Consider the following hypothetical. In the cause of his activism on behalf of an Islamic cause, a Muslim activist did the following: blockaded buildings; got arrested 40 times for various activities connected to the activism; disrupted Town Hall meetings; described himself as an extremist; palled around with a future assassin; and paid for TV ads featuring grisly photos of dead bodies. This person then runs for political office. A noted liberal pundit does a fund raiser for him. How do you think Fox guest Ann Coulter would respond? For starters, I suspect that she would bray about treason and domestic terrorism. But if you make this hypothetical person a real life Christian anti-abortion radical, you have Democratic presidential candidate Randall Terry for whom - wait for it - Ann Coulter is doing a March 3rd fund raiser at an Oklahoma Baptist church which includes, as one of its members, birther State Rep. Mike Ritze.
Although she is a Romney supporter, the childless Coulter is doing this "to show solidarity with the pro-life cause." Funny, didn't she once say that all Islamic countries should be carpet bombed? That certainly isn't pro-life - oh, wait, once you're born, all bets are off, especially if you're a Muslim. She also "joked" about how a liberal SCOTUS judge should be poisoned. Now that's pro-life at its finest.
Terry is "certain" that Coulter's "formidable talent and skills" will be "motivational and inspirational." And she is such a role model for the "pro-life" cause. Ya think!
Correction: Ann Coulter is a regular Fox News guest and not a contributor.
First let me say,I don’t hate you. Secondly sir,let me say I think you’re nuttier than a monk’s fruitcake. I find the incosistency of the idea of violence to prevent supposed ‘violence’ as silly as the ‘pre-emptive strike’. To me,the idea is completely at odds with peaceful protestation in a civilised society. Of course,‘civilised’ could be argued in the US.
Now Annie,show the audience how you make your adam’s apple move in time to the music! Cue ‘Born this way’ somebody!
“Letâs say there was a man who -
arrested 100 times for various activities connected to the activism;
disrupted Town Hall meetings;
described himself as an extremist;
was connected with people who participated in violence;
showed grisly photos of dead bodies;
interfered with the âlegal rightsâ of businesses and individuals;
was Christian radical Christian Minister;
was under surveillance by the FBI;
and would probably be labelled as a âdomestic terroristâ under the Patriot Act.
That man, of course, would be an American Hero, because he fought against evil and injustice."
Mr terry, alining yourself with people who participated in violence against, what I am assuming is pro-choice individuals, does not make you an American hero. In fact, you said it yourself: it makes you a religious, fundamental extremist. You cannot claim holy ground if you are advocating violence in the name of your religion, and for an issue that has everything to do with the health and the well-being of a woman.
First of all, King was adamant that a violent majority would undermine a non-violent majority. When asked about the violent minority, his response was:
“Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.
YOU, on the other hand… when you’re not indifferent to violence in your movement , you’re endorsing it.
Remember your lawsuit in 1998?
Remember the deal with Charles Kopp?
Remember Susan Estrich actually calling you a psycho on Fox News, and no one protesting that?
Remember when all the other pro-life groups condemned you because they see your endorsements of violence as a detriment to their cause?
Remember when Catholics united condemned you as an overzealous nutcase?
Come back when you wanna embarrass yourself a little more. We’ll be more than happy to help you with that.
I’m sure you’re familiar with the question when Larry King ask Dan Quayle during the 92 election, and how he stumbled badly with his response. The many that I know or known who are pro-life, only a very few hold your position. To be fair to you that may because I live in California. If I lived in Utah or the south, I’m sure I would hear an opposite view.
I’m the father of twin girls who will be 14 in May. I’m thankful that they both look like their beautiful mother, and nothing like me. I never want to see them be forced to give birth or face jail, and I will continue to vote for candidates who will support a women right to choose.
When you said “For the times when both cannot be saved, it must be up to the mother and father; to the father, if the mother is unconscious”, we know how you didn’t have this opinion in the case of Terri Schiavo.
The lesson learned from that case is that both my wife and I had legal papers spell out that we don’t want to be on life support, in case we are ever faced with that decsion.
The decision to do so is not made easily. It is a personal medical decision. Not political.You don’t know what that individual situation is.
The Pro life side needs to focus on the dead beat dads who don’t help with providing emotional, financial and being there for the mother and baby. Daddy can do a hit and run, while the mother leaves the evidence leaving them to deal with scorn from a small percentage of society.
I will always vote for those who support the womens right to choose.
arrested 40 times for various activities connected to the activism;
disrupted Town Hall meetings;
described himself as an extremist;
palled around with a future assassin;
paid for TV ads featuring grisly photos of dead bodies;
Democratic presidential candidate;
Christian anti-abortion radical.
You call that a rant? I call that accurate reporting. If you can’t take the heat stay out of the kitchen. And while you’re at it, stay out of our wombs.
I’m surprised Terry isn’t getting the entire Fox News gang on his stage for that.
“The FCC ruled that the station was reasonable to conclude that âTerry did not make a substantial showing that he is a legally qualified candidate entitled to reasonable access to broadcast stations in Illinois.â
Furthermore, even if he were qualified, âhe would not be entitled to particular placement of his spots on a particular program on a stationâs broadcast schedule,â the FCC ruled.
Based on the ruling, several other stations will perhaps deny similar requests by Terry for Super Bowl airtime.
Terry had tried to show that he had engaged in enough campaign activities to qualify, even though he is a write-in candidate in about 75 counties rather than having his name appear on the ballot in Illinois."