posted June 07, 2006 05:28 PM            

That and the fact Hillary is the witch who had the White House Travel Office staff charged with theft...to get rid of them so her friends the Thomasons could take it over.

TRAVELGATE
The scandal which gave rise to Filegate, also occurred on McLarty's watch. It involves the misuse of the FBI and Justice Department to prosecute innocent people in the White House Travel Office, who were fired to make way for the hire of Clintons' friends, the Thomasons.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1998/76.shtml

posted June 07, 2006 06:55 PM            

Ann Coulter

The long-anticipated book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" was finally released this week. If the New York Times reviews it at all, they'll only talk about the Ann Coulter action-figure doll, so I think I'll write my own review.

"Godless" begins with a murder at the Louvre and then takes readers on a roller-coaster ride through the Church of Liberalism in a desperate game of cat and mouse in which the hunter becomes the hunted – with a twist at the end you simply won't believe! It's a real page-turner – even the book-on-tape version and large-print edition! Who knew a book about politics could make such an ideal gift – especially with Father's Day just two weeks away!

The main problem with "Godless" is that I had to walk through the valley of darkness to find it. You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the "self-help" section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton's memoirs. If all else fails, ask for the "hate speech" section of your local bookstore. Ironically, if you find "Godless" without asking for assistance, it's considered a minor miracle.

This is not a book about liberals. I stress this in anticipation of Alan Colmes hectoring the author to name names. (For people who resented being asked to "name names" during the 1950s, these liberals sure aren't shy about demanding that conservatives do the same today.)

It is a book about liberalism, our official state religion. Liberalism is a doctrine with a specific set of tenets that can be discussed, just like other religions.

The Christian religion, for example, frowns on lying and premarital sex. That is simply a fact about Christianity. This does not mean no Christian has ever lied or had premarital sex. Indeed, some Christians have committed murder, adultery, thievery, gluttony. That does not mean there's no such thing as Christianity any more than videotape of Rep. William Jefferson accepting cash bribes means there's no such thing as congressional ethics rules.

Similarly, the liberal religion supports abortion, but that doesn't mean every single liberal has had an abortion. We can rejoice that liberals do not always practice their religion.

"Godless" examines a set of beliefs known as "liberalism." It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven't yet found the common ancestor ... but like O.J., the search continues.)

The demand that their religion be discussed only with reference to specific individuals – who is godless? are you saying I'm godless? – is simply an attempt to prevent us from talking about their religion. This tactic didn't work with "Slander" or "Treason," and it's not going to work now.

It's not just that liberals ban Reform rabbis from saying brief prayers at high-school graduations and swoop down on courthouses and town squares across America to cart off Ten Commandments monuments. The liberal hostility to God-based religions has already been copiously documented by many others. "Godless" goes far beyond this well-established liberal hostility to real religions.

The thesis of "Godless" is: Liberalism is a religion. The liberal religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)

Liberals deny, of course, that liberalism is a religion – otherwise, they'd lose their government funding. "Separation of church and state" means separation of your church from the state, but total unity between their church and the state.

Two months ago, the 9th Circuit held that a school can prohibit a student from exercising his First Amendment rights by wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality Is Shameful."

Even the left's pretend-adoration of "free speech" (meaning: treason and pornography) must give way to speech that is contrary to the tenets of the church of liberalism on the sacred grounds of a government school.

How might the ACLU respond if a school attempted to ban a T-shirt that said something like "Creationism Is Shameful"? We'd never hear the end of warnings about the coming theocracy.

In fact, students are actually required to wear "Creationism Is Shameful" T-shirts in Dover, Pa., where – thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU – the liberal clergy have declared Darwinism the only true church, immunized from argument. Ye shall put no other God before it. Not one.

Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for 1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for 2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of 1).

posted June 07, 2006 07:45 PM            

I do agree she is vicious. Politics and political commentary are vicious by nature. But then again so is Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, and even many liberals who post here.

posted June 07, 2006 08:05 PM            

"LOL Ann Coulter is not self-obsessed...she's liberal-obsessed. No idea where the self-obsessed view comes from. She doesn't write about herself nor talk about herself really in her articles. If being paid to speak about your opinions qualifies as "self-obsessed", then I guess Michael Moore, Alan Combs, et al, are also self obsessed?"

LOL...good answer!!! Some people don't know the definition of self-obsessed vs being obsessed with something in general

DayDreamer,

posted June 08, 2006 01:00 PM              

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy. . ."

Charming woman, isn't she? Class and elegance of an unrivaled magnitude.

posted June 08, 2006 01:09 PM              

I've missed you. I haven't written to you in a long time. Anyway, I really like Ann Coulter, she brings up several good points. However, the only thing I would disagree is her view points on religion, but that is because I'm not a christian. Anyway, I wrote this post without reading the content on this string, but I just wanted to say hello. I've been reading Ann Coulter's interviews for the past couple days, and she is as sharp as a double edged sword. I can't imagine anyone who isn't afraid to argue with her.

posted June 08, 2006 01:33 PM            

Well, by now you've noticed, though leftists deign to never notice that Ann Coulter is never attacked on the truth of what she says. No, no, no. What she says about the left is undeniable so, Coulter must be attacked on some other basis.

That basis is almost universally that:

Ann Coulter is shrill
Ann Coulter is mean

So when Coulter zeros in on leftist icons for leftist corruption, leftist hypocrisy and the overt or incipient treason of leftists and leftist icons, the only rejoinder is...she's mean and shrill...and sometimes...she's ugly

posted June 08, 2006 02:15 PM            

If you read what I had stated I talked about her facts speaking for themselves- and no jwhop is not hanging on her every word. Defending someone that is being vilified by the left when in actuality no one can dispute her facts does not constitute "hanging on every word" LMAO...

Yes, she can be a bit shrill - but when someone is attacking you and not letting you speak that tends to happen.

People are picking points she has made and taking them out of context. I agree with the points she has made about some of the widows trying to use 9-11 as a way to become millionaires. She is saying what many of us have thought.

posted June 08, 2006 02:32 PM            

quote:

---

I see AG, so because I said something on one thread you bring it here.

---

Yes, both threads are the same - praise and criticism of Ann Coulter.

quote:

---

no jwhop is not hanging on her every word.

---

Hmmmm...I don't see him disagreeing with her on anything. What I do see is a whole-hearted endorsement of her. Where exactly have I missed the mark?

quote:

---

Yes, she can be a bit shrill - but when someone is attacking you and not letting you speak that tends to happen.

---

I've seen her enough to know that she doesn't allow anyone to speak over her. She is more apt to interupt and speak over someone than the opposite. Yesterday when I was watching her, it was just Hannity talking to her, so she was completely unencumbered by opposing voices. She still came off the same way.

Also, when a person makes statements such as the ones TINK posted it's clear that we're dealing with someone of limited intellectual means. You could not make a worse case for getting people to take your opinion seriously than making insane inflammatory remarks like that. It's just not logical.

posted June 08, 2006 02:43 PM            

Many of us are experiencing frustration with how things have been handled and how some of the 9-11 widow's or widowers have acted. Do you think it's right for someone to become rich because of what happened? While we are all touched on some level concerning 9-11 and we want compensation for those affected, why is it America's fault? Why is it we have to feel like we need to take on the burden for what someone else did?

Why is it we feel more compassion for New York and those survivors that we do for the Pentagon and PA deaths or their survivors?

posted June 08, 2006 03:05 PM            

"At her appearance at the Book Revue in Huntington, the rail-thin blonde was unapologetic.

"No, I won't apologize. Yes, the 9/11 widows are witches and harpies," she said.

The targets of Coulter's diatribe were Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie Van Auken, who formed a group called the Jersey Girls. They pushed for the formation of the 9/11 commission to investigate U.S. government failures before the attacks, and later campaigned for Democrat John Kerry.

The women issued a joint statement, claiming they have been "slandered" by Coulter.

Invoking the memories of their husbands, the widows said they would continue to focus on "the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11."

They listed the recent decision by the government to cut homeland-security grants to New York, the need for tighter security at U.S. borders and at chemical plants, and controlling the spread of nuclear weapons as issues they believe "desperately need attention and public outcry." "

Let's see what we can dig up on that little consortium of widows.

posted June 08, 2006 03:09 PM            

The 9/11 Widows
Americans are beginning to tire of them.

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

"I watched my husband murdered live on TV. . . . At any point in time the casualties could have been lessened, and it seems to me there wasn't even an attempt made."

--Monica Gabrielle
"Three thousand people were murdered on George Bush's watch."

-- Kristin Breitweiser

No one by now needs briefings on the identities of the commentators quoted above. The core group of widows led by the foursome known as "The Jersey Girls," credited with bringing the 9/11 Commission into being, are by now world famous. Their already established status in the media, as a small but heroically determined band of sisters speaking truth to power, reached ever greater heights last week, when National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made her appearance at a commission session--an event that would not have taken place, it was understood, without the pressure from the widows. Television interviewers everywhere scrambled to land these guests--a far cry from the time, last June, when group leader Kristin Breitweiser spoke of her disappointment in the press, complaining to one journalist, "I've been scheduled to go on 'Meet the Press' and 'Hardball' so many times, and I'm always canceled."
No one is canceling her these days. The night of Ms. Rice's appearance, the Jersey Girls appeared on "Hardball," to charge that the national security adviser had failed to do her job, that the government failed to provide a timely military response, that the president had spent time reading to schoolchildren after learning of the attack, that intelligence agencies had failed to connect the dots. Others who had lost family to the terrorists' assault commanded little to no interest from TV interviewers. Debra Burlingame--lifelong Democrat, sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, did manage to land an interview after Ms. Rice's appearance. When she had finished airing her views critical of the accusatory tone and tactics of the Jersey Girls, her interviewer, ABC congressional reporter Linda Douglass marveled, "This is the first time I've heard this point of view."

That shouldn't have been surprising. The hearing room that day had seen a substantial group of 9/11 families, similarly irate over the Jersey Girls and their accusations--families that made their feelings evident in their burst of loud applause when Ms. Rice scored a telling zinger under questioning. But these were not the 9/11 voices TV and newspaper editors were interested in. They had chosen to tell a different story--that of four intrepid New Jersey housewives who had, as one news report had it, brought an administration "to its knees"--and that was, as far as they were concerned, the only story.

A fair number of the Americans not working in the media may, on the other hand, by now be experiencing Jersey Girls Fatigue--or taking a hard look at the pronouncements of the widows. Statements like that of Monica Gabrielle, for example (not one of the Jersey Girls, though an activist of similar persuasion), who declared that she could discern no attempt to lessen the casualties on Sept. 11. What can one make of such a description of the day that saw firefighters by the hundreds lose their lives in valiant attempts to bring people to safety from the burning floors of the World Trade Center--that saw deeds like that of Morgan Stanley's security chief, Rick Rescorla, who escorted 2,700 employees safely out of the South Tower, before he finally lost his own life?
But the best known and most quoted pronouncement of all had come in the form of a question put by the leader of the Jersey Girls. "We simply wanted to know," Ms. Breitweiser said, by way of explaining the group's position, "why our husbands were killed. Why they went to work one day and didn't come back."

The answer, seared into the nation's heart, is that, like some 3,000 others who perished that day, those husbands didn't come home because a cadre of Islamist fanatics wanted to kill as many of the hated American infidels in their tall towers and places of government as they could, and they did so. Clearly, this must be a truth also known to those widows who asked the question--though in no way one would notice.

Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York? In the public pronouncements of the Jersey Girls we find, indeed, hardly a jot of accusatory rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser, announcing that "President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day."

The venerable status accorded this group of widows comes as no surprise given our times, an age quick to confer both celebrity and authority on those who have suffered. As the experience of the Jersey Girls shows, that authority isn't necessarily limited to matters moral or spiritual. All that the widows have had to say--including wisdom mind-numbingly obvious, or obviously false and irrelevant--on the failures of this or that government agency, on derelictions of duty they charged to the president, the vice president, the national security adviser, Norad and the rest, has been received by most of the media and members of Congress with utmost wonder and admiration. They had become prosecutors and investigators, unearthing clues and connections related to 9/11, with, we're regularly informed, unrivalled dedication and skill.

The day of Ms. Rice's appearance before the Commission, a radiant Gail Sheehy, author of "Hillary's Choice," beamed gratitude as she congratulated the host of "Hardball" for bringing the women on as guests. She had been following the New Jersey moms for two years, Ms. Sheehy said, and they were always leaks ahead--of everyone. She wanted to note, too, "how the moms kept making that point that it was her [Ms. Rice's] job" to inform the president. Another indicator of their expertise.

Ms. Sheehy was hardly alone in her faith in the widows and their special skills. Their every shred of opinion about the hearings last week was actively solicited--as will be true, no doubt, this week. Asked what question she would put to Ms. Rice, if she could, one Jersey Girl answered, after some thought, that it would be, What did she know and when did she know it? The answer wasn't the first to suggest that the nation now confronted a new investigation of government malfeasance, and coverups on the order of Watergate, and that we'd been brought to this cleansing by the work of four New Jersey widows. One NBC journalist ended his summation of Ms. Rice's testimony with an urgent coda: The issue of real significance that day, he explained, would be how the families of the 9/11 victims reacted to her testimony. There would have been no doubt, in the mind of anyone listening, which families he meant.

Really? How can that be?--is the only reasonable response to that claim, which would not have been made in a saner time. How could it be that the most important issue emerging from an inquiry into undeniable intelligence failures, at a time of utmost national peril, was the way the victims' families reacted to the hearings?

Little wonder, given all this, that the 9/11 Four blossomed, under a warm media sun and the attention of legislators, into activists increasingly confident of their authority--that, with every passing month, their list of government agencies and agents guilty of dereliction of duty grew apace. So did their assurance that it had been given to them, as victims, to determine the proper standards of taste and respectfulness to be applied in everything related to Sept. 11, including, it turned out, the images of the destroyed World Trade Center in George Bush's first campaign ad, which elicited, from some of them, bitter charges of political exploitation.
Out of their loss and tragedy the widows had forged new lives as investigators of 9/11, analysts of what might have been had every agency of government done as it should. No one would begrudge them this solace.

Nor can anyone miss, by now, the darker side of this spectacle of the widows, awash in their sense of victims' entitlement, as they press ahead with ever more strident claims about the way the government failed them. Or how profoundly different all this is from the way in which citizens in other times and places reacted to national tragedy.

From August 1940 to May 1941, the Luftwaffe's nightly terror bombings killed 43,000 British men, women and children. That was only phase one. Phase two, involving the V-1 flying bombs and, later, rockets, killed an additional 6,180. The British defense, was, to the say the least, ineffectual, particularly in the early stages of the war--the antiaircraft guns were few, the fire control system inadequate, as was the radar system. Still, it would have been impossible, then as now, to imagine victims of those nightly assaults rising up to declare war on their government, charging its leaders, say, with failure to develop effective radar--the British government had, after all, had plenty of warning that war was coming. It occurred to no one, including families who had lost husbands, wives and children, to claim that tens of thousands had been murdered on Winston Churchill's watch. They understood that their war was with the enemies bombing them.

Nor, to take an example closer to our time, did the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing give rise to a campaign of accusation (notwithstanding a conspiracy theory or two) against the government for its failure to prevent the attack.

Yesterday's session of the 9/11 Commission brought an appearance by Attorney General John Ashcroft--a reminder, among other things, of various intriguing questions posed by some of Ms. Breitweiser's analyses (delivered in her testimony before the 2002 congressional committee) of the ways the Sept. 11 attack might have been foiled. If the Federal Aviation Administration had properly alerted passengers to the dangers they faced, she asked, how many victims might have thought twice before boarding an aircraft? And "how many victims would have taken notice of these Middle Eastern men while they were boarding their plane? Could these men have been stopped?"
A good question. One can only imagine how a broadcast of the warning, "Watch out for Middle Eastern men in line near you, as you board your flight," would have gone down in those quarters of the culture daily worried to death about the alleged threat to civil rights posed by profiling and similar steps designed to weed out terrorists. Consider, a veteran political aide mordantly asks, what the response would have been if John Ashcroft had issued a statement calling for such a precaution, prior to Sept. 11.

This week, as last, there will be no lack of air time for the Jersey Four, or journalists ravenous for their views. CBS's "The Early Show" yesterday brought a report from Monica Gabrielle, attesting that her husband might have escaped from the South Tower if the facts about the Aug. 6 "PDB" memo had been shared with the public. The saga of the widows can be expected to run on along entirely familiar lines. The only question of interest that remains is how Americans view the Jersey Four and company, and how long before they turn them off.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110004950

"Before Sept. 11, the Jersey girls (the nickname, which distinguishes the women from their New York and Connecticut counterparts, was popularized in song by Bruce Springsteen) knew little about government and less about politics. The closest Ms. Casazza came to foreign affairs was processing visa applications for French trainees while working for the cosmetics company Lancτme. Ms. Van Auken could not keep the two chambers of Congress straight."

From Common Dreams - which uses much of their space praising the bunch.

In fact, this little group is held in very high esteem by all the extreme left media and organizations. Hmmmm...

posted June 08, 2006 03:23 PM            

There are some who capitalize on their grief to pitch their leftist political positions.

Apparently, those who are...grief stricken are immune from criticism...according to leftist speak. i.e., Cindy Sheehan who capitalized on the death of her son..who totally disagreed with her...to pitch their far left political agenda...and also the "Witches of East Brunswick"...who want to blame 9/11 on George Bush.

Here's some more of the story.

Coulter calls 9/11 widows "witches" By Claudia Parsons
Wed Jun 7, 6:24 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Conservative author Ann Coulter sparked a storm on Wednesday after describing a group of September 11 widows who backed the Democratic Party as millionaire "witches" reveling in their status as celebrities.

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter writes in her book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," published on Tuesday, referring to four women who headed a campaign that resulted in the creation of the September 11 Commission that investigated the hijacked plane attacks.

Coulter wrote that the women were millionaires as a result of compensation settlements and were "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis."

A spokeswoman for publisher Crown Forum said it had set a first print run of 1 million copies of "Godless" and there were 1.5 million copies of Coulter's previous four books in print.

The four women, Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie Van Auken, declined to discuss the book in detail but issued a statement saying they had been slandered.

"There was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again," said the statement signed by the four, along with a fifth woman, Monica Gabrielle.

The four women, who live in or around East Brunswick, New Jersey, became friends after September 11 and formed a group that agitated for the investigation. "Our only motivation ever was to make our nation safer," they said.

Coulter, whose books include the bestseller "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," argues in the new book the women she dubs "the Witches of East Brunswick" wanted to blame President George W. Bush for not preventing the attacks.

She criticized them for making a campaign advertisement for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry in 2004, and added: "By the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

PERSONAL ATTACKS

Asked by Reuters why she made such personal comments, Coulter said by e-mail, "I am tired of victims being used as billboards for untenable liberal political beliefs."

"A lot of Americans have been seething over the inanities of these professional victims for some time," she added.

Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record) of New Jersey said Coulter's "shameless attack" on the widows sparked disgust. "Her bookselling antics and accompanying vulgarity deserve our deepest contempt," he said in a statement.

The New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp., slammed the comments in an article on Wednesday headlined: "Righty writer Coulter hurls nasty gibes at 9/11 gals."

Coulter, a regular television commentator who is hugely popular among some conservatives, was challenged on NBC's "Today" show on Tuesday over what host Matt Lauer called "dramatic" remarks, prompting her to say, "You are getting testy with me."

Coulter is known for a combative column after September 11 saying, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." In one book, she wrote, "Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."

Her latest comments were quoted on radio stations in New York on Wednesday and the book was the subject of debate on Web sites such as www.salon.com. The Daily News newspaper's front-page headline was "Coulter the Cruel."

posted June 08, 2006 03:53 PM            

Coulter calls 9/11 widows "witches"