Ann Coulter on Perfecting Jews

I generally avoid making too much out of anything Ann Coulter says because so much of it seems to be an act. She purposely says things which are shocking to keep her act alive and, while I’m not actually predicting this, I really wouldn’t be too surprised to see her some day write a memoir confessing that she doesn’t  believe most of the stuff she says. Some times it is impossible to ignore Coulter as she goes too far, even by the extreme standards she has already set. This occurred when she discussed how Jews need “perfecting.” Editor and Publisher and  Media Matters have posted a transcript of her appearance on Donny Deutsch’s show:

DEUTSCH: Let me ask you a question. We’re going to get off strengths and weakness for a second. If you had your way, and all of your — forget that any of them —

COULTER: I like this.

DEUTSCH: — are calculated marketing teases, and your dreams, which are genuine, came true having to do with immigration, having to do with women’s — with abortion — what would this country look like?

COULTER: It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that’s what I think heaven is going to look like.

DEUTSCH: And what did that look like?

COULTER: Happy, joyful Republicans in the greatest city in the world.

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, no, but I’m talking about this country. You don’t want to make this country — it’s not about Republicans. I’m saying, what would the fabric of this country look like? Forget that the Republicans would be running the show.

COULTER: Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT], the Republican Party would look like [Rep.] Duncan Hunter [R-CA] —

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, I don’t want — I’m not talking about politically the landscape. What would our — would we be safer? Would people be happier? Would they be more —
COULTER: We would be a lot safer.

DEUTSCH: Would there be more tolerance? Would there be — would women be happier, would the races get along better? The Ann Coulter subscription — prescription. What — tell me what would be different in our fabric of country, because —

COULTER: Well, all of those things.

DEUTSCH: — I can give — I can give you an argument there would be more divisiveness, that there would be more hate —

COULTER: Oh, no.

DEUTSCH: — that there would be a bigger difference between the rich and the poor, a lot of other — tell me what — why this would be a better world? Let’s give you — I’m going to give you — say this is your show.

COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They’re Christian. They’re tolerant. They defend America, they —

DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you’re not.

DEUTSCH: I actually am. That’s not true. I really am. But — so we would be better if we were – if people — if there were no Jews, no Buddhists —

COULTER: Whenever I’m harangued by —

DEUTSCH: — in this country? You can’t believe that.

COULTER: — you know, liberals on diversity —

DEUTSCH: Here you go again.

COULTER: No, it’s true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that’s really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it’s like they have a chip on their shoulder. They’re just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And —

DEUTSCH: I don’t agree with that. I don’t agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don’t see any more or less chips there either way. That’s erroneous.

COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire Seinfeld episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you’re lying.

DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some Seinfeld episode? OK.

COULTER: But yeah, I think that’s reflective of what’s going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches — the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.

DEUTSCH: That isn’t what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or —

COULTER: Yeah.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Well, it’s a lot easier. It’s kind of a fast track.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.

DEUTSCH: You can’t possibly believe that.

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: You can’t possibly — you’re too educated, you can’t — you’re like my friend in —

COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean —

COULTER: We have the fast-track program.

DEUTSCH: Why don’t I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can’t believe that.

COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.

DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, “Let’s wipe Israel” —

COULTER: I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention.

DEUTSCH: “Let’s wipe Israel off the earth.” I mean, what, no Jews?

COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn’t really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we’re all sinners —

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there’s no —

COULTER: What’s absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I’m going to go off and try to perfect myself —

COULTER: Well, that’s what the New Testament says.

DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans, and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I’m offended by that personally. And we’ll have more Big Idea when we come back.

[…]

DEUTSCH: Welcome back to The Big Idea. During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I’m going to give her a chance. So you don’t think that was offensive?

COULTER: No. I’m sorry. It is not intended to be. I don’t think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that’s why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don’t believe our testament.

DEUTSCH: You said — your exact words were, “Jews need to be perfected.” Those are the words out of your mouth.

COULTER: No, I’m saying that’s what a Christian is.

DEUTSCH: But that’s what you said — don’t you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic —

COULTER: No!

DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You’re an educated woman. How do you not see that?

COULTER: That isn’t hateful at all.

DEUTSCH: But that’s even a scarier thought. OK —

COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don’t want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean, [Rev. Jerry] Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is “Christ died for our sins.” We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.

DEUTSCH: We will let the audience decide then, won’t we? Ann Coulter. New book. More Big Idea straight ahead.

Yes, someday everyone can be “perfect” like Ann Coulter.

Be Sociable, Share!

24 Comments

  1. 1
    jimmy says:

    I’m waiting for Democratic Daily to defend Coulter like they defended Mel Gibson after his anti-semitic rants.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Jimmy,

    Since it came from Coulter, they won’t defend her. However if another actor said this, or anyone even remotely connected with the left said this, it would be a different story.

    Besides, they seem to prefer to defend off the wall comments coming from those who are drunk.

  3. 3
    jimmy says:

    Maybe they won’t defend her, but I don’t see them criticizing her over this.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    I don’t pay much attention to much of anything that goes on over there so I can’t say how they are responding to this. (While I don’t read there, I must say I was amused by the item you sent me last week where one of the writers predicted Bush would suspend elections or otherwise cling onto power. It was good for a laugh and I did forward it on to others.)

  5. 5
    Mark says:

    What I would like to hear is someone explain, if the new testament and Jesus are NOT about perfecting jews, then what is it? Explain it.

    The two religions and their writings and are what they are. Does that mean that we aren’t allowed to talk about them?

    Whether or not you agree with it is a different issue.

  6. 6
    TGC says:

    You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:43-48.”>

  7. 7
    TGC says:

    Crud. The link didn’t work. Here it is:

    Link

  8. 8
    Anonymous says:

    Consider the King James version of Hebrew 8:8-13

    8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

    9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

    10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

    11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

    12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

    13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

    So – I post this not to proselytize for Christianity or to directly defend Ann Coulter. But to point out the intellectual integrity of her statement. What she said is absolutely correct by any clear thinking analysis. And nothing should be offensive outside of what any bible study class in the last 2000 years would have concluded.

    So again, if there is something you don’t like about that conclusion – then fine. But I am hard pressed to see what that has to do with Ann Coulter.

  9. 9
    Ron Chusid says:

    This largely illustrates the difference between fundamentalism and less extreme forms of religion. To those who see the Bible as the word of God and see their religion as the one true religion, then Coulter’s statement would make sense from their perspective. The same could be said of fundamentalist Muslims. This doesn’t leave much room for toleration of other religious views, and we have seen the consequences of this mind set many times, both historically and at present.

  10. 10
    Mark says:

    >>To those who see the Bible as the word of God and see their religion as the one true religion, then Coulter’s statement would make sense from their perspective.>>

    I would disagree, Ron. I think Coulter’s comment makes sense regardless of which faith you have (Christian or Muslim or anything else) or what level you take that faith to (moderate or fundamentalist).

    From a clear and reasoned anylysis of what Christianity’s intention for the new testament is, her statement is exactly correct.

    Having said that, if you want to project or imply some intention on her part for taking action on that statement, like using force to convert jews or gassing them if they don’t convert or constructing laws that treat them differently from those of Christians – well ok. But that’s not what was being discussed. To assert that is conjecture.

    But I think that implication of some dark intention behind her statement is the whole point of this media event. But that intention is only made up. It doesn’t exist anywhere in the transcript.

  11. 11
    Ron Chusid says:

    Coulter says we should all be Christian. She might not say we should force conversion but it is this mind set about religion which leads to violence by others. It is understanding of this concept, and not mere “implication of some dark intention behind her statement” which led to the outrage over this interview.

  12. 12
    Mark says:

    >>Coulter says we should all be Christian.>>

    Yes, and more specifically, she says that things would be better if we were all Christian. I think almost anyone that feels strongly about their moral foundation (whatever it might be) would feel the same. Whether they say it is up to them – but I certainly hope that they are not kept from saying it or ridiculed for doing so.

    >>..it is this mind set about religion which leads to violence by others.>>

    Well, maybe and maybe not – but even if it is, what you are suggesting is that speech be curbed so as not incite others into violence. That’s going to make it a pretty quiet place.

  13. 13
    Mark says:

    So, if someone who feels strongly about a set of morals wants to talk about it publicly and try to convince others of its value – they need to refrain from doing so if someone else disagrees and that someone else expresses their disagreement with violence?

    So if you say that drinking coffee black is good and using cream is evil and that everyone should drink coffee black and not use cream – and then because I feel the opposite, I go out and kill you – then no one after you should speak about their moral preference for black coffee, or how and why they think the world would be a better place if everyone did the same?

    If that is the model, who is in control?

  14. 14
    Ron Chusid says:

    “So, if someone who feels strongly about a set of morals wants to talk about it publicly and try to convince others of its value – they need to refrain from doing so if someone else disagrees and that someone else expresses their disagreement with violence?”

    That’s not what I’m saying at all. Your analogy is quite fallacious, ignoring what Coulter actually said about how everyone should be Christian

    “Well, maybe and maybe not – but even if it is, what you are suggesting is that speech be curbed so as not incite others into violence. That’s going to make it a pretty quiet place.”

    I have said absolutely nothing about curbing anyone’s speech. You defend Coulter’s hate-speech and then forget the fact that others have the right to criticize what she said.

  15. 15
    Mark says:

    >>That’s not what I’m saying at all. Your analogy is quite fallacious, ignoring what Coulter actually said about how everyone should be Christian>>

    >>You defend Coulter’s hate-speech>>

    With all due respect Ron, I think your argument is coming unglued. You are now projecting intentions on what she said. I cannot see anywhere in the transcript, nor on her face (I saw the interview) where I could assume hatred (or any other feeling) towards others on her part.

    She said she thinks that everyone should be Christian. She did not say if you are not Christian I hate you. You are implying she said that and that is the “dark implication” myth that I am talking about that is driving this media event.

    The myth is created and assumed to be true because she is Ann Coulter and there is already a pop cultural assumption that she is evil. So, regardless of what she says, her motives must be evil. Therefore, her speech is hate speech. Sorry Ron, I don’t buy it.

    That is neither Defending Liberty or Enlightened Thought.

  16. 16
    Steve Savage says:

    I can see that Ann Coulter finally decided to abandon all precepts of acting like a sane person. I wonder if next week Michelle Malkin will say something even loopier, as it seems like these two hosebeasts are in a competition to see who will get committed to a nut house first.

  17. 17
    absent observer says:

    What that crazy bitch said in this instance happens to be in harmony with the apostle Paul’s writings. Read Romans 10:1-4 and Romans 11, for example. Almost 2/3 of the New Testament is letters written by the apostle Paul, so I can assume his opinion is representative of Christianity. So, it wouldn’t be odd for a Christian to say “Jews only half understand God; we want them to understand him fully like we Christians do.” Mormons say the same thing to Christians. Muslims think the same thing about Jews and Christians.

    As an existentialist, however, I don’t think any of them are correct.

    She never stated a desire to coerce anyone into Christianity. That would be offensive.

  18. 18
    Sarah says:

    Mark – How about discussing the Bible from a historical standpoint and not as absolute truth? I find it amusing that conservative Christians come to Ann’s defense so quickly and hold her up as the bearer of scholarship. Says a lot about your intentions. Plus, I thought it was obvious that Ann was a crazy, sadistic and evil bitch? I don’t have to just say that – Ann brought it upon herself. And if Ann is such a bearer of Biblical truth, why does she conveniently ignore any passages that don’t jive with her conservative thought? Says a lot about HER intentions too.

    Anonymous – Ann Coulter and “intellectual integrity” should never been in the same sentence together. Plus, the fact that you blanket Biblical studies as the same in all churches is erroneous. So, should everything the Bible be taken as face value? Even the passages that contradict the other passages? Even the passages that have no basis in scientific fact?

  19. 19
    Sarah says:

    Mark, here’s part of the transcript:

    DEUTSCH: “…you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or – ”

    COULTER: Yeah.

    DEUTSCH: Really?

    COULTER: Well, it’s a lot easier. It’s kind of a fast track.

    DEUTSCH: Really?

    COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.

    DEUTSCH: You can’t possibly believe that.

    COULTER: Yes.

    How much more obvious does she have to be about her intentions? It’s no wonder people are leaving Christianity in droves.

  20. 20
    Sergeant Zim says:

    While you folks are debating this one exchange, here are a few of AC’s other quotes, from the last few years that show what her real mindset is:

    “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.” (Talking about the justification of action in the Middle East)

    “We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee.”

    “If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

    “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

    If this “woman” is any advertisement for Christianity – put me down as “opposed”.

  21. 21
    Mark says:

    Ok, Sarah, let’s walk through this.

    First and foremost, let me straighten out some context. I am barely religious in terms of practice. That is, I do not regularly go to church, I do not spend any time trying to convert people to anything, and I do not think that government should administer the morality of any religion.

    That is why, after pasting the bible quote, I went to great pains to say that I was not trying to proselytize.

    I am as far from a conservative Christian as you can get. In the first instance, I consider myself a classical liberal and, in the second instance, I am not completely “done yet” but, at this point, I am way closer to an Ayn Rand objectivist than a Jerry Falwell Christian.

    Having said that, I was raised in a Judaea-Christian culture and have spent enough time studying the Bible to have a sense of some of its most fundamental tenets.

    Specifically, in this case, the idea that the Old Testament was about the masses knowing God through laws that were given to them by a few men who interpreted them based on what they understood from their direct relationship with God. And then, the New Testament being a huge change in that now the masses themselves have a direct relationship with God (through Jesus) – thus eliminating any issues there might be with the previous mode of man’s interpretation and enforcement.

    That’s it, plain and simple. I don’t believe this is something that I can defend with one Bible passage and then you can come along and totally refute with another. Nor do I think that anyone would debate it. If you think this basic idea is not the case, then fine – we will have to agree to disagree. It is not a subtlety, it is a fundamental.
    So in the first verse of what I pasted, God finds fault with the people and says that, to fix it, he will make a new covenant. So, when something has a fault and you fix it, another way of expressing it is that you have perfected it. Really, the more concise passage would have been just verses 7 and 8:

    7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

    8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

    So again, my point is, for those people who might have thought she came up with the idea to be hateful, that it is actually part of the teaching – and there is nothing intrinsically hateful or offensive about it. Christianity is about an evolution – a progress towards something better. Again, basic stuff – if you don’t like Christianity, that’s up to you. But don’t shoot me – I’m just the messenger.

    So then in the 11th verse they talk about how he is going to fix it and that is by having direct relationships with everyone – no more of this stuff about one man telling another – from here on out, we are going the direct route:

    11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

    And again, I am not arguing the merits of Christianity – I am simply providing a reasoned description of what it is about.

    So the bottomline is, with the new covenant, believers will get it straight from the source, perfectly, no chance of static or imperfections introduced in the translation. Therefore, the people of the new covenant are perfected in their knowledge of God.

    Now, in the section of the transcript that you pasted, in the third to the last line, she says, “Yeah. You have to obey.” And then you say, “How much more obvious does she have to be about her intentions?”. I am assuming that your interpretation is that she is saying that others have to obey her or Christianity. In other words, yea, you have to do this.

    But that’s not the case and, if that is what you are thinking, you completely missed what was going on. She is referring to the fact that, per the Old Testament, Jews have to obey the laws, whereas Christians get their laws straight from the God. She reiterates this a couple of lines later (after the part you pasted) when she says, “Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey….We have the fast-track program.”

    Then, when Deutsch goes over the top and asks, ““Let’s wipe Israel off the earth.” I mean, what, no Jews?”,

    She responds with, “No…we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.”

    Exactly. That is exactly what Christians want and it is what they are. So, in this sense, are we arguing about Ann Coulter or about Christianity? But in either case, don’t infer that there is any intent to use force or deny liberty.

    So, as Coulter says, Christians see themselves as perfected Jews. She didn’t say that Jews have to see Christians as perfected Jews – only that Christians do. Nor does she say that Jews should feel bad about or be offended or see themselves as less than perfect. Jews are free to see themselves however they want. Indeed, to the extent that a Jew does not accept the fundamental premise of Christianity in the first place, what Christians think of themselves should be irrelevant to Jews. But in any case, how she sees herself in the context of her religious beliefs is nobody’s business but hers.

    Finally, Deutsch’s whole finishing blow was a dramatic, “Wow, you didn’t really say that, did you?”, implying that she just made the whole perfection thing up. And, I would say, most consumers of mass media who are in this debate right now have that impression and are arguing based on it. But the use of the term “perfect” regarding New Testament relationship with God, as well as the idea of a Christian being a “perfected Jew” describing the evolution from Jew to Christian into the new relationship, is as old as any analysis that can be found.

    So from a perspective that uses some knowledge of the Bible and nothing more than rational observation, this is what I saw happen. So it is what it is. If you don’t like the workings of religion fine – but I’m not all that comfortable with a culture doesn’t want people talking about it.

  22. 22
    Al Cibiades says:

    “That is exactly what Christians want and it is what they are.”
    Really? So Jews should regard their Christian friends as ones who are looking to change them? This is good?
    “So, in this sense, are we arguing about Ann Coulter or about Christianity?”
    Lets hope only Ann Coulter. Most intelligent Christians reject the view of Jewish inferiority.

    “But in either case, don’t infer that there is any intent to use force or deny liberty.”
    No, not directly. But as we’ve seen it doesn’t take much for it to seem logical to those who think this a respectable notion to think a little coercion could go a long way.

    “So, as Coulter says, Christians see themselves as perfected Jews. She didn’t say that Jews have to see Christians as perfected Jews – only that Christians do.”
    Any way you want to look at it, it sounds pretty condescending and has an implication of a norm, which in my mind doesn’t exist, and certainly has no rational basis. The notion of Christians being perfected anything is, on the face of it absurd.

    “Nor does she say that Jews should feel bad about or be offended or see themselves as less than perfect. ”
    She doesn’t have to.

    “Indeed, to the extent that a Jew does not accept the fundamental premise of Christianity in the first place, what Christians think of themselves should be irrelevant to Jews.”
    Somehow, given the history of Christain Jewish relations the notion that Jews should be indifferent to Christian views of them seems a bit naive.
    “But in any case, how she sees herself in the context of her religious beliefs is nobody’s business but hers.”
    Then why open her yap about it? I’m not interested in what is her personal business, but if she shoves it in my face it becomes my business?

    “But the use of the term “perfect” regarding New Testament relationship with God, as well as the idea of a Christian being a “perfected Jew” describing the evolution from Jew to Christian into the new relationship, is as old as any analysis that can be found.”
    Sure. As old as anti-semitism. Does that make it a valid idea or something to be incorporated into an idea for this nation.

  23. 23
    Mark says:

    >>…but if she shoves it in my face it becomes my business?>>

    Well, correct me if I’m wrong, Al, but Danny Deutsch and Meredieth Veiera are the ones that started shoving it in people’s faces. And they get traction from that because they know there is hyper-sensitivity out there and a torch carrying mob will result – which is exactly what happened.

    Al, I respect your point of view on this but, respectfully, I believe that the level of victim recognition and sensitivity you call for is dysfunctional in practice. Not that there is anything wrong with your intent – I know it is good – I just think that your desired outcome can achieved that way – and what can actually be achieved counts more to me than the intent.

    Personally, I think the root cause lies in the institutionalization of special interest groups. The development of special interest groups is absolutely essential for collectivist policies. If we are going to engage in shuffling people’s assets from one set of groups to another set of groups, then groups have to be defined, both culturally and institutionally. And an ethics code has to develop to guide decisions on the relative value between the groups to determine how the collective bounty is going to be split up.

    So, IMO, the more collectivism you have, the more tension between groups that vie for its resources. The more tension, the more sensitivity.

    Personally, I believe this flap over Ann Coulter is a symptom – not the cause. My hope is that enough reason remains so that we can all keep our eye on the ball.

  24. 24
    Ron Chusid says:

    “Well, correct me if I’m wrong, Al, but Danny Deutsch and Meredieth Veiera are the ones that started shoving it in people’s faces.”

    You are wrong. It was Coulter who made the anti-Semitic statements. Deutsch acted correctly in immediately confronting her over her statements.

    “The development of special interest groups is absolutely essential for collectivist policies.”

    This has nothing to do with special interest groups or collectivist policies. It is about Ann Coulter’s anti-Semitism.

3 Trackbacks

Leave a comment