Tag Archives: Orwell

.@AnnCoulter = Bernie Sanders

What can arch-conservative Ann Coulter and Bolshevik Bernie Sanders possibly have in common? Surprisingly, a great deal.

Ann Coulter and Bernie Sanders are far closer than one would think in temperament, disposition, and ideology.

Both are New England elites who think that they alone have all the answers.

They would both force their own will upon others.

Both would weaponize the Deep State to their own ends.

Neither forgives nor repents.

Both are anti-Semitic.

Both are obsessed with Identity Politics, but from different perspectives. While Sander’s version is steeped in class warfare, Coulter’s viewpoint is distinctly WASP Supremacy.

Sanders claimed, “Italians are gangsters, Jews are greedy, Irish are drunk and blacks smell.”

Here is Coulter version:

Though one is an avowed Socialist and the other purportedly champions the free market, Coulter is willing to vote for a Socialist in order to get her Wall for the express purpose of preventing America from becoming Socialist.

This is called cognitive dissonance, or, in Orwell’s vernacular, Doublethink.

Coulter told Bill Maher (video) and Margaret Hoover (video) that she would vote for Sanders. It almost seems as if Coulter is a Socialist (or, at least, a Statist) at heart.

Notice, Coulter doesn’t “care about the rest of the socialist stuff.” But it is the “socialist stuff” which would complete Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America into something real Americans do not want. All that “socialist stuff” would permanently solidify the Deep State and destroy what remains of the constitutional structure of our government and the Judeo-Christian ethos of our culture.

Like Sanders and many far-left activists, Coulter has repeatedly called for a wealth tax – a pernicious tax which confiscates wealth and inevitably diminishes the health of a nation’s economy (more on that below).

Coulter has even mirrored many of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s views.

And they call Bernie crazy! Trump was right to label Coulter a #WackyNutJob!

Like a true Socialist, Coulter believes in, operates from, and lives her life in accordance with the Marxist Maxim: The end justifies the means.

We see this exhibited throughout her career, from lying on her resume, to betraying clients, to attempts to subvert the American election process. Coulter will do and say whatever she has to do in order to accomplish her goals. The atheistic “will to power” is strong in this one.

Coulter is Radically Wrong About Radical Sanders!

In her weekly column (BERNIE IS STILL TRUMP’S NIGHTMARE, 3/4/20), Coulter made some utterly ludicrous claims (emphasis added).

“Bernie Sanders is [Trump’s] greatest nightmare.”

Actually, no. Even Democrats fear his fatal flaws with the American electorate, hence the Left’s coalescence around Biden.

“True, the media, the donors and the Democratic Party are convinced that Sanders is a sure loser – just as, four years ago, Fox News, the donors and the Republican Party knew that Trump was a sure loser.”

There is simply no reasonable comparison between the two campaigns or candidates, as addressed below.

“What made both Trump and Sanders unique in their respective primaries was their voluble opposition to Wall Street, war and immigration. I’m beginning to suspect that Americans hate Wall Street, hate war and hate mass, low-wage immigration.”

Actually, Trump was the pro-America candidate; Sanders the anti-America one.

“Recall that, in 2016, Trump and Sanders were the only presidential candidates opposed to the mass importation of low-wage workers immiserating our working class.”

Wrong. Ted Cruz and others also opposed illegal immigration.

“Sadly, they both moved left on the issue at about the same time: Bernie when he went from being a Socialist to a Democrat, and Trump when he went from the campaign to the White House.”

Wrong. Trump has made considerable, quantifiable progress on reversing the tide of illegal immigration (to be addressed in future columns).

“Then Trump became president, and the only people working overtime on his war stance became his own voters, constantly on edge that he’s about to start a war with Syria or Iran.”

Wrong. Trump has been the most anti-war president in generations.

“Maybe a Fidel-admiring revolutionary was never the best champion of even the most popular ideas – just as a vulgar reality TV star wasn’t. Maybe Bernie is dead. But the universal popularity of hating Wall Street, war and immigration will never die.”

Who on the Right hates Wall Street? Besides Ann, of course. Coulter’s is becoming a rabid Leftist.

“It could be that a ‘safe’ choice is all the Democrats need. But I think Trump just dodged a bullet.”

According to Coulter, “Trump dodged a bullet” with Sanders delegate failure on Super Tuesday. Actually, No.

Coulter supplemented her column with an interview with Breitbart News. Coulter claimed (emphasis added):

“[Bernie Sanders] really would have helped himself if he had not flipped on immigration.”

Sanders didn’t crash and burn over immigration! The Left loves open borders. No, his anti-Semitism and defense of totalitarian regimes, such as Cuba, did him in.

Coulter’s Tyrannical Wealth Tax

In her Breitbart News interview, Coulter warned (emphasis added):

“The one saving grace from this – because I’m just about to the point of writing my final book Screw It, We’re Doomed – at which point all there really is left for us to is take revenge on the people who have wrecked our country. And we’re getting the initial taste of it right now.”

How would Coulter take revenge (apart from using her oft-repeated firing squad scenario)?

Coulter has repeatedly proposed an unconstitutional wealth tax to target, specifically, the Koch Brothers. That’s right, Coulter would politicize and weaponize the IRS and specific people she does not like.

According to Coulter (emphasis added):

“Hispanics are voting for Bernie, not because of immigration, he’s had the toughest position on immigration, just like they voted in Venezuela, they want socialism. When the country’s over, I’m volunteering to go work for Sanders and AOC to make sure we have a really strict wealth tax. I want to clean out the Chamber of Commerce-types, I want to bankrupt the Koch brothers.

Coulter’s wacky proposal, reminiscent of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other far-left radicals, is blatantly unconstitutional, tyrannical, and something Bolshevik Bernie would love. Moreover, Trump – not Sanders – has the toughest position on immigration.

As noted by American Thinker (emphasis added):

“The Sixteenth Amendment of 1913 gave the federal government an additional right to tax income, and only income.”

“That is because the Constitution includes caveats as to how direct taxes can be applied, most notably in Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, which reads, ‘No Capitation or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.'”

“A direct tax on assets held without any ‘transmission’ of property having taken place is the arbitrary confiscation of property by a federal government which clearly has no right enumerated in the Constitution to do so.”

One economist put it to me this way:

“It’s especially destructive and immoral. Morally It’s just plain old theft, practically discourages production and encourages hiding wealth. It’s safer to hide it than invest it with a wealth tax.”

#BolshevikBernie could learn a thing or two from Coulter about really going Marxist.

Sanders is Nothing Like Trump

American Thinker provided an excellent analysis debunking the myth that Sanders and Trump are comparable “populist” leaders.

He writes (emphasis added):

“While Trump’s early performance in 2016 signified crossover appeal for the Republican ticket, Bernie has shown no crossover appeal at all.

Bernie is unappealing in critical swing states because he’s openly miles to the left of moderate Democrats and independent voters, and he’s generally unappealing to most Americans because he’s an ideological lunatic whose entire adult life has been devoted to thinking and talking about the magnificence of socialism.”

“His promise to pay for it consists of higher income taxes and an unconstitutional wealth tax to finance the unfathomable amount of debt his proposals demand.”

“And far from being out of touch with the American people, Trump seemed to have his finger firmly on the nation’s pulse.”

“[Trump] shared many other conservative positions with them, too, such as unequivocally declaring himself to be pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-military, and in favor of tax cuts. … He ran on his longstanding opposition to the Iraq War, protectionist trade policies to shield domestic manufacturing jobs from outsourcing (which earned him strong union support), relative protection of federal entitlement programs, and an unmistakable lack of emphasis on reductions to federal spending.”

Bernie Sanders is a revolutionary whose ideas are radically socialistic and entirely un-American, and he doesn’t seem to like this country much, either. Trump, on the other hand, is not on the political fringe, and there’s certainly nothing un-American about him. His very visage hearkens back to the Reagan era, which many Americans fondly look back upon as a time of patriotic prosperity, where America waged and won a war against the ideology to which Bernie Sanders is devoted.”

Ann Ocasio-Coulter = Bernie Sanders

So much of what Coulter says about Sanders is wrong, perhaps because she actually agrees with so much of his ideological and programmatic perspectives.
For more on Coulter’s dysfunctional views and commentary, see Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged, which provides an in-depth, detailed and holistic exposé of  Coulter.

Foundational Errors in @AnnCoulter’s Demonic!

Naomi Wolf’s latest book, Outrages: Sex, Censorship and the Criminalization of Love, has been proven to be fatally flawed. It’s entire foundational premises and “evidence” was recently proven wrong in the space of a very short interview.

Ann Coulter’s book, Demonic, suffers from similar, even more egregious flaws than those contained in Wolf’s book.

Demonic is replete with projection and the hallmarks of addictive thinking. Her assessment of and contrast between the American and French Revolutions is largely accurate, though hyperbolic, however, she conflates cause and effect. Her exclusive focus upon mob mentality ignores the far more important factors of the disparate ideological goals and spiritual milieus of the respective revolutions. The objective of the American Revolution was liberty; that of the French version was equality. The former was birthed in a Judeo-Christian environment; the latter in a secularized atheism.

Both revolutions had mobs (crowds). Ours sought freedom in a Christian environment; theirs pursued equality in an anti-religious (and anti-intellectual) one. By focusing exclusively on mob-like behavior, Coulter can condemn the motives and character of her targets. In acknowledging intended (noble) goals, she would have to concede to a certain degree hearts that are not necessarily evil and foes who are not intrinsically demonic. Further, her behavior-focused analysis prevents her from accepting that people can and do peacefully assemble in large assemblies without exhibiting the mob-like behavior Coulter decries.

Are Americans in a French-like revolution now? One would think so given the tenor and tone of her tome. When was the epidemic of beheadings in America and who were the perpetrators. Did we miss passage of the Build the Guillotine Now! Act or the Off With Their Heads Protestor Reduction Act?

Who exactly is advocating violence and the mass murder of innocent people? Oh, that would be Coulter.

Coulter advocated carpet-bombing Iran (“Well, I keep hearing people say we can’t find the nuclear material, and you can bury it in caves. How about we just carpet-bomb them so they can’t build a transistor radio?”[1]) and launching a nuclear attack against North Korea (“I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning. Boom! … I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning … to the world.”[2]).

Foundational Errors in Demonic

When asked, on C-Span’s In Depth, why she began her book with Scripture, Coulter analyzed Mark chapter 8 and asserted, “There you have it – from the Holy Bible – the mob is demonic!”[3] Wrong!

Coulter preceded her claim by saying that her book began with Scripture because it is central to her thesis and spiritually foundational to her book. But neither the words of Jesus nor the gospel she cites make the claim she asserts. The Gospel of Mark tells us a story about a man who was possessed by a “Legion” of demons; it is neither a political treatise nor a psychological evaluation of what happens when a number of people assemble together into a large group.

The quoted Scripture is a descriptive narrative of an event, not a prophetic pronouncement of the future nor a psychological textbook on human nature in isolation or in large groups.

Still, Coulter claims – based on her cited Scripture – “That really is the theme of the whole book: that the mob is demonic and the demons are always a mob.[4]

Unfortunately, people who don’t know any better are very likely swayed by her assertions, ones which are untrue.

Definition of a Mob

Coulter’s definition of “mob” is problematic at best – both intrinsically demonic and uniformly liberal in nature. She relies heavily on the seminal work of Gustave le Bon,[5] whom Coulter regards as the definitive expert on mobs. Le Bon doesn’t even use the pejorative word “mob” in his work. Rather, he wrote of “crowds.”

That’s right: Coulter turned non-judgmental term “crowds” into the more pejorative term “mobs.”

Le Bon observed, “Without a doubt criminal crowds exist, but virtuous and heroic crowds, and crowds of many kinds, are also to be met with.” Le Bon reiterated, “A crowd is as easily heroic as criminal.” Again, “Doubtless a crowd is often criminal, but it is often heroic.”

These nuances are lost on Coulter. One must wonder what Coulter made of this passage from The Crowd: “Still, this does not mean that crowds, skillfully influenced, are not capable of heroism and devotion and of evincing the loftiest virtues; they are even more capable of showing these qualities than the isolated individual.”

But Coulter’s theme requires that individuals assembled into large groups inevitably lose their rationality, yet she makes exceptions for some (Tea Party) and not for others (Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.) and she altogether ignores many (Promise Keepers) – with no coherent differentiation among them. Indeed, Coulter ignores the largest “mob” in American history – the Promise Keepers’ Stand in the Gap in 1997 (estimated to be as many as 2 ½ million people, mostly men, on the Mall). I was there! Also, as flawed as the Nation of Islam is, the Million Man March was a peaceful “mob.”

Coulter’s definition of a mob is uniformly one-dimensional (it is large and unruly) and unipolar (it is always liberal). Indeed, her definition of a mob defines nothing. It is purely circular logic: “the mob is demonic and the demons are always a mob” – the mob is liberal and only liberals are a mob. Remember, from the very first words of her book, Coulter got it wrong: her citation referred to a possession and an event that was neither a description nor definition of a mob.

Returning to Scripture, in the Old Testament (which transpired before the Holy Spirit was universally dispensed) the nation of Israel frequently gathered into large groups that would be considered “mobs” under Coulter’s definition, but yet they were godly religious assemblies. Indeed, the unconverted Israelites were required to assemble annually in Jerusalem for specific holy days. Did God sanction “mobs?”

In yet another inconsistency, Coulter equates “mobs” with “factions” in the Federalist Papers, but the Founders regarded “factions” as a natural outgrowth of human nature. In Federalist 55, James Madison observed the universality of factions, writing, “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” Madison would be the first to deny Coulter’s claim that “the mob is demonic and the demons are always a mob,” just as he would decry the notion that only liberals can become mobs.

In Federalist 10, Madison clarified his views on factions, writing:

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

Madison poetically expressed a universal reality: “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires.” A free people in an open society will necessarily – from their own human nature – form factions. When the freedom to form factions is denied, liberty dies. Madison continued: “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.” Thus, factions are not intrinsically evil just as the Left is not ipso facto demonic.

Characteristics of a Mob

What defines and determines a mob? Coulter does not really provide the answer. She quotes at length one author and claims to have read a dozen books on a similar theme, yet what emerges from Demonic is more a diatribe than a dissertation.

Per Coulter, what factors define a mob in Coulter’s view? First and foremost, they are liberal. Second, they are violent. Third, they may be large. Fourth, they use slogans. Fifth, they have revered leaders.

What about the character of the individuals involved? She says people [all people] lose control in a mob – but this is demonstrably untrue and not a predetermined outcome. Other factors ignored by Coulter include the temperament of the crowd, the ethos of the existing environment and culture, the goals of the gathering, and the purposes of the leaders.

In fact, Le Bon’s analysis of the adverse behaviors of crowds contains a disclaimer:  “… what crowds may become, but not what they invariably are.”[6]  He explains, “All depends upon the nature of the suggestion to which the crowd is exposed.” Moreover, Le Bon does not suggest barbarous crowds are peculiar to a particular political persuasion.

Coulter herself participated in the March for Justice, an anti-Clinton rally held on Halloween, 1997. She was there. She spoke from the dais. She felt compelled to attend and compelled to speak.

I said I wouldn’t talk. … God bless you. … I promised my publisher that in the interests of appearing non-partisan that I would not be speaking today but I had to come and see my fellow Freepers. Um, I can’t tell you what a wonderful thing it is to go on Free Republic – which I do every day and I did about 17 times a day when I was out of the country for a while – um, God bless you all. Thanks.[7]

That rally incorporated countless signs and slogans with many protestors attired in costumes of one kind or another. Seeking the impeachment of a president, it was remarkably calm and, indeed, lighthearted – even jovial in atmosphere. Speakers and people from across the country participated in this mob before whom Coulter spoke – a mob videotaped by C-Span with no reports of violence. This is but one example of many raised for which Coulter is unable to explain the differences between “good” mobs and “bad” mobs, other than that the former are conservative and the latter liberal.

This author has attended annual March for Life marches populated by individuals and organizations running the gamut of political perspectives, including feminists, Democrats, and atheists – all gathered together in unity for one cause: the pro-life movement. They are always, always, peaceful.

Would Tea Party rallies or Trump rallies be regarded by Le Bon as “crowds?” Yes!

Slogans

Per Coulter, slogans are evidence of a mob and unique to liberals. Coulter preposterously claimed, “It is striking how many slogans liberals have and how pathetic conservatives are at even coming up with slogans.”[8] Yes, she claims that only the Left uses slogans. This is demonstrably false.

The American revolutionaries, whom Coulter holds in such high esteem, certainly used slogans as political shorthand: 1) No taxation without representation, 2) Don’t tread on me, 3) United we stand, divided we fall, and 4) If we don’t hang together, we’ll all hang separately.

Moreover, today’s Tea Party, of whom Coulter considers herself a member, uses slogans![9] A multitude of slogans (here’s a flavor of what’s out there): 1) Born free, taxed to death, 2) Cut taxes, not deals, 3) Don’t mortgage the future, 4) Don’t stimulate … liberate, 5) Fair tax or no tax, 6) Foreclose the White House, 7) Give us liberty, not debt, 8) More taxes = less jobs, 9) No more bailouts, 10) TEA – Taxed Enough Already, and 11) Where’s the fence?

Let’s not forget – “Read the Bill!”

Or … “Build the Wall!” Coulter incessantly tweets, writes, and opines about “Build the Wall!”

Americans have always used slogans (and mottos) to encapsulate their points in a memorable fashion. Consider just these three alone: 1) Duty, Honor, and Country, 2) Liberty and justice for all, and 3) Remember the Alamo.

Snappy slogans and revered leaders are natural ingredients of any large group of people gathered together with a common purpose.

Conservative Heroes

Being the recipient of hero worship herself (literally!), it is astonishing to hear her assert that only liberals have adoration for their heroes. Isn’t Coulter a Conservative Idol and a Goddess? Still, on Hannity, Coulter claimed, “We don’t worship our leaders. We don’t turn them into idols, probably because we have a real Savior.”[10] A few days later, she said, “The most striking aspect of liberal behavior that is stunningly a part of mob mentality is their creation of Messiahs and their tendency to demonize all those that disagree with them.”[11] (Ironically, it was only a few years later when Coulter would repeatedly – over a period of years – refer to Donald Trump as the “Emperor-God Trump.”)

What is Coulter’s evidence for this “most striking aspect of liberal behavior?” Ronald Reagan!

For example, creating Messiahs, a crowd very quickly goes to extremes, they’re simple-minded, they will create Messiahs and I have a hilarious chapter because I quote liberals on what they say about FDR, JFK, about Clinton, about Obama, fainting at his speeches, they’re pledging their loyalty to him. Same thing with Clinton, go back to him and meanwhile, Ronald Reagan wasn’t even the most popular conservative his first year in office. My newspaper, Human Events, which was Ronald Reagan’s favorite newspaper was attacking him so much. The Washington Post reported at one point that Reagan said and I’m still reading you guys, but I’m liking you a lot less. And I’ve got headlines throughout all late years of the Reagan administration.[12]

But Coulter is deliberately deceptive when using Reagan as definitive proof that the Right does not have heroes. For instance, she uses polling data from 1983 (one of the Gipper’s roughest years) as cherry-picked evidence for her assertion. Rather, one need only look at the 1980 presidential election cycle to see that Reagan decisively defeated both of his Republican rivals and then the incumbent Democrat in the White House.

Reagan’s popularity among conservatives – and among Americans – was such that he won a third term with Bush 41’s presidency. Conservatives ever since have looked for a successor to Reagan, in character and in spirit. Yet Coulter knows that even as she tries to deny it.

When asked in 2004 what it was “like to meet a man you admired so much, Ronald Reagan,” Coulter beamed, “It was like an orthodox Jew meeting Moses.”[13] Sounds almost messianic to me. Just seven years earlier, Coulter was rapturous while speaking of the Gipper:

I went to Ronald Reagan’s first inauguration, and that, that really was something. I mean, nobody thought somebody that conservative could ever be president. He was denounced during the campaign, “Oh, this is gonna be Goldwater all over again,” If you read articles then, everyone thought it was gonna be another 1964 debacle. And people were just thrilled walking along the streets. It was a warm, sunny day, and to have conservatives take over the White House. … Ronald Reagan really just always set the standard at the first inauguration. And the next one, the only other one I remember getting sort of that choked up and emotional about was George Bush’s and that was only when Ronald Reagan’s helicopter flew up and flew away.”[14]

Scores of books have been written about Reagan and he remains, even in the 21st century, both the standard to which conservatives look and the model they seek to emulate. Coulter gives short shrift to Reagan just as she also ignores America’s devotion to and adoration of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, to name just two other presidential giants revered by generations of Americans.

In 2001, a captivated Coulter “swooned for” Bush 43: “When I began swooning for George W. Bush during the Republican primaries, my friends warned me that I was going to have to eat my words. It’s now a month into his presidency, and I’m even more doe-eyed about Bush than ever.”[15]

Now, Coulter has only hatred for the entire Bush family.[16]

Coulter’s scriptural foundation for her book is wrong; her definition of “mob” is wrong; and the characteristics that she ascribes to “mobs” is wrong. Some would rightly say that twisting truth into lies is itself demonic.

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis in this holistic exposé of how and why Coulter has become the polemicist whom people either love or hate.

Joker addresses the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, familial, sexual, and spiritual dimensions which have shaped the Ann Coulter that we know today and it highlights both the positives and the negatives of Coulter’s life and career.

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity Show, ABC Radio Network, 7/21/06, http://mediamatters.org/items/200607240011.

[2]       Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 1/10/05.

[3]       Ann Coulter, In Depth, C-Span, 8/7/11.

[4]       Ibid.

[5]       Gustave le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, The MacMillan Co., 1896, http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/BonCrow.html.

[6]       Ibid.

[7]       Ann Coulter, March for Justice Rally, Washington, DC, 10/31/98.

[8]       Ann Coulter, In Depth, C-Span, 8/7/11.

[9]       See http://www.teapartyslogans.com.

[10]     Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 6/6/11.

[11]     Ann Coulter, Newsmax interview, 6/12/11.

[12]     Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 6/6/11.

[13]     Ann Coulter, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans, Crown Forum, 2007, pg. 236; 2004 interview with the American Enterprise Institute. See also Coulter’s tribute to Reagan at http://reagan2020.us/tributes/coulter.asp.

[14]     Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 1/19/97.

[15]     Ann Coulter, “How to Talk to a Liberal,” 2/22/01.

[16]     See Case Study: Politics of Death in Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged at https://bit.ly/2TttHtF.

When Will Conservatives Reject Coulter’s Anti-Semitism?

Ann Coulter tweeted: “Where are the Bernie supporters tonight? Did Hillary have them gassed?

Reject Coulter's Anti-Semitism

Coulter has a long history of anti-Semitism, stretching back to at least the early 1990s. In the wake of her Effing Jews tweets, Coulter claimed to be pro-Semitic, employing arguments worthy of an Orwellian dictator. Coulter even enlisted the aid of her conservative friends to prove her noble and just. Those efforts abysmally failed. Her Orwellian newspeak and doublethink was exposed for what it is.

Then Coulter went after Catholics. Now she has retargeted her preferred object of hatred: Jews.

Why attack Jews and Catholics? Because they do not fit into her utopian dream of a restored WASP nation. Coulter is ecstatic over Trump’s transformation of the GOP into a new Know-Nothing Party which is anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, and anti-Jew.

The Alt-Right and David Duke have eagerly embraced Donald Trump and his (and Coulter’s) message.

Will conservatives join the Never Trump movement and denounce this latest instance of anti-Semitism by Trump’s consigliere?

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.