Godless: The Church of Liberalism

Based on volume of squealing, Ann Coulter hit the sensitive point with liberals and other socialists. Ann should be commended for her courage. She personifies what is great about this country - willingness and ability of an individual to tell unpleasant truth to a powerful enemy.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book and can fully recommend it to anyone who cares about freedom and western culture.

Great job!

Of course, a good many liberals are religious, but liberals understand that the Constitution prohibits the government from promoting one religion over any other, or none, and gives the same rights to members of all religions, not just Christians. Those are fundamental American values. And while you have the right to believe what you want and worship any deity you please, you don't have the right to stomp on other people's rights by claiming that your religion requires you to violate laws prohibiting discrimination. That's another fundamental value. It's sad that so many Americans are ignorant of the values that make our country great.

Whatever else you might say about this book it is a riveting read. I was genuinely bereft when it finished!

While I admit the book has a serious purpose, it is also very entertaining. The language used is often hyperbolic, full of new and interesting words and a 'no holds barred' approach. I suspect that part of Ann Coulter's aim is to infuriate her opponents. No doubt she does.

The themes of the book are very introduced and covered and most are fairly well argued. Well ok very well argued. There are lots of references. Most are in news articles but the few that I looked up seemed real (if hard to believe - like Greens wanting to abolish flush toilets)

[...]

Some of the assertions seemed a bit of a stretch to my world view, such as the total demolition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution as an explaination for our world. Still it made me think. It is certainly hard to explain why the ACLU would sue a school district in Cobb County for putting a sticker urging students to study evolution with an open mind. And how they could win.

Contrast that with the "Hot, Sexy, and Safer" presentation Coulter says was given at a school (which forced its teenagers to attend) by a 5-times married woman from a broken family, whose mother committed suicide and whose father physically abused her. The presentation included getting male students to show their "orgasm faces" in front of a camera. Parents who complained lost their case in court.

Coulter talks repeatedly about Liberals wanting to destroy human life through abortion, embyonic stem cell research and promotion of dodgy lifestyles. But I must have missed the bit where she explained why they have their views, so it didn't make a lot of sense to me. Is she suggesting that Liberals are evil, or just misguided?

It probably helps to be heartily sick of liberals before you read this book. That way you can work yourself into towering rage before each chapter and then enjoy Coulter's skewering of each of your tormenters.

Still Coulter really does have a way with words, which may even raise a brief grin amongst her opponents. Where else can you read:

'relying on self-reports of how many hours someone works is like relying on teenage boys' self-reports about how much sex they're having (90 percent say they have had sex, 60 percent with Pamela Anderson)'

'Liberals aren't demanding that taxpayer money be used for research on toenail clippings: that would not advance their governing principle, which is to always kill human life (unless the human life being killed is likely to fly a plane in to American skyscrapers, in which case, it is wrong to kill it)'

'Priests: 820 abused children per year; educators: 32,000 abused children per year. For those of you who went to public schools, 32,000 is greater than 820'

Or of Larry Summer's speech which resulting in him being fired from Harvard: 'Some of the women paired off and went to the ladies' room to discuss possible responses. Others went on eating binges. Most chose to just sit there sobbing. A quick show of hands revealed that every woman in attendance needed a hug.'

Anyway this should give you an idea as to whether you will like this book. I liked it enormously, even the parts I didn't agree with. Perhaps that is Coulter's talent.

Just like Rush Limbaugh and other successful conservative media types, Ann Coulter puts into sharp focus what we already know to be true. As Limbaugh says, we listen to him because he speaks our language. Ann Coulter has tapped into the same stream by speaking the language of conservatism and exposing with pinpoint clarity the hate filled left's governing paradigm which is hatred of our country, our predominantly Christian viewpoint and their agenda for our destruction. The left is lucky they live in this country. In any other country they would be rounded up and jailed for sedition and treason.

Coulter presents the double standards, the out-of-balance judgements, and ironies of liberalism: save a plant, abort humans; hinder human progress without analyzing downstream impacts; denounce abstinence and promote sexual promiscuity while trying to end the AIDS epidemic; etc... Coulter cites scenario after scenario of proof that the liberal mindset is absurd and illogical. She explains how the media with its liberal slant has attempted to publicize and spin these ideologies as something beneficial to our society, while in the next breath degrading God, morality, patriotism, pro-family, and decency. Combining the religion of secularism with the religion of liberalism in the Land of the Offended is the theme of this incredibly entertaining read. This is the first Coulter book I've read. While her TV and publicity antics are a bit over the top, she does well as an author.

Ann Coulter writes in a most logical and entertaining style, punctuating it with her intellectual and acerbic humor at the most unexpected times. I found my self deeply engrossed in a point she was making only to find myself laughing out loud as she concluded a paragraph with one of her familiar barbs full of delightful satire. The scope of the book is impressive, covering all the major issues that divide liberals and conservatives, from crime to abortion to the best analysis of Darwin's theory of evolution I have ever read. It was an intellectual romp to read and a great resource book for conservatives interested in having cogent reasoning at their fingertips to respond to their liberal critics.

Good read, excellent material if you are conservative and open to a good discussion presented in an entertaining format. If you're an Alan Colmes fan (read that blithering idiot) you won't like it and if you're an OBama supporter, based on his recent comments about Christianity, you won't like it either.

But if you're a mainstream American looking to explore further the important issues about how we got here and now that we're here how should we conduct ourselves, you'll find it informative, enlightening and comforting.

I really enjoyed reading this book by Ann Coulter. Her writing style is very much like her talking style. She is very witty and clever in her analogies and gets the point across very clearly. After reading her book, it should be clear to any reader what liberalism is all about and how that philosophy is in direct conflict to anyone who considers himself a conservative or even a moderate. A true liberal can be considered a fanatic in the worst sense of the word.

Ann has done a great job enlightening us about the hypocrisy of liberalism and their efforts to spread their humanist doctrine. All Christians should read this, and liberals who want to know the truth about the deviousness of their "religion." I am a scientist and I am very impressed with Ann's widely-read knowledge of science, especially pertaining to the flaws of evolution.

The book was wonderful. Controversial as Ann always is, but a fascinating read, particularly the chapters on evolution and Darwinism.

Having been raised to believe that evolution is hard fact, this is, sadly, the first time I've read a cogent reasoned argument refuting these "hard facts".

Why can't intelligent design even be *discussed* in school? Think about that. Shouldn't our schools be a place where competing ideas can be discussed and debated openly? No wonder our students lag so far behind all other developed nations. They are spoon fed information and prevented from debating it. We are being cheated by the American public school system.

There is so much truth in what Ann says. You can agree or disagree with her, but don't get hung up on whether Ann is "nice". Howard Dean has said some awful things about conservatives. So what? These are the things that make soundbites. We're adults, we can handle it.

In her most incisive book yet, Ann Coulter dissects the liberal mind or "theology" with a razor sharp blade. The blade slices through the sacraments of liberalism with a brutal sarcasm that cannot help but disrobe the cover of the real liberal agenda. That is, the transformation of our American traditional Judao-Christian culture into a secular society that demands that all aspects of our public and private lives conform to a socialist, morally neutral and Godless mass that marches mindlessly to the tune of John Lennon's "Imagine."

Individualists, people of faith, patriots, capitalists, pro-life adnerents, creationists, people with moral convictions are to be reviled, scorned and dismissed. Instead, Ann Coulter reveals, we are to bow and kneel at the alter of Darwinism and confess a multitude of sins from eating meat to discounting global warming. Instead we must sing the praises of condoms for school age children, celebrate gay sex, and chant in Gregorian style "George W. is like Hitler."

Almost snarky, wonderfully so. Ann Coulter's biting humor is just so much fun to read. The last few chapters of the book dealt with the theory of evolution. Even though the last chapter is titled "The Aped Crusader", my meager intellect grew weary of the volume of work Coulter put into dispelling the theory of evolution. The atheist friends I have insist that evolution is real, and I, in turn, insist that Santa Claus is real (how else do you explain those presents under the Christmas tree?). While I can't remember everything Ann wrote regarding evolution, it boils down to this: evolution is a theory, not science. In fact, there is no science supporting evolution (like if one were to use the scientific method and all). That was a shocker to me. But atheist need evolution to be real so they can say that creation (ka-pow) didn't happen. Because if creation (Behold the Warthog!) did happen, then that means God exists. If evolution (we grew from an unhappy germ) happened, then maybe there is no God. Even though this book was published a few years back, it still retains relevancy​ today.

The controversy around Coulter's book would lessen if you see the fast paced read in light of her type of humor. She makes serious points i.e. if the death penalty isn't a deterrant, why is Michael Moore still alive and I'm not on death row. You take a statement out of the humor context and what you have is that Anne Coulter want to murder Moore. It's suppose to be funny. Bizarre humor? Maybe but the controversy around her is way overblown. Great read. Fast paced. And actual laugh out loud humor.

Oh my goodness I can’t believe people are soaking this in. Bought this book for 25 cents, that’s as much as I would spend. She’s against public schools, recycling, and says things that are often hard to believe I just read and am more scared to think people believe. Do not support this heartless person!

Ann is very outspoken in what she believes and what she perceives as out and out misinformation. I love her so anything she writes would be a "must read" for me. I share this view with my husband, my brother and several cousins. If you want to hear the truth about teachers and others who we are not supposed to question about their agendas, read or listen to Ann Couter.

Just reading the reviews on these pages is telling. Most of the liberal reviewers have not even read this book. They just hate mindlessly, and with the same rage that drove 19 hijackers to kill thousands to advance their religon. Two liberal senators in New Jersy want this book banned. Nice. First liberals ban books, then they'll be burning them. Where will that end? The outright hatred leveled against this book and Ms. Coulter have proven her argument. Only a religious belief incites such passion and fury at those who refuse to kneel at their altar. It seems liberalism IS a religon, and a jealous one, that will not suffer anyone who does not submit to it to peacefully coexist with it. Remind you of any other religons? Islam?

Unlike most here, I have read this book. It is sharp, well argued, cut-to-the-bone satirical, and deliberately controversial. Oh yes, Ms. Coulter knew what she was doing. And the insane raving of liberals everywhere have played into her hands and rocketed this book to the top of every best seller list. Congratulations Ann. As soon as I finish this review I'm buying 7 more copies as gifts for friends.

I voted for Clinton both terms. I voted for Gore in 2000 and thought that Democrats were the way of the future. Then I saw where this country was headed - a country full of flag-burning, without moral, godless people. I like the fresh insights of Ann Coulter. I agree with the Doctrine of Infallibility by the Democrats. I especially agree with her on the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin. Such backwards science should never be taught in schools.

You would expect to see Ms. Coulter write this type of book, but she really nails the liberal left with facts and her sharp sharp wit. Anyone with an open mind who reads the chapters on evolution has to doubt the validity of today's pop science "evidence". Don't take my word for it, read it yourself. If you have at least two neurons firing it will make you think.

Entertaining. Ann Coulter packages research together with snark and wit so well that whether or not you agree with her, you can enjoy her argument. While people (I can't say readers) have been known to label her a hatemonger and enemy of democracy, this is most likely because they do not wish to (or do not know how to) engage her well-thought-out ideas in an intelligent conversation.

In Coulter's political satire sort of style, she clearly details the ways Liberalism has all the makings of religion:

A Sacred Text --- Roe v. Wade,
Clergy --- Public School Teachers,
Sacraments --- Kill the Fetuses, Save the Owls,
Creation Mythology --- Darwinian Evolution,
Churches --- Public Schools,
Martyrs --- Various Public Figures like Tookie Williams,
and Cosmology --- Tiny, Dense Partical Magic.

All that needs to be done now, is to recognize that Liberalsm requires just as much faith to believe there isn't a God as Conservativism needs to believe there is.

Reviewed by Jonathan Stephens

"First dentistry was painless.

Then bicycles were chainless,

Carriages were horseless,

And many laws enforceless.

Next cookery was fireless,

Telegraphy was wireless,

Cigars were nicotineless,

And coffee caffeineless.

Soon oranges were seedless,

The putting green was weedless,

The college boy was hatless,

The proper diet fatless.

New motor roads are dustless,

The latest steel is rustless,

Our tennis courts are sodless,

Our new religion--godless."

~Arthur Guiterman, "Gaily the Troubadour"

This book could be called "A Study In Contradictions," because Ann spends time in each chapter outlining the disjointed positions of the Left. Cicero remarked that morality was "right reason in accord with nature." (De Republica, bk 3) If you invert that statement to be "wrong emotions discordant with nature," then you will understand the book, and Ann's discussion of the anti-church of the Left.

I say that the book is a study in contradictions because focusing on disagreements is the only way in which we can honestly communicate. In legal proceedings this is called "discovery," where the parties compare notes, iron out where they agree and disagree, and not waste time beating dead horses. Similarly, the only way we can iron out political differences is to be honest about their existence, and not say we merely have a misunderstand or just simply talking past each other.

In fact, this book's strongest point is its analysis of the Left's intellectual contradictions. We are not talking past each other, and all roads do not lead to the top of Mount Fuji, much less Mount Zion. Being honest about our differences is the beginning of finding common ground: "And what concord hath Christ with Belial?" (2 Corinthians 6:15, KJV)

Ann asserts that the Left is essentially anti-Christian. One of the problems in discussing Christianity is in defining Christianity. C. S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" and Peterson and Rick's "Offenders For A Word" highlight the difficulties in understanding what this word means. On page 4, Ann lists some aspects of Christian cosmology, such as creationism, the absolute moral framework, the divine nature and worth of human beings.

The biggest beef I had with the books was that it did not mention the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Christianity is neither a concocted worldview nor a syllogism, but is founded upon the sacrificial miracle of the Savior. All other things in Christianity--scripture study, church, chastity, heterosexuality, agape--are just appendages to this central miracle. Ethics alone is not enough. Worldview alone is not enough. Legislation alone is not enough. What is needed is more individual application of this miracle, which she references with Ashley Smith encountering Brian Nichols (59).

In responding to the question "Would Jesus do such-and-such to gays?", the correct answer is not to give a holy hug and say "run along now" but as always "go, and sin no more" (John 8:11). His was always a message of repentance, applying His atonement, and of transformation. His was never a carnally comfortable message.

So ethically, the difference between the Left and the Right is where they stand on the Two Great Commandments. The Right emphasizes the love of God, while the Left focuses almost exclusively on the love of post-third trimester neighbors and "judge not". In matter of hierarchy, the Right is in the right; the left is putting second things first. Additionally, this explains the Left's focus on the vague spirituality, and non-theistic religions such as Buddhism, Druidism, ecology, welfare, and statism.

Darwinism is the longest topic (chapters 8-11), and the most ignored--all of the media focusing on the last sentence of the last paragraph on page 103. Ann the Lawyer supplies an extended critique of evolution, outlying the fundamental logical errors of Darwinism:

* Survival of the fittest (circular reasoning).

* The taxonomy/definition of species ("No True Scotsman" Fallacy).

* Similarities between fossils and embryos (correlation-causation/cum hoc ergo propter hoc).

* The perilous "perhaps" and "rhetoric, not evidence" (weasel words) .

* Ury -Miller Experiment ("if we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs" argument).

* All Intelligent Design being Stealth-Religion-and-Established-Church (dicto simpliciter, straw man, genetic fallacy, non sequitur).

* Peer Review and "Others disagree" (248) (converse bandwagon fallacy).

* Fossils do not show parent-offspring relationship (red herring).

* "Evolution . . . eats through logic." (267).

Darwinism's essential error is one of category mistake: it is not primarily a scientific-cosmological question, but primarily an historical question. All the science is used to reconstruct an historical event, but not as an end in itself. Hence, Ann's Raccoon Theory of Creation.

The point of discussing Darwinism is its relationship to the Fall of Adam (266). This is crucial, first because it is a preliminary to Christ's Atonement (the central focus of Christianity), and second, because the Fall of Adam. G. K Chesterton said that--the carnal, sensual, devilish side of human nature--this was the only part of Christian theology that could be proved. In politics this is crucial because the Fall applies not only to the quote-unquote masses, but also the government bureaucrats and schemers. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary": Who will watch the watchers?

The last chapter focuses on the logical implications of Darwinism--eugenics, racism, bestiality, etc. The point being that the Left's worldview entails the Left's ethical framework, which is why the Left is so timid at times. Furthermore, the last chapter is a sum up of not only the book, but also the trilogy of "Slander" and "Treason." This being the most philosophical book of the three, if Ann had written this first, she could have saved time with the other two.

PS--the guy on page 212 is Associate Justice Steven Breyer.

PPS- The quote, "If God is dead, everything is permitted" is from Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov", book 11, chapter 4.

If liberals are godless, how can they go to church? Answer that one, Ann!

The only church I can see is the Church of Coulter (I call it the "Coulter Club"; remember that weird rock group?). Her followers, or groupies, worship her, believe every word she writes as if it were the gospel truth, and never doubt HER infallibility! And she knows this, enabling her to write whatever trash she likes in the knowledge that she will nevertheless sell oodles of books and make lots of money. "No one ever went broke ...", well you know the rest of the Mencken quote, and apparently so does Coulter.

The many pages of footnote makes the book seem scholarly. Their sheer quantity impresses Ann's fans--she knows they won't check the sources and that she is safe.

Well, Media Matters HAS checked her footnotes and has found them to be full of quotations taken out of context, misstatements, misrepresentations, and plain errors of fact. Her two chapters on Darwin's theory of evolution are thoroughly examined, and shown to be the product of a misinformed individual who distorts the truth, who relies on Creationist arguments that have long been discredited, and whose understanding of Intelligent Design theory, as explained to her by the originiators, is flawed. Who are you going to believe? Coulter, a non-scientist with no background in biology, or 99% of the world's biologists, who accept Darwin's theory as fact? Coulter, of course, as exhibited in some of the 5 star reviews, where they are convinced that Coulter has demolished Darwin's theory in her book. Go figure!

Her arguments against Darwin make her entire book suspect. But the final straw occurred on TV. On "Hardball", she was on plugging her new book, and Chris Matthews asked her why she had to be so nasty describing Mike Dukakis as a "midget Greek", and the 9/11 women as harpies who enjoyed their husbands' death. Ann, in another world, asked why Matthews was concentrating on the epithets and not the content of the book. In other words, she tries to have it both ways. She does not really see that her invective, which her fans consider "wit", and which does much to sell her books, and her bizarre views sometimes conflict. She wants to slander people, and at the same time be considered a serious journalist. She out-McCarthys McCarthy. She is truly pathetic. But she always reminds people that her books are best-sellers, which seems to be the only thing she is interested in. Quantity, not quality, is what Ann is all about. She and her groupies deserve each other.

If you are an extreme right-wing Christian you will love everything Coulter is saying. I needed more notes and references, like her claim that Liberals are all about teaching 4th graders about anal sex and fisting. Quite a few of her other statements she will have 2 or 3 news articles referenced. I always need more notes. It really helps me get a true understanding of what the author is trying to say. I was also unfamiliar with Coulter before reading this book. I didn't realize this was a humor book until a few hundred pages in. I just though her writing style wasn't capturing me. I guess I have a hard time mixing many serious subjects with random jokes mixed in.

Coulter also references the Bible quite a bit. She discusses how God gave us dominion over the earth but that liberals think we should recycle. I have not read enough of Coulter to know if she is trying to make a joke or if she thinks that recycling is dumb. I have always viewed recycling as a stewardship issue. I also didn't know if she was writing this book for her own people (like minded, and on the same page) or if she is trying to convert liberals to a more conservative mindset.

This book covers a wide range of topics, from science, to war, to education, to law. She talked a lot of liberals hating war, and not supporting heroes. This book was written in 2007, but I would be curious if when she updated it if she would call out President Trump's comments about John Mccain being captured when Trump was able to get a few deferments from the Vietnam war. I was also thinking she would have almost twice the material in the 10 years since this book was put out to give commentary on.

"Democrats are constitutionally entitled to be stupid. They are, after all Democrats."

Referencing Michael Moore as a Coulter does for anything loses all credibility with me.me. Even some conspiracy theorist think he is a crackpot. This book reminds me of the books by atheists that I have read, they point out how stupid God is based on Westboro Baptist and snake handlers. Coulter has been around a long time and this book gives years of topics that I was unfamiliar with. Her take on the public education system was very surprising. Coulter references teachers as "taxpayer-supported parasites. " "How about this when bus drivers rates of getting a child to school are 50%, which is the teachers' failure rate of teaching kids, then we can talk about equal pay for teachers and bus drivers. "

As I continued to read I was surprised by the lack of compare and contrast that would have been very easy for her to do. She could have given the Liberal idea, why it didn't work and then given her Conservative idea and why she feels her idea would work. It is very tough reading books that only points fingers 100% of the time without giving any kind of ideas on how to solve the problem.

From this book, it appears Coulter is on the far-right and believes all liberals are on the far-left. But I believe that most people are in the middle thinking that both the far sides are slightly crazy!

Ann is a national treasure and this book rounds up a wild herd of horses and brands them in just the right place. Her vision and sharp obversations are just what the conservative Christians need to bring us to our feet.

A conservative preacher said "The world is watching the USA and the USA is watching TV". Well said. Ann can get us up.

Forget the Pledge of Allegiance and Ten Commandments in schools. Ann's book should be mandated for summer reading by every student in America. It might offset the brain damage caused by "educators", the media, and the entertainment industry and result in a few adults who can think for themselves.

I only wish that the Godless liberals would respond to her well developed arguments rather than going hysterical over her well directed sarcasm. If Bill Maher would only read and avoid a couple Playboy parties!!

Ann Coulter rocks, and so does this book. This book is so true that it makes one alternate between laughing and wanting to weep (but we men don't weep.) Coulter's wit, as always, is razor sharp and Coulter is a hoot. This is the kind of book Al Franken (a/k/a the Lying Liar) would write if he had the intelligence to do so, which he does not.

Coulter neatly dissects many of the presumptions of modern Leftism and shows us their inherent lack of logic and contradictions. Why do we assume pedophilia can be cured? Why do we admire Western Europe, with its low economic growth rate and sky-high unemployment, but hate nuclear power, which most Western European countries embrace? Ann attacks all manner of such contradictions in this highly witty and incisive piece.

It doesn't hurt that Ann is easy on the eyes. But her mind is as sharp as a tack, and that is what this book is about. Highly recommended. RJB.

Is anyone really fooled by all the fake reviews that liberals dump on the store the minute a book by a prominent conservative is published? I can't find a single instance of a liberal book being bombarded by phony reviews by conservatives. I think it has something to do with the fact that we believe in the old-fashioned virtue of reading at least PART of a book before reviewing it.

But on to what, I guess, is the big controversy regarding this book: Ann Coulter ridiculed the widows of men killed on 9-11. She strongly criticized, and rightly so, the four Jersey widows who have become millionaire celebrities and professional Bush-haters. If they hadn't suffered personal tragedy on 9-11, they would be just four more crackpots who think Bush could have done something to prevent the attacks. (Going back in time and stopping Democratic administrations from hamstringing the intelligence community is kind of on the fantastic side.)

Did Coulter have anything negative to say about the thousands of non-idiots who lost loved ones on 9-11? Of course not, but as she notes, and as liberals have demonstated time and again, they hate the truth. The Treason Lobby, the Cold War sore losers, the Sadaam Hussein fan club--what more can you say about people whose agenda is abortion on demand, gay "marriage," and surrender in the war on terror?

Reading the reviews of Ann Coulter's best selling "Godless" is almost as much fun as the book itself. The pony tailed, sandals-and-socks-wearing, hybrid-driving hippy men and their frizzy haired, tie-dyed muumuu-wearing companions, if judged by the venom in their hilariously indignant one-star reviews, are logging overtime hours with their analysts and dropping extra cannabis into their double soy lattes. Of course, they've not actually read the book, unless you really can picture them tripping around Berkeley or Palo Alto with Ann Coulter in their fanny packs.

I did read it, and it is vintage Ann Coulter: another incendiary installment of Ann's cynical wit giving the Left new apoplexy from their own "Santanic Barbie." It easy to see why Coulter infuriates Liberals even more than even Limbaugh - there are no bounds and nothing sacred in this attack on Democratic myths and the hypocrites who advance them. Sacred Liberal doctrine, from abortion to evolution to public schools is neatly skewered, and while there is not much new in the message, the material has been updated with the most current Liberal atrocities. I'm a Conservative and Coulter fan, but I'll concede that she may crossed the line a few times. Mac Cleland, for example, while annoying, does probably not deserve to be reminded that his Viet Nam wounds were self-inflicted. And attacks on the self-promoting "Jersey Girls", while warranted, got unnecessarily personal. But hey, this is theater - Coulter's invective is nearly as virulent as that of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, or Peter Stark. But of course, they are elected public officials, and supposedly responsible, where Coulter is merely an entertainer. While icons of the left get a free pass from the media regardless of how outrageous their claims, conservatives - especially Coulter - are of course vilified.

So if you're a Liberal and actually read "Godless", Coulter's irrefutable logic will frustrate and infuriate. Conservatives like me will also be infuriated, not by Coulter, but by example after example of how Hollywood airheads, misguided activists, and disingenuous politicians, unlikely to attain popular support for their agendas, continue to push their "religion" through sympathetic activist courts. Were the consequences not so devastating, there is dark humor in being lectured in topics as arcane as embryonic stem cell research, global climate change, and international economics by celebrities unable to manage a personal relationship or find Kyoto on a map. "Godless" will leave you screaming or cheering, but for me the choice is simple: between Cindy Sheehan and Ann Coulter, give me Ann every time.

Finally, a well thought out and well written dialog to spark a little honest debate. I do not come to the same conclusions as Ann on all of the facts presented but, I must say, I have to applaud her on putting together a good case. You can tell she worked at the Supreme Court. Her work is provocative yet, based on many facts that are worth, checking out for yourself. I my self had to go see for myself, as I do when thing don't seem to match up with past learnings.

If you get one thing out of this book even if you hate Ann, it will be to not listen to the "facts" presented by the news without checking the full story and facts.

Hope this helps.

I was highly amused by Miss Coulter's comments as I read this latest tome. She seems to always use 'Liberal' versus 'Democrat'. This being that the word liberal has evolved due to the Republican's influence. A Liberal now conjures up images of Communist loving, anti-marriage (except gay), abortions for all, tax raising,illegal immigrant accepting, anti-church and anti-Christ, flag burning, spitting on veterans,nut!

Well, I'd like to inform Miss Coulter of a few things.
Many Democrats are married, with children, hold 9-5 jobs, have served this country, do charity work and go to church on Sunday. She on the other hand is 40ish (she claims a few different ages), never married, dresses in skimpy clothing, brags about getting lucky, spends her time writing very un-Christian things,and has never been photographed coming out of church. I don't believe she's served either. What charities does she give to besides Republican charities?

The new thing is to label Democrats as 'cut and run'. Will she also say that because Eisenhower pulled out of Korea and Nixon who campaigned on bringing our troops home and did so in 1973 are cut and run?!

All-in-all, why would you trust a person who doesn't live the life she espouses?! That is why I give this book one star.

Liberals relish in their dislike of Ann Coulter. However, her research is always so in depth, that one could not help but take notice. Her message is very clear. Just because we've been taught something in school all our lives, the theory of evolution, doesn't mean it has been automatically elevated to proof status. It is still an unproven theory and the cases against it have been growing with increased scientific research. Ann's case could be called the right's Inconvient Truth.

This is a relentless screed against the Godless (i.e., the modern American left). (Well, actually, the American Left is no longer Godless, as such, since the events of 9/11/2001 finally gave it a religion it could admire.) Mostly it's a fun take on the hypocrisy of America's left: no sacred cow is too sacred to be made into hamburger.

It's a fun read. The best service it does is to put a bunch of leftist American hypocrisies into high relief.

When Camille Paglia came out with "Sexual Personae" in 1990, she offended groups of all stripes--conservatives, liberals, fundamentalist Christians, feminists, gays, and anyone remotely associated with a politically correct or "religiously right" agenda. And she did so with arguments that were fresh and intellectually challenging, supported by close readings of seminal texts and executed with original, vigorous rhetoric (at least to those readers who don't see "rhetoric" as something bad). Paglia's individualism was an inspiration to the rest of us to think like individuals. What a contrast to the mono-thematic, marginally competent, disappointingly auto-pilot performance of the increasingly self-caricaturing Coulter.

To anyone even casually familiar with Coulter's dualist idealogy, there's not a single thought-provoking or unpredictable statement to be found in this book. Hers is a bifurcated them-vs.-us world, like that of Moslems and Christians, or Shiites and Sunnis, but substituting Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, good people and bad people, true believers and un-American Satanists. Whenever she senses a vulnerable spot in one of her positions, her defense is that of the child's counterattack: "they started it, they did it first, they did it worse, they're not completely right so we must be right."

What's most offensive about the book is not Coulter's damnation of the 9/11 "widow-witches" but her appropriating the language of religion (an overly familiar theme in the politics of the new milennium) to demonize half of the population. Coulter's churchly metaphor for "liberals" (a dead word and a straw man resurrected for exploitive purposes only by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Coulter) might be entertaining were she not so obsessively literal and apparently serious. To her, "liberal," or the ungodly, refers to paleontologists and evolutionary scientists, pacifists, human rights advocates, environmentalists, proponents of free speech, gun control advocates, and a Jewish-run (albeit implied) media--which is to say they're non-believers who nevertheless faithfully attend the same church!

No need to point out to Ann that her title is an oxymoron. She'll hear only the second half of that compound and label you with the dreaded "L" word. On the other hand, given the word's current lowly place in American discourse (certainly it's down there with the "N" word), you might have a better case for defamation than the 9/11 survivors. As for the book's popularity, no doubt it represents the feelings of many "true believers" out there. But Coulter also reflects a WWF mentality--the good guy bashing it out in the ring with the villain--that has an irresistibly reductive appeal to many readers. (I have friends who eat this stuff up, who believe there actually is an organized movement intent on destroying America and harming them personally.) Fortunately, the total number of readers required to make a best-seller is in the mere thousands, not millions. And as for those contrived wrestling events, the numbers who attend them, I'm told, are in decline.

Around the 8th grade or so, my brother brought home a pamphlet he'd picked up in school, published by something called the Creation Research Institute. I've still got that little piece of 1970s propaganda tucked away in a box somewhere... because to this day, I get a kick out of the glaring logic fallacies that were so apparent to a 13 year-old who knew little of Darwinism or Creationism, and even less about the zealous passions driving the `scientists' at this research institute, all of whom curiously seemed to have doctorates in theology, not biology.

Unfortunately, Godless won't be treasured in the same way that funny little pamphlet still is... for to me, the book represents an unpleasant departure from the amicable reader/author relationship I'd developed with Coulter over the past few years. I'd poured through several of her previous books with delight, enjoying her quick and biting humor and her catty but almost always insightful attacks. That doesn't mean I hadn't disagreed with any of her opinions and conclusions. But the differences, though occasionally dramatic, were so few and far between that they were, for the most part, easily overlooked. Besides, I greatly admired the sound and common sense reasoning supporting her positions.

Then came Godless...

I had read a few reviews prior to purchasing the book, but assumed that Coulter's attacks on `Darwiniacs' would be overlook-able. I hesitated when I thumbed through the chapter listing, and realized I'd have to do a little more overlooking than usual. I bought the book anyway. And I was overcome by that very uncomfortable and cruel turn of the stomach that one might get when, during a third date, a romantic interest unexpectedly reveals their devotion, in agonizing detail, to the Reverend Sun Yung Moon.

So now on my bookshelf, gathering dust, sits an updated and more cleverly penned version of the utterly foolish logic fallacies and propaganda I first recognized at the age of 13. Only now I've got very little to laugh about. For that Creation Research Institute pamphlet didn't cost me $27.95. Nor had I any emotional investment in the authors. Besides, that pamphlet had lots funny little pictures of monkey-like creatures rising out of mud puddles, cave-men hunting dinosaurs, and Noah's Ark. It concluded quite dramatically with a cartoon of the stylized Hand of God Creating the Universe.

Perhaps a few funny little pictures might have made Godless just a little less disappointing. Oh Ann. Oh well.

Sadly, Ann Coulter seems to be turning into the mirror image of what she has lampooned in the past. Her attacks on "liberals" (and she always has applied the term liberally, so to speak, to cover a range of political types on the center-to-far left) used to be propelled by interesting, amusing, and entertaining writing. Even if you disagreed with her, her books and articles were still worth a read. In her latest work, "Godless," however, she seems to rely on a smurky, smug, shrill style, with her attacks less than focused and based sometimes on less than accurate information. Moreover, her recent publicity stunts, such as releasing "Godless" on 6-6-06 and attacking 9-11 widows suggest that she recognizes that her work alone can no longer command the public's attention without gimmicks. I was very disappointed with this book and cannot recommend it to others. If you must read it, look for it at garage sales and in used bookstores, where no doubt it will be in ample supply.

Ann Coulter has written yet another book that is sure to have the Left on the offensive. This time she addresses what she calls the Church of Liberalism which, in her mind, is the only religion that many on the Left endorse. The Church consists of the untouchable spokesmen (those who have suffered terrible losses and hate Bush), adoration for priest-like teachers, unconditional support for the rights of criminals and undying devotion to the theocratic doctrine of Darwinism. Coulter uses her jagged wit to point out that despite their opposition to organized religion the Left adheres to the principles mentioned in an almost cult-like manner.

But, of course, the most controversial part of the book was her criticism of the 9/11 wives. Very few things can get the Left in a frenzied uproar the way Coulter did by going after these women. While I admit that her words were a bit over-the-top, perhaps flirting on the brink of cruelty, I also have to admit that she does indeed have a point. Losing a loved-one does not exempt someone from being challenged in debate, especially when that someone resorts to harsh name-calling and reckless accusations of their own. Ironically, the Left's reaction to Coulter's contention validated her point. Those on the Right will find parts of this book interesting and will agree with me that some of it is over the top. But, basically, this is much of the same from the woman the Left loves to hate.

This is a great book. Written with humour and insight. Explains the truth behind many of the liberal distortions that appear in the media and the phony "Politically Correct" movement that attempts to muffle free speech.

If you are getting your knowledge of the subject of evolution from Anne Coulter, please find a science book after you read this. Anne Coulter as countless people before her who write books that appeal to those I would say not of the most secular bent, misunderstands (to be generous) what she is talking about. Her knowledge of evolution, science and atheism could be put on a grain of rice and not a very big grain at that. She states that evolution is made up, forgetting oh, some dinosaur bones and what not. Where the dinosaur bones came from exactly, Coulter does not say. Scientists of course must have planted them. Those evil scientists. Coulter obviously does not understand the difference between evolution and natural selection (Charles's Darwin's main contribution to evolution) and since she doesn't understand the most basic terms that an 8th grade science student would have to know (who isn't writing a book on the topic by the way) her statements must be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe they are written on that grain of salt instead of the rice grain? Anne Coulter presumbly wrote her book on a computer. Did the scientists who created the technology for that computer lie or was it only the scientists trying to disprove god through evolution as Coulter believes? If you think I am being too sarcastic in my review of this book, remember, this review is made up of actual writings of what Coulter writes. She really believes there is a big conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of men and women with PhDs to take away her religion, I guess. The simple fact is, Coulter did not read one actual book by scientists on evolution that wasn't a pro creationist text. If you asked her what a hominid was, she would have a blank look on her face. Ask her about genetic drift she might call you a traitor. Why for the life of me people who have absolutely no knowledge and expertise on what they write (or haven't done any actual research for that matter) get books published, I have no idea. Now, one can be a theist or a Christian and believe in evolution. God would not want us to be blinded to the evidence. Many Christians are believers in evolution. But again, do not get your information about this subject from this book. Go to talkorigins website, they have a wealth of information. Do it before it's too late.

Once again, Ms. Coulter puts a voice to the plethora of hypocracies of the Democrats. She has so much to work with, and it is amazing she can present so much information and facts in such a concise manner. The anger that's expressed to her on TV and in print is coming from a party that does not like to hear the truth, nor accept the fact that they have been exposed in such an intelligent and articulate manner. We need her to keep up the great work, and I look forward to her next book.

Great book. Exactly what you would expect from Ann Coulter. An observation: I have noticed many bad reviews from people claiming to be "more Conservative" or "more Christian" than Ann and then slamming the book. I judge these peoples' opinions by their previous reviews....you will see a distinct liberal pattern!

Like Humpty Dumpty, Ann Coulter arrogates to herself the right to attach any meaning to words such as "liberalism." But "The Church of Liberalism" in standard English is and remains an oxymoron. I myself, having taught biology and devoted two weeks each year to evolution, would qualify as a Darwiniac in her book and one of those "cretinous high school biology teachers" she detests. Yet I have to admit that I enjoyed reading the book despite its bias and a perverse insistence on the irrational. A sharper tongue and a cleverer wit is hard to find! I would have left it at that if it wasn't for her attempt to seriously attack the theory of evolution. She is beyond her depth there but that is really not all bad because she has marshalled all the anti-evolution arguments of the ID crowd conveniently in one place for us to find. And these people lie like dogs when they claim that they are not creationists - just listen to the creationists praise them. The idea of a god creating anything is of course absurd. In the world today we are faced with a multitude of religions, perhaps five thousand, all teaching different versions of the creation myth. But the theory of evolution tells us that we humans were not created but evolved, and thereby invalidates any and all of these creation myths. Which leaves us GODLESS. But contrary to religionists' claim that being godless is a license to rape, steal and murder, ethics does not depend upon the existence of religion. Humans are a social species and ethics is an aspect of human social evolution that has been molded by an inherited human nature. There are biological underpinnings for human nature and for such human traits as empathy and altruism. Thus, our ability to empathise with one another very likely depends upon the activity of recently discovered mirror neurons. When religion arose it appropriated most ethical concepts that social evolution had created for itself but modified others to accommodate its own peculiarities. This and plagiarism accounts for the similarities between different religions, including an almost universal presence of the "golden rule" in many unrelated religions. To study evolution we must make clear what we mean by the word "species." When it comes to multicellular animals, biologists use the "biological species" concept of Ernst Mayr: members of a species must be able to conceive fertile offspring with one another but not with another species with whom a hybrid may still be possible. And right here we have a problem classifying "ring species," organisms that have an extended circular range. An example is Ensatina escholtzii salamanders that live in the hills surrounding the San Joaquin Valley in California. On the one side are the Coast Ranges, on the other side Sierra Nevada, and at the north end there are other mountains that were the original home of these salamanders. As they spread south they avoided the valley and stayed on higher ground to the north, east and west of it. All neighbioring populations can still interbreed with one another but this is not the case where the separated populations merge south of the valley. There they are physically distinguishable and do not produce fertile hybrids. If, for some reason, this species were now to disappear from its northern range we would not hesitate to call the two remainder populations in the south separate species. If they then persisted for a long time theirs would be the only fossils found. As to the jerky fossil record - it is real and implies that new species can appear in geologically short periods. The Ensatina variants evolved since the end of the Ice Age. Evolution of the dog is another example. Some breeds of dogs meet the "biological species" criterion of Ernst Mayr very well: a Great Dane can not interbreed with either a Chihuahua or a Dachshund because of physical mismatch. We would therefore be justified in assigning species names to them, such as Canis giganticus for the Gtreat Dane, Canis longus for the Dachshund, and Canis parvus for the Chihuahua. As shown by DNA evidence all dogs are descended from a wolf in approximately thirteen thousand years, a geological eyeblink. Both examples show that it is possible for evolution to produce species quickly when an opening arises. Openings can happen in many different ways, including asteroid strikes such as the one that cleared the earth of dinosaurs and gave the mammals a chance. Start of the Cambrian must have coincided with one such opening for all life forms that took part in the "Cambrian explosion." We know from DNA analysis that the ancestral forms existed in late preCambrian time but for reasons that are unclear they did not start to proliferate then. The Cambrian itself was preceded by Late Proterozoic ice ages from 850 to 550 million years ago that included a "Snowball Earth" period when conditions for life were harsh. One suspects that the start of the Cambrian explosion is in some way related to the recovery from those ice ages, but that is just a guess. There are still a few loose ends that we need to nail down, one of them being Coulter's claim that the theory of evolution cannot be falsified. This is manifestly untrue: just find a fossil out of sequence like a rabbit in Cambrian or human fossils in the Cretaceous and you will have falsified it. The creationists know this full well and are desperately looking for such fossils right now. And another is "missing links" that never satisfy them because as soon as you find one it creates two gaps in the fossil record for them instead of one. It is in such gaps in the fossil record that their creator-god lurks. But in the case of Ensatina and other ring species the intermediate forms are all there and give the lie to the argument that missing links do not exist.

Ann Coulter has written a landmark book which should be required reading for all Americans. With the constant barrage of propaganda from the left, it is refreshing to read a book that tells the truth. I was so impressed with "Godless" that I bought and read all of Coulter's books, "High Crimes & Misdemeanors: the Case Against Bill Clinton", "Treason", "Slander" and "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)", and found them all to be brilliant and well-sourced. I highly recommend "Godless" and all of Ann Coulter's books.

"The Republicans have a problem. The economic program of American Conservatives, if enacted in its entirety, would devastate the middle class while helping the American overclass. Income would be redistributed upward, while taxes would be redistributed downward.... How can conservatives expect to win votes for an economic program so inimical to the middle class? The answer is they cannot--and they know it. Therefore, most conservative ideologues... have done their best to change the subject from the economy to what they like to call, 'the culture'..."

Michael Lind

UP FROM CONSERVATISM (1996)

From Chapter Five, "Whistling Dixie"

"Have you met Jezebel? Whether you know little about her or you are intimately acquainted with this spirit, you'll want to pick up this completely revised and expanded version of Jonas Clark's JEZEBEL: SEDUCING GODDESS OF WAR. This book is a must read for all Christians who are intent on doing the will of God because it first identifies this controlling, manipulating spirit for what it is, then gives realistic examples of how this spirit manifests through people...Jezebel: Seducing Goddess of War will help you guard yourself from becoming a eunuch, enabler, or messenger of Jezebel..."

the store.com review of

JEZEBEL: SEDUCING GODDESS OF WAR

by Jonas Clark

"...Liberals are always against America... They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.

"We should invade [Middle Eastern/Islamic] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

Ann Coulter

(assorted quotes)

Shelby Steele, the author of WHITE GUILT, is a highly regarded English professor whose wife is a licensed psychologist. The combination of the two perspectives--both definitively focused on language and artistic narrative above science and economics--creates a marketable perspective on our society that, ironically, hides the true origins of its structural "Savage Inequalities (Kozol)." The resultant rhetorical obfuscation of the rebirth of an old Plantation monster in neoliberalism (the economic policies implemented by neoconservatives since the Reagan Administration) is like a drug: simultaneously euphoria-producing and emotionally addictive.

Where Shelby Steele's work is psychological cocaine, however, Ann Coulter's is crack. CAPITALISM in our country, as she well knows, has become a pagan religion. The "Free Market" is our Baal.

The Washington Post response to the story of DARK ALLIANCE by investigative journalist Gary Webb is an archetypal example of this dangerous dynamic in our society: the reactionary will-to-theatrical pseudomoralism, in the face of the revealing of the American Free Market's unspeakable truths. Gary Webb, via "following the money" of drug dealers in California up the food chain in the 90s, uncovered the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in the proliferation of cheap drugs and guns in the Black communities across the country. This, as has been proven, was done for the benefit of fattening slush funds financing the Reagan-era "Contra" wars in Nicaragua; secret wars which broke every international law ever written for the benefit of destroying a democratically elected government that did not serve US interests in the region. The CIA role in the development and proliferation of illegal drugs is something re-proven by Gary Webb, and since THE POLITICS OF HEROIN IN SOUTHEAST ASIA by Alfred McCoy a generation before him, has been a truism in the dissident historical literature. Yet despite the journalistic integrity, reams of paperwork & signed documents, interviews, photos and the like Webb produced, the so-called "liberal media" attacked him, *personally*, at all costs. It turns out the "liberal media" (which, of course, is owned and controlled by the conservative leaders of multi-national corporations) was--and always has been--a deadly oxymoron for the poor and middle class in America. The Washington Post, New York Times and other major newspapers in the country threatened to sue his newspaper in San Jose until his story was removed from both the paper and the website--despite it being, again, a piece you'd expect to have won him a Pulitzer.

This was when the "Black Rage" theory, designed to explain away this and other state secrets as a product of codependent, liberal, Negro-loving paranoia, became ubiquitous. Ushering in the resultant backlash to Affirmative Action and all things "liberal" that is Coulter's whole life.

The reality: three industries (not emotions, industries) as part of the neoliberal economic revolution have changed the face of American culture dramatically and probably forever since the 1960s. And they are: 1) the abortion/birth control industry, 2) the aforementioned illegal drug trade and 3) the growth of the Prison Industrial Complex, creating a slave labor base for other (still declining) American industries while also keeping the undereducated white poor in America focused on criminal justice instead of social change. (The Military Industrial Complex [b.1947] need not even be discussed.) The only way you can have a substantive conversation about these dynamics in America, however, is to begin by honestly discussing their effect on American culture. It is expressed in our interpersonal relations; our economic/behavioral choices; and our (dys)functional morality, lurking underneath both our religious and secular hypocrisy. Preventing such cultural self-analysis by obscuring the facts with a Freak Show, however, so debilitates the spiritual transformation, democratic spirit and emerging economic independence of the southern White poor that it becomes an invaluable function of corporate stability; EFFECTIVELY PREVENTING PROGRESSIVE, UNCONTROLLABLE SOCIAL CHANGE FROM BELOW.

But of course that is the intended effect of the writer of GODLESS, the Jezebel Freak of the reactionary right's pagan Freak Show: make those with the power to actually institute the implied agenda look tame and reasonable--and therefore trustworthy--by comparison.

These final days before the Bush legacy is Nixonized should be big fun.

Baal--Reactionary Conservatism's "Free Market" by its original name--is a false and dying god. So saith the Lord (John 2:13-17).

Excellant book. She spends a little too much time destoying evolution as a theory. But perhaps it is necessary to counter that Liberal lie. It is refreshing to see so much truth all in one place. The major point I came away with is that Liberalism is a Religon. A faith which allows no other faith to be practiced. Its clegy (public school teachers) indoctrinates our youth. Declaring all other faiths wrong. Liberalism is the only truth. Yet Ann points out that they base everything on lies. I thought that if you just pointed out the incorrectness of the liberal premises I could destroy their theories and convert them. Now after reading Ann I realize they hold these lies to be truths. Facts do not matter to Liberals. They make up facts to fit their theories. Having no prohibition against it, they happily and pathologically lie. They are firmly convinced that they know what is best for the masses. Therefore whatever it takes to gain power and assert their will on the people is okay. The ends justify the means. Becasue they (the Liberals) know what is best for the people. Becasue they are so much smarter than evryone else. They should be in charge. It is what is best for all us poor dumb people who are not Liberals. They lies to us for our own good. They know what is best for everything therefore lying to win arguments and elections is okay. Because we are all so much better off when they are running things.

I note liberal reviews say Ann is angry and hateful. I found no angry or hateful remarks in this book. Truth is threatening to liberals and their reactions of anger and hate are projections of there own damaged little minds.

ANGER CLOUDS REASON. THEREFORE LIBERALISM REQUIRES ANGER:

Reading the liberal reviews of this book is a clear demonstration of the accurcy of

Micheal Savages' statement "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder".

I wish we could get to a point in this country where we could get together an accomplish great things again. Liberals need to get over their hate and anger and begin to face facts.

GOD IS JOY.

When was the last time you saw a joyful Liberal?

Speaking about McCarthyism, Adlai Stevenson, an actual liberal (as opposed to the imaginary ones who are the "straw men" in this book) said the following: "When demagoguery and deceit become a national political movement, we Americans are in trouble; not just Democrats, but all of us."

Ann Coulter's purported witticisms (they aren't funny) are based on non-facts that she is too bright to believe are true. She appeals to her readers' fears and prejudices and inspires them to engage in group-think (otherwise known as "mob-think"). As Stevenson pointed out, such tactics endanger not just the their targets, but everyone. Ann's books may be gratifying to the ignorant and hilarious to the cynical, but they do harm. She should know better, but obviously does not. It's up to the rest of us to make the difference.

Casting some of her aspersions on 911 Widows aside, I would like to view the book on its merits or lack thereof.

Anne Coulter throws fiery darts at the pseudo religion of the extreme left, yet completely ignores the very same false religion of the extreme right. She does a very inept job of supporting her claim that liberalism is a false religion.

Instead of intelligently and cogently supporting her claims with facts, she drifts off into an incoherent and somewhat mad diatribe on why she hates liberals.

"Ms Right" also should be challenged as to why she claims to be a Christian and morally upright, yet uses sex as a great deal of her "schtick". Dressing in revealing clothes, she's obviously trying to get men to buy her books. This further addresses the weakness of her message because she must use such low measures to sell her books.

[...]

Ann Coulter's a satirist, brilliant and out-loud hilarious. That she uses hyperbole to make her points is a surprise to no one except those who think they have an opening: "What??? No way Al Franken is the missing link, and I can prove it!!"

Her disestablishmentarian contention is nothing new, but - LIBERALS LISTEN UP; HERE'S YOUR ANSWER! - Ann uses `Liberal' as the moniker for the religion - and it is a religion - because she just loooooovves to tweak those who assume they're infinitely more evolved than the rest of us. Really: What fun would "The Church of Secular Humanism" be?

So for those liberals who think "...sure, Haeckel's drawings were a fake, but they were accurate!" should be taken seriously; or who think an irrefutable argument consists of the circular "Evolution is science! Why would anyone argue against science?!" (incidentally: it's not); or that "Hey, you can't say that; their husbands are dead!" is the perfect rejoinder to Ann's contention that liberals made heroes out of the Jersey girls because, well, their husbands were dead; my suggestion would be: read the damn book.

Honest, even you will enjoy it. And, God willing, you'll learn something.