Conservative commentator Ann Coulter minced no words in her denunciation of Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Defense on Monday, calling Pete Hegseth “sleazy” and a “serial adulterer.”
After making a more general argument that “our leaders, and particularly our president, absolutely need to have character,” on her podcast
, Unsafe with Ann Coulter, she dove into the debate around Hegseth, who has been accused of rape by one woman whom he says he had consensual sex with.
“What I found strange and continue to find strange about the attacks on Trump’s defense secretary proposed nominee Pete Hegseth — also, his main qualification: a morning weekend host on Fox News — is. there is all this you know, ‘Did he assault this woman in the hotel or didn’t he? Was it consensual and she didn’t want her husband to know, so four days later, she cried rape?’ Yes, that happens a whole lot. A lot, a lot, a lot,” began Coulter. “But in all of this talk about about whether whether Pete Hegseth is an abuser of women, it just, no one even mentioned that he is a serial adulterer! Are we a society that doesn’t care about adultery anymore?”
She continued:
Adultery hasn’t even been mentioned. And Pete Hegseth is well known to have now been married on his third marriage. Gets married, gets his wife pregnant, little kids at home or kid at home — I don’t know the details. Starts having sex with his producer, dumps his first wife, married his producer, gets her pregnant. Again, she’s either pregnant or she’s home with kid or kids, and then commits adultery on her. Dumps the second wife, and now, I guess is, let’s hope happily married to his third wife. The fact that it was three times, and this sleazy, and everyone at Fox News knew about it is one thing. But seriously, does no one-, no one is even mentioning the adultery! I’m sorry, this is liberals winning. This is liberals changing our culture in this subtle and insidious way where the only rules that matter are the feminist rules, not the rules that have protected women for millennia, like don’t cheat on your wife.
“‘Was was it consensual or not?’ No, I don’t care if it’s consensual. It wasn’t consensual to the wife who was married to Pete Hegseth,” concluded Coulter
.
Idiot conservatives were doing the idiot thing this week, screaming “racism!” in response to an old tape of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg defending stop-and-frisk, one of the policies that drove New York City murder rates down to Mayberry levels. They weren’t being ironic.
In the 2015 tape, Bloomberg makes the blindingly obvious point that if “95% of murders and murder victims are young male minorities” – as is true in New York City – then police should be questioning about 95% young male minorities.
To stop crime, he said, you “put a lot of cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods.”
Bloomberg further explained that frisking young black and brown men for minor crimes is how you keep guns off the streets generally: “And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them. And then they start, they say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to get caught.’ So they don’t bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home.”
Does anyone with a functioning frontal lobe disagree with this? By pursuing the wacky idea of having cops frisk kids in high-crime areas for minor offenses like turnstile jumping, Mayor Rudy Giuliani cut the murder rate from more than 2,000 per year to about 600. No one thought it could possibly go any lower – and then Bloomberg got murders down to an unfathomable 300 or so per year.
Giuliani and Bloomberg did more for young minorities than all living Democrats combined. In New York City alone, at least 20,000 more black men are alive today than would be under the genius crime-fighting ideas of prior administrations (and The New York Times).
Unless liberal elites are pursuing a secret plan to reduce the black population by allowing young black men to kill one another (that would make a great movie by Jordan Peele!), stop-and-frisk is nothing to apologize for.
Well, guess what? Bloomberg apologized for it. He began his presidential campaign with a repudiation of his signature accomplishment in order to please a handful of black activists and a lot of white liberals. For that, he deserves the contempt of all men of goodwill.
Why not attack him for the gutless apology? Is Bloomberg sorry for saving so many black lives? Does becoming a Democrat make basic math incomprehensible? Is he a pandering coward? Can we trust anything he says?
But small-bore conservatives did what they always do: Give up winning a war in order to land a quick blow in a skirmish. They called Bloomberg’s earlier, logically insuperable point “RACIST!”
Great, so now conservatives are adopting the absolute worst aspect of liberalism – calling everything “racist.”
As I wrote in 2016, when the media were going through their quadrennial demand that the Republican candidate for president “disavow” David Duke, these “racism” orgies never have anything to do with black people. It’s part of the Fabulous White People competition, where black people are the chips.
If anything, the urge to call other people “racist” has only gotten stronger since then, so I’ll quote myself:
“Sad people with meaningless lives [are] suddenly empowered to condemn other people. I beat you in blacks yesterday; I’m going to beat you in women today. This is what makes them feel superior to other people, especially other white people. It’s not about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; it’s just a self-actualization movement for people with emotional issues.”
Why are conservatives leaping into this game? For the teeny-tiny pleasure of taking a cheap shot at Bloomberg, they are endorsing the idea that anyone who 1) grasps basic math and 2) is opposed to gun crime is a “racist.”
Our entire public dialogue will soon be nothing but white people calling one another “racist,” as if we’re trapped in an eternal Democratic presidential debate.
At the New Hampshire debate last Friday night, Tom Steyer – hedge fund manager and Hero to Black People Everywhere – kept hammering Joe Biden about some “racist” remark made by South Carolina State Sen. Dick Harpootlian, a Biden supporter.
“One of the leaders of Joe Biden’s South Carolina campaign,” Steyer said, “made racist remarks about someone associated with our campaign.” Steyer then repeatedly called on Biden to “disavow” the remark and the man who made it. “Be on the right side,” he implored.
The story: Harpootlian had tweeted that another South Carolina Democrat, state legislator Jerry Govan, flipped his support from Biden to Steyer after being paid “almost $50,000” by the Steyer campaign. Calling Steyer “Mr. Moneybags,” Harpootlian concluded, “This is what happens when billionaires get involved. … They don’t have to persuade anybody, they just buy them.”
I’ve assembled a panel of black judges to rule on Harpootlian’s racism, and their response is: Keep reading. Get to the racism part.
Nope, that’s it! Govan is black, so pointing out that Steyer paid him $50,000 and got his endorsement is “racist.”
I would have gone with “anti-Semitic” myself, but what do I know? I guess I’ll check with the conservative “racism” fighters!
