Joseph Farah (Head of WND) Will Not Drop Ann's Column

    On Thursday, September 24, 2015, Joseph Farah explained why he is not dropping Ann's column after she tweeted "f---ing Jews."

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:

How many f---ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 17, 2015

    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:

.@AnnCoulter you're a horrible fucking idiot.

— Seth Rogen (@Sethrogen) September 17, 2015

    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:

Jackass http://t.co/dUgWgR71K3

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) September 17, 2015

    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:

This I know of @anncoulter: she is far more a friend to Jews and Israel than Jewish Obama voters now jumping on her.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) September 18, 2015

    Ann retweeted this tweet:

Suppose a candidate says "I oppose infanticide," and I say "We all do. Enough with the f--king babies." Am I anti-baby? #IStandWithAnn

— Tim Groseclose (@Tim_Groseclose) September 18, 2015

    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:

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.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 13, 2016

    There was no outrage at all.

The SPLC Released a List Of "Anti-Muslim Radical" Women

    Ann takes 3rd place (not actual "places" are given) on the new list published by the SPLC's Hatewatch blog on Tuesday, June 9, 2015. It was written by Mark Potok and Janet Smith with illustrations of all of the women by Zé Otavio. There is one short summary (per woman) on why they are "anti-Muslim." Here are 10 of the illustrations:

A dozen women make up the core of the anti-Islam movement http://t.co/XF2LepqlOO pic.twitter.com/sOPW0JHlmR

— SPLC (@splcenter) June 13, 2015

    UPDATE: On Wednesday, June 24, 2015, Chelsea Schilling reported for WND that:

"Upon learning of her inclusion on SPLC’s newest list, columnist and prolific author Ann Coulter was delighted.

"It’s an honor just to be nominated for the SPLC’s list of conservative women who speak out against radical Islam!" Coulter told WND."

    Schilling also wrote:

"Nor did Coulter express alarm at SPLC’s inclusion of her name on the list.

"I think I’m already a ‘person of interest’ to radical jihadists," she told WND."

    UPDATE: Here's audio of Ann expressing happiness about being on the list (minutes 1-2).

Phyllis Schlafly Gives Awesome Review of ¡Adios America!

    Phyllis Schlafly wrote an amazing review of ¡Adios America! and it can be found on WND, Eagle Forum, Christian Post, or Investors.

Tom Tancredo Thanks Ann for Writing ¡Adios America!

    Tom Tancredo thanked Ann in a review of ¡Adios America! The review can be read on WND.