Bwahahahahahaha!
Worse than Goldberg is David Horowitz, who "hired" Coulter as soon as she got the boot from NRO. His explanation was that her "invade their countries, and convert them to Christianity" was "tongue-in-cheek." Yeah, right. At least Coulter has the, uh, cojones to say what she really believes -- as stupid as it is.
Worse than Goldberg is David Horowitz, who "hired" Coulter as soon as she got the boot from NRO. His explanation was that her "invade their countries, and convert them to Christianity" was "tongue-in-cheek." Yeah, right. At least Coulter has the, uh, cojones to say what she really believes -- as stupid as it is.
Justin, I've admired some of your work in the past, but your attempts to play all the ends against the middle are unworthy of you. What good is courage if it's courage in a bad cause? And if it's merely the courage to say what one believes, well, at this point that's still not legally actionable, is it? Finally, if David Horowitz honestly believes what he said and Coulter hasn't contradicted him, what fault can you find with him, other than an opportunism that seems to have no moral weight whatsoever?
Now, before I give anyone the wrong idea, let me say at once that I think Coulter has been shafted. Granted that her subsequent behavior wasn't admirable. Neither has NRO's. Jonah Goldberg acts as if he was somehow maneuvered into printing the "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" column -- a column that, for all its unsuppressed anger, hits the nail on the head, which I'll return to in a moment. The numerous clever ad hominem attacks on Coulter that he splices onto his "explanation" are merely icing on the cake.
99% of the animus and embarrassment that's been raised against the abovementioned Coulter column has been directed at the "convert them to Christianity" suggestion, as if Coulter had suggested conversion by the sword a la Islam. What if she had said "inundate them with Christian missionaries," instead? The meaning would have been the same; would the howls of outrage have been less? Yet this is indeed the only way to put an end to the assaults by Islamic radicals against the United States: we must persuade those who can be persuaded to exchange their vicious jihadist-terrorist ethic for the Golden Rule ethic of the West, which finds its roots in classical Judaism and was continued and enhanced by Christianity. Those who cannot be persuaded must be jailed or killed. There are no alternatives.
But good heavens! To mention Christianity favorably in a syndicated column! That must be a First Amendment violation. I mean, Coulter's actually positing that her religion is superior to that of a band of Third World savages who believe that ramming airliners into office towers will get them into a horny adolescent's vision of Heaven! What's the matter with her? Hasn't she been adequately steeped in the tenets of moral equivalence?
Somewhere on my shelves I have a volume called "The Politically Correct Dictionary," in which the word "evil" is declared stricken from the acceptable lexicon and the substitute "morally different" approved for use in its place. Alongside that is a picture of Pol Pot, "a morally different individual." Maybe that paragraph and that picture needs to be shown around. Or maybe we've been so brainwashed about the equivalence of all cultures and belief systems that there's no point; it would just draw puzzled shrugs. In that case, Ann Coulter, who renders the world a far greater service than it knows, is in for a rough ride.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Being a former reader of antiwar.com I can vouch for your experiance in that area.
Well the stupid part anyway.
Well, you're pretty much lacking in the first and overly blessed in the second. Looks like you and Ann have a lot in common by your admission.