Ann Coulter not to be taken literally

Ann Coulter hates liberals with an undying passion. Although that's common knowledge and usually the first thing most people know about this conservative diva, you're probably thinking that that's not the best way to start an article in which the goal is to, in a way, glorify and defend her from those men and women who covet the safety of political correctness.

First and foremost, "political correctness" are two words that are not in Coulter's vocabulary, nor should they be. Why are we, as a society, so concerned with what other people want to hear? We've gotten to an unparalleled time in American history where we cannot voice what we truly think and want to say. Instead of honesty, we're forced to exist in the ever- narrowing confines of American appropriateness.

For example, if we see a woman on campus who wants to express herself by parting her hair in a purple Mohawk, we are now forced to acknowledge this as acceptable. Our honest opinions have become secondary to the perceived opinions of the perceived majority. Liberals now find that deviation from this ideology is implausible. Now, thank God, we have a woman who is not going to tolerate being "politically correct," or in layman's terms, live life as a societal android.

Yet, liberals scream that her brusqueness is an excruciating media problem and feel threatened that a woman has voiced her opinion. So they do what they do best: start with the name-calling. Coulter has been labeled as the most fascist, sexist, racist bigot to have ever lived. Because of her hard-to-grasp belief that women shouldn't vote, liberals call her "dumb," not taking into consideration that she is both a legal correspondent and a world-renowned attorney.

She's Satan to some, only because it becomes too difficult for liberals at times to actually dissect her arguments. BG News opinion columnist George Valko's comments on Feb. 21 serve as an example. After stating one of Coulter's quotes, he simply states that "no one needs to comment on that." With no offense to Mr. Valko, that's simply bad analytical literature. That "comment," like so many other liberal "arguments," is nothing more than trash-talking about someone he doesn't like.

My favorite Ann quote sums up her philosophy on life. She once said, "Democrats couldn't care less if people in Indiana hate them. But if Europeans curl their lips, liberals can't look at themselves in the mirror."

Whether you agree with the war on terror or not is one thing, but to actually base your opinion about the war on what France thinks of it is treasonous. Many people know that but are afraid to speak out about it. Coulter, contrary to popular speakers like Michael Moore and Al Franken, loves her country and is not going to allow liberals' fear of foreign ridicule get in the way of truth. Like Coulter once said, "usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening."

In her 2002 best-selling book "Slander," she stated that the "gravest danger facing most black Americans today is the risk of being patronized to death." Her belief is that nowadays, many of the problems that members of the black community are internal and blacks are being perceived as helpless. Does this make her a racist? Did she ever say, or even insinuate, that she doesn't like black people?

But our society, who loves to oversimplify life, sees blacks being portrayed in something other than a victimized light and, without thought, portrays her as a racist. It's similar to the Cosby controversy, and as was the case with this newly-defined "race traitor," liberals feel that anyone who states a somewhat-conservative opinion should be a Constitutionally-denoted criminal.

The goal of this column is not to make you fond of Ann. Actually, the fundamental truth is that if you have more in common with the socialist party than basic American ideals like the majority of the Democratic party these days, then you won't like Ann and she won't like you. It's a similar relationship to the conservative party and the shameless Michael Moore with the only difference being that Moore's defunct arguments are painfully inferior to those of Coulter's, lacking logic and a general sense of intellect.

On the contrary, the point is to get you to come to more of an appreciation of Coulter's honesty and frankness. All of her books have been on the New York Times bestseller list, so educate yourself about America and check one out.

Some Friday night reading for you.

http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter091301.shtml

Barbara Olson kept her cool. In the hysteria and terror of hijackers herding passengers to the rear of the plane, she retrieved her cell phone and called her husband, Ted, the solicitor general of the United States. She informed him that he had better call the FBI — the plane had been hijacked. According to reports, Barbara was still on the phone with Ted when her plane plunged in a fiery explosion directly into the Pentagon.

Barbara risked having her neck slit to warn the country of a terrorist attack. She was a patriot to the very end.

This is not to engage in the media's typical hallucinatory overstatement about anyone who is the victim of a horrible tragedy. The furtive cell phone call was an act of incredible daring and panache. If it were not, we'd be hearing reports of a hundred more cell phone calls. (Even people who swear to hate cell phones carry them for commercial air travel.)

The last time I saw Barbara in person was about three weeks ago. She generously praised one of my recent columns and told me I had really found my niche. Ted, she said, had taken to reading my columns aloud to her over breakfast.

I mention that to say three things about Barbara. First, she was really nice. A lot of people on TV seem nice, but aren't. (And some who don't seem nice, are.) But Barbara was always her charming, graceful, vebullient self. "Nice" is an amazingly rare quality among writers. In the opinion business, bitter, jealous hatred is the norm. Barbara had reason to be secure.

Second, it was actually easy to imagine Ted reading political columns aloud to Barbara at the breakfast table. Theirs was a relationship that could only be cheaply imitated by Bill and Hillary — the latter being a subject of Barbara's appropriately biting bestseller, Hell to Pay. Hillary claimed preposterously in the Talk magazine interview that she discussed policy with Bill while cutting his grapefruit in the morning. Ted and Barbara really did talk politics — and really did have breakfast together.

It's "Ted and Barbara" just like it's Fred and Ginger, and George and Gracie. They were so perfect together, so obvious, that their friends were as happy they were on their wedding day. This is more than the death of a great person and patriotic American. It's a human amputation.

Third, since Barbara's compliment, I've been writing my columns for Ted and Barbara. I'm always writing to someone in my head. Now I don't know who to write to. Ted-and-Barbara were a good muse.

Apart from hearing that this beautiful light has been extinguished from the world, only one other news flash broke beyond the numbingly omnipresent horror of the entire day. That evening, CNN reported that bombs were dropping in Afghanistan — and then updated the report to say they weren't our bombs.

They should have been ours. I want them to be ours.

This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson.

We don't need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack. We don't need an "international coalition." We don't need a study on "terrorism." We certainly didn't need a congressional resolution condemning the attack this week.

The nation has been invaded by a fanatical, murderous cult. And we welcome them. We are so good and so pure we would never engage in discriminatory racial or "religious" profiling.

People who want our country destroyed live here, work for our airlines, and are submitted to the exact same airport shakedown as a lumberman from Idaho. This would be like having the Wehrmacht immigrate to America and work for our airlines during World War II. Except the Wehrmacht was not so bloodthirsty.

"All of our lives" don't need to change, as they keep prattling on TV. Every single time there is a terrorist attack — or a plane crashes because of pilot error — Americans allow their rights to be contracted for no purpose whatsoever.

The airport kabuki theater of magnetometers, asinine questions about whether passengers "packed their own bags," and the hostile, lumpen mesomorphs ripping open our luggage somehow allowed over a dozen armed hijackers to board four American planes almost simultaneously on Bloody Tuesday. (Did those fabulous security procedures stop a single hijacker anyplace in America that day?)

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.