Tag Archives: rape

@AnnCoulter Ends 2019 with Putrid Polemic

Although Ann Coulter wrote some powerful and praiseworthy columns in 2019, she ended the year publishing a putrid polemic, thus exposing her dark heart.

It was ugly!

While denouncing the evils of Hollywood’s portrayal of America, Coulter’s column was, in large measure – evil.

Much of what Coulter wrote about Hollywood scripts was accurate, but, she went out of her way to lambaste a particular person – Celine Robinson – vilifying both her ideology and her looks, and treating her as representative of all lesbians, Jews, and feminists.

What prompted this column by Coulter? Robinson had enraged Coulter with this tweet:

Coulter, creatively, in paragraph after paragraph, made it clear that in her eyes, this “half French, queer, Jewish feminist” is ugly and the antithesis of the “hot actors and actresses” who play the characters in her scripts. (Coulter was uncharitable, to say the least!)

Indeed, these hot actresses are “the molecular opposite of” Robinson and Robinson’s photo alone is proof that it is “Opposites Day” every day in Hollywood. (Coulter adroitly included a link to a tweet from 2016 which contained a photo of her nemesis and victim.)

Coulter used the phrase “queer, Jewish feminist” five times, notably dismissing as inconsequential the “half French” portion of Robinson’s personal self-identity. (I gather that Freedom Fries have long passed their expiration date.)

The bulk of the remainder of Coulter’s column was devoted to Third World sodomy and pedophilia, in graphic terms. She seemed to delight in being outrageous.

(Coulter is known for being somewhat tardy at speaking engagements and in posting her columns. On this occasion, she posted this column one day early, as if she couldn’t wait for others to see it.)

In the early weeks of 2020, Coulter continued with her attacks on the looks of those with whom she disagrees. Looksism is extremely important to her: She wants to be perceived as beautiful and hot while denigrating her foes as being not.

Here’s one example:

Here are a few responses:

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis of Coulter’s worldview and character flaws which have led her to be so wrong in so many areas in which she regards herself as an expert.

Death is Sexier Than Sex to Ann Coulter

According to one psychologist (emphasis added): “[Ann Coulter] most likely cannot achieve sexual satisfaction without extreme fetishes if at all, her interpersonal relationships are probably rocky with few real friends, and she is most likely an insecure, lonely, aging wreck at the end of the day. Think fatal attraction material without the actions.”[1]

ConvertOrDie

This column’s title, “Death is Sexier Than Sex to Ann Coulter” is borrowed from my friend, Lydia Cornell from her 2005 column. Her “facetious” title is far more accurate than anyone could have grasped at the time and, indeed, is prescient regarding Coulter’s devolution of character and descent into darkness.

Coulter responded to Lydia by doxing her on the front page of Coulter’s website with the caption, “Death is certainly sexier than Lydia Cornell. Wait until I tell her about the death camps I have planned for liberals.”

Wow! Elimination rhetoric to the max. (Coulter left Lydia’s private information on her website for a full year, encouraging an abundance of hate mail and stalkers.)

Lydia concluded, “I didn’t realize the extent to which hate and death are such a turn-on for Coulter.”

Coulter does, indeed, have dark fantasies. She has an obsession with making bogus rape accusations (with herself as the victim) to achieve her political ends. She frequently delights in fantasizing about liberals being sodomized in jail.

Coulter Gang Raped

In a shocking interview, Coulter told Sunday Times Magazine (emphasis added): “I like being sexually assaulted.”[2]

Discussing the #MeToo movement, Coulter boasted (emphasis added): “I’ve had very, very aggressive men push me beyond where I’ve wanted to go. I thought it was a great date. I don’t think of it as an assault. I have fond memories.”

In light of that, Coulter’s familiarity with anal sex and fisting give one pause. Coulter as dominatrix has been a popular meme for twenty years.

Coulter - POTUS

For over fifty years – beginning as a kindergartener – Coulter has engaged in a battle of wills to achieve political supremacy and victory.

Apparently, her political confrontational style has crossed over into her romantic and sexual relationships, wherein she seeks a worthy opponent to subdue (or be subdued by).

Now, she confesses that she is “dying to be date raped.” Wow! (What would Mother think? Father?)[3]

No wonder Coulter employs elimination rhetoric so often, never misses a chance to taunt the recently deceased and bereaved, and appears utterly devoid of empathy. Remember, in 2006, Coulter was already being called “cruel.”

Death

How did Coulter become so cruel? Why are hatred and death such turn-ons for Coulter? Why has the dark side taken over so much of Coulter’s heart, worldview, and life? For answers, see Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged!

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis in this holistic exposé of how and why Coulter has become such a warped human being.

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.

Ann’s brokenness provides an object lesson for all of us and, hopefully, this book will act as an intervention to help Ann face her deep brokenness and motivate her to seek healing and restoration.

Endnotes:

[1]              Author interview.

[2]              This may be why Coulter has become an authority on anal sex and fisting.

[3]              According to multiple sources, at least one of Ann’s lovers was abusive and liked S&M. Author interviews.

Coulter on Rape – Good for Politics

Ambulance-chasing Ann Coulter never lets a bad analogy go to waste, especially if it involves rape. Coulter sees rape when none exists or imposes rape into a political discussion for its emotional impact and to distract from the real issues at hand.

Rape05

Coulter’s most recent foray into depravity was her claim that Donald Trump is the victim of media rape. She has fantasized about rape – being raped – for years.

Rape Fantasies

Coulter has likened immigration to rape.

Rape01

Coulter claimed to be personally raped by immigration.

Rape02

Coulter charged New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio with raping her again!

Rape03

Chillingly, Coulter joked about being raped by political correctness.

RapeTrivial

Coulter defended Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski of assault charges by claiming to have been gang raped.

Coulter Gang Raped

On the other hand, Coulter has little regard for either the victims of actual rape or their unborn children. Even opposition to a rape exception for abortion in tantamount to treason in Coulter’s eyes.

Rape04

Nonetheless, Coulter is absolutely right to oppose the “epidemic” of false rape accusations on college campuses. One wonders why, then, she would perpetrate her own rape hoaxes.

RapeTreason

Coulter lives by her own set of conflicting rules which necessarily create contradictions and cognitive dissonance. No wonder Coulter continues to lose credibility and relevance.

Ann’s Rape Fantasies

Polemicist Ann Coulter has an obsession with making bogus rape accusations to achieve her political ends. Her shock-jock technique of employing hyperbole in this way grotesquely trivializes actual rape. Strangely, Coulter frequently criticizes the rash of rape hoaxes perpetrated by the Left.

Rape Fantasies

Ann Coulter Was Gang Raped!

Last night, Ann Coulter revealed, “I’ve been thrown down and gang raped at bars and on the New York City subway.”

Coulter Gang Raped

This is not the first time Coulter has claimed to be raped to emphasize a point for political purposes. Indeed, she seems to purposely trivialize rape.[1] Why? To end discussion. (Similar to the Left routinely employing charges of racism against its foes.)

Coulter’s breaking news last night was in the context of Michelle Fields’ proven claims to have been assaulted by Donald Trump’s campaign manager. Coulter’s full quote flings disdain at Fields:

“If that is a battery that we just saw on that screen, I’ve been thrown down and gang raped at bars and on the New York City subway.”

But the video does show Corey Lewandowski physically accosting Fields.

From the beginning, Coulter has sought to minimize the impact of Lewandowski’s criminal conduct, even going so far as to accuse Fields of assaulting Trump![2] (Trump has ludicrously done the same.)

Yesterday, Coulter made some bizarre claims – contradicted by witnesses and video, among them:

  • Fields attacked Trump, “Touches him, lunges at him.” Lunges? Not on the video she is analyzing.
  • Lewandowski brushed Fields’ shoulder. The video contradicts Coulter’s spin. It clearly shows Lewandowski grabbing Fields, yanking her arm, pulling her back. Fields was clearly moving toward Trump, then suddenly pulled back.
  • Coulter urged us, “You’ve got to watch the video,” yet, at the same time, tells us not to believe our own eyes.
  • Coulter then made her ludicrous comparison with the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax. The Duke rape allegation was a fabrication. Fields’ assault actually happened. Eyewitnesses corroborate her claims. So does the video. Let’s not forget the bruise on Fields’ arm.

Coulter employed a series of propaganda techniques[3] to shed doubt on what really happened and, thereby, to exonerate Trump and his henchman.

The big lie. Trump and Lewandowski are the victims, Fields is the culprit. Coulter: “In this case, [Trump] is the victim, not the victimizer.”

Subordinate lies. Fields lunged at Trump; Fields fabricated a hoax.

Rationalization. The video really doesn’t show what we clearly see because what the video shows refutes Coulter’s spin. (The big lie must be believed!)

Ridicule. Throughout her analysis, commentary, and social media postings, Coulter mercilessly mocked Fields, who, lest we forget, is the real victim.

Coulter equated concern for Fields’ justifiable grievances with politically correct “safe spaces [for] girl reporter’s shoulders.”

Dripping with sarcasm, Coulter posted: “Like Americans everywhere, I know I’ll always remember where I was when news arrived of the tragic assault on Michelle Fields. Whatever your politics, whatever your ethnicity or religion, please take a moment to pray for the recovery of brave Michelle Fields.
All respect to Harriet Tubman, but it’s Michelle Fields who should go on the $20 bill. Her courage will inspire generations yet unborn.”

Strawman argument. Coulter falsely charged Fields with claiming she had been “knocked down.” Fields made no such claim. Coulter scornfully tweeted: “As soon as Michelle Fields shows us on the doll how the mean campaign aide forcefully threw her to the ground.”

Minimization. After news of Lewandowski’s arrest, Coulter tweeted, “You’re right. Until this tape was released, I had no idea Corey actually brushed her shoulder!” Again, he did not brush her shoulder; he violently yanked her arm. Even after this tweet, Coulter repeated Lewandowski’s lie that he never touched her. The video cited by Coulter proves otherwise.

Coulter has proven herself to be as big a fraud as the candidate for whom she shills.

Coulter admits that Trump is a fraud[4] and that he is mental,[5] but calls him her Savior[6] because he alone will build a wall[7] (even though Cruz definitely would).

Coulter will say and do anything to get Trump nominated and elected, regardless of the consequences[8] and regardless of the collateral damage (in this case, justice and Fields’ reputation).

Update: For a timeline of events related to the assault on Fields, see http://thebingethinker.com/2016/03/2466/.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Ann Coulter Trivializes Rape” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3M.

[2]               See “Will Ann Coulter Apologize to Michelle Fields?” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-di.

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

[4]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[5]               See “Coulter Goes Mental Over Her ‘Mental’ Candidate” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-d8.

[6]               See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[7]               See “Trump’s Phony Wall” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cn.

[8]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

Coulter Right on Rape, Wrong on Treason

With a stunning display of logic, Ann Coulter recently observed, “If we’re in the middle of a college-rape epidemic, why do all the cases liberals promote keep turning out to be hoaxes? Maybe I’m overthinking this, but wouldn’t a real rape be more persuasive?”[1]

She made that very same point on Hannity: “If we’re drowning in this epidemic of rape on college campuses, why are all the cases they keep giving us hoaxes? Could they give us a real one? And in fact, what it illustrates is an epidemic of false claims of rape.”[2]

RapeTreason

A Townhall promotion praised Coulter, exulting, “Ann Coulter slams the left for minimizing actual rape.” Funny, I don’t recall anyone on Townhall slamming Coulter for minimizing actual treason.

Minimizing Actual Treason

Ever since 9/11, Coulter has constantly and continually condemned liberals, calling them traitors. Her reward: accolades and best-sellers.

If “rape” has a specific meaning, so does “treason.” What exactly is treason? The Constitution defines treason thus:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

When confronted with the actual Constitutional definition of treason, Coulter blustered, “Right. I’ve heard that definition like a billion times since the book [Treason] came out.”

Then Coulter completely ignored that definition, adding, “I’m answering now to the question. … look, there are millions of suspects here. I am indicting an entire party. I am indicting the entire Democratic Party.”[3]

Coulter’s Criteria for Treason

Nonetheless, Coulter has cried “Treason!” for years, using criteria at once elastic and evanescent. Treason, per Coulter, consists of rejecting any portion of the Republican Party’s agenda. Moreover, mere failure to applaud appropriately is treasonous in her eyes.

Treasonable offenses, per Coulter, include (this is a partial list to save space):

  • Opposition to tax cuts
  • Opposition to ANWR oil drilling
  • Opposition to the new “Star Wars” defense system
  • Opposition to racial profiling
  • Opposition to invasion of Iraq
  • Being a Democrat
  • Being a moderate Republican
  • Being a liberal

For those of you who think I am kidding, here are a few gems from Ann Coulter herself:

  • “I think they are worse than Democrats. I mean there really is nothing so despicable as a weak-kneed Republican. They’re always trotted out when these Democrats are coming up with the most heinous, treasonous Whenever you hear, you know – ‘Even Chris Shays, even Lawrence Walsh’ – you know treason is afoot.”[4]
  • “Liberals are up to their old tricks again. Twenty years of treason hasn’t slowed them down.”[5]
  • “I think everyone should be patriotic Americans right now, which Democrats are not being. … Democrats [make] these obstructionist objections to reasonable domestic security measures. They refuse to pass a tax cut in order to pull us out of this recession. And they won’t let us drill in Alaska to preserve some mud flat. I would like the Democrats to be Americans.”[6]
  • “… in my next book, [I’m] going through 50 years of treason by Democrats.”[7]
  • “When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn into outright traitors.”[8]
  • “Democrats adore threats to the United States. Bush got a raucous standing ovation at his State of the Union address when he announced that ‘this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field a defense to protect this nation against ballistic missiles.’ The excitement was noticeably muted on the Democrats’ side of the aisle. The vast majority of Democrats remained firmly in their seats, sullen at the thought that America would be protected from incoming ballistic missiles. To paraphrase George Bush: If this is not treason, then treason has no meaning.”[9]

But treason does have meaning – only not the meaning Coulter gives it.

Coulter has seemingly determined, through her own unique “strict constructionist” interpretation of the Constitution, that anyone who disagrees with her about anything is a traitor. Since most Americans at some point disagree with Ann Coulter on most issues then most Americans must be traitors.

If the emperor had no clothes then Treason (2003) has no traitors – at least no contemporary ones. In fact, for her book, Coulter had to go back to the McCarthy era to find any treason (thus necessitating making McCarthyism the “linchpin” of her book).

Coulter conveniently skipped Republican traitor Robert Hanson – “the Spy of the Century” – because he didn’t fit her thesis of liberal treachery. Likewise, Jonathan Pollard and Aldrich Ames are absent from her book because they fail to support her paradigm.

Unable to unearth any actual contemporary traitors, Coulter redefined “treason” with rhetorical sleight-of-mouth to magically lead her audience to her preconceived conclusions.

Evidence be damned. If liberals aren’t really traitors they should still be regarded as such. Why? Because they are liberals. (Horror of horrors!)

David Horowitz Criticizes Coulter’s Analysis

David Horowitz gallantly (and laboriously) defended Treason while pointing out a number of flagrant flaws. A repentant Marxist, Horowitz recognized one glaring aspect of Coulter’s Orwellian constructs. Horowitz wrote:

“Equally disturbing was Coulter’s use of the phrase, ‘functionally treasonable’ – as in ‘[the Democratic Party] has become functionally treasonable.’ This is a problematic phrase on several counts. In the first place, ‘treasonable’ is not a word but seems to suggest ‘capable of treason,’ which is different from being actually treasonous. The distinction is important.”[10]

“But ‘functionally treasonable’ is also disturbingly reminiscent of the old Stalinist term ‘objectively fascist.’ This was how people who swore their loyalty to the cause were condemned (often to death) if they deviated from the party line. Stalinists defined all dissent as ‘objectively’ treacherous. This is not a path that conservatives should follow. When intent and individuality are separated from actions in a political context, we are entering a totalitarian realm.”

We see here the very same totalitarian impulses which are reflected in Coulter’s musing over what she would do as “czar of the universe” or desire to be the “ayatollah of the conservative movement.”[11]

William F. Buckley, Jr., Criticizes Coulter’s Analysis

Finally – after months and months of being unable to name a single contemporary traitor, Coulter did: the publisher of the New York Times.

Conservative giant William F. Buckley, Jr., responded, “But even as Ms. Coulter clearly intends to shock, why shouldn’t her reader register that shock? By wondering whether she is out of her mind, or has simply lost her grip on language.”[12]

Buckley explained:

“What except that prompts her to come up with (or the Post to publicize) her syllogism? The man who heads the paper that employs an editorial writer who dangles the proposition that a thought given to moral equivalency is appropriate and humbling on September 11, 2003 is a ‘traitor’? That end-of-the-road word, bear always in mind, is hers. Coulter is a law school graduate and isn’t using the ‘T’-word loosely. The opening sentences of her article reject any such explanation. She means to charge that Sulzberger is engaged in traitorous activity. That, after all, is what traitors engage in.”

Buckley continued:

“The thought-process used here is everywhere in evidence in her best-selling book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. The book’s central contention is that liberals critically situated on the American scene aren’t fatuous asses – that’s baby talk. They are enemies of the United States and of American freedom.”

But that is precisely what Coulter wants to convey: “there are millions of suspects here. I am indicting an entire party. I am indicting the entire Democratic Party.”[13]

When will the conservative movement and conservative media take Coulter to task for minimizing actual treason? Do conservatives no longer care what words mean? Have they, in Buckley’s parlance, “simply lost their grip on language?”

The renowned historian, Paul Johnson, observed:

“A man who deliberately inflicts violence on the language will almost certainly inflict violence on human beings, if he acquires the power. Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure the truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honorable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status.”[14]
Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, “The College Rape Club, 12/10/14.

[2]       Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 12/9/14.

[3]       Ann Coulter, Buchanan and Press, MSNBC, 7/25/03.

[4]       Ann Coulter, YAF Conference, 7/20/00.

[5]       Ann Coulter, “Mothers Against Box Cutters speak out,” 10/17/01.

[6]       Ann Coulter, Hannity & Colmes, FNC, 12/10/01.

[7]       Ann Coulter, America Now, 1/3/02.

[8]       Ann Coulter, CPAC, 2/2/02.

[9]       Ann Coulter, “War-torn Dems,” 1/29/03.

[10]     David Horowitz, “The Trouble with Treason,’” Front Page Magazine, 7/8/03.

[11]     See “Delusional – New Ann Coulter Book” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3z.

[12]     William F. Buckley, Jr., “Tailgunner Ann,” Claremont, 12/1/03.

[13]     Ann Coulter, Buchanan and Press, MSNBC, 7/25/03.

[14]     Ann Coulter, Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terror, Crown, 2003, pg. 292. Quoting from Paul Johnson, Enemies of Society, Atheneum, 1977, pg. 259.

Ann Coulter Trivializes Rape

Ann Coulter’s lead paragraph in her latest polemic would be hilarious if it weren’t so Coulteresque.

“Sorry this column is late. I got raped again on the way home. Twice. I should clarify – by ‘raped,’ I mean that two seductive Barry White songs came on the radio, which, according to the University of Virginia, constitutes rape.”[1]

RapeTrivial

If anyone else had written that, one could say it beautifully encapsulates the folly of redefining terms to the point where they cease to have meaning. Like Rush Limbaugh, Coulter is using absurdity to illustrate the absurd. But Coulter has no credibility on this issue to make that point.

In her column, Coulter does makes a superb point, “If we’re in the middle of a college-rape epidemic, why do all the cases liberals promote keep turning out to be hoaxes? Maybe I’m overthinking this, but wouldn’t a real rape be more persuasive?”[2]

However, Coulter’s brilliant analysis of the alleged “rape crisis” on college campuses makes one’s mind boggle over Coulter’s own disingenuous on rape.

The previous night on Hannity, Coulter lamented the trivialization of rape by all of these rape hoaxes. But Coulter herself has – for years – trivialized rape.

No matter what Ann Coulter says, it is hard to believe that she cares about rape victims or the offspring of rape. She does not.

Coulter blithely speaks of raping the planet as our God-given duty, and, just this year, made numerous accusations of rape. Indeed, Coulter claimed that she was being raped.

Immigration = Rape

At a conference in March, Coulter likened immigration to rape. In her own words:

“No, [immigration] isn’t a natural process. It’s like you’re being raped and the guy is telling you, ‘Sorry, my penis is in you. Nothing you can do about it.’ … No, you’re raping me! Demographics are changing by force. There is nothing natural about it.”[3]

Those bolded words – “you’re raping me” – were shouted, with gasps from the audience!

Rape01

For nearly two decades, Coulter has railed against rape hoaxes, such as Tawana Brawley, which were perpetrated to make political points. But Coulter’s real attitude toward rape is cavalier. Babies conceived in rape have no value in her eyes. Coulter speaks favorably of raping the planet. And, now, she claims immigrants are raping her!

Rape02

“Rape Us Again”

Only a month later, Coulter again diluted the meaning and diminished the significance of rape by making false accusations against the mayor of New York City. Coulter marred an otherwise exemplary column on the rapists of the Central Park jogger by invoking the Rape Card again. Coulter concluded that column with these words:

“But now de Blasio wants to hold down our legs while the ‘Central Park Five’ rape us, again.”[4]

Rape03

When did the “Central Park Five” rape Ann, how is de Blasio raping her again, and how are immigrants now raping Coulter? (Let’s be clear: only one person was raped and it was not Coulter!)

Coulter, the consummate wordsmith, should know better! Lacking sense and sensibilities, Coulter – again! – diminishes and trivializes the reality of actual rape.[5]

Astonishingly, her column (and a large section in in her book) describes the 1989 rape in question, yet Coulter is inured to the reality of what she describes.

Rape Exception for Abortion

Moreover, Coulter thinks life in the womb is a “philosophical” argument and wants pro-lifers to be pragmatic by permitting human beings who are conceived in rape to be aborted.

She insists, “Can you learn to say, ‘no exceptions’ or rather, ‘no abortions with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother?’ Learn that. Memorize that. Stop waxing philosophical when you’re running to make laws.”[6]

Rape04

Absolving Romney for his disastrous defeat in 2012, Coulter blamed pro-lifers:

“The last two weeks of the campaign were consumed with discussions of women’s ‘reproductive rights,’ not because of anything Romney did, but because these two idiots [Akin and Mourdock] decided to come out against abortion in the case of rape and incest.”

Coulter’s disregard for human life is clear in her pretzel-twisted logic:

“No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist. Yes, it’s every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape. But sentient human beings are capable of drawing gradations along a line.”

A child of rape is “every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape,” yet that child’s life is forfeit for political reasons.[7]

Ethics have never been Coulter’s forte.

Update: Not long after this column was posted, Coulter suggested that physical violence usually accompanies rape, like “being hit on the head with a brick. People know what a rape is, and to have girls trying to get attention from Lena Dunham to this poor psychotic at UVA … ( Lars Larson Show, 12/11/14).

Coulter has a surprisingly different perspective when it comes to her own safety:

“Men’s hands are lethal weapons. Every male I walk past, every male I walk past, I look at him knowing with his bare hands he could kill me, and I can do nothing. But I have no option. I can’t kill somebody with my bare hands (MSNBC, 11/10/96).”

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, “The College Rape Club, 12/10/14.

[2]       Ann Coulter, “The College Rape Club, 12/10/14.

[3]       Ann Coulter, Eagle Forum panel, 3/8/14.

[4]       Ann Coulter, “What You Won’t Read in the Papers About the ‘Central Park Five,’” 4/23/14.

[5]       As brilliant as Coulter can be, she lacks sound judgment, which is one of many reasons why we should Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[6]       Ann Coulter, “Don’t Blame Romney,” 11/7/12.

[7]       See Rebecca Kiessling, “Rebecca Kiessling’s Reply to Ann Coulter – Save the 1,” 11/9/12, http://rebeccakiessling.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/rebecca-kiesslings-reply-to-ann-coulter-save-the-1/.