Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America

MeeMie

No Spam Here
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Posts
7,328
Ann Coulter Responds to Media Matters Attacks


The far left attack dog Media Matters for America is obviously unhappy with Ann Coulter’s new book “Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America.” published a 6,000 word compilation of a dozen alleged lies contained in her book which unmasks some of the left’s sleaziest tactics.


Media Matters, according to widely respected pollster Frank Luntz is “one of the most destructive organizations associated with American politics today … They are vicious. They only understand one thing: attack, attack, attack.”


Here is each Media Matters claim, followed by Ms. Coulter's response, point-by-point:



Media Matters: Coulter claims that two black students who engaged in a hoax by hanging a black doll from a noose were "immediately praised" by "liberals," but the sources she cites do not support this claim.


Coulter: “Just because something is not footnoted does not make it false. I am one of the few writers who includes footnotes as service to my readers.

“But as long as you ask, among the praise for the perpetrators of the hoax hate crime was a statement by the president of Duke in a baccalaureate address reprinted in the Duke magazine.

Available at:
http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/070801/depgar.html

President Nannerl Keohane cited the hoax as a ‘protest,’ listing it with other admirable protest activities pursued by Duke students that year. She went on to note that in response to the protests, ‘“progress has been made.’”



MM: Coulter writes, "Fox News has never been caught promoting a fraud - unlike CBS (Bush National Guard story), ABC (tobacco industry report), NBC (exploding GM trucks), CNN (Tailwind), and MSNBC (Keith Olbermann)."

In fact, as Media Matters has documented, on several occasions since 2004, Fox News has issued a retraction and apology for airing a news report that repeated false information, one of which led Fox News' Vice President for News John Moody to reportedly warn staff in January 2007 that "seeing an item on a website does not mean it is right. Nor does it mean it is ready for air on FNC."


Coulter: “Media Matters cites a few mistakes in anchors’ remarks on live TV on a 24-hour news station (soon corrected). I am citing massive investigations leading to documentary-style specials, such as CBS’s special report on Bush’s National Guard Service using forged documents or CNN’s 'Tailwind' investigation accusing the U.S. military of intentionally killing American troops - fraudulent stories these networks defended and held onto like grim death until they simply couldn't anymore. Making a mistake is not 'perpetrating a fraud.' For more on this see Webster’s Third International Dictionary."



MM: Coulter falsely claims that "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't forced to retract any part of their story. " In fact, the organization altered its website's account for which the U.S. Navy awarded Kerry his first Purple Heart three days after Media Matters noted that the account was inconsistent with that of the group's star witness, retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr., who claims he was the commander on that mission.


Coulter: “The Swifties did not alter their website’s account of the December 2, 1968, mission. They always said Admiral Schachte was on the skimmer with Kerry. Schachte has so sworn in an affidavit. The correction of the website entry was to fix a mistaken description of Schachte as an enlisted man, rather than the lieutenant that he was. That is not a ‘retraction.’ Again, see the English language.”



MM: Coulter also suggests that the media ignored the allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans, writing, "The only way they could have gotten less attention would have been to be interviewed on Air America Radio." By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - hereafter, Swifties - in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more than 100 New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page 1 stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31.


Coulter: “This is the old left-wing time shuffle. The Swifties' May 4 2004 press conference and letter were universally ignored by the MSM until ... Three months later when John O’Neill’s book, “Unfit for Command” was published and became the smash No. 1 NYT bestseller.

“Only after ‘Unfit’ was the NYT No. 1 bestseller for two weeks in a row did the NYT deign to mention the Swifties – in slanderous attacks I lovingly detail in ‘Guilty.’ Inasmuch, as I quote at length from these later MSM's attacks on the Swifties, I am hardly hiding that fact.”



MM: Coulter also falsely suggests that no witnesses supported Kerry's account that his convoy came under enemy fire during the March 13, 1969, actions for which he was awarded the Bronze Star.


Coulter: “No one - not even Kerry - now supports Kerry's original "no man left behind" story in his Iowa ad, which was also told by Rassmann. As I say, the only three living officers from that mission other than Kerry himself - Pees, Thurlow, Chenoweth – as well as 11 enlisted men say there was no return fire for Kerry to come under. I am not making a ‘suggestion,’ I am stating facts.”



MM: Coulter writes that Kerry "Carried a home-movie camera to war in order to reenact combat scenes and tape fake interviews with himself" during his tour in Vietnam. Coulter was repeating a discredited charge previously made by Internet gossip Matt Drudge and subsequently echoed by The New York Times and numerous cable and radio outlets during the 2004 presidential election.


Coulter: “Now Media Matters is accusing me of lying for believing what is printed in the New York Times. Can I please stop responding to these nuts now?”




MM: Coulter devotes four pages of “Guilty” to discussing her false assertion that "Obama himself compared Palin to a pig and then denied doing so." In fact, Obama's September 9, 2008, statement, "you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig," did not refer to Palin, but rather to how a "list" of Sen. John McCain's policies were, according to Obama, no different from President Bush's. Obama did not mention Palin in at least the 65 words preceding his "lipstick on a pig" comment, as Media Matters noted. Moreover, the expression "lipstick on a pig" is common political rhetoric - Obama had reportedly used the expression in the past, and McCain used it in 2007 in reference to Sen. Hillary Clinton's health-care proposal.


Coulter: “Well obviously, this is the precise point I devastatingly destroyed in the four pages I devoted to the issue. I’ll let readers decide who's right.”
 
She's thumped more liberals than you can shove into forty acres, they hate her guts and that's a good thing.

Thumped? Please, the woman wouldn't know a fact if is snuck up and bit her on that manly adam's apple she sports.


Only she has a brain and can sell more books than he can.:D

Her popularity among conservatives isn't something I would brag about really if I were one. She is the epitome of everything that is wrong with the radical far right. Homophobic, bigoted, lying, manipulative. Personally I hope she keeps right on spewing her bull shit. She and Rush Limbaugh helped seal the election for Obama unintentionally.
 
MURDER SPREE BY PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO ASK FOR DIRECTIONS



In a front-page article on Jan. 2 of this year, The New York Times took a brief respite from its ongoing canonization of Barack Obama and returned to its series on violent crimes committed by returning GIs, or as I call it: "U.S. Military, Psycho Killers."

The Treason Times' banner series about Iraq and Afghanistan veterans accused of murder began in January last year but was quickly discontinued as readers noticed that the Times doggedly refused to provide any statistics comparing veteran murders with murders in any other group.

So they waited a year, hoping readers wouldn't notice they were still including no relevant comparisons.

What, for example, is the percentage of murderers among veterans compared to the percentage of murderers in the population at large -- or, more germane, in the general population of young males, inasmuch as violent crime is committed almost exclusively by young men?

Any group composed primarily of young men will contain a seemingly mammoth number of murderers.

Consider the harmless fantasy game, Dungeons and Dragons -- which happens to be played almost exclusively by young males. When murders were committed in the '80s by (1) young men, who were (2) Dungeons and Dragons enthusiasts, some people concluded that factor (2), rather than factor (1), led to murderous tendencies.

Similarly, for its series about how America's bravest and finest young men are really a gang of psychopathic cutthroats, the Times triumphantly produced 121 homicides committed by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in order to pin the blame for the murders on the U.S. military.

Perhaps the Times' next major expose could be on how a huge percentage of murderers are people who won't ask for directions or share the TV remote.

Let's compare murders by veterans to murders by other 18- to 35-year-olds in the U.S. population at large. From 1976 to 2005, 18- to 24-year-olds -- both male and more gentle females -- committed homicide at a rate of 29.9 per 100,000. Twenty-five- to 35-year-olds committed homicides at a rate of 15.8 per 100,000.

Since 9/11, about 1.6 million troops have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. That makes the homicide rate among veterans of these wars 7.6 per 100,000 -- or about one-third the homicide rate for their age group (18 to 35) in the general population of both sexes.

But fewer than 200,000 of the 1.6 million troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been women, and the murder rate for the general population includes both males and females. Inasmuch as males commit nearly 90 percent of all murders, the rate for males in those age groups is probably nearly double the male/female combined rates, which translates to about 30 to 55 murderers per 100,000 males aged 18 to 35.

So comparing the veterans' rate of murder to only their male counterparts in the general population, we see that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are about 10 times less likely to commit a murder than non-veterans of those wars.

But as long as the Times has such a burning interest in the root causes of murder, how about considering the one factor more likely to create a murderer than any other? That is the topic we're not allowed to discuss: single motherhood.

As I describe in my new book, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent. (The second strongest factor is owning a Dennis Kucinich bumper sticker.)

By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced.

A 1990 study by the left-wing Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime disappeared.

Various studies come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. A study cited in the far left-wing Village Voice found that children brought up in single-mother homes "are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home."

With new children being born, running away, dropping out of high school and committing murder every year, it's not a static problem to analyze. But however the numbers are run, single motherhood is a societal nuclear bomb.

Many of these studies, for example, are from the '90s, when the percentage of teenagers raised by single parents was lower than it is today. In 1990, 28 percent of children under 18 were being raised in one-parent homes -- mother or father, divorced or never-married. By 2005, more than one-third of all babies born in the U.S. were illegitimate.

That's a lot of social problems in the pipeline.

Think I'm being cruel? Imagine an America with 60 to 70 percent fewer juvenile delinquents, teenage births, teenage suicides and runaways, and you will appreciate what the sainted "single mothers" have accomplished.

Even in liberals' fevered nightmares, predatory mortgage dealers, oil speculators and Ken Lay could never do as much harm to their fellow human beings as single mothers do to their own children, to say nothing of society at large.

But the Times won't run that series because liberals adore single motherhood and the dissolution of traditional marriage in America. They detest the military, so they cite a few anecdotal examples of veterans who have committed murder and hope that no one asks for details.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
 
i think marriage is an outdated institution and we should do everything we can to hasten its demise. i also think all children are best served when they are raised only by a single mother. boy, did ann coulter peg me!
 
Why do conservatives champion morons? Ann Coulter is just fucking too stupid. Smarter than Sarah Palin but that's not saying much. Just being arrogant and wrong is not enough?
 
Why do conservatives champion morons? Ann Coulter is just fucking too stupid. Smarter than Sarah Palin but that's not saying much. Just being arrogant and wrong is not enough?

When you swim in the shallow end of the gene pool you don't have many options to choose from.
 
When you swim in the shallow end of the gene pool you don't have many options to choose from.

George Will? Dennis Miller? I wouldn't say these guys are intellectual powerhouses but at least they're not dumb as a block of wood.
 
George Will? Dennis Miller? I wouldn't say these guys are intellectual powerhouses but at least they're not dumb as a block of wood.

Oh sure there are a few with some intellect. But they tend to speak over the heads of the target audience of most conservative pundits. That target audience would be the far right.. The very ones that cheer when Coulter tosses an offhand "faggot" comment.

You think that majority of the conservative base is going to listen to Miller or Will? Mostly they're waiting for their turn to cheer someone calling a Democratic politician "faggot" or to blame the economic crisis on "poor people". The latter being a strange thing, considering that much of the GOP "base" are poor themselves. But it's the "other" poor people who are to blame..

Real fucking brain trust in the cheerleading section of the GOP.
 
Back
Top