“Crazed Zealot Jeff Sessions Attempts to Enforce Law!” by Ann Coulter 10/24/2018

You can read the column here or at AnnCoulter.com.

The New York Times recently published a snippy attack on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, portraying him as a single-minded zealot pursuing crackpot ideas that were putting the Trump administration “on track to lose in court and prompting high-level departures.”

The Times’ sources were “current and former career department lawyers.” In other words, Trump-hating Democratic zealots weeks away from their book contracts.

One attorney who left the Department of Justice during its descent into madness under Sessions was Stephen J. Buckingham. (Why not “Astor” or “Carnegie”?)

As at any federal agency, 99 percent of “career” attorneys at DOJ are left-wing. Social activists move effortlessly from the ACLU, the Democratic Socialists of America and the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force to government jobs. Thus, one entry on Buckingham’s resume is that he “created a program to amend the immigration status of unaccompanied Sudanese refugee minors.”

During Democratic administrations, these selfless career employees sell guns to Mexican drug cartels and run around the country making sure local police forces can’t do their jobs. During Republican administrations, they spend their time quietly, relentlessly sabotaging the administration they allegedly serve.

In addition to being a nonstop source of critical remarks about the Trump administration, “career” DOJ employees also lead mob assaults on Cabinet members, as Allison Hrabar did to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in June.

Along with a dozen of her friends from the Democratic Socialists of America, DOJ paralegal Hrabar surrounded Nielsen’s table at a Washington, D.C., restaurant, shouting: “Kirstjen Nielsen, you’re a villain!” “If kids don’t eat in peace, you don’t eat in peace!” “The f—ing gall!” “Shame on you!” “Shame! Shame! Shame!” “Fascist pig!” — which Nielsen eventually realized was not the evening’s special.


(And it still didn’t occur to Gen. John Kelly’s special friend Nielsen why voters wanted a wall.) It took months of complaints about the DOJ not firing Hrabar — and her own arrogant claim that she couldn’t be fired — for her to finally lose her job. In Buckingham’s case, he told the Times that his conscience was shocked when Sessions asked him a legal question. (God forbid the attorney general question one of the lawyers working at DOJ!)
The Times reports: “In one instance, Mr. Sessions directly questioned a career lawyer, Stephen Buckingham, who was asked to find ways to file a lawsuit to crack down on sanctuary laws protecting undocumented immigrants. Mr. Buckingham, who had worked at the Justice Department for about a decade, wrote in a brief” — and presumably his forthcoming memoirs — “that he could find no legal grounds for such a case.”Anyone else remember Arizona being denounced for two years during the Obama administration for trying to enforce immigration laws that the federal government wouldn’t? Hey, idiots! The feds have total control over immigration.

Didn’t Khizr Khan give Buckingham a copy of his Constitution?

I have been not practicing law longer than “Buckingham” was at the Justice Department, but I found possible legal grounds to go after sanctuary cities in approximately eight seconds on Google.

Title 18 of the U.S. Code is the federal criminal code. Section 3 states: “Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”

It’s hard to miss Section 3. Section 1 was repealed in 1984, and Section 2 consists of only 52 words. But Buckingham must have exhausted himself reading Section 2 and didn’t have the energy to shove ahead to Section 3.

Even if a couple sentences is your maximum reading limit, the crime of “accessory after the fact” has gotten a lot of airtime since Trump became president. It is one of the literally millions of laws Trump has probably broken, demanding his impeachment.

Before Trump was even inaugurated, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee was claiming on MSNBC’s Chris Matthews’ show that Trump could be an “accessory after the fact” to the (nonexistent) Russian collusion.

Earlier this year, Frank Figliuzzi, the former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, elaborated on this theory on MSNBC’s “The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell,” explaining that the president may have helped Vladimir Putin avoid punishment for his felonious act of taking out Facebook ads (or something).

By contrast with the (nonexistent) felony of (nonexistent) Russian collusion, the whole point of a “sanctuary city” is to shelter known criminals from arrest and deportation.

Sanctuary cities like Philadelphia expressly prohibit officials from giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement advance notice before releasing illegal alien inmates to the public. In California, even if ICE shows up asking for a specific criminal alien, state and local government officials are instructed to refuse to comply, except in cases of certain violent felonies.

Prosecutors in “sanctuary” jurisdictions throughout the country are dropping criminal charges against immigrants — or allowing them to plea to minor offenses — for the sole purpose of preventing their deportation.

In practice, this means less punishment for noncitizens than U.S. citizens. Talk about the “new Jim Crow.”

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf not only refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement, she actually warned illegal aliens of an impending ICE raid.

These government officials are threatening the lives and safety of their own constituents by actively assisting known criminals escape apprehension by federal law enforcement. As Democrat Sheila Kuehl, chair of the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, put it, Californians should “lie, cheat and steal” to ensure that no immigrant be deported.

It’s hard to think of a more fundamental betrayal of the public trust.

Yes, you’re right, New York Times. Poor career attorneys are being asked to do horrible things under Jeff Sessions. Such as enforce the law.

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

“Fake News Autopsy” by Ann Coulter 10/17/2018

You can read the column here or at AnnCoulter.com.

Whenever Donald Trump talks about fake news, there are howls of indignation from the establishment media. We’re told that the very mention of “fake news” is a direct attack on our democracy, that the alternative is “darkness,” that it led to the dismemberment and murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and that, yes, every once in a while there might be a typo, but if you mean the media intentionally report false information, that is dangerous demagoguery.

I present CNN’s Ana Cabrera.

On Sunday night, Cabrera launched a premeditated, vicious, racist lie about President Trump, then proceeded to discuss the false story with a black guest, primed to analyze the fake news.

We’ll slow down the replay in order to follow the ball, so you can see every handoff in the creation of fake news.

A few weeks ago, when Judge Brett Kavanaugh was facing 30-year-old, completely uncorroborated accusations of sexual assault based on recovered memories in order to block his Supreme Court appointment, Trump said, “It’s a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of.”

This statement was quoted by numerous news outlets, including CNN: “Trump says it’s ‘a very scary time for young men in America,'” Jeremy Diamond, Oct. 2.

Cabrera rewrote the president’s quote, telling CNN viewers that Trump had said: “WHITE men have a lot to fear right now.”

How did “white” get slipped in there?

If this were merely a mistake, there are lots of words in the English language that might have been inserted instead of “white.” Why not “radial tire”? Why not “hangnail”? Why not the words “virtuoso” or “champagne”?

Dictionaries are heavy with all of the words that might have been inserted if this were an accident. How could the word “white” inadvertently get slipped into a Trump quote?

CNN intentionally told an ugly lie about the most incendiary issue roiling the nation: race. It wasn’t a lie about Trump’s position on tax policy, North Korea or school vouchers. The network deliberately pushed a racism narrative calculated to incite racial hatred that could get someone killed.

Like a professional jewel thief swiping a Cartier watch so deftly that the guard doesn’t notice, Cabrera launched the lie during a segment that began: “People are talking about a string of recent incidents with racial undertones.”

“People are talking about” is how opinion journalism masquerades as news. What topics aren’t “people talking about”?

People are talking about CNN head Jeff Zucker’s split from his wife after 21 years.

People are talking about Chris Cuomo’s behavior at the CNN Christmas party.

People are talking about how Ana Cabrera got her job.

Cabrera then presented two stories about white people falsely accusing black people of doing things they hadn’t done — which was ironic, inasmuch as Cabrera was about to falsely accuse Trump of doing something he hadn’t done.

After a brief word from a black guest, professor Marc Lamont Hill, who said our world is “still shot through with white supremacy,” Cabrera told the lie about Trump:

“President Trump and his son, Don Jr., said this week, white men have a lot to fear right now.”

(His son said no such thing either.)

Cabrera then ran a clip of “Saturday Night Live” comedian Michael Che’s “take” on the nonexistent quote, in which he injected race into the president’s remarks, calling Trump a “white dude.”

Che: “Come on. Old, rich white dude telling us it’s a scary time in America? That is pure comedy.”

(The absence of a punchline was covered with, “That is pure comedy,” meaning, “Please laugh now!”)

At this point in the program, the lie about Trump transformed into actual presidential policy. Cabrera asked Hill, “Why do you think that is Trump’s strategy?”

Hill went off on the fictional Trump quote, talking about the president’s “racial tribalism.” Again, this was about a Trump statement that had absolutely nothing to do with race — until CNN made it so.

“It stokes white fear,” Hill continued, “saying that it’s a scary time to be a white man because you get accused of something that you didn’t do” — as CNN was accusing Trump of something he didn’t do.

Goebbels would be proud!

If this were an error, it would have been quickly corrected before the first commercial break. It was not corrected because it’s not a mistake; it’s a political strategy. CNN invents fake news to push an ugly narrative about the president’s “racial tribalism.”

That’s why an entire news segment was prepared around the fake quote, with an invited guest asked to comment on something Trump never said.

To those of you with jobs and busy lives, clip this column and keep it in your wallet so you are prepared the next time someone scoffs at Trump’s denunciation of fake news.

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER

“GOP Needs Update to Dems’ UFC Cage Match Rules” by Ann Coulter 10/10/2018

You can read the column here or at AnnCoulter.com.

It’s time to update the GOP’s Marquess of Queensbury Rules.

If you saw Ruth Bader Ginsburg at Brett Kavanaugh’s swearing-in ceremony, you know that we may need to fill her seat in about 4 1/2 minutes. Naturally, I hope she lives to be 300 — although parenthetically, it seems she already has.

The confirmation hearings for Kavanaugh made Robert Bork’s hearings look like a day at the beach. At least liberals only lied about Bork’s judicial philosophy. They didn’t accuse him of being Ted Bundy. The next nomination hearing will make Kavanaugh’s look like an ice cream social.

Just because it didn’t work this time doesn’t mean Republicans’ work is done. They have to make sure this never happens again.

Democrats are already pushing the idea that Kavanaugh’s confirmation was somehow illegitimate because of the shoddy FBI investigation. Liberals’ beef is that the FBI neglected to interview Kavanaugh’s former Yale classmates, who dispute his characterization of precisely how big a drinker he was in college.

I wouldn’t say he was a belligerent drunk, but more of an obstreperous drunk.

No, no! I would say he was a mild drunk with periods of obstreperousness.

This is not the stuff of perjury prosecutions.

Of course, if true, it’s HUGE. Kavanaugh’s demeanor when drunk in college sounds nearly as awful as liberals’ behavior when sober — obnoxious, aggressive and argumentative. I refer you to the recent antics we’ve seen on Capitol Hill, as well as anywhere Ted Cruz stops in for a bite.

Since none of the FBI’s latest report on Kavanaugh has leaked, the one thing we can be sure of is that the agents turned up nothing unfavorable on him. Except for a colonoscopy, I think we’re done with Kavanaugh.

It’s the accusers who have skirted investigation. Even Republicans have moved on. He’s on the court, so who cares if Kavanaugh was falsely accused of “rape” in front of his little girls?

That’s what everyone thought when the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players were proved innocent and the D.A. was disbarred. Why go after the accuser? Hasn’t she suffered enough?

Crystal Mangum was not prosecuted for falsely charging she was gang-raped. And see? No harm, no foul! She went on to live a happy and productive — oh, wait! The next time we heard about Mangum was when she stabbed her boyfriend to death.

On reflection, it certainly seems possible that Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick was not being completely, 100 percent honest in her sworn statements about repeatedly attending high school parties in the 1980s, when she was a college student, where underage girls were drugged and gang-raped.

Deborah Ramirez’s three-decade-old, unsubstantiated, recovered memory of a drunken Kavanaugh exposing himself as a college freshman is the sort of charge that makes feminists laugh! (I know that from reading Gloria Steinem’s explanation in The New York Times that Gov. Bill Clinton summoning a female underling to his hotel room, dropping his pants and saying, “Kiss it!” did not rise to the level of sexual harassment. He took “no” for an answer!)

Perhaps Republicans could get Steinem to explain under oath why it’s acceptable for a sitting governor to do what is disqualifying for a drunk college freshman to do.

While no one would question the word of a living saint like Christine Blasey Ford, some parts of her testimony demand the clarity that can be obtained only in a formal legal proceeding — such as her trauma-induced need for two front doors (when the second front door seems clearly attached to a rental apartment); her fear of flying (but only when it will delay a confirmation hearing); and her claim that she never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph (contradicted by her ex-live-in boyfriend); among other things.

Pretending they are the wronged ones, liberals keep yipping about Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. They believe any attack on Kavanaugh was justified after the dirty trick pulled by Republicans on Garland.

The Republicans’ refusal to hold hearings on Garland has been called an “unprecedented obstruction” (MSNBC’s Chris Hayes), a “violation of traditions in norms” (Hayes again), an “insult and injury” (Sen. Cory Booker) and “remarkable and unprecedented” (MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow). The GOP’s treatment of Garland showed their “hypocrisy on Brett Kavanaugh” (MSNBC’s Ari Melber).

The truth is apparently a big secret, inasmuch as even Republicans aren’t saying it. You’ll read it here for the first time.

The Republicans’ wily, underhanded, double-dealing trick with Garland was this: Win a majority of seats in the U.S. Senate! I know liberals won’t read the Constitution, but can they do math? Garland didn’t have the votes.

Republicans had 54 seats and, in 2016, Senate rules still required 60 votes for Supreme Court appointments. Democrats would have needed 14 Republican senators to switch sides to confirm a Democratic president’s nominee.

There was no way that was happening. A Republican Senate simply wasn’t going to give “consent” to any Democratic nominee eight months before a presidential election — even an election that everyone thought Hillary was going to win. The Constitution says “advice and consent,” not “advice and rubber-stamp.”

There was nothing “unprecedented” about a Republican Senate rejecting a Democratic nominee — other than the fact that Republicans were the ones doing it. Democrats do it all the time.

That’s how we got Justice Anthony Kennedy — whom Kavanaugh replaced: A Democratic Senate rejected Reagan nominee Robert Bork. That’s also how we got Harry Blackmun, author of the ridiculously lawless Roe v. Wade: A Democratic Senate rejected Richard Nixon’s previous nominees Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell.

It would have been a waste of time and only humiliated Garland to hold hearings. At least Republicans didn’t accuse him of gang rape.

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER

“Whatever It Takes” by Ann Coulter 10/03/2018

You can read the column here or at AnnCoulter.com.

The Democrats’ current position on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is: We cannot have someone addicted to beer on our highest court! What if a foreign power were to ply him with this nectar in a can? Talk about taking control of our government! Suppose they throw in a case of Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbier?

A bitter college roommate is going whole hog, wailing, He lied about being a beeraholic.

By the media’s account, Kavanaugh was a bounder, a brawler and a drunk. And yet he still managed to graduate at the top of his class, go to Yale, then to Yale Law and work in the highest positions in government.

I am in awe of his manliness. Hemingway has nothing on this guy! He should be our president. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln after being told Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk, let’s find out what Kavanaugh drank and send a barrel of it to every college student.

At least the Democrats seem to have moved on from the Crazy Ladies Who Must Be Believed.

Kavanaugh’s first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, doesn’t remember the time or place of the alleged high school groping, and all four witnesses she named deny any memory of such a party.

Forcing our first one-week delay, we were told that the poor lady was so traumatized by being groped in high school that she couldn’t fly. It was the worst thing that ever happened to her, compelling her to do what any reasonable person would under the circumstances: Add a second front door to her house.

She was supposedly terrified of small spaces, and an airplane, one of her friends told CNN, “was the ultimate closed space where you cannot get away.”

Then we found out that Ford regularly jets off to Hawaii, Costa Rica, the South Pacific islands and French Polynesia … to go surfing, one of the most terrifying activities around.

It sounded like a joke. I was so shattered and broken, I could only go rock climbing in the Grand Tetons. After that, I’d repair to my room and curl up in a fetal position. Then I’d go rock climbing again.

An ex-boyfriend has come forward to say that in six years of dating Ford, she never mentioned a sexual assault, had no fear of flying, lived comfortably in a tiny home with only one front door, once coached a friend on how to take a polygraph, contrary to her sworn testimony — and also lied about stealing $600 from him.

Kavanaugh’s second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, jumped in to help, dusting off a memory of the nominee pulling a Bill Clinton on her as a freshman in college — but only after she spent a week huddled with her attorney, “assessing her memories” and calling classmates to ask if they thought it was true.

And did she have corroboration? She doesn’t need any! She’s a “survivor.” Even The New York Times — the newspaper that believed the Duke lacrosse rape case until about five minutes before the prosecutor was disbarred — said Ramirez didn’t have enough evidence to meet its standards.

His third accuser, our heroine Julie Swetnik, is the woman produced by porn lawyer Michael Avenatti. She claims that she repeatedly attended gang rape parties in the 1980s — and she saw Brett Kavanaugh there!

An ex-boyfriend says Swetnik once threatened to kill him and his unborn child; she had a restraining order taken out against her; was sued by an employer for engaging in “sexually offensive conduct,” making “false and retaliatory allegations” against co-workers and also lying about her educational background and work history.

A Democrat and Emmy-winning meteorologist wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee stating that, soon after he met Swetnik in the 1990s, she proposed group sex to him. Some years later, her own father told him to stay away, citing Swetnik’s psychological problems.

She is now the Democrats’ leading contender for 2020.

Poor Kate Snow of NBC News thought she had landed the interview of a lifetime when she sat down with Swetnik. Within about three questions, it became clear that she was talking to a lunatic. At that point, most of Snow’s energy went into hoping for a building-wide power failure to shut down the cameras.

Of the four witnesses Swetnik provided to NBC, whom she claimed would confirm her story, one denied knowing any Julie Swetnik, one was dead, and two did not respond to the network, perhaps wishing they were dead too.

By the end of the interview, Snow’s purse was missing.

But the Democrats are energetic devils. They’ve been poring over Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook and exclaiming, He’s a beeraholic!

With grim passion, they say, how dare you laugh at this? If he were a teetotaler, they’d say, We can’t have someone on the court who’s so nerdy. How can this weird aesthete sympathize with murderers and insider traders?

They’ve already won a second week’s delay by having two deranged women scream at Sen. Jeff Flake in an elevator.

After wetting himself, Flake insisted on a seventh FBI investigation. For weeks, the Democrats have been demanding an investigation — of an incident without witnesses, on a date unknown at a place unknown — by saying, Oh, you big babies, the FBI investigation of Anita Hill only took three days!

The FBI wrapped up its investigation of Kavanaugh in a few days and then sat around wondering how long it had to wait before producing the report. So now the “it will only take three days” crowd is saying, Keep investigating! We don’t know how long the probe should be, but the minimum standards of decency require that it last at least until there’s a new president.

Whatever they find, they will argue in the alternative and just keep doing it and doing it. If Kavanaugh stepped on a bug, PETA activists would be screaming at Flake in an elevator.

The Democrats have a pair of twos, but they expect Republicans to fold. Why? Because that’s what Republicans always do!

Unfortunately, this time, Kavanaugh’s supporters are not accepting surrender.

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER

“No More Mr. White Guy” by Ann Coulter 9/26/2018

You can read the column here or at AnnCoulter.com.

“They know the optics of 11 white men questioning Dr. Ford … will be so harmful and so damaging to the GOP.” — Areva Martin, CNN legal analyst

“They understand that you have all of these white men who would be questioning this woman … the optics of it would look terrible.” — Gloria Borger, CNN chief political analyst

“Women across this nation should be outraged at what these white men senators are doing to this woman.” — Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif.

“There has been some discussion of the GOP senators who happened to all be … white men.” — Jim Sciutto, CNN correspondent

“What troubles me is now there are … they’re all white men.” — Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan, on CNN

”You’re seeing on display a metaphor for what this party is, which is basically ignorant white men.” — “Morning Joe” contributor Donny Deutsch

“All these white men … stumbling all over themselves asking her, you know, aggressive and obnoxious questions.” — Asha Rangappa, CNN analyst

“What are those — that collection of old white men going to do?” — Cynthia Alksne, MSNBC contributor

“If she testifies in front of the Judiciary Committee, where 11 members are white men …” — Susan Del Percio, Republican political strategist, on MSNBC

“Once again, it will be all white men on the Republican side of the Judiciary Committee.” — CNN anchor Poppy Harlow

“The optics for Republicans are going to be really tricky … You’ve got all white men on the Republican side here …” — Julie Pace, Washington bureau chief for The Associated Press, on CNN

“The Republicans, it happens to be 11 white men still on that side.” — CNN host John Berman

“The Republicans, it is 11 white men, talk to me about how you think the tone inside this hearing on Monday will be perceived?” — Berman, a few minutes later

“On the Republican side, all 11 are white men.” — Berman, again, same show, several minutes later

“What hasn’t changed is the number of white men questioning, certainly, on the Republican side.” — Dana Bash, CNN chief political correspondent

“The Republican side on the Senate Judiciary Committee is all white men …” — Irin Carmon, senior correspondent for New York Magazine, on MSNBC

“Only this crowd of clueless old white guys …” — The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin on Twitter

Let me begin by saying these commentators are making a brilliant and totally ORIGINAL point, the plain truth of which is outshone only by, as I’ve said, its sheer no-one-has-ever-made-that-observation-before-ness.

As the Supreme Court confirmation hearing resumes this week for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, it’s clear that the Republicans are simply too white to get the job done. I suggest the Republicans sign up some outside help, the way baseball teams make late-season acquisitions of pitchers and designated hitters for the playoffs.

Some suggestions (note: not all of the following individuals are Republicans, but none has any partisan profile that I am aware of):

1. The Rev. Al Sharpton (Tawana Brawley affair demonstrates that he believes women).

2. Bill Cosby (extensive, up-close experience with victims of sexual assault, albeit from a rapist’s, rather than a “rapee’s” perspective).

3. Keith Ellison (likely good rapport with committee Democrats; has own transportation to Capitol Building).

4. Matias Reyes (would undoubtedly throw himself into committee’s work as pleasant change of pace from prison).

5. Sorry, I don’t remember the gentleman’s name, but that guy who kidnapped and raped the Columbia student, poured bleach on her and Krazy-Glued her lips shut. (This one is sort of a “wild card,” I admit; he could be absolutely great, or, judging by his history of poor impulse control, he could be too emotionally unstable to handle the committee’s important work; definitely a Person of Color, though; that I’m sure about.)

6. Alton Maddox, attorney for black youth hired by Jewish landlord to slash a model’s face because she refused to date him. Maddox pioneered novel “she’s a manipulative slut who had it coming” defense. (Close relationship with the Rev. Sharpton a definite plus.)

7. Lakireddy Bali Reddy, entrepreneurial Indian immigrant with strong experience with underage rape victims, having brought little girls to the U.S. purchased from their poverty-stricken parents in India as his private sex slaves. (His presence may bring Asha Rangappa on board.)

Seriously, if feminists want to make the point that only female senators have any business conducting these hearings, they have a logical point, albeit an idiotic one.

Of course, the last time feminists bet big on women being certain allies in the fight against misogyny, they were the women of the O.J. jury.

Still, I get the logic of demanding women interlocutors.

But what is the thinking behind snickering at “white men” judging an accusation of sexual assault? Chuck Grassley is a big rapist?

You can be for rape or against it — I happen to be against it — but the idea that alleged sexual assault survivors need the loving care of black, Indian or Hispanic men to judge their stories flies in the face of crime statistics from around the globe.

In the history of the world, there has never been a more pacific, less rapey creature than the white male of Western European descent.

I realize it gives The New York Times’ editorial board (recent acquisition: Sarah Jeong) warm feelings every time someone throws in the word “white” as an intensifier, denoting extra hatefulness, but really, guys, it’s getting old.

Can we please, for the love of God, drop the painfully trite, mind-numbing cliche about “white men,” as if somehow their whiteness makes evil even eviler?

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION