TRUTH BEGETS HATRED
Re: Jeffrey Lord’s From God to Godless: The Real Liberal Terror:
Jeffrey Lord points out an interesting trend in the way liberals react to conservative writers, speakers and intellectuals. Every time any conservative points out the falsehoods within much of liberal thought and viewpoint or exposes the insincerity of their practices, the liberal establishment reacts to a degree totally unwarranted by the claims or charges made. Liberal terror is very real, but not exactly in the manner that Mr. Lord presents. The real liberal terror is fear. Fear that resides within the liberals, themselves.
Fear is what drives liberals and the liberal establishment. Fear of being hurt, fear of being hungry, fear of being unloved and fear of the unknown. Liberals greatest fear is being out of control. For without total control of society, the environment and, most especially, ideas, liberals fear that they will have to face the real world. They will have to experience pain, hardship, loneliness and all the other things that humanity has had to endure and deal with since the dawn of time. To this end they are attempting to create a surrogate womb populated by drones who act and think alike and suffer none of the negative emotions. They are kidding themselves, however. For without the negative emotions, the positive emotions of relief, elation, pride and love do not exist.
The real terror of liberals is simply their own fear. This fear drives them to savagely attack anything and anyone that threatens their Disneyworld view of the world. Unfortunately, until they identify the true source of their terror, it will continue, unabated. There is nothing that the rest of us can do for them, but we must continue to deal with reality. Whether liberals like it or not.
— Michael Tobias
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Mr. Lord, how incredibly marvelous are the intricate neuro-linguistic pathways of the brain, which in conservatives, invariably lead us to the truth, and which in liberals, inexplicably lead them to destruction. You may have heard this one, and I hope I get it right, but Bill Buckley tells a joke about a friend of his who said he’d been urged by a liberal acquaintance not to vote for Goldwater because we would end up getting into a war. “Darn if he wasn’t right, Bill. I voted for Goldwater, and sure enough, we got into a war!”
— Mike Showalter
Yes, the furious reaction by liberals to Ann Coulter’s Godless “is not about her manners but her willingness to, as liberals love to say, ‘speak truth to power’ — the power of the once mighty liberal establishment.”
And hopefully when Coulter’s critics, including some of the girlie-men on the conservative side, read beyond Coulter’s expose of the viciously partisan “Jersey Girls,” they can throw hussy fits all over again for Coulter’s spot-on analysis of the public schools and the Left’s ongoing war on science.
For example, Coulter writes that the public school teachers are “taxpayer-supported parasites” who inculcate students in the precepts of the Socialist Party of America and that “most public schools are — at best — nothing but expensive babysitting arrangements.” Given that the public education establishment — like the abortion industry and the homosexual lobby — is a core group of the Democratic Party, that observation alone should keep the dogs barking for many a news cycle.
And then Ms. Coulter notes that sex abuse of minors is orders of magnitude more likely by public school employees than the Catholic clergy. (Note for public school graduates: One order of magnitude is a factor of ten; two orders of magnitude is a factor of 100; three orders of magnitude is a factor of 1,000; and so on.) And why, if this is so, aren’t lawyers suing the pants off the school districts like they’ve done to Catholic dioceses across the country. Although Godless does not answer that question, I will. It’s because, regrettably, the government schools have a considerable degree of sovereign immunity protection, giving them almost a license to abuse children. Isn’t that nice? So you see, the public schools are ever worse than Ms. Coulter realizes. (Hope Ann’s not going soft?)
— Peter Skurkiss
I have just read your article on A. Coulter’s new book. The first part had me worried because I have just printed out a dozen other articles about her book. I print every good conservative article for my father to read (I take care of him — he is a good old conservative WWII Navy veteran of 92 years — drafted at the age of 29, believe it or not). Anyway when I got a little farther into the article I found out how you were comparing to the 1952 article by Buckley. I could write a book about your article but to save time, you have been written the best most cleverly planned and highest quality “tell it like it is” answer to the liberals’ reaction that I think I will ever read. Thanks for the great job. I can’t wait to print this out for my dad to read.
— John W. Ross, PE
May I suggest an alternative book title: From Godless to Gods: The Real Neo-Con Terror by Richard W. Symonds. The Murdoch Press, and its apologists interested? I wonder why not.
— Richard W. Symonds
All the hype aside, the Coulter kerfuffle (nod to Mr. Taranto) proves a point I frequently make to my wife. Those on the political left are defined by nothing so clearly as their total lack of a sense of humor.
— Patrick R. Glass
LTC, US Army (Retired)
Veritas Odium Parit
A PURPOSEFUL DISTRACTION
Re: Jed Babbin’s Brownie, You’re Doing a Heck of a Job:
Heck, I’d settle for a list of UN “accomplishments” in Banda Aceh. Last time I looked, the UN was trying to get itself organized to “coordinate” everybody else’s efforts, particularly the U.S. Navy’s. Did they ever hit that milestone?
And how is the UN doing in Darfur? So far, we have been leaving that one to them — no unilateral American cowboys or Midwestern rubes interfering there. How is that going?
— Greg Richards
I am amazed by your article. But moving the UN outside the U.S.!!! That means Israel is gone and the lobbies in D.C. would never want such a thing to occur. They would pay anything and I mean anything to keep the UN under-controlled or supervised by the U.S. lobbies.
— Wael Hakmeh
Another bull’s-eye for Babbin!
The Useless Nations was never anything but a holding pen for the world’s parasite intelligentsia: the pampered, tenured rotters from rich countries too batty even for socialist governments, and the hustlers from poor countries who, having learned to read, are now far too grand to work for a living. With their own private Versailles, what else could they become but arrogant?
Ah, but it has served a purpose, just as Versailles did. Giving them their own playpen keeps them out of serious mischief, allows advance warning of their latest scams and puts them in one place where they can be watched. Granted, they are a colossal, pompous pain in the *** whose uselessness exceeds the Romanovs and the Manchus combined, but the whole infuriating caravan just might be earning its keep after all. Who knows how many revolutions the flow of free champagne has prevented, how many would be Ho Chi Minhs have quietly become respectable Ho’s for the World Secretariat of Nothing in Particular? Debauchery in the service of occasional peace and quiet, if not exactly world peace. What the hell, take what you can get.
And if they become intolerable, we can always find another use for them — medical experiments maybe? Just keep them away from the moving parts.
— Martin Owens
I agree 100 percent. Banish the UN from the U.S. They are much worse than worthless. Cut way back on our dues and donations and just let the damn thing fizzle out on its own.
Jed is right again. The U.N. is indeed a house of straw. It shouldn’t be too hard to huff and puff and blow this house down.
— Cara Lyons Lege
— Pete Chagnon
Re: Judd Magilnick’s Who Wants to Marry an Open-Borders Statist?:
If there is one issue, the politics of which has set my hair on fire, it’s “immigration.” Whether it’s Mexico’s corrupt government, economic charlatans, myopic politicians, globalist gurus, open-border philanthropists, North American Unionists, etc., you name it, I’ve had it. And, but for one short statement, written years ago in the first issue of a conservative opinion journal, by the one man George W. Bush ultimately owes his presidency, I’d have thrown up my hands and called it quits.
About his new magazine, National Review, Buckley wrote: “It stands athwart history, yelling STOP, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”
What gets you out of bed in the morning?
— Mike Showalter
How true, how true, now if we can get our open border Republicans to understand just what us poor taxpayers are going thru. They just don’t seem to understand what ILLEGAL means. These people have broken a law to come to our country, most have gotten forged Social Security cards and other ID. If someone breaks into your home and steals your credit cards is that OK?
Too bad a flock of illegals can’t set up a tent on the White House grounds.
I have joined www.numbersusa.com and have sent LOTS of FREE faxes to Bush and my members in both houses of Congress. I also get on their web pages and send emails and calling is always a good thing. We have to keep the pressure on.
— Elaine Kyle
A LEARNING CURVE
Re: Reader Mail’s Enjoying Ann Coulter:
Though it can never be proven, I would be willing to wager a large sum of money on the fact that, had their husbands not died so tragically, they would have been divorced by now!! These women are money grubbers, pure and simple!
Special to Mr. Jim Fay — at 21 years of age, you have a lot of living and learning to do before you can begin to cast aspersions on Ms. Coulter. She has the courage and insight to call things as they are, not as the MoveOn.org crowd, the loony liberal left, and the brainwashing mills we laughingly call institutes of higher learning, would have you believe.
— C.D. Lueders
Tell the 21-year-old Mr. Fay to write you in 10-15 years when he has a brain, and not to take Mr. Judge’s statements out of context.
— Todd C. Meyer
I find it so amusing seeing and hearing, and reading how the liberals are so indignant about Ann Coulter telling the truth about them. Liberals lie about every Republican and twist every good thing that happens for this country, saying it doesn’t matter or that it is bad. Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those that call good evil and evil good.” Real Christians will never vote for a Democrat.
— Dave Phelps
It seems a shame that debate over Ann Coulter and Godless has focused largely on the so-called “Jersey Girls.” Most of the points raised seem valid on the face of it. But a good chunk of the book is devoted to arguments against the theory of evolution — and positions taken like that are what keep me from becoming a full-fledged conservative.
— Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida
ANNIE GOT HER GUN
Re: Mark Gauvreau Judge’s Doubting Coulter — At First:
Well, Ann Coulter is quite right about the Jersey Girls. Not a pretty picture, but there it is. Those women forfeited all claims to our forbearance when they went political. Fair game. Annie got her gun, and the Jersey Girls got shot down.
— Paul Kotik
Another thing that the author of the article brushed on but did not point out: I don’t think that it’s likely that the Jersey Girls are aware of the exact circumstances of their husbands’ deaths. It is very possible, if not probable, that their deaths were somewhat less unpleasant than being “burned alive.” If I’m correct, that they didn’t know exactly how their husbands met their ends, then why would they choose that description? Why the most hideous and excruciating death possible?
If it were my wife or child in those circumstances, I would certainly be inclined to picture them snuffing it in instantaneous, painless fashion, and not in the most horrible way imaginable. That is, unless I derived some kind of political authority relative to my familial suffering, like the Jersey girls.
Ann Coulter and your author were both right. I don’t know if “enjoy” is the right word, but I believe those four women have earned some contempt.
— Trevy J. Organ
“A perfect woman has a bachelor of science in mathematics, is a millionairess, flies an F-16 and owns a liquor store,” attributed to Dan Aykroyd.
Ann makes her opinions as clear as daylight and the Lefts heads explode. Her books and column are text book examples of the use of laser guided munitions as commentary. Add the rapier wit.
Does she offend? Absolutely!!! And, darn it, good on her!!! However, I’m of the mind that she only gives offense to the professionally offended, professional victims, multiculturalists, agitators and charlatans of the left and the “can’t we all get along and make nice” cohort on the right.
The Lady has an uncanny ability to dissect the left’s feeble attempts at logic as if she were a mathematician rather than a lawyer. She cluster bombs and strafes liberal land, returns to either New York or Palm Beach, kicks back, has a glass of what ever she prefers, surveys the damage and watches another book go right to Numero Uno on the best seller lists. What a girl!
When the Princess of Decorum, the Hildabeast’s head explodes, you know the lady’s targeting was, dare I say it, spot on!
I love Ann Coulter, alas, from afar. Beauty, brains and guts, what’s not to love?
— Jim Woodward
I am writing to you in regards to your article about Ann Coulter. Last week when I read about the supposedly horrible accusations the she had made, I too was surprised at the response given by the wives. I am not a great scholar nor am I highly educated. But I am a human being with feelings. If I had been in their shoes, if that had been my husband that had lost his life like that and I was being accused of acting in such a manner, I would have sat down and cried.
But the words I didn’t hear or read that they had been quoted as saying was we loved and adored our husbands. That was something that me feel like maybe Ann Coulter had a point. I am not trying to take away from their loss. I am not trying to disrespect them in any way. But I have seen first hand how people abuse grief for selfish reasons. Sometimes they don’t even realize what they have done or what they are doing. Sometimes they do.
We do have freedom of speech and we are not all going to see things eye to eye. 9/11 was and will always be a horrific tragedy in our American history. It saddens my heart that the loved ones closely affected by such a senseless act of terror have to deal with this memory daily. I hate to see their memory violated or used in ways that do not uphold and honor their sacrifice. We should never forget them or let time erase the shock of such an act upon our American soil.
I too have lost both close friends to car crashes and a father last year in surgery. The difference between our personal loses and the 9/11 widows is that the whole world did not watch our love ones deaths in real time and in living color.
Ann is wrong, and if she was correct in her view she would still be wrong in her action. The widows have paid a price that grants them the right to say and do what they feel is right.
I do not agree with Cathy Sheehan, but her son dying on the altar of war, she has the right to speak her mind, in words and deed.
George W. Bush has not laid a sacrifice on the altar of the war on terrorism. Where are his twins? Laura sleeps safe each night behind the walls of the White House security. Has he earned the right? (yes. he was elected but what price?)
What has Ann Coulter done that has earned her the moral right to sit in judgment of any one? Much less those who have had their love one blood pour upon the altar of war?
— Gary Roland (USAF RET.)
I would like to agree with your analysis of how grief is almost unbearable to state graphically, but for one thing.
When my youngest son was 19 months old, he would now be 40, we found him dead in his crib. He was too old for SIDS and after an autopsy, since he had no known health issues, it was determined he died of a rare heart tumor, undetectable.
To this day, when someone who never knew me then, says that “you” (meaning me) don’t know what it’s like to go through something really painful, I find it very difficult to hold back. Only once did I succumb to a comeback, when a very rude person said to me, “you have to have tough things happen in your life (they were going through a divorce — which I too have done) to understand how tough life is.”
I turned, and I’m not ashamed of it, and said, “don’t tell me how tough life is — wait ’til you’ve held your 19-month-old son in your arms, trying with every ounce of courage you have, to breathe life back into his dead body!”
I realized then, although I’ve never said those words to my other sons (who were young boys at the time) or to anyone other than one or two kind friends who allowed me to “get it out,” that sometimes, a graphic description is necessary to try to get people to just plain understand, and not gloss it all over so that they can feel better about everything.
As I sit, filled with grief, thinking of each and every young man, killed or maimed in this Iraq War, or any other war or needless violence, I wonder if we “get it” without the graphics. I shun graphic descriptions and am unable to watch violence on TV or film. The pain for me in unbearable, and when that pain is in REAL life, perhaps we need to hear it described to we know it IS real.
I happened to be watching the Today Show when Ann Coulter was interviewed. I was actually staring, and stunned, to hear how rude, cruel and self serving she was. I was almost embarrassed, but I’m not quite sure why. I think she was wrong, very wrong. And although I do understand your “take” on the issue, I think that maybe this is the only way these wives (and mothers, fathers, sisters, children) of these people can be sure that people know it is REAL — not TV, not movies, but REAL!
— Dorothy Grant
Vero Beach, Florida
Who is this man that can judge the depth of grief in others? Did we not see terrified individuals leap from the Twin Towers to avoid death by being burned alive? What horrible images this widows must carry of their loved ones’ deaths.
Mr. Judge, how can you assume all of us experience and express grief as you would? Your example is about a friend when you were sixteen years old. Would you express your grief in the same way today? I wonder about your and Coulter’s true motives in you opinions. To challenge a person’s statements is fair but doubting the depth of their feelings of loss is cruel and sanctimonious.
Shame on you and your conservative political outlook on life.
— Timothy Tyler
Fort Madison, Iowa
What appears obvious is the Mr. Judge has his own agenda, that of accusing widows of men lost on September 11, 2001 of having their own political agenda.
He describes the death of his friend in a car accident, when he was a teenaged adolescent, in high school, not a spouse.
Because he lost a friend to a car accident, and at that time neither he, nor his friends were willing or did not have the maturity to confront their own mortality, he thinks he can compare his own personal feeling, or lack thereof at that time, to a murder, by aircraft, of thousands of people, and the husbands of four women, as part of those thousands. An act that ultimately catapulted this nation into war, serving as I would dare say accurately to “America’s Second Pearl Harbor.”
What kind of a man can be so coarse, so callous to such a loss?
I have lost many friends and members of my own family and also military comrades to death, most peaceful, some violent.
These people died by heart attack, stroke, electrocution by accident, suicide, enemy fire, and one was beaten to death by his own next door neighbors, for threatening to call the police, because the music of the party next door was too loud.
Speaking out against the mistakes leading up to 9/11 is a responsible act.
Because Mr. Judge cannot personally deal with his own future demise, cannot deal with the simple fact of death, doesn’t mean he is the best person to decide what any of those women should feel, or how they should represent themselves.
When people ask me about losses in my own life, I explain what happened to each, in as much detail as they’d like to hear, for the deaths that I was present for.
I was not in New York City, on September 11, 2001. But I saw some of it via television, as the office that I worked inside in downtown Pittsburgh (along with many other offices) was immediately closed that day, due to fear of more attacks. I am a veteran of a combat zone, and I was very concerned, that day.
I suggest that Mr. Judge needs to go to a combat zone, or a disaster area, and then see what he has to say about death, and political agendas, before speaking out in such a fashion again.
He has his right to freedom of speech, but his free speech in America has been earned in lives, at a dear cost, by people who fight and have fought live enemies.
If Ms. Coulter and Mr. Judge hope to be awarded with medals by engaging in all-out, no-holds-barred battle with Americans who lost their husbands in a horrific, unprecedented terrorist attack, GET A CLUE. There are enemies of democracy-as-we-know-it out there, and they are not these four women.
— James H. Jenkins, Republican, 100% Disabled U.S. Navy Veteran
I don’t usually respond to news articles on the Internet. But Mark’s comments about “Doubting Ann Coulter — At First” stirred something in me. He tries to explain away the New Jersey widow’s comments about watching their loved ones burn. Because he cannot describe death beyond the name “cancer” or “the night Dale died” — does not mean that others cannot. Sometimes the awful details of a death are what haunt us day after day. If those are the only two deaths he has dealt with that might explain it — a high school friend years ago and a lingering tragic death — but time left to say goodbye. People handle grief in different ways. Why this onslaught against these widows for their description of their loss? Why does the media eventually have to cut down those we once revered? Why diminish their grief with such statements? Maybe those comments were a lashing out against the unfeeling journalists — who needed the plain, bare, cold facts that nightmares are made of?
— Shirley Watson
Had Ann Coulter simply said that the New Jersey 9/11 widows were “exploiting” the death of their husbands for political purposes rather than “enjoying” their deaths, she could have made the exact same point with more precision and saved herself a lot of grief along with saving her supporters the time necessary to explain “what she really meant.” Coulter seems to relish throwing rhetorical bombs. This can be entertaining at times but more importantly it detracts from her effectiveness as a polemicist. She should re-think her tactics.
— Jerry Velona
I think Ann is making a great point about liberals that greatly needs making.
I live in Missouri and remember all too well the Senate election a few years ago between John Ashcroft and Mel Carnahan during which Mr. Carnahan tragically died in a plane crash. Post-crash, Carnahan’s campaign staff shamelessly, but disguised as a tribute, went into overtime to elect his widow Jean who was not even on the ballot by electing Carnahan anyway. Despite questionable legality, the Governor had agreed to appoint her if Mel won. The PC media had a one-sided field day. The environment was such that criticism of anything Carnahan or Democrat was strictly verboten. John Ashcroft without recourse honorably and effectively withdrew from the race by ceasing his campaign. Even though a long time conservative, I knew some of the Carnahan family and knew them to be very nice and honorable people. I also knew some of their campaign staff and observing them capitalizing of Mr. Carnahan’s death and his family’s grief was not pretty to watch.
It was utterly shameful. It was using death and the sympathy of average people for political gain. No one of course at the time could have pointed this out without subjecting themselves to the wrath of the local media and the Carnahan campaign staff.
The 9/11 widows and their supporters remind me of the Carnahan campaign staff in the way they capitalized on death and also in the way the conducted themselves with their air of Dowdian “absolute moral superiority.” I think it is OK to call attention to what they are doing, especially when the MSM ignores widows who feel differently, and also of course now that a reasonable period of time has passed. Go Ann!
— Deja vu
Just finished reading Mark Judge’s article (and boy, was he judging!) and am very disappointed in him and your paper. To give Ann Coulter any credence makes your reporter and paper even worse than she is.
Neither Ann nor Mark, the Judger understands the human mind and all they are is inflammatory. This seems to be the conservative way (and by the way, just what are the conservatives CONSERVING?), and is anti-productive to getting anything done.
These four women are entitled to believing anything they want, after all this is America (post McCarthy!). For Ann to state she doesn’t believe in the First Amendment is amazing — after all, that’s why she’s allowed to say things that she does. For her to defend McCarthyism is also amazing, because SHE would be the one in jail if he were allowed to have his way.
Shame on Ann, shame on Mark, and shame on your paper. The divisiveness that the Bush administration is working on WILL tear this country apart and has NOTHING to do with liberalism, but rather what’s right and wrong. And, Ann, Mark, etc. you’ve all missed the target. Let these women say what they want, ignore them and they’ll go away. Continue to made ludicrous comments, and their followers will come out in droves.
San Clemente, California
(Republican and Conservative country)
Re: Andrew Cline’s Withdrawn Democrats:
Besides Andrew Cline’s “Withdrawn Democrats,” there will be the withdrawn terrorists when this news gets out:
When al-Zarqawi arrived in the afterlife, he asked: “Where are the virgins?” The devil answered: “They have gone to a better place.”
It was then explained to him that “virgins” was an improper translation for “raisins.” When the raisins were brought to him, it was discovered that they had fermented, so he couldn’t eat them, since alcohol is forbidden to him by religious law.
LOOKING OUT FOR NUMBER ONE
Re: Ben Stein’s Missed Tributes:
You are indeed fortunate to have such a man write for you at The American Spectator. I’m in absolute agreement with Mr. Stein’s view of self-absorbed Hollywood. It’s obvious that the only God(s) they worship is themselves, so perhaps it would be fitting to rename the town, “Holywood.”
Please tell Mr. Stein to keep up the excellent writing.
— Pamela Weaver
DON’T MESS WITH VIRGINIA
Re: Mike Showalter’s letter (“After Hours”) in Reader Mail’s Withdrawal Symptoms:
Mr. Showalter can certainly be forgiven for his unfamiliarity with the recent work of comic Robin Williams, but I cheerfully credit the latter with the suggestion that the terrorists are laboring under a misconception due to a misreading of scripture, such that their eternal reward will not consist of six dozen comely lasses, but rather a sound beating from a delegation of vengeful “Old Dominion” patriots. “Virginia is [indeed] for lovers,” but Heaven help you if you piss them off.
Still, it was exciting to have generated my first targeted response. I briefly felt as though I had dipped a toe into the waters in which the extraordinary Miss Coulter routinely immerses herself. Just as moisture quickly evaporates, though, this feeling soon passed.
Hat-size now returned to normal,
— Stephen Foulard
P.S. I was the last teaching assistant for the late, great Dr. John Coffman, professor of geography at the University of Houston. Responding to a student who had asked whether precision would be required in the placement of state capitals on the map-identification portion of the North America exam, he dismissed the importance of knowing the exact location of a given state’s highest concentration of lobbyists, hookers, and bartenders.