Ann the Man is at it again...

[Harry Monroe]

GODLESS' CAUSES LIBERALS TO PRAY ... FOR A BOOK BURNING
June 21, 2006

I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging.

In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!

If you're upset about what I said about the Witches of East Brunswick, try turning the page. Surely, I must have offended more than those four harpies. Wait 'til you get a load of what I say about liberals in the rest of the book! You haven't seen the half of it.

For snarling victims, my book is Christmas in July. Hey — where's Max the grenade-dropper? Let's keep this diaper-fest going all summer.

How about these pungent points:

— No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion. No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time — undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals — the single most important item on the Democrats' agenda is abortion. Indeed, abortion is the one issue the Democratic Party is willing to go to war over — except in the Muslim world, which is jam-packed with prohibitions on abortion, but going to war against a Muslim nation might also serve America's national security objectives. Liberals don't care about women. They care about destroying human life. To them, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate.

— Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court was known for shouting obscenities from the bench and identifying undercover policemen in open court. Bill Clinton nominated Massiah-Jackson to be a federal district court judge in 1997. Among other notable rulings, Judge Massiah-Jackson sentenced the brutal rapist of a 10-year-old girl to the statutory minimum and apologized to the rapist, saying: "I just don't think the five to 10 years is appropriate in this case even assuming you were found guilty." She refused to allow the district attorney to present a pre-sentence report or victim impact statement, saying: "What would be the point of that?" After his release, the defendant was rearrested for raping a 9-year-old boy.

Massiah-Jackson wasn't some random nut nominated by Clinton by accident, likeJanet Reno or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a liberal heroine. The New York Times was in high dudgeon when Massiah-Jackson withdrew — and not because Massiah-Jackson had sneered atAIDS victims and rape victims ... The Times was in a snit because of the "judicial mugging" the Senate had put her through. Massiah-Jackson, the Times said, "now returns to the state bench, battered but with her honor intact. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Senate."

— Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ ("The Bell Curve") because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God's image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don't think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what's the point? After Hitler carried the secularists' philosophy to its grisly conclusion, liberals are terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people — especially racial groups. It's difficult to have a simple conversation — much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry — when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.

— While gays were being decimated by the AIDS virus, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was more interested in not "stigmatizing" them than in saving their lives. See, where I come from, being dead also carries a certain type of stigma. Instead of distributing condoms in gay bars and at productions of the play "Rent," where they might have done some good, Koop insisted on distributing condoms in kindergarten classes, in order to emphasize the point that AIDS does not discriminate, which it does.

In 1987, New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd — before she was elevated to the cartoon pages — wrote a heroic portrait of the man. Dr. Koop, she said "fiercely wants to strip AIDS of its stigma," and for that reason, he talks "about making an animated educational video that would feature two condoms 'with little eyes on them' chatting, and about the need for 'gentle, nonmystifying' sex education for students, starting in kindergarten." I would pay quite a bit of money to hear someone describe anal sex — oh hell, make it any kind of sodomy — to a 5-year-old in a gentle, nonmystifying way.

Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can.

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi


The last paragraph of her column sums her up in a nutshell:

"Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can."

She's not at all interested in intelligent debate, providing solutions or rationally advancing the conservative agenda she so allegedly and passionately claims to be an advocate of. She's only interested in offending people to sell books. Ann Coulter the literary equivalent of Jerry Springer. All together now with fists pumping in the air: "COULTER! COULTER! COULTER!"

What a shrill shill!! She's a carnival sideshow, interested in only the shock value and attention she can muster to sell her hateful screeds to the yahoos who eat this kind of stuff up.

[Beelzebud]

1. Annthrax is quickly paving her own road to complete irrelevance.

Keep it up Annthrax.

[villager]

2. the question might whether reprinting this here is giving Satann

...exactly what she wants...?

[Harry Monroe]

5. And why would that be giving her what she wants...?

...I post it here to expose her for the cheap hack that she is. What's wrong with that? Under scrutiny and a bit of fact checking, her circus act folds faster than a cheap Wal-Mart lawn chair!!

[villager]

7. there is the "shining lights on roaches" argument, to be sure...

...but she probably likes the fact we reprint her stuff here on DU and get outraged about it...

I dunno what the definitive "Satann" answer is, but surely a falling out among DUers isn't it...

[Harry Monroe]

9. Outrage is good, my friend

As long as it leads to constructive actions. Otherwise it may consume ya, not unlike Emperor Palpatine Cheney to his Robin sidekick George W. Bush:

"Good, Good. I can feel the hatred flowing through you. Let it flow through you and it will make you powerful with the Dark Side"

Or something like that.

[Harry Monroe]

3. Ann my main man!!!

Let me offer my reply to a extreme right wing nut who I often debate on my union BBS on this subject. This guy is extremely rigid and often off the deep end:

" H****, I have tried reading some of her screeds admittedly in Barnes in Noble trying to decide if I actually wanted to purchase her book to get the "other side's view" But, I couldn't get past the first chapter of most of her books; it made me feel dirty and like a bit of a vouyer when reading her trash. Kind of like when you turn Springer on for a few minutes (come on, everybody's done it!!) and watch for the shock value. You then turn it off in disgust feeling a bit degraded, and wishing you could get those few minutes of your life back.

She offers absoultely nothing constructive. From what little I could stomach reading, she only offers hatred and divisiveness, only doing so to sell her books to the masses. Unfortunately, that she is a best seller is a symptom of a bigger problem that this country faces.

I'll admit H**** that you yourself have offered up a few conservative authors that actually provided intelligent counterpoints to the liberal thinking that you so passionately dislike. If you are such an intellect as you so fashion yourself here, why do you waste your time with a lowlife hack such as Coulter. Or do you secretly enjoy her Springer like literary talents??"

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. excellent!

welcome to DU! :hi:

[RufusEarl]

4. No comment!

[bettyellen]

6. the bell curve, LOL.... wasn't that ten years ago? she's kinda desperate

for material, ain;t she? coke addled idiocy, it'd be sad if it wasn't so funny.

[Gato Moteado]

8. i have a feeling that ann's own family would frag her....

...if they got the chance.

[katty]

10. Ann, desperate for attention all her life-she prefers negative attn

[Tab]

11. Polarization at its best

Bush et al have taken this to an art form. Get rid of the grey area - any nuances - make it THIS or THAT, and eliminate any alternatives.

Do I personally want my spouse of partner to have an abortion? No. Do I want the choice? Yes.

My ex-wife was pregnant, and for various reasons (having to do with our relationship) we debated having an abortion.

We ultimately chose to have the child. He now lives with me (I have sole custody of him) and I don't regret him for a second.

Nevertheless, I think it was proper to have the choice over our bodies and our lives. In this case, we chose to have a child. That said, I can think of many situations where you would not want a child born into, but that is for each child's parents to decide and it's very specific to their situation.

The only way I would be anti-abortion altogether is if all the kids up for adoption had good homes and we still had couples without babies.

Other than that, no - let us choose our life. In the early stages it's no more than a biological experiment; certainly no consciousness or anything else. If it's far enough along to survive on its own, then of course not, but early on, if the parents don't think they can do right by the child, then let them wait until they think they can.

Surprisingly, most parents will opt to have the child. But most will also appreciate having a say in the matter, regardless of the choice they'd be inclined to take anyway.

[Bob3]

12. I'm fairly sure her all her points are bs but I know

The Bell Curve has been debunked fairly throughly - Gould's special appendix in paperback edition of The Mis measure of Man is but one example and there was a long long long article in the New York Review of books that tore it to shreds (Dubious research, dubious fiddling with the numbers, the usual lot).

And if you think about, the connection between Genesis and the Bell Curve is a bit of a poser really. The Author of the Bell Curve whose name I mercifully forget is a life long libertarian who did a study in which he finds out "surprise surprise surprise" that any social programs like head start are doomed to failure because brown people are inferior. Which fits into his world view perfectly - it's all very convent. Which for an honest man usually gives one pause. Didn't bother him much it seems.

That given, the link to Genesis and god's a bit weird - if we are in God's image and lot of us are dumb does that mean god is dumb? Or is Ann suggesting that God wants discrimination? Is she saying that God made brown people dumber than white people? Why would he? What's the point of that? Jesus Mary and Joesph on roller skates, where the hell in the bible is this. The bible talks about Adam and Eve not Adam and Eve and then brown people.

Just venting on a Friday afternoon.

She's quite mad yes she is.

[bluestateguy]

14. The Patriot Act allows the President to jail, monitor and spy on Coulter

Paying attention Hillary?