Tag Archives: Orwell

Coulter’s Berkeley Bluff

Ann Coulter has been undeservedly hailed a valiant heroine for the Battle at Berkeley, yet her perceived defiance of leftist mobs and censoring administrators was not really at all courageous.

In fact, Coulter never expected or intended to give a speech at Berkeley! It was all a clever ruse and publicity stunt. Bravado, not bravery, marked Coulter’s Berkeley bluff.

After successfully portraying herself as a courageous free speech warrior – having gotten exactly what she wanted: publicity and a new image – Coulter did not give what would have been a truly “free” (no honorarium) speech in what she herself insisted was the “safest place on earth” for her.

Before getting into details, let’s recall that Berkeley has justifiably been almost universally condemned (except by some on the far left) for not allowing Coulter to speak. Nevertheless, Coulter is not the courageous heroine she would have you believe her to be.

Coulter’s Last Stand

I gave Ann an Alamo Award in 1997 for her unquestioned courage – at that time – in speaking truth to power, at the risk of losing her livelihood. At Berkeley, Coulter risked nothing whatsoever. Indeed, regardless of the outcome, Coulter expected to gain that which she sought: publicity and an image of being a heroic-martyr.

This epic battle of wills pitting liberty lovers against academic censors saturated national news coverage. Coulter’s gambit was actually just a PR stunt from the very beginning. And it worked.

Her #BerkeleyBound mission perfectly suited her purposes. Whether or not she spoke, she won. If she spoke, she was heroic; if not, she was a courageous martyr. Win-win.

The Washington Post reported: “In a classic case of ‘heads I win, tails you lose,’ conservative provocateur Ann Coulter emerged from last week’s events at the University of California at Berkeley as a free-speech martyr.”

Coulter couldn’t lose. That was the plan from the start. It was all braggadocio and bravado, a marketing ploy explicitly designed to reinvigorate her reputation and career.

Lauded as the courageous conservative facing down Berkley rioters and university censors, the truth is otherwise: Coulter never intended to speak at Berkeley.

“Pranav Jandhyala, who founded [YAF’s] UC Berkeley chapter,” “acknowledged that it was now clear that Coulter’s intention wasn’t to engage in any real dialogue, but to prove her own point.”

Of course, YAF also wanted to use the entire scenario to promote itself and highlight the rampant trampling of the First Amendment on college campuses (and elsewhere).

Coulter’s Glory

Everything Coulter says or does accrues to Coulter’s benefit. That which she seeks most of all is glory. She became addicted to fame and power in late 1997 and she has never recovered from that pathology.

Coulter generated a tremendous amount of positive media coverage with her Berkeley kerfuffle, far more than during her last book tour. She gloried in her glory on The View.

Milking the situation for all it was worth, Coulter told KTVU that she was better than Milo Yiannopoulos: “I’m not even Milo. I mean, for Pete’s sake, I’m a twelve-time New York Times’ bestselling author.” (Actually, she’s only a ten-time bestselling author, as even McInnes admitted at Berkeley.)

Coulter also likened herself to heroic figures in the past: Martin Luther King, Jr. and Winston Churchill!

She boasted to Tucker Carlson: “By the way, I am giving the speech. What are they going to do, arrest me? They can put me in the Birmingham jail.” (King would have rejected both Coulter’s racial paradigm and anti-Christian behavior.)

The host on KTVU asked Coulter the most pertinent question imaginable: “Some people would say, ‘Ann Coulter is all about Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter wants to promote Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter wants to come here – and she’s gonna come here on Thursday – and she’s gonna be a rabble-rouser and she’s gonna try to incite people.’”

Usually in situations like this, Coulter reverts to using Jesus as her model of civil disobedience (upturning tables in temple, brood of vipers speech) to justify her own vitriol. On this occasion, she argued, “Winston Churchill was promoting himself with that ‘We shall fight on the beaches’ speech.”

Then she stridently claimed, “The idea that I’m trying to get publicity off of this event could not be further from the truth on the facts.”

Timeline

Here’s the actual timeline of events according to Coulter and her speech sponsors:

BridgeUSA and YAF sponsored Coulter’s speech. She knew – given riots at Milo Yiannopoulos’ event in February – that she wouldn’t be giving her speech. The university and/or rioters would surely shut it down.

Berkeley placed ever-demanding restrictions on Coulter’s speech. She insisted that YAF concede to every single demand. Coulter could not quit. She had to wait – and wait patiently she did (because she knew it was inevitable) – for Berkeley to cancel, making her a martyr. She told Tucker Carlson, “Well, they changed the rules every ten minutes. I kept agreeing to all of their conditions – they were hoping I would cancel.”

In this high-stakes game of chicken, Berkeley flinched. Berkeley caved and cancelled her speech, enabling Coulter to play the heroic victim of institutional censorship and mob rule.

Under intense media and political pressure, Berkeley offered an alternative date, which Coulter refused, keeping the pressure on Berkeley. Her sponsors filed lawsuits.

Coulter demanded her original speaking slot, insisted she would speak, and suggested she would speak in Sproul Plaza, if need be.

Berkeley announced that it could not ensure the safety of the speaker and attendees. Then YAF folded. Coulter wrote, “We were on [the] cusp of victory and YAF backed down, refused to seek a court order or allow the College Republicans to request a court order.  It’s a sad day for free speech.”

Coulter’s sponsors caved. Coulter was incensed. Why? She wanted Berkeley to cave and herself be vindicated as a heroine. Instead, she would have to speak outdoors, something she did not want to do.

In the end, Gavin McInnes, her good friend and latest knight in shining armor, gave Coulter’s extremely-short speech on her behalf in Sproul Plaza. Coulter was there, in Berkeley, but not at that peaceful event. Afterward, she joined McInnes and supporters for drinks at George and Walt’s.

Broken Vow

To KTVU, Coulter vowed: “I was invited to give a speech. I have a contract to give a speech. I’m giving a speech.” To the Hollywood Reporter, Coulter swore, “Yes, it was officially banned, but they can’t stop me. I’m an American. I have constitutional rights.”

Just the night before, Coulter told Sean Hannity: “I do think it is possible that the Berkeley campus will be the safest place on the face of the earth because so many people are flying in to defend me.”

At the airport, Coulter said, “Safest place on earth for me, but these cowards! Who has a better idea of what the campus is gonna be like than the person who’s going there as opposed to the moron sitting in Washington?”

So – both the day before and the afternoon of “the speech” – Coulter declared Berkeley “the safest place on earth for me,” yet she assigned her speech to McInnes! She gave him that assignment the day before the speech, which she emailed to him.

Coulter is there, but does not speak herself?

Gavin McInnes tweeted the day before the speech: “The @AnnCoulter event in Berkeley is NOT canceled. I will be speaking tomorrow with @Lauren_Southern @FaithGoldy @BrittPettibone #POYB.”

Two days earlier, Coulter tweeted: “Nice day for an outdoor speech at Berkeley,” implying she would give her speech in the plaza, if necessary. Coulter told AP, “I have my flights, so I thought I might stroll around the graveyard of the First Amendment.”

Five days later, Coulter told Lou Dobbs, “I would have preferred to have spoken.”

Coulter regularly advertises upcoming speeches on her website as soon as she has them booked. She never advertised her Berkeley speech on her own website – even though YAF did on theirs – complete with date, time, and location. Why?

She never intended to speak. It was all a charade. She wanted credit for courage without being courageous. She knew Berkeley would give in.

Nothing changed between Milo and Ann and the results were wholly predictable – and expected.

Coulter’s Speech

If Coulter really planned on speaking, then she must have prepared an astonishing speech. Indeed, Coulter boasted to Carlson that it would be “a searingly brilliant speech on immigration.”

McInnes said, “Ann sent me her speech,” and then he read it, breaking in with his own running commentary. Coulter’s actual speech was less than four minutes and contained nothing new, except for her comparison of immigrants to rat feces (contained in the lead paragraph). It contained zero references to Berkeley.

Hardly “searingly brilliant.”

Coulter told Carlson that her speech was about enforcement of existing immigration laws. Her speech – given by McInnes – never addressed that issue.

Earlier that week, Coulter said she would be updating her speech. Pretty good gig, $20,000 for a four-minute speech.

McInnes introduced her speech, saying, “Ann was betrayed. She was censored. They put all the legal onus upon her so that if someone gets hurt tonight, it would have been on her head. Now it’s on my head.”

If it was so dangerous that Coulter couldn’t give her speech, why did she have McInnes risk his life – and the lives of those in the audience – to do so on her behalf?

But what did she say shortly before McInnes gave her speech? “Safest place on earth for me, but these cowards!”

Yet, Coulter wasn’t about to nail her 95 Theses on Berkeley’s wall. She let her friend do it for her, while she took all the credit.

Speech Sponsors

The non-partisan BridgeUSA and conservative Young America’s Foundation co-sponsored Coulter’s speech. [Both YAF and BridgeUSA were non-responsive to my interview requests.]

The founder of BridgeUSA explained why his organization co-sponsored Coulter’s speech – “to facilitate dialogue between political opposites.” Ironically, he wrote: “Free speech isn’t about provocation, violence, publicity stunts, selling books or testing limits” – precisely what Coulter does on a regular basis.

Further, BridgeUSA “refuse[s] to invoke the right to free speech to inflame, attack and generate publicity” – exactly the modus operandi Coulter has embraced for the past two decades.

He added, “instigating controversy for publicity does not fix a broken system,” yet BridgeUSA sponsored a self-proclaimed provocateur and polemicist to do just that. How well would David Duke be received by the Black Panthers?

At CPAC 2002, Coulter posited the notion that she should keep going further and further right to draw the culture and the left toward her. Shortly thereafter, Coulter coined a series of “rules” for talking to a liberal: being as outrageous as you can be to inflame them. No reconciliation there.

Alheli Picazo writes, “People like Coulter and Yiannopoulos aren’t brought to campus to contribute substance – hearing either speak for a few minutes quickly puts lie to claims of their brilliance. They are skilled antagonists who can reliably incite backlash from a perceived enemy.”

It is unclear why Coulter is the best spokesman for YAF on anything, even immigration (the purported topic of the series of speeches spearheaded by BridgeUSA).

YAF has 100 speakers on its roster. Only five speakers are listed for immigration; Coulter is not among them. Were none of the actual “experts” on immigration available?

Moreover, only eight YAF speakers require an honorarium of $20K or more. Surely YAF could have selected a better representative of conservatism for less money.

YAF previously sponsored Milo Yiannopoulos, who isn’t even listed on its roster. Coulter claimed she is not like Yiannopoulos, yet they are both leaders of the Alt-Right and share an Alt-Right worldview. Is YAF in agreement with those views?

Unanswered Questions

One YAF tweet was particularly confusing: “At no time was there ever a space or lecture time confirmed for Ann Coulter to speak.” Yet YAF’s event page listed the location, date, and time as 110 Sprout Hall from 7:00 to 8:30 pm on 4/27/17. What really happened?

Would it be fair to say that YAF chose both Yiannopoulos and Coulter to generate controversy, anticipating a backlash which would then highlight the thuggish behavior on the Left and their threats to the First Amendment?

Coulter’s Courage

Conservative heroine Ann Coulter has proven herself a cowardly fraud. The free speech battle at Berkeley was merely a publicity stunt for this polemicist and provocateur.

As noted above, Coulter exhibited genuine courage in 1996-97. Hence her Alamo Award.

Since then, Coulter has gotten edgier and edgier while simultaneously abandoning her principles and ideals. In doing so, Coulter has actually embraced her fears. Now she is desperately grasping for the glory she once had and which increasingly eludes her.

What she fears most is facing the truth about the person she has become. Moreover, Coulter fears that she is beyond redemption, so why not continue on her downward path. (Ann, My Redeemer Lives, and so does yours!)

Ann Coulter isn’t a voice for freedom or free speech. Ann Coulter is a voice for Ann Coulter.

[#NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Coulter’s Genetic Superiority

Donald Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency gives legitimacy to – and greatly empowers – the Alt-Right.

its-in-the-genes

Ensconced in the White House, the nativist Alt-Right will seek to transform America into its own image.

In a stunning interview with Iain Dale of Britain’s LBC, Coulter claimed that “We’re a colony of yours.”

Coulter then asserted, “Most of us have a lot of British ancestry.” Coulter amplified what she regards as a “special relationship” with Britain that, “of course our two countries are very similar in culture, I mean, down to the genes.” (For years, Coulter has entertained the notion of WASP superiority – at a genetic level.)

It is not surprising that the high priestess of the Alt-Right lauds Trump’s decision to elevate Alt-Right guru Stephen Bannon as his chief strategist. Coulter told Howie Carr, “I think it’s quite brilliant.” She added, “I’m very impressed with Trump and this decision.”

Of course she is. In the end, Coulter and the Alt-Right seek to remake America into a white, WASP nation. Hence their obsession with race.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, sheds some light on the #OnlyTrump movement and its Alt-Right constituency. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Coulter’s Nativism Glaringly Obvious

Nativist Ann Coulter is the high priestess of the Alt-Right and arguably Donald Trump’s most senior advisor.

coulters-nativism-glaringly-obvious

Coulter’s tweets, on the eve of the election, decisively demonstrate both her nativism and her lack of logic.

Ann Coulter (10:42 p.m.): If only people with at least 4 grandparents born in America were voting, Trump would win in a 50-state landslide.

Coulter’s argument is entirely race-based. She desires racial homogeneity. She has long sought to restore a (white) WASP America.

Erin McCormick (11:09 p.m.): “At LEAST four grandparents” it’s physically impossible to have more than four though?

Confronted with a linguistic error, Coulter proffered her own explanation of the meaning of “is.”

Ann Coulter (11:12 p.m.): There’s 8 great grandparents, 16 great-great grandparents, etc.

Yes, she explained what she meant of tweet. Her explanation further solidifies her intent toward racial (white) homogeneity.

witch docta (11:13 p.m.): Trump couldn’t even vote for himself because his mother was born in Scotland you past-ripe banana lookin bitch

Confronted with a quandary arising because Trump himself is a second-generation immigrant, Coulter claimed that fact to be irrelevant.

Ann Coulter (11:24 p.m.): So what? You are like “Politifact,” citing irrelevancies as if they detract from blinding truth of my statement.

What is the “blinding truth of” her original tweet? That real Americans – those who ancestors date back several generations as native-born Americans – would vote Trump, who “would win in a 50-state landslide.”

First, “real Americans” wouldn’t vote for Trump, a candidate who eschews the Constitution, the rule of law, Christianity, and American principles and ideals.

Second, Trump – and Trump alone – is the only “Republican” presidential candidate who could possibly lose to Hillary Clinton.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, sheds some light on the #Only Trump movement and its Alt-Right constituency. It is now available on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M9JQU7Q/.]

Pravda! Trump is not a bully; he’s a victim

In a stunning display of myopia, Melania Trump condemned social media for cyberbullying. She said:

pravda

“Our culture has gotten too mean and too rough, especially to children and teenagers. It is never OK when a 12-year-old girl or boy is mocked, bullied, or attacked. It is terrible when that happens on the playground. And it is absolutely unacceptable when it is done by someone with no name hiding on the Internet. We have to find a better way to talk to each other, to disagree with each other, to respect each other.”

Mike T tweeted: “When Melania Trump says cyber-bullying is out of hand… girl, have you met your husband?”

Apparently not. She must have missed Ann Coulter’s latest book, “How to Talk to a Bully (if you must).” She must have missed her husband’s frequent bully boy tantrums. Trump’s thousands of bullying lawsuits seem to have escaped her notice.

Has Melania forgotten about Corey Lewandowski’s physical assault on journalist Michelle Fields?

Trump’s consigliere and cheerleader-in-chief Ann Coulter is not just myopic, she’s in total denial. Coulter denies Trump’s bullying nature, contending instead that Trump is the victim. Yes, you heard that right – Trump is the victim. Coulter said, “It’s unfair and they are blaming a victim.”

(Coulter often uses that ruse to justify herself. See chapter 6 of The Beauty of Conservatism.)

Coulter then justified Trump’s attacks as merely defensive in nature, arguing, “When he has been slandered unfairly and attacked, ya, he punches back. I don’t think Trump is a bully, he fights back, he punches twice as hard, but you have to if you’re going to fight against the ruling class.”

Wow! Trump is fighting against the “ruling elite” when he threatens physical violence against voters and convention delegates, when he threatens lawsuits against his victims, or when he boasts of being able to grab p*ssy?

Is there nothing that Trump supporters will not defend? Nothing too repulsive in their candidate that they will not tolerate?

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, sheds some light on the #Only Trump movement. It is now available on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M9JQU7Q/.]

Coulter’s Beyoncé Blunders

Ann Coulter stuffed so much nonsense into just one tweet that she enraged Beyoncé fans and kicked reason and decency in the head.

coulters-beyonce-blunders

Coulter’s tweet:

“Beyonce, cited by Michelle Obama as role model for her daughters, sings about ‘pussy curvalicious, served delicious.’ Oh my. I just fainted.”

Sarcasm notwithstanding, Coulter was wrong on the singer, mangled the lyrics, offered a tortured interpretation of those lyrics, and confused sexual assault with a provocatively poetic expression of consensual sex in marriage.

Coulter was as wrong as wrong can be. Again.

  • Coulter cited the wrong singer. The lyrics were rapped by Nicki Minaj, not Beyoncé.
  • Coulter mangled the lyrics. Coulter transposed the first two words, mutilating the rhythm of the rhyme. The actual lyrics are: “Curvalicious, pussy served delicious.”
  • Coulter tortured the interpretation of those lyrics. Defending Trump from allegations of sexual assault, Coulter missed the significance of consensual sex in those lyrics. As reported by Mediaite: “By referring to her privates as something being ‘served,’ Minaj is, in effect, giving her partner her consent, which a woman being grabbed ‘by the pussy’ by a famous man has not done.”
  • Coulter equated sexual talk with sexual assault. Intent upon absolving Trump of guilt for gloating over grabbing women “by the pussy,” Coulter spotlights the word “pussy” (a word she herself frequently uses). However, as Mediaite also observes, “most of Trump’s detractors are not as outraged by the word ‘pussy’ as they are by Trump telling Billy Bush that famous men can get away with grabbing women by the pussy.” It’s assault, not talk!
  • Coulter concluded by mocking Trump’s victims. “Oh my. I just fainted.” No! Innocent women have been sexually assaulted by a rich, powerful, and famous man. Coulter was and remains aghast over Bill Clinton’s treatment of women, yet rushes to Trump’s defense over similar charges.

For Coulter, this is all about ideology, not reality. It is about power, not morality. It is about winning an election, not doing the right thing. Apparently, the end really does justify the means to these people.

John O’Sullivan writes:

“In 2001, before anyone saw the Donald as a presidential aspirant, I wrote a critique in National Review of his interviews with Howard Stern in which he discussed women in terms I thought ungallant. My attack wasn’t political, even though Trump was then a Democrat, but its message was sternly disapproving. … Those interviews (which were on the record) were not very different from the notorious videotape. They were vulgar, crass, shameless, and silly sexual boasting – the kind of thing (second only to intrusive women sports reporters) that prompts me to avoid locker rooms. Above all, however, they were known about and readily available.”

Now that the pussy’s out of the bag, so to speak, Trump’s cadre of female shills have turned truth upside down to salvage what remains of Trump’s reputation. Coulter’s Beyoncé tweet is emblematic of those unsavory efforts.

Coulter’s Terrorist Protection Racket

Seeking to protect America from terrorists, Ann Coulter actually protects terrorists who are already in America.

coulters-terrorist-protection-racket

Coulter wants to ban immigration to prevent people who are or might become terrorists from entering our homeland. She cites specific examples of “second-generation immigrants” (e.g., native-born Americans) who have committed terrorist attacks. Yet, at the very same time, Coulter denies the existence of terrorists in America.

Coulter has repeatedly denied (again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again) the threat that ISIS poses to Americans in America.

As she has done for the last several years, Coulter primary – indeed, only – concern is immigration. Hence her repeated denials that ISIS is not in America and ISIS poses absolutely no threat to Americans.

  • “I don’t even care about ISIS!” – Ann Coulter, 2/19/15
  • “ISIS is not on our doorstep.” – Ann Coulter, 2/25/15
  • “If you don’t want to be killed by ISIS, don’t go to Syria.” – Ann Coulter, 2/25/15
  • “ISIS: 0; Ted Kennedy: Too Many to Count” – Ann Coulter, 7/8/15
  • “Are you worried about an attack from ISIS in America? I’m not. [ISIS attacks in America] are an immigration problem.” – Ann Coulter, 8/22/16

This, even as she decries the influx of non-WASP immigrants who might become radicalized Islamists.

Classic Orwellian doublethink. The terrorists are immigrants (who must be banned and banished) but, because they’re immigrants, they’re not terrorists.

Confused, Coulter can’t grasp that we are facing an immigration and terrorism crisis. Moreover, Coulter redefines “immigrant” to include native-born Americans.

Coulter wrote (9/21/16): “This is the doubletalk the public has been forced to endure after every terrorist attack.”

Yes! After every terrorist attack, Coulter claims we must stop immigrants, not terrorists!

Coulter and Kerry Agree on ISIS

In a Twilight Zone development, the far left and far right agree on ISIS. Fiery foes, John Kerry and Ann Coulter are in strange fellowship on ISIS.

Coulter & Kerry Agree on ISIS

In addition to sharing a warped perspective of ISIS and being northeastern moderate elites (one actually claims to be conservative[1]), Coulter and Kerry share many other character and ideological traits. (We’ll leave that for another time, though narcissism[2] would be high on the list.)

But, back to ISIS.

Both Kerry[3] and Coulter[4] claim that ISIS poses no threat to America and they absurdly assert that something else is the real existential threat (Kerry – global warming;[5] Coulter – immigration[6]).

One denies the nature of ISIS, the other its goals. Kerry denies that ISIS is Islamic;[7] Coulter denies that ISIS is in America.

Furthermore, Coulter[8] and Kerry are both appalled at the extent of media coverage of ISIS and each would like to silence the media.

Kerry recently said (emphasis added), “If you decide one day you’re going to be a terrorist and you’re willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise … perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”

Coulter ranted, “every time I turn on TV it’s ISIS, ISIS, ISIS,”[9] and said, “Fox was spending a bit too much time on ISIS.”[10] Coulter even regards ISIS coverage as a media conspiracy: “There are always going to be Muslim atrocities! Whenever the media starts obsessing with ISIS, I think you’re hiding something.”[11]

Propagandists[12] everywhere hate the truth coming out.

Endnotes:

[1]               I have long argued that Coulter is not far-right. She is extreme, but not a conservative by any reasonable measure. But, since she is regarded as a Conservative Icon, I will accede to that nomenclature for this column. See The Beauty of Conservatism, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[2]               See Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[3]               See “Willful Blindness to Reality” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c9.

[4]               See “Coulter Still Doesn’t Get Terrorist Threat!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bg. See also “Coulter’s ISIS Denial” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-gj.

[5]               See “Obama’s War … on Global Warming!” at http://t.co/WmjRvUyVlw. Kerry recently said, “As we were working together on the challenge of [ISIS] and terrorism, it’s hard for some people to grasp it, but what we – you [at this climate change conference] – are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself.”

[6]               See “Immigration More Dangerous Than ISIS” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5e. See also “Ann Coulter … Dangerously Wrong!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7x, “Stop Immigrants, Not Terrorists!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-b2, “Coulter, Orlando, & Nonsense!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-eL.”

[7]               See “In Allah’s Name” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-fw.

[8]               See “Coulter Aghast at ISIS Coverage” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-aK.

[9]               Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 3/5/15.

[10]             Ann Coulter, Red Eye, FNC, 6/6/15.

[11]             Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 2/18/15.

[12]             See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.