president kennedy had ties to hollywood going back to his father's day there as a hollywood mogul in the 1920s, and so they loved that glimmer and pinosh of entertainment, but particularly mrs. kennedy loved the arts and used these occasions to bring artists to the white house. >> you can watch this on other programs online at booktv.org. .. issues. ann coulter's books include god less, guilty, and her latest, "demonic." >> host: ann coulter, in your book "how to talk to a liberal if you must," you have ten rules of engaging a liberal.
here are some of them. >> host: never compliment, never show graciousness? >> guest: it seems like there's a little overlap in those, but i wanted to be absolutelyclear. but i want it to be absolutely clear. and of course the first one what not be necessary republicans who are constantly trying to fall in the good graces of "the new york times" and, i mean, i don't, i haven't read the book recently, but i do have a rule of thumb. it is never a good sign when you hear a republican saying my good friend teddy kennedy. at least we don't have to hear that anymore. [laughter] >> host: what about outrage the enemy? why is that an important rule? >> guest: um, i've just noticed over time that whenever the
spittle starts coming from liberals' mouths, you know you have struck gold. [laughter] >> host: here are some more of your rules. >> host: what are liberals in transition? >> guest: ooh, lots of 'em. ron silver, now david ma'am mutt, james woods. we've got a lot of 9/11 converts. who else? you've got the gist of it. [laughter] >> host: and as a conservative what's your role when you talk with them? >> guest: um, they're like often the, um, newly conservatives are like that, remember that? who was he, remember the german guy who had all the children he was having and he kept them all in the basement for 20 years, and slowly they come up and they
see the light for the first time. that's liberals discovering conservativism. so you speak gently to them. when they tell you that, actually, when reagan cut taxes, more revenue came into the treasury and things that most conservatives have known since we were 10. >> host: your most recent book, "demonic," who is gustav lebeau? >> guest: amazing french philosopher from 100 years ago. and i had the idea for this book, it took me longer than my other books because my other books, "treason," for example. i mean, that's the cold war and joe mccarthy, that was something i'd been interested in since college, so it required less original research for me to do anyway. i just could go back to books i'd read, i knew where the information was, i knew what my point was. with "demonic" i wasn't even sure if it would pan out. sorry, this is a long way to answer your question, but i started reading books on group
think, financial panics, mobs, riots, that sort of thing. and i'd actually started writing "demonic" when i bought the book, "the crowd" but gustav who wrote 100 years ago and curiously and importantly, i think, 100 years after the french revolution he's deemed the father of group think. and it's a slim little book which, by the way, has shot up on amazon since my book came out. and there it was, it was so beautifully laid out page after page, it rings true, and it describes mob behavior and, i think, liberal behavior as i describe in my book in a way that you cannot say, well, both sides do this. very distinctively liberal behavior. and i, i was, like, whomever the first person was who discovered oil in texas. eureka. here it is. i was right. this is the book i've been waiting for.
>> host: what's an example of group think? >> guest: creating messiahs. as i say, it is distinctively liberal behavior, and i go through it in my book. that's one of my favorite chapters because i quote liberals a lot and the way they talk about their presidents, fdr, jfk, clinton, obama, they're all having sex dreams about their presidents. and can just the over the top adoration that really seems to be coming from someone who does not have a real messiah because they are so desperate to find a human messiah. and, you know, i thought about, well, how -- is there anyone we behave that way toward? obviously, the one -- we, being right-wingers, the closest would be ronald reagan. and that's why i went back because people have very sugar-coated memories of reagan. part of the reason reagan gets invoked so often these days is to contrast him with certain, um, contemporary republicans who we don't think are meeting the grade.
um, but if you look at the way reagan was treated when he was president, he wasn't even the most popular conservative. it was, i have it in my book, it was jerry falwell, william f. buckley and then third, ronald reagan. my newspaper, human events, was constantly attacking him, famously attacking him to the point -- and that was his favorite newspaper. he went to a party at human events and said i'm enjoying it a lot less. >> host: you write, democrats are always the party of the mob. the only thing that changes is which mob they're supporting. >> guest: yes. >> host: what does that mean? >> >> guest: it means, for example, i describe one more fully in the civil rights chapter which is the true telling of civil rights. so it's my revisionist history to their revisionist history. democrats were the party of the klan, the party of the discriminators, the segregationists. and then, and from -- forget
this war being fought for a republican, for the next 100 years republicans keep introducing bills, anti-lynching bills, voting rights bills, and democrats keep shooting them down. finally thanks to republican efforts, blacks start voting in the large enough numbers for democrats to care. but then it just becomes another racket. then they just take on blacks as their special friends to push through huge, bloated government, a welfare state. but back, you know, we could have used them when we were fighting the klan. >> host: you also write, and this is how you conclude in the book: the same mob mentality that leads otherwise law-abiding people to hurl rocks at cops also leads otherwise intelligent people to refuse to believe anything they haven't heard on npr. >> guest: yes. elaborate? >> host: yeah, please.
[laughter] >> guest: um, for example, global warming, evolution, um, what i wrote in my column about this week, the famous alleged rape case of a halliburton subsidiary, and be hall burrton, ah, associated with it once. you know, the emanuel goldstein of the mainstream media. and there was this huge story a few years ago, and, i mean, anyone with a cable connection saw it about a woman who was allegedly gang raped by this defense contractor in if iraq just a few days after getting there and then kbr, the halliburton subsidiary, her bosses put her in a tiny shipping container and no food or water for 24 hours, guarded the shipping container with a machine gun, and it turns out the whole thing was a hoax. a jury just ruled a couple of weeks ago -- and by the time she got, for one thing, there was no criminal case because prosecutors having investigated,
they ended up not bringing a prosecution. she sued civilly, but when she sued civilly, suddenly a gang rape case goes away because there was only the dna of one man on her, and he says it was consensual. so it was your standard he said/she said date rape case. the jury acquitted after one day of deliberations. the female military doctor who examine bed her the next day didn't find any date rape drug in her as she had claimed, she did not find she had been mangled. the whole story was a cock and bull story from the beginning, and it should have been recognized as such. that is on the front page of "the new york times," 1500-word piece. the story on the jury acquitting the guy she ultimately sued for date rape was in a saturday new york times on page, i think, a13. it was one paragraph. [laughter] so that's the sort of thing that people will passionately assert to be that day's purveyor of
hate, and, you know, you never get the follow-up story. >> host: why did you open "demonic" with, from the book of mark, chapter five, verses 2-9 that ends, "my name is legion for we are many"? >> guest: well, that really is the whole theme of the book, that the mob is demonic. there is something dangerous and destructive when people get together in this a group, something that i e will be rated and demonstrated, i think, in my book. that an individual is very different than when he is in a crowd. and in a crowd crazy things happen and exaggeration, a crowd goes instantly to extremes of emotion. um, and there's just passion and rumors are grabbed hold of, and there are messiahs and passionate hates and passionate loves. but you get a man away from the crowd, and you can talk directly to him. that's seen in the bible as where jesus approaches the
possessed man who's running around naked scaring everyone, and they have a little exchange, and at the end jesus says to him, what is your name, speaking to the demon. the demon says, my name is legion. we are many. so there it is. [laughter] right in the holy bible that the mob is demonic and the demon is a mob. >> host: you also talk talk abo, ann coulter, the importance of slogans for liberals. >> guest: yes. >> host: you list some of these. bush died, our kids lied. no justice, no peace. save the whales, love your mother earth. ban the bomb, make love, not war. diversity is our strength. save the planet, pro-choice, pro-child, etc., etc. >> guest: those are just on my neighbors' car. [laughter] >> host: why do you put those in your book? why is it important? is. >> guest: well, because it is an element of group think as identified by the philosopher of the french revolution who said
crowds can't understand words, speak in images, keep it simple, speak to the heart not to the head. um, and it is striking how many slogans liberals have and how pathetic conservatives are at even coming up with slogans because we're always trying to explain things. i mean, it's become kind of a pathetic joke among republicans how their guys are out screaming bush lied, kids died, and our guys are standing with the powerpoint demonstration. [laughter] and the pointers and trying to explain our point here. one of my friends during, i guess it was when gore was trying to steal the 2000 election, participate inside if a republican protest, and she had been a person on the left. and she said the guy with the bull horn, the conservative -- this is a conservative approach -- she said, he couldn't get the idea, the concept of the chant where you chant something, and the crowd chants back. and so he's up there with a bull horn, and he's going on and on. we oppose the recount was it
violates -- because it violates section blah, blah, blah, and be everybody's just looking, what are we supposed to chant back? many we don't get the hang of it. [laughter] >> host: you mentioned the french revolution, i want to read this e-mail that came many from steve of the hollywood conservative forum. he writes about "demonic": >> guest: i am so happy to hear that. thank you, mr. steve whatever his name -- i agree. i love those chapters. and what was interesting when i was writing about the friend of rev -- french revolution was that i have a lot of smart friends, certainly better
educated -- i went to public schools -- and so many of them who can tell me detail about, you know, every king of england and russian czars and be what colonial america was like knew almost nothing about the french revolution. and i, therefore, concluded they're hiding it from us. it's a very important contrast, the french revolution, and the american revolution. in fact, i wanted to start with the french revolution chapters and, consistent coincidentally,y hollywood producer friends told me, no, he'd read some of the chapters for him. i can't thank him. i'm the only person who has to check with people so i don't ruin their careers. he said, no, you've got to start with the basics. i understand, you understand, but you need to get the basics out there first, then go into the history of it. so that's the way i rearranged it. i do think those chapters are so important and so interesting, how bloody and barbaric and anti-christian the french revolution was, and be as i
point out in this my book, it is lied about in, for example, "the new york times" chirpily comparing the american revolution to the french revolution. well, no, they were complete opposites. our founders were opposed to the french revolution. um, the -- lafayette who was a great eau of -- hero of the american revolution ended up fleeing the country, running for his life one step ahead of the guillotine. but it is, it was the beginning of every totalitarian revolution. i think 200 years ago is where you see the division between conservative political thought and liberal political thought, and the french revolution was copied in russia, to some extent in nazi germany, cuba, vietnam. it is the idea from russo that a group of elites would be in possession of the general will, and they would impose it on the country, on the nation for the good of mankind. well, it's always ended up, always, in a bloody tyranny.
>> host: you mentioned that you have friends in the hollywood. that may surprise some people. >> guest: yeah. because i'm never allowed to thank them. [laughter] >> host: is there a secret cabal out there? >> guest: well, one great thing about being a very recognizable conservative is that i meet conservatives wherever i go. you know, it used to be conservatives all know this thing where we go to a cocktail party and you would find, it would take forever to meet your fellow conservatives because each person would say something slightly more conservatives and slightly more and, oh. we're like gays trying to recognize one another. ah, a fellow conservative. no, not with me anymore. i walk into a restaurant, every conservative in the room bounds up to me. >> host: you also mentioned you went to public schools. in "goodless" you wrote:
>> guest: right. right. and their religion is recycling, global warming, al gore's inconvenient truth, heather has two mommies, absolutely appallingly vulgar sex education. um, lots of condom demonstrations, apparently. and yet very little math, science, reading. i don't know if you saw it, but just recently california, jerry brown, it was like three weeks ago signed a law requiring all public schools to when they teach history, they must teach about the contributions of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered individuals. and i must say as someone who reads history liberals are the only people who could make history boring. these modern history -- real history is interesting. but when you start having to, um, let's find out what the contributions were of mrs. paul revere. [laughter] no, because we need to describe
the women's contributions to the american revolution. look, i'm sorry, i'm a woman. it doesn't hurt my feelings. the american revolution was fought, was won, was argued by white male christians. that is a fact. we don't need to have a full chapter on how betty crocker started her own company so that women are covered as much as, say, paul revere. >> host: why'd you go to law school? >> guest: inertia. [laughter] >> host: what do you mean? >> guest: well, who thought you could make a living doing what i do? had i known that -- [laughter] i would not have wasted, oh, probably seven years of my life. >> host: seven years? is. >> guest: well, i practiced. >> host: what kind of law did you practice? >> guest: i clerked for a federal judge on reagan's short list for the supreme court, that was out in kansas city. and then new york, big corporate law litigation. then i came to work for the
senate judiciary committee in '95 right after the republicans took congress for the first time. in 40 years. and i so didn't want to leave new york. i had to come down like that. i got the offer, like, thursday, friday, and they said you have to start monday. and i cried all weekend. but i just thought this is an historic change. and if people like me don't go to washington now, you're just going to have, you know, the nancy cassel balm staffers switching over to our new, you know, right-wick senators. so i did go there and work there. i guess since it was '95, it was really just about a year and a half because as you know but many may not, starting around ther? of an election -- starting around the summer of an election year nothing gets done in washington because you have shot only a potential new president coming in, but one-third of the senate is going to be different. so everybody else is going on white water rafting trips, and i'd go up and do msnbc and stay
this my beloved new york. >> host: you went to the university of michigan. why'd you choose that school? [laughter] >> guest: like i say, i always thought i was going to be a lawyer. my father's a lawyer, my brother's a lawyer. but then i was at college, and i didn't really want to go to law school. so i didn't apply in time, and my brother called me up and made me apply to law school. he would not hang up the phone until he heard my pencil hitting the paper on the desk. i had to, you know, pay the late admission fees or whatever it was. and then, and i was very conservative. i was, obviously, i was very conservative in kindergarten. [laughter] but university of chicago, as you probably know, is famous for their law and economics school. so i wanted to go to university of chicago. my father wanted me to go to columbia, and he kept wheeling in the old cardiologiers to tell -- codgers to tell me, columbia, number three law school. i stormed off to the library of congress to prove to my father
that columbia was no longer the number three law school and all the reports put michigan number one or two. and i figured, okay, we'll compromise on michigan. >> host: earlier you mentioned that you have to ask people before you thank them in your books. >> guest: i'm the only one. >> host: well, there are two people you thank in nearly all of your books, and that's ned rice and joni evans. who are they? >> guest: my agent for life, i call her. she became my agent -- i didn't have an agent for high screams and -- high crimes and demeanors. regnery came to me, i wrote the book, and then joni became my agent. and the line on bestsellers is you don't make money on your first bestseller, you make money on the advance to the next book. whether it sells or not, you always get an advance. well, not if you're a conservative author. that's what happened to me. i had a publisher for slander, harpercollins, robert jones, to whom he was my specific
editor. he had been calling joni, my agent. i really want ann coulter's next book. he was a convert to conservativism, he said he's tried every kind of radical behavior. [laughter] and he finally realized being in the publishing industry in new york city to be a real radical you had to be a conservative. anyway, he was my beloved editor. he never actually read "slander" because he died right before i was going to send him the manuscript. that's why the book is dedicated to him. harpercollins instantly killed "slander," and poor joni, bless her heart -- and she was a very powerful publishing agent with william morris, she couldn't get any other publisher to pick it up. for two months i couldn't even tell my parents, it was so embarrassing. she just keeps sending me out and keeps telling me about the rejections. and then god bless steve ross at crown. he noticed that the original title for "slander" was "liberals unhinged." and it was on amazon even though
the actual book had not been seen by my editor yet. it only existed on my computer. and steve ross noticed, your book is already selling on amazon. but no one would publish it. [laughter] so he published it, and i've been with crown ever since. >> host: when did you start writing? >> guest: um, probably in kindergarten. i was very upset about the top marginal tax rate. [laughter] >> host: seriously, or are you just making that up? >> guest: no, that i'm joking. [laughter] >> host: all right. did you start writing for a school newspaper, college? >> guest: no, i was never on the journalist path, though i always liked writing. and even when i was a lawyer, i would write, i'd take, you know, a weekend off and write, like, for the human life review or maybe a law review. i was an articles editor at michigan, so i wrote my law review note, and i just always liked the research and writing better than anything else i was doing. and i was, um, one of the -- i
don't think i was technically a founding editor, but on the masthead of the cornell review, the conservative newspaper. but a lot of these conservative newspapers were started by people who were working for the main campus tube and then couldn't get something published and stormed off and started their own conservative newspaper. not us. none of us knew anything about putting a newspaper out. we were just right-wingers. so the first, like, ten issues the layout is insane, huge chunks of articles are missing. [laughter] there are errors throughout the paper, but we were very enthusiastic. >> host: who's jeremy? >> guest: my mentor from cornell. he is so fabulous. and he was the one i talked to about the french revolution. he was the only one of my friends -- he knows about everything though. and he was a professor of mine at cornell. he's inspired generations of right-wingers. he's now at george mason. um, so he has someone he can talk to, i guess. [laughter]
really is fun to rap with people now and then. but one great thing he helped me with with this book which i'm almost embarrassed to admit -- >> host: with "demonic." >> guest: with "demonic," he told me i should read "citizens" which is a massive work on the friend of revolution. i'd seen it, it had come up in everything else i'd read. obviously, i know that he is an historian. i'd written, i forget the details, but some years earlier i had written a column attacking simon for a snippy piece he wrote in the new yorker making fun of patriotic americans with their little flag pins. and in the course of this new yorker article he cited, i don't know, i think it was a norwegian, but it was a norwegian who happened to support nazi germany. so he's citing a nazi in order to attack our little parades. yes, i suppose they're not as stirring as the furor's rally. so i had this prejudice against simon. but, i mean, it's one of the
things i've noticed about the good historians which is why, please, politically-correct bureaucrats, stop making the schools include references to, you know, the american indians' contributions to the telephone and women's contribution to the revolution. you know, just let historians write history. and the good historians whatever their politics, even simon who is obviously a liberal is a fantastic historian, and it's a fantastic book. >> host: "godless." you write that the stupidest students become journalists, and it's one of the easiest jobs in the world. >> guest: yes. [laughter] yes. and i also claim that journalists cannot be, they can commit any crime they want to. they can never be executed since the supreme court has ruled we cannot execute the retarded. and it's very frustrating for someone who's trying to influence public debate and to get your message out there as i do. and i have to work through these retarded people. and it's just amazing how they
can just take one category of how they can screw things up. um, i call them the joke bomb squad because they can dewire any joke in ten seconds. [laughter] >> host: now, on your web page, ann coulter, and we're going to get to phone calls in just a minute. this is c-span's booktv's "in depth" program where on the first sunday of every month we invite one author to look at his or her body of work and to talk about what they write about. 202 is the area code, 624-111 in the east and central time zones, 20 2-624-1115 for those in the pacific and mountain time zones. twitter.com/booktv or send an e-mail, firstname.lastname@example.org. and i've got so much paper, but -- and i think i've lost it, but you have a list on your web site of journalists who are allowed to interview ann coulter
again for a second time. why do you -- >> guest: pretty short list, isn't it? >> host: it is about seven names, and i'll find it here in a minute. why do you have -- oh, here it is. you've got on that list: >> host: why are those chosen few allowed to interview you again? >> guest: well, there are originally only three, and i chose them specifically because they ran a tape recorder when i talked and then, apparently, played the tape recorder back before typing what i said. and i promise you that is shockingly rare. >> host: do you get misquoted a lot? [laughter] >> guest: somehow i say we need to reduce the capital gains rate, and it comes out as i support hitler and all his works. [laughter] no, it's insane the misquotes. and, i mean, often, you know,
the maoist in my statement is there, but vim and vigor of the quote is completely vacuumed out. like i say, the joke bomb squad, that's always gone. so originally it was simply the ones -- and by the way, they were all liberals who do not agree with my politics, and yet they quoted me accurately. so i don't care what they say in the body of the piece. i don't care what they say about me. just quote me accurately. and three of them did. and then a few got added who did quote me accurately. but after that it started to become a kind of special request, somebody would interview me and say i want to be on that list which is a good incentive for them to have louisiana. [laughter] >> host: we've got to find out who ned rice is, who you thank in all your books. oops, i think we're having a problem, maybe, with the hair here? >> guest: oh, it's on my mic? thank you. [laughter] sorry about that. oh, yeah, ned rice. he's a brilliant, brilliant
comedy writer. and i know a fair number of comedy writers. among the hollywood right-wingers i believe there is a disproportionate number of comedy writers because, a, they're smart. to be funny is hard, to have a political opinion not so hard. they're smart and also, i mean, a lot of humor is politically incorrect. and they're used to -- well, anyway, that's my guess. a lot of them are comedy writers. but ned more than pretty much anyone i know you can, you can give him, you know, i don't know, i need a joke on the mac book air and he'll send you, like, seven jokes. when he's free. i mean, he's very busy. [laughter] >> host: um, when you -- why'd you go to public schools? >> guest: well, because i was too young to object, i suppose. [laughter] i mean, people move to new
canaan, allegedly, for the schools. and, yes, kids from new canaan high school go to good colleges, but i maintain if you moved the exact same population -- we still have our married parents at home, and we still have our parents with magazines and newspapers and books around -- move the exact same population to the worst public school in new york city, we would all have gone to the exact same colleges because it wasn't from what we learned in the school. i mean, there were a few, but they were shockingly few. good teachers. and for most of them it's just a good gig. my, anyone who's, i think, my year from connecticut or around it was like a five, ten-year period, um, in sixth grade the state had decided we would study baboons all year. that would teach us about everything; history, sociology and, ooh, how the baboons relate to each other. could i learn to diagram a sentence, please? please?
be i've never learned hem roization which is why google is so handy for somebody like me. how about spaik spear? shakespeare? >> host: ann coulter is our guest for the next two and a half hours. now it's your turn. john from cincinnati, ohio, please go ahead with your question for ann coulter. >> caller: hi, ann. very nice to speak to you. i wonder if you've ever considered that if you were to contrast the environmental protection agency with some of the other federal agencies, particularly, say, with cdc or fda or even doe, it's really an agency dominated by lawyers rather than by scientists, and that's undermining both to the credibility and the substance of what the agency can do. but it, it does allow for certain things to happen, and a lot of the things that have been criticized. do you have any thoughts on that? >> guest: yeah, i think that's a great point. it's striking how most of the experts promoting something like
the global warming fantasy, they're all lawyers, they're not scientists. and similarly, another agency that, um, i think it's even a little more important than the epa that has been destroyed by lawyers is the cia. after watergate liberals decided, oh, this never would have happened if only we could defang the cia. um, you had democrats vowing to dismantle the cia, and they did. and now, now we don't have any human intelligence. we have a bunch of lawyers sitting around reading the pakistani, you know, daily tattler. >> host: jim in if white plains, new york. good afternoon to you. >> caller: yes, good afternoon. hello, ann. >> guest: hello. >> caller: i have a three-part question, i'd like to end with a quote from the philosopher. the question is, first, how important do you believe is consumerism to capitalism. then how important is mop mentality to consumerism, and thirdly, how important is demonic passion towards bringing about bestsellers?
and the flosser which is a little elitist when he said bestsellers are ill smellers as they have the sticky feel of small people. thank you. >> guest: i don't know what you mean by consumerism. i don't think that's the beauty part of capitalism. the beauty part of captain limb is freedom. people do what they want with their own money. um, and if people are willing to buy enough tickets so that, um, as is often said some guy who can just hit a ball like alex rodriguez can earn multimillions of dollars, i think that's fantastic. that is what people are willing to pay for. we're not of our own volition going out and buying toilets that only have 1.7 gallons of water in them and are incapable of actually being a functioning toilet. as for, as for bestsellers, i
just read -- i think it was in whitaker chambers' journalism before he wrote "witness." there's a book, "ghosts on the roof," and i haven't been reading much of anything. i've been promoting my book and going out with my friends, but there were a few books i was reading casually, and one of them was "ghosts on the roof." and i think it was in one of his columns attacking various intellectuals for having finally come around on the danger of stalin only after stalin allied with hitler. and one of the points he made which rings so true today was that he says, you know, american journalists and intellectuals greeted the depression welation because journalists themselves being maladjusted, depressed, miserable people they were so happy when the rest of the populace became that way too. and also under more of a socialist regime the writers and thinkers would have so much more
power whereas in a system of capitalism they have to sit around denouncing bestsellers as, forget what he said, something like bestsellers are hacks and, and what else would it be? and, i guess, and i guess journalists are unread. >> host: um, from "treason" you mentioned whitaker chambers. even after chambers produced the equivalent of monica's dna-stained dress, they still wouldn't give up on their darling his. of
>> guest: that's a stunning story, and that's exactly what gave rise to joe mccarthy. the country was stunned by this. we've had this huge battle over whether or not his was a soviet spy. now we know as of 1995 -- thank you, daniel patrick moynihan -- for declassifying the papers. we know hiss is in the soviet archives, he's in the decrypted telegrams. but at the time liberals were denying it the same way they denied that bill clinton was fooling around with the interns. it was a very similar battle. and after all this finally you get the jury conviction, and you have this prominent democrat saying i will not turn my back on hiss. the country erupted in rage, and joe mccarthy was one of those americans who erupted in rage and would not let democrats get away with having sheltering spies, associates for a regime as evil at the nazis. and that is the democratic party. and they had been doing it for
years and years with prominent, with prominent democrat officials being soviet spies. working for the democratic administrations of fdr and truman. and mccarthy would not let americans forget it, and that's why they had to blacken his name. >> host: again from "treason," two quotes from your book about joe mccarthy. here's a story of joe mccarthy you won't read in history books. this version will be unfamiliar to most americans inasmuch as it includes facts. joe mccarthy was an extraordinarily bright irish farm boy who rose from humble origins in wisconsin to become one of the most admired politicians of his day. he skipped high school to start his own egg business which thrived for several years until he caught the flu one winter and the chickens died. he went back to high school at age 20 saying he planned to graduate in two years. the principal laughed at him and told him it couldn't be done, and then mccarthy made headlines when he graduated nine months later.
then this: bobby kennedy worked for mccarthy and held him in such high esteem that he asked mccarthy to to be the godfather to his first child born on the fourth of july, 1951. this was 17 months after mccarthy's famous wheeling, west virginia, speech, well into mccarthy's reign of terror. >> guest: you know, um, there are more nuanced descriptions of, um, you know, comrade stalin, of adolf hitler than there are of joe mccarthy. and one of my friends who's living in this japan when "treason" came out told me he knew a lot of publishers, and he said one of his friends who was a publisher and published lots of history books said he'd read "treason" which was published in japanese and said, you know, this version of mccarthy is exactly the opposite of everything i've always read, but i believe this one because it has facts. and that is what, i mean, i
didn't -- i wrote what you just read before he could have read my book and said that. but that is what is striking about all of the descriptions of mccarthy. it's always in high school textbooks they say he was a liar and not just a regular liar, a big liar. i mean, it's just every epithet under the book without any actual facts. and the actual facts are quite striking and what you will find out is that he was exposing the democratic party for collaborating with a regime as evil as the nazis. and it was devastating to the democratic party. and so they had to fight back. they had to smash him, they had to make his name mud. and that's what they've spent a half a century doing. >> host: ann coulter is the author of eight bestsellers. high crimes and misdemeanors came out in 1998. slander in 2002. treason, 2003. how to talk to a liberal if you must in 2004. god less in 2006. if democrats had any brains came
out in 2007. guilty in 2008 and demonic is her most recent. and you can see from the covers that we were just showing you that most of ann coulter's books have her picture on the cover save for the first one and the last one, "demonic." but on the back of "demonic" which, of course, i don't have right now in front of me is a picture of you not dressed in black. >> guest: i have it. >> host: i've got it right here. i've got to hold it up for the camera. not dressed in black, but a picture of you on the back dressed in white for the first time. >> guest: right. >> host: what's the purpose of this? >> guest: well, as i said at the beginning of the interview when you quoted from one of my books, once you see liberals sputtering and spittle coming from their mouths, you do it over and over and over again. and for some reason me appearing on the cover of my books smiling, wearing a black cocktail dress really drove them crazy. so i kept doing it. [laughter]
and then, i don't know, my publisher wanted this book to look different. also we were thinking of trying to put the back cover picture on the front because i do appear on tv, and if you can get point .1% more book sales because those people say, oh, i've seen her on tv, let's see what this book is. but in the end we decided to noo put me on the cover. >> host: do you enjoy book tours? >> >> guest: um, i'd put it a different way. [laughter] i so prefer the research and writing. so prefer it. which is a part of the reason i haven't been reading anything this summer. i have to sweeten the horror of a book tour. [laughter] by going out with my friends. constantly, every night as soon as the first two weeks are over. and then i just take as much of a vacation as i can. >> host: what is it about a book tour that drags you down? >> guest: getting up in the morning, having to get on an airplane, having to stay in a
hotel. that's the main thing. i mean, i like talking about my books. um, and this book tour i must say has been unlike almost every other book tour, maybe unlike all but the first one, um, in that people have actually talked to me about my book. for all of the rest of them, some small line, often a joke, has been ripped out of context, the humor vacuumed out, presented to the american people as if said in angry earnestness, and all i do is answer the same question and explain the same joke for two months. and i think, um, contrary to my, to my position that liberals can't learn, i think they finally have learned. on the eighth book, they're not going to turn me into david duke, and they always come out looking worse after these campaigns of hate against me. so this time it's more of a pretend she doesn't exist approach which has allowed we to talk about the book, and that's fun be. i didn't realize you had to promote a book. so i took a two month leave of
absence to write my first book from my law firm. and be suddenly my publisher kept setting up all these radio interviews, and i couldn't get my legal work done. and i complained to george will about it. and he said, ann, what would you be doing if you weren't on radio talking about your book? you'd be on the phone talking about your book with your friends. so just do it so more than one person can hear you. and he was right, so it is fun for the -- it is fun to talk about a book you've just written. but getting up in the morning, not fun. having to get on an airplane, not fun. having hair and makeup, totally great. [laughter] >> host: this is from the huffington post media on your recent book tour: ann coulter and piers morgan have awkward conversation, is the headline. [laughter] >> guest: well, it sounds like he's going to be gone by the end of the year based on this hacking scandal. no, i -- >> host: what was awkward about
it for you? >> guest: that i couldn't answer a question. [laughter] i mean, he seems like a nice fellow, but, um, i also think he has, um, -- look, this is the problem with that one interview. he asked me three questions. i answered three questions. it was a half an hour interview. that will indicate how many times he interrupted me. so i start to answer, and i just power through, power through, power through. i'm getting this through. so eventually i got all three answers out for the three questions i was able to answer in a 30-minute interview. and i -- you can never punch down, you can only punch up. a little rule for public figures. >> host: what does that mean? it means you cannot attack people who are beneath you, and he has very low ratings, and i just am getting a very strong sense that he's trying to make a name for himself by get anything a tiff with me.
but, you know, i'm at a disadvantage because it's not an advantage for me to get in a fight with some little-watched cable news host. no, please, let me get in a fight with katie couric. i'll do that. you punch up, you don't punch down. >> host: erie, pennsylvania, go ahead, laura. you're on with ann coulter on booktv's "in depth" program. >> caller: hi, ann. i want to thank you for your conservative sharing especially on liberal campuses. why aren't we touting the the benefits of not only fiscal conservative policy which, like balancing the budget is good for every family, every state, but also the social ones? you just mentioned the graphic sex education and how much harm it's doing. there are so many social ills linked to sexual behavior, especially amongst our youth, that harm -- especially black and minority populations like the number one cause of poverty
is, um, single female-headed households. blacks have 70% of out-of-wedlock births, so they're going to as a percentage of the population have more trapped in poverty. the std stuff, we hear of hiv day and blacks, sadly, have many more of all stds link today that sexual behavior. abortion rates, we know that blacks account for 14%, but they have over a third. planned parenthood is killing over a third black babies. and fatherless youth are involved in criminal behaviors at higher rates. so all of this stuff is linked to intact families, why wouldn't the first black president and his wife who have an intact, traditional marriage not be funding things like abstinence education, fatherhood initiatives and, um, you know, why aren't we making that case? i think michele bachmann is the only one that has tied the
social issues to the fiscal ones. >> guest: um, thank you. no, i think a lot of conservatives do, but we certainly don't have any, any great presence in the mainstream media. i mean, i write a lot about single mother hollywood in my last book, "guilty," that caused a little bit of a stir, but all i did was cite facts, cite the statistics on it. and, yeah, i mean, that's what i was referring to earlier when i said, um, democrats will take any mob, they'll switch from, um, from being the patrons of the racist kkk mob the being the patron -- to being the patron of welfare-receiving blacks. and it just becomes another racket and look at what the democrats have done to the black family. it's a lovely thing. that is more on the theme of my last book, "guilty," about people wanting to be victims in america and how it takes a lot of clout to be a victim. but the last thing you want to
become is the essential charge. but i think it's always going to be fought against because democrats, the democratic party needs people who need the government to vote them into office. >> host: michelle in gardenerville, nevada. good afternoon. >> caller: hi. i am a longtime booktv/c-span watcher. thank you guys for your, for what you do. and be i just would like to ask ann a question. and more of a comment, kind of. i am curious to know how she feels about any quote-unquote liberal legislation that's ever been passed, ever, that she might be willing to admit that she supports. and that her hair is fine, and she could probably leave it alone now. [laughter] thank you. >> guest: oh. i'm going to be throwing my hair back constantly now, following
my own lesson from how to talk to a liberal if you must. she probably really hates the black dress and me smiling on the cover of my books too. thanks for your call, michelle. no, obviously not. you might want to give an example, by the way. well, didn't you support? i don't know, what? >> host: well, she asked about liberal legislation. >> guest: what liberal legislation do i support? none. if i supported it, it probably wasn't liberal. >> host: who's your favorite liberal? >> guest: um, you know, the last time i answered this question, um, it was during -- [laughter] it was during my "slander" book tour. and i went out to dinner with one of my favorite liberals afterwards, and i said, oh, i cited you on tv today. somebody asked me for my favorite liberals, and i named you, mickey couse, and at the time andrew sullivan. and he said, ann, are you aware
you just cited all liberals that liberals consider conservatives? [laughter] so a lot of them seem to have begun to make the transition. okay, lawrence o'donnell. juan williams. smart liberals. bill maher. he's funny. he'd be smarter if he read, bill. >> host: what's your professional relationship with bill maher? >> guest: well, he introduces me as his first wife and, apparently, a lot of people believe that. [laughter] i think he's verified i was his most frequent guest when i was on politically incorrect, and i do think he's very quick and funny, but he brags about how he doesn't read books. and if you're going to get all your politics from rolling stone magazine, i'm sorry, you'd be so much funnier if you read more. >> host: you mentioned that you enjoy the research and writing part of a book. 594 footnotes or end notes are at the end of "demonic."
>> guest: we call them footnotes cloak callly. >> host: how do you do your research, where do you write? >> guest: um, i read and read and read. i tend not to take notes, um, which is why i'm really looking forward to doing all of my research on kindle books because it's going to be so far faster to -- so much faster to find facts. i do use post-it notes. we could be at a formal gathering, and we will have post-it notes. so my notes tend to be full, but that doesn't help when you're trying to find a specific quote. but i do lots and lots of reading. i probably don't use, end up using 0 or 90% of the books i read. but that's what gets you to the good books. just for a small example, the books i read on group think and riots and financial panics and so on and so forth.
i read all or part of probably a dozen such books. um, but gust to have he -- gustav he bonn was really, there it is. it rings true, it is stated so clearly. it was, i mean, fried, hitler and mussolini acknowledged gustav as the father and the expert on group think. and so why bother quoting the other ones? if toward the end i was actually cutting some quotes out of some of the other books because i sort of felt like, well, maybe i should put in some other authors on this. but then i realized you're just stuffing them in pointlessly. gustav says it all. so you have to read a lot of books to know which ones you're going to end up needing or using or even what the direction of the book is. but it's so much fun, and you learn so much. and especially when you can talk to your friends about your theories on things and argue with them about it and then, and then write the case out. and i wasn't always sure what i preferred, the book tour or the
writing, and i've been asked that a lot. and i was thinking it when i was writing this last book, i'm asked that question a lot, and i am so happy right now to just keep reading. >> host: is the book tour over? >> guest: well, i'll spend the rest of the summer be. i mean, it basically is. i have a big book signing coming up in san francisco, the san francisco young republicans august 27th, we're meeting in a phone booth. [laughter] it's so exciting. and so there are a few things like that. it isn't the intensity of those very early morning tv shows anymore. but, i mean, i like talking about public affairs and having an effect on the public debate. but it more tends to be now they're interviewing me on something else, and we'll flash up a picture of the book. this will probably be the last in-depth interview i will have on the book. >> host: when you go to a place like san francisco or canada, do you worry about security?
>> guest: um, we didn't. [laughter] i'm a little oblivious. my friends used to come to college speeches with me, and for years they would tell me, well, for one thing they wanted to come because the conservative girls are always the best looking girls in the audience, and that's why they'd come. but for years they were warning me, you can't just go out in crowds and sign books like that. it's like a mosh pit. so they had been warning me for years and can then however many years ago, it was like eight years ago at the university of arizona, the two boys ran at me from the audience. they missed because they throw like girls, liberals, and they got their faces smashed, by the way, because we did have an audience out there, and i said get them, and one of them ended up with a broken collarbone. i found this out from an fbi agent who had ran back there. and from that moment on for college speeches, for big public events i'll have a bodyguard with me. most of the time i don't, and, i mean, you never know.
but this is what gave me the idea for this book. most people don't know unless they personally know me what it is like to be a publicly recognizable conservative. and we never want to talk about it because, number one, you don't want to inspire copy cats. number two, you don't want to sound like a pussy like paul krugman whining about his hate mail. oh, boohoo. no conservative's ever going to physically attack a conservative. it happens to conservative public figures all the time. so, yeah, it does change your behavior a little, but not most of the time. i have a bodyguard sitting there right now keeping an eye on you, by the way. [laughter] just kidding. >> host: what do you do your writing? >> guest: in my bed. >> host: longhand, computer? >> guest: oh, computer, computer, computer. in fact, i use my computer so much, you know, at the end when you're getting a copy at its back and you're writing in the changes toward the end, i don't know why, but the last two versions you're writing in this changes, i was so used to
writing on my computer, and i had written a lot. i cut half of this book. this is half of what i wrote because i wanted in "demonic" i wanted to get it down to the really crucial parts. anyway, i'm writing my copy edits in if by hand, and i'm so used to spell check i'm expecting for it to automatically change on the piece of paper. it was very frustrating that i had to look up how to spell words. >> host: what about your columns? do you write those every day? >> guest: once a week. there's a lot of research that goes into those columns. >> host: mike, new york city. you're on with ann coulter. >> caller: yeah, hi, ann. good afternoon. i was wondering, if obama gets tossed into the garbage where he belongs, what do you think that would do for our credit rating, and also what would it do for our 14 trillion in debt? and by the way, your pictures on your books are outstanding. >> guest: thank you. the last three, i think, were particularly good. that's the same photographer, so i'm sticking with her.
though they're all fine. no, i mean, repealing obamacare for one thing, i think it would help the jobs situation. anyone who knows anyone who runs a small business, and i know many, they're not hiring, they're downsizing, they're often going out of business. you keep hearing this cliche about how, well, businessmen just want certainty. it's the uncertainty that makes everyone afraid to act. there's some element of truth, but, no, obamacare is certain. you're going to have to pay an enormous amount for every employee you hire. will that help jobs? no, that is certain, and it is very bad. what you need is less government. what you need are fewer regulations. what you need is not to have osha and the epa calling every puddle a wetland and endless forms to be filling out. that's what you need to get the economy going. once the economy is going, the revenues will increase. and, boy, we need to lay off a
lot of government employees. it just becomes this, this self-generating system where government employees vote for the democrats, and democrats create jobs for more government employees. i mean, the democrats aren't the party of the poor and disadvantaged. no, they are the party of the government workers who manage the poor. >> host: recent tweet by ann coulter, i took christie's inhaler away until he promised to run in 2012. what is it about chris christie? is. >> guest: that was the day he went into the hospital. i just wanted to calm everyone down. [laughter] don't worry, it was just me. i think he is an amazing politician like -- i don't want to exaggerate this, but i haven't felt this way about a politician since ronald reagan. i was very young then and, wow, he was inspiring. and every once in a while you come along, and a politician speaks the truth in a way no other politician had the courage to do. chris christie did that, ronald
reagan did that so much bolder and without apology, the way ronald reagan talked about the mpire. union and the evil ..ernment unions and the teachers' unions that way. and i don't even think ronald reagan would have talked about teachers' unions the way christy does. no republican could talk about these government employees working for a failed system, by the way, without spending 20 minutes weeping about some schoolteacher they had once. not chris christie. and amazingly, the people like it. and he inspires others like scott walker. >> host: arnold is in smyrna, tennessee. you're on with ann coulter. >> caller: hello. how you doing, ann? >> guest: fine, thank you. >> caller: yes. um, i have a couple of questions, but first i have an invitation for you. um, i would like to invite you to go to my web site. it's love god is love.org, or you can read and download for
free a book that i co-authored, and the c in co is capitalized. and the title of the book is define 9/11 inter-- divine 9/11 intervention. i think you'll find it interesting, especially pages -- excuse me, i stutter. pages 31 and 32. >> host: all right, arnold. >> caller: here's the question. >> host: great. go ahead. >> caller: yes. are you familiar with what the bible says about liberals, you know, specifically what is in isaiah 32? >> host: arnold, what are you referring to? >> caller: a verse in the king james bible that talks about liberals. and if you'd like me to read it, you know, i could. >> host: does it use the word "liberals"? >> guest: no, it uses satan. demonic. >> host: very quickly, arnold, if you would read it. >> caller: okay. this is from isaiah 32, 4-9.
the heart of the rash shall also understand knowledge, and can the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly. verse five, the vile person shall no more be called liberal, for the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work -- excuse me -- iniquity to practice hypocrisy to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. >> host: all right, arnold, why is that important to you very quickly? >> caller: because the bible says, you know, the king james bible does speak about liberals, and it says nothing but good things about liberals. >> host: ann coulter. >> guest: i think my stuff is more accurate. [laughter] the bible speaks about liberals in the verse i cite.
>> host: all eight of your books about liberals, is that fair to >> guest: the first book was on the ground turn pages of bill clinton, philandering on the various ways liberals lie, and the rest are about liberals. actually, the column book, how to talk liberal if you must, that includes everything under the sun. >> host: slander, trn, godless, guilty, demonic. are those fighting words? >> guest: titles, aren't they? like i said, i was thinking of calling the book demonic or legion or my name is legion, but a small slice of christians would understand what i'm talking about, and i want people to read my book. i put a lot of work into it, and i think it's interesting and you'll see the world in a different way and understand things in a different way. yeah, there's titles, put me in the cover in the black cocktail
address because it annoys liberals. >> host: from if democrats had brains they'd be republicans is the best in your view? >> guest: it's more of a quote book, yeah. >> host: here's one quote. environmentalist energy plan is the repudiation of america and christian destiny which is state on the electric grill, how showers, and night skiing. >> caller: hi, ann. i want to thank you for all you've done, and i don't really have a question, but i have comments about religion being a conservative regarding liberals. there are principles that apply ing with being of individuals as well as nations, and these thing are with god and formed a
foundation and civilized society, and they are referred to, and what the liberals have done is understand the years -- [inaudible] you can go back to lyndon johnson, a free society. honor thy father and mother to honor your father and government, and have you read the keynote address given by obama? >> guest: no, but i think you need to read my book "godless" where this point is made, and that is not an inconvenient truth, no. the platform of the democratic party is breaking each one of the ten commandments one, by one, by one. thou shall nod murder, but they stand on abortion, sticking a fork in the head of little babies sleeping peacefully in
the mother's woman. you should not steal, they steal money, redistribute wealth. put no gods before me. they put every god before the real god. i don't think there's a living liberal who wouldn't give up his internal souls to attend a vanity fair party to be cited favorably in the "new york times". the worshiping of idols is sport for -- it's more than sport. it is the religion of the left. their religion is breaking each one of the ten commandments, one we one. >> host: from "godless" the dishonesty about abortion is the left's utter refusal to use the word "abortion" and treat this the way they treat mohammed and it's so sacred. the only practice defended and unspeakable in america like this
was slavery. >> guest: uh-huh. that's true. interestingly, even in places where slavery was accepted, and it wasn't in many parts of the world, people would not let their children play with slave traders like people today would not let their kids -- it's one thing to say i'm pro-choice, let a woman decide. there's different things to play with. it's a repelling practice, but it is peculiar they elevate this and pretend it's a constitutional right, but you can't use the word. you don't have gun rights group refusing to use the word "gun" it's a hideous thing, and they know it is. >> host: why doesn't obama just take this same speech and have them rerun it every night? in new berlin, wisconsin, on. r: good afternoon, ann. it's wonderful to talk to you. i just finished reading your
book, "in order to rise above it." >> guest: thank you. >> caller: i'm here from the home of joe mccarthy, scott walker, paul ryan, and also db [inaudible] i just read your book, and i ask people why are we celebrating field days? we had a lot of fun with that, but i want to know, one of my main questions because i watch all this back and forth with the debt and all this stuff. so many times that if we would just follow our constitution, we wouldn't be in this mess, and one of these main things is article i the constitution. basically all everything is invested in congress. they are not vested in the bureaucrats, and what are we going to do to me is bring that back, and make people understand that to get from we the people -- >> guest: i'm so glad you ask. no, this is a very important
point. democrat policies are so unpopular that democrats had to stop promoting them themselves releasing violent and, you know, child molesting murdering criminals, for example, so they nominate judges and then assures that the judges are moderate and they get to the supreme court and look in this 200-year-old document, we found one, there's a right to marriage and abortion and we have to release 36 ,000 criminals from the prisons. now they get the courts to do the dirty work for them and tell us it's a constitutional right, and i think the only way to ring this in, i mean, obviously we have the method we've been trying for the last 20 years, a quarter century, elect a republican president, wait for vacancies on the supreme court, get a supreme court no , nominee who does not allose nate
when reading the constitution. that didn't work. we had three republican appointees, san ray day o'connor and justice kennedy who voted to uphold the heart of row v. wade, the precise holding of roe v. wade, but in any haven't we need five supreme court justices, this is one of my plans just for a laugh to start engaging conservative judicial activism and show the rights equivalent to the rights by the liberal justices so that we'll suddenly have a right to a flat tax, a right to own a rocket propelled grenade, a right to free champaigne for blonds, all kinds of fantastic rights i can think of. we'll declare withholding tax
unconstitutional, and they they can admit it's a joke because liberals don't understand how hain yows their policies are until it's done to them and the alternative plan quickly is we need a conservative-republican executive to say in response to an insane supreme court ruling -- for example, some of the guantanamo rulings under president bush. i wish he said thank you for your opinion, the constitution makes me the commander in chief. i am not giving, you know, special constitutional rights to terrorists, grabbed on a battlefield as happened at guantanamo. thanks, supreme court. >> host: a tweet and e-mail. the tweet by scott wagne. i like the way she flings her hair. can she sell a dvd of that while she reads the book? she lays it on the line and who disagrees are stupid and demonic in her words.
>> guest: no, some are misguided. mostly i think it is the worshiping of false idols, however. i think it is this desire to be considered cool and in appearances are an avalanche of snarl words, and if serious conservatives want to be taken seriously, the first thing they have to do is distance themselves from the likes of glenn beck, rush limbaugh, and antonia juhasz. >> guest: i don't know about the other guys, but not for me. this is like what i said about joe mccarthy, what's the point? what are you disagreeing with? what's the snarl word? i think that was not all sweetness and nice in that e-mail, but this is how liberals avoid the issues. i mean, that was the theme of slander that they say, racist,
sexist, ugly, mean, don't listen to this person, don't read this person, danger, danger. you know, if you argue with us on our ideas, i think you do so, and if we were dispightble and snarling, i don't think we'd have fans. >> host: in "treason" you also wrote about how you cannot attack certain people such as casey sheen's mother. >> guest: yes, that's in -- >> host: "guilty" it was in there. >> guest: i remember the theme of it, it's the liberal saints, and how they -- it's sort of the reverse of what i just said. the democrats have a new technique and drives them crazy that the conservatives have
their own media, and their approach is to send out sobs hysterical women to make the points, and you can't respond to them to the jersey girls to joe wilson, oh, but they had a relative die. you can't respond. they can voice the entire left wing agenda on us. >> host: next call for ann coulter. >> caller: a huge, huge fan, former college president at the university and former reagan scholarship recipient from the phils foundation. >> guest: that's great, nice to meet you. >> caller: thank you. that was back in 2007. i have two questions for you, and i am reading your book right now, by the way, and i think it's my favorite of your books. i read every one, read it, i think when i was in the 8th
grade. >> guest: you're a fine american and will go far. >> caller: two questions. number one -- is it true your mother is from kentucky? >> caller:y, yes, she is. we had a family reunion down there a few weeks ago, but i was busy with the book. >> caller: that's great. well, when i heard that i was excited. of course, i live in lexington now, but great service there. second question. i have not been able to make it to your book tours, and you really made a huge impression on me just in terms of just your faith and tells things like it is, so really been wanting an autograph of my book "demonic," and i can't figure out how to send it to you -- >> guest: you can get it to me through the phillips foundation. >> host: what's that? >> guest: tom philips is the owner and bought up the books,
newspaper, conservative book club and various other publications, but he gives these, and it's impressive you won the award as young journalists. i guess it's called the reagan award, and there's submissions, judges. i'm aware of the various winners, and tom oversees the whole complex of which i'm a small part. you can get the book to me through the phillips foundation. >> host: next call from new york city. hi, mike. >> caller: hello, good afternoon to all. i would -- i have a call about the white terrorism is no other way. initially this is a dwiebed by muslim, terrorism, which was incorrect. it was described by people on the left as christian terrorism which is also incorrect.
the only way this could have been described is a white racist terrorist who committed acts of white terrorism and worldwide system of white supremacy, forget christianity, forget left and right wing. that is the only way this should be looked at, and to do so any other way is incorrect. >> guest: i agree with part of that. as luck would have it, i read the manifest, not all of it, it gets repetitive so you can skim through some parts, but i don't think i am unaware of any conservatives who blamed it on islamic terrorism. we didn't know what it was and by the time we heard had had happened, he was already described in "new york times"
headlines as a christian fundamentalist gun-toting, fox news viewing, i believe, and his manifesto makes clear as the caller said he's not a christian and uses the word "christian" to mean non-islamic, and if not specifically, i don't know blacks brown people, it is muslims he does not like. that's it, and, yes, it was very anti-muslim, but he talked about how he wants jews and buddhists and the people of europe to join with him to fight against the islam of europe. that's his big thing. whether or not that is connected to the insanity on some molecular level, i don't know, but the new york new times describe him as an fundamental list and slander. something we expect from the "new york times". >> host: "new york times" reader kills dozens.
>> guest: well, that was about him because he cites the "new york times" in his manifesto. >> host: you also dedicate slander to the "new york times" saying without him, this book could not have -- or slander, it could not have been written without his help. >> guest: oh, that's in the acknowledgements, yes. the book is dedicated to robert jones. >> host: sorry. >> guest: my dedications, i do take seriously, but the acknowledgements they are always -- >> host: with thanks, the entire staff of the "new york times," without whom this book would have been impossible. >> guest: it is true. >> host: why? >> guest: because the "new york times" is the most articulate statement of liberal thought in america. i'm probably their most loyal reader and most veer rashes
reader. when they are good, they are great which drives you crazy when their bias is in because it is in the paper, but, you know, when there's been some major news story that doesn't have a political component, nobody does it better than the "new york times," and that's part of the good part. the bad part of it is this obsession with blaming everything on the christians while holding, you know, muslims innocent. you know, in that column a couple weeks ago on the nor wee january shooter as the paper described as a christian fundamentalist. he said he doesn't believe in god. he talks about christian agnostics and atheists and can join the anti-islam and means culturally european. that's what he means when he says "christian" and i compare
the coverage of this guy how they leap to the conclusion of calling a christian without glancing at his manifesto to see he doesn't believe in any god. in seven articles on the guy accused of the shooting, i put in fort hood, found seven articles from the "new york times," only one used the word "muslim," and that's one year after the shooting when the cat was out of the bag. >> host: from how to talk to a liberal if you must. here's one. you write during the recent book tour -- this is from 2003 drsh i resisted the resistant request of traitors. with a great deal of charity, i was willing to concede that many liberals were merely famous idiots, and i was loathed to name -- i'm sorry?
>> guest: fa chew yows. >> guest: -- >> host: what did i say? >> guest: famous. >> host: sorry. after the times editorial on the two year 9/11 terrorist attack, i am prepared this once to name a traitor, pit of the new york times. >> guest: can i say why? >> host: certainly. >> guest: i have not read the book recently, though, but i do remember and dimly recall what the editorial was comparing the attack of 9/11 to an american attack on, i think, it was a chilean embassy. that also happened on 9/11, and the theme of the peace was america deserved it. oh, you've gone around you americans invading other
countries fooling around with other national governments, and now you dare complain when you are buildings are knocked down. is this an american newspaper? >> host: next call for an comes from don in wyoming. >> caller: good morning. i was wondering if you see similarities between our government currently in its actions and when rome was burning? >> guest: i love the image. it does seem a little tone deaf to me when so many people are unemployed. the unemployment rate has been persist tently above 9%. someone who knows better than i told me recently for obama to get the unemployment rate below 8% by next election, they have to add more than 200,000 jobs in a month. well, it was 18,000 last month,
and meanwhile they are dancing bear foot in the rose garden listening to hip hop flying around the country, and apparently playing a lot of golf is a big part of obama's economic recovery plan, but, you know, on the other hand, i sort of like to have them dancing in the rose garden and playing golf because at least they are not socializing anything when he's off playing golf. if he applies nymph his braille lance to the -- applies more of his brilliance, we'll all been the line. >> host: you can call it broke? >> guest: i think that's too small a subject for me. i'm big themes. >> host: even though you just finished this book, are you researching your next? >> guest: not yet. >> host: about every two years you come out with one? >> guest: yes. >> host: dmonnic was six months late, you wrote? >> guest: yes, it was.
yes, it was. like i say once, i just write and write and write, and i don't know, i don't really have an idea now. i wait and see how things develop. >> host: what does crown forum do when you are six months late on your book? >> guest: they are very, very nice to me considering what i have put them all through, but they know i'll get it in, and, you know, i forget it. it's like it's my own personal writer's amnesia every time i'm late, i'm frantic and telling my friends it was due a month ago. i can't talk to you, and nay all say to me, but you do this with every book? why this time? you'll get it done. >> host: who is peter teal who you dedicated it to? >> guest: yes, the most anti-group think person i know beside myself. maybe more than i am. we're friends. he gave me a lot of pointers on
this book because he so hates group think. he mulls over it with dinner and lunch, and some ideas were fantastic, and another i had to read the ruin of cash which is probably a book to note to the viewers, but it was fascinating. i think they liked at the new york review of books, and it was one of the most insufferable books i've ever read. i complained to peter about that and i had to read possessed which was a fantastic book i enjoyed, but at first i was resentful because it's not a short book, and i knew there was one tiny little point from that book that he told me to use, and i just e-mailed myself the possessed so i get the book, put it off, and then i ran into him again. what was i looking for in that book again? he said, i don't remember. i had to read the whole book to get to, and, actually, there were a few points which i took
out because i wanted a streamlined short, sweet, to the point, short chapters, appealing to the twitter generation here. >> host: another tweet that you recently sent out conclusive proof bin laden is dead. he's registered to vote in cooke county. elephant about, new mexico. dan, you're on the air. >> caller: hi, an. you know, ann, brilliant and articulate conservative that you are, you're clearly a freak of nature, and i mean that as a complement of course. >> guest: you better coming from elephant about. if you are not a fan, this country is in trouble. >> caller: yes, i am, a big one. my question is do liberals generally believe what they say is due, or do they say they do it simply for the purpose of achieving power on the backs of
the unwatched masses? >> guest: that is the eternal question of life. are liberals evil or just stupid? i mean, a beautiful example of this is the entire -- every single elected democrat vowing to save social security. that is a lie. it can't be done, not in its present form. obama's own treasury secretary, thyme geithner, says in under ten years, this is in a report issued last year, in under ten years social security, medicare, medicaid, and servicing the interest on the national debt will consume 92 cents of every federal dollar. okay, that leaves 8 cents for defense, pay salaries, smithsonian, food inspector, so and on so forth. they cannot be saved in their current forms. when fdr introduced social security, the average life span of a man, i think was 64, of a woman was 66.
we nag you to death, that's why you die sooner, and now the span is 90 years. why not raise the age to the way it was to begin with? for democrats, and i don't believe there's yon elected democrat who admitted this. now, that is just a lie. they aren't even -- well, maybe debbie is that stupid, but they are not that stupid they can believe they can save social security. there has to be changes. >> host: what role does it play? >> guest: it makes it easier for me to edit it later because i have to read this stuff like a book, you know, ten times, a column 50 times before i hit the send butt -- button. it's fun to read it over and over again if i'm using myself. >> host: ann coulte with eight
books. slander in 2002, treason, 2003, how to talk to a liberal if you must, 2004, godless in 2006, if democrats had brains they'd be republicans, 2007, guilty, 2008, and her most recent is demonic about liberal mobs coming out in 2011. recently ann hosted or was invited to a book party at the heritage foundation where she signed books and we want to show you a little bit about this and then we'll be back. >> thank you for everything you do. >> is this for you? >> no, my parents, bob andline. >> that's nice. >> they each get one, fan tas take. you're a genius. otherwise, you know, there could be a fight over the book. >> thank you. >> lynn -- l-y-n-n? >> i have a question for you. you talk about your mother
coming from kentucky. >> i may be back there next month. i have a family reunion. >> thank you. >> hi, hello, nice to meet you. nice to meet you. l -- >> n-i-c-o-n. >> lieutenant? >> nicole. >> oh, i thought you were saying lieutenant. >> i think you have nice script now. >> fortunately my writing is like chicken scratch. >> good luck. >> thank you. hello, ann. >> hello. nice to meet you tom.
>> this is my son, patrick. >> fantastic. how want this for patrick? >> no, no, for him. >> sorry. >> you told him that. what's the last name? >> i was -- [inaudible] >> he passed a few years ago. >> did he? >> i got to give you this. i got a pair for you, and a pair for someone else. >> thank you, that's nice. my father is the side i get it from. >> [inaudible] >> it's the irish-catholic in me. >> nice to meet you. >> i'm working up here. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. >> when you're stuck in traffic, you're great distraction from all the stress. >> glad to hear that. >> this is for my father.
house, and why an influence for you? >> guest: i'm reading him this summer because i have to sweeten the book tour by going out with friends constantly which is why l.a. is 5 great place to be on tour. i go there two weeks after the book because with the time change, i'm done at 7 every night. in any event, he is a very, very funny british writer, and i've read, i'm sure, all of his books at least once, probably twice, but it's something you pick up when you want light, fun reading, and it puts you in a great mood, and he's just very funny. >> host: one of your favorite authors a joe? >> guest: yes, and a friend of mine of the he passed away, i guess, i remember when i found out i was out in l.a.. >> host: about a year or so ago. >> guest: yeah, a little more than a year ago. i was writing a section when i
found out. that's why i can date things. it would have been in the fall of last year, i think. anyway, he just, like thomas seoul, another fun writer, they were spare elegant writers, and joe, perhaps even more than peter teal did not subscribe to group think, something i admire. we all find one another, and although i didn't always agree with all of the non-group think positions, you know, peter teal has, he's just started evidence of the anti-group think passion is down on colleges and think they are a waste of time, money, and the new boom compares the college boom, all the money spent on college tuition how people spent money on their homes. yes, it's a huge mortgage to pay for the next 30-years, but it's an investment, and people say
the same about colleges. he just introduced, i think it's 15 scholarships -- a couple hundred thousand dollars for someone to drop out of college and start an entrepreneurial idea. i hope i'm not ruining his interview process now, but one of the questions he asks is what is something you believe that most -- to be true, that most people do not believe is true. i could spend six hours answering that question. joe could have spent 20 hours answering that question. >> host: greatest influences, your parents, brear, and jesus, not necessarily in that order. >> guest: correct, correct. i had a very pleasant happy childhood, and the absence of any traumatic events that would turn me into a liberal. >> host: how would you rerank that word? >> guest: well, obviously
jesus is number one, and it's hard to remember that when you did have great parents and great christian parents and great christian brothers who were both older and very influential, but ultimately, all you have is god. god gave me those parents and those brothers, but it's -- when you realize what god has done for you, there is nothing this world can do to you. you have absolutely no fear, and there's no point in having principles -- no point in being right if you don't have the courage to say it because you're afraid of what other people are going to say which is why i think liberals are more susceptible to mob behavior because as i think is well established in polling, conservatives believe overwhelmingly in god. liberals do not. we have a vertical relationship and care about what god thinks
we're doing, and if everyone is mad at us, calls us mean, which i do not think should be part of public discourse -- a side note. we're debating politics, don't call me mean. with liberals if you don't have a vertical relationship, it's very important to you what people horizontally around you think of you, so just being able to be a christian and go out and act in the world and separate yourself from the rest of the world and not accept what the rest of the world says is miranda moral or right just because everybody else is doing it. that's obviously extremely important. >> host: well, we have this e-mail from erik in north carolina. ann, as a liberal, i'll admit public figures admired by other liberals a essentially entertainers that play fast and loose with the facts using satire rather than substance.
we listen them at our own peril. reading and listening to your books, i feel the same definition applies to you. >> guest: i don't believe you read my books, liberal from north carolina. i think that e-mail is from john edwards. no one who has read my books could say that. >> host: why? >> guest: thee end, love ann. >> host: why do you say that? >> guest: because they are heavily researched. even in the one weekday review i got from the new "new york times," and i did love this quote, a reviewer said it's invective with footnotes. look, you can disagree with me. oh, by by the way, i'll volunteerly tell you there's two mistakes in demonic. i found them, nobody else. no one else found them. i found them, and they were minor things which is why your
eye goes over it. one, for example, was richard nixon pushing through the philadelphia plan, and i said it was 1968, but that was the year he was elected. john kerryives sent to cambodia for 20 years and no one noticed that. i noticed it in my book, but it was too late to change it so in the other editions it will be changed. liberals try to find some grave error by ann coulter, and i believe their crowning achievement is from my second book that had to be put out quickly. once we had a publisher, i wanted it out immediately for less time of fact checking. in any event, i was writing about the snobbery of the left and basically how liberals in new york are parochial and cacooned and view the entire
south as a sort of english-speaking saudi arabia and how they reported on nascar driver's death, and there wasn't a word on the front page, and the article by the "new york times" began it this way. his death brought a silence to wal-mart. screw you, "new york times". now there's a broadway play written about my errors. >> host: as a debt sin of new york city, do you write from an east coast perspective? >> guest: i have found, which is why i'm really looking forward to san fransisco meeting with the young republicans in the phone booth on august 27th, and the reason i love speaking on college campuses. i really like conservatives in blue states because we are like
gideon's army. we're the rebel force of north korea, whereas you go to the nice states, mississippi or texas, they don't know what we're upset about. no, we live and mingle with liberals. we are full of anger. >> host: from slander, all conceivable evidence supports the theory that liberalism is a whimsical luxury of the very rich and the very poor, both of whom have little stake in society. >> guest: uh-huh. >> host: talk about the last part. >> guest: it's something i've noticed. i say i have a very strong sense of where conservatives are because they come up to me wherever i am so i can divide up neighborhoods of new york as, you know, friendly, safe, dangerous, mixed, and it's been interesting to me that by and large, the upper east side, although very liberal, they are
liberals with a stake in society. they have, you know, expensive apartments on 5th avenue. they have children. they don't want to die, and -- well besides being people, they are often, though they may vote democrat, they are often very friendly to me. it's people who don't have a stake in society. look at, you know, george zoros. he can go any place. he is a citizen of the world. he has enough money that it doesn't matter to him. is he an american? he keeps his money in the kayman islands. most people born in america who are born american citizens, being an american is important to us and gives us privileges and rights to say you're an american citizen when you have more money than mitus, what difference does it make? national borders mean nothing to you and you don't care if america stands or falls. >> host: what about the poor?
>> guest: same thing, sloongs they get their welfare checks. >> host: best month, best selling author is our guest. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm beginning to preface remarks by saying i'm a conservative republican, but i have something to disagree with. > guest: you know you're about to have a speech written. >> caller: [inaudible] anyway, i found that real lasting change, real transformational change only happens when you do not only the right things, but you do them the right way. the process is important. >> guest: i agree. >> caller: look at the laws overturned by court.
>> guest: look at what republicans did with the debt ceiling, i agree. >> caller: has not addressed the root causes of what the tax problems are in new jersey. i also have to say i'm conservative republican and a teacher, and i can tell you that after 15 years of teaching, i'm making a grand total sum of $60,000. now, what he's done is basically demonized the group of people who -- the very hard working people -- and he had done it and affected lasting change, well, maybe that's what i should get paid. >> guest: i think first of all just as a general point on chris christie, i think he's definitely addressed the root cause of what's going on here. he has taken a chain saw to new jersey's bunt, and new jersey, illinois, and california were
the states that were about -- we were about to try to have to sell to mexico. they are utterly bankrupt, going urn. they are the states equal to greece now, and christie came in and cut so much money in a state that's a very tough state for republicans to get elected in rather than be a pro-life republican like christie, and although i'm sure you're a fine fellow, and i highly approve of conservative public schoolteachers and encourage people to become a public schoolteacher, but, look, it's not just the income over the course of a year. it's the benefits and having your medical paid for. people buy their own health insurance, buy their own medical services. you got summers off. you are done at two, and you have a pension. i don't know anyone else who has
a pension. to retire at age 55 and receive 90% of your highest earning year, and, you know, forget about teachers for a moment. i say the same thing about -- what is it? i think it's the new jersey highway patrolman. they have to work a surprisingly short number of year, and retire at 90% pensions. that's a great deal. it's also a reason income taxes are not as important to government workers as they are to those of us who get paid in the years we work ring so we get more in the years we're working, but you get paid for another 40 years in the years you are not working. government service is a big problem. there is a reason government workers are paid more on average than non-government workers both at the state level, overwhelmingly at the federal level. it is a problem, and to have any politician, i can say that, i'm not standing for election, to have any politician speak that
honestly about it is something so, so earth-shattering as to make me say we have to make this man president. >> host: from "if democrats had brains they'd be republicans" we need these liberal talk radio shows to keep the tinfoil-hat types business soy while we run the country. it's a speech from indiana university in 2006 that ann made. this tweet is from susan. how about we all resist the use of christian, muslim, and/or jewish as labels for terrorists and criminals? >> guest: well, when the terrorists are operating because they believe they are on a religious mission when they shout as they fly planes into the world trade center and shoot up fort hood, then we have what is known as a muslim terrorist,
and we have had a lot of terrorism from people who think they are fulfilling the will by slaughtering infidels, and to stick your head into the sand saying that's not islamic terrorism will not make us safer. blame the car bomb in times square on tea partyers upset about health care, and surprise, it's a muslim terrorist. >> host: somebody tuning in late. ann, have you been taught in a public school? >> guest: well, i attended public schools. my complaint is, i was not taught. >> host: gordon from virginia, go ahead with your question for ann. >> caller: thank you for having me on and i want to thank ann for being ann. >> guest: thank you. >> caller: a couple questions. are you running for public office in the future? >> guest: no, no, no. >> caller: do you think the
recent battle did more to hurt republicans and can our country use more of that tactic to try to change the way washington does what they do? >> guest: i'm proud of our republicans. they did a great job. as we all know, the mainstream media is not a friend to the republican party, but instead of sitting around and complaining about it, which i think it's useful obviously to point it out when it happens, but still what elected politicians and elected republicans need to do is accept that. that's the mountain to cross, and now, what do you do? the republicans did that brilliantly. the republicans controlling one-half of one branch of government were blamed for everything. the debt ceiling is not raised because we're going to default. it's the republican's fault. the country is bankrupt. it's the republican. what about the president? how about the united states senate? that body, don't they have something to do? the mainstream media kept
blaming the gridlock on the republicans in one branch of congress or one-half the congress rather, and they just kept passing bill after bill. okay, we'll compromise more, but not raising the debt ceiling unless we get some promise of budget cuts, and i think it became drsh they did it so often that people who don't pay attention to the politics, those are the most influenced by the mainstream media, and even they had to know, i keep hearing about the boehner bills, where's the obama bill or the hair rereid bill? three weeks before the debt ceiling compromise was passed, i mean, go back and look it up. everyone assumed there would be tax hikes plus spending cuts. tax heights and spending cuts. we got the debt ceiling raised with only spending cuts. that is a huge victory when we don't have the presidency or the united states senate.
>> host: dear ann, one writes to you, given there's been many atheists and agnostic thinkers, most notably millton freedman, do you think there's a contradiction between being a nonbeliever and a libertarian? >> guest: a lot of libertarians are godless, and although i can't say in the particular cases of milton friedman and ayn rand that they were cowards, that's generally the complaint with libertarians. what have libertarians accomplished politically? not that much. it's usually a way to avoid the hot button issues, and by the way, i'm always taunting libertarians. i am more libertarian than they
are. they just want to legalize pot. stop talking about legalizing pot all the time, and i'll have sympathy for them, but that's how they get liberals to like them. perhaps it's not coincidence that they are godless because they are cowards and believing in god does not allow you to be a coward. >> host: one tweets in to you ann, liberal equals rich and poor with no stake in society? she mentions zoros with no mention of rupert, why? >> guest: well, were fun thing rupert mer dock's firm killed my second book. i never worked for fox news, so don't tell me he's the savior of conservatives in america. he does great media, and i enjoy consuming it, but he's also not, you know, he's the only reason they are becoming naturalized
american; right? he was born in another country. that's usually when people actually involved in day-to-day politics who are liberals have foreign accents, and i would recommend they stay here a few generations. you don't see rupert -- he's putting out media that people want to read which is why fox news ratings are through the roof, and although i don't work for them, i appear on their network and the ratings are twice what cnn and msnbr are. there's higher ratings on fox at 3 a.m. than prime time on cnn. it's more than hiring david brock to keep conservatives off air. >> host: you write that msnbc is the mob's leading tv network. >> guest: uh-huh. it's funny. it's like msnbc is a video demonstration of my book, the slogan, the repetition, the
turning enemies, turning opponents into enemies, turning their leaders into messiahs like the way obama is talked about on that network as everyone knows he's been made fun of, makes my life tingle, and for a moment i forgot he's black. that's the video version of group think. >> host: the mob is immune to facts. >> guest: yes. i believe i gave many examples of that. what's frustrating is having the same argument over and over again. i mean, people complain about zone han di being repetitive, but he's there when you can't get liberals off, it's like a stopped record playing the same thing over and over geep, and one of the examples in the book
is this hysteria over rogue releasing names and put her life in danger. a, we know from the "new york times" itself it was not karl rove, but richard who opposed the war in iraq. he was there guy, not our guy. it was not a crime which is why he was not prosecuted, and yet so that's out. it's a fact, and yet we still have articles by people talking about the evil rove destroys her life by committing a felony of releasing her name. ..
>> caller: i knew you were going to be on the joy behar -- i think her name is -- show, and i tuned in just to see you. i want you to comment on how rude and how -- she is so rude to you -- >> guest: oh, she's one of my favorite liberals. i forgot to mention her as one of the liberals i like. [laughter] >> caller: makes no sense when she talks. >> guest: well, he's a comedian, and i do think she's very funny. you'll see i keep raising liberal comedians as the ones i like because if it's funny, i don't care what the point is. she's funny. and she kind of has, it's a fun show to do because she has a.d.d., so you can never stay on one summit for more than -- subject for more than 30 seconds. i'll start, i'm her straight
man, and we'll be whooshed off to something else. but that's her style, and i must say, i mean, she's on headline news, so as part of the cnn family i had three cnn interviews on this book, piers morgan and joy behar, and of the three the only one who had read any of my book was joy behar. the other two didn't even know what it was about. [laughter] had not cracked it, didn't ask me a question on the book. um, you know, liberals are always sneering at fox news for being low brow. well, cnn seems to think just by putting unattractive foreigners on tv, that's proof of what intellectuals are. no one on fox news who interviewed me had not read at least part, if not all of my book, and they do the same thing for liberal authors. but over on cnn, you know, they're retarded idiots, but they also happen to be unattractive and have foreign accents, so you think they're
smart. >> host: do you and joy behar get along off the set? is. >> guest: yeah, i like you. >> host: have you ever done "the view"? >> guest: four times. >> host: and what's the reception there? >> guest: three times were fantastic and a lot of fun. [laughter] and the penultimate time for my penultimate book, "guilty," they all just yelled at me. [laughter] but the only difference in that time compared to the other three were that barbara walters was there. so by process of elimination, i think that has something to do with the maltreatment i received. >> host: kathy in washington, d.c., you're on with ann coulter. >> caller: hello, this is patrick's sister, your republican friend in washington d.c. we have a president whose muslim father abandoned him, his grandparents raised him, and in d.c. we have much of this along with very high aids and
unemployment rate. but the president let our d.c. tax money get earmarked, and he went to ben's chili bowl, and we don't want home rule. and i thank you, ann. >> guest: thank you. >> host: tom from tucson, arizona, you're on with author ann coulter. >> caller: hi. you talked a little bit about, um, atheist libertarians. i was wondering what your thoughts and feelings are about atheist conservatives. >> guest: very confused. [laughter] >> host: why? >> guest: for one thing, if you don't believe in god, um, why not just be a liberal? life would be so much easier. you'd be so handsome and intelligent and no matter what blather you put out how, you could be published on the op-ed page of "the new york times." life would be a dream if you don't care about your soul.
>> host: uh, caroline, memphis, tennessee. >> caller: yes, ann. i've read several of your books, and i hear in the community constantly that america is about to fall. and they're saying that our economic policy, our social policy, and i am very disturbed at hearing this news because people like you who distort reality, who lie, who divide the country according to liberalism and conservativism, you people are destroying this country. you're bringing our country down. >> guest: what books of mine have you read? >> caller: i have read "demonic." >> guest: really? which chapter did you like the most? >> caller: people like you -- >> guest: can you name a single chapter title? [laughter] >> caller: you are bringing down our country.
>> guest: when my brother, my oldest brother was single, he met girls in bars on the upper east side. he used to claim he was from boise, idaho. and no one ever believed him, but only one gal was ever smart enough to say to him, name one other town in idaho. [laughter] really, what chapter titles do you have in those books you've read of mine? look, for one thing just to ignore the invective of the last caller and answer the question, there's always hope in america. yes, we are in a terrible time right now, and you might want to keep this in mind the next time you go to a voting booth. we've had full democratic, um, policies. obama was in office for two years with a democrat house and a democrat senate, and this is what we get; big government to the exclusion of small government. we are spending more money. the unweak have to pay. that is a problem. but it can be turned around. i mean, think of the dark days of jimmy carter, and then
hallelujah, the sunrises, the birds are singing, ronald reagan is president. there is always hope in america. as for this nonsense about how, i don't know, the greatness of america is bipartisan compromise to grow the welfare state, no, that is not the greatest of america. um, i think you're missing the point of the word "debate" in political debate. the point of the lin son -- lincoln/douglas debates was not to compromise. the point of churchill's, you know, we shall fight on the beaches speech was not to compromise with hitler. we have different views of the government. the role of government, the role of raising taxes and what the government should be doing. and what we should be paying the government to do, and we're going to fight about it, and i'm going to make my points as best as i can. >> host: do you think law school helped you in that? >> guest: um, i hate to admit anything good about law school whatsoever. yet and still, um, one thing
that i think most lawyers who become writers in general are better at, um, or at least have a more natural inclination toward is to understand the other point of view, to see that there are two sides to argue against the best version of the other side's argument. and not to to build up strawmans. that doesn't work in court, i don't think it works in this a book. and if anything, i write my books a little too much like legal briefs, and i end up cutting some of the counterarguments i'm making before anyone's made the argument. [laughter] >> host: well, is the first chapter of high crimes and misdemeanors, is that the prosecution's case on impeaching president clinton? >> guest: i believe so. i must say i haven't read that one for a while. i like that book. um, it made important points, brought up a lot of important history. i don't specifically remember the first chapter right now.
>> host: um -- >> guest: but, yes, that was basically the idea of the way the book was written. >> host: and, ann coulter, we often talk on our morning program, "the washington journal" here on c-span about people who only read conservative papers or publications or only read liberal publications or watch a certain network, do you cross over? >> guest: i read very few conservatives because, i mean, i'll read conservative, um, i don't know -- widely to find out what the facts are. but i think a lot of conservative writers will tell you, i know rush limbaugh doesn't listen to other radio hosts and tends to avoid unless enough people send him an e-mail saying you really should read this column today by so and so. and i understand that because you want to look at the facts and formulate your ideas fresh. sometimes i'll wait a month or six months or even a few years
and go back and be read writers i really like like mark stein or david limbaugh or if i'm absolutely sure i'm shot going to write on -- i'm not going to write on the subject, this faa dispute we had recently, i know if i'm not going to be writing about it, then i can read those. but if i'm going to write about it, i don't want to see what any other conservative had to say about it. and i don't know how you could read only conservatives, just a little footnote on that. you can't avoid the liberal noise machine. you can't get away from it. >> host: rock docs tweets in, is rush limbaugh the leader of the republican party? if not, who is? nobody's heard of license prebus. [laughter] >> guest: you know, what happened? i wanted -- i loved michael steele. he's referring to the head of the republican national committee. the vote was coming, i loved michael steele. i thought the attacks on him
were utterly unfair. it was the same thing, well, they do all the time and they certainly do to me where they put together one fake scandal that gets disproved after another, but everybody forgets, no, that turned out not to be true. and then they put together all of the dead ends they had taken you down as if there were all these scandals around michael steele. so anyway, i was about to write a column ferociously defending michael steele and demanding his re-election, and i think that was the weekend of the tucson shooting. so i e-mailed michael and said, sorry. sorry, this is what i have to write about. but, no, we don't have a leader. we're conservatives. it's liberals who are the followers. >> host: why do you close "demonic" with the court transcript from the central park jogger case? >> guest: well, it was an appendix because i thought it was very telling. you know, that is one chapter i probably should have taken out in retrospect because, like i say, i mean, it fits in so beautifully with the theme of the book. that's why i kept it in. but i wanted to keep it short, i
wanted to keep the chapters short, and almost no one has talked to me about that chapter, and i think it's a very important chapter. and it fits into the whole theme of "demonic," both the psychological mob and the physical mob, and it's a pretty thrilling, exciting story. um, i don't think i was in new york when -- i must have still been in college when the central park rape happened. but for anyone alive at that time, it was a pretty spectacular story. and then a lie was told, um, that, oh, they were all proved innocent, proved innocent. well, they were not proved innocent. and this is a specialty of the left to make wild overstatements of innocence allegedly based on dna. in this case, i mean, the key part of that story is when the central park jogger was raped by this mob wilding in the park, dna was an all-new science. it's a very, it's a sneaky bait and switch they're doing with that story. it wasn't even, um, only six
months earlier it was admitted in the first new york state court. cops did not collect evidence or go to a scene hoping to preserve dna evidence or physical evidence of any kind, but every one of the defendants had confessed, had confessed on videotape, had confessed with their parents sitting there except one who was old enough to do the videotape -- no, i'm sorry, he started to talk to the cops because he claimed he was over 16, showed them proof that he was over 16, and then his mother came, like, 15 minutes later and said he's 15 years old. so they stopped the interrogation, it was a fake id he had shown the cops. so he was treated as an adult for, i guess, 15 minutes. so they were videotaped statements, if you had o.j. simpson on tape admitting and explaining how he did the murder in brentwood, i don't think even that jury would have acquitted. so you have this overwhelming
evidence that gets lied about later, um, and as i say in the conclusion to that chapter, i can understand the actual literal, physical mob in the park better than i can explain the intellectual mob of the left always wanting to break down people's faith in the criminal justice system. this is one of the crowning achievements of america's legal system that everyone is equal before the law. it isn't that way in europe. it isn't that way in france with their great french revolution. no, we have rules of evidence, and the defendant is given a fair shot. but, but we do seek justice in our courts. and to constantly be attacking judges and courts for the one thing they're supposed to be doing which is presiding over trials and hearing cases and admitting evidence or not admitting evidence while asking our courts to decide things like abortion policy, pension policy. what should our detention of terrorists policy be? no, that is the rue sewn yang
view. that's the french revolution view of these philosopher kings in possession of the general will. that is not the american system. it fits in beautifully with this book, and yet no one has asked me that question. and so the reason -- that's an awfully long answer to the question of why do i have that court triplet in -- transcript in there. i thought it was filling up that chapter too much, but when you read the transcript of the interview with one of the defendants, it is just, i think it is overwhelming for an unbiased observer reading it to say this guy was involved in that attack with the jogger. >> host: ann coulter is our guest, we have about 40 minutes left in this month's "in depth." would you ever do an interview or appear on the rachel maddow show? >> guest: i'm dying to. >> host: she would be formidable debate. >> guest: i'm dying to. i'm, apparently, not allowed to go on any nbc programs. they're afraid of me, as well they should be. >> host: in how to talk to a liberal, you talk about your
relationship with the late jfk jr. and the fact that you told him you'd been fired from msnbc several times at that point. >> guest: and he thought that was so cool. [laughter] yeah, i guess i just never really fed in with the nbc callers. but when they started these cable networks, it's hard to remember what the world was like. it was a horrible world. it's amazing republicans ever won any elections. but when msnbc and fox were starting, basically, at that point when they wanted a conservative, they brought in david gur begin. david brooks. but that isn't what people who actually call themselves conservative and tend to vote republican consider a conservative. and so in theory they wanted a conservative, but when they got one live -- [laughter] it was, it was quite disturbing in the msnbc executive offices. so i kept being fired. >> host: eric in chicago, thanks for holding. you're on with ann coulter on
booktv. >> guest: hey, ann. huge fan even though i'm theologically, decidedly a nonbeliever, but that's why i cheered you on fox news when you outed obama as a probable closet atheist. >> guest: correct. >> caller: and what about the republican side? i wonder, besides the obvious gary johnson, who on the republican side is probably just going through the motions of the church and prayer thing because they realize that at the presidential level disbelief in god is political suicide? >> guest: good question. um, yes. and i did ferociously defend president obama from accusations that he is a muslim pointing out that, like the rest of his party, he is an atheist. um, there probably are some. i don't think there are many rank and file conservatives. like i say, why, why would you bother being conservative? life is so easy if you're a liberal. so unless, unless you're planning on an afterlife, why
even bother being a conservative? but politicians, republicans who are probably -- well, you know, a few come to mind. but i don't think it would be to be lite. [laughter] >> host: next call for ann coulter comes from the pat in king port, new jersey. hi, pat. >> caller: hi. thanks, peter. ann, i love your books. i just started reading "demonic." but an earlier e-mail touched on the question i wanted to ask you was whether or not you had read much or, like, read or read about ayn rand and if you had any opinion on her philosophy. and if i could ask you just one more question, how come we don't see american feminists worried at all about the treatment of women under sharia law? >> guest: yeah, great question. um, because american feminists don't care about women, they care about promoting socialism. one of the photos i brought for you folks, by the way -- you
wanted pictures of me with my family. i only had one of me with one of my brothers that happened to be in a book i was reading, but there was also one of me in answer to this question -- not quite an answer -- standing by a store called john galt who was the hero of "atlas shrugged." now know that. the big hero. anyway, there was a sportswear store out in vail, and be i assume they know who john galt was since he was in colorado, and, yeah, i liked ayn rand, and then i stopped being a teenager. [laughter] and i would tend to side with whitaker chambers' review of ayn rand in national review which caused quite a scandal. and wait a second, i was thinking of something else. oh, i know. this might be mean and piling on, but what the heck, i'm ann coulter. in answer to the question, a republican who does not believe in the god, i'll skip some of the obvious ones. um, there happens to be an
interview with mark sanford, the former governor of south carolina, in today's new york times. finish and not only -- and not only did he violate his marriage vows publicly, spectacularly, but in today's interview he cries about a dead raccoon. i would say it's up to god to decide. i can't see into another person's heart. i consider those warning signs. >> host: i want to go back to that family picture. we always ask our guests for -- >> guest: i e-mailed one in from when i was little. >> host: right. we got that one. and we'll show that at some point. we're going to show that right now. and i guess that's with your two brothers. can you see it over there? >> guest: that's it. >> host: we didn't receive any with you with your parents. >> guest: i wasn't in, i've been in -- i wasn't at home to get the photos. [laughter] and so i happened to open a book, but i brought one of me
with one of my brothers. >> host: we'll bring that in. i saw those, but they didn't make -- >> guest: and one by john galt because i had these photos slipped inside a book i was reading. >> host: we'll have that snuck in so we can show it to viewers a little bit later. in how to take to a liberal if you must n a column you wrote in 1991, call me ms. . you wrote:
>> guest: that, by the way, is in a chapter of columns mostly that were commissions by various publiations, national review, "wall street journal", and then when they received them decided, no thanks. that's why you will notice that i have set up my life so that i cannot be fired, i cannot be edited. [laughter] i mean, i suppose i could be, but it's all men at human events, and they will not be firing me. that's the only place where i have an official job. other than that i'm tired of spending time researching and writing something, particularly when it has been requested as that article there. and then, by the way, that was when i was practicing law. so i was kind of jammed. actually, i was still in law
school, i think. i was just getting out of law school. so i was kind of busy. i spend this time read what they want me to read, writing it up and, oh, no be, sorry, can you rewrite it? no, i can never rewrite it. but i can't waste my life doing that anymore. i have the internet. my life would be easier if i had a job with one of those glamorous government pensions, i might add, but short of that at least people can read me now because i don't have to go through this layer of retarded people to get my work out. >> host: is tom winters still alive? >> guest: yes, he is. fine man. and ellen race debt. >> host: who are they? >> guest: the longtime editors of "human events," ronald reagan's favorite newspaper, and alan race kin. they're magnificent americans. both of them were cold warriors helping me review all my cold war stuff for "treason."
um, winter and riskin were the longtime editors of human events when ronald reagan was reading it every day, and alan riskin was writing about 80% of it back then. so whenever i find out -- i don't always make the monday morning meetings. whenever i find out that the rest of the staff has disagreed with alan whom i usually agree with, i have to lecture the young whippersnappers to make them understand that he, ultimately, influenced ronald reagan's philosophy. he's the son of the man who identified the marx brothers. grouch cho would be trying out his jokes. keep it own, grope cho. [laughter] and tom winter went to vail and is very was by, yale, and the two of them have put out the
most conservative newspaper for much of the last half century. the new editor is now jason matera, a young kid who came over from yale. >> host: here's the picture. >> guest: john galt? >> host: john galt picture. ann coulter, when was that picture of you taken? >> guest: since it was in the book of the picture of my brother at the party, it was probably a few years after law school. but that's in vail. [laughter] isn't that hilarious? >> host: next call comes from chuck in fullerton, california. hi, chuck. >> caller: hello. hello, ann. i just want you to know i love you, but i would like to know what i would have to say to get you to change the emphasis of the agendas that you work on away from the ones that your followers would be trying to influence the government to initiate force toward those agenda items where your followers wouldn't have to
influence the government to initiate force? >> host: chuck, could you give an example of what you mean by that? expwhrk it would be very wonderful to cut taxes. that does not require the initiation of force. but if you want to continue to try to stop that 25-year -- [inaudible] >> host: chuck? >> guest: oh, good. it's not just my audio this time. >> host: no, i'm not sure. apologize, i'm not sure why he cut out. >> guest: i didn't understand the question anyway, let's move on. >> host: next call comes from karen in south dakota. go ahead, karen. >> caller: hello. yes, i would like to ask ann about her mob psychology/group think premises with respect to the cast lick inquisition -- the catholic inquisition, the salem witch trials, the 30 years' catholic/protestant wars in which many, many people died.
and also going back to the old testament, the biblical injunctions to kill all the men, women and children given to the hebrews. how do you reconcile those with your mob psychology/group think? >> guest: um, well, i'm not sure god commanding the israelites to go into a city and kill every living thing has anything to do with my book which is about politics and what i consider the beginning of the division between liberal and conservative thought, the french revolution and the american revolution. um, the salem witch trials, they killed -- [laughter] please, check on google. but, oh, it was about a dozen people, and we still hear about it as if it was 9/11 every day. in point of fact, the number of people who were killed, of frenchmen who were killed in the french revolution without a king
who was fighting back, um, was the equivalent in terms of population loss of this country having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years. that's the sort of mob bloodshed we are talking about with a mob revolt like the french revolution. by contrast, the american revolution was -- as i describe in contrast -- a revolution of thinkers and debaters and christians. this was a heavily christian, um, influenced revolution with christian sermons promoting the revolution. they were debating, chatting about the revolution constantly. they needed to chat about it a lot because they had to explain to people why they should give up this very pleasant existence being a colony of great britain. but it was a principle that was being redeemed. and also the american colonists had lived -- most of our founding fathers had been here for several generations. i mean, they had, they had grown away from the old country.
thomas paine was an exception to that which is probably why he never fully understood the american revolution though he did write the very influential book "common sense" promoting the revolution. it was a revolution of ideas. that is not french peasants running around with pikes on heads and prancing through the streets while slaughtering priests and smashing the stained glass windows at notre dame cathedral. that is mob behavior. >> host: just going to read this e-mail. jamie chase from santa fe, new mexico: why is c-span giving a platform to this darkly-divisive woman? be she claims to the want to discuss the issues and names her book "demonic." please keep it real on c-span, don't help enable the sowers of an imagined war between the citizens of the united states of america to gain legitimacy. i will seek other information
outlets if c-span succumbs further to this dangerous sensationalism. next call for ann coulter comes from john in phoenix. hi, john. >> caller: good morning from phoenix. i think ann coulter's about as real as you can get, thank you very much. that kind of took my breath away. um, and i'm a conservative independent voter. i switched from the republican party in 2000 after what they tried to do in new york to mccain. so i guess i'll never vote for -- >> guest: wait, sorry. in 2000 after what? >> caller: after what happened to "forbes" and mccain in the new york primaries when they tried to keep forbes off the ballot. >> guest: you know, i was live anything new york then, and i don't even remember. proceed, john. [laughter] >> caller: i have two questions, one about social security payments and the other about good old herman cain.
um, my wife and i are both entering retirement year, and i keep hearing that social security is an entitlement. we paid funds into social security into the six figures for the last 40 years, and i keep hearing that social security as i think they mean the payments go is an entitlement. and that's our money. if social security payments are an entitlement, so are car payments and blue cross payments and all that. so i don't understand why social security -- >> guest: oh, i think i can explain that. the difference is one was paid to the government, and you should never trust the government. because they weren't doing something safe with your money like putting it under a mattress. they certainly weren't investing it, they were spending it. they were spending it as it came in. um, and right now, i mean, i know medicare recipients right now are already receiving three times what they put in. depending on how long you live,
you will, in theory, get a lot more out of social security than you paid in, and as for, you know, government, um, you know, having a contract, an enforceable contract with the trustworthy government, yeah, ask gm bondholders how that went. no, this is not enforceable, do not trust the government. this is why, i might add, george bush wanted to allow younger people to start doing, putting their pension money, their retirement money into something other than this slush fund for democratic politicians in washington. and when george bush mentioned it at that state of the union address, i think it was in january 2005, though i'm not sure, um, whenever it was i wanted a photo taken of that, of that house gallery because every single member on the democrat side sat on his hands while the republicans stood up and cheered. no, they don't want us to have freedom. they want to take your money so they can spend it, um, on jobs
for their relatives, no-show employees, third levels of them or refurbishing the harbor near nancy pelosi's husband's hotel and restaurant. that's what they've been using the money for instead of saving it under a mattress safely like you could have done if you hadn't been sending it to the government which you're required to do by law. >> host: from slander, ann coulter writes: liberals are painfully self-righteous. >> host: what do you think of when you hear the word "centrist"? [laughter] >> guest: liberal. as i think, i mean, a lot -- although everyone screamed when "slander" came out, i believe the ideas have been so completely accepted by now that
you read through it, and it doesn't seem particularly shocking. apparently, it was at the time since everyone was yelling at me. but the fact that the word withs centrist and moderate are used by the mainstream media to mean liberal i believe now is a well accepted fact. we've gotten several twitter comments or e-mails that i probably shouldn't read on the air, i mean, just not very nice ones. do you ever get hurt by the criticism? [laughter] >> guest: no. in fact, i was thrilled by the last one. i was about to say but you went straight to the next caller -- >> host: you're more than welcome to respond to it. >> guest: the one who was furious about the title, and i'm just destroying the world with the title demonic, oh, that was a good title. good work, ann. glad i didn't call it legion. >> host: can ms. coulter tell us how to find out about upcoming appearances or book signings?
i'd love to hear her speak in person or have her sign a book. unfortunately, i always hear about such things after the fact. >> guest: well, curiously enough, i generally don't do book signings which has made me just a huge hit with my publisher. [laughter] but this book tour, actually, the first one i ever did was for the last book tour. i was, i had done a brief show on the dr. phil show, and he wanted to do a whole show on this single mother's chapter which was perfect for dr. phil, and i was so excited. i probably did something on c-span that day. i think i did. and then dr. phil was flying me out to l.a., and at the last minute he canceled. uh-huh. and i was so depressed that i told my publisher i'd do a book signing. so i did one out in if san diego out in california, and for the first time on this tour i've done some book signings. the only ones i know that are coming are at the san francisco young republicans' speech.
at least the only public ones i know that are coming. and then in october we're going to do another one out in l.a. with kabc. and, oh, at cpac, they're having an early cpac this year in florida. >> host: when? >> guest: it's sometime in september -- >> host: they usually meet here in february. >> guest: yeah. no, but i think this is going to be a good idea because, of course, guess who's going to be speaking there? last year at the 2008 cpac all that happened was that mitt romney pulled, withdrew from the presidential race. well, you're too late to affect anything at that point. and romney was the pretty clear favorite among cpac attendees. ron paul supporters stuffed the ballot box. so, yeah, it's going to be with great to have a cpac in florida, in orlando in september, but i'm definitely doing a book signing there. >> host: and we've got you signing books at heritage just a few weeks ago.
>> guest: yes. >> host: why don't you sign books? is it something you dislike, or -- >> guest: um, i suppose it's always been because, um, i feel like i have to rely -- as you notice, i trust no one to help me get my word out. you have to rely on a third party to advertise the book signing. and i've shown up with another famous author, walked into a bookstore with him i won't mention because, i mean, it was walking in with him and the humiliation of him that made me decide i'm never doing this, and there was nobody there. barnes & noble put up this one little pathetic sign. he's world famous. we walk in, and he sits there for fife minutes, we go out and have a drink. and so you have to rely on somebody else to get the word out the same way i no longer bother submitting columns to newspapers and magazines. i'm not going to put that kind
of work in if i have to get through to you. i'll put it on my web page, and it's been very popular on my web page and in my books. >> host: and inre's a big chaptn "guilty," the theme of "guilty" is >> host: an illegitimate child might or might not be better off by having contact with his biological father, but social workers would definitely be better off with a lot more illegitimate children. >> guest: uh-huh. that's the true constituency of the democratic party. as i said before, not the poor, not the disadvantaged, but the government workers who minister to the poor and disadvantaged. um, and there's a big chapter in "guilty," the theme of "guilty" is everybody wants to be a victim and get ahead in america
by claiming victim status, and there's no way to wreck your life faster than being a victim subject to the tender administrations of liberal busy bodies. it's all a racket for the left. um, and it's a little embarrassing. i mean, one small example of that, single mothers being a huge example and has wrecked innumerable lives. actually, they are, you can number them, millions of lives. um, but look at, look at the american indian. really they are so cool, they are such a part of american history, um, you have, you have william tecumseh sherman named after an indian chief. they were warriors and brave and honorable, and suddenly they become a liberal victim group, and they're all alcoholics living on vez rations -- reservations. some of them did not buy onto
the victim status, and they're doing beautifully well. but the idea that you can't name a sports team after some, with an indian moniker, that is turning indians into sad, pathetic victims. look at all of our helicopters are all named, you know, the cherokee, the apache. it is an honorable thing because indians are great warriors. they are known to be great warriors the same way southerners are known to be great warriors. so, basically, everything related to the military is either named after an american indian or a confederate general. >> host: about 15 minutes left with ann coulter. brad, alliance, nebraska, you're on the air. >> caller: hi, ann. >> guest: hello. >> caller: i'm a big fan, although i don't buy too many of your books. i have a hard time spending money on stuff i already know. i'd like to ask why you call socialists liberals. why you would allow, i mean, what is liberal about a socialist? what is progressive about a
socialist? i don't understand why you feed into the propaganda they use. >> guest: i am not buying into the propaganda, i am turning the word -- in fact, i think i have quite successfully turned the word liberal into an epithet, a more humiliating epithet than socialist. everybody knows what a liberal is. you may as well, you may as well start a campaign to bring back the word gay to mean happy. >> host: mobile, alabama. hi, bill. >> caller: hi, ann, good to see you. a comment that you made both at the book signing party, the heritage book signing party and you made it again today in the tv broadcast dealing with a vertical relationship with god to the exclusion of, i guess you call it the crowd, other people. you know, one of the first things you learn in the general psychology course is that being out of contact with reality is psychosis. are you asking your colleagues
to be psychotic by making that recommendation? >> guest: be psychotic by believing in god? i believe that's what we call a liberal on that line. [laughter] a god believer is psychotic. [laughter] unless i misunderstood his leaps of logic. [laughter] >> host: dear mainstream media reporter who wasted my time, ann coulter writes, i've been finishing my next book and only able to catch bits and pieces of the news this month, but i'm pretty sure the conservative movement is now being led by either -- unfortunately, it got cut off. but this is in response to some questions that a reporter e-mailed to you, and you e-mailed back answers and never got printed. but you went ahead and printed the answers. >> guest: right. i was speaking to go proud -- >> host: what is go proud? >> guest: a conservative gay group, and they're real conservatives unlike log cabin republicans. and there was a lot of drong
about my speaking to this conservative gay group. so i gather the republican party is being led by i know one was go proud, and it was somebody else that was in the news obsessively. it was one of those very contemporary references, a daily reference. um, and i went through and gave my answers to the questions that were asked. but they do this, they do this all the time. >> host: um, just a couple of answers i just want to read and maybe have you expound on. have you ever spoken to an lgbt -- lesbian, gay, bi, transgender group or ever attended a group before? yes, i call them ann coulter book signings is one of your answers. another is why attend and speak at a homo con? then you go on to refer to yourself as a right-wing judy
garland. >> guest: well, it's true, i sort of reflected backwards and tried to figure out why it is i didn't expect that all right-wing girls would be good looking, but i've just noticed that it's true. i didn't expect that so many gays would be huge fans of mine, and yet it's true. and then having noticed that, then i sort of logic backwards why would that be, and why would it be? well, if you're born gay, why would you be a liberal? are you born liberal? um, and gays are a demographic group that have one of the highest incomes in america, um, they are victims of crimes, the muslims don't think too highly of 'em. [laughter] so, you know, basically, the entire republican platform is fighting the same causes any sane gay person should care about, and the entire democratic platform is sucking up to soccer moms and women who want abortions. what do you care about that for, gay person? abortion isn't at the top of your list, i'm guessing.
and by the way, as soon as liberals find a gay gene, guess who's going to get aborted? and so i think all gays who are born gay are overwhelmingly conservative, maybe apolitical. and all those angry gays causing trouble for everybody, i don't even think they're born gay. i think they're angry at their fathers. >> host: why are you against gay marriage? >> guest: i talked to them about it, by the way, at that meeting. when i spoke to go proud. they used to have a position in favor of gay marriage, but they were just doing it because -- they don't care about marriage. gays talk about gay marriage because they think it will prove we like them s. so i just tell them, we like you. [laughter] we just don't like gay marriage. and as many of the callers mentioned today, i mean, marriage is the linchpin of civilization. it has nothing to do with gays. it has to do with, yes, giving special benefits to mommy and daddy getting married before becoming mommy and daddy and
staying married. and every possible incentive should go into that. um, instead you have every possible incentive operating the other way. subsidies for women to have children out of wedlock and, oh, so many celebrations of the single mother, and the girl's doing it on her own now. well, no, they aren't. we are paying for these single mothers. and with, i mean, i do sort of feel sorry for gays to be coming to the sexual liberation window 30 years late saying, can we have our piece too? and the world explodes. but, you know, speaking as a conservative christian, we didn't like that other stuff either. so, yes, it seems like we're finally exploding on this one issue, but it doesn't have anything to do with being anti-gay, it has to do with being very pro-marriage classic, as we call it. like coke and coke classic. \ classic. marriage classic. >> host: next call for ann coulter, jeffrey in allentown, pa. we have a few minutes left, go
ahead. >> caller: hi, ann. i'm a big fan of yours, and i was so gratified to hear you enjoy thomas so well. i'd like to run by you one of my pet peeves about liberal hypocrisy. you know, every time a liberal engages you and finds out you're conservative, they say, oh, you're a conservative. therefore, you must be uneducated. well, modern academia, especially the quote-unquote humanities, purportedly claims to teach students to, quote-unquote think for themselves. actually, they only indoctrinate them to conformity with the letter-wing, liberal world view. my thought is then is the definition of uneducated must be one who thinks for themselves. >> guest: um, yes, they often do these, um, these fake studies about how liberals are more likely to have advanced degrees. that's because they're mostly in education, and the only thing an advanced degree in education
establishes is that you are stupider than someone without an advanced degree in education. >> host: cliff arnold e-mails in to you, ann coulter, i appreciate the fact that you seem to do research unlike many of the right and on the left. i feel that one of the things that is lacking is reasoned debate starting. >> guest: i'm sorry, i fell asleep halfway through that question. [laughter] can we -- could we -- do we have any questions on anthony weiner coming in, because if we are talking about regulation of the american economy and enron -- [laughter] >> host: tony in modesto, california, you're on with ann coulter. >> caller: yeah, hi, ann. you were talking about liberals want to turn everything into a
victim. i mean, one other thing would be when we watched the hurricane katrina, you know? all these people that were told to leave, so many of them stayed back to loot the city. and then the levees broke, and they were in trouble and then wanted to complain that nobody got there quick enough. and also, too, why has gotcha politics, you know, why do they use it when we all know it's just that you got caught in a lie, you know? i mean, i understand -- and then, also, why would msnbc continue to hire no-talent people, you know, in their company when their ratings are terrible, they don't tell the truth, i mean, how long do you think that that's going to keep up before comcast finally smartens up? thanks. >> guest: i don't think they are going to smarten up. i mean, i do think it is a fact to be commented on that in every, in every other industry other than the information
industry, um, someone comes along, puts out a great product, and everyone else imitates it. like with steve jobs' iphone now. you have all the imitator iphones or the apple computer or, oh, so many things. people, you put out a good product, other people imitate it. fox news, again, is totally crushing the ratings. and, again, i've never worked for fox news. um, or any rupert murdoch enterprise. they crush the weak, they put on really lively tv shows that are far more intellectual than anything on msnbc or cnn even though they're uglier on msnbc and cnn to make it look like they're smart, and nobody thinks to imitate them. um, it is -- liberal journalists can't get away from the idea that they, they are the state-run media, and they will tell us what we are allowed to hear. and even as competition keeps coming at them from talk radio, from the internet, from fox
news, nope, that's it, we're not going to tell you the other side. won't do it. >> host: what's your professional relationship with bill o'reilly. >> guest: um, oh, i just did his show on thursday. i go on and fight with him. [laughter] and i think it is excellent tv. >> host: how often are you on fox? are those -- but you're not under contract to fox. >> guest: correct. and for close ann coulter watchers, i mean, there'll be months where i won't do any tv any place, usually because i'm researching and writing, the happiest part of my life. i've been doing a lot of tv this summer because i'm promoting a book, and by the way, in the obama economy more people are spending money on food than they are on books these days. book sales are way, way, way, way down. this book and my last book, although, um, like most -- all of my books except the first one were number one or number two, i believe, on "the new york times"
bestsellers list. um, my last two books, including the current one, have sold fewer than any of my other books. that's how bad the book market is. but in any event, i mean, i'd probably still be doing this anyway. um, but that's why i'm doing a lot of tv this summer. and it's fun, i like to influence the public debate. >> host: do you like going on tv and being able to have the back and forth? >> guest: most of the time. i mean, it varies show to show, it varies with the questions. um, i like to talk about stuff i know. [laughter] and not answer, for example, prediction questions. and we're just about to enter that season of who's going to be the republican nominee, and who's going to win the election. and they all know and by now i've yelled at them and trained them enough that i'm rarely asked that question. but i always tell them, you know, i know stuff. i can give you historical comparisons. i can give you reasons to vote for one candidate over another.
you may as well bring in a homeless guy and ask him who's going to win. you can't be wrong. you can interview stupid people, so i guess that's good, it expands the pool of people you can interview, but not only as a viewer, but as a person on tv i want to hear about what people know. i want to be able to say something that i know and not answer stupid questions. so that is annoying. um, the good interviews are a blast, and it's fun having an influence on public debate. and it's especially fun annoying liberals which i'm allowed to do on tv. >> host: um, in your view, who is the most underrated u.s. president, or what period in american history do you think is the most underrated or overlooked? >> guest: huh. >> host: we'll let you think about that a little bit more because tv does not like
silence. [laughter] san antonio, texas, you're on with ann coulter. just about two minutes left. >> caller: great. hey, thank you for taking my call. thank you, c-span, and thank you to ann coulter. i really, really appreciate seeing you on tv and speaking, you know, really speaking the truth about things. um, just i'm a captain in the military here stationed in fort sam houston in san antonio, and i came in the military, you know, 19 years old. i've been deployed three times, and i know right now you didn't speak about, you know, these government employees and stuff and take away their pensions. and, you know, i'm a government employee, and, you know, do you think you should take away my pension and, you know -- >> host: all right, matt. we're running out of time. got the question. >> guest: yeah. i think matt there is a public
schoolteacher because no captain in the military would have called in with that question, point one. point two, as -- i mean, to go through underrated periods of president, i'm going decade by decade, and all i can say is, um, i don't think it's underrated though. our founding was miraculous. that's why i was kind of stuck on that, is there one that we don't appreciate sufficiently. our founding was, was a miracle. i do think most americans appreciate that. not the ones who have been through public schools and taught by people like matt, our last caller. they are not taught to appreciate the founding fathers. they are taught to appreciate the wives of the founding fathers who were so crucial and, you know, other women and minorities and the gay and lesbian contributions to the american revolution. no, the truth is not only more interesting, it's more fun than this pc -- it would be one thing if liberals were making up history and making it more
interesting, but they're making it more woring.. -- boring. >> host: george in wisconsin, who are your favorite philosophers? >> guest: well, jesus. that's the big one. i guess john locke. um, i think thomas sowell, we're putting him down as a philosopher. um, not jean jacques russo. [laughter] >> host: brian, we've got about a minute left. davenport, iowa. >> caller: hi, ann. as a conservative graduate from a jesuit university, i was interested in your recent comments about jesuit universities having the craziest liberal students, and i would definitely agree. do you have any idea why that would be the case? >> guest: that's a good question. i have no idea. we may need to talk to our catholic friends to find out why that would be. but i must tell you it has been
my experience that the jesuit schools, um, produce linda blair in the exorcist in the audience. and most appallingly it tends to be the female students screaming out things. that, for the first time, i have put in "demonic" but i would not dare say on television, radio or even out loud to one of my friends in the most intimate of moments, they are so vulgar. they are genuinely demonic. >> host: and very quickly a follow-up to that caller from rf1, a tweet. recommend any colleges or universities for students seeking an academic atmosphere free of liberal bias? >> guest: oh, great question. definitely hillsdale. i ought to have a list in my head, but i don't. i gather pepperdine. southern schools tend to be pretty good. because they're in the south.
oh, and, of course, kings college, my number one recommendation. and you can live in the greatest city in the world, new york city. it's christian core curriculum. yes, kings collegement what else is there? i'm sure there's some other good ones. it's not a question i answer a lot. and he has another question for me, and i think he's going to quote from one of my books. >> host: well, we're out of time. ann coulter on "hannity & colmes" in '04: >> host: we've got to watch out for spending on the military. that's from '07. here's a list of ann coulter's books: