Ann Coulter Makes Liberals Squeal Like A Pig

Lee P. Butler

Columnist for the Miami Herald, Leonard Pitts recently wrote, “When, however, even widows (and orphans?) become fair game for a viperous harridan with an ax to grind and books to sell, maybe decent people should wonder at the lines we have crossed and the type of the nation we have become in the process.”

Even the whirring sound of Mr. Pitts’ word processor couldn’t drown out his squeals as he slung his own acrimonious axes of retribution in an attempt to slay that nefarious ‘word warrior’, while desperately striving to blur the lines between what liberals assert is hate speech and, using their own criteria, the hate speech they produce regularly.

Many decent people are currently wondering where exactly is the line we have supposedly crossed in this country in regards to the rhetoric and actions of those who choose voluntarily to enter the public fray of political discourse.

That was, in many ways, what Ann Coulter was getting at when she wrote what has so inflamed the derisive and venomous assault being waged against her by the liberal media based on comments she made concerning the 9/11 widows the media had loving labeled the ‘Jersey Girls’.

Did those four women not cross the line between bereaved spouse and political activist when they stuck their faces in a camera and made it their apparent life-long tour de force to berate the President and every member of his administration even about topics that have nothing to do with the 9/11 tragedy, while trying to also politically defeat them?

But, of course, according the liberal media it’s only conservatives who ever cross any lines, specifically because liberals think they are the only ones who can draw lines to be crossed. If conservatives ever try to draw a line in the sand, they are called racist, sexist, homophobic... you get the picture.

You see, in this case, though Ann ‘got personal’. She got downright crude when referring to the media darling Jersey Girls in her book and you don’t take aim at those the liberal media have put on a pedestal without being drawn and quartered by the press.

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by the grief-arazzis,” Ann wrote. “I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”

Has there ever been two sentences that created a bigger tsunami of self-inflated exasperation or manufactured bloviation of outrage from liberals in the media?

Were those statements harsh? You bet, and obviously they were meant to be that way. It’s not as though Ann could have or would have wanted to dance around the subject... ‘Well, liberals put those really nice ladies who lost their husbands on 9/11 and deserve every ounce of adulation the media pours on them because they willingly attack that mindless president Bush with every breath in their bodies because conservatives can’t respond to them while they are grieving.”

The endless diatribes from liberals using that quote are always curiously absent Ann’s prelude comment for those two sentences, “These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.”

Though it doesn’t ease the harshness of her tone, the comment does clarify the context of the point she was trying to convey.

That was the line in the sand she drew that liberals like Mr. Pitts wants to conveniently blur. The ‘Jersey Girls’ were not the only people who lost loved ones on 9/11, but they are the ones liberals in the media championed above and beyond everyone else specifically because they were willing to openly blame the terrorist attacks on the Bush administration.

Their mantra at the time was that President Bush was culpable because, ‘it happened on his watch’. In the blink of an eye, they were suddenly terrorist and American intelligence experts who could be called on in a moments notice to criticize any information that was released during the 9/11 Commission investigation, including chastising administration officials during those hearings.

Although there were others who also lost loved ones on 9/11 who were willing to talk to the press, many of them supported the president and the actions he took in the War on Terror, so they somehow just didn’t meet the standard for recurring roles in the nightly media White House bash liberals produced at the time.

For those same liberals, that’s neither here nor there. What’s important now is pushing the idea that Ann has created this controversy by bashing the Jersey Girls to sell more books. Even a recent New York Times hit piece gives the reader a break down of sales for some of her books and pontificates that what she writes is intentionally controversial to ultimately sale books.

Okay?

Here’s what they totally miss. Ann writes or gives an opinion about a subject based on what she observes, as all purveyors of opinion do, through the prism of her ideology which is highly critical of liberalism. Since the media is dominated by liberals and they control the dissemination of information through the press, they take great offense at what she produces.

Then they start crowing about it, which promotes her even more... for free... than any publicity tour could ever accomplish and in the end they want to complain about her book sales and worry insatiably that her popularity is a sign that something is wrong with the country.

What’s wrong is that liberals think they are above reproach and will condemn anyone who calls their actions into question. It’s the whole ‘killing the messenger’ thing multiplied into infinity.

Ann makes liberals squeal like a pig, so they shouldn’t be surprised when people stop to stare.