Thursday, June 08, 2006

Ann Coulter: The Anorexic Witch

A book review by Nevada Jack

As a rule, my sidekick Sage doesn’t review books that he hasn’t read. He asked if I would report on Ann Coulter’s new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. I was happy to oblige, after all, everyone knows that bears don’t read and besides, as a carnivore, I like a little more meat on the thighs than Sage.

Ann Coulter is an anorexic bitch for the far right. Her book, calling liberalism godless and suggesting that the widows of 911 who disagree with her and the president are “witches” who are “enjoying their husband’s death,” is not only outrageous and untrue; it’s also tacky and hypocritical. Ann makes the Pharisees of old look down right noble. Not only is her argument flawed, but she herself is doing what she finds so outrageous in others. She is a first class hypocrite. She accuses some of the 911 widows of seeking publicity from their husband’s death to push their own political agenda, as if they don’t have a right to challenge the policies of our present administration. If that’s the case, what gives Ms. Legs the right to support such a disastrous policy? Ann, to recall the words of Jesus, take the log out of your own eye before you try to correct others.

But her treatment of the widows is only the tip of the ice berg. According to reviews of her book and her ubiquitous presence in the electronic media, this venomous Barbie blasted liberalism for being a religion with its own creation myth (evolution), high priest (teachers) and virgin sacrifices (abortion). She has even ripped into concerns about their environmental concerns, suggesting that those who advocate waterless toilets (that compose sewage) want to live with worms. She's created an liberal strawman that doesn't exist.

Ann claims to be a Christian, and even claims to know something about the faith. One review of her book quotes from page three:

"Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others."

Jews are Christians? Of course, that would only be Jews who agree with High Priestess Coulter. This is nonsense. Not only is Coulter an offense to intelligent political dialogue from the right (for our society to work, we need to have intelligent dialogue from all sides), she is also an offense to the Christian faith to which I claim membership. Although I’m sure I wouldn’t be accepted in her church, I happen to think I know a bit about the faith, probably a bit more than she does. First off, in the Hebrew Scriptures (which both Jews and Christian ascribe), there is strong admonishment to take care of the “widows, orphans and foreigners.” Ms. Coulter recent sermons fail on the first two accounts and I can only imagine what her immigration thoughts might be. Secondly, when did right-wing ideology become the “mark of a Christian?” The evangelical faith has been hijacked by the political right. Coulter is not to blame for this, there are been plenty of folks inside the walls, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Fawell and James Dobson, who betrayed the faith to the right wing of the Republican party with a kiss that would make Judas proud. To be a Christian, one has to admit one’s own sinfulness (ie, Ms. Coulter, you’re not always right), one has to admit the need of a savior (no pulling yourself up by the bootstrap myths) and accept of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (which means you not only believe in him, you strive to follow his teachings and example).

Ms. Coulter’s god is not the God of Abraham, it’s the golden calf. This lady worships money. She’s laughing all the way to the bank. She’s making these outlandish comments because she knows it will generate exposure (with her mini-skirts, she should know something about that). In the end, she will sell more books and store up more treasures on earth. If she’s serious about being a Christian, maybe she should review Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. No where in the beautitutes does he say "Blessed are the Republicans" or even "Blessed are the Americans."

For Nevada Jack's previous rants about Ms. Coulter, click here. Yeah, it's a satire based around dark beer, but keep to the end of the article and you'll get to Coulter.

For a couple of other good takes on this, check out Scribe at Independent Christian Voice and Panthergirl.


  1. Tried this once before...blogger comments are being very wonky today.

    Excellent post. Thanks for exposing this scarecrow for what she is!

  2. Ann Coulter is absolutely right in her description of liberals. Liberalism is essentially a fantatical religion. Liberals do act as though the state is their religion, and their only goal is to increase it through confiscatory taxation. It's unfortunate that we have to let any liberals live in America.

  3. *wild applause* Fabulous review and wonderful assessment of the mean-spirited Coulter.

  4. Panthergirl, you have a good review too and I encourage everyone to go over to her site and read her review.

    I'm not sure what's up with Blogger. I've had a lot of problems posting comments for the past two days and wasn't able to post Nevada Jack's picture this morning when I posted this.

    Hating America: You never challenged one of my ideas, you only threw out rhetoric with no substance. And your ending comment on wishing you didn't have to let liberals live in America is a dangerous ideal that puts you in the good company of the Nazi's and other hate groups. Who is the one hating who here? From what little you wrote, it appears to me that you have no concept of American ideals or Jesus' teachings.

    Karen and Dawn, I know where the two of you stand!

  5. I can't stand that woman!

    And how do people say they are christians but have no love, forgiveness, kindness in them. It's bull.

  6. I'm not going to write about her. She makes me so darn mad I can't see straight.

  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  8. The irony is so thick I could cut it with a knife.
    NJ states Ann Coulter is an anorexic bitch and this venomous Barbie then Coulter an offense to intelligent political dialogue from the right

    Ever consider that perhaps you are an offense to intelligent political dialogue from the left? It appears that Coulter isn't the only one *ignorant* to Jesus' teachings-I don't believe he ever spoke of anyone this way.

    I certainly would've thought your argument would've been stronger than 'gee, she's a bitch'....clearly it isn't!

  9. There's a reason you should read a book before you write a review of it.

    You've taken several statements of hers out of context. I agree with Ms. Coulter wholeheartedly and applaude her willingness to speak the truth.

  10. Deana, I hate what Coulter does to me, for she always gets my blood pressure up and I don't feel to charitable.

    Kenju, I know the feeling.

    Daydreamer, my argument is stronger than "she's a bitch," as I make my case. This is not language I throw around easily. Actually, to be more correct, I should have said she's a whore for she's willing to say and do anything to sell books.

    As for Jesus, he reserved his strongest criticism for hypocrites--those who claimed to be righteous and clearly were not--and I think he'd have some harsh words for her. And I can only imagine what John the Baptist would have said.

  11. Sage,
    If your argument is stronger than that, you have not presented it here.

    Re this statement: she's a whore for she's willing to say and do anything to sell books
    Well Michael Berg's willing to say and do anything to win a political seat (which is the sort of thing Coulter was referring to in the first place which in turn makes it so hysterical for you to call her a hypocrite!)

    As far as I know, the most *Jesus-like* thing for you to do would be to pray for her soul not come on here telling me what a hypocrite she is when (by your own account) you haven't even read the book in question!

  12. jesus never just sat at home praying he went out and tried to teach. educate and help people which is exactly whats going on here.

    great post. good arguments, and ann coulter is an evil minded, hypocritical, whore wants to turn her own country in a facist state using god as an excuse. that is dispicable.

    she's gonna need a lot more than prayers. and so is america. and so is the rest of the world if we want to have any kind of freedom and compassion and seperation of religion and state.
    coultier is calling for the same kind of conservatism that we see in the middle east. do you really want to live like that?

    thank you sage and nevada jack!

  13. Stitches: (Daydreamers mother?) Why don't you show me where I am taking her statements out of context (btw, I saw her being interviewed on TV in the gym the other day and couldn't believe it, I have also read a lot of her columns).

    Daydreamer, my cycnism toward politics says that most all politicans are, to one degree or another, whores--they are all willing to "please" to get votes or to sell books. Some are more statesman/woman like than others, but they are rare.

    As far as Jesus having harsh words for those who are hypocrites, look up the folowing: Matthew 7:15-23 12:38-40 (on devouring widows), 23:13-36 (especially verses 27-28-beauty on the outside, death and filth on the inside). For John the Baptist harsh words, look at Luke 3:7-20. Evil must be confronted!

    Keda, you wrote, "coultier is calling for the same kind of conservatism that we see in the middle east" I think you're right and you can see that in the second reply to his post, from the guy who claims Democrats Hate America.

  14. Keda,
    Another thing he did was treat people with common respect. You're all bitching about Coulter disrespecting while simultaneously disrespecting her. Is that to mean that only people who disagree with her are allowed to behave this way?

    You know it's futile trying to quote me scripture. I am commenting on your hypocrisy.

    Yes, most politicians are willing to *please*. Most of them don't have a son who got his head chopped off with a machete by a radical psychopathic nut either-then proceed to defend the psychopathic nut to try to win votes.

    If you think Coulter is worse than that, I think there's a problem somewhere.

  15. Daydreamer, she's the one who "fired" the first volley, attacking the 911 widows and others, the attacks on Coulter are from those of us who are appalled at her self-righteous arrogrance which makes her a hypocrite. Maybe I shouldn't have been as abrupt with my rhetoric, but sometimes fire has to be fought with fire.

    As for me "quoting scripture," why don't you check it out. You had challenged me by saying Jesus would not have said such things to Coulter and I responded with examples of him saying some unkind things to hypocrites.

    You wrote: "If you think Coulter is worse than that, I think there's a problem somewhere." You are making comparisons and using it as a red herring. The issue here isn't some AU politican or a father of a man who lost his life in Iraq, the issue is Ann Coulter and her lack of sensitive toward anyone who disagrees with her.

  16. Sage,
    Who is the AU politician you are referring to? If you don't know who Michael Berg is then I can sort of understand how you've come to the conclusions that you have. I'm curious as to whether you all support Ward Churchill and Cindy Sheehan.

    I don't own a Bible to look scriptures up in. But I'm also not using the Bible as a basis for my argument. I simply said that it sounds like nonsense to use it as yours.

    I will try once again to explicitly outline the problem with your argument in the simplest way I can: You say your problem with Coulter is that she's accusing someone of 'profiteering'. Then you accuse her of profiteering.

    Come on now. You're all just so angry that you can't see the problems with your own behaviour.

  17. I was going to bite my tongue but I've officially had my fill.

    Daydreamer: This so-called "debate" is pathetic. You're instigating. You're better than these close minded comments that you're making. Either debate, stop scapegoating and pick a fight with the actual person who ticked you off today or walk away, thinking how disillusioned everyone is.

    Also, regarding this earlier comment that you made: As far as I know, the most *Jesus-like* thing for you to do would be to pray for her soul not come on here telling me what a hypocrite she is when (by your own account) you haven't even read the book in question! This "here" is Sage's blog where he (or any of his friends or alteregos) can write what he wants. If you don't like it, don't read it.

    If anyone wants me, I'm back down reading about Bob Evans' idea of eggs benedict. Let me know when all this childish b.s. is over with.

  18. Ok, Daydreamer, I admit, I wrote quickly and didn't think about who Berg is, but yes, I do support his and Sheehan's right to fight the Iraq War. If that's the way they want to grieve the death of their children, that's fine. Other parents have fought against drunk drivers after losing a child in an accident. Isn't this similar--they think that it was wrong for us to go into Iraq (which I've maintained along all, btw). They are hoping their efforts prevent other deaths. Now, sometimes their tactics are over the top, but as long as they remain inside the boundary of the law, they have the right to protest. But then again, this is a red herring to take the heat off Coulter--whom we're supposedly debating here.

    YOU SAID: "I will try once again to explicitly outline the problem with your argument in the simplest way I can: You say your problem with Coulter is that she's accusing someone of 'profiteering'. Then you accuse her of profiteering"

    What's wrong with that? I accused her of being a hypocrite and which is accusing someone else of what they are guilty themselves of. Coulter published the book with all her nasty remarks. If I am taking the quotes out of context, then put them into context and show where I'm wrong with her intent and enlighten us as to her kind and gentle side. I don't think you can do it.

    btw, I'm actually not angry writing this, which is a change for me. Are you angry?

    Murf, have you tried the recipe yet?

  19. Wow, this was an intense experience. I came here from Michele's and I went through a huge range of emotions while reading all the comments. I feel a little like Murf. After a while I just thought, shit, this is Sage's blog... and ok, how do I say this... ? Well, blogs are written slightly differently than say articles for a magazine, hence the use of "bitch" and "whore." I still think you fought your argument, and if you had been writing for the NYTimes, you would have used less of the profane language and filled in a little bit more of the beef where misunderstandings could be made. I mean, blogging is kind of like talking to faceless friends of world... and in that there are things left unsaid and understandings made. I agree that Daydreamer was kind of trying to pick a fight, but it was interesting nonetheless. I still haven't gotten over the democrats hate america comment though. Do these people really exist? I don't know any! Also, it took me a while to get over the Jewish are Christians bit. Whew. I think I best hit the sak for tonight. Sorry I don't have much to add, but I don't know enough to say, other than I'm boggled by these super-right-wing people who may as well be aliens to me. I am shocked. Shocked.

  20. Murf,

    I think Sage is perfectly aware that when I said come on here that I was merely meaning responding in this way.

    I don't want to hear only from people who agree with me. That gets very boring. Which is why I thought I'd cause a bit of a stir on here & get people talking.

    Why does it have to be 'instigating' if I disagree with someone? Or do you want me to shut up because I don't hold the same belief as you?

    That's about the most close-minded point of view I can imagine.


    You know me. I'd never get mad about it. I always laugh when we do this (as you know I've done many times in the past). I thought you might enjoy a little controversy :) Clearly some of your dedicated readers can't handle the heat so I'll leave it be.

  21. Bobealia...I don't know this Democrats hate America person, however I do know lots of Democrats (personally) who hate America and say so.

    Sage....yes the evil Mom. lol
    As for taking it out of context, you took one sentence without the lead in or the other details that explained the statement. Anyone who hasn't read the book and only hears the one-liners miss the message entirely.

    Whether or not someone is entitled to their grief or to use their loss in a productive way to lobby for a change they believe in, was never in question IMO.

    What was questioned by Ann Coulter is the fact that certain people don't stop there. They say they're a victim and they want a particular thing to change and then start throwing in side items. (And I'm not questioning anyone's right to argue any point at any time or 10 points within one sentence if they so choose) But when you go public as a victim and then make a stand on unrelated issues, you shouldn't feel you have immunity from challenge because of your victimhood. Ms. Coulter feels that the far left is using these people and I agree.

    As Ann Coulter said...John Walsh used his grief in a productive way but he didn't use his loss to further his other political opinions.

    Having said that, I agree that Ann Coulter could have used a better choice of words in expressing her message, if only to avoid the crazed hatred now going on. But on the other hand, she doesn't really give a shit what anyone thinks of her. She's ballsy and tells it like it is, or how she perceives it to be. I like that.
    So my question to you is this, were the comments of Cindy Sheehan, the 9/11 widows or Michael Berg about America and GWB any less tasteless because they were victims and Ms Coulter wasn't?

    Cindy Sheehan in particular. Her own husband divorced her over her radical views. Her son died fighting a cause he believed in. His mother diminishes his loss by laying herself out on his grave in a Vanity Fair photo shoot and saying he died for nothing. The fact is, he was his own separate person from his mother, and while she didn't want him to enlist he chose to. He believed in the cause. She has no right to use him in her argument for which he did not agree.

    As for Michael Berg and his extreme pacifism, I can only say that whether or not you agree with the Iraq War, you cannot argue the fact that me being able to say these things now, or Michael Berg, or Cindy Sheehan or Ann's all on the blood of men who have gone before us. Dedicated, courageous men who died bloody, horrible deaths for the freedom they believed in. I thank God for men like that.

  22. My first rant here is to complain about blogger. I wrote a long post and then, when I went to post it, got an error message and it was lost! Now I have to recreate what I said earlier…

    I would like to make a few observations about the debate that has gone on here as well as my intentions in my original post. Let me also say that although I have not read this book (which I admitted earlier), I have read lots of Coulter’s columns, including her own “book review” of this book.

    I was hoping my post did three things.

    1. Challenge Coulter’s abrasive style and the way she demonizes her opponents
    2. Challenge Coulter’s concept of what it means to be a Christian and a follower of Jesus
    3. Point out Coulter’s hypocrisy

    I will have to admit that my calling Coulter a bitch and other names was tit-for-tat and, as Daydreamer pointed out, weakened my overall argument. I don’t use words like “bitch” very often and when I do, I generally end up regretting it. I confess that my use of the word while arguing for the higher moral ground was hypocritical. The word became my own “red herring,” distracting some of my readers from the main thrust of my argument.

    That aside, I still think Coulter as well as folks like Democrats Hate America (the second reply to this post) are dangerous to both American and Christian ideals.

    I find it interesting that few (Keda being the most notable exception) discussed the larger thrust of my argument, challenging Coulter’s self-proclaimed “Christian faith” based on what and how she says things. Although I am a Christian, I find using the term less and less because I don’t want to be associated with many who claim to be one. That’s why I often refer to myself as a “follower of Jesus.” And yes, Jesus did get right testy at times, especially when confronted with self-righteous folks who claimed to be religious. I know I make mistakes, I know I’m not as good as I’d like to be or should be, I know I am sometimes wrong. To me, Coulter and those like her seem too self-assured about their actions which, in my opinion, should be cause for alarm. Secondly, my quote from Coulter, where she includes Jews who agree with her as Christians is just outright nonsense and offensive to both faiths.

  23. Now a few personal comments:

    Bobealia: I’m sorry your “baptism” into my blog was one of fire. I don’t often right about politics and when I do, I’m normally writing satire. This is one of the few serious pieces I’ve written. Thanks for replying and unfortunately, there are people like the “Democrats Hate America” guy who do advocate such hate.

    Murf, thanks for the defense here, which was most unexpectedly after you challenged me for being unfaithful to a girlfriend of 30 years ago in my post on Linda! I don’t mind having a debate, but prefer the debate to stick to the subject. I was also shocked that you joined in on a political discussion!

    Daydreamer: I’m glad you’re laughing about this! Your refusal to deal with issues of faith made a debate impossible, because it from that arena that I had based most of my challenge of Coulter.

    Stitches, I never said you were Daydreamer’s evil mom, but I wondered after looking at your blog and know she was from GA. Berg is a pacifist, I think he’s a Mennonite and they are pacifist by nature of their faith and I respect them for that. One of the things that bothers me about this war (and it has a lot to due with growing up in the Vietnam and Nixon era, is that I’m hearing the same arguments as I heard in Jr. & Sr. High—if we leave now, the blood of those shed is in vain. I hope I’m proved wrong, but history often determines that those who die in battle die in vain. Yes, we have to honor those who serve, but we also have to be willing to continually examine our motives and our expectations and if necessary, change course. BTW, I’m not a pacifist. I don’t think we can immediately withdraw from Iraq, but I think it was a mistake for us to get into the mess there and I think we need to get out as soon as possible. I supported the war in Afghanistan, but not the war in Iraq.

  24. Hi again, wow, stitches made a convincing argument. Like I said, I don't know enought to comment, but as a Canadian living in the U.S. I find that the country is relatively unaware of the war in general. I'm glad to read your debates here because for the most part I feel that the U.S. forgets they are in a war that is costing them a lot of money and lives.
    Blogger has been shit lately, so what I do is copy what I'm about to post, and if it shits out on me, I paste it in and try again. I'll do it right now...

  25. Wow. I wish I had been here to add my two cents worth. I love a good debate but it has also been my undoing too so it is probably just as well.

  26. I have read this blog and comments from top to bottom and found a lot of missed opportunities to clarify and bring progress to the various debates.

    First of all, it is true that Christians are not the same thing as Conservatives nor Conservatives the same thing as Christians. And as for being hypocrites, I doubt any of us are perfect in that score. Hypocrisy is the universal sin. So it does little to point out the obvious and generally side-tracks the whole debate since it an “ad hominem” remark – a remark attacking the arguer rather than the argument.

    Second, there are three chief debates, as I see it, in this blog. One concerns the proper and even “Christian” modes of discussion/argument. To the degree people feel passionate about one side or the other they often choose words and phrases which elicit just as strong feelings in their opponents. This sells books and brings readers into the fray, if you will. Unfortunately it also makes it difficult for those who are leading the charge to admit they may be going the wrong direction. Is it ever proper to characterize a person using a derogatory name? Probably, but only after producing enough clear evidence that the reader can see why you use the term. On the other hand, if you use examples of things done and said to illustrate your point maybe the word need not be spoken at all and you can leave your reader to draw their own conclusions. Calling anybody a name without producing significant evidence is unwise. And in Coulter case a single indirect quote or two is hardly persuasive. If you want to make a case that Cindy Sheehan or Berg “hates America” find out where they say so and quote it – or at least lay out some examples and let us draw our own conclusions.

    Of course, this is a personal blog. On the other hand, it is not restricted, but put out into the “public” and thus is something of a cross between a private musing and a public declaration. In the blog world the rules are looser, but they are also more restricted than purely private conversations.

    The second debate, as I see it, surrounds the question of what a person, grieving or not, should expect if they enter into a public forum and take a public position. Legally they give up a lot and you can pretty much call them any name you want so long as you don’t really try to convince people that they are in fact whatever you are calling them. That’s libel and you had better have your ducks in a row before you do something like that, even in a blog. But as for everything else, its open season. So it Coulter, Berg, Sheehan or anybody else enters the fray they should expect to take hits. Unfortunately it the nature of public debate, and has generally been so ever since people began discussing who was responsible for maintaining the paths between caves.

    The third debate is related. It has to do with what we do with those who are grieving. What respect and deference they should be allowed, especially when they are grieving over what the believe, and maybe we also believe, to be a senseless or unfair death. Coulter obviously believes, as she stated in a radio discussion I heard, that if the grieving decide to use their loss as a political platform (a decision which is, in itself, not necessarily wrong) they have decided to enter into the public fray. Having done so, I believe Coulter would say, they cannot “hide behind” their grief and take “pot shots” at their opponents all the while expecting their opponents to refrain from returning fire. To Coulter the grieving widows and mothers should be honored in their grief – right up to the point they use that grief to shield themselves from counter-attack – which is what she claims the left is doing. She further argues that this use of the grief shield is unfair. She said, in one interview, that its use leaves the opponents with no effective room from which to argue. If you attack what the grieving have said, she argued, you are seen as having attacked the grieving. Obviously to attack the grieving is mean spirited and hateful. But is attacking their positions, their words, and their actions the same thing? Ms Coulter claims it is not. In that I believe she has a point.

    On the other hand, using grief as a springboard for discussion, political or otherwise, is nothing new. It is a time-honored way of honoring the dead by changing that which is perceived to have caused their usually senseless death. I don’t believe Coulter argues against their right to speak, but she does take issue on the range of their comments – some of which even the left have found nearer the edge of decency than perhaps they would like. In other words, do the grieving, having suffered a blow from one source, therefore have free access to comment on a wider range of social ills – even on things having nothing to do directly with the cause of their grief? What authority does the grief of a war widow give to the widow in speaking on educational issues? On environmental issues? And if a person uses their grieving position to attack others is that behavior acceptable or is it a form of opportunism?

    In the end, the underlying question is: what are acceptable sources of persuasion in a public debate. Is it acceptable to use my sympathy for your loss to get me to listen to you on matters having nothing to do with that loss? Should the fact that you are suffering be a more important factor in my view than, say economic, political, and social measurements and the arguments derived from them? By appealing to their grief the grieving widows and mothers answer in the affirmative. They say that their grief should persuade me, often in spite of their weak arguments (after all these are not professional debaters). Ms. Coulter says their grief should be noted, but their arguments should be refuted.

    So there it is, from my perspective. What do I believe? I believe in the right to speak, whatever your current state. I believe in the right to even call public figures names. What I don’t believe is that it is necessary to call names. It is not necessary to debate as if you opponent is morally suspect (even if he or she is), or your audience idiots (even if they are). It is not necessary to present your opinion as if you are God (unless you are, of course). Humility and slow, careful, reflection on the issue at hand may be more boring, but it is also, I believe, more effective.

  27. I invite you to write a short review of a new e-book Land of Canaan: Ancient Hope for Future Peace. You can see the full text free at online. Let me know what you think.