Defending Ann Coulter

So much of liberalism is so stuck-on-stupid, that there’s no sense trying to tip-toe around it. Which is why I like Ann Coulter so much — she’s confrontational and she uses antagonizing language (and often over-the-top rhetoric) to attack liberal ideas.

In her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Ann wrote the following controversial statement about a group of widows of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks:

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.

I don’t know much about the “Jersey Girls” (or “Jersey Widows”) that Ann was referring to…but I doubt that they are “enjoying their husband’s deaths” as Ann said. But I understand what Ann meant — mainly because I know all too much about another grief-pimp: Cindy Sheehan (the “Grinning-but-grieving mother“).

While I don’t believe for a moment that Cindy enjoyed the death of her son, Spc. Casey Sheehan, I absolutely believe that she is reveling in her new found celebrity status in the wake of her son’s death. Cindy really should try to look like she’s having less fun “in her son’s name”. So — much like Cindy — I can understand that the Jersey Girls might be enjoying the aftermath of their husband’s deaths.

Curt at Flopping Aces thinks Ann might have been a little “over the top”, but that doesn’t mean she’s not right:

Is it harsh? Sure. A small number of widows have made claim to a moral authority on the War against Terror. They cannot be questioned because their husbands died?..give me a effin break. Why must everyone tiptoe around these things? Always PC, gotta make sure no one is offended.

But she was indeed accurate.

The lefties and the MSM are spinning the story in a way to show that Ann meant ALL 9/11 widows when in fact she pointed out that a small cadre of women have a left wing, Bush hating agenda to push and are using their tragedy for political gain. Furthering left wing candidates and their causes.

________________________________________

Unlike most of the people who are criticizing Ann’s new book, I’ve actually started reading it (I went and bought it at my local Barnes & Nobles today). I was hooked on page 2, where she laid out the premise for her book:

Their belief system is taught as fact in government schools, while the Biblical belief system is banned from government schools by law. As a matter of faith, liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child-molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not. If people are born gay, why hasn’t Darwinism weeded out people who don’t reproduce? (For that, we need a theory of survival of the most fabulous.) And if gays can’t change, why do liberals thank child-molesters can?

It’s true. Liberals are constantly screaming about the separation of church and state. But what they really mean is the separation of Christianity and state. It’s sad and telling that Islam has more protections and rights in our public schools than Christianity. Besides, there is no separation of church and state in our schools — again, there is a separation of Christianity and state — it just happens that the religion being pushed in academia today is that of human secularism.

And it doesn’t stop when our kids graduate from high school, either. In fact, it gets worse when they get to college. Here’s what Ann says (p.14) about their new pushers of the religion of Liberalism:

Professors are the most cosseted, pussified, subsidized, group of people in the U.S. workforce.

Amen to that, Ann.

I’m only through the first chapter so far, but I can’t wait to read the rest.