Friday, September 18, 2015

Ann Defends Herself against Widespread Backlash over The "F---ing Jews" Tweet

    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:


    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.

    Let us continue.

    Mark Levin (a Jew) tweeted:

    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.)

    Forward also called it a rant.

    NYDaily News said it was a rant.

    The ADL said Ann's tweets...
"...were offensive, ugly, spiteful and anti-Semitic."
    Jewish Political Updates said it was a rant.

    The Telegraph wrote:
"It’s clearly offensive. But in keeping with her Conservative beliefs, Coulter hasn’t let herself get too carried away: she’s starred out the f-word."
    Seattle Pi called it a rant.

    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!

    WND also called it a rant.



    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.



    Buzzfeed reports that Rick Santorum says:
"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:

    Ann retweeted this tweet:

    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:




    Hollywood Reporter reports Ann saying:
"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:
    There was no outrage at all.
Posted on
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)