Posted on 01/08/2009 8:52:24 AM PST by lewisglad
Uber conservative political commentator and author, Ann Coulter, is drumming up controversy among the masses with her new book Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America.
The gist of her book? Liberals "playing victim" when she believes them to be the actual "victimizers."
With anything Coulter has her hand in, this latest installment is sure to get tempers flaring, especially among single mothers.
Monday night Coulter appeared on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes.
Tuesday morning Coulter made a controversial appearance on NBC's Today Show (after her originally scheduled appearance was cancelled.)
In both appearances, Coulter's lastest stabs at single motherhood were discussed.
Alan Colmes quoted Coulter's book, "Single motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts."
And finally, "We have a term for youngsters involved, the 'children of divorce,' or as I call them, 'future strippers.'"
Coulter reverted her argument about single motherhood back to what she believes to be our country's recent "hatred" of the institution of marriage and made mention of Hollywood's promotion of single motherhood.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
When Bill Cosby made a similar connection, the media thoughtfully listened.
I practice criminal law, including defending juvenile delinquents.
Ann is right.
They had to find something to attack Ann with, and this is it. I am sick and tired of liberal advocates playing journalist.
They’re mad because she picks on the egg donor, instead of the sperm&run donor...
Single motherhood: Breeder sows..........
Instead of using this to beat Ann Coulter over the head, why not do an objective analysis of whether single-parent families are more dysfunctional? Or would that be “unfair”.
Now when anyone brings this correlation up, they will be denounced as mean and racist, which doesn’t accomplish anything.
Dan Quayle was right after all.
Yes, single-parent families tend to have more problems and to cause more problems. Screw the liberals if they don’t want this brought up.
there is sooo many single mothers here in appalachia, it’s reaching the point of being sad. I met a girl who was 26 and was pregnant and she said she got pregnant because all her female family members had kids but her, and she felt “left out”
why should they care? they got WIC and medical cards for the kids, and food stamps. which i’m torn about.
even the good girl down the street whose family we go to church with, and she’s been very adamant about waiting...pregnant at 17. her soccer scholarship to a college was withdrawn. her pimply faced boyfriend can’t deal. i get so mad i want to cry.
And finally, "We have a term for youngsters involved, the 'children of divorce,' or as I call them, 'future strippers.'"
Gonna have to get that book.
Ann's comments are gonna leave a mark
Good message, delivered by a terrible messenger.
She seems unable to actually make a point without hyperbole and insults.
She just elaborated on that on the Laura show a few minutes ago.
She stated that, in the early seventies, there was a landmark case that made it to the SCOTUS, in which an unwed father sued for paternity rights and got them.
Apparently, once upon a long-forgotten time, men had NO paternal claim OR fiduciary responsibility to out-of-wedlock children they sired.
This (according to Ann) let to a quarter-century of varied state-level cases cementing this, along with a whole panoply of paternity establishment laws. From then on, women had no obvious legal incentive to demand a ring before getting pregnant.
Besides the obvious menace to adoptive families, this played a major, and now forgotten role in the devaluation of marriage. It was THIS precedent, more than any other, that made unmarried “families” legally viable and paved the way for it to become a fashion statement, and, in many places the rule rather than the exception.
Ann’s comments are gonna leave a mark
______
Chuckling.
Ann’s commentary is as quickly dismissed by the left as are Al Franken’s by the right.
The problem with the more strident commentators is (IMHO) that they simply preach to the choir. That is why they fall into the category of entertainers. Again, JMO, one I’ve smacked for previously, apparently not hard enough, though, as I still believe it.
I’m confused, so maybe help me out. How can a father demanding the paternity of his child (and hopefully, demanding equal time with his kid) be bad for families?
is it because you can find out the father and declare it before needing to be married? or if a single woman was pregnant the kid was hers?
I ask because here in Appalachia, the mothers generally don’t want the fathers around, but they do want to file for child support, and collect it.
Every interview I saw with Ann immediately turned into a critique of her and little about her book.
If Liberals want to try on a shoe, then announce loudly that it fits, so be it.
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.