Tuesday, January 19, 2010

In Defense of Ann Coulter

Our friend Pat Robertson isn't the only defender of the right under attack by the liberal media. Ann Coulter has been blasted from the left for turning the issue of aid to Haiti into a political one, decrying President Clinton as "the horny hick" and referring to his involvement in an attempt to help the millions suffering in Haiti as a "shame and embarrassment." Just as the liberals have decried Mr. Robertson, they have gone after Ms. Coulter without fully understanding her. I will attempt to explain.
In her new best seller Guilty, she says "Liberals always have to be the victims, particularly when they are oppressing others. Modern victims aren’t victims because of what they have suffered; they are victims of convenience for the Left." In other words, the liberals think the victims in Haiti are conveniently suffering to promote the liberal agenda. Swiftly, we are propelled from point A to point B. Point A: earthquake running full tilt to point B: political opportunity for liberals. She continues, "There’s no way to determine if an action is offensive by looking at the action. One must know who did it to whom, and whose side the most powerful people in America will take." She means that sending the "horny hick" to Haiti is offensive because powerful liberals sent him, and he will probably do something gross to embarrass the Godly.

9 comments:

wfp in W-by-GOD-V! said...

Interesting perspective by Ann. You know, I thought that only God could manage an earthquake, but since liberals don't own God like we do, there must be someone/thing else that can call down an earthquake. I suppose it could be the gates of hell splitting wide open with all of the liberal souls that condemned themselves to hell by voting for Barack Hussein Obama. With his birth in a 3rd world region, he must certainly also be an agent of voodoo...

Reggie N. said...

Good point marvene. The liberals were soo excited about the tragedy in Haiti and try to paint us conservatives as being insensitive or uncompassionate. Then they twist the words of good ole Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter. Have the liberals no shame??

Anonymous said...

What happened with your trial? Did you prove President Obama was born in Hawaii? No news is good news... You people are hateful idiots.

Bachmann2012 said...

Anonymous:

Attorney General Eric Holder has been ignoring the allegations that Barack Hussein Obama is not a U.S. citizen. Obstruction at it's best!
Consequently, Orly Taitz has rightly filed a new suit in D.C. District Court Wednesday: Dr. Orly Taitz v. Barack Hussein Obama. Just because the liberal media ignores these trials and court filings does not mean Obama is legit!!

Derek said...

You didn't answer my question. What happened to the trial on January 10th?

You reposted the picture of Jesus pissing into the clouds. Why? It's sick.

Anonymous said...

You didn't answer my question. What happened to the trial on January 10th?

You reposted the picture of Jesus pissing into the clouds. Why? It's sick.

Bachmann2012 said...

Great, your name is Derek!
And enough with the pictures!! You are a total jerk butt and/or troll for diverting the topics at hand over YOUR perception. Project much? And for your idiotic question, there's a thing called Google. Use it!

Anonymous said...

Who is the idiot now? "Disputing Obama's Hawaiian birth, Berg claimed Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or that he became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a young child.

For his part, Obama has posted on his Web site a Certificate of Live Birth indicating he was born in Honolulu in 1961.

In his ruling, Surrick said Berg lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. The judge also said that the harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

Reggie N. said...

Whatever Anonymous, I mean Derek. LOL.

Anyway, what do we care about some liberal activist judge making some biased ruling to hurt a conservative and defy the Constitution. I say this although I have no direct knowledge that this judge could be so described. But clearly, there are no conservative justices that could be described as activist , biased, and unconstitutional. At least nothing in recent memory, I'm pretty sure on that. So in summation, who cares what this liberal judge says, he is just biased and violating the Constitution.

.

‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›