Coulter's Commentary About Liberals Hits the Bulls-Eye

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Oct 14, 2003

Byline: INSIGHT

Coulter's Commentary About Liberals Hits the Bulls-Eye

I want sincerely to thank Stephen Goode for his interview with Ann Coulter [picture profile, Sept. 16-29]. She tells it like it is, which is why the liberals hate her so much. They can't stand the truth, especially coming from a conservative. But then, for many leftists, there is no such thing as objective truth.

Coulter has it exactly right that liberals think of themselves as a specially anointed elite. The concept of the anointed liberal holds especially true for those ensconced in New York City and Washington. Evidently something magic happens once a liberal settles in Manhattan or crosses the Beltway into Washington: they become endowed with superhuman intelligence that enables them to tell us poor commoners in the hinterlands how to live our lives.

Goode says in one of his comments to Coulter that, for liberals, man is at the center of things. The key concept to bear in mind here is that the liberals are fond of mankind (or man in general) but not individual men. Hence their overwhelming propensity to deal with people as members of groups especially protected groups whose votes are to be harvested but never as individuals.

We have been privileged during the last few years to have Coulter to inform and arouse us. God bless her!

As for Insight, you have a great magazine. Please continue the good work.

Jack W. Richey

via the Internet

*

Several weeks ago I bought Coulter's book Treason. To my surprise, and despite its angry tone, it was cogent and scholarly.

I fought for Joe McCarthy in his time and made many of the points that Coulter makes in her book, but it was almost impossible to overcome the press, which was absolutely negative. They won many of weak mind to their commercial cause.

We need more bright young people of Coulter and Rush Limbaugh's stripe today to help set the record straight. Hopefully the Clintons will be the last vestiges of the sixties generation to try to destroy themselves and their nation.

Thank you for the follow-up on Coulter's book. I'm hoping her next one is just as scholarly and turns a few eggheaded liberal minds to a more conservative bent. However, I'm not holding my breath. Bless you all at Insight.

Frank Arundell

New York City

*

Thanks for the thoughtful interview with Ann Coulter. Those (from either side of the aisle) who instinctively flinch or deem her invective and biting wit as "over the top" fail to realize that liberals and liberalism (aka socialism) are enemies of this country.

In Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Robert H. Bork illustrates the evils of liberalism all too well but in an almost professorial tone. Coulter recognizes that liberals need to be bitten and does so with prejudice. Go get 'em girl!

R. Alan Bennington

Atlanta

*

Just when I thought that the thirtysomething (and older) women of this country had to be the dumbest and most blind in our history, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin have restored my faith in the intelligence and integrity of the female gender. They are helping to counteract the liberal hatred and bias of older "Hollywoodites" such as Barbra Streisand and Susan Sarandon, whose mouths are as big as their bank accounts. The truth may hurt, but keep it coming!

Claire Staples

Palm Desert, Calif.

Wildly Divergent Views on the Safety of Vaccines in Military

Timothy W. Maier's article, "Mystery Deaths Fuel Vaccine Anxieties" [Sept. 30-Oct. 13], perpetuates misinformation. Had he checked the facts prior to repeating erroneous information, the article might have offered readers accurate and complete information.

One of the main errors is concluding that any event after vaccination must have been caused by vaccination. Unvaccinated people develop medical problems; military vaccine recipients develop these problems at similar rates. An exception involves inflammation around the heart, called myopericarditis, which occurs in rare cases after smallpox vaccination.

The Department of Defense (DoD) uses scientific principles taught and espoused by America's best academic researchers. These principles include grouping patients according to their common features and investigating each group fully. Maier lumps medical cases together whose clinical conditions were quite different. Grouping unlike cases together mischaracterizes the issues, which detracts from finding true causes and results in wrong suppositions that are not in the interest of the families, the public or the military.

Antivaccine critics have prejudged vaccines as unhealthy and ignore facts inconvenient to their viewpoint. In contrast, the DoD considers all the facts, many of which are not reflected in this article. Independent scientists and eminently qualified physicians at the National Academy of Sciences and regulatory agencies, plus those on civilian panels, have all contributed to the safety review of military vaccinations.

Claims that the DoD is covering up death cases are wrong. We investigate each case according to its unique clinical features. The DoD submitted its records to the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) months ago. In the case of Spc. Rachael Lacy, the DoD consulted with the Mayo Clinic, the state of Minnesota and the CDC while the patient was hospitalized before her death. The cause of her death remains classified as "unknown" by the CDC; the investigation continues.