Terminate Ann Coulter's syndication

proislam.com ^ | Unknown | Unknown

[End Times Sentinel]

Terminate Ann Coulter's syndication

Ann Coulter has long been considered one of the worst syndicated columnists in history.  Not only is she incapable of critical thinking, but her writing style is banal and full of witticisms that could easily be attributed to an eleven-year old.  Nevertheless, some companies still feel that they need to carry her venomous rants.  I should point out that National Review, a magazine renowned for its very conservative slant and its bloodthirsty anti-Muslim columnists, elected to terminate Ann Coulter.

As an update, there was a certain amount of activity last week due to an article by World Net Daily.  Read some of the emails we received here.

Please take the time to send the letter below to the following links.  Please title your emails "Terminate Ann Coulter's Column".

Click here to write to Yahoo Columns.
Write to Conservatism.com.
Email Jewish World Review : schmooze@jewishworldreview.com
Email TownHall.com: info@townhall.com
Email the Conservative Chronicle: conserve@iowaconnect.com
Email World Net Daily: jfarah@worldnetdaily.com, dkupelian@worldnetdaily.com, jkovacs@worldnetdaily.com, dlynne@worldnetdaily.com, amoore@worldnetdaily.com, rstrom@worldnetdaily.com, tambrose@worldnetdaily.com

Write to FrontPage Magazine.  These guys are extremely anti-Muslim and fanatic fascists in their pursuit of conservatism.  It is run by a David Horowitz, who loves Ann because she suggested that we invade Islamic countries and convert them to Christianity.  Little hope of convincing them to drop Ann Coulter, I'm afraid, but we should let them know that she sucks.
 

Dear Sir/Madam;

I would like to express my total dissatisfaction with your organization's syndication of columnist Ann Coulter.  Not only is she one of the worst columnists in recent history, she is also one of the most vindictive and bloodthirsty writers on today's circuit.  Ann Coulter's comments on various talk shows and through her columns portray her to be a vindictive, egocentric, and thoroughly anti-Muslim bigot that has the bad habit of speaking before she thinks.  Some of her more recent comments include:

[about Muslims]  "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

It is evident that this "writer" is nothing more than a mouthpiece for ultra-reactionary conservatives, and a blowhard at that.  She does not represent American values; her comments fly in the face of everything that Americans stand for, including the conservative population.  She is disgusting and vindictive, and is unable to generate a single original idea.  Her columns are always about how evil Muslims are, or how all environmentalists should be sentenced to death.  Even conservative organizations like the National Review have dropped her syndication, citing a lack of professional ethics and  integrity. 

I am fairly certain that Ann Coulter does not represent the ideas and values of your company.  In fact, the only people she can claim to represent are bigots.  I therefore ask that you immediately cancel the appearance of her column from your organization.  I also would like to ask that you issue a public statement that informs the media that the reason that Ann Coulter was dropped was because of her paranoid and vindictive bigotry, and that she does not represent the values and the culture of your organization.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

[netmilsmom]

Did you read any of the quotes from the OT in the post above? You are a reasonable person and do not believe that some of the rules meant for the chosen people coming out of Egypt hold for today? I believe they are true for their time, but we as Christians understand that fact. We do not live in the 14th century as some of the Islamics do. Maybe I put it wrong, but this is what I was trying to say.
And then there's Jim Jones.....he CALLED himself a Christian as well and we know what a nut case he was.

[Xenalyte]

The word "before" seems to have confused you. Coulter is stating that we must look before the New Deal to the Emancipation Proclamation. All clear?

[Xenalyte]

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

Um, nope. Read it aloud. "Well, before the New Deal . . . (pause) the Emancipation Proclamation would be a good start."

Since the Proclamation happened well before the New Deal, what's the confusion?

[FredZarguna]

So why are they still part of the Christian bibles? Why was not Leviticus removed, or explicitly made into the theological equivalent of "dicta"?

Because at the time the canon was set, they were considered an important inspired context, and not dicta. And, the historicity of the OT was what Christians, even in the 3rd and 4th centuries when this was done, understood quite well.

How about the Jews, who believe in only the Old Testament? Are these verses binding upon them? Their sabbath is Saturday. Are they called upon to stone their neighbors who work on that day?

Oh, we'd better ask a Jew somewhere. I'll bet they still stone people to death on Saturdays, but it's suppressed by the Sharon and his tools in the Jew-dominated American media. I understand from reliable sources inside the "religion of peace" that they eat children and drink their blood.

Of course no Christians or Jews live by those words, but they are a part of scripture.

But Muslims do, and that's the point you are so determined to miss. [Second, your claim that the OT is binding on Chrisitans outside of the context of their "New Covenant" is quite frankly, ridiculous.]

To condemn Islam based upon words in its scripture is to have a double standard.

No, it isn't. You seem absolutely determined to ignore this fact: Mohammed urged his followers to obey the murderous words of his "revelation," and he personally performed many of these atrocities himself. Furthermore, there are Muslims and Muslim scholars alive, right now--not five centuries ago--who stand by these words, and who do indeed say that the words of the Koran are not historical context, or abrogated passages, but actual words to live [and die, and kill] by.

I have not said, take raw words, plunk them down on a page, put them in any prejudicial context, and then use them to paint Islam with a broad brush. I have said, these words are there and they are used as a justification for the things Muslims do. Now. Not hundreds of years ago, now. And not by fringe extremists or kooks, but by mainstream Islamic scholars, judges, and adherents.

Finally, your inability to differentiate between different religions shows a lack of intellectual sophistication. The distinctions we're discussing aren't subtle. Your animus against "religion"--whatever that is in your mind--is blinding you to distinctions that aren't subtle. You think [among other strange things] that Chrisitans and Jews have the same OT in their canon, and believe the same things concerning it. You even seem to think that the most bizarre and ancient passages of the OT are still practiced today.

The Koran has specific instructions on the treatment of non-believers that have historically been followed by Muslims, and which have never been repudiated. You simply cannot find any parallel in any other mainstream religion on earth.

[m1911]

That would be an unusual use of punctuation. Usually brackets inside a direct quote is an insert from the author, not spoken by the quoted individual (quotee?).

[m1911]

Ok, after much searching, I found a more complete quote, and although obviously the editor a Pro-Islam isn't willing to look at coulterwatch.com, I am. It's actually worse in this quoting, but having seen Ann in action on Crossfire, I'm not surprised.

Coulter: "I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century."
Maher: "How far back would you to to repeal [laws]?"
Coulter: "Well, before the New Deal."
Maher: "You're talking about the Emancipation Proclamation?"
Coulter: "That would be a good start."

[m1911]

Yikes - I cut out the fact that this transcript section was found on coulterwatch.com, not exactly friends of Ann's, so take it for what it's worth.

[weegee]

I won't try to justify her statement, but I do detect some exageration/sarcasm in that statement. Rush says (in the voice of his critics) that he's a sexist-racist-homophobe; does this mean that he actually is or believes he is?

Consider that income tax, death tax, and other concepts were introduced in the years before the New Deal but after the Civil War, there are a number of programs that she would like to eliminate. It doesn't even mean that all laws after 1900 are bad but this country dramitically changed course from the nation that the founders established.

[PhilDragoo]

[PhilDragoo]

[Tamar1973]

I received another message from proislam.com

Thank you for you comments. I would like to address some of your concerns.

We would like to point out that we are not doing anything to Ann Coulter. We are merely offended by her comments. We find them to be bigoted and disingenuous. Therefore,
we are suggesting a boycott of her column.
This is not a suppression of the right to free speech.
The First Amendment provides for the right to say whatever you like. It does not guarantee the right to have that opinion of statement published. In addition, the First Amendment does not require advertisers to continue to provide patronage if your comments are found to be bigoted or unpopular.

Also, there is no such term as "Islamofacist." That
has the moral equivalent of "Christianonazi." You are
under a misimpression if you think Islam has anything
to do with fascism. I suggest you take the time to
learn a little bit about Islam. Here are two very good links:

a primer about Islam: http://www.proislam.com/dawah_intro.htm

islamic moral code: http://www.proislam.com/column_moral_code.htm

islamic quotes and how they are twisted by the right: http://www.proislam.com/column_moral_code.htm

i replied to him:

I use the term "islamo-fascist" to differentiate between peaceful, America loving muslims versus the likes of OBL. If you think there are no "muslim" fascist countries in the middle east, you have blinders on.

[Grit]

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

Who the hell are these guys?

New Deal = Emancipation Proclamation? LOL

[Erasmus]

Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

Just gotta correct just one of the many glaring inaccuracies. The New Deal was NOT, repeat NOT, the Emancipation Proclamation. Sheesh.

I think you have a misreading based on a questionable transcription. In my reading, the comma after the word "Well" should not be there. The quote would then read

"Well before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

Which makes the statement coherent, to my mind. The only remaining question is the intent of the editor's brackets, which is moot.

[Erasmus]

Just for completeness, post #126 provides the transcript which provides the context for the brackets. The 'Emancipation Proclamation' was an interjection by Bill Maher, to which Ann agreed.

[Flying Circus]

I believe that the Bible is inerrant, but I understand and interpret it in the light of the Magisterium of the Holy Church and Sacred Tradition. However Islam has a structure is much more like Protestantism where there is not a central authority that regularizes the teaching and people aggregate around Imams or preachers that reflect their mindset. Some so-called Christians will pull out the most nasty and inhumane understanding of the Bible rather than the loving and peaceful teachings that are at its heart. This is all an outgrowth of the wounded nature of the human intellect.

However looking at the history of Mohamid and his religion as well as the content of the Koran, the Osama bin Ladins of the world are closer to the essence of Islam than the peaceful Muslims that are the norm in this country and much of the world. Islam is only moderated by the natural, God-given conscience that exists in every human person and recoils in abhorance to Islam's brutal and violent heart. Moderate Moslims live in denial of what Islam is.

[pettifogger]

while you may be right, it just ain't worth it. regards.

[weegee]

Does proIslam.com deny that Jihad is physical war? What about in the (hypothetical) instance of a nation prohibiting the practice of Islam?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I don't think that's what was implied. The fact that Proislam mentioned The Emancipation Proclamation in brackets, however, implies an interpretation of what Anne actually said, implying that Proislam could be wrong...

[Tamar1973]

proislam.com is an interesting site, however, they are not the premiere authority in Islam.
Muslims do not have the concept of a Pope or other figure who all Muslims consider infallible. Every Muslim must be convinced in their own mind of right and wrong.
Having said that, if you want to know proislam.com's position on aspects of Islamic law, you should ask them directly. From my experience, you will get some kind of reply.
My understanding of jihad is that jihad has aspects of war as well as moral struggle but the jihad of war has a higher status and more glory than the jihad of moral struggle.

[Lancey Howard]

Here's another pic of Ann to add to the gallery. I like this one a lot: