israeli flags, as well as signs expressing denouncement towards support for Coulter outside the store. Many of the protestors said they felt offended by Coulter’s anti-Semitic Tweet... "This is an informational demonstration opposed against racial bigotry," said Pastor Drew Willard of United Church of Christ who was invited by Temple Shalom to stand in solidarity for the Jewish people. All others of the estimated 200 protestors were offended by not only the anti-Semitic comment, but the anti-Catholic Tweet posted by Coulter." [Mistakes original.]
3. Gal Tziperman Lotan posted this article on Orlando Sentinel.
"As a line of Coulter's fans formed inside the bookstore, dozens of protesters gathered outside, waving American and white-and-blue Israeli flags. They focused not on the book, but on a series of Tweets she wrote during the Sept. 16 Republican presidential debate."
"Steve Lowe, president of Temple Shalom of Central Florida, said a group of community leaders in The Villages read about the tweets and decided to protest Coulter's book signing. "We just don't feel that we can tolerate any more of the incendiary racial and religious remarks, because they're so divisive to people," he said. "We, as Jews, will not accept it anymore.""
On Friday, September 25, 2015, the Week published Matt Lewis' piece, criticizing Ann for criticizing people who criticize Trump, Carson, and Fiorina, when those three are the smartest Republican nominees (with highest college education attainment). Lewis quotes Ann saying:
"Trump graduated from the Wharton School of Business... [Carson: Yale; Fiorina: Stanford.]
By contrast, look up the educational achievement of the average pundit sneering at Trump's idiocy and the ordinariness of his supporters. I won't be as nasty as they are, but wow! — people who went to bush league schools shouldn't throw stones. There's nothing wrong with attending a bush-league college. But maybe ease up... if you went to a third-rate college in the era of need-blind admissions." [Emphasis added.]
So Ann says nothing is wrong with a bush-league college and Lewis writes...
"Ann Coulter's sneering at 'bush-league colleges' is unbecoming of a true conservative"
...and...
"In Ann Coulter's world, this seems to mean that I am not qualified to have an opinion about someone who graduated from Wharton."
...along with...
"The other big problem with Coulter's stance[:]... condescendingly dismissing the value of... 99 percent of the country. This is not only morally contemptuous and politically stupid — it's flat out wrong."
On Friday, September 25, 2015, Church Militant released this video (+ transcript) in which Michael Voris talks mainly about Catholicism and American politics. He disses Ann.
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015, Henry Schwarie, a Youtuber, claims to have ousted Ann as a Jew. *Gasp.* The exactly 12 minute video is below (and shot vertically for some reason).
Schwarie's whole thesis is based on the fact that "Coulter" is a version of a Jewish name, meaning Ann is Jewish. Well guess what, an internet search says "Coulter" is Irish. Ann herself claims English+other ancestry.
The end of the video has a desperate plea for Ann to stand with Israel. Fact: she does!
During the Wednesday, September 16, 2015, Republican top tier debate, Ann live tweeted about it and, after the candidates discussed Israel and the Middle East when Ann thought they should have been talking about immigration, tweeted:
How many f---ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?
There was widespread backlash (noted by "Ann Coulter" trending on Twitter) and support (noted by "#IStandWithAnn" trending on Twitter). #GURUS says #IStandWithAnn was even trending in Israel.
Here's the backlash:
As you can see, Ann actually censored her own word, but Rogen does not have such decency. If you are a SJW, you probably think Rogen is sexist and racist. If you have ever seen his films, you should not be surprised at how vulgar and disgusting they are. He also said:
"I'll vote for whoever is the Democrat. That's all I need to know."
That shows his stupidity and how anti-Israel he is.
Charisma News lists 10 things wrong with Ann's tweet.
USA Today reports Ann's "rant" and that most tweeters of #IStandWithAnn were tweeting anti-Semitic things. (It is impossible Ann's single tweet was a "rant", seeing as a rant is a long monologue.)
The Daily Beast basically says that Ann is guilty by association because anti-Semites took to twitter and used #IStandWithAnn. That paper also said:
"[Ann] also stood by her views, adding even more fuel to her fire by pointing out that only those powerful Jews are the ones who complain."
So when Ann points out that people freak out over her "Jews" comment but not the ones about abortion or Reagan, then she's claiming the Jews have influence? And people think she's spreading falsehoods? Then why is there only outrage with the Jewish comment? Take your time. Explain. Explain!
What's more terrifying, that a public figure wrote the f-word with hyphens, or that so many "intelligent reporters and journalists" think that a tweet is a rant.
A few of the above links state that Ann has 660,000 Twitter followers. It is now at 666,000. Coincidence? UPDATE: Now 667,000.
"Look, you have some people in the Republican Party who are in the pundit class, who are there to be controversial, and to try to make money, and sell their books. And that’s just fine..."
Buzzfeed also says Santorum disapproved of Ann's tweet.
Paul Bond reports a back and forth between Jackie Mason and Ann. Mason says:
"This is a low-life yenta..."
...and...
"She looks to me like she's the product of a partial-birth abortion."
Ann replies with:
"Mason is the product of a cryonic experiment and has been in the deep freeze so long he's unaware that getting publicity by attacking me is a real hack move."
Mason later apologized.
Here's the support:
Ann retweeted Ben Shapiro's (conservative Jew) tweet:
This I know of @anncoulter: she is far more a friend to Jews and Israel than Jewish Obama voters now jumping on her.
A post by John Derbyshire on VDARE lists 8 passages in ¡Adios America! where Ann praised the Jews/Israel or said good things about them. Derbyshire also explains that Ann's immigration policy is better for Jews because Mexican and Muslim immigrants are very anti-Semitic, which means their voting will lead to anti-Semitic policies.
Dennis Prager explains why Ann is not an anti-Semite.
*When I say specific websites said "this" or "that" about Ann, I am of course referring to the writers of the articles.
Here's Ann's response:
About an hour after the Republican debate ended, Ann joined the Kelly File to discuss the debate, but Kelly's first question was about Ann's tweet. During Ann's explanation, Kelly had a look of concern (keep in mind that Ann claims she is friends with Kelly). The video is on Fox News, Youtube, and below:
"It's totally fake outrage from frauds who want to continue the dump of third-worlders on the country, including Muslim Jihadists, and voted for the guy who just gave a nuke to Iran[.]"
...and...
"Anyone with a pulse knows I am pro-Israel and against the enemies of the Jewish people. I have a whole chapter in my current book praising Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It's the people attacking me who couldn't care less about Israel or Jews[.]" [Emphasis original.]
The Daily Beast said Ann's single tweet was a rant and reports Ann explaining:
"I’m accusing Republicans of thinking the Jews have so much power. They’re the ones who are comedically acting out this play where Jews control everything[.]"
...and...
"My tweet was about Republicans and the pandering. It wasn’t about Israel, it wasn’t about Jews. It’s what Republicans are thinking in their little pea brains. I could say the same thing about Evangelicals.... This kind of suck-uppery is humiliating."
...along with...
"If we continue to dump more Mexican immigrants on the country, we’ll get to the point that we’ll never have another Republican president... If we don’t change our policies on immigration, you’re going to be looking at Iran Deal after Iran Deal after Iran Deal. I can count on Americans to protect Israel. I don’t count on foreigners to care about Israel, and that’s who’s coming in to vote."
...and...
"Hispanics were ranked by ADL as the most anti-Semitic group[.]" [The Daily Beast cites a study supporting Ann.]
Ann proceeded to be interviewed by Business Insider, and they posted a video of Ann's explanation. Here it is:
Ann explains in the video that "How many f---ing anything..." is not about the "anything" part. "F---ing" is about the "how many." Ann is talking about the quantity, not the quality.
Ann constantly stands up for Jews and Israel, whether it is now or was throughout her career. Even if she did mean what everyone thought she meant, people cannot assume that she has magically become anti-Semitic.
In the end, it's like a husband who tells his wife hundreds of times that she is beautiful, but she never believes him, but if he were to call her fat just once, she would never forget. Ann repeatedly stands up for Israel, but everyone knows saying one negative comment automatically nullifies any previous or future positive comments/actions.
After watching this all unfold, could it be that the candidates did, in fact, talk more about immigration than Israel? Anyone watching the debate would most likely think Israel was spoke of more than immigration, but if one searches Washington Post's transcript of the debate, they will see that "immig..." (as in: immigrant, immigrate, immigration, etc.) pops up 36 times, plus 8 instances of "amnesty," which equals 44 mentions. (I acknowledge that it is not actually representative of the time spent on the immigration discussion, but it should do.) On the other hand, Israel (11) and Jew (1) equals 12 mentions. So if one assumes "Iran (43)" counts as talking about Israel, that equals 55, which is quite a bit more than immigration, considering how much more important immigration is than the Middle East. Ann was right. They talked way more about Israel than immigration.
Now for the lower-tier debate, which mentions "immig..." (26) plus amnesty (12), which equals 38, just shy of the top-tier's 44. Multiply 38 by 2 because the lower-tier was half the time, equaling 76 mentions. Why did the lower tier mention immigration so much more than the upper-tier? Because the lower candidates need to appeal to the most popular issue among voters, that's why.
UPDATE: It's been 4 days and some still ask: "Ann Coulter: Do You Have a Problem With the Jews?" Answer: She said "no." UPDATE: A couple months later Ann tweeted:
J@s@sF-ingChr@st - even GOP response to Obama's SOTU is a paean to immigrants. And GOP can't figure out why Trump is sweeping the country.
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015, Ring of Fire published KJ McElrath's rant about how bad Ann is. Here is the stupidity:
"Queen of Hate and fascist theocrat Ann Coulter has been falling out of favor with the right-wing in recent months. For nearly two decades, Ann made quite a reputation with her raging rants and rotten rhetoric... Now, they won’t give her the time of day."
"I haven’t been on CNN yet, because I was made up, my hair was done, I was mic’ed up, I was walking to the set…He [Don Lemon] was doing a full hour on the Doogans or whatever their name is…the next night, ‘We’re going to do all Doogans again.’ And then the next week, it’s the cop who yelled at a girl in a bikini! And then it’s Bruce Jenner! Actually, Ms. Coulter, it’s "Duggars," not "Doogans." The self-preoccupied Princess of Putrid and Poisonous Prose couldn’t even get that right."
Is McElrath that stupid? Ann says, "...doing a full hour on the Doogans or whatever their name is..." and then McElrath criticizes Ann for not knowing their name? What? She specifically said she didn't know the name.
If you (dear reader) think that McElrath is that stupid, wait! There's more! McElrath proceeds to write*:
"Watch our commentary on how right-wing hate talkers like Coulter are ruining American culture:
" [Emphasis original. Video size changed.]
At the 24th second, Mike Papantonio (the guy in the video and presumably McElrath's boss) pronounces Phyllis Schlafly's last name as "Shafely" (making the A long and removing the first L.) Papantonio continues with calling her a "crazy" "lunatic" and a "demented old coot" with a "loony audience."
McElrath thinks Ann is the stupid one; the idiot is actually McElrath's employer.**
*It's common for that website to embed "related" videos into their articles, but this is still a legitimate target of criticism since it was, in fact, embedded in the article.
On Monday, September 14, 2015, Thy Black Man published Raynard Jackson's piece about immigration, Trump, and blacks. In it Jackson writes:
"Isn’t it amazing that the two people who have specifically opposed amnesty solely on the grounds of its negative impact on the Black community have been Republican author and commentator, Ann Coulter and Donald Trump?"
On Saturday, September 12, 2015, a video (audio only) was posted on Youtube. It is Alan Colmes talking with Michael Reagan. Ann is mentioned at the end of minute 4. Michael Reagan's comment about Ann was odd. He may have been dissing Ann, but he does not finish his sentence.
While discussing Ronald Reagan's "moderate" stances compared to Donald Trump, Michael Reagan said:
"Today [the Republican Party] seems to be more of an angry party, you know? I'm sorry, but when Ann Coulter's your spokesman [Colmes laughs] on immigration [mumbles, stutters, and fails to complete sentence]."
Perhaps he meant to say...
"Today [the Republican Party] seems to be more of an angry party... when Ann Coulter's your spokesman [Colmes laughs] on immigration..."
...but he did mumble at the end as if he couldn't actually think of a legitimate criticism of Ann, yet did not want to insult her (because an insult would make himself look stupid).
Matt Latimer's article on Politico (published Sunday, September 6, 2015,) explains who is most likely to be Trump's running mate. Ann gets the score of 50 to 1, which is more than Ben Carson, at 100-1.
On Saturday, September 5, 2015, Michael Smith released a blog post, reviewing ¡Adios America! The review is mostly positive, with only about two criticisms. Here they are:
""What do we owe the Third World?," she asks rhetorically. Plenty. Capital flows from the Third World to the First World, with the poor heavily subsidizing the rich both within nations and between nations."
The Third World chooses to allow capital to move to the First World. We owe the Third World nothing.
After explaining how Ann is not racist because her immigration policy would be based on culture, not race, Smith writes:
"Coulter's proposed solution to our immigration woes, however, IS racist. She wants us to imitate Israel [which is a state based on race/ethnicity.] This is OK, because settler colonialism by a master race of chosen people inevitably advances the human race: "Without the white settlers, what is known as 'America' would still be an unnamed continent full of migratory tribes chasing the rear end of a buffalo every time their stomachs growled." In short, Jews and Anglos have the capacity to rise and evolve; others do not. Racist? You bet. But this is a very bipartisan racism... which both Democrats and Republicans shout themselves hoarse in support of Israel's ongoing dispossession of the Palestinian people."
On Saturday, September 5, 2015, Joe Kaufman released two photos of Ann at a Tea Party event (which appears to be in Fort Lauderdale.) Joyce Kaufman tweeted out this a few days later:
The only person who is able to leave me speechless! My dear friend Ann Coulter rocked the house on Saturday pic.twitter.com/E3rPb0vpZr
On Saturday, August 22, 2015, at 7:49pm EDT, John Stossel wrote an article called "Immigration foes don’t have facts on their side." Here's the response to his claims*:
"Clearly, lots of Americans are mad about immigration. But we libertarians believe that people trapped in horrible countries deserve a chance at a better life and that free trade in labor, not just products, is a good thing."
Everyone thinks everyone should be able to have a better life, but not at the expense of others (as in slavery/tax/indentured servitude).
"Why would I think that when my Facebook "fans" tell me things like: "Most immigrants, legal & illegal, get food stamps & welfare"? Because that’s not true."
It's strange that I just stumbled across this today.
"Of course, some immigrants cheat, many hospitals lose money treating undocumented people and immigrants’ kids get free public schooling. On average, the lifetime fiscal impact of the average immigrant is negative $3,000, says the National Research Council."
Imagine a poor Mexican illegally comes to America, making $20,000~ a year, and has three kids. ONE child PER year of school costs $10,000. Three kids times $10,000 = $30,000 taxpayer money, times 10 years of school = $300,000. American citizens can't even pay off their $30,000 student loans, so how can immigrants take $300,000 solely through education and actually pay it back?
"But the NRC goes on to say that descendants of the immigrant make a positive fiscal contribution of $83,000."
"Rich" Americans put money into the government, grow old, and take money out (and we still struggle with money our whole lives). This results in an $18 trillion debt. Yet Stossel thinks poor immigrants can succeed with a better life in America while living a worse life than Americans and contributing more in taxes than Americans while taking less out? If immigrants help our economy, why didn't they just help theirs?
"Even illegal immigration helps delay the bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare. Young illegal workers pay into the system — but most don’t collect. “Medicare and Social Security — the biggest welfare programs,” says Nowrasteh. “Immigrants subsidize those programs massively.”
That's a brilliant plan. Charge foreigners money to pay for our seniors. The problem is they will get to collect Social Security (and Obamacare) when they get amnesty. Here's what Ann had to say about it:
"...Considering as we're always being taunted [that] immigrants are so young and vital, whereas the white people, they're old; they're dying off. Well... you would think, in your later years, that's when you might need a little more government assistance, not when you're... at the peak of your earning power."
Now, back to Stossel:
"Health policy journal Health Affairs says in 2009 immigrants contributed $13.8 billion more to the Medicare Trust Fund than they collected in benefits. In the same year, native-born Americans took out $30.9 billion more than they paid in."
But you want illegals to get amnesty, hence the ability to collect Medicare?
"Coulter says that the new immigrants don’t assimilate the way Europeans did. Maybe that’s true, but I pointed out that immigrants from Nigeria, Jamaica and Ghana are more likely to be employed than native-born Americans and twice as likely to get a college degree. "I don’t believe it," answered Coulter."
Is that taking college degrees and employment from Americans? Either way, all immigrants from Nigeria, Jamaica, and Ghana combined equals 1 million. That's 2% of immigrants. Assuming Stossel chose the best 3 countries, those immigrants equal 2% of immigrants. 2% of immigrants get an A+; 90% get an F.
She also argues that America admits too many immigrants, but how many is too many? Thirteen percent of America’s population is now foreign born (down from 15 percent in 1915).
Yeah, leave out the fact they were only 4% in 1970. (And income inequality mirrors how many immigrants are in the US.)
"Immigrants make up 27 percent of the population in Switzerland and Australia."
They pick their immigrants; our immigrants pick us. The majority of immigrants to Australia are from Britain. The largest immigrant group to Switzerland is Italians. They pick their immigrants; we should too.
"Of course, it would be good if all immigrants came here legally. But America makes that difficult."
America takes more immigrants than the rest of the world combined. Yes, a couple of countries have immigrants as 27% of the population, but America taking more in than the entire world? That has to count for something.
"Forbes says a computer programmer from India who wants to work in America legally must wait an average of 35 years. A Mexican teenager would have to wait 131 years. No wonder people give up on the legal approach and sneak in."
Mexicans are the largest immigrant group and they wait 131 years? Then immigrants from Britain must be waiting about 1000 years. Look at all of the discrimination.
"Donald Trump calls immigrants "criminals," and some are. We don’t know how many because America doesn’t know how many illegals are here. But a count of prisoners shows that more Americans are jailed than immigrants."
Immigrants make up 14%~ of the population. Of course there should be more Americans in jail. Either way, like Ann says, ZERO immigrants should be criminals.
"Social Science Quarterly found ":cities with greater growth in immigrant ... populations ... have steeper decreases in homicide and robbery rates.""
One could say, "Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine have low immigrant populations and low crime," or one could just say, "Correlation does not equal causation."
"The facts show that immigration is mostly good."
For Americans?
*The formatting of Stossel's article has been stripped.
On Thursday, August 20, 2015, Donald Trump's former campaign adviser, Roger Stone, visited Fox and Friends with Steve Doocy to discuss Trump and immigration. He called (video, 31/2 minutes) Ann's recent column "excellent" and said that "she is absolutely right."
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015, Last Resistance published Rob Knowles' piece that calls out all of the people who call Ann "racist" rather than refute her arguments. Knowles writes:
"People called Coulter an idiot, a racist, and slung endless and quite lame ad hominem attacks at her. What these people don’t understand is that Ann Coulter is smarter than all of them."
"Trump’s celebrity and in-your-face attitude have combined to create the perfect storm. This Trumpnado can be used to tear apart the status quo, uproot the go-along club, and force the conversation. Trump’s proposal will act as a guiding light around which the other candidates will have to gather."
"So before you slam Ann Coulter for aggressively supporting Trump, think about why she would be doing such a thing. Oh, she’s an idiot. Yeah, keep thinking that. Look at her body of work and dismiss her methods at your own peril. It may turn out that you’re the idiot." [Emphasis original.]
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015, the Blaze posted an article that explains Beck's thoughts on why Republicans can't get anything done. In the article, he comments on Ann's tweet:
"“I’ve seen some of her statements and I’m like, ‘What the hell — Ann, what are you talking about?’” Beck specifically referenced Coulter’s tweet saying Trump’s immigration policy is so good, she doesn’t care if he "wants to perform abortions in White House."" [Hyperlink removed.]
Now read (or watch) what Beck said in the video that was embedded in the article:
"You can't fix immigration... until you fix the Constitution." [Quote found in minute 1.]
After an article reported that Rick Wilson said that 25% of Republican voters were stupid, some comments on the article contained rape threats toward his daughter. Rick Wilson freaked out, so Ann tweeted:
On Monday, August 17, 2015, The Big Picture discussed a few things, along with Thom Hartmann wondering if Ann is right that Sanders would be more likely than Clinton to beat a Republican. The video is over 57 minutes, but Ann is only talked about from minutes 52-53, and 56.
Liberals have been saying that Ann is not getting attention from the media anymore, but this video is proof that claim is false. Ann is only talked about for 3 minutes out of 57, but the title of the video makes it sound like the video is exclusively about Ann.
Here is where Ann is the topic in the video:
Minute 52: Video of Ann on Fox explaining that Clinton should be the Democrat nominee.
Minutes 52-53: Ann is right.
On Thursday, August 13, 2015, Broadly published Mitchell Sunderland's piece, "Ann Coulter Is a Human Being," about his time spent with Ann. Here are some quotes.
"Since the '90s, Coulter has hung out with hordes of homosexuals."
"Another time, when Coulter was ill, [John] Phillips asked her how he could help. "We need to get all the gays together," Coulter told him. "We need to go out and take them to dinner. I'm going to talk them all out of gay marriage." This was the way to make her feel better. Phillips organized a night out, and Coulter told his gay friends she knew they really didn't want to get married--she knew they were more interested in promiscuous sex than in traditional family structures. In a view very similar to radical queers' opposition to gay marriage, Coulter argued that gay marriage would ruin gay culture, because gays value promiscuity over monogamy. "That's the whole point of being gay, so stop the bullshit," she said. "I know at least half of you are totally against gay marriage." By the end of the dinner, they agreed with her." [Hyperlink removed.]
"She grew up in a conservative household in Connecticut where her Republican parents expected her and her two older brothers to not only have opinions, but to express them. "We considered Thanksgiving dinner and Christmas as a failure if we did not argue about both religion and politics," Coulter says. "It's a secret plot by the Left that it's an etiquette thing to not talk about religion and politics.""
"...[Ann] spent time with her Muslim boyfriend, whom she called "my Muslim." (They met shortly after 9/11; Coulter says, "I thought he was a terrorist.")"
"...Coulter places a value on humor. If an editor tells her to cut down a book, she will delete facts before she removes jokes because, she says, in today's politically correct environment, the jokes take on a bigger meaning."
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015, Mickey Kaus posted an explanation of why he wants less immigration, and a 6-point list of why Ann opposes immigration.
Here are some quotes:
On culture being important:
"If businessmen can make millions babbling about corporate "culture" — If Reddit can have a culture — why can’t we talk about the cultures from which immigrants come?... Thought experiment: What if the entire population of Central America, India, Bangladesh, Russia and Western China –some 1.8 billion people — miraculously moves to the U.S. in a month. Screen them for criminals and terrorists. Don’t change any U.S. laws to accomodate [sic] them. Construct plenty of housing and schools and roads in advance. In two years the country wouldn’t look anything like the country we know now, of course. Do you think it would it retain the things we now value about America? That it would be a better place? Good. I don’t either. Now we are just haggling over the size and pace of the inflow." [Emphasis original.]
The beginning of point 5:
"5) Diversity sucks! According to Coulter, my idea of a Los Angeles in which Korean immigrants live with Latino immigrants to produce a vibrant synergistic whole is insane. Diversity is "a train wreck." Her big gun in this argument is the inconvenient work of a beloved liberal professor, Robert Putnam: Contrary to his expectations–and desire –Putnam’s study showed that the greater the ethnic diversity, the less people trusted their neighbors, their local leaers, and even the news. People in diverse communities gave less to charity, voted less, had fewer friends, were more unhappy …It was not, Putnam said, that people in diverse conummnities trusted people of their own ethnicity more, and other races less. They didn’t trust anyone. …" [This was copied exactly from Kaus, but he incorrectly quotes Ann. For instance, Ann did not misspell "leaers" and "conummnities."]
"I used to worry that someone who can get on TV would raise the issues Coulter raises... [and] just piss people off and open the door to discrimination. If you wring your hands about Mexicans who don’t acknowledge the Southern border, you’re apt to produce a lot of angry, ethnically self-conscious Mexican-Americans who might decide, hey, now that you mention it, you did steal our land. But we seem beyond those worries now. Ethnic identity politics has arrived and put down roots ... [S]ome immigrant groups really don’t look at the border the same way we do. A majority (52% ) of Mexicans, in a respected Pew poll, agreed that “Mexicans have a right to be in the U.S.,” while fully 66% thought the “U.S. government has no right to limit immigration.” ... Meanwhile, opponents have to hold their tongues, which makes them angrier." [Emphasis and hyperlink both original.]
Laura Freed* published a video and blog post on Saturday, July 25, 2015, explaining how someone put a fake copy of ¡Adios America! on Amazon. That is not itself very surprising, but Freed believes that it was an inside job. The 8+ minute video is below the quote from Freed's blog post.
"Today I noticed a fake book being sold as Ann Coulter’s "Adios America" – Amazon has very very strict guidelines and any self-published author on Amazon will tell you- it couldn’t have happened without some help from the inside."
If you do not have time to watch the 8+ minutes, here is what Freed talked about:
Minute 0: Freed saw the fake book while browsing Amazon.
Minutes 1-2: Amazon reviews books before publishing them to make sure they are not fakes, but Amazon missed this one.
Minute 3: Someone named Ann Coulter left a 1-star review on the fake book, saying it was not hers. Freed's anti-liberal reviews were erased by Amazon.
Minutes 4-5: Amazon Vine began taxing users, causing the liberals to freak out.
Minute 5: It is probably an inside job, not the whole company.
Minute 6: [Raw video begins, showing computer screen and website.]
Minutes 6-7: Sometimes beginning authors with identical names to celebrities specifically say that they are not associated with their famous counterpart, but this book does not.
The National Review Online published a review (by Jay Nordlinger) of ¡Adios America! on Thursday, July 23, 2015, at 4:00am. Here are some quotes:
"The subtitle is "The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole." From the subtitle, a person might think this book is a crazy rant, and there are crazy-rant touches, for Coulter writes flamboyantly. But this is a serious book making serious points."
"Coulter pleads that she has nothing against Mexico. "Love the food!" But she has concerns (to put it mildly) about lopsided immigration from our southern neighbor."
"To most of us conservatives, it’s plain that a social-welfare state is incompatible with mass immigration. Coulter has penned a formula: "Third World immigration + massive welfare state + political correctness = The End of America." She adds that "we no longer ask anything of immigrants in terms of assimilation. We can’t. That would be ‘racist.’"" [Emphasis original.]
"In one of her closing flourishes, Coulter writes, "Americans love to mock the French for rolling over for Hitler, but at least they had Panzers rolling through Paris. America has chosen to do nothing as our country is taken away from us without a shot fired.""
