Ann Coulter

I'm not even sure how to begin with Ann Coulter. Ann is the Fred Phelps of the mouthpieces: the extreme of the extremists. Her vitriolic diatribes seem to have no other purpose than to denigrate and degrade, insult and embarrass and/or lambaste and skewer those who disagree with her very narrow-minded and bigoted view of the world.

Coulter was was born in 1961 in New Canaan, Connecticut. Like most of the those in the radical religious right, Coulter was born into money— although she describes it as "upper middle class." Her father was a lawyer who fought against labor unions (meaning he was paid by management) and Coulter herself went into law, eventually ending up as a congressional aide and counsel to Republican members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee.

But Coulter's rise to fame began when she was part of the legal team for Paula Jones, who sued former President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. Her frequent appearances on morning talk show programs eventually led her to be hired in 1996 by MSNBC as a legal correspondent and political pundit. Coulter was fired from that position the following year after making a comment to a Viet Nam veteran along the lines of "no wonder you guys lost."

At times, one has to wonder how Coulter made it through law school. So many of her positions, arguments, reasoning and statements are illogical, irrational, rhetorical and out-right incorrect. Some of Coulter's more controversial statements (and this is by no means intended to be an exhaustive list— see the links below for sites like that) include:

  • Women shouldn't have the right to vote because women are clueless when it comes to understanding how money is made. (Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001)[Note: You have to scroll way down the page to post 253 to see the transcript of the show. Then once you hit the transcript, you have to go about half to two thirds of the way through. You'll see a quote from Coulter that is in bold where she says, "Right, I think they should be armed but should not vote." Read a bit above and below this to get the context. For those who doubt the veracity of this unofficial transcript, please understand that the "Free Republic" website is almost totally pro-Coulter.]
  • We should invade the countries of terrorists, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. (9/13/01 column)
  • That gas guzzling cars, mining, drilling and raping the environment are Biblically ordained practices. (10/13/2000 column)
  • Democratic women are "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons". (Report from 2004 Democratic Convention.)
  • Believes Joe McCarthy was a true American who got a bum rap and instead should have monuments built to him. (Interview with John Hawkins)
  • Jokes we should poison Supreme Court Justice Stevens and thinks there is no longer a problem with crack cocaine (Article on CNN)
  • Resorts to calling an Indiana University student "gay boy" because he disagreed with her. (Article in Indiana Daily)
  • Resorts to calling an Indiana University student "gay boy" because he disagreed with her. (Article in Indiana Daily)
  • Says that John Murtha, a Congressman from Pennsylvania, is "[t]he reason soldiers invented fragging." (Fragging is the practice of soldiers killing one of their own, usually with a hand-grenade, for what they see as betrayal of some sorts.)(Interview at RightWing News as quoted on The QandO Blog. (Link to original interview provided by the blog.)
  • In an interview on the Today Show with Matt Lauer, she reiterates her assertion in one of her "books" that the widows of 9/11 victims are "self-obsessed" "millionaires" "reveling in their status as celebrities"(Raw Story..)
  • The title of her August 30, 2006 syndicated column was "They Shot the Wrong Lincoln" in reference to the Rhode Island senate race between incumbent Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and Republican Stephen Laffey.(Story from Media Matters reprinted on Raw Story..)
  • At the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference, Coulter called John Edwards a faggot and got a rousing laugh from audience members.(Raw Story..)

I have yet to read a piece by Ann Coulter that didn't resort to name calling or derision of those who disagree with her. She seems almost obsessed with the Clintons and hardly an article or interview goes by without her mentioning one or the other of them. What Coulter considers "humorous", such as her description of the women at the Democratic convention, others see as simply mean-spirited or insulting. When asked how she responds to those who accuse her of being a hypocrite for slinging insults like she accuses Democrats and liberals of doing, her response is, "Our insults are true." [Source] Yet there are even conservative groups who believe Coulter goes too far. [See the link to Coulter Watch below.] Like Phelps, Coulter takes her act to the extreme and ends up alienating people on both sides. And yet, despite this, she is still given air time and print space. And lots of it.

In June, 2005, Coulter published a column that appears to have been plagiarized from several different articles— some written two decades earlier. It takes a lot of nerve— or arrogance— for someone who is nationally syndicated to lift, almost word for word, not one, but at least twelve statements/comments that had been written by someone else and then copyright it and pass it off as your own! I have been unable to track down any follow up on this story to see if Coulter offered any sort of explanation, or even better, an apology, but I'm still looking. Additional charges of plagiarism surfaced in June/July of 2006 and yet Coulter is still being published in over 100 newspapers across the country.

Coulter's December 21, 2005 column says, "I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo." So this woman, who claims to be a "true" American and who has a law degree, is suggesting that we practice racism, violation of international treaties and gestapo-like tactics of imprisoning political foes and torturing them. How, in the name of all that is sacred, can anyone take this woman seriously? And yet there are millions who view her with respect and even admiration.

In February 2006, Palm Beach County election officials received a complaint that Coulter had voted in the wrong precinct. Intentionally doing so is a felony punishable with up to five years in prison. Coulter refuses to cooperate with authorities trying to figure out what happened, so the matter is being turned over to the Palm Beach County prosecutor. (For those who won't believe what is written on a site called, the article originally appeared on CNN on 11/1/06 and you can check out their archive to verify they ran that story that day.) Why, when the actions of these mouthpieces go so against the grain of the American ideals, when their hypocrisy is exposed over and over again, do so many people still listen to and— worse yet— believe them? For that, check out my thoughts on the issue.

Note: You can now sign up to have notifications sent to you when changes are made to this page. Just click on the "Monitor Changes" button below and it will open a new window where you can enter your email address. You will then be notified whenever changes are made to this page. Please note that it will monitor this page only, not the entire "Exposed!" website.

it's private
by ChangeDetection

Click on any of the links below to read more articles about Ann Coulter.
Treason Unwound Treason Unwound
Synopsis: As in her last book, Coulter once again uses rhetoric, emotionalism and outright lies to "stir the pot" against all Democrats and all liberals in her latest book. This is a great analysis of the inaccuracies, irrationality and illogical arguments used by this professional lawyer.
Correcting Slander Correcting Slander
Synopsis: A systematic accuracy check (or more appropriately perhaps an inaccuracy check) of Coulter's book "Slander". This site also contains links to other fact checking sites that clearly demonstrate that Coulter's claims are highly inaccurate.
The Money Behind Coulter The Money Behind Coulter
Synopsis: This site tracks down the money behind the media— who pays for and finances people like Coulter.
Why NRO Canned Ann Why NRO Canned Ann
Synopsis: The National Review Online ended its relationship with Ann Coulter after her commentary on September 13, 2001. Read the official NRO word from editor Jonah Goldberg as to why NRO terminated the services of this "PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit on Geraldo".
Coulter Watch Coulter Watch
Synopsis: A conservative watch-dog group that keeps its eyes on Ann Coulter. Pay particular attention to the section called "Plagiarism Trap". It's a .pdf file so you may need a reader that can open it, but it clearly shows that in some cases Ann lifted statements word for word from others, but didn't give them credit. And this link was in place before Coulter got caught in July 2005, which demonstrates that this is a common tactic for her.

Michael Savage Next Page: Michael Savage
Rush Limbaugh Previous Page: Rush Limbaugh
Contact Us Contact Us
Submit a site you want Exposed! Submit a site you want Exposed!
Exposed! Home Page Exposed! Home Page

All text © 2004-13 Shelly Strauss except where quotes with references are provided.
All graphics © 2004-13 Rainbow's End Press Do not copy without written permission.
Please tell your friends about this site and feel free to link to us.