Ann Coulter: bimbo and moron extraordinaire


The headline on Ann Coulter's article pretty well sums up why she's such a moron:

DNA evidence exonerates Hitler!

Of course there was no mention of Hitler.  She mentioned his name because, in her foggy brain, anyone who would dare show concern that this nation has EXECUTED 32 men who are now known to have been innocent, has less esteem in her eyes than Hitler himself.

And this not is her first problem.

Her first problem is that she's a feminazi, and feminazis don't like to be confused with facts.  The FACT is that DNA evidence has proven that morons like her, who believe that "12 women are raped every second", can't possibly be expected to comprehend that men, MANY men, have been falsely accused and convicted and imprisoned in this country, thanks to bimbos like her who are on juries and who are judges and lawyers.


DNA evidence exonerates Hitler!

Ann Coulter

October 24, 2002

The anti-death penalty lobby never sleeps. Unable to convince the public that savage murderers should be given radio shows rather than lethal injections, anti-death penalty zealots have turned to lying about proof of guilt. With convicted felons constantly being "proved innocent," the public finally began to sour on the death penalty. The phony DNA "exoneration" project was the first attack on the death penalty that ever worked.

Years after juries have rendered their guilty verdicts, criminal defense lawyers are still hard at work, hatching new theories of innocence and dredging up phony "new" evidence. Once the police, prosecutors and victims have all moved on, the defense bar can spin its lies to gullible reporters without contradiction. Evidently, it never occurs to journalists that a criminal defense lawyer might lie to them.

Sensational cases in which the defendants were manifestly guilty are particularly vulnerable to these one-sided attacks. Nothing undermines the public's faith in the criminal justice system so completely.

Consequently, it was only a matter of time before the criminal defense lobby would turn to the 1989 wilding attack in Central Park. The current baby seals of the "exoneration" racket are the feral beasts who raped, brutalized and nearly murdered a female jogger.

Strictly adhering to formula, the defense bar has produced a shocking confession from a criminal who – coincidentally – can no longer be prosecuted for the attack. Matias Reyes now claims he alone raped the jogger.

Amazingly, this barbaric crime is a good target for a baseless "exoneration." The savages have served their time, the victim remembers nothing, and no one cares as much as the anti-death penalty fanatics. In fact, the Manhattan district attorney himself adamantly opposes the death penalty. With little cost, he can look bold and honest by overturning the jury verdicts.

In addition to the media's lies about the DNA evidence covered in last week's column, credulous reporters are also retailing these lies about Reyes:

Reyes' claim to have acted alone is supported by the fact that he does not know the five animals already convicted of the crime. This is preposterous. It is undisputed that about 30 savages were rampaging through Central Park the night of April 19, 1989, engaging in wolfpack attacks on joggers and bicyclists. The 30 savages didn't know one another any more than the mob of hoodlums molesting women after the 2000 Puerto Rican Day parade knew one another. Two defendants, Antron McCray and Raymond Santana, had never met their co-defendant, Yusef Salaam, until the night of the attack and did not know his name. This did not cause the jury any consternation before voting to convict all three.

Reyes is 31, much older than the defendants, "all of whom were 16 or younger at the time," as the Associated Press reported. The animals varied in age, but all were teenagers. In 1989, so was Reyes.

In the words of the criminal defense bar's sock puppet at the New York Times, Reyes had committed a "nearly identical crime" nearby days earlier. "Nearly identical" evidently refers to the fact that both crimes were: (1) rapes, (2) in a park. That's where the similarity ends. In the first rape, Reyes casually approached a woman doing tai chi in Central Park in the middle of the day and began chatting her up. When she moved away from him, he pounced, beating her about the head and raping her. Her screams attracted a man who broke off the attack.

The gang rape of the jogger two days later was at night. It was an ambush. The victim was dragged 200 yards, rendered unconscious and left in a coma. The crimes are so dissimilar that, under the rules of evidence, one rape could not have been admitted into evidence in a trial of the other.

Reyes' claim to have committed the rape by himself is supported by the fact that acting alone "was typical of [Reyes'] other crimes" – as the New York Times put it. Reyes' "other crimes" include: rape, sodomy, robbery, burglary, raping and butchering a pregnant woman in the presence of her three children, a sexual attack on his mother, rape at night, rape in broad daylight, rape in a park, rape in a home, rape on a street, rape of a woman doing tai chi, attempted rape, simple rape and rape plus murder. The only "typical" characteristic of Reyes' crimes is their utter bestiality, which is not inconsistent with a gang rape.

As the New York Times' sock puppet excitedly reported, the rapes of the woman doing tai chi and the jogger "were the second and third of the year in the Central Park precinct." The idea that rape is such a rare occurrence in New York that only one rapist could possibly be responsible for both rapes is insane. There were 3,254 reported rapes in New York in 1989. Prolific though he was, Reyes had some help from other New York rapists.

Every criminal "exoneration" you have ever read about was concocted by anti-death penalty zealots and pawned off on gullible or mendacious journalists. The only difference is, this time, the facts are available on Lexis-Nexis.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Bill Haley" <[email protected]>

To: <[email protected]>

Cc: <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 8:51 AM

Subject: Re: [H&C] Fwd: New Coulter Column Online Now

> Matt, thanks for providing us with another example of
> Coulter's unashamed McCarthyism and willingness to lie
> to further her anti-American agenda.
> She wrote the following:
> "Just two years before Lott's remarks, a hagiographic
> book on Wallace's life was released, titled "American
> Dreamer." How about a book about a segregationist
> titled "American Dreamer"? Wallace's version of the
> American "dream" was communism every bit as much as
> Strom Thurmond's dream was segregation. Aren't dreams
> of murderous dictators, gulags and death camps at
> least comparable in evil to segregated lunch counters?
> The dust jacket on "American Dreamer" featured a
> nauseating statement of praise by U.S. Sen. Edward
> Kennedy. Kennedy said that the book deserved "to be
> read by all who care about the American dream." The
> American dream: communist totalitarianism. Why wasn't
> the lecherous liberal asked to retire for his
> flattering remarks about a proven Soviet fifth
> columnist?"
> She was writing about Henry Wallace's 1948 campaign
> for President on the Progressive Party ticket. Wallace
> had served as Secretary of Agriculture and as V-P
> under Franklin Roosevelt.
> Coulter says that "Wallace's version of the American
> "dream" was communism every bit as much as Strom
> Thurmond's dream was segregation." This is complete
> bullshit. The Dixiecrat party in its platform and in
> Thurmond's speeches expressly advocated the
> maintenance of segregation. The Progressive party
> platform and Wallace himself did nothing of the sort
> regarding communism. Wallace himself said repeatedly
> that he was not for Russia and was not for communism.
> He was merely against what he regarded as the
> "red-baiting" of the Truman administration and wanted
> to negotiate with Russia rather than begin a cold or
> hot war.
> She then says that Wallace's dream was for "communist
> totalitarianism" in the US. That is again an outright
> lie. The woman has no shame. As an attorney, she knows
> that she can say anything she wants about a dead
> person, because libel actions cannot be brought on
> behalf of the dead. But I hope that Kennedy sues her
> sorry ass.
> Matt, I have great respect for many conservative
> writers and read them regularly. George Will and Bill
> Kristol are men of principle and decency in my book,
> for example. But Ann Coulter is a hideous
> embarrassment to the entire nation and her "cause."
> She is, simply put, a lying piece of crap. Thanks for
> providing another example.
> Bill