Liberal Infallibility: The Gospel According to Ann Coulter
“Liberals Use Victims as Human Shields”
“The truth cannot be delivered with novocaine. Now Americans recognize this and won’t fall for this practice of liberals foisting their unsalable political opinions on us by using a victim we’re not allowed to respond to. They immunize the message by choosing a messenger with a tragedy. I’ve had it with that.
I feel sorry for all the widows of 9/11. I do not believe that sanctifies their political message or deserves special sanction.” — Ann CoulterAnn Coulter is stirring up controversy with her new book, ‘GODLESS; the Church of Liberalism’. In particular, she has a chapter called ‘Liberals’ Doctrine of Infallibility: Sobbing Hysterical Women’ in which she describes the self-proclaimed "Jersey Girls", who lost their husband in the World Trade Center on 9/11 and who were front and center in the 9/11 Commission hearings. They have relentlessly accused the Bush administration of various conspiracy theories revolving around 9/11 and WHY? it happened, attacking the Administration with Sheehan-like bravado.
The problem, as Ann Coulter points out, is that any rebuttal to their accusations is met with a harsh rebuke. Despite the issue being discussed, no one can refute their accusations without being condemned for "questioning the authenticity of their suffering." When Jersey Girl Kristin Breitweiser says, "Three thousand people were murdered on George Bush’s watch," any dialogue about who really caused 9/11 or even Bill Clinton’s culpability is met with dismissal and a chastising sigh, "Leave her alone! She lost her husband in 9/11!" The same is true of Cindy Sheehan: "She lost her son in Iraq for God’s sake!" Or John Murtha and John Kerry: "They served proudly in the US military!" Therefore the message is safe because the messenger either is a victim and deserves sympathy.
A paragraph in question in Ann Coulter’s chapter addressing the Jersey Girls is this:
“These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. These broads are millionaires lionized on TV and in articles about them reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.”
Ouch! Harsh no doubt, but untrue? To the contrary. Coulter hits the nail squarely on the head. (by "enjoying their husband’s death" Coulter is referring to the tangible benefit their situations find them in, from writing books, appearing on TV and in magazines to recklessly promote their accusations). Good proof that criticizing the Jersey Girls as they criticize the Administration is met with disdain because they are widows can be seen in Matt Lauer’s reaction to Ann Coulter in this NBC morning video interview.
Coulter suggests liberals use victims as "human shields" to promote their propaganda. They attribute "absolute authority" to these victims, whether Cindy Sheehan, the Jersey Girls or poor John Murtha, inoculating their commentary from scrutiny. This is absolutely true. How many times have we who support the war been accused of insensitivity for criticizing the sentiments of Cindy Sheehan because, after all, her son died? (oh and by the way, her son Casey Sheehan of 1st Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, re-enlisted with the Army in 2004 knowing he would be going to Iraq). True, my husband, who is active duty Army, did not DIE in Iraq, but is my support of Operation Iraqi Freedom then less valid, particularly taking into account that he relays to me 1st hand experience that helps form my understanding of this situation, because he returned? Yet my knowledge by association doesn’t make my position superior; the truth does.
"Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.’" –Ann Coulter
You go, girl.
Watch the Video of Ann Coulter on Hannity and Colmes
Cross-posted at Amy’s Blog
June 12th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Ann Coulter Is Still Right
No matter how high the liberals stack the bullshit and no matter how timid the Rightwing politically correct become.
Amy Proctor is a courageous blogger. She dares to go where others fear to tread.
I posted on Ann Coulter’s book, ‘GODLESS; the …
June 12th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
You’re deluding yourself if you think she’s courageous for writing this crap. Why do you think she writes about such inflammatory topics and always takes the most extreme and politically incorrect (for liberals anyways) position? Because she’s trying to take your money. The more saps such as yourself she gets to buy her outrageously priced hardback books, the more of that sweet, sweet cash she’ll have to funnel into her Olympic-sized swimming pool for relaxing dips in the middle of those hot summer days.
For another example, look at Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code. It’s pretty much been proven that most of the background for his book was based on research made up by two punks in the 1900s, and yet Dan Brown started insisting on the authenticity of his book around the time previews for his movie were hitting the theaters. Why? To generate hype for the film so more people will go see it, which leads to more royalties for him.
Americans as a whole have short attention spans and tend to only hear what they want to hear. So let’s say Ann Coulter decides one day that her mansion just isn’t big enough for her and her husband and lord of the household. How does she go about making some easy money? Well, the liberals are too suspicious and PC for her tastes, so why not the republicans? They’re pretty simple-minded, gullible, and eager to swallow any bull that degrades liberals. The choice is clear. She’s going to fleece the fat cow that is the Republican base, and all she needs to do is write a hate-filled, propaganda-spewing and indignant tirade railing against the inadequacies and imbecility of the entire liberal community. If I were her, I’d say mission accomplished, pat myself on the back, and retire to my newly renovated bayside mansion while chuckling to myself at the gullibility my so-called readers.
Get the picture? Still don’t? Then I’ve wasted enough letters on you.
June 13th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Well, Anonymous Q got a couple of things correct: “…the inadequacies and imbicility of the entire liberal community.” was one of them.
The other was that she wrote the book to make a few bucks. Dang! What a body won’t do in a capitalistic society!
Other than those two things, he was also correct in stating that he had wasted his letters.
June 13th, 2006 at 8:47 am
Their reaction to her was the usual, Kerrys comments on her are actually tame compared to those of the far left. They are talking nasty about here, more than usual. Personally I am not a fan of hers because she just fans the flames further, but she did make a good point about liberalism and how it is becoming a religon, in reality liberalism is to niche , progressvism would be a better term.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
It’s funny once you actually hear the context of what Coulter is saying, it is for the most part NOT offensive. And she almost always has a valid point. Or atleast gives the left a taste of their own medicine. Of course the MSM media is the one who deliberately inflames (great way of course to strip people of their more reasonable faculties) and does not provide context.
Sorry to state the obvious. But in the age of dumbed down PCness it has become so unbearable necessary.