Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 2 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Ann Coulter: Darwin is "crap" and "we need one more" [on the U.S. Supreme Court]

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   No comments
Somehow an article that I attempted to send to OpEdNews was cut off after the first paragraph and posted on my diary as a writing from "Wolfeman" (my online nickname). Here is the full article. - BHW

Sometimes I become weary and blasé enough to turn on my television set to see if there is anything worth viewing. I am seldom rewarded, but I was when I was provided my first look at and hearing of the irrational ravings of Ann Coulter. Since I am not a masochist, that will be my last. I am glad, however, that I watched and listened as long as I did, because of what I learned about Coulter and her followers, and about a media and overall society that engender popularity of an ignorant, anti-scientific, anti-democratic bigot.

It was a televised appearance of Coulter before what seemed to be some sort of college attended exclusively by women who worship her. I cannot say what it was because I found Coulter so ignorant and obnoxious that I had to switch channels after 10 or 15 minutes, before I could ascertain the source of the telecast. Evidently in order to hide her physical ugliness, she had dyed her hair, plastered her face with all kinds of makeup, and put on a tight-fitting blouse that caused pointed, padded or otherwise artificially created t*ts to stick out predominantly from her skeletal frame. Since she was talking in the guise of a "Jesus" freak, I wondered what the major "Jesus" of the New Testament (of a number of Jesuses in it), depicted as a socialistic communalist espousing aspects of an ideology identified today as communist, would think of this artificial woman preaching diametrically opposite views.

When I did a Google search on Coulter, I saw references to her persistent attacks on "liberals." So, I suppose it will not surprise anyone when I report that most of what I viewed consisted of a tyrannical, uninformed, bigoted tirade against "liberals" – though it was incomprehensible as to who or what she meant by the term "liberals." Her tirade was against the American Civil Liberties Union, lawyers of any description ("I hate lawyers," she said), anybody and everybody who is opposed to prayer in the public schools, five of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court, everyone who believes in the Darwinian theory of evolution, and practically every mass media reporter and broadcaster in the U.S. except Bill O'Reilly of the Fox Channel.

Darwinian theory of evolution as "junk" and "crap"

Coulter talks in machinegun-like chatter, running her words and sentences together so rapidly that it is practically impossible to take notes on what she says. From what I can remember of her televised address, she has developed some sort of weird notion of how the cells of the human body are constructed and how they behave. You would need a tape recorder for transcription, and even if you could put it into print word for word, her concoction would only emerge as incomprehensible gibberish. Whatever it is, it is based on Coulter's irrational interpretation of Darwin and his followers as scientists who base their views on evolution upon the idea that all reproduction of life is asexual, meaning, according to Coulter, that sexual reproduction therefore becomes unnecessary. Consequently, it is perfectly clear [as Richard Nixon used to characterize totally muddied ideas] that the Darwinian theory of evolution is "junk" and "crap." If Coulter resorts to any source other than her own twisted mind for her concept of Darwinian thought, it was not included in the segment of her address that I heard. Regardless of whether or not she derives her views from some source other than her own imagination, it is impossible to understand why a woman espousing such abysmal ignorance should be accorded the phenomenal attention and following she has attracted.

"We need one more" [on the Supreme Court]

Because Coulter apparently has attracted a large following of ignoramuses who believe in her nonsense and therefore has become influential, it would be a mistake to dismiss her as a crackpot whose views will not be accepted by many Americans. When she uses the term "we" in espousing her views, she is talking about a growing number of Christian anti-fundamentalists who agree with her and who want to "christianize" the U.S. along lines that have no relevance to the precepts in the New Testament scriptures and, indeed, are in contradiction to those precepts – which is why the term "Christian anti-fundamentalists" should be used in lieu of "Christian fundamentalists."

In her televised tirade Coulter blamed the failure of Christian anti-fundamentalists to engender prayer in public school, and the Christianizing of the U.S. in general, primarily on the U.S. Supreme Court. At least she showed an understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court, through its published opinions, makes national law just as surely as does the Congress. In order to make that national law adhere to Christian anti-fundamentalist positions, Coulter told her audience of adoring young women, "we need one more" on the U.S. Supreme Court bench. "We need one more" is a direct quotation from her rant. It should be a wakeup call for all disaffected Democrats who are sitting out elections because they are disgusted with the failure of so many legislators bearing the Democratic Party label to distinguish their platforms from those of the Republicans. Until enough support can be engendered for a third party – and that is beyond realistic expectation for any time in the near future – it is essential to put Democrats back into control of the Presidency, the Congress, the governorships, and the state legislatures, so that the nature of recent judicial appointments can be changed from Christian anti-fundamentalist to democratic secularist. If an insufficient number of Democrats fail to realize how critically important that is, Coulter and the Christian anti-fundamentalists may well achieve their goal of "one more" of their kind on the U.S. Supreme Court bench, and if that happens, you can kiss off any hope of continued separation of church from state as well as any hope of achieving true democracy in the U.S. within this and the next decade.
Rate It | View Ratings

Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Common Origin of and Split Between Arabs and Jews - Part Two of an Interview with Professor George E. Mendenhall

There Are No "Anti-semites" and No "Palestinians"

The Undiscussed Factor in the JonBenet Story: the Ramseys' and Society's Sex Exploitation of Children

The Origin of Mel Gibson's Jew Fetish and His Crucifixion Story

What Jews Are and Are Not - part Two

What Jews Are and Are Not - Part One

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend