Hey Ann,

Once again you are on the mark. I am not surprised that the liberals hate you. They do not have an Ann Coulter coutnerpart, much as they do not have a Rush Limbaugh counterpart.You are the opposite of all of their cliches. You are beautifull, witty, smart and nice. Who do they have that is all of those combined? Rosie O'Donnell?

Make 'em squeal!

Good review, Ann. I must have said some things in my previous submission that didn't pass the censors.

The Jersey Girls needed to be taken to task for what they said and did. Of course, the media cannot handle an honest opinion. The Jersey Girls made political hay out of their husbands' deaths. They should be called to task for their activities.

Abby Hoffman hated this country and ran from justice for many years. The libs thought that he was a great guy. We think that you are a great woman. At least you didn't tell your readers that they should steal from your publisher and from the bookstore.

Well thank goodness for this book. For years, I’ve been hearing about these liberals and have been looking for them everywhere. I myself, have been accused of being a liberal. But now, we have the perfect tool for defining and identifying liberals. So, I can say with confidents that I’m not one. Come to think of it, I’m not even sure that I know any liberals, but I must have met one somewhere.

Ann:

You are the best.

I must admit, I have not read your new book yet but I have read all of your others. (But, I am hoping for a copy under my “Father’s Day Tree” next week.) Heck, I’d read your grocery list if it took the lefties to task!

That said, you are already under fire from many others who also have not read your book. So much for fairness. Most of the criticism stems from the out-of-context remarks regarding certain of the 9-11 widows. Bravo, you have hit a nerve with the left!

They must be apoplectic over this. It forces them to direct their vitriol towards you while tacitly admitting that the events of that day were not: 1) a plot by Pres. Bush, 2) a plot by Israel, 3) a plot by Pres. Bush and Israel or 4) never happened.

Equally interesting is the fact that the lefties are wetting themselves over the selected remarks of this topic only. As mentioned, I have read your books before. I am sure your have B-B-Q’d other liberal sacred cows as well.

Yet, while the left can make outrageous claims, lies, spread falsehoods, create sedition, disparage our president (as well as litter and loiter in front of his house), you are castigated for your work.

Maniacs like Dean, Gore, Clinton (pick one), Sheehan, Air America, Michael Moore, most of Holyweird can write books, go on talk shows and generally make a nuisance of themselves as they wrap themselves in the First Amendment.

But, perish the thought should someone with a modicum of common sense and decency do the same! How dare someone research, annotate, footnote and otherwise prove the lies, invective and hate of the left! That is simply not right!

Good for you, Ann. If nothing else, just the uproar over your book has further exposed the libs for what they are, hypocrites!

God Bless and God Speed

I am eagerly awaiting your book - Amazon.com claims to have shipped it several days ago; but they are generously allowing ten days for USPS to get it to me: so still waiting - I trust it was in a plain brown wrapper so my mailman (woman) won't censor me by not delivering it!

I have a liberal friend with whom I have had countless arguments about atheism being a religion but it seems I hadn't gone quite far enough. Again, I can't wait for your book to fuel my position; only now it will be that liberalism IS the religion of atheists! That will fit better with his position, which slips and slides with the tide, anyway.

I also heard that you will be on the Howie Carr show (WRKO - Boston) next week. I am looking foreword to that with almost the same eagerness as for the arrival of the book (I am getting his, "The Brothers Bulger : How They Terrorized and Corrupted Boston for a Quarter Century", at the same time).

Thank you for doing what you do. If you weren't so 'dead on' it just wouldn't bother THEM so, would it? heh, heh, heh!

The left celebrates Ward Churchill as a free speech champion because he suggests the World Trade Center victims deserved to die. Funny I doubt the same folks will circle around Ann for her efforts to highlight the exploitation of the same tragic event. Free Speech is only respected when it bashes the US, the military, etc.

Ann,
Congratulations on another hit! You have an uncanny knack of hitting the nail directly on the head--and although Liberals cringe when your name is mentioned, I think you are terrific! Plus, some of us are quite tired of the double standard. Libs celebrate Michael Moore's so-called documentary and raise an eyebrow at your words? May God be with you, Chiz

"You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the 'self-help' section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton's memoirs."

Actually, the book was on a separate rack that was 5' tall and 2' wide and prominently located just to the right (appropriately) of the main entrance of the Barnes & Noble closest to where I work. Ann's lovely countenance greeted me within seconds of entering the store and a minute later I was at the counter paying for my copy. The rack had copies of the audio book too but I'll wait for an unabridged edition. So, at least in this part of Texas, the main bookseller isn't making any effort to hide the book.

The only bad part was that I bought it at lunch and won't have time to start reading it until I get home. Can't wait! If the reaction from people like Hillary is any indication, this one is another winner.

God bless ya, Annie!

To dovetail the comments of the above, it is interesting to note that a B&N has your book displayed prominently whereas you are to be putatively censored by the bookstore you visited on Wednesday.

In today’s issue of “Newsday” (the local liberal expanded PennySaver here on Long Island) there was an article about your appearance with Sean Hannity at the “Book Review” in Huntington. The crux of the biscuit is the owner is having “second thoughts” about having you ever return as he has a line and you “are right on it.” Apparently, as Richard Klein expounds, the calls he got from angry “customers” is that “they’re not Ann Coulter fans.”

Oddly enough your mug is placed prominently on the page above other “notables” who apparently are not near the imaginary, arbitrary and putatively left-leaning line of the proprietor. Al Franken, Hanoi Jane Fonda and pick your poison, I mean, Clinton are all swells in the eyes of Mr. Klein.

While the reason for your potential, banishment is because in Mr. Klein’s words of “an adverse reaction, more than I anticipated….. maybe I made a mistake.” Yet, there is a curious dearth of particulars about said “adverse reaction.”

The article does not detail police activity, riots, windows smashed, mayhem or even filling in a few crossword puzzles. It appears the most egregious crime involved the ripping up of a letter of one Mark Cuthbertson, Huntington Town Board Member. (Who surprisingly was not referred to as “Democrat Board Member.” Hmmmmm….)

It will be of no small revelation that Huntington is a rather LIBERAL community, despite the fact the aforementioned Mr. Hannity resides there.

It is said that you are defined by your enemies. In this case it proves that my support for you, Ann, has been spot on.

Can’t wait to see who throws down the next gauntlet, or pie! Keep up the great work, babe, and keep those libs cowering!

God Bless and God Speed

I think Ann was teasing when she described her bookstore experience. Ann has a well developed since of humor and it comes out in all her writings. Every bookstore in my area has Ann’s latest book prominently displayed because they expect it to sell and want to do business. You must always remember that Ann is often figurative and shouldn’t be taken literally. Her colorful style is what makes her distinct.

I agree with a good 90% of what you say. In my layman's opinion, your critiques of the Iraq War, the War on Terrorism, and especially the Loony Left are incisive and without peer.

But why write about all you have said that agrees with my opinions? That would be boring. Let me tell you about some of that bad 10% with which I disagree. I'll focus on two points.

First, I disagree with your labelling liberalism a religion. Strictly speaking, liberalism is not a religion. Liberalism is a political philosophy or ideology. For the sake of your rhetoric, obviously, liberalism can be called a religion in order to emphasis its religious-like aspects. But since the concept of religion as commonly understood entails a belief in the supernatural, your expansive use of religion to refer to a political philosophy does border on equivocation, just as when science is called a religion or Marxism is called a religion. Science and Marxism can be said to be similar to religion in some ways, in some instances. But they are not religions. Neither is liberalism a religion.

I also disagree with your stand against the theory of evolution, which you call "Darwinism." We do not call the theory of electromagnetism Maxwellism, or the theory of relativity Einsteinism. Why do you insist on calling the theory of evolution Darwinism? The theory of electromagnetism is accepted by electrical engineers. These experts do not call it "Maxwellism". The theory of relativity is accepted by physicists. They do not call it "Einsteinism". The theory of evolution is accepted by biologists. They do not call it "Darwinism." Neither should you. Apparently you believe in creationism, a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, and accept the Bible as a scientific text as well as a sacred one. Ask yourself these questions: Would you still believe in creationism if it were not supported by the Bible? Would you believe in the theory of evolution if the Bible supported it? Now, in this instance is your belief really based on the evidence that is available out there in the real world, or do you believe in creationism merely because the Bible tells you so? Which came first, your belief or the evidence?

Sarkikos:

If I may, I would like to address your two issues.

“Religion” per se, does not demand a belief in the supernatural. Yes, that is the most common assumption but other definitions allow “a personalized set or institutionalized system of beliefs and practices” as well as “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” (Faith, not necessarily of the religious variety.) In fact, the “church of Satan” (not to be confused with the DNC) avers that life ends at death and there is no supreme supernatural. Atheists contend that there is no God and by extension no religion. Many practice this with zeal, Michael Newdow for one example. Not to become too philosophical but to define yourself in contradistinction to something else allows that you recognize aspects and tenets of that which you eschew. Defining yourself this way imbues that same basic characteristics of the point opposite. Antidisestablishmentarianism creates a religion by the eschewing of religion. Therefore, Ann citing “liberalism” as a religion is accurate. And just as there are many religions and sects within religions there are varying stripes of liberalism.

With respect to “Darwinism” I do agree with your contentions vis-s-vis Maxwell, Einstein et al. But you answer your own question. In time that Darwin proffered his theory people were more religious than today. Creationism was much more widely accepted then, in fact a consideration of a contrary view might be seen as a heresy. Therefore, utilizing the term “Darwinism” was a canard of the liberals of the day to gain credence for their hypothesis without offending those adherents of creationism.

While I can not speak to Ann’s religious beliefs I doubt that they are far different than mine, so please indulge me for a moment. I believe in creationism BECAUSE it is in the Bible. To be fair, I imagine that I would equally embrace evolution if that were in the Bible. To further your argument I believe in creationism because it is in the Bible as well as the evidence that is out there. (And, the evidence came first, not my belief.)

Now, please let me ask you one question. Do people believe in evolution because it was alleged by Darwin and supported by others despite other evidence that is out there?

Darwinists contend that men evolved from monkeys. If this is true, why are there still monkeys?

God Bless and God Speed

Sarkikos:

If I may, I would like to address your two issues.

“Religion” per se, does not demand a belief in the supernatural. Yes, that is the most common assumption but other definitions allow “a personalized set or institutionalized system of beliefs and practices” as well as “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” (Faith, not necessarily of the religious variety.) In fact, the “church of Satan” (not to be confused with the DNC) avers that life ends at death and there is no supreme supernatural. Atheists contend that there is no God and by extension no religion. Many practice this with zeal, Michael Newdow for one example. Not to become too philosophical but to define yourself in contradistinction to something else allows that you recognize aspects and tenets of that which you eschew. Defining yourself this way imbues that same basic characteristics of the point opposite. Antidisestablishmentarianism creates a religion by the eschewing of religion. Therefore, Ann citing “liberalism” as a religion is accurate. And just as there are many religions and sects within religions there are varying stripes of liberalism.

With respect to “Darwinism” I do agree with your contentions vis-s-vis Maxwell, Einstein et al. But you answer your own question. In time that Darwin proffered his theory people were more religious than today. Creationism was much more widely accepted then, in fact a consideration of a contrary view might be seen as a heresy. Therefore, utilizing the term “Darwinism” was a canard of the liberals of the day to gain credence for their hypothesis without offending those adherents of creationism.

While I can not speak to Ann’s religious beliefs I doubt that there are far different than mine, so please indulge me for a moment. I believe in creationism BECAUSE it is in the Bible. To be fair, I imagine that I would equally embrace evolution if that were in the Bible. To further your argument I believe in creationism because it is in the Bible as well as the evidence that is out there. (And, the evidence came first, not my belief.)

Now, please let me ask you one question. Do people believe in evolution because it was alleged by Darwin and supported by others despite other evidence that is out there?

Darwinists contend that men evolved from monkeys. If this is true, why are there still monkeys?

God Bless and God Speed

Jaksavin,

Oxford dictionary definition of religion: "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." These are the older - and still most common - English definitions of religion. Other more recent usages, such as, "Golf was his religion, which he practised every Sunday morning," or "Marxist-Leninism was the religion of the Soviet Union," or "The liberal religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy," are metaphorical in character. No, golf is not a religion, Marxist-Leninism is not a religion, and liberalism is not a religion, at least not in the original, non-metaphorical sense. Yes, they can have some similarities to actual religions, and Anne has pointed this out in an entertaining manner with respect to the "religion" of liberalism. But liberalism, like golf or Marxist-Leninism, is a religion in a metaphorical sense only. Anne could have said liberalism is like a religion, which would have been literally correct, but in saying it is a religion, she is indulging in the satirist's traditional use of an extended metaphor to point out the similarities in two apparently dissimilar things. I have no problem with that. But we should remember that liberalism and golf are not, after all, actual religions. Otherwise if we continue in this fashion, words could mean pretty much whatever we happen to fancy at the moment, which at the end of the day would amount to their meaning both everything and nothing.

Sarkikos:

I was with you up until the point that you said Golf was not a religion! Blasphemy!

Seriously, your points are accurate, well reasoned and well presented. For this I applaud you. I agree with your “Queen of Hearts” analogy with respect to words meaning what we want them to mean and in such a case, their meanings are diminished. Case in point; “gay marriage.” Like jumbo shrimp, it is defined by something that is antipodal to its meaning. (I do not want to go off on a tangent on this topic, I use it to illustrate points upcoming.)

Marxism and other –isms are ersatz religions nonetheless. Perhaps not in the scriptural sense but they do sort of agree with the definition you offer. I am reasonably certain that many Russians considered Marx, Lenin, Stalin as gods, similarly the German’s regard of Hitler and virtually all other cults of personality that found their niche in dictatorships.

Similarly Liberalism falls into this class. While perhaps they do not have a “supreme being” per se, they do have their adored objects. Indians, both native and Sub-continent varieties, worship a variety of gods, in fact they are pretty much pantheistic. Many indigenous and aboriginal peoples do not have a supreme God or gods, but they worship at the altar of what ever suits their fancy at that time. (Consider the movie “The Gods Must Be Crazy” for support.)

The Liberal sacraments of abortion, entitlement, disrespect, bigotry, hate and the others are part and parcel of this religion. I would have a hard time being convinced that a true dyed-in-the-wool liberal is less of a religious adherent than a PACE Catholic (Palms, Ashes, Easter, Christmas, the four times a year many Catholics “practice” their religion.) They hang on every word Hillary says, adore Dean, support MoveOn, own Fahrenheit 9-11 on DVD, VHS and Beta, just to be on the safe side, listen to Skare Americka and nod their pony tails in agreement with every lie that is spewed by their “on-air personalities” and more.

Pray tell good friend, how is this different from a religion?

Liberalism differs from a religion in the sense that you have yourself admitted. Liberalism is an ersatz religion, a substitute for the real thing. Nicht wahr?

Sarkikos:

Ich bin ziemlich bewusst, mein Freund.

Semantics aside, and I am chalking this dialogue up to simple persiflage, so please allow me the following.

In my previous post I infer that Liberalism is an ersatz religion in that it is not a religion in the classical sense but offers a litany of similarities to “organized” religions. My editorial use of the word “ersatz” reflects my opinion and does not confer “true religion” status or the contrary upon Liberalism.

As stated in my first post, I have yet to read the book. (Though a package from Amazon arrived on my doorstep two days ago. Evidence that my Father’s Day wish has come true?) But, having read most all of Ann’s previous efforts I think I would be safe to say that she does not consider Liberalism a “true religion” either. (Probably much in the same vein as Baptists consider Catholics, Sunnis the Shi’ites, and so forth.) The contention is that Liberalism has taken on all the trappings of a religion up to and including a blind allegiance to this particular ideology.

Evidenced by the statements made the last paragraph of my last post, the lemming-like worshiping at the altar of Liberalism is enough for anyone to be excused for thinking that it is in fact a religion.

Ist dies logisch zu Ihnen?

Jaksavin,

This discussion is similar to arguments I have had with my wife, in which we start out with seemingly opposite opinions but soon appear to be more or less on the same side of the issue, although we are still arguing! It's best to agree to agree and call it quits. Now, if I had continued the thread about evolution vs. creationism, that would have been another story! lol

P.S.:
Evolutionary biologists do not contend that men evolved from monkeys, but that they had common ancestors. Also, the fact that one species evolved from another does not mean that the source species can no longer exist. Why shouldn't it? Some individuals of the source species continued to reproduce generation after generation without any appreciable evolutionary change, while others happened to evolve into new species. A new species does not necessarily replace the old, but merely evolves from it. Evolution does not require extinction of all older species. Please read a good textbook on evolution. The Bible and fundamentalist tracts don't have all the answers. (I couldn't resist some response on that matter.)

Sarkikos:

With respect to discussion, point well taken and I am envious of your spousal “arguments.” My wife and I often start out on the same side but as I am one of those people who can not leave well enough alone (I am sure you have noticed) and we sometimes wind up disagreeing after a full discussion.

As far as the creation/evolution point, tis true, better to leave this alone. I will profess virtual ignorance with respect to the mechanics of evolution. Your example is adequate and, as far as I can tell, accurate. But (you saw that coming) the greater question is less of man evolving from apes but where did everything come from? Evolution demands a predecessor from which to evolve. Where is ground zero? Creationism is neat and clean. Nothing, then, poof, something. Simplistic? Yes. Accurate? As far as I can tell. Am I starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld? Apparently.

The theory of evolution attempts to explain the "Origin of Species," not the origin of life itself. That is another matter. A naturalistic theory for the origin of life would need to be some sort of abiogenesis, a spontaneous generation of life from nonlife. And of course at the simplest levels the distinctions between life and nonlife become much less distinct. For example, a virus cannot reproduce itself without a host. So is a virus alive or not? If not, then why couldn't there have been completely natural stages in the origin of life involving entities that are not clearly either alive or "dead." Are amino acids and proteins alive? If not, why not? The origin of life will probably be a harder nut to crack then its evolution.

Yes, creationism is "neat and clean." But so was the Zeus hypothesis for the creation of lightning bolts. Evolutionary biologists have written highly-detailed texts on evolutionary theory that are supported by a vast preponderance of the available facts and observations. If evolution never occurred, then God certainly designed and created the natural world so as to make it appear as if it had. Either evolution is true, or God created each species and the natural world in such a way as to tempt us to believe that evolution is true. I choose to accept the more parsimonious explanation.

Sarkikos:

It is obvious that you are far more well versed in evolution than I and I do thank you for a reasonable and non-condescending explanation.

From what I understand there is some sort of mathematical equation that can prove/disprove abiogenesis. (Though, unless I am mistaken that word infers a “supposed" generation of life from non-life. Oh well.) While there is no empirical proof to substantiate that theory, I suppose that the absence of same, one could, in contradistinction, make the point opposite as well. But, I am just one of those crazy Christians that just can’t wrap his arms around either spontaneous generation of life or evolution.

(My supposition of an evolution-creation link is due mainly to misinformation from evolution adherents that I know. In for a penny, if for a pound, I should guess.)

Well done, nonetheless.

God Bless and God Speed

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: