Posted on 06/19/2006 10:33:36 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
The dentist cranks up his drill, revs it up and digs in. At first, no problem. The Novocain kicked in minutes ago. Half our head is numb. He asks us a question and we nod spastically. He asks another and we mumble like Steve Martin in “The Jerk” when reading Bernadette Peters’ goodbye note that fell in the bathtub.
Meanwhile his drill keeps buzzing. The buzz gets louder, harsher. Our jaw—and finally our whole head—start vibrating. The sadist in the face mask and rubber gloves drills deeper, deeper. Soon—“AAWH!” We wail in pain. He went too deep. Either that, or not enough Novocain kicked in.
Some say Ann Coulter has the same effect on liberals. She “hits a nerve,” they say. Thus they squeal and shriek every time she releases a book. If only liberals were so lucky. The fact is, when this woman cranks up her drill and goes after a liberal nerve, she makes Lawrence Olivier’s Dr. Szell in Marathon Man come across like Florence Nightingale.
And what fun to watch! “Is it safe?” she asks Alan Colmes with a malicious leer. “Is it safe?” she snickers to Katie Couric while putting on the gloves. “Is it safe?” she inquires of Matt Lauer while revving the dentist’s drill in his face. Compared to Coulter’s liberal victims, Dustin Hoffman while strapped into Dr. Szell’s torture chair, suffered about as much as Sen. Teddy Kennedy at a Club Med massage parlor that serves drinks.
Calling Ann Coulter the “Michael Moore of the right” has become commonplace. But the label insults Coulter more heinously than she insults any liberal, including John Murtha and the Jersey Girls, for which she’s been recently scolded by everyone from Matt Lauer to Bill O’Reilly.
In 2000 Michael Moore wrote a famous letter to Elian Gonzalez. Among the highlights: “your mother decided to kidnap you … in Cuba, you were in jeopardy of receiving free health care whenever you needed it, an excellent education in one of the few countries that has 100% literacy … your mother snatched you and put you on that death boat because she simply wanted to make more money. Your mother placed you in a situation where you were certain to die on the open seas and that is unconscionable. It was the ultimate form of child abuse.”
So let’s see here: in the Jersey Girls we have women who—yes, tragically—became widows, but also became brazen political partisans, media darlings and millionaires. They stepped into the media spotlight and started shooting at conservative targets. Fine. But someone should have notified them that this set them us as targets, too.
On the other we had a destitute single mom who grew up oppressed under a Stalinist system and who either drowned or was eaten alive by sharks attempting to free her son from the clutches of a regime that jailed more of it’s subjects than Hitler or Stalin’s and was busily brainwashing him.
Coulter refers to the media-lavished millionaires as “Harpies” and “Broads.” Moore trashes Elian’s martyred mother as a money-mad gold digger, a kidnapper and a child-murderer.
So naturally the media brand Coulter as the insensitive spewer of hateful invective, as in the New York Daily News’ “Coulter the Cruel.” Moore, on the other hand, according to Frank Rich of New York Times, is merely a “polemicist and powerful storyteller.”
Among many other crimes and horrors, “Florida’s Cubans” writes Moore in his book, “Downsize This,” are responsible for “sleaze and influence-peddling in American politics. … In every incident of national torment that has deflated our country for the past three decades … Cuban exiles are always present and involved.”
Such a blanket trashing of an entire ethnic group straddles the very dictionary definition of bigotry. Normally the entire Democratic Party would work itself into a collective froth against the villain who spouted such “hate-speech.” Normally every media outlet in the land would promptly and boastfully ban this villain from its airwaves, broadcasting the decision between film clips of fire-hoses in Selma, cross burnings, and torch-light Storm Troopers at Nuremberg.
Moore himself denounces Republicans as “people who hate … people who get up at six in the morning trying to figure out which minority group they’re going to screw today.”
But ah! In “Downsize This,” Moore was insulting Cuban-Americans (i.e. Republicans), you see. So all is forgiven. So instead of being pummeled as a bigot by the usual media, academic and governmental sniffers and snouters, Moore was feted as the guest of honor at the last Democratic National Convention, squatting his gargantuan gluteus in the very President’s Box alongside Jimmy Carter. Then waddling onto the stage at Boston’s Fleet Center to an ovation rivaling even the one that deafened Fidel Castro when he addressed Harvard Law School and Washington’s National Press Club in 1959. Though it was close.
“These Cuban exiles, for all their chest-thumping and terrorism, are really just a bunch of wimps. That’s right. Wimps,” Moore continues in his book. His smear refers to all Cubans who left Cuba but singles out the Bay of Pigs invaders for particular scorn. “Ex-Cubans with a yellow stripe down their backs,” he calls them, on top of “crybabies.”
During the Bay of Pigs days these men—all volunteers and overwhelmingly civilian—battled savagely against a Soviet-trained and Soviet-led force 10 times its size, inflicting casualties of 30-to-1. When the local CIA man realized they’d been betrayed by the best and brightest he pleaded with their commander to allow an evacuation. “We will not be EVACUATED!” yelled that commander into his radio from the clearly doomed beachhead. “We came here to FIGHT! This ends HERE!”
And so it did. Then came the real heroics. Living under a daily firing squad sentence for almost two years these men refused to sign the confession damning the “U.S. Imperialists” (the very nation, which for all they knew at the time, that had betrayed them on that beachhead.) Many spat on the document in front of their Communist torturers. “We will die with dignity!” responded their second-in-command Erneido Oliva to his furious Communist captors, again and again and again.
In blanket-trashing all Cubans who for some crazy reason rejected free-health care and universal literacy, Moore also trashes the longest serving political prisoners of the century. Cuban-Americans like Roberto Martin-Perez, Mario Chanes De Armas, Eusebio Penalver, Angel de Fana, who spent 30 years in Fidel Castro’s gulag. That’s more than three times as long a Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn and Natan Sharansky spent in Josef Stalin’s gulag.
“For months I was naked in a 6x4 foot cell,” recalls one prisoner. “That’s four-feet high, so you couldn’t stand. But I felt a great freedom inside myself. I refused to commit spiritual suicide.” Again, escaping their tortures would have been easy: simply sign “confessions.” They refused. Normally such men would have publishers, producers and documentary makers lining up for their stories. A&E would feature them every other month. NPR, “Frontline,” “60 Minutes” and the History Channel would beat down their doors.
Alas, these were Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s victims. Enough said.
In other words, the very things people like Moore, Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks say and write for free publicity, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s prisoners refused to sign to save their lives, or to end two decades of daily torture. Yet the Democrats’ pet walrus sneers at them from his Upper West Side pad as “wimps, cowards and crybabies.”
A guilt-stricken JFK finally ransomed back the Bay of Pigs prisoners. Hundreds of these promptly joined the U.S. Army and many volunteered for action in Vietnam. One of these was named Felix Sosa-Camejo.
By the day Mr. Sosa-Camejo died while rescuing a wounded comrade, he’d already been awarded 12 medals, including the Bronze Star, three Silver Stars and two Purple Hearts. I’ll quote from his official citation:
“On February 13, 1968, the lead platoon was hit by an enemy bunker complex manned by approximately forty North Vietnamese Regulars. Upon initial contact the point man was wounded and lay approximately 10 meters in front of the center bunker. The platoon was unable to move forward and extract the wounded man due to the heavy volume of fire being laid down from the enemy bunker complex.
“Captain Sosa-Camejo immediately moved into the firing line and directed the fire against the enemy bunker. With disregard for his safety, Captain Sosa-Camejo ran through the intense enemy fire and pulled the wounded point man to safety. After ensuring that the wounded man was receiving medical treatment, Captain Sosa-Camejo returned to the fire fight and again exposed himself to the intense enemy fire by single handedly assaulting the center bunker with grenades killing the two NVA soldiers manning the bunker. As he turned to assault the next bunker an NVA machine gun opened up and he was mortally wounded. Captain Sosa-Camejo’s valorous action and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.”
From his limousine Michael Moore sneers at this Cuban-American and his Band of Brothers as “wimps and crybabies with yellow lines down their back.”
Maybe I’m biased, but nothing—absolutely nothing—Ann Coulter has said about John Murtha or John Kerry or the Jersey Girls strikes me as remotely comparable in vileness, cowardice and rank stupidity as Michael Moore’s blanket calumny against some of the bravest men of the 20th Century.
Bookmark.
So in other words, JNL, you are quoting Scripture which says "judge not lest you be judged" in order to defend the judgmentalism of fake Christians who unjustly judge the President?
It is perfectly fine in your world to hate the President and judge him and still be considered a believer, but it is wrong for actual believers to point out that those who place themselves in judgment over the President are contradicting Scripture.
While you're busy quoting books you can't understand, let me know how you're doing on that proof of "2 + 2 = 5" that you're working on in the meantime.
Oh, and lovely grammar, by the way.
Non-sequitor alert.
I have no intention of arguing any of my points any more than what I stated. Suffice to say that Coulter may think she's furthering the conservative cause, but the cost in time and money for everyone else that has to jump to defend her and/or distance theirselves from her is not worth it. Coulter, or anyone else, can take a more mature and less sophomoric approach. I'm an adult, I expect Coulter and anyone else involved with the conservative cause to be an adult and conduct theirself as a mature, responsible adult also.
I'm just saying that one does not have to love or even like GWB to love Jesus or believe in God. Last time I checked that requirement was not in the Bible.
My grammar may suck but my point stands.
"Love one another as I have loved you."
Jesus says that his disciples are to love another. He did not say: "Don't bother loving or even liking one another as I have loved you."
Anyone claiming to be a Christian who feels, let alone openly expresses, hatred for their fellow Christian disciple George Bush is making a false claim. Especially if they have never personal met the man and he has never personally done them any wrong at all.
My grammar may suck but my point stands.
No, your point is inherently flawed, ridiculous and insupportable.
Your lame attempts to provide rational and Scriptural support for hating George Bush as an acceptable behavior for Christians have fallen completely flat.
Wow, I really can't argue with that, I guess I'd better get my statue of George out of the closet and start me a worshippin.
This foolish statement highlights several unattractive aspects of your character:
(1) You prefer juvenile mockery to adult discussion.
(2) You are unable to understand the difference between "fellowship" and "worship"
(3) You are a bigot who looks down on Bible Christians as somehow backward.
A very poor showing overall.
"(1) You prefer juvenile mockery to adult discussion."
No I prefer rational thought and understanding, equating disagreement and or dislike of a political figure with somehow not being Christian is closed minded and irrational.
"(2) You are unable to understand the difference between "fellowship" and "worship"
See above. Just because you happen to agree with GWB (as I do on a number of issues) does not mean that I need to attack someones faith. A does not follow B in this case.
(3) You are a bigot who looks down on Bible Christians as somehow backward.
Oh O.K. LOL I'm not the one claiming that anyone who disagrees with GWB is not a christian. Pot meet kettle.
If you had actually preferred rational thought and understanding you would have made a reasoned defense of your position.
You did not.
You responded by prooftexting Scripture and then by making a lame joke.
These facvts remain:
(1) No one, not the author of the thread, not Ann Coulter, not any poster, ever suggested that the President of the United States was a god or God.
That was a lie you concocted entirely on your own and which you could not and cannot back up with a shred of evidence or argument.
(2) The term "disagreement" was never an object of discussion. The original term under discussion was specifically "Bush-hater", not "person who disagrees with the President."
This bait-and-switch technique you are employing is one that is used to evade reasoned argument, not partake in it.
(3) Feelings of hatred for a fellow Christian are incompatible with Christianity.
It is specifically contrary to Jesus' direct catechesis of his disciples.
See above. Just because you happen to agree with GWB (as I do on a number of issues) does not mean that I need to attack someones faith.
Again, someone who simultaneously claims to be a Christian and to hate their fellow Christian, President Bush, has no faith to attack. No one can legitimately claim to be a Christian believer and then try to justify or excuse hatred of a fellow Christian.
Oh O.K. LOL I'm not the one claiming that anyone who disagrees with GWB is not a christian. Pot meet kettle.
Your bigotry is palpable through your condescending use of what you perceive to be a Southern dialect and your equation of maintaining Christian fellowship with the President as worship of the President.
Mocking the way a cultural group speaks and deliberately misrepresenting their notion of fellowship as idolatry are the actions of a bigot.
My factual point: that someone who claims to be a Christian and yet openly feels hatred for a fellow Christian is a false Christian is not based on prejudice or bigotry against any denomination or regional ethnicity - that's your forte - but is instead an analysis of the behavior of specific individuals measured against an objective standard.
One might as well say that I am a bigot for saying that embezzlers are uniformly poor fiduciaries.
Please then explain to me this:
"That is why liberals liberals are Godless.
They are the biggest Bush-haters haters on the planet."
What does one have to do with the other? Your argument is that any Christian cannot hate and or dislike (I'm not a big fan of the word hate) GWB and still be a Christian. That's laughable.
Carter's a christian (so he says), I'm not a big fan of his. Does that mean anything?
You paint a very broad brush.
If you consider socialism as a broad concept of the state being able to confiscate anything from any individual, at any time, and then apply that concept to suicide bombers (who are sacrificing all for the "greater good" under strong social pressure from the ruling mobs who run their local world) then you see that Islam and Socialism are very close, in practise.
Socialism is the extension of feudalism into the modern age. That's why the EU loves socialism. It preserves the old system of the lords and nobles (but in a slightly different guise) having absolute power over the common slobs. And what is Islam, if not Feudalism, and by extension, socialism.
The difference in individual liberty between a poor EU citizen-slob and some poor schmuck living under Sharia, is one of degree, not of kind.
He's not the only one who paints with a broad brush. Ann Coulter does, too.
So why did I buy her book? I think she's an idiot on the subject of religion (doesn't really know what the word means and refuses to talk about it) and a double-plus idiot on the subject of evolution (thinks that it's infallible when there are thousands and thousands of predictive tests it has passed and she knows nothing of any of them).
I'll tell you why I bought her book. Because she may be an idiot on some things, but on the one big subject of FREE SPEECH there is no one currently writing or speaking who so clearly defines the need for it, and the attacks on it, in America, particularly with regard to the MSM.
The fact that I disagree with her so strongly on many things makes it ENJOYABLE for me to support her by buying her book, just because she's such a freaking genius on the subject of free speech.
No one says FREE SPEECH better than Ann. I bought this book, and I'll buy her next one too.
Couldn't agree more.
You'll have to ask the person who actually posted those two sentences what he imagines the relationship to be.
Your argument is that any Christian cannot hate and or dislike (I'm not a big fan of the word hate) GWB and still be a Christian. That's laughable.
That's hardly laughable - it follows quite logically.
What does the word "Christian" mean? Presumably a believer in and follower of Christ - someone who is interested in what Jesus taught and who is interested in putting that teaching into practice.
In John's Gospel, Jesus speaks in great detail about what He will do for his disciples and also about how He expects his disciples to behave.
As I pointed out above, He describes the way they are to treat one another with exact specificity: the disciples are to love one another as He himself loved his disciples.
It stands to reason, then, that if someone hates a fellow disciple they are therefore opting out of their discipleship by directly disobeying Jesus' clear instructions.
I don't think Jesus' words could be any clearer or more eloquent: "Love one another as I have loved you."
Taking that perspicuous statement seriously is hardly "laughable" - it would be laughable to claim that a Christian can ignore Jesus' clear words because they conflict with whatever 21st century American political party talking points they happen to favor.
Carter's a christian (so he says), I'm not a big fan of his. Does that mean anything?
Again, whether or not you or I are fans of President Carter is meaningless. What is meaningful are objective facts.
President Carter is not a Christian because he, as a matter of public record, supports the murder of unborn children.
What he claims or how I feel about what he claims or does is immaterial: the facts of the case speak for themselves. President Carter has emphatically and categorically rejected Christian morality.
You paint a very broad brush.
"Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Further:
"Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Perhaps I am using a broad brush, but it's not my paint and it's not my brush.
Christianity is serious business - it's not a hobby for dilettantes.
Facile and incorrect.
Feudalism was based on personal allegiance between individuals in a reciprocal and voluntary relationship.
Socialism is based on the confiscation of property.
Viva Humberto Fontova
It really isn't that LONG -- yet -- so you can still read through the WHOLE THING rather QUICKLY.I re-sized most of the MARVELOUS (new!) photos of Ann posted there, so that it loads MUCH FASTER for (those folks on dial-up connections) than it did YESTEDAY. :o)
The outward trappings are slightly different but the actual economic freedom of a citizen in either system is the same. They own nothing, except the few household items granted to them by the state, and anything they do own is subject to confiscation at any time. I'm surprised you don't see the smilarities and I'm also surprised that you seem to think I made this equation up.
The EU is run by a new aristocracy --- the socialist bureaucrats --- who have every bit as much power over the economic freedom of the continent as the old manor lords used to exercise. You cannot make an economic decision of any kind in the EU without first waiting in line to get the blessing of some imbecile with the absolute power to say no.
So then I would assume that Anne Coulter wouldn't be your cup to tea then. Because, after all:
"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."
-- Ann Coulter, Rivera Live, June 7, 2000
Kind of blows out that whole anti-fornication rule.
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.