911 Widows Respond to Coulter
Posted By: LVMT on 2006-06-09
In Reply to:
Statement of September 11th Advocates
Response to “Godless”
For Immediate Release -- June 6, 2006
We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens. Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?
We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered. Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.
It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.
We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.
1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.
2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.
3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain underprotected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.
4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.
5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world -- particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.
6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.
7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.
8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the reinstatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.
###
September 11th Advocates:
Kristen Breitweiser
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Just ask Ann Coulter about the 911 widows.....
Please educate yourself.
In a stinging blow to the Bush administration, the Supreme Court has ruled prisoners in Guantanamo Bay can challenge their detention in civilian federal courts. The ruling marked the third time in four years the Supreme Court has ruled against the Bush administration concerning the rights of Guantanamo prisoners.
July 2008
There might not have been 9/11 widows if her husband was doing his job. NM
I'm sorry, I just HAVE to respond here...
This is just bunk. How arrogant can human beings be? To think that we can manipulate this planet in such profound ways is ridiculous. This is a dynamic planet. These things have always happened, and always will. The world has reinvented itself at least twice. It will shake us all off like fleas off a dog, if it chooses to do so. Not that we shouldn't be good custodians of the planet, but we don't even come CLOSE to having the kind of control that the environmental loons seem to believe. Reminds me of that movie Armgageddon where Bruce Willis is standing out on that oil rig hitting golf balls at a Greenpeace boat screaming at them asking them how much diesel does that boat you've got there use?
And lastly, the United States cannot be single handedly blamed for a supposed case of global warming? That people think that, specifically liberals, shows you just how political the whole thing is, and very little to do with science. Last time I checked there was a great big huge INHABITED world beyond our shores, and they're also especially good at polluting this planet that we all share.
cant respond right now
Im sorry, first thing in my morning reading your post after watching thousands without anything and knowing they are going to DEMAND what they need..Geez, Im sorry, I cant post response right now..Im too upset..Later today, I will however respond, I promise.
So why did ya respond?
If ignorance is bliss, the Obama-land is the happiest place on Earth! Screw Disneyland!
Respond away.
You claimed I was the first to bring it up and I wasn't.
Dixie Dew: Please respond to this!
Okay. Now you're back on the right.... er left.... er CORRECT board! Please stay here, okay? 
Wow. I really don't know how to respond to your post. sm
But you support the troops...right?
Please do not respond observer
Please do not respond to my posts *Observer*. This is the liberal board and my posts are to my fellow democrat/liberals not to a ring winger. I have nothing in common with you or right wingers, in fact, I cannot stomach right wingers, their ideas, what they have done to this country under their president. Do youself a favor, go back to the conservative board or just skip over my posts and dont even read them.
It is immaterial to me if you respond to me or not, LD...
still a free board, still a free country, still able to state an opinion. You do not have to waste your time or energy reading my responses. With all due respect of course.
Know you are not going to respond, don't mind....others might want to know...
any fire department employee is paid for by some branch of government...city, county, etc. They are all in essence government employees. Like any other city or county employee...like law enforcement. Los Angeles County FD, Orange County FD, they were the most heavily involved in fighting the Malibu fire, I believe. Generally volunteer firefighters are used where the municipalities cannot afford to pay firefighters, or for outlying areas that town firefighters do not cover. So I suppose that means firefighting is socialized anywhere the town, city or county government can afford it...not sure that qualifies as socialized firefighting. They are not universal firefighters all controlled from Washington, so really not similar to what socialized medicine would be. Control is at the local city or county level.
Would like to respond, but need more info....
I have been a bit out of touch the past week or so (looking for a job) and have not heard about Obama's latest remarks regarding sanctions, coalitions and the like. Could you please cite your sources for this information? It sounds like spin to me, but I like to keep open mind. You are right about much food for thought and I would like to enter this discussion once I know where this is coming from.
IMO, the sanctions against Iraq have very little to do with "punishing" Sadaam and more to do with serving US interests in destabilizing the region as a whole, thus facilitating US ambitions of securing and maintaining "oil"igarchy in the Middle East. We have been doing that ever since the late 1940s. Examples abound. Don't get me started.
The Iran sanctions discussion is a moot point. We have imposed sanctions against Iran ever since the Islamic revolution in 1979. Over the years, these have been extended and have become so harsh, there really is nothing left to sanction. This has succeeded in fueling the hatred Islamic extremists hold toward the West and emboldened their leaders, who have been quite resourcesful in bypassing US sanctions by forming alliances with other western and eastern countries.
With regard to "international coalitions" against Iran, I would be more worried about the Bush Administration covert operations as described recently by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact) than anything Obama may come up with.
Still, I would be interested in learning more about these remarks you find so troubling.
Stand down. If you respond, she will repeat herself
an over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Kudo's to you. I was hoping you'd respond
to the tactics of those who try to silence others who don't agree with them.
Mom always told me you don't like the channel change it, you don't have to watch something you don't want to. Same with the posters. If they don't like what you have to say, ignore it and move on.
Life's too short.
Glad you can laugh....I should know better than to respond to you...nm
I hesitate to respond to this because I'm an Independent and see good and bad
in both liberals and conservatives.
Believe it or not, liberal/independent people can be pro choice, believe in God, love America, would like to see all nations free, and most of all, supports our troops.
First of all, we love our country so much that we have respect for the Constitution. Being pro choice or pro life is a direct result of your religious/spiritual beliefs. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for ALL people, even those who don’t subscribe to the same religion as YOU. The concept of when life begins relies 100% on religious beliefs. If I believe that life begins at the moment of conception, then the best way I can honor my God my religion is to not ever have an abortion. What I DON’T believe is that I have the right to impose my religious beliefs on every American in this country via laws. If I do that, I’m infringing on THEIR religious beliefs. The same hold true for stem cell research. If you don’t believe in it, then don’t participate in it. But don’t prevent others who don’t agree with you from reaping the life-saving benefits it may offer. In fact, some of us might think those against this research are anti-life, rather than pro-life, since they don’t seem to care at all about saving the people who are already here. A reasonable person of any faith might ask why in the world God gave us the technology if he/she didn’t want us to use it.
We further believe in the Constitution’s promise that we have freedom of speech. There is no doubt in my mind that you were surrounded by pro Bush people at a pro Bush rally. Were you actually in the same room with President Bush, though? You may have been. I, on the other hand, would never be allowed to attend one of his "town hall" meetings because he prescreens people and doesn’t let anyone in who doesn’t agree with him or might challenge him. Some of us would definitely think this is a very anti-American practice.
As far as other moral values are concerned, I personally don’t believe in lying. My personal God doesn’t care for that very much, either. The entire world was lied to by President Bush concerning the war in Iraq. What’s much worse than that is that he used the tragedy of 9/11 to propagate a war against the leader of a country that wasn’t associated with 9/11 in any way. He used the vast support he received during the Afghanistan invasion after 9/11 to achieve the goal he had before he was even elected President: To declare war against Saddam Hussein. He did this on the blood and backs of every victim of the Twin Towers attack. My personal God really has contempt for that kind of behavior.
As far as getting rid of God "from the publics views," I have yet to hear of one church/synagogue/mosque or other public religious building being shut down by a liberal. Liberals have EQUAL respect for all religions and are against one particular religion receiving favor over another. To bring Jesus’ name into the political arena or an arena paid for by the tax dollars of everyone diminishes other religious beliefs. There are people whose religious beliefs don’t include Jesus, and some liberals see the "My God is better than your God" game to be very dangerous in a country that claims to provide freedom of religion for all.
Finally, regarding our troops: Nobody has more respect for our troops than I do. It’s the President who seems to have no respect. The difference between me and President Bush is that I place much more value on each of their lives. I would never be so reckless with the lives of our children as to send them into an unplanned war, refuse to provide them with adequate equipment to fight that war and protect themselves, and lie to them about their release dates in order to hold them hostage. For several months in a row now, the military has failed to reach their recruitment quotas, which is no surprise to me. I want our troops to come home, ALIVE AND WELL, and that is a direct result of the respect I have for him all. Their lives should not be sacrificed casually for a false reason. Their lives should only be on the line when we are protecting ourselves from a direct threat. Perhaps if Bush cared enough about this country 30-some years ago and served combat duty in Vietnam, he would have more respect for our troops. But his wealth and privilege came to his rescue, and he was able to wiggle out of it. He never had to know firsthand what it’s like to wake up every morning (if indeed you’re that lucky) to wonder if this day is going to be your last. Perhaps if he did, he’d have more respect for our troops today.
Everyone supported the President when he sent troops to Afghanistan after 9/11. Unfortunately, we can’t leave Iraq right now. Bush "broke it," and now WE are MORALLY obligated to fix it. God only knows when that will happen. It’s not, as he and his cronies promised in the beginning, going to be a quick war, and contrary to what he declared in his well-planned photo op, "Mission Accomplished" by a long shot. The terrorists must figure that the odds are pretty good in their favor if only ONE suicide bomber can kill multiple people, Americans and Iraqis, in a single hit. And they’re not going away. They’re only getting stronger all the time because Bush created a haven for them in Iraq. So much for respecting our troops. And how are we going to "fix" the mess he made in Iraq when we simply run out of troops because young people refuse to enlist because they’ve lost faith in him and don’t trust our government any more? He promised he wouldn’t impose a draft. If/when he ultimately DOES impose it, I think a GREAT photo op for him would be when he accompanies Jenna and Barbara as they enlist. I don’t think I’ll hold my breath for that one.
Did you know that part of the Iraq war budget includes a comprehensive health care plan for every Iraqi citizen? I personally think it's very immoral for a President to take care of others in another country when his own Americans are in the midst of such a health care crisis.
He’s apparently too concerned about "spreading freedom" all over the world to guarantee that same freedom is safe from peril here at home. I recently heard that al Qaeda is now joining drug lords from Central America to cross our carelessly unprotected borders and enter the country. They figured out they can do this successfully because their complexions are similar, and they can easily pass as someone of Latin descent. There is a myriad of other things this President should have done to make this country safer. But he’s too busy obsessing on his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. If he had put 1/100th of the effort into finding Osama bin Laden, we would have captured him by now. If he had put 1/100th of the effort into taking precautions concerning nuclear plants and other entities in this country, we actually WOULD be safer today.
Just because someone has tolerance and respect for all religious beliefs; perhaps has his or her own style of respect and support for our troops by wanting to keep them alive and using their service carefully, thoughtfully, and judiciously; believes a person already born and living in this country is a citizen and that an embryo isn’t; believes that we should clean up our own country before trying to clone more like it all over the world; and believes that the Constitution should be the written document that is relied upon to form laws and that religious documents should be left to churches and other houses of worship, doesn’t mean he or she doesn’t love this country, doesn’t believe in God, doesn’t have morals, isn’t a good person and doesn’t have values, and, most importantly, doesn’t support our troops.
The fact that you seem to think it does and would even ask that question, though, makes me wonder somewhat about you.
Just a hint. Next time respond to a post,
read it first.
This isn't about the ACLU, or an agency LIKE the ACLU.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a liberal who agrees with NAMBLA or any organization like them that is in favor of sexual exploitation of children. I don't think prison is even good enough for them. I think they should get the death penalty.
Maybe if you would have actually taken the time to READ the post, you would see it has nothing to do with your response.
Oh, before you call me a liar. I did respond to the flat tax,
but I brought my responses back here.
You didn't respond to Yepper's post.
I don't feel the need to make the choice. It's a child, not a choice. n/t
I am unable to respond to leaps in "logic" that
rasberries
I made a mistake and was trying to respond to the post below by *LOL* when I wrote that.
in the article you posted, nor did I see the word *impeach* anywhere in the article.
I agree with your comments and with the article you referred to, and I understood the comments of LOL to mean that the article was responding to some sort of "talking points" and using the word impeach often, when in fact, it can't be found once in that article.
As far as impeaching Bush, I believe time will tell. I personally believe he's guilty of war crimes, and that his war will be judged to be illegal before the end of his "reign as King of the USA." (if we all manage to survive that long).
The mere fact that he led us into this war based on lies should be enough to impeach him.
If I offended you, then I truly apologize. I agree with you and I'm glad you posted this article. I surely wouldn't have referred you back to the very article you obviously read and posted and tell you to educate yourself, and in no way, shape or form do I believe you are ignorant; far from it.
If you posted the LOL statement below, then I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant by it.
I made a mistake when posting my post, and instead of winding up under the intended post, it wound up under yours instead. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you.
LOL! Not bright enough to respond intelligently to a wonderfully written
If you know some good democratic blog sites, please respond to this post with the links. nm
Thanks.
coulter
This woman is a crazy idiot.
From Hannity and Colmes, August 25, 2005:
COLMES:...And I want to ask you about something, Ann, that you wrote in your most recent column. You had a very funny line, actually, that it is hard to find a parking spot in New York City. There's no question about it. You've had a pretty good day if you can do that.
But then you said, It's far preferable to fight them on the streets of Baghdad than in the streets of New York, where the residents would immediately surrender. Now, some New Yorkers...
HENICAN: Ooh...
COLMES: ... felt that you were calling them cowards by making that statement.
COULTER: No, I think I was calling them supporters of Cindy Sheehan.
COLMES: Is that what that is? You certainly don't feel that New Yorkers are cowards?
COULTER: I think they would immediately surrender.
COLMES: So you do?
COULTER: I don't -- I don't think -- I think I'd rather have them trying to invade Mississippi or Georgia, Alabama, you know, the states where I want Cindy Sheehan's bus tour to go.
Coulter
This is too funny.
Isn't she the one who surrendered ran away from a PIE that someone hurled at her on a stage?
Crazy idiot? LOL. You're being very kind! 
Coulter
And you think the average New Yorker would stand and fight? She makes a valid point. New York would be MUCH easier to take than Alabama...Oklahoma...Mississippi...Georgia. She may be over the top in her expression, but she has a valid point. And as to running from the pie...she did not know at first it was a pie. And you would have stood your ground? I think not...lol
Coulter
Yes she is. She said Cindy's demonstration was piss-poor until it reached at least 50,000, and she is gonna get it. Can I recommend you get off this board, and at least go on Bill Maher's board. They are much more informed, both left and right. Go to Bill Maher's website. There are of course, right slanted people there, but much more intelligent and informed than on here.
What does Coulter have to do with this?
.
Coulter? Oh, please
Sorry, I dont believe a word Coulter says or writes.
Ann Coulter
I encourage all responsible posters on this board to go to the NBC website and drop them a note regarding Coulter's scheduled appearance on Today. I am letting them know that I do not appreciate their promotion of an old, hateful voice. We hae turned the page. Let the media know we are tired of division and name calling. The hateful right has a plethora of media outlets. Coulter can spread her trash talk on them.
I like Ann Coulter....sm
She's usually correct in her statements, and anyone on the left can't hold a candle to her in a debate.
Ann Coulter..(sm)
I was watching MSNBC last night, and noted that Olberman came up with an excellent question. Coulter has been trying to get an interview in NBC to promote her book (which, by the way, talks about NBC like a dog) and has been ticked off because he was bumped a day back. Olberman's question was if she hates NBC so much and thinks everything out of their mouths is lies, why does she want to be on that network in the first place...Hmmmmm
Then she finally got the interview. As expected, she made a complete fool of herself, most of the time whining about how terrible the network she was appearing on actually was -- all the while trying to sell her latest book. It's amazing what one will do to sell a book. I guess she didn't get a very good response in terms of book sales from the Fixed news viewers.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2009/01/07/ann_coulter_on_nbcs_today_show.html
So, just for fun I decided to check out some of her other interviews. Ya gotta love this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wnPHFSdrME
Ann Coulter....she....sm
puts a mirror up to the faces of the liberals, and the liberals can't stand what they see in their reflection.
She tells the truth, and they just plain don't like it.
And I'm talking about her books here.
And no, I'm not going to give you a for instance, or citation, BB, because you will just pooh-pooh it anyway.
But it's the truth, just the same. Libs hate the truth about themselves, and she always reveals them for what they are.
pies and Coulter
I would LOVE my cousin, John, who is a NYC vice detective, to give her the first pie in her face **smile**.
Coulter..blah.., LOL
Well, I gotta tell ya, on Huffingtonpost, the posted Coulters idiotic remarks about New York surrendering in an attack and, OMG, the come back posts have been hilarious, LMBO. to the tune of, I want to beat your a__, Coulter, Coulter, hope you dont eat in NY restaurants anymore, cause you wont find a table, LOL. I invite you to scroll to the lower part of the Huffingtonpost page (hope the article is still up) and read some of the posters giving their 2 cents about Coulters comments. Hey, you know what, I am a New Yorker and I gotta tell ya, put me and Coulter together for whatever..civil debate (sure..sure), fistacuffs, I would win hands down..Yeehhaaww..Oh, oh, am I gonna be reported to the administrator by some cry baby conservative now? Geez..Louise..
Ann Coulter, has issues. nm
Nuff said.
LOL. Coulter. Now there's a real gem.
Thanks, Starcat. Poor souls. That's all they know how to do. Swiftboat others. I suppose everyone has to be good at something. I don't even remotely expect it to stop, and yes, sure looks like I did hit a nerve, otherwise they wouldn't bother to keep trying to discredit me. The way I figure it, the more *Swiftboating* that goes on, the closer I came to exposing the truth, so in a way, their *feedback* is very helpful.
The only reason I posted the second post (which I addressed to Liberals) was that I fully realized how bizarre the whole concept sounded. Who in their right mind could believe something like that could happen here in America, that the lunatic fringe was comprised of so many people? I guess that's what makes it so darn frightening.
You have a nice day now. As for me, I'm going to go check the stock prices for Kool-Aid. Might be time to invest. 
If Coulter is so religious...
...why doesn't anyone know her at the church she says she attends?
I have never once defended Ann Coulter.
But in your rage and blind hatred, you failed to see that. In fact, I have stated more than once that I don't care for her. But don't let me confuse you with facts. You are obviously in full blown rage and far be it from me to stop you.
but yet you all are obsessed with Ann Coulter?
I guess a person who is supposed to be teaching objective education gets a pass for saying outrageous stuff and commiting plagarism, but an author out in the marketplace whose products can be bought or not bought is a HUGE threat to all of all.
Typical liberalism. To liberalism capitalism is the enemy.
George Will on Coulter sm
Freudian slip?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5KD8_22K4w
ann coulter - love her!
Love Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, all those who lay it out straight and tell it like it is....
rightie
coulter is such a yawn
She reminds me of a homely stick-thin 5-year-old girl with stringy blonde hair trying to get anyone's attention by showing her panties, singing off key, etc. She just says outrageous things for media attention. She has a small group of fans, but then so does charlie manson.
You might want to ask Coulter that question...(sm)
She was the one trying so hard to get on there.
Coulter vs. O'Reilly...(sm)
Okay, I almost laughed myself to death watching these two morons go at it last night. My favorite part of the interview would have to be:
COULTER: No. No. I said more books.
O'REILLY: I sell more books than you do.
COULTER: No, you don't.
O'REILLY: Yes, I do.
COULTER: No, you don't.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478046,00.html
Wasn't that Ann Coulter?
I think you have your enemies confused.
I think the kid just wants Ann Coulter to be his date to the prom.
That sounds more like the psychotic Coulter.sm
Saying we are pre-programmed is the pot calling the kettle black. You deliver the government and media messages so well for them - the shoot the messenger logic.
Coulter says Murtha should be killed.
It's apparently acceptable to advocate assassination as long as you're a darling of the Republican party.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002689569
Latest Ann Coulter Outrage: On Fragging John Murtha
By E&P Staff
Published: June 15, 2006 11:55 PM ET
NEW YORK With the brief debate over Iraq in Congress producing such acrimony this week that one congressman suggested opponents of the war support al-Qaeda, it should come as no surprise that columnist and author Ann Coulter would top them all.
In an email interview with John Hawkins at the Right Wing News web site, Coulter was asked, among other things, to offer short comments on several individuals. After harmlessly dismissing former Ambassador Joseph Wilson as the World's most intensely private exhibitionist, she said of Rep. John Murtha, the hawkish ex-Marine and now antiwar congressman: The reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'
Fragging, which became a well-known expression --and occurence -- during the Vietnam war, means soldiers attempting to kill their own officers for one reason or another.
This was so over the top that conservative Mike Krempasky at RedState.org posted, I've said before that's its kind of ironic that just about every phrase Stewie from Family Guy uses to describe Lois could easily be applied to Ann Coulter. Well - once again, Ann proves us right. He went on to call her fragging remark absolutely disgusting....there's no excuse - NONE - for the allusion to soldiers who kill other soldiers. It's despicable - and frankly, so is Coulter.
Coulter's column is syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate. On its home page, Universal hails her witty, no-holds-barred commentaries on the Washington scene. She tackles the hot issues with fervor and stands up for the things that she believes in.
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
Coulter's the poster child for the right.
They obviously emulate her and try to be like her, obviously not realizing or caring how terrible it makes them look. You can see from these boards that people like her do have a constituency, unfortunately.
I Ms. Schulte gave a very classy and dignified response.
Coulter cheats when she writes?
I'm SHOCKED! (NOT! )
Maybe her hatred and anger are preventing her from forming original thoughts. Or maybe she's just following the trends of those in her party, the masters of illusion and fallacy.
She also cheated when she went on Leno and stacked the audience with freepers to give the illusion that she is popular with normal reasonable people.
She apparently also cheats when she votes, and when she gets caught, who represents her? None other than Bush's 2000 (s)election attorneys!
Coulter Hires Law Firm to Fight Vote-Fraud Allegations
By E&P Staff
Published: June 02, 2006 5:30 PM ET
NEW YORK Universal Press Syndicate columnist Ann Coulter has hired a White House-connected law firm to defend herself against allegations that she voted illegally in a Palm Beach, Fla., election, reported Palm Beach Post columnist Jose Lambiet Friday.
The attorney from Miami's Kenny Nachwalter firm representing Coulter is Marcos Jimenez, who was among the lawyers who fought for George W. Bush in Florida during the disputed 2000 presidential election.
Lambiet, in recapping Coulter's February voting problem, wrote Friday: A poll worker reported to his supervisors that he saw Coulter try to vote in the precinct closest to her Palm Beach home. But when she was told the address on her voter's registration was elsewhere, Coulter ran out instead of correcting it and ended up voting in a precinct that wasn't hers. Knowingly voting in the wrong precinct in Florida is a felony.
Elections Supervisor Arthur Anderson gave Coulter until April 30 to explain what happened, but she has yet to answer his registered letters. Now with Jimenez, [Deputy Elections Chief Charmaine] Kelly said, officials will wait 'a few more weeks' before starting a procedure that could strip Coulter of her right to vote here and refer the case to State Attorney Barry Krischer for possible prosecution.
Lambiet's Friday column was highlighted by Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002612877
|
