JewishWorldReview.com must be enjoying its moment in the sun but whether or not the website runs Ann’s column has no significance. It won’t decrease Ann Coulter’s readership.
But the founder of Jewish World Review, an online magazine that publishes Coulter’s syndicated column, isn’t buying her excuse.
“She could have been drunk, she could have been high, I don’t know, I have to give her the benefit of the doubt…but I don’t have to delude myself,” Binyamin Jolkovsky, who has served as the publication’s editor-in-chief for nearly 18 years, told The Daily Beast. “Pandering to Jewish money is about as anti-Semitic a stereotype as you could put forth. Her ‘eff-ing Jews’ comment is not identifying Israel—it’s identifying Jews, plural, and all Jews. There is no excuse for that. You can’t just wiggle out of something that vile and hateful.”
Coulter’s work has been appearing on Jewish World Review since at least January 2000. The day after Coulter’s now-infamous tweet, Jolkovsky’s website posted a new Coulter “insight” titled, “Donald Trump: The only people who like him are the voters.” Later that day, an editor’s note was added to her op-ed reading, “This column was prepared before the author’s anti-Semitic rant. JWR reached out to her and awaits her reply.”
So far, Jolkovsky says, it’s been radio silence.
“I have not heard back from her yet, no,” Jolkovsky said. “I called the syndicate, and initially they asked me to speak to her copy editor, and they said—I’m not making this up—that her copy editor will explain to me why she did what she did. I was like, I don’t think so.”
Jolkovsky, who is an Orthodox Jew and Republican voter, says that he has long maintained a personal working relationship with Coulter, and that this is the first time she has not emailed him back in a timely manner.
“It’s like when you have a friend and then the friend totally disses you, [even though] you’ve always been there for that friend,” he said. “It hurts.”
When asked if he is considering pulling Coulter’s column from his site, Jolkovsky said he hasn’t made a decision yet, but that “there are a lot of readers who want that to happen.”
“Let’s take Dana Milbank at The Washington Post, and imagine he wrote, ‘eff-ing blacks,’ you don’t think The Washington Post wouldn’t fire him on the spot?” he offered as an analogy. “It boggles the mind…I am hoping that she’s finished her tantrum and that she honestly understands what she’s done.”
Posted inAnn Coulter|Comments Off on Numerous Outlets Are Writing Articles About JWR Possibly Dropping Ann Coulter’s Column
It is no wonder that Coulter feels an affinity for Trump, who never admits he’s wrong and does not apologize for overstepping the bounds of bad taste.
There is a reason they get away with behavior for which the rest of us mere mortals would be penalized, not rewarded; it is related to the advantage of the sex of each.
Trump is a billionaire. Rich men are exempt from the constraints of polite society. Females fawn over them; males revere them. All hope to benefit in some way from their presence.
Coulter is a tall, slim blonde who can wear any outfit as though it were custom-made for her.
The embodiment of a common male fantasy, she causes men to drool and women to hate their own reflections in the mirror.
If Trump were penniless and Coulter frumpy, they would lack the protective shield that provides them the bravado and brazenness they flaunt so fecklessly. This last debate, however, seems to have put some chinks in their armor. And if it cracks, we will all be watching, popcorn in hand.
Posted inAnn Coulter|Comments Off on Ann Coulter & Donald Trump
Ann Coulter must be shaking in her boots that JewishWorldReview.com might drop her column.
If I were her, I would not bother responding to those websites threatening to drop her. She doesn’t need them. Why should she defend herself? Her stock in trade is outrage. This time the target is those who pander to Jews and Israel.
From Haaretz: JTA – A conservative Jewish publication may drop conservative political pundit Ann Coulter’s column in the wake of her tweet slamming GOP candidates for pandering to “f—ing Jews.”
The founder of the online “Jewish World Review,” Binyamin Jolkovsky, told the Daily Beast that he has personally reached out to Coulter but that she had not responded as of Friday.
Her latest column, that appeared on the website on September 17, a day after the CNN GOP candidates’ debate and her infamous tweet and follow-up tweets, included an editor’s note reading: “This column was prepared before the author’s anti-Semitic rant. JWR reached out to her and awaits her reply.”
Her column has been appearing on the website since 2000.
“She could have been drunk, she could have been high, I don’t know, I have to give her the benefit of the doubt…but I don’t have to delude myself,” Jolkovsky told The Daily Beast. “Pandering to Jewish money is about as anti-Semitic a stereotype as you could put forth. Her ‘eff-ing Jews’ comment is not identifying Israel—it’s identifying Jews, plural, and all Jews. There is no excuse for that. You can’t just wiggle out of something that vile and hateful.”
He said that this is the first time that Coulter has not emailed him back in a timely manner. He said that he has not yet decided whether to pull her column, but that many readers would like to see that happen.
Posted inAnn Coulter, Anti-Semitism|Comments Off on Haaretz: ‘After her Twitter tirade criticizing alleged Republican pandering to U.S. Jews, Coulter’s column at the conservative Jewish World Review is under threat’
After awhile, it gets pretty exhausting to still feel offended by what Ann Coulter says, and that is exactly what she seems to be counting on; a war of attrition against those who will be offended. Coulter churns out intentionally provocative remarks that will hurt and shock people in such volume as to make her critics sound like easily offended, compulsive whiners. The only option for those who dislike Coulter is to ignore her, which means to stand back and let her grab the spotlight. After all, truth be told, her remarks about the debate were more memorable than anything said by anyone else during that evening.
Coulter’s remarks haven’t gone unpunished: her columns have been dropped from newspapers and her speaking engagements often attract protesters. However, the more publications and shows drop her, the more she is embraced as a maverick. But will there come a time when she goes too far or, worse, when Coulter fatigue sets in? Radhika Sanghani gives a perspective from the other side of the pond in the UK’s Daily Telegraph: “If you haven’t heard of Ann Coulter, you may want to count your blessings and stop reading now.” Sanghani says Coulter “seems to be on a personal campaign to be the most hated woman in her country, and by the look of things, she’s succeeding.”
Liam O’Brien, an expert in media criticism and pop culture at Quinnipac University, told ABC, “I think [her comments are] highly calculated. I’m not sure she knows what trigger on which verbal gun she is going to pull at any given moment, but I think at any particular time she has three or four of these things that are controversial and inflammatory enough to get national press notice above and beyond whatever the topic is of her book or talk show.”
Following her controversial statement about Jews on Donny Deutsch’s program in 2007, far from losing viewers and fans, requests for Coulter’s appearances increased, and perhaps the same will happen after her outrageous tweets about Jews and Israel following the GOP debates. While Coulter says offensive things about many groups, getting dangerously close to the tipping point with Jews, many of whom support her because she speaks well of Israel usually, seems to be good for her ratings. After the incident on “The Big Idea,” when she said Jews needed to be perfected, Coulter’s publicist Diana Banister told ABC News, “No one has been reluctant to book [Coulter] and we’ve had as many requests as ever, probably more.” There was speculation then that Coulter’s career as a media figurehead might be over, and those predictions were incorrect, as they might be now. Even if talk show hosts and interviewers refuse to book her, Coulter still has social media, her website and her books. In fact, a well-publicized refusal to book her might just generate more interest in her.
FROM THE COMMENTS:
If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.
* Ann Coulter has become increasingly antiusemitic since she backed that turkey, Mitt Romney, and he lost. I think she is frustrated by her bad decision and is taking it out on us…”Christkillers.”
* It seems that Antisemitism and Jew-baiting is rapidly becoming the “In” thing to feel and do.
* Jew’s must flood Fox New’s with requests to have her banned. The same for her appearing on Hugh Hewitt’s program. She is a virulent anti-semite. I say this as a fellow Republican.
* is this thing married? does she go out with men? is she in need of all this bad coverage to cover some mental disorder?
* She’s a self hating gay
* One thing I know for a fact, she will not say it to me face to face.
* F–k her! She’s a stupid sh-t!
* Coulter claims her innocence. She insists she “likes” Jews. Does she consider “f—ing Jews” a compliment? An expression (epithet) of love? How can she defend her choice of words and how could she even imagine marrying those words to begin with? Did she greet her father, “F—ing Father?” How does she speak to her lovers?
* Dennis Kline ·
Interfaith New Thought Chaplain and Spiritual Life Coach Practitioner at Asheville Wedding Officiant
she’s a loon!
* She works for Vdare (as does Michelle Malkin another prize) an openly racist, anti-semtiic group that some of their members have rightly been thrown out of mainsteam conservaitve publication so she fits right in. Only two exceptions are her and MM. She also defended council of concerned citizens in one of her books which everyone else knows it is a racist group but according to Ann they are only guilty of this 30 years ago. Which no one else things they changed except her. She is more of the Ron Paul type then anything else and she doesn’t even have the sense to see that this is wrong as she works for publication that support her comments. SHe has become more and more irrelevent in the last 10 years or so and maybe she thinks that is the Jew fault but it isn’t. She gives lip service to various causes but in the end the only issue she really cares about is that someone only white Christians from Europe are good people and supports the white supremisists who are acutally user her to try to get their ideas into the Republican party. So she is bad for Jews and also bad for the Republican party who harm themselvse with toxic people like this.
If you’re a Jew I want you to say these next five sentences out loud, because they are true, and hard to say if you were brought up on Holocaust-centered Judaism.
Stalin was worse than Hitler, and killed at least twice as many people.
Mao was MUCH worse than Hitler, and killed nearly eight times as many people.
The communist holocaust was worse than Hitler’s Holocaust.
Communism is worse than Nazism.
Hiter’s Holocaust was not unique.
I never go out of shul during Yizkor. I stay in, even though both my parents are alive, thank God. I say Yizkor for my grandparents and give tzedaka in their memory. But when everyone comes back in and says אל מלא רחמים for our six million that were murdered by Nazis, I say another one for the 55 million murdered by Communists…
Hitler’s Holocaust should be remembered and commemorated by Jews. It is a Jewish issue, and that’s it. If non Jews want to also commemorate it, good, fine. But there should be absolutely no government involvement in Holocaust education. And if there is, all holocausts should be covered equally in proportion to the amount of people murdered in each, and it should be explained that government is the cause of all holocausts, every single one of them.
Let me add one final, important thought. People, especially Jews, see Holocaust commemoration as of paramount importance because if you forget history, it will repeat itself. We remember the Holocaust with the mantra “never again”. I will say that the danger of another Communist-type holocaust caused by overzealous government regulators trying to “innocently restructure the economy” because they are so wise and are trying to create a socialist utopia is much more likely than a repeat of a Nazi-type Holocaust where a bunch of racists try to create a master race by killing everyone else.
* A decade ago, Ernst Nolte, then of the Free University of Berlin, ignited the Historikerstreit, or dispute of historians, and became the target of a campaign of defamation led by the philosopher Jürgen Habermas, by asking: “Didn’t the ‘Gulag Archipelago’ come before Auschwitz? Wasn’t the ‘class murder’ of the Bolsheviks the logical and factual presupposition of the ‘race murder’ of the National Socialists?” These are still good questions. In fact, Stalinist—and Maoist—offenses, while acknowledged, are generally downplayed and have achieved nothing remotely approaching the publicity of the Nazi massacre of the Jews. In the United States, it is possible for a person who keeps abreast of the news media to encounter references to the Holocaust virtually every day of his life. Yet who has heard of Kolyma, where more people were done to death than the present official count for Auschwitz? The figures for the victims of Maoist rule that are starting to come out of China suggest a total in the range of tens of millions. Do these facts even make a dent in public consciousness?
Pointing to Communist crimes is not meant to “trivialize” the destruction of European Jewry, nor can it do so. The massacre of the Jews was one of the worst things that ever happened. But even supposing that it was the worst thing that ever happened, couldn’t some arrangement be worked out whereby Communist mass-murders are mentioned once for every ten times (or hundred times?) the Holocaust is brought up? Perhaps also, if we must have publicly- financed museums commemorating the foreign victims of foreign regimes, some memorial to the victims of Communism might be considered, not on the Mall itself, of course, but maybe in a low rent area of Washington?
Despite turning 180o on almost all of my historical perspectives, there are some establishment positions that, even for me, are hard to give up. Some of my reversals are well known to the readers of TJL. For example, The United States government is the cause of evil not good. Abraham Lincoln was a murderer, not a hero. The South was justified in seceding from the US, and the North was the aggressor for invading the South. Iran is not going to nuke anybody. AIPAC is a detrimental organization and should be shut down. Those who claim Israel controls much of US foreign policy are correct, not anti Semitic. The US should have sent Japan a letter of apology for the oil embargo after Pearl Harbor instead of declaring war.
And so on.
But for me, there was one major establishment position that still stuck in me like a dagger and was only loosened last week. That is, declaring and winning World War II was justified if only in order to save what was left of European Jewry.
On the face of it, this makes sense. Hitler is exterminating us wholesale, so naturally you want Britain, Russia, America to invade and stop it. They liberate death camps in 1945 and save what is left of the survivors. Obviously they should have invaded much sooner to stop it that much quicker, no? If only Britain and America had declared war in 1933 immediately when Hitler rose to power.
But then I read Ralph Raico, a libertarian historian and student of Ludwig von Mises. And he said something that totally took me for a loop. Here’s Raico, in his collection of essays, Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal: (My bold.)
In 1940 Churchill at last became Prime Minister, ironically enough when the Chamberlain government resigned because of the Norwegian fiasco—which Churchill, more than anyone else, had helped to bring about.80 As he had fought against a negotiated peace after the fall of Poland, so he continued to resist any suggestion of negotiations with Hitler. Many of the relevant documents are still sealed—after all these years81 —but it is clear that a strong peace party existed in the country and the government. It included Lloyd George in the House of Commons, and Halifax, the Foreign Secretary, in the Cabinet. Even after the fall of France, Churchill refused even to consider Hitler’s renewed peace overtures, whether sincere or not.
This, more than anything else, is supposed to be the foundation of his greatness. The British historian John Charmley raised a storm of outraged protest when he suggested that a negotiated peace in 1940 might have been to the advantage of Britain and Europe. A Yale historian, writing in the New York Times Book Review, referred to Charmley’s thesis as “morally sickening.” Yet Charmley’s scholarly and detailed work makes the crucial point that Churchill’s obdurate refusal even to listen to peace terms in 1940 doomed what he claimed was dearest to him—the Empire and a Britain that was non-socialist and independent in world affairs. One may add that it may also have doomed European Jewry.84It is amazing that half a century after the fact, there are critical theses concerning World War II that are off-limits to historical debate.
Churchill’s refusal to listen to Hitler’s peace overtures may have doomed European Jewry. When I first read that sentence I did a double take. I didn’t even understand what Raico was saying on a basic level, the thought was so foreign to me. So I read it again. And again. Was I reading this right? How can that be?
Then I saw that little 84 footnote. And I read that. Here’s what the footnote said:
84 On March 27, 1942, Goebbels commented in his diary on the destruction of the European Jews, which was then underway: “Here, too, the Führer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions and therefore inexorable. Fortunately, a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this.” The Goebbels Diaries, 1942–1943, Louis P. Lochner, ed. and trans. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1948), p. 148.
When I read the footnote I understood. It was very possible that World War II cemented the Final Solution. Straight out of Goebbels’ diary. Without an all-out war, Hitler would not have been able to exterminate us on a systematic global scale. War enabled him to enact radical measures and we were doomed.
Had Churchill made peace with Hitler in 1939, it is much more likely that the worst that would have happened to the Jews is that most would have been slaves rather than be exterminated. Yes, Hitler would have killed Jews. Perhaps even hundreds of thousands. But in order to embark on a project to exterminate millions, you need the full support of an entire country, and Hitler could have only gotten that through war.
And then I just stared into space for a minute and said to myself, “Oh my God.”
It may have been Winston Churchill who set the Final Solution and the Holocaust in motion. Adolf Hitler was only the vehicle and the direct cause. Winston Churchill may have been the ultimate enabler.
FROM THE COMMENTS:
* Says Jeffrey Herf, in answer to a question posed by (the late) Carla Cohen, when Herf spoke at Cohen’s bookstore, Politics & Prose.
Cohen: “So are you saying that if there had been no war there would have been no final solution?”
Herf: “No war, no final solution. Yes.”
* We all know World War II did not save many Jews from dying in the holocaust, and it is very plausible to say it sped up the killing machine. The reason we link the WWII and the Holocaust is just because we have been hammered into thinking that way.
* Yes, Hitler wanted to destroy the Jews. But he may not have been able to had Churchill sued for peace. It is possible. And any possibility – this one actually being plausible – is better than what ended up happening.
Second, Lew Rockwell is in no way an anti Semite. I donate money to the Mises Institute every month and I love Lew Rockwell. I will continue donating money to the Mises Institute every month and cherish the thank you letters that Lew sends me. Lew is anti Israel and anti Zionist.
Posted inAdolf Hitler, Holocaust|Comments Off on Did The War on Hitler Cause the Holocaust?
Don’t think I’m upset because she said “How many #$%ing Jews are there in the US?” I couldn’t help agreeing with her tweets. The republican obsession with Israel, due the Evangelicals, is quite distasteful and dangerous. Her sudden distaste with Republicans was actually quite refreshing.
How many of us have used that language describing a different group of people? Almost all of us. And she wasn’t even insulting Jews in the sentence. But HOLOCAUST HOLOCAUST, it’s immediately goes into “antisemitism” and reductio ad Nazism and Ann Coulter is the next Eva Braun.
She’s a bad person, but not because of this tweet. And she certainly doesn’t hate Jews any more than she hates pretty much everybody. She’s not anti-semitic. She’s misanthropic.
How many #$%ing Jews spend their time bomb sniffing for anything less than sensitive written about them?
Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi David Lau and Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef say even though International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem are friends of Israel, the event undermines the state’s Jewish character.
Why shouldn’t Gentile state argue that all sorts of Jewish events and organizations undermine the Gentile/Christian/national/racial character of that particular nation?
Don’t millions of Arab citizens in the Jewish state undermine Israel’s Jewish character? Extending this reasoning, doesn’t the presence of Jews in a Gentile country undermine the Christian or white or Gentile character of that particular nation?
Posted inIsrael, Jews|Comments Off on Israel’s Chief Rabbinate Blasts ‘Spiritually Dangerous’ Christian Event in Jerusalem
If you tell a Los Angeles Jew that you’ve moved into a new place, they’ll often ask you, “Do you rent or own?” to assess where you are in life. Do goyim do this as much? How about Jews elsewhere in the world? Are LA Jews more materialistic than other Jews?
Philip Weiss writes September 17, 2015: Everyone is talking about one thing today, anti-immigrant activist Ann Coulter’s outburst on twitter during the Republican debate last night about the Israel pandering by the candidates. Salon characterizes it as anti-Semitic, and John Podhoretz is also worked up about it– “Holy shit, Ann. Shame on you.” They refer to a hate-tweet about “fucking Jews,” though Coulter was raising a legitimate issue.
Her tweets began like this.
Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: “What will AMERICA look like after you are president.”
That’s a fair point, right. It happened again and again during the Iran debate. Politicians were asked about the U.S. and they talked about Israel. Then came this tweet, which is getting all the headlines. Salon calls it “gratuitously anti-semitic.”
How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States? — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 17, 2015
Leaving aside the invective, this is a fair question. The answer is 2.2 percent overall and even in states where Jewish voters are said to be crucial, New Jersey and Florida, the numbers are actually fairly low, at 5.9 percent and 3.3 percent. New Hampshire, .8 percent, Iowa .2 percent. The point is, The candidates are bending over backwards for Sheldon Adelson’s money, not for primary voters. That’s why Jeb Bush has tacked right on foreign policy and hired Paul Wolfowitz and thrown Jim Baker under the bus, to get money from the Republican Jewish Coalition. If they were doing this for the Koch Brothers, the media would be all over it. Remember that Adelson called for the U.S. to nuke Iran, and this man has power over the candidates!
Maybe she was being intellectually honest; there are a bunch of evangelical Christian Zionists out there. Then she said:
How to get applause from GOP donors: 1) Pledge to start a war 2) Talk about job creators 3) Denounce abortion 4) Cite Reagan 5) Cite Israel. — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 17, 2015
Right, donors are pushing a warmongering neocon agenda in the Republican Party.
Coulter’s big offense was exclaiming about “fucking Jews” on twitter– in between anti-immigrant invective. The issue here is that the power of the Israel lobby derives from conservative Jewish wealth. There are many ways to counter this influence, including other Jews who are critical of Israel giving money; but sunlight is the best disinfectant. When an issue is suppressed, people are going to explode.
Posted inAnn Coulter, Anti-Semitism|Comments Off on Philip Weiss: Coulter’s point is that Republicans pander on Israel to win donors, not voters
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
: (My bold.)