Saturday, July 23, 2011

Ann Coulter, How Do I Love Thee?

I’m so in love with Ann Coulter. She does her homework and makes her case without political correct caution. Her arguments are forceful and clinical and obliterate the opposition because all her foes have to hang their argument on is ad hominem attacks and volume. Her facts are indisputable, which is why her enemies continue to try to silence her. In reading her newest book, “Demonic,” I have determined that she has discovered the fundamental reason why the left is so incapable of interpreting the facts as reality. It’s not because they’re mean and despicable (they simply appear that way), it’s because they are handicapped with a Progressive Jamming Device (PJR) called ignorance. Ignorance is not stupidity. The dictionary defines stupidity as “mental dullness” or “lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind.” These people are not stupid; they are simply afflicted with PJD that keeps them from integrating actual facts in a healthy, normal manner. It is self-imposed to be sure but nevertheless definite. Jesus said “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Mk. 4:9) He wasn’t “implying” anything – he was saying straight out . . . it’s a choice. Weather spiritual or political it ought to be sensible to cut out all the extraneous blather (these two words together constitute a redundancy but in this case it seems to apply) and speak forthrightly. In the case of the Gospel narrative Jesus apparently determined that assuaging the hurt feelings of some who might be offended at his frankness was much less important than getting the message across. Those who are going to be offended will take offense anyway. They want to be offended. They want the facts to be as they see and hear them, not as they are. Therefore, much like an electrical short circuit that causes machinery to malfunction, PJR scrambles the data and . . . presto! . . . ignorance. Many on the left are champions of compromise, that peaceful, cooperating, lets-all-get-along-together attitude of a negotiated settlement. It sounds so right. It seems so proper. (“There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” Prov. 14:12) Daniel and his companions were legitimate servants to the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar who had the right of conquest to do as he wished with them. When told they had to violate their laws of kosher and eat foods that would defile them, Daniel could have compromised and his decision would have been understood. Yet he insisted on faithfulness, understanding that there can be no compromise to fidelity. The champions of compromise want to muddy the water and then ask you to drink from a polluted source, trying to convince you that there’s no such thing as perfection . . . or purity. Jesus was encouraged to turn stones into bread. After all, he had fasted for 40 days, was undoubtedly very hungry, and no one would know the difference. But truth minus anything in the direction of compromise is less than truth. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

No comments: