Tag Archives: two minutes hate

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.]

Advertisements

Coulter’s Orwellian Opus

Ann Coulter seeks to impose her will on the American people by using a variety of Orwellian propaganda techniques.

Orwellian Opus

Her column, “Moonie for Cruz,” is a perfect example. In it, she employs a host of Orwellian constructs to turn reality upside-down.

With just 1,241 words, polemicist Ann Coulter provided an excellent example of Orwellian rhetoric.

Primaries vs. Caucuses

Coulter began her column contending that Trump winning primaries is better than Cruz winning caucuses, which she regards as inferior and somehow illegitimate. She neglected to point out that open primaries enabled Democrats to vote for Trump, people who will arguably vote Democrat in November.

Coulter even ludicrously claimed “that a brokered Republican convention is more likely to end with Bernie as the nominee than Cruz.” Coulter is desperate to prevent a Cruz victory,[1] truth be damned.

Big Lie

This leads to Coulter’s Big Lie: Donald Trump is the real deal and a true American patriot who will win, win, win;[2] Ted Cruz is a liar and a fraud and he cannot win. Reality is, of course, the exact opposite.[3]

Coulter claims “that Trump was the choice of a majority of Republican voters,” when, in fact, the majority of Republican voters have voted against Trump. (Coulter and Trump both need to grasp the difference between “majority” and “plurality.”)

Two Minutes Hate

In Orwell’s world, Big Brother orchestrated a daily “Two-Minutes Hate” and a periodic “Hate Week” to demonize political foes. Big Brother’s campaign was intensely emotion-laden and reason free.

Utterly ignoring the very real and indisputable cult of Trump, Coulter lambasted imaginary “Cruz cultists,” claiming they “don’t even care about plain honesty.” (Yes, Ann, honesty is “a conservative value.” Try it sometime.)[4]

Coulter blasted the apocryphal “Cruz cultists” as “guttersnipe, lying political operators like the Clintons.” Her column is replete with such ad hominem invective.[5]

Emmanuel Goldstein

Coulter’s archenemy, Emmanuel Goldstein, is a composite “Cruz cultist” which bears no resemblance to reality.

Coulter quipped, “If James Carville and Paul Begala had a baby, it would be a Cruz supporter.” Physically impossible (does Ann know anatomy?), neither progenitor is apt. Indeed, both would be far more apropos of a Trump, not a Cruz, supporter. Projection?[6]

No one has likened Cruz to either Carville or Begala. However, Cruz has been likened to Ronald Reagan.

A more factually-based quip would be something like, “If Twiggy and Miley Cyrus had a baby, it would be Ann Coulter.” After all, Coulter has been called[7]Twiggy with Tourette’s” and “the Miley Cyrus of political commentary.”

According to Coulter, “Cruz has flipped to Trump’s side on every important political issue of this campaign.” She asserts that Cruz favored “Legalizing illegal aliens” and “now is against it.” In the non-Orwellian universe, Cruz has always opposed amnesty and he courageously introduced a “poison pill” amendment to prevent legalization of illegal aliens. One of Coulter’s citations actually proves that point.

Coulter also claims Cruz opposed a wall before he was for it, but her citation does not support her conclusion. Cruz has always favored a wall.[8]

Still, Coulter lies, claiming Cruz has changed all of these positions “since being a senator – most of them he’s flipped on only in the last year.” But Cruz has not flipped. Cruz has been consistent.

2 + 2 = 5

Don’t believe your lying eyes. That’s the message from Coulter and that’s the message from Trump.

Coulter has changed Orwell’s formulation – “whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth” – to “whatever Ann and The Donald hold to be truth, is truth.” With this crucial corollary, “especially if it is not.”

Coulter offered a series of alleged lies by the Cruz camp. But every alleged lie about Trump really is true! [See hyperlinks for truth!]

Coulter spent considerable time (six paragraphs) defending Trump’s irrefutable pro-abortion record, actually claiming that he is now “fully pro-life.” Coulter avers, “But to claim Trump is pro-choice today – present tense – is what’s known as a ‘lie.’”

Coulter’s whopper is obviously so!

Coulter’s Claims

Coulter devoted another four paragraphs to Trump’s desire for universal health care, claiming it isn’t what we all know it is. Trump wants to replace Obamacare with Trumpcare, but Coulter calls this an “insane lie” by “Cruz and his cult-like followers.”

Typically Orwellian, in Coulter’s world, Trump’s opponents are somehow not just wrong, but either evil or crazy. (Coulter has applied that very dichotomy – evil or crazy – to the Left for two decades!)

Coulter devoted a lengthy paragraph to defending an assault by “Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.” Coulter’s characterization of the event: “criminal battery for brushing past a female reporter.” Actually, it is misdemeanor battery for intentionally grabbing Michelle Fields’ arm and jerking her backward.[14] Coulter denies the video proof and absurdly compares it to Clinton apologists who claimed Clinton “did not commit perjury when he denied having ‘sexual relations’ with Monica Lewinsky.”

Two additional paragraphs addressed Coulter’s criticism of Trump for his Heidi Cruz retweet. Coulter affirmed her slavish devotion to Trump, despite calling him “mental.”[15] If Coulter supports a “mental” Trump, what does that say about Coulter?

Why would Coulter tell such big and small lies? Because she believes that “Trump is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime who will build a wall, deport illegals and pause the importation of Muslims.”

The problem, for those who are familiar with Trump’s views, is that Trump actually favors amnesty[16] and wants a “big, fat beautiful door right in that wall” to allow the immediate return of those illegals that he deports. In fact, Trump is the one candidate who won’t do what Coulter wants done![17]

Ann Coulter = Leni Riefenstahl

Coulter has often been accurately compared to Leni Riefenstahl,[18] the infamous Nazi film propagandist. She really is a propagandist par excellence. With her razor-sharp mind, quick wit, and extensive vocabulary, Coulter is adept at the manipulation of truth and people. (However, Coulter is sadly lacking in wisdom and honesty.)

On radio and talk shows, Coulter made the audacious claim that the Great Depression was part of “the most prosperous period in American history.”[19] No one challenged her on this. Everyone accepted her claim as true. Coulter said it, therefore 2 + 2 = 5.

For this reason[20] (and others),[21] a growing number of conservatives and Christians[22] no longer trust Coulter.[23]

Donald Trump is a libertine liberal masquerading as a conservative.[24] Coulter, who once championed constitutional and cultural conservatism, now knowingly embraces the vulgar and bullying nature of Trump’s candidacy,[25] proving that she is no better than Trump.[26]

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Birther Coulter Births More Lies” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bI.

[2]               See “Coulter Hates All GOP Candidates But Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bj.

[3]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[4]               See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[5]               See “Coulter Admits Her Column Is Fraudulent” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dT.

[6]               See Chapter 2, “The Cuckolding of Conscience,” The Beauty of Conservatism, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[7]               See Chapter 2: “Xenophobia: Soccer Flops and Nativism Gone Amok,” Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

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

[9]               See “Coulter’s Desperate Lies About Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-c8.

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

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

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

[13]             See “Ann Coulter Was Gang Raped!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dp.

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

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

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

[17]             See “Coulter Logic (she wants candidate who won’t pursue her agenda)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dQ.

[18]             See “Ann Coulter = Leni Riefenstahl” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5w.

[19]             See “Ignorant Ideologue” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-br.

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

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

[22]             See “Ann Coulter’s Growing Irrelevancy” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8Y.

[23]             See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[24]             See “How to Talk to a Bully (if you must)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bY.

[25]             See “Bully Boy Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cv.

[26]             See “No Better Than Trump!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dW.

Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter

For almost two decades, Ann Coulter has proven herself untrustworthy.[1] From betraying her own client[2] and scamming voters,[3] to using lies and employing elimination rhetoric,[4] Coulter has shown herself to be unscrupulous – all in the pursuit of self-promotion and self-glory.[5]

A new book – Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter – delves into the various ways in which Coulter promotes herself and her worldview, and it examines why so many people can come to believe her distortions and lies, even when confronted with a wealth of irrefutable evidence.

FrontCover

That Coulter retains any credibility at all – despite her pathological prevarication, her eager employment of elimination rhetoric, and her enmity to all who do not fit into her scheme of life – is perhaps the mystery of the ages. Propaganda endeavors to explain the seemingly inexplicable.

In a startling manner, Coulter audaciously adopted Orwell’s iconic 1984[6] as a blueprint for her own career. What totalitarian governments and dictators do on a national and international level, Coulter does on a somewhat smaller scale. Ever ideological, always self-promoting, Coulter uses the tactics and techniques, the verbiage and the principles, of 1984 to pursue her own agenda. Where that agenda collides with conservative principles or Christian values, those interests become subservient to her own.

If George Orwell is the Father of Big Brother, then he is the cherished uncle of Ann Coulter. Coulter certainly seems more at home with 1984 then she does with either the Bible or the Constitution.

Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter is structured in a simple fashion.

Chapter One compares and contrasts Coulter with Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.

Chapter Two provides a humorous review of a fictitious Ann Coulter book, Delusional, in which all of the quotations contained therein are from Coulter, demonstrating the schizophrenia of Coulter’s own self-identity.

Chapter Three examines Coulter’s first distinctly Orwellian book, Slander, and its incorporation of many Orwellian propaganda techniques. It further looks at Coulter’s own addiction to addictive thinking and its implication in her work.

With Chapter Four, we see the pervasiveness of Orwellian thinking as it is exhibited in Coulter’s third book, Treason, which is steeped in the thought processes of 1984. This chapter explores the many and varied Orwellian techniques and constructs employed by Coulter in Treason.

Chapter Five looks at Coulter’s first compilation of essays, How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must), which is an instruction book – or, How To manual – for conservatives.

A series of case studies then fleshes out the reality of Coulter’s utilization of propaganda and its political and cultural impact.

An Epilog renders hope possible in the life and work of Coulter.

An Appendix critiques an (almost) perfect piece of propaganda by Coulter.

Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter is available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, 2013, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[2]       See “Case Study #1: Oh, Paula (Jones)! Ann Coulter’s Betrayal,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[3]       See “Case Study #3: Coulter for Congress: Only Scoundrels Need Apply,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[4]       See “Appendix 1: Sampling of Coulter’s Elimination Rhetoric,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

[5]       See Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[6]       The full text of Orwell’s 1984 is available at http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/0.html.