Oh my! How rude!
Ann Coulter has dared to tell the truth about the Democrat political ploy of trotting out “widows and orphans” to make their anti-President Bush, anti-military, anti-America arguments under the assumption that their status of “victimhood” would protect them from any direct criticism.
As a reward for this truth-telling, she has been loudly reviled by the paleo-media pundits and such “moderate” (read lift-wing) luminaries as New York Governor Pataki, the “Prince of Pretense” Bill O’Reilly, Hilary “Stand by Your Man” Clinton, and, of course, the numerous extreme left-wing blogsites.
These critics are aided and abetted in their campaign by a press that carefully edits the words of Miss Coulter to convey the impression that, rather than simply criticizing those four women, she was attacking all 9/11 widows, something patently and demonstrably not true.
Lies are ever the currency of the left.
The MSM would have you believe that these four, self-labeled “The Jersey Girls” are speaking for all women who lost their husbands in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. However, the fact is that these hateful political activists have been roundly criticized by many of their fellow sufferers.
That kind of straw man attack tactic is typical of liberals. They accuse someone of saying something they didn’t say then attack them for saying it. They are incapable of making their arguments without lies or distortion, because they are attacking someone who is telling the truth.
We have been treated to an endless parade of “unassailable” hate mongers hiding behind the screen of their own self-proclaimed suffering or military experience. The so-called “Jersey Girls,” Cindy Sheehan, Max Cleland, John “Mad Captain Jack” Murtha, John “Purple Heart” Kerry-Heinz (he served in Vietnam, you know); no matter how shrill and venomous their accusations and hate speech, we are not to dare criticize them.
This is nothing more than a new variation of the old worn out “chicken-hawk” argument. It is the false claim that you cannot comment on some event, unless you have been personally touched by that event. This is pure horse-hockey. These “victims” have injected themselves into the discours politique and are therefore legitimate targets for criticism.
I, of course, have never felt any compunction in attacking these false spokesmen. Cindy Sheehan, the mother of fallen American hero Casey Sheehan, was so intensely saddened by her son’s death that she failed to erect a monument on his grave; rather, she threw herself into a self-aggrandizing stalking campaign of hatred and slander against President Bush, virtually accusing him of pulling the trigger of the gun that killed young Casey.
A woman who can so callously abandon her family to their sorrows so that she can become a heroine of the left deserves no sympathy, only contempt. The same holds true for these “Jersey Girls.” I haven’t heard that any of these grieving widows has refused or returned any of the millions of dollars, much of which came from this “evil government” they seem so avid to denounce.
Again, people who place themselves in the position to be the faces of the Democrat political agenda by their own efforts (even “widows and orphans”), cannot be considered immune to criticism. Those on the left, who routinely level far more hateful personal attacks against President Bush on a daily basis, most sourced in lies and distortions, are suddenly outraged when someone on the right dares to criticize, or even worse, state the truth about their liberal icons.
Are we supposed to let Representative John Murtha’s scurrilous attacks against President Bush and the troops in Iraq go unanswered simply because he served in Vietnam? Are we supposed to allow Senator John “Kerry-Heinz’s lies to go unanswered simply because he received a Purple Heart for a (self-inflicted) wound during his short stay in Vietnam?
Not a chance. Representative Murtha’s cowardly cut and run strategy for losing the war in Iraq deserves to be slammed for the evil it is. I will remind the readers that this same John Murtha was instrumental in our cut and run strategy in Somalia . . . yep, that was his recommendation. Such cowardly advice deserves and will receive no quarter from me or any other truth teller.
Are we to excuse Senator Kerry-Heinz’s tow-faced stands on the Iraq War and his vote against funding the troops in Iraq (he actually “voted for the funding before [he] voted against it”] because he spent a few months in Vietnam?
Not I. While I salute those who chose to serve for their willingness to do so, these acts of selflessness in no way insulate them from criticism of their subsequent actions and speeches.
As Miss Coulter said, the Democrats expect us to refrain from objecting to fetal stem-cell research simply because they trot out the late Christopher Reeves or Michael J. Fox to speak in favor of it. If we then take a stand based on our beliefs in the sanctity of human life, even that of the unborn, we are called “heartless” or “unfeeling.” If we oppose abortion and speak of passing an amendment protecting the life of the unborn, they trot out the old worn-out line about women dying in back-alley abortion clinics, as it they used to stack the bodies of those poor unfortunate women like cord wood in the days before abortion became legal. Of course those unborn children don’t matter in the culture of selfishness promoted by the Democrat Party
For the left, taking responsibility for one’s actions is unimportant—it might even be immoral. In my opinion, “choice” occurs when an individual decides to engage in unprotected sex, not in deciding whether or not to kill the resulting unborn child.
The “right to privacy” ceases to exist once one decides to kill a human being. Whether that “someone” is an adult or an unborn child, it is murder. It is the state sanctioned taking of a human life without due process of law. It is an abridgement of their divinely “endowed” right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Democrats are cowards and bullies. They hide their agenda behind the skirts of those like Cindy Sheehan and the “Jersey Girls,” because they know that the American people would reject their policies entirely, unless presented by these sympathetic figures. We know that for a fact. It has been proven time and again through the elective process.
If Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel, and Harry Reid were to come out promoting the arguments that these women have, they would be exposed as the political hacks they truly are, so they use these surrogates to make their arguments for them, in the mistaken belief that their suffering grants them immunity from contradiction.
The truth remains the truth, even in the face of such an emotionally charged attack. The unfortunate circumstances which led to the unexpected celebrity of these people, do not exuse the boorishness and hateful nature of their attacks.
If one chooses to dance in the political arena, she must be prepared to pay the piper. The constitutional right of free speech is a two-way street. That which guarantees the right of these women to speak their minds, even in hatred, guarantees the right of those of us who disagree to respond in kind.
Those on the left are ever dishonest and hypocritical when they lash out against a critic like Ann Coulter in feigned indignance.
Martyrdom is not an invitation for unbridled, uncivil discourse. Every time one of these “victims” makes the choice to launch a politically motivated attack, they have, by their own choice, made themselves eligible for an equally spirited response. The have abandoned the protection from criticism that their initial suffering granted them and have opened themselves up to attack.
I applaud Ann Coulter for having the strength and courage to speak the truth. Would that more so-called “conservatives” displayed such courage to an equal degree.
It is time to take on these purveyors of hatred whenever they speak out, rather than tucking our collective tails and cowering in fear.
The truth will out, if we have the courage to speak it.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!