Column: Coulter makes a mockery of politics

As the race for the 2008 Presidential election gains more and more ground each day, we find ourselves increasingly subjected to literal up-to-the-second coverage of the U.S. political arena. More often than desired, this barrage of “news” ends up to be nothing more than a coagulation of useless facts and figures accompanied by an endless stream of insults directed at your candidate of choice. Interviews are about as educational as watching 12 year olds argue about whose dad is cooler, normally consisting of three or more grown, educated men simultaneously trying to prove the others wrong by talking as loud as possible. Liberal bias or conservative bias, CNN or Fox News – mass media exists only to cater to those brave souls willing to aim low enough to attack the opposing individual’s very character. This type of high-brow, mature political dialogue has been an issue of especially high contention in recent presidential elections, and 2008 is no exception.

I do my best to maintain reasonable expectations for the public figures in my country. I assume most of them are remotely intelligent, and truly capable of listening if they’d only shut their mouths on occasion. I like to think that the pundits I see on television are reasonable people on the inside, and that I might even agree with some of their takes on many important issues.

However, there is one person in particular that serves as a towering exception to the rule: a cruel, heartless, close-minded individual who cannot and will never serve any good to humankind. I am, of course, talking about super-pundit and author Ann Coulter.

Since the recent execution of Saddam Hussein in 2006, Coulter is believed to be the most feared and last precursor to the coming of the Anti-Christ. Preaching a message of intolerance and hatred, Coulter chooses to prey on any group promoting any sort of equality, fairness, or compromise by making direct, personal attacks at her opponent. Coulter relies on her wit and her ability to interrupt others to convey her message, usually consisting of nothing more than a pile of ideological garbage. A staunch fascist, Coulter promotes many of the same ideas as her late male colleagues, including torture, imperialism, racism, intolerance of homosexuals, and a general hatred for any follower of Islam. Her loud mouth and ruthless attitude immediately propelled her to the summit of the media mountain, where she sits as the queen of the neoconservative movement.

Coulter has promoted the escalation of warfare in the Middle East, going so far as to encourage a takeover of the entire region and conversion of its people to Christianity. She has continually encouraged racial profiling and discrimination based on sexuality. In her most recent book, “Godless,” Coulter attacks four women widowed after 9/11, saying, “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.” She recently referred to John Edwards as a “f*****” and remains proud of it, despite pleas from Edwards to clean up her language and stick to the issues. Shameless and cold-blooded, Coulter’s purse has gotten fat as a direct result of her message of intolerance.

On a self-imposed mission from God, Coulter sees fit to usher out the rather important, constitutionally granted freedom from persecution based on race, religion, or cultural background and replace it with a theocracy bent on converting the entire world to Christianity and bombing anyone who disagrees. She claims to be waging a war on “liberals,” the umbrella term for anyone who disagrees with her ideology. The definition of Coulter’s “liberal” most closely resembles what a sane person would call a reasonable, pragmatic, progressive individual. You do not have to be liberal to be a “liberal,” the only requirement is that you disagree with any of the various moral wrongdoings Coulter actively endorses. As fundamentalist as any Ayatollah, Coulter may serve to be a greater threat to the American way of life than any terrorist. Monotonously divisive and inflammatory, “Ms. Right” is slowly eroding any remaining remnants of the motto, “United We Stand.”

Re: Column: Coulter makes a mockery of politics by Peebles Squire 7/5/07

First I think you should check out how other average Americans feel about this article at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1861323/posts

What I don’t understand is where you Liberals get your marching orders from? Talk about mind num robots. If you really read this article you find that it is lacking in everything but propaganda, and hypocritically attacks with the same venom that it accuses Ann Coulter of; it is an article of intolerance and hatred against someone with an opposing view. It has a lack of original though and promotes the same tired old dogmas of the Socialist Left. If you took out the childish name calling, the article would just be the sentence of “I disagree with Ann Coulter, for no good reason.”

The article is very badly written. What does “She has continually encouraged racial profiling and discrimination based on sexuality” mean? How can you racial profile sexuality?

Ironically the writer says “Coulter’s purse has gotten fat as a direct result of her message of intolerance.” Yet the Edwards campaign has used her to raise money, and attacks her when it needs more. Besides in a free market people vote with their purse, if Ann’s views were not accepted she would not be making money. Just look at Air America.

The ending of the article seems like it was written by someone hallucinating on drugs, and reflects badly on both the writer and the editor. For the article ends with the following lines:

“…a theocracy bent on converting the entire world to Christianity and bombing anyone who disagrees.” Excuse me, but that is ISLAM, not Christianity. This is an attack and insult of Christianity shows the writer’s lack of knowledge and religious sensitivity.

“She claims to be waging a war on “liberals,” the umbrella term for anyone who disagrees with her ideology. The definition of Coulter’s “liberal” most closely resembles what a sane person would call a reasonable, pragmatic, progressive individual.” Uh? Bad writing for it says two contradictory things, and “progressive individual” is an ideology. The writer left off the second adjective, it is – progressive SOCIALIST.

“You do not have to be liberal to be a “liberal,” the only requirement is that you disagree with any of the various moral wrongdoings Coulter actively endorses.” Again, Liberal is an ideology, the writer makes the wrong assumption in that Liberal views or concepts are “mainstream,” and its view is that there is no morality other than what the Government dictates.

Ironically, the writer shows there ignorance and pompous attitude with the very last line, for they have no concept of what “United we Stand” really means. “As fundamentalist as any Ayatollah, Coulter may serve to be a greater threat to the American way of life than any terrorist. Monotonously divisive and inflammatory, “Ms. Right” is slowly eroding any remaining remnants of the motto, “United We Stand.”” To say that the words of someone who disagrees with the Liberal/Socialist mind set is worse that terrorist killing us, flying planes into buildings, and putting fear in to all of us when we fly or visit a public area is asinine and foolhardy. We must Stand United against our enemies, for if we do not, we will all fall together. The enemy is the terrorists, not a political commentator.

Finally, the writer has not read or understand the US Constitution other than the propaganda they received from the Socialist/ Stalinist professors. No where in the US Constitution does a “constitutionally granted freedom from persecution based on race, religion, or cultural background” exist. In fact it guarantees just the opposite.

The First Amendment prohibits government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." In other words, the US Citizen has a right to segregate themselves from whoever they want and to say what they want, and the Government cannot interfere. This means that if I do not like your race, religion, or sexuality then I do not have to give you a job or pander to you in anyway. What the writer is referring to is judicial activism that has made law by interpreting the Constitution from a socialist point of view.

These Liberal interpretations are getting us into trouble and because they are not Constitutionally guaranteed and based on Judicial interpretations, they can just as easily be overturned. That is why the Left and Socialist are so upset with Ann Coulter, because she points out the flaws in there arguments and propaganda.

Like a good little Stalinist Peebles Squire, attacks those that would tear down the wall of lies. Morality is not something that the Government can legislate. Morality is what Religion is for. Liberal have the two confused, to them, like the Muslims, government and religion are one in the same.

In actuality it is the morality of Ann Coulter and her personal views that contradict or point out the foibles of the Left that is upsetting to the writer, which they fear more than terrorist, thus revealing their insanity which will kill more of us before they forced to see reality.

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.