Book Review: Godless, by Anne Coulter
Friends,
Why are liberals so keen to disparage Anne Coulter’s latest book before the have even read it? Are they claiming to have read her new book by some form of telepathy? Such a claim would be no more outlandish than the rest of the baseless accusations made every day by an out of control liberal media.
Do liberals honestly expect us to believe their opinions have any validity? Their angry ranting just confirms exactly what we Republicans have always believed; Anne is on better form than ever with her latest book ?Godless”, a systematic debunking of the liberal belief-system.
Anne leaves no aspects of liberalism’s crumbling ideology unexamined. Her begins with an expose of ?liberal justice?. She shows how much liberals have undermined the notion that crime should be punished. She goes on to demonstrate that every one of today’s problems can be traced back to misguided liberal policies. Chief of which is the contradiction that it is wrong to punish a murderer with a death-sentence, but unborn innocents should be killed on a whim.
?Listening to liberals invoke the sanctity of ?science? to promote their crackpot ideas creates the same uneasy feeling as listening to Bill Clinton cite Scripture. Who are they kidding? Liberals hate science. Science might produce facts impervious to their crying and hysterics.”
A highlight of Anne’s book is a destrution of that icon of Liberal belief ?Darwinian Evolution”. STR.com has published more than one debunking of this obsolete theory, however Anne’s debunking is both inspired and refreshing:
She shows how the fossil record has been substantially mis-represented by chalk-covered, ivory-tower scientists. She reveals a massive conspiracy in which findings from paleontologists have been falsified for the last 100 years in order to justify the evil policies of Hitler and Marx. Once the so-called ?scientists” understand the implications of Anne’s revelations, I expect that many will abandon this absurd theory and embrace the mainstream.
One issue that Anne tackles in her latest book is the bizarre reaction from a small group of liberal wives of people who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Any sensible person would back our President’s attempts to hunt-down the perpetrators, but not these women. Anne quite correctly observes that these women have a grudge against our administration and will use anything, even the death of their husbands to score-points against our presidency.
I don’t think that’s a controversial opinion. We republicans have known that liberals are treacherous and untrustworthy for a long time. However as much as Anne’s book annoys liberals, she is merely stating a truth that every Republican has known since childhood.
We have seen so many times how angry liberals set out to destroy mainstream conservatives. Which of us could fail to be sickened by the liberal hate-campaigns against patriots like Tom DeLay. Did the liberals expect us to believe their lies about Scooter Libby, a man who wanted nothing more than to serve his country. Why then should we believe the absurd accusations against Miss Coulter?
Liberals accuse Anne of plagiarism and voter fraud. None of their accusations have been substantiated, as a matter of fact, Bill O’Reilly debunked these accusations in a recent ?talking point”, and yet the crazy liberals seem as content as ever to trash-talk one of our nation’s finest political writers.
If anything, the fact that the dishonest liberals have reacted with such spiteful vitriol to Anne’s sensible book proves that she has once again captured the spirit of the age. This is a book that should be in every Republican’s collection.
Yours in Christ,
Tristan J. Shuddery
25 comments
25 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Loading ...
the problem with lays and empirical science is they just don’t seem to understand what it means to do research on valid constructs.
dear Tristan,
first: from Newton to Damassio the apparati used to investigate are improved
second: the empirical attitude sees the world thrue the goggles of it’s own capabilities; when a methode to investigate becomes absolete or improved the attitude and available resources move scientists to re-evaluate the theories bases upon them.
let me clarifie this with an example to demonstrate the lay’s bias:
-imagine i know shelley very well and i tell you she and i got into a big fight while discussing something. you and i see or talk eachother anymore since i told you about that fight and a week later we meet again. you’ll propably ask me about my relation with shelley and it is possible shelley and i’ve already forgotten about i since day one. but you still assumes we are in a fight, even after a week. it’s even possible you’ll consider the inflamable relationship between shelley and me when you’ll organize a party even when it’s all forgotten between me and her.
i hope this has made you clear what the difficulty is. you’re maybe thinking now that you couldn’t know if nobody tells you and that’s the whole point. or you could be extremely sensitive in human relationships and just know shelley and i didn’t make a fight to damaging to our relation, or you could ask about it or you’ll get informed. those are the only ways to know about the situation and likewise for the scientific community. like the strength of a relationship is a measure to how informed you could be.
and in science that strength is accomplished through study and research. lots of it.
so, if you wish to debunk a well funded theory like neoDarwin-Mendelism (the combined theory about natural selection and genetics like it’s been called that way for a hundred years), perform some sessions of study on the topic.
don’t get informed by a chick with political intrests. even if she received a scientific education, it’s worthless if one didn’t open an on topic book about it since school:-)
This site reflects the detrimental effect that partisan thinking has had on the U.S.A.(not America) Rather than creating a “working” government to the benefit of the populace, it becomes a contest between a handful and shit-disturbers trying to scream the loudest. It is a downward spiral, and it is clear that your government will continue to fall apart, since this behaviour in encouraged to distract the populace from that glaring faults and outright criminal nature of your current administration.
I couldn’t say my opinion better ! The two firsts comments are full of wise.
However her book should NOT be censored in any way. Even stupid people are allowed to talk, sometimes they are the only way to stand wise people up.
How old is Anne Coulter? She is doing well for her age (:
Ann Coulter, mad as a badger but well worth a good hard seeing to.
Nulllogik June 20th, 2006 6:47 am
How old is Anne Coulter? She is doing well for her age (:
????????????? SHE ?????????????
I think you mean he dont you?
Well, guess I could disregard the whole spoof here and give an intelligent reply of what I think is wrong with the US of A in common and this woman in specific.
…but c’mon, she looks so hot! Plus the mentally disturbed are most fun.
Who’s your daddy?! Gotta have this woman!!!
Danny Crane
What I wouldn’t give to get jiggy with her!
Boy is she sexy…
You should not judge a book by its cover, even if it looks more like the “the life of a pre-op transsexual” than some stuff about religion.
smile ;-)
Well, like the first comment say, it’s useless to try to debunk darwinism, exept if you have some scientific credibility (and no, a few pages in a politically interested book is not scientific), as a scientist myself (a computer scientist, but a scientist anyway), it would take quite a lot of time to convince me that the evolution was not the way the world became what it is now (for your information, there are evolutionnary algorithms in computer science, which are inspired from darwinism. It works well, even if they are often not the best answer to a problem).
As for the 9-11 widows, it is their right not to support the president’s policy on the perpetrators. “hate the crime, but love the criminal”. Didn’t Jesus taught us that?
Yea, just to say in an arguement about anne coulter: “hey, you may side with her, but i did raw-dogg her once…”
No matter what, you win…
And all of this is under the ASSumption that anne is a she…
I could be wrong, thanks for the heads up coulter=devil….
The content of these comments show how air-headed the left has become! Brainwashed by the libral church in every facet of media for the past quarter-century, the orderies of the democratic party just follow their far-left national leadership into radicalism.
Wake up! I thank God that the majority of people are beginning to realize that this is a crock! The conservatives of the nation have realized that the left has taken over the media, and we’re finally starting to speak out against them with the same force they’ve been slandering us with, and the liberal machine, which still controls a large part of the media, is painting us as the bad guys, a threat to the nation, when the truth is that we’re just doing what they’ve been doing for the last 25 years — except we’re telling the truth.
Get over it, left-wingers, the conservative voice of America’s past is back, and we’re not going anywhere.
Is it me or does she look like a horse? Also, isn’t the site of a cross hanging above a plunging cleavage somewhat incongruous?
site/sight. Kill me.
Tristan,
One must confess, God in his knowing manner has installed inside of me a great desire. I have prayed and washed myself with coal tar soap, and I even sought the advice of an agony aunt in the Daily Mail, the preferred newspaper of people, who like myself, believe in the honest and truthful values of the right-wing in this country. It was all of no avail.
I write this confession blushing somewhat, for I believe I find myself desirous of your latest Republican heroine. She is truly a vision of shapeliness and vitality, a sleak frontrunner rallying our troops against the permissive liberal vacuum which threatens to tear apart the fabric of our society. Clearly her shape compliments her staunch moral fibre, and I am angered that the liberals would even try to argue with a woman this good-looking.
Not only has she captured the spirit of the age, but also my heart. I pray that she may enjoy swift and decisive victories and slay all who oppose her with great vengeance. I must now defend the sanctity of my soul against the onanistic onslaught I find myself gripped by.
Praise Be,
FreedomLover, of England
How could you call her sexy, she looks like a bloke.
Bet she takes it up the rusty bullet hole!!!
The thing I hate most about Ann Coulter, with her natty blonde hair, her cottage cheese thighs, and her grapefruit-sized adam’s apple, is that she has a way of turning ordinary progressive males such as myself into catty women.
Ooooh, I could just scratch her eyes out!
“Bet she takes it up the rusty bullet hole!!!”
HAHAHA AWESOME!!
Isnt it how republicans like it?
Or is that just some of them?
And airheaded? Why do you brand all of us Left? Damn, thats what Hitler did when he made all the jews wear symbols on their clothes.
In Mein Kampf (and i have read it, i am a firm believer in knowing one’s foes and the past) it says in order to win a conflict with the support of the people: You must constantly keep them afraid (and if you look above our “Terror index” is on yellow or orange, BTW what the fvck is with that?) and tell everyone who doesnt blindly support the war as “unpatriotic”
in that regard you are helping your president yes. but youre also acting like hitler.
you Nazi
And Anne is nothing that a paper bag or two (one for your head just in case the one on her’s falls off) cant help…
If Ann Coulter cannot shut her blasphemous mouth for one day, I assure you that I will embrace the genocide of Republican America.
Well, Nulllogik, when a review over a political book receives comments that are directed to personally insult the author without actually tackling the issues, I would call those commentators which are mudslinging so, airheaded. Either they don’t care and shouldn’t be commenting in the first place, or they’re just too ignorant to have an intelligent discussion over the matter. I’ll respect a person who knows what they’re talking about, and when personal attacks can be backed up by evidence of their behavior and character. That’s what Ann does. Since it’s what she does, attack her personally as much as you want, just use it to discuss the issue.
#
Fiend wrote:
“If Ann Coulter cannot shut her blasphemous mouth for one day, I assure you that I will embrace the genocide of Republican America.
Posted on 20-Jun-06 at 7:51 pm | Permalink”
no genocide, but mass sterilization and deportation to the halliburton detention camps
Hey kids ! You want to see the stupidest woman on the planet ? Here she is : Ann Coulter in all her republican stupidity. She even fights against her own rights … I’m starting to believe that’s a man in disguise.
Ben Amis,
Coulter doesn’t back up what she says. Coulter is a shallow, narrow minded shock jock that is simply trying to push buttons.
For instance, her comments about the 911 wives was absolutely uncalled for. The reason noone responds the the ridiculous point she was making is that no one is arguing for it. Noone thinks that the 911 wives have a stronger argument because they are victims. But if they want to pull some heartstrings to influence people by showing the human side to the story, then certainly, they have just as much right as Coulter to speak their mind, don’t they?
Coulter does nothing except shock people so her book sells. Coulter’s commment that they are enjoying their husbands deaths could have been expressed by simply saying that simply because they were victims doesn’t mean that they have a more valid argument. But then again, such respectful dialogue probably wouldn’t sell books to her constituency who relish in the venom she spews. How better to defeat an opponent than to dehumanize them. She doesn’t even speak of liberals as americans, or even humans.
I would enjoy learning that Coulter has been seriously hurt.
One wonders whether Ms. Coulter’s looks are a plus that sells books or a minus for the logic-challenged who then go for the cheap sex attacks on her that have nothing to do with the content of her writing.
For me, the history of liberalism is frought with people who gather, mostly in urban areas, and decide that their world view is the right one. Never mind that this view pretty much runs counter to the Judeo-Christian ethics that have been in place for a couple of thousand years now. From that standpoint it is more of an anti-relgion than a religion, but what all America tends to deplore is extemeism connected with the far left, as well as the far right.
To me it’s a matter of who is scarier: If you can choose between someone who rails against people who they think act contrary to the tenets upon which our nation was founded, or you can choose someone who thinks animals are the same as people or that it’s ok to kill babies or that the environment is more important than people,ad nausium. To most of us, the religious right is simply less scary.
In the past it was allowable to see people of faith as also possessed of an intellect, but apparently no more. Intellect is often deemed the sole possesion of those who gather around the new urban round tables and decide that any self-serving behavior can be justified, so long as we call it the politically correct thing. The more we advertise this new age behavior, the more it becomes a fact for those who just want what they want and can’t see why the people in those backward red states don’t see it the same way.
In a choice between the old and the new religion, give me a Christian extemist any day, even if I may not want to go quite as far as either side would have me go.