May 9, 2007

Quote of the week: Coulter advocates murder of U.S. President


This weekly shot of Ann Coulter wisdom focuses on joking about murdering a U.S. President and blaming a disabled Vietnam Vet for “losing” in Vietnam. So much for supporting the troops, huh Ann? If a Democrat said this they would be assailed unmercifully and called a traitor even more than they already are.

The good news is that statement got Coulter fired from MSNBC, but it got her $30,000 Cleary University’s Economic Club Speakers Luncheon Series. There is some good news. The Howell-area voters took a step toward eliminating the undeserved reputation of Livingston County and Howell as a small-minded, racist community by rejecting the candidates put forth by the anti-gay hate group known as Love” PAC - (Livingston Organization for Values in Education) - for the Howell School’s Board of Education. The rejection of Coulter’s hate speech and discrimination by rejecting her as a speaker at the LEC will be one more positive step forward in eliminating that image.

But, without further ado here is this week’s pair of Coulter “gems.”

(Responding to a question from a Catholic University student about her biggest moral or ethical dilemma) “There was one time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought 'Ann, that's not going to help your career.'“
Ann Coulter at the Reclaiming America for Christ Conference in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 3/3/07.

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey Kev - Google Steven Emerson, next week's speaker at Cleary.

Chet said...

First, if Coulter said that as quoted, I condemn her.

Steven Emerson certainly appears controversial, but I read the CAIR (Council for Arab and Islamic Rights) summary on the guy, and they made almost zero case that he's anything other than ex-journalist with a passion for this issue who sees a "radical fundamentalist Islamic" threat. Of the ten quotes from him they compiled - all of them used "radical" or "fundamentalist" as qualifiers before attacking Islam, and for that he is labelled an anti-Islamic "bigot". There was one quote - where he calls it a "Middle Eastern trait" to kill large numbers of people - that I'd certainly agree is an over-generalization and a lack of care was taken in saying it, but I don't know that it alone evidences a pattern (well, alone it can't be a pattern) or is by itself so offensive as to qualify him as a "racist". Ann Coulter is certainly "worse" - her public persona is to intentionally offend. Whether that means she shouldn't speak (for a large) - I don't know. I generally have an issue with speaking fees going to speakers from either side of the aisle, if its public money (of course, there's a difference between paying travel costs and large honoraria). If its' private money, you have a right to protest it and they have a right to ignore or listen, but to say Coulter shouldn't speak at all is distasteful and against the spirit of free speech. If your argument is that Cleary shouldn't pay Coulter $30K and you're challenging her to speak for free or at cost, you're on better intellectual ground. Of course, this is her business, and her refusal would make perfect sense, too.

Communications guru said...

If Coulter said that? Has there ever been any doubt? Wow, really brave stand of you condemning her like that, but exactly what does that really mean? It means nothing but words. You still laugh and cheer and her racist and hateful remarks and continue to throw money at her.

Steve Emerson’s actions are the very essence of discrimination. Suspecting an entire group of people just because of their race, religion or creed. That is called discrimination.

Emerson’s claim to fame is that he warned of an attack by Islamic terrorists like that of 9/11 was coming. Since he says every attack or plot are by Islamic terrorists it’s like me saying the Detroit Lions are going to be in the Super Bowl every year. Eventually, I’m going to be right like Emerson was. I think Emerson fits the bill as a racist, and even if it doesn’t he’s certainly not a liberal that, if you had posted in the correct place, does not meet Cleary University’s claim that they are bring in diverse speakers. He’s just one more conservative. The school is giving the diverse thing lip service, kind of like you condemning Ann Coulter.

It is private money, as far as I know, but that gives no one the right of hate speech. This is not a free speech issue because Congress is making no law prohibiting her free speech. The fact that she’s getting $30,000 just makes her appearance more disgusting, and her invitation by the school and the other sponsors make them partners in the spreading of her liturgy of hate. That’s the crux of the entire objection. Her appearance reinforces the general perception that Livingston County is a safe haven for racists and bigots of all ilks, like Coulter.

I wouldn’t invite the Klan to speak here and roll out the red carpet, so why would I do the same for Coulter?