Coulter Does NYT a Favor; Reviews Own Book

Human Events ^ | June 7, 2006 | Ann Coulter

[boryeulb]

The long-anticipated book Godless: The Church of Liberalism was finally released this week. If the New York Times reviews it at all, they'll only talk about the Ann Coulter action-figure doll, so I think I'll write my own review.

Get Yours FREE!

Godless begins with a murder at the Louvre and then takes readers on a roller-coaster ride through the Church of Liberalism in a desperate game of cat and mouse in which the hunter becomes the hunted -- with a twist at the end you simply won't believe! It's a real page-turner -- even the book-on-tape version and large-print edition! Who knew a book about politics could make such an ideal gift -- especially with Father's Day just two weeks away!

The main problem with Godless is that I had to walk through the valley of darkness to find it. You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the "self-help" section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton's memoirs. If all else fails, ask for the "hate speech" section of your local bookstore. Ironically, if you find Godless without asking for assistance, it's considered a minor miracle.

This is not a book about liberals. I stress this in anticipation of Alan Colmes hectoring the author to name names. (For people who resented being asked to "name names" during the 1950s, these liberals sure aren't shy about demanding that conservatives do the same today.)

It is a book about liberalism, our official state religion. Liberalism is a doctrine with a specific set of tenets that can be discussed, just like other religions.

The Christian religion, for example, frowns on lying and premarital sex. That is simply a fact about Christianity. This does not mean no Christian has ever lied or had premarital sex. Indeed, some Christians have committed murder, adultery, thievery, gluttony. That does not mean there's no such thing as Christianity any more than videotape of Rep. William Jefferson accepting cash bribes means there's no such thing as congressional ethics rules.

Similarly, the liberal religion supports abortion, but that doesn't mean every single liberal has had an abortion. We can rejoice that liberals do not always practice their religion.

Godless examines a set of beliefs known as "liberalism." It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven't yet found the common ancestor ... but like O.J., the search continues.)

The demand that their religion be discussed only with reference to specific individuals -- who is godless? are you saying I'm godless? -- is simply an attempt to prevent us from talking about their religion. This tactic didn't work with Slander or Treason, and it's not going to work now.

It's not just that liberals ban Reform rabbis from saying brief prayers at high school graduations and swoop down on courthouses and town squares across America to cart off Ten Commandments monuments. The liberal hostility to God-based religions has already been copiously documented by many others. Godless goes far beyond this well-established liberal hostility to real religions.

The thesis of Godless is: Liberalism IS a religion. The liberal religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)

Liberals deny, of course, that liberalism is a religion -- otherwise, they'd lose their government funding. "Separation of church and state" means separation of YOUR church from the state, but total unity between their church and the state.

Two months ago, the 9th Circuit held that a school can prohibit a student from exercising his First Amendment rights by wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality Is Shameful."

Even the left's pretend-adoration of "free speech" (meaning: treason and pornography) must give way to speech that is contrary to the tenets of the church of liberalism on the sacred grounds of a government school.

How might the ACLU respond if a school attempted to ban a T-shirt that said something like "Creationism Is Shameful"? We'd never hear the end of warnings about the coming theocracy.

In fact, students are actually required to wear "Creationism Is Shameful" T-shirts in Dover, Pa., where -- thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU -- the liberal clergy have declared Darwinism the only true church, immunized from argument. Ye shall put no other God before it. Not one.

Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1).

If only Darwinism were true, someday we might evolve public schools with the ability to entertain opposable ideas about the creation of man.

[Lancey Howard]

Sunday Schools are public schools?

[Busywhiskers]

Again...you are being very selective in your theology. Look for example at Jesus' treatment of the money changers in the temple and his indictment of the jewish religous leaders of his time. When he dealt with sinners, he never dismissed their transgressions. In fact he usually confronted them with their sins in order that they might change. He was not some sort or namby pamby liberal, willing to forgive and forget because they had a bad childhood. Jesus understood the grave consequences of rebellion against God and eventually died to pay the penalty for the rebellion of those who would accept his sacrifice that they might find peace with God.

Incidently, your analysis of "judging" overlooks numerous passages in the Pauline epistles which are just as authoritative as the gospels.

[juliej]

She did not call them ragheads: However, I do agree, that we should have bombed Afghanistan and converted them to Christianity. You sound like a real wuss.

[juliej]

OOps! I thnk I went after the wrong person. sorry.

[JNL]

Well that's pretty simple I thought the Alabama Supreme Court removed the Ten Commandments (not liberals). Annie's facts sometime need a bit of checking.

Hey if it pays the bills.....

[roses of sharon]

Yes, FR is full of the sniveling sissified these days, lol.

[Dick Vomer]

Any respect I had for her just went down the toilet. First, earlier this year, I heard that she called all Muslims "ragheads" at the CPAC convention, and now this? Talk about walking right into the stereotype of a conservative: Racist rube.

....there are more than a few scientist that think Darwinian evolution isn't spot on with the "Scientific Method"... As an example... where is the humanoid between the ape and man...

bwahahahaha... I'd like to see the libs touch this one question. Let me see.... where o where is the "missing link"????

Mitochondrial DNA and RNA matching should help follow some of these "species" developments, but science is finding out that maybe "DNA" alone isn't the only thing present in the cell nucleus that propagates genetic material and traits.

I consider Ms. Coulter a "lawyer gone good". She's just saying what a lot of conservatives would like to say if they had a microphone. Most of the Muzzies in the middle east, the ones that allow the evil to continue and are two faced liars...yep "ragheads".

The 4 widows that are so keen on publicity that they're a little cottage industry... yeah they seem like typical lib cows that make excuses for murder while their husband got fried.

...and finally, all libs suck, but it depends on what your definition of the word "suck" is.

[js1138]

Incidently, your analysis of "judging" overlooks numerous passages in the Pauline epistles which are just as authoritative as the gospels.

I have noticed that people cherry-pick what they want to believe, and whose example they want to follow.

[Antoninus]

One poster defined Coulter's style as "polemical humor."

That's exactly her style. She's one of the best practitioners of the art.

I get the impression from some that one should rarely take anything she says seriously.

On the contrary, what makes her writing humorous is that the reader recognizes there's an element of absolute truth--and that Ann is expounding upon taboo subjects that most of us wouldn't dare address in public. And the best part of it is that she is fast on her feet and makes her critics look like fatuous boobs.

I'm surprised that so many of the high-priests of relativist materialism here on FR have absolutely no sense of humor!

Personally, I can't WAIT to read this book!

[Old_Mil]

But then the store is located very near the University of Notre Dame, whence miracles major and minor occur on a regular basis.

Except when the refs interfere...

[Busywhiskers]

"I have noticed that people cherry-pick what they want to believe, and whose example they want to follow."

Precisely why care and discipline is needed to draw applications from scripture.

[pgyanke]

Maybe you need a history lesson. The Alabama Supreme Court, Attorney General and Governor backed Roy Moore until a liberal federal judge issued his decree. Under intense liberal media and ACLU-type pressure the Alabama Supreme Court (and the other officials) did nothing more than comply with the federal ruling.

Roy Moore was ousted by the AL Supreme Court for not bowing to the federal ruling on an AL state constitutional matter. The AG and Governor and colleagues on the court bemoaned the lawlessness that would ensue from not following a ruling of a judge... juridictional and constitutional questions notwithstanding.

[Ramius]

Hey, cool... you can dispense absolution yourself? That's really handy. I was afraid I'd have to rely on Jesus. He's so busy you know...

So how do you distribute this judgement of yours? By the pound or by the hour? Can I get some by this weekend?

[Right Wing Professor]

Was that absolutely the only example of "details or hard facts" given in her book?

It wasn't a fact. It was a stupid lie.

You couldn't find any facts whatsoever in the book?

Oh, so your test for a good book is one in which a few things happen actually to be true?

[subterfuge]

Another AC thread hijacked by Right Wing Prof.

[Dracian]

For as much as Coulter talks about the liberal doctrine of infallability, I believe we're beginning to witness the birth of the right's equivalent - "Ann Coulter Is Never Wrong, And If You Think She's Wrong, She Was Really Just Kidding."

I just listened to Hugh Hewitt interviewing some liberal loon last evening. Hugh challenged the loon's sweeping allegations (Gitmo was the same as the gulag, etc.) The loon fell back on "I was only trying to get people to think ...."

It's intellectual laziness. In Annie's case, it is to sell her books to the sheeple.

[Right Wing Professor]

You are correct about Right Wing Professor not having a sense of humor. I posted what I thought was a rather humorous comment on crevo thread a few months back and his response still stands in my mind as jerky. I can't remember his comment but I sure do remember the impression it left.

"He said something mean to me, but I don't remember what it was". Grow up.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Who knew the sweaty-palms demographic was so huge? Aside from Ann, that is.

[Heartlander]

I know it's hard to believe anyone could publish something that stupid...

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
-Darwin

[Right Wing Professor]

This is why you don't get Coulter... you have no sense of humor. Tell me, did she provide a footnote for who "they" are and when "they" said it or do you think, possibly, this could be hyperbole to make a larger point?

Coulter is all hyperbole. There is nothing else.