This is why Ann Coulter speaks for the Republican Party

perfect points, lady.

my name is not Soylent Green,

Tara

Is that what we need? Coulter spews hate and we have to balance that off by admitting that there may be a Dem as full of hate as she is?

No. Not now. That is not what we need now. We have, for too long, allowed this sort of attack on humanity slide in the name of inclusiveness or open-mindedness.

When Dems are in power and there are columnists who write with as much vile ignorance as Coulter, then we can attack them.

But I do not think that is what we need now. Now we need to read the Rude Pundit and understand how ugly some of this stuff is.

It is not how we would conduct ourselves -- speaking as the Rude Pundit does (heck, some days I cannot read what he writes, let alone speak as he does ) -- but we cannot be so tolerant that we let the Coulters continue to have equal time, so fair that we suggest there is a place for her kind in civilized society.

I wonder how much longer even the reddest among us will tolerate her -- http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_
display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002689569

Nance

P.S. Sorry if I sound more stilted than usual -- the page will not let me use apostrophes.

Except we're talking past each other!

I suggest nothing of the kind, no timeout for ponderous introspection, or some silly strawwoman appeal for balance and inclusiveness. That's not what I MEANT (I'd want to tell me to butt out too, if that's what I heard me saying. . .)

I said it was poor tactics -- not EFFECTIVE -- for anyone who sees Ann Coulter and her ilk as worth fighting, to simply invite such easy return fire by ranting off with liar-liar-pants-on-fire instead of using our very best intelligence to develop the smart, technology-integrated battle plan that actually works better than the other side's, to know the enemy and then figure out how to penetrate, infiltrate and destroy the enemy's defenses.

Fighting fire with fire doesn't actually work that well even for real fires, much less allegorical ones. It certainly isn't the best weapon when you have choices. Ranting is the rock in rock-paper-scissors, and two rocks can't win against each other; they just keep clubbing each other to a draw and turning off the spectators with their brutish stubborness and lack of imagination. But Reason beats Ranting like the paper beats rock -- or if it doesn't, there's little point in living in such a world, imo.

If this is the "war" Liza declares above, then surely those who think the war on terror has been badly planned and executed, need to put our money where our mouths are and show we know how to do better, from understanding what rhetoric and tactics stiffen the other side's resolve and breed more enemies, to committing all necessary resources to finish the job.

Power of story is always a big part of war strategy, more so on this battleground than most imo. But "I HATE you!" isn't enough of a storyline to win anything, not a child's interest or a lierary award, much less a real war with humanity itself at stake. What's needed to win a war isn't mamby-pamby introspection, but focused, effective ways to see what needs doing, define our benchmarks of success, engage the support of all natural allies, and fight to WIN. Not just to whine.

Power of story could look like this news story, for example --
Take the political proposal for a southern border fence. We can just rant and ridicule pro or con about this, and many surely will.

Meanwhile, true cultural creatives examine the idea itself in progressive fashion, which to me means exploring it from all sorts of meaningful angles without knowing where you might wind up.

Political partisanship to impose one's own foregone conclusion and reject everything else isn't my idea of progressive regardless of the color it's cloaked in.

I respect Liza asking we not link here to exploiters who won't reciprocate, but check out today's NYT Week in Review on your own. It's online with photos,story and multimedia show. Here's a really good example imo, of injecting cultural creativity into public discourse toward some actual progress, rather than just political mugging of ideas from hate and fear, as in the Dark Ages.
And I love the glass rods depicted, at least as art (not saying we should go build it tomorrow, just entertaining some creative thought before putting my spear or postholedigger in the ground!)
[quote]

A meeting of two cultures creates a third, Mr. Moss says.

By WILLIAM L. HAMILTON

. . . maybe some form of backyard diplomacy is in order — Mexico is no enemy — and there are obvious suspects for the job: professional designers, whose duty it is to come up with welcome solutions that defy ugly problems; to create appeal where there might be none.

As a classic design challenge, The New York Times asked 13 architects and urban planners to devise the "fence." Several declined because they felt it was purely a political issue.

"It's a silly thing to design, a conundrum," said Ricardo Scofidio of Diller Scofidio & Renfro in New York. "You might as well leave it to security and engineers."

(But) four of the five who submitted designs proposed making the boundary a point of innovative integration, not traditional division — something that could be seen, from both sides, as a horizon of opportunity, not as a barrier.

[Paraphrasing]
Any monumental fortifications could have a second purpose, like a solar energy-collecting strip that would produce . . .a "productive, sustainable enterprise zone" that attracted industry from the north and created employment for the south — in the same no-man's median that people now cross in search of work, and/or "a border of light that could be seen from space at night."

Eric Owen Moss, an architect in Los Angeles, designed a strolling, landscaped arcade of lighted glass columns to invite a social exchange in the evening, much like the "paseo," popular in Hispanic culture.

"Make something between cultures, which leads to a third," Mr. Moss said. "Celebrate the amalgamation of the two."

Enrique Norten, an architect born in Mexico who has offices now in Mexico City and New York with his firm TEN Arquitectos, proposed using the fence budget to build infrastructures like highways instead.

"The future is about embracing the economy of Mexico," he said, of a long-term plan for the area, not a literal stopgap measure like a fence. Mr. Norten was speaking from Germany, where he was attending the World Cup. "Look at Europe, where this is happening. Spain was a border country 10 years ago. Now it's part of a greater community."

Antoine Predock, based in Albuquerque, "dematerialized" the fence, he explained, with a physical wall designed as a mirage. An earthwork of rammed, tilted dirt would be pushed into place by Mexican day laborers. Crushed rock scattered before it, and heated from below, would appear to lift it off the ground, in the way that heat in the desert appears to make objects hover, like mirages.

"There would be confusion about the materiality of the wall," Mr. Predock explained. "It would discourage you from crossing, but the message from both sides would be one of good will." [/quote]

A pure gem.

and copy the "Embed" code. You have to fish for it a bit at vide.google.com but it's easier to find at YouTube. The code is at a "copy and paste" form at a column at the right-hand side of each video.

Keith Olberman has the lowest ratings on the whole TV scene. Who would listen to that idiot.
Yes, the would...sorry.

Coulter takes alot of glee is spewing the stuff that she does. She gives Republicans and conservatives a bad name. I don't find her witty or have any use for her. If we all lived in the world she wants it would be a scary place. Didn't she once say that she thought Bush was one of the smartest people she knew. Well that says it all doesn't it.

I started out a liberal in the 1960s, became a libertarian in the 1970s, then a conservative from 1980 onward. I have been in all camps, so I know and can empathize with virtually everyone in those camps. My motto - "He who was not a liberal before the age of 30 has no heart. He who is not a conservative after 30 has no brains." Attributed to Benjamin Disraeli in the late 1800s.

I find it very interesting that the major premise of Ann Coulter's latest book, that liberalism is in fact a religion, has been TOTALLY IGNORED by all commentators. Why not address this issue? Perhaps because she is right.

Consider: Every President who has held the office from Washington onward referenced God and the Bible (Old and New Testaments) with a frequency that would make modern holders of the office (and that include the Bushes and Reagan) seem like atheists, or at least agnostics. Yet I read about this fear of a theocracy at so many web logs based on the fact that W prays. Have you ever read Washington's speeches and letters? Lincoln's? Wilson's? FDR's? Kennedy's? The answer either has to be "no" or there is some kind of brainwash chemical they are adding to the water. Or, it has never been taught.

What I find most telling about progressives (having been one myself in the 60s remember) is just how reactionary they have become of late. Instead of addressing the substantive issues presented by Ann Coulter, Mark Steyn, Bernard Goldberg, William F. Buckley Jr., Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Rich Lowry, Rush Limbaugh, etc, little side issues are picked on. OK, Ann is abrasive, but does she have a point about liberalism being a religion? If it walks like a dog, barks like a dog, . . .

We conservatives need a viable adversary, but you libs are fast becoming a minority that will continue to lose elections and go the way of the Whig party if you continue to avoid the major points brought up by these people.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

1st 2 sentences of Declaration of Independence, attributing ALL RIGHTS TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO MEN BY GOD, THEIR CREATOR.

------------------------------------------

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Last 2 sentences of Declaration of Independence, referencing God twice, once as the Supreme Judge.

------------------------------------------
The body of
B. Franklin, Printer
(Like the Cover of an Old Book
Its Contents torn Out
And Stript of its Lettering and Gilding)
Lies Here, Food for Worms.
But the Work shall not be Lost;
For it will (as he Believ'd) Appear once more
In a New and More Elegant Edition
Revised and Corrected
By the Author.

Written by Franklin in 1728 as a mock epitaph.
A DIRECT REFERENCE TO THE RESURRECTED BODY
to be received at the Judgement, as prophecied
in the Holy Scriptures.

------------------------------------------

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

Final sentence, Washington's 1st Inaugural Address
God referenced 3 times, effectively stating his belief that He was ESSENTIAL to the success of the government.

---------------------------------------------
And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.

Last Sentence, John Adam's inaugural address

---------------------------------------------
Relying, then, on the patronage of your good will, I advance with obedience to the work, ready to retire from it whenever you become sensible how much better choice it is in your power to make. And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.

Last sentence, Jefferson's 1st inaugural address

----------------------------------------------
I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.

Last sentence, Jefferson's 2nd inaugural address
---------------------------------------------

But the source to which I look or the aids which alone can supply my deficiencies is in the well-tried intelligence and virtue of my fellow-citizens, and in the counsels of those representing them in the other departments associated in the care of the national interests. In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future.

Last sentences, James Madison, 1st inaugural address

---------------------------------------------

Relying on the aid to be derived from the other departments of the Government, I enter on the trust to which I have been called by the suffrages of my fellow-citizens with my fervent prayers to the Almighty that He will be graciously pleased to continue to us that protection which He has already so conspicuously displayed in our favor.

Last sentence, James Monroe, 1st inaugural address. He "fervently" prayed to God.

-------------------------------------------------

To the guidance of the legislative councils, to the assistance of the executive and subordinate departments, to the friendly cooperation of the respective State governments, to the candid and liberal support of the people so far as it may be deserved by honest industry and zeal, I shall look for whatever success may attend my public service; and knowing that "except the Lord keep the city the watchman waketh but in vain," with fervent supplications for His favor, to His overruling providence I commit with humble but fearless confidence my own fate and the future destinies of my country.

Last sentence, John Quincy Adams inaugural address.

-------------------------------------------------

Finally, it is my most fervent prayer to that Almighty Being before whom I now stand, and who has kept us in His hands from the infancy of our Republic to the present day, that He will so overrule all my intentions and actions and inspire the hearts of my fellow-citizens that we may be preserved from dangers of all kinds and continue forever a united and happy people.

Last sentence, Andrew Jackson, 2nd inaugural address.

------------------------------------------------

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

End of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

----------------------------------------------

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." 3
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Last 2 paragraph's of Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address. "God" found 6 times, King James Version scripture quoted directly twice.

------------------------------------------------
The custom of opening legislative sessions with a prayer began in the Continental
Congress, which elected Jacob Duche, Rector of Christ Episcopal Church in Philadelphia,
to serve as its chaplain from 1774 to 1776. Except for a brief period (described below),
both chambers have elected a chaplain since the First Congress in 1789. The House chose
William Lynn, a Presbyterian minister from Philadelphia, as its first chaplain, and the
Senate picked Samuel Provoost, Episcopal bishop from New York. Each received a
salary of $500. Until the mid-nineteenth century, the chaplains were not considered
officers of Congress. They were elected for a single session instead of an entire Congress
and worked alternately in each house, changing weekly.

The period without chaplains lasted from 1857 to 1859, when questions were raised
by citizens who objected to the employment of chaplains in Congress and the military as
a breach of the separation of church and state. Some critics also alleged that the
appointments of chaplains had become too politicized. Accordingly, local clergy
voluntarily served as chaplains.

http://senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20427.pdf
----------------------------------------------

I could have continued for page upon page.

Every Presidential inaugural address that I have read includes an invocation to the Almighty. Congress has had chaplains since the First Congress in 1789. God is usually referenced AS ESSENTIAL TO THE CONTINUED BLESSINGS THIS NATION HAS SEEN!!!!!

BTW, Lincoln's direct quotes of the Bible does not, to my way of thinking, qualify him in any way as an atheist or agnostic. What think ye?

Hardly the unreligious national beginning taught by so many.

mole333 writes:
"And yet, Thomas Jefferson specifically said that he doubts the existence of a deity."

I cannot find this with internet searches. Would like to see the reference. All I have are the numerous Jeffersonian references, not just to the Deity, but to Israel, Christ, the KJV of the Bible, etc. If TJ was an atheist or agnostic, he must also have been a schizophrenic.

That Washington was never seen praying in public or by his daughter must also be taken into context with his numerous references to the Christian Deity. Perhaps this will be enlightening:

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Matthew 6:5-6

Perhaps Washington took this passage SERIOUSLY?

My data concerning Congressional hiring of chaplains is not self-derived (i.e. just 'my claim'), but rather from an official Senate web page .pdf file. If there was indeed an incident during the first Congress wherein a vote refusing the hiring of chaplains was affirmed, I would suggest that history would not be much bent by assuming that the issue was not the 'chaplains' part, but rather the 'hiring' part, i.e. the paying of taxpayer's money for this purpose. This seems to have been the issue in the mid-1800s, see previously referenced document.

Ah, now we get to the non-Biblical issues. Bush is a 'divider'. Just to get the Biblical part of this one out of the way, a devout Jew or Christian is not ever admonished by God to be 'non-divisive'. He is admonished to stand where God wants him to stand. If that means being at odds with those around him, then so be it.

Now a story. A father finds his sons always fighting. He cannot figure it out. Despite constantly telling them to 'get along', the fights persist. Then one day he happens to overhear them start a fight. Actually, he hears the elder son provoke the younger one to an altercation. It turns out, the elder one is the fight starter, and now the father knows which one to address concerning this issue.

Bush came to office and almost immediately started to collaborate (as his father had before him) with opposition Democrats. He worked with Ted Kennedy on an education bill instead of pushing for school vouchers (much to my and other conservative's dismay) for one example. He was then continually fired at from the mainstream media, the liberal blogs, etc. about this 'no child left behind' program. So many more examples of this type of response to Bush exist. So, I ask, who is the true divider? Bush? Or the anti-Bush opposition?

"Most of the Founding Fathers did not consider themselves Christian so much as Deists. There were exceptions, of course. But most of the top names were Deists."

Time at this point does not permit me to go into this extensively as I would like. In my previous post, I quoted the first 5 presidents of this nation in their inaugural addresses. (Subsequent investigation of all inaugural addresses by all the Presidents shows that ALL US PRESIDENTS HAVE SO INVOKED THE DEITY IN THEIR INAUGURAL SPEECHES.)These first 5 were all Founding Fathers who had participated in the writing of our foundational documents. (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.) Their invocation of God is many times couched with direct quotes from the KJV of the Bible. Hardly 'just deists', and we know they were not Jewish, so what's left?

And that Lincoln could not only invoke the Deity, but also quote so liberally from the Bible (not the Koran, not the Tibetan Book of the Dead, not from Buddist, Hindu, or any other religion's text, just the Bible) seems to pretty much crush dead that data you have about the atheist tract Lincoln almost published. If he was an atheist, he joins Jefferson at the schizo ward of the local looney bin.

I will continue this post at a later time to address the 'separation of church and state' issue, because it is really at the heart of this whole issue.

I am a European that had lived for a time in New York between the age of 12 and 24. I do not know if there is a God or not, for me it is totally irrelevant. What I find repulsive is how religion has been used by various political forces around the world. The most extreme form of this is in the Middle East where it is used to justify either Palestinian suicide bombers or Jews ethnbically cleansing West Bank and Gaza. But that it is used in such a loathful and despicable way in USA that claims to be worlds most advanced, modern progressive nation truly baffles many of us Europeans. How can people like Anne Coulter and George Bush invoke God to continue their Anti- Arab Crusade- everybody knows that people are dying for oil and oil alone. How anachronistic and hypocritical is the Motto In god we Trust when there are so many deviants walking the streets of New York? Furthermore the custom of daily Pledge of Allegiance that is recited in American school is really not as harmless as it seems- it is a daily dose of brain washing propaganda that is often compared to extreme national movments of the 30s and 40s. All of this contributes to the dangerous idea that USA is somehow special- a city upon a hill- as the Puritans once self- rightously uttered- the fact is that USA is no longer a model democracy it once was and its actions since 1990 have eclipsed the worst excesses of Soviet imperialism. No country is special in this multipolar world and the rhetoric of Mr. Bush that"we must lead" or "who is not with us is against us", although intended mostly for domestic consumption incenses others "who are not so special". This idea of being special, somehow chosen by God to enlighten others by force if necessary has caused the current debacles in Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Venezuela and has prolonged Fidel Castros dictatorship- I was in Cuba as a tourist but also managed to speak to ordinary Cubans on the streets of Havana- they may dislike Communism but see Fidel Castro as someone who has brought them true independence from USA- Cuba might be poor but it is not a banana republic exploted by Wall Street magnates as other islands nearby are. The same anger inspired Venezuelans, the same thing makes Putin and Lukashenko popular, indeed too the regimes in Iran and Syria- they might be undemocratic but the locals now that the alternative- the so called USA backed "democracy" is far worse, as it is neither a democracy nor guarentee of prosperity- the example of Egypt is quintessential. Although I am an agnostic I think that those who so love to invoke God for their vile puropses are hated by God if he or she exists. And if they really believe in the Scriptures they know what fate God has prepared for those that are so hypocritical, one sided, self rightous to the point of obscenity as MS. COulter is- yes she is intelligent and quite witty to be sure, but so was Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and yes now the supposedly simpleminded Mr. Bush. Intelligence is a vice when it is used in such ways as the above individuals use it, it takes advantage of the ingrained prejudices and the latent evil that is present in all of us. And yes, I belive a man can be virtuous whether he or she attends church or not, becuase so many who fall on their knees every Sunday do it solely for public show and have no intention of doing it to others as you would have it done to you. The sad fact is that so many people who consider themselves religious have no concept of what it takes to be observant beyond rituals, they sacrifice their ideals- assuming they even know what they are- in the name of expediency and preach hypocrisy of the highest order- therefore people are told that homosexuals are a danger to society, that abortion is a moral crime when there are millions of unwanted babies that end up on garbage heaps and Ms. Coulter cries over an aborted baby while silmontaously delighting in the abuse meted out to those in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo because they are either "terrorists" or "infidels". I do not hope that Ms. Coulter will experience a spiritual conversion because the pull of the dollar is too strong a temptation, but I hope that those who consider themselves religious will actually for once try to balance their conscience and compare their record with what they alledgedly so fervently proffess to believe.