Blog Archives

This Time, Ann Coulter Is Quite Right



Ann Coulter's statement that if the Pope believes you don't need to be Catholic he may as well work as an anchor for some TV outlet is quite right.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Jesus will certainly admit, in the last moment before death, some unbaptised, and certainly a greater number of non Catholics into that Church outside of which there can be no salvation; but this is subject to very strict criteria, chief of which is Invincible Ignorance, and it certainly requires an uncommon amount of stupidity – or else, Jesuitism – to think this “escape hell” card is something one can confidently expect. Two thousand years of Catholic tradition, and the clear mandate of Jesus Himself, show this beyond doubt.

If, therefore, someone believes that belonging to the Only Church is some kind of nice, “joy bringing” accessory whose lack does not stay in the way of salvation provided one is a good chap of more or less humanitarian attitude, he has no business being the Pope.

Mundabor

 

Why Ann Coulter Is Pro-Choice

Awfully sorry, young man (or woman), but you’ll have to die because Ann Coulter does not approve of the circumstances of your conception.

First of all, let me say that **in general** I am highly suspicious of the number of children allegedly conceived by rape. This does not, my dear female reader, concern *your own* rape, and I am sure your rape was entirely authentic and an extremely traumatic experience. I refer, though, to the fact that by reading around one has the impression rape is something that in the US happens all the time, as a matter of course; particularly if we think that after all is said and… done to conceive a baby is never an automatic matter, as millions of couples will testify.

Having said that, *some* babies are (must be; it is a statistic certainty) conceived through rape.

Here is where one of those phenomena start which I cannot but call inconceivably stupid, and a worrying sign of the inability of our generation to simply think logically.

To be an abortionist or pro-life can never be a matter of degrees.You either think an unborn child should not be killed, or you think his life is disposable. Tertium non datur. 

If one thinks the life of the unborn baby must be protected, then this must perforce be valid for every life, as there are no unborn babies who are less innocent than others.

If one thinks the baby can be aborted in certain circumstances, then one is simply an abortionist, and the only difference with the mainstream “pro-choice” abortionist is that he is in favour of choice in a more limited set of circumstances.

If you want to listen to pro-lifers, listen to real ones, like this pro-life activist conceived in rape and born notwithstanding two botched back-alley abortion attempts. She wouldn’t have had any chance in the world of so-called pro-lifer Ann Coulter, and would have had her life terminated with the seldom failing procedures of the professional Nazi butcher of Planner Parenthood. She lived, though, because to abort her was  a criminal offence, rape or no rape.  

Therefore, Ann Coulter – who has launched herself in a rather violent tirade against coherent, if perhaps not entirely articulated, pro-lifers like Richard Mourdoch – simply does not get what pro-life means. She is clearly pro-choice, with the only qualification that the choice whether to kill an innocent unborn baby must in her opinion be given only in case of rape.

This position is, besides being contrary to logic, not very intelligent also from a practical point of view.

If abortion were one day to be banned allowing for the rape exception, we would see an explosion of alleged “rapes” like humanity has never seen in its history; you would see girls denouncing their boyfriend of rape out of sheer selfish desperation if forced to a DNA probe, or simply claiming they have been raped by a stranger after a night in the disco if not. In a country which does not set extremely hard evidence requirements to the accusation of rape (as it was in Italy last time I looked, with the necessity of a medical report from a doctor documenting clear signs of sexual violence) this game could be played if not by anyone, certainly by anyone without scruples or desperate enough to think she has the moral right to put another man’s liberty and reputation in danger.

Let me say it once again: you either are pro-life, or you are pro-choice. If you think a baby can be aborted because he happens to have been conceived by rape, then you are most certainly pro-choice. Nor can it be said – as some Protestants might say out of sheer ignorance – that the Church allows for abortion in case of impending danger for the mother’s life. This is simply not the case, and those poorly instructed will have to inform themselves better. 

Ann Coulter is that kind of conservative who just doesn’t get the profoundly Christian roots of conservative values: this is why her conservatism does not extend to sodomites, and why she is in favour of killing babies.

We don’t need this kind of conservatism, because besides being immoral it is logically incoherent and therefore, in the end, self-defeating. True conservatism must come from a coherent, all-encompassing view of life that is inspired by a consistent set of values. These values are the values Christ and His Church gave us. There is no escape, and we can see from this episode how illusory it is to think that one can tailor one’s views to the fashions of the time.

Beware of the false conservatives. They are the bearer of a self-defeating ideology that does not do much less to damn your soul than the mindset of the liberals.

Mundabor

Ann Coulter On Goldwater And Reagan

Beautiful post on Ann Coulter’s site comparing Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was launched on the national political scene during Goldwater’s presidential campaign, with the “time for choosing” speech, but Coulter makes a good job of explaining why Reagan surpassed Goldwater and went to triumphal victories not only as Governor but as President, too.
Ann Coulter is witty, vitriolic and highly entertaining. She is also spot on in remembering Ronald Reagan in a time of abortionist Presidents of very dubious Christian beliefs, picking lesbian activists as Supreme Court judge candidates.

Once again, we see the difference ideals make.

Mundabor

Ann Coulter Against The Culture Of Appeasement

Religion of peace

Father Z has drawn attention on this Ann Coulter article.

Whilst I do not approve all that she says (and she has been rather a disappointment of late), I think this article is very useful in exposing a spread misconception about the world of Muslim fanatics: that if we appease them and/or do as they want, they’ll miraculously stop being fanatical.

The argument is utterly flawed. If one thinks that Obama Bin Laden didn’t need more than the (invited!) presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia to start his unholy and utterly failed “war”, you understand that Islamic rage is a molotov waiting to self-ignite, without any need for excuses. The last complaint is just the last fig leaf for what is their fundamental problem (fanaticism) and the fundamental problem of their religion (a false one; established by a child rapist; encouraging violence and fanaticism).

Let us see some of the most relevant assertions of Ann Coulter:

1) “Gen. Petraeus objected to the Quran-burning protest on the grounds that it could be used by radical jihadists to recruit Muslims to attack Americans.
This is what liberals say whenever we do anything displeasing to the enemy – invade Iraq, hold captured terrorists in Guantanamo, interrogate captured jihadists or publish Muhammad cartoons. Is there a website somewhere listing everything that encourages terrorist recruiting?
If the general’s main objective is to hamper jihadist recruiting, may I respectfully suggest unconditional surrender? Because on his theory, you know what would really kill the terrorists’ recruiting ability? If we adopted Sharia law!”

2) “There have been more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by these allegedly calmed Muslims in Obama’s first 18 months in office than in the six years under Bush after he invaded Iraq.”

3) “Also, as I recall, there was no Guantanamo, no Afghanistan war and no Iraq war on Sept. 10, 2001. And yet, somehow, Osama bin Ladin had no trouble recruiting back then. Can we retire the “it will help them recruit” argument yet?”

These observations are extremely pertinent. It is rather disturbing, in fact, that nowadays even generals suggest in public that one should do not anything he is free to do in order not to anger fanatics living on the other side of the planet. One can be against or in favour of the burning (brilliantly, Ann Coulter says that she is in favour “mainly because burning Korans will contribute to global warming”) but a general should never make this type of suggestions, whatever the proposed behaviour. This is exactly the contrary of the freedom he is fighting for and Coulter’s observations are very pertinent.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: