Did Ann Coulter Finally Go Too Far?

The L.A. Times has an article by one of its writers about Ann Coulter's remarks on a CNBC show about in her perfect nation everyone would be Christian. Needless to say the host, who is Jewish, was deeply offended by her remarks. He pointed out that her position that Christians are "perfected" Jews is, in reality, a form of anti-Semitism. Coulter, true to form, denied that her remarks showed her to be anti-Semitic.

What's remarkable isn't that Coulter made a bigoted remark. She's been doing that for years. What's remarkable is that her host was actually surprised that she made the remark. Now either he has really bad research assistants who didn't tell him about Coulter, or he actually thought she would have the good taste not to make a bigoted remark on his show. He was, of course, wrong.

Coulter has made vicious remarks about gays and Muslims. She has spread her hate on every forum she has been given. It will be interesting to see if this time network executives decide that she has gone too far and stop giving her venues to spread her bile.

For it is the people who decide to book her on television and radio shows who are just as much to blame for what Coulter says as herself. There is too much evidence for network executives to claim that they don't know what she is or what she stands for. She is a hater and she spreads hate. If network executives decide that they care more for attracting her audience than they do for decency, then they deserve what they get.

Be Thankful Ann Coulter Doesn't Have Children

One of the things that is interesting about conservatives like Ann Coulter is that while she praises "family values", she doesn't have a family of her own. She has never been married and has no children. That's why she has no problem attacking others and using their children as a weapon, as she did with John Edwards and his deceased son because she has no idea of the love that a person has for their child.

I have often wondered if that's why Ann Coulter is so enraged by women like Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards. Like her they are graduates from law school. Unlike her, however, they have also been married, raised children, and actually practiced law. I wonder if, in her own mind, where the rest of us can't see, she measures herself against such women and finds herself wanting?

Of course, society should be grateful she doesn't have children. America doesn't need another child raised by a woman who hates. Such parents too often produce children who hate, who despise others for the color of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation or their religion. So when you are listing things that you are thankful for, consider adding the fact that Ann Coulter doesn't have children to your list. It's a small thing, but important nevertheless.

How Right Wing Nut Jobs Use Alleged MSM Concern Over "Fairness"

If you click here you can see David Gregory of NBC News talking with Elizabeth Edwards about Ann Coulter. Note that he believes that if you just "strip-away her inflammatory" language, you can take her seriously. This is what members of the mainsream media do, they pretend that these right-wing nut jobs are actually serious observers making serious observations about society. They aren't and of course, the problem is that you can't overlook her language, because that is what Ann Coulter is all about. She just doesn't say this hateful things because they help her get attention and sell books, no, she says them because she believes them.

Gregory reminds me of the people in Germany who thought that Hitler didn't mean what he wrote in Mein Kampf. You know, the kind who thought, "Adolf's language is a little extreme, but underneath all his anti-semitic utterings, he is making a serious point about Germany and our future."

When Ann Coulter says things like, "The next time I will just call for Edwards to be assisanted", she really means it. She would have no problem with some nut job killing John Edwards. Unlike David Gregory we don't conscend to Ann Coulter, we take her at her word.

This is how the mainstream media gets sucked into taking hatemongers like Coulter seriously. They think that because they are on television and because a lot of other nutjobs purchase her books, she must have something serious to say. Well, the problem is, as John Edwards pointed out to Chris Matthews on Hardball, is that America has always had hatemongers and probably always will.

In this interview with Mathews, Edwards points out that when he was growing up in North Carolina during the civil rights revolution in the South, there were nutjobs all around making vile, personal attacks on people. In the 1950s and 1960s there used to be billboards with the message "Impeach Earl Warren" all across the South. Can you imagine any reporter from NBC taking the head of the John Birch seriously, or the head of the White Citizens Council seriously during the 1960s?

Yet, because Coulter sells books and appears on television David Gregory thinks that she is a serious thinker. Well, by that standard, the cartoon characters from South Park or the Simpsons should be considered serious thinkers as well, at least according to the David Gregory standard.

No, This is Not a Parody: Ann Coulter Attacks Hilton Judge

The judge who sentenced Paris Hilton back to jail is attacked by Ann Coulter. Of course, that makes sense. After all, products of upper class homes have to stick together. Ann can identify with Paris and that's why she thinks she shouldn't be in jail. Some poor woman, though, facing a jail sentence wouldn't get a second's thought from the right-wing's own "Queen of Mean."

Conservative Blogger Calls Upon CPAC to Ban Coulter Next Year

In the past we have often stated our view that conservatives and Republicans apply one set of rules to others and another set of rules to themselves. An example of this is seen when Hillary Clinton is attacked as Machivallian for staying married to her husband while the double adulterer, Rudy Giuliani, is praised by the same conservatives. Another example is that perjury allegedly committed by Bill Clinton is a crime deserving of impeachment while Scooter Libby allegedly lying to a Federal Grand Jury is no big deal. We could go on, but you get the idea.

Therefore, we were pleasantly surprised to learn that a conservative blog, The American Mind, is leading a petition drive to have Ann Coulter banned for future events such as the Conservative Action Political Conference. This blogger has decided that calling John Edwards a "faggot" is not defensible and that her appearances at such events does more harm than good for the conservative cause. We compliment The American Mind for this position.

Why Did Bush Administration & GOP Congress Make It Easier to Declare Martial Law?

Here's something that both the left and the right can agree on: it shouldn't be easy for the national government in Washington to declare martial law and take control of state law enforcement. Yet, last October, that's exactly what the Republican controlled Congress did when it passed the defense authorization bill. Tucked away in the bill were two amendments that collectively make it easier for the President to declare martial law. Apparently this was passed with little discussion and no input from the nation's governors. If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read an NY Times editorial on this subject.

Can you imagine the outcry from the right-wing media if Bill Clinton had wanted to make it easier for the President to declare martial law? Windbags like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter would have been screaming at the top of their lungs about this Federal power grab. Yet, when Bush does it, too many of these same pundits and commentators keep their mouths shuts. That's because for too many Republicans their party is no longer the Republican Party but the Bush party. They have made the glorification of George W. Bush the end of their political philosophy. If their Glorious Leader wants it, then it must be okay, because after all he's got God on his side.

Luckily for the United States there are Republicans in Congress willing to join a genuinely bi-partisan effort to amend this horrible legislation and repeal those sections that would increase the power of the presidency. Only a fool, or Dick Cheney, and of course those two terms may be synonymous, would think that the President of the United States, and especially this President, needs an power increase.