Columnist Ann Coulter Defends White Supremacist Group

Columnist Ann Coulter Defends White Supremacist Group
Posted in Extremist Propaganda by Mark Potok on February 13, 2009

Print This Post
Rabid far-right commentator Ann Coulter is known across America for
sliming everyone and everything she disagrees with. Al Gore is a
“total fag” and another one-time presidential candidate, John Edwards,
is the same. Democrats are “gutless traitors” and their convention a
“Spawn of Satan” gathering. Muslims are “ragheads” and America should
“kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” Jews are people
who need to be “perfected.” The New York Times building and its
editorial staff should be bombed. Supreme Court Justice John Paul
Stevens should have “rat poisoning” mixed into his food. Princess
Diana “ostentatiously [had] sex in front of [her] children.” The Rev.
Al Sharpton is “a fat, race-baiting black man.” President Bill Clinton
was “a very good rapist,” and North Korea should be “nuked.”

But despite denouncing school desegregation as a “spectacular”
failure, Coulter has generally avoided bolstering white supremacist
hate groups. Until now, that is.

In her latest foaming-mouth tome — Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their
Assault on America, released on Jan. 6 — Coulter spends the better
part of three pages defending a group called the Council of
Conservative Citizens (CCC), which The New York Times had described as
a “thinly veiled white supremacist organization.” Coulter begs to
differ. The CCC, Coulter opines, is “a conservative group” that has
unfairly been branded as racist “because some of the directors of the
CCC had, decades earlier, been leaders of a segregationist group.”
“There is no evidence on its Web page that the modern incarnation of
the CCC supports segregation,” she says. “Apart from some aggressive
reporting on black-on-white crimes — the very crimes that are
aggressively hidden by the establishment media — there is little on
the CCC website suggesting” that the group is racist. Indeed, its main
failing is “containing members who had belonged to a segregationist
group thirty years earlier.”

Coulter could hardly be more wrong. And even if she can’t find time to
read beyond a page of the CCC’s website, she really ought to know —
after all, the organization where she frequently speaks, the
Conservative Political Action Committee, has publicly banned the CCC
from its annual gathering because it is racist. Also in the late
1990s, Jim Nicholson, then-chairman of the Republican National
Committee, asked GOP members to stay away from the CCC because of its
“racist and nationalist views.”

How could conservative Republicans be inspired to say such ugly
things? Let us count the ways.
The CCC’s columnists have written that black people are “a retrograde
species of humanity,” and that non-white immigration is turning the
U.S. population into a “slimy brown mass of glop.” Its website has run
photographic comparisons of pop singer Michael Jackson and a
chimpanzee. It opposes “forced integration” and decries racial
intermarriage. It has lambasted black people as “genetically
inferior,” complained about “Jewish power brokers,” called gay people
“perverted sodomites,” and even named the late Lester Maddox, the
baseball bat-wielding, arch-segregationist former governor of Georgia,
“Patriot of the Century.”

One day, the CCC ran photos on its home page of accused Beltway
snipers John Muhammad and John Malvo, 9/11 conspirator Zacharias
Moussaoui and accused shoe-bomber Richard Reed. “Notice a Pattern
Here?” asked a caption underneath the four photos. “Is the face of
death black after all?” On another occasion, its website featured a
photo of Daniel Pearl, the “Jewish Wall Street Journal reporter” who
had just been decapitated by Islamic terrorists. In the photo, Pearl
was shown with his “mixed-race wife, Marianne.” The headline above the
couple’s picture was stunning even for the CCC: “Death by
Multiculturalism?” The CCC Arkansas chapter ran an essay waxing
nostalgic for the days “when racial separation was the norm.”

But to Ann Coulter, there is “no evidence” on its website that the CCC
“supports segregation.” Mostly, she says, the group — which was formed
from the debris of the White Citizens Councils that Supreme Court
Justice Thurgood Marshall once called “the uptown Klan” — is about “a
strong national defense, the right to keep and bear arms, the
traditional family, and an ‘America First’ trade policy.” Indeed, she
says, The New York Times and other critics of the CCC are simply
liberals “who have no principles.”

Ann Coulter is a REAL whitebutt.

She is another 'extremist'. Back before Monica came, i used to argue
with far-right extremists - as much as i argue with the other extreme
to the left. The right has as many valid (and invalid) points as the
left, imo, but like the left has a lot of 'excluded' points which make
ALL the difference. Why buy in? (i often wonder). A balanced view on
*anything* is rarely presented these days as the world becomes even
more polarized.

For instance, any article (such as this one posted by Monica) that
begins with the word "Rabid" to describe an individual... immediately
signals extremist 'bias' in the reporting.

The unfortunate thing about both extremes is that they prevent issues
from being discussed in an in-depth way. When a 'group' arrogantly
denounces black people as a "retrograde species of humanity" (which is
not far removed from when Monica says white people are not human
beings) or states that illegal immigrants are a brown mass of "glop",
it prevents discussion of the real issues. Race hate in the forefront
keeps the 'population' from looking at what lies behind the problems
of illegal immigration (which are 'national', not racial), and instead
diverts it to an issue of race.

The extreme left, on the other hand, ignore all real issues behind
mass immigration and *also* divert it to a matter of race. One side is
all-exclusive, and one side is all-inclusive. One side is protective
of the 'white race' and one side is aggressive against the 'white
race'. In such a way - both sides are racist. Both sides prevent
discussion by those who have no bias against those of Mexican
heritage, but are concerned by the economic and social pressures that
a wave of illegal immigration place upon a nation (which is happening
in other nations around the world also). Both sides make it 'wrong' to
do or say anything at all that indicates a willingness to think
outside the box, *their* box.

Ann Coulter is right when she says that certain family values have
disintegrated, but she is wrong in her intolerance of those who wish
to live outside the 'boundaries' of her own chosen way of life. That
is no more 'american' than the leftists who espouse a communist regime
under which there can be no 'individual rights'.

This is true, but not unique. For instance, Monica Charles does too.

> ... Coulter has generally avoided bolstering white supremacist

On the other hand, Monica Charles has for some time bolstered
white supremacist Betsy Ashby, who from her Virginia compound
has been calling for the "Total Annihilation" (a century-old
codeword for genocide) of all those American Indians who are
unprotected by treaties with the United States Government.

<http://tinyurl.com/betsy-ashby-genocide>

When and where have I bolstered Ashby? She is white and after
wannabes. I don't fight with ehr. I don't fight with you although that
is why you are here. Google limits the number of my posts. I don't
want to waste them on racist invaders like you. I would rather post
articles that may be of interest to INDIAN human beings.

Gosh, where to begin...

First you dug up criminal info on someone sharing the name 'Red
Cherries' and offered it to her with the thread you labeled, "Here you
go, Guardian".

Then you threw Lisa Dillon - a very long-time poster at alt.native -
at her like a dogbone. (And in my personal estimation from what i have
seen here, your reasoning for wanting Guardian to focus her attentions
on Lisa is based on personal reasons *only*).

Then, when Wolfie did not defend your racism, you were "forced" to
admit that you did not view Wolfie as an Indian (with no further
explanation). That basically 'sealed the deal' in terms of Guardian
going gung-ho after Wolfie.

Then (thinking how this could all really work out in your benefit) you
began to accuse Hope and me (the two 'white women' you've been trying
to run out of here) of claiming to be Indians.

So there goes Guardian temporarily, running us down to see if we're
white claiming to be Indians, finding it's a red herring. Oh well, you
tried.

In the end, you assess the 'collateral damage' and offer a flip
apology to all the 'mixed bloods who might have been offended by your
obvious anti-white racism.

Kinda 'different' when ya look at it that way, ain't it?

Hmm, i post from Google and have *never* been limited in my number of
postings. Is it possible that Google is discriminating against you
because you're Indian?

> articles that may be of interest to INDIAN human beings.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As opposed to white people who - according to you - are *not* human
beings?

I'll waste a post on you daisy mae. Do you really think I could have
chased Guardian out of here with one word? It hasn't worked with you
or any of the other white invaders. She also knows that I don't like
white people. Go back to how abused white people are........while
you're squatting on my land and destroying it.

Post enough, fast enough, and Google will give you a cooling-off time.

You just haven't posted as many, in as short a time, as Monica.

You sure didn't try. You did the very very opposite instead.

<http://tinyurl.com/monica-charles-2>

Really, now - do you think i would let your words go to waste when
there are people in third world countries starving for words?

Chased her out with one word? Maybe not (she's one who "won't be
ignored"). But could you have discouraged her from going on a full-
blown rampage with only a few well-placed words? Oh yes. Definitely.

You chose *not* to.

Just as you are choosing to dodge some very important and relevant
issues here.

> you're squatting on my land and destroying it.- Hide quoted text -

Yep, i'll have to let your words go to waste after all, monica. They
certainly don't look very nourishing or sustaining to me or mine.
Perhaps you could try selling them to 'humans'.

Hmmm... She got new enemy. Google. Now the world biggest internet
company is
against her. That should be joke in SNL (Saturday Nite Live)

Alaska Natives were never Conquered, they were "BOUGHT" after Lincoln
Freed the Slaves.
So if Natives want a place, and Alaska wants to succeed fro the Union,
then Alaska should be "Given" to the E.I.A..!!!!!!!!
�

> �
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/betsy-ashby-genocide>

�
�