Coulter’s hate speech is unpleasant start to the day
Is it really necessary to run Ann Coulter’s nasty, alt-right diatribes in our morning paper? So many things about her article(s) make me sick to my stomach. To say that the Democrats are bringing in, and I quote, “50 million culturally backward, dirt-poor immigrants” to bolster their party is beyond ridiculous.
Not a chance that these people are being allowed in to escape from political persecution, often dangerous warring countries, and just in general, make a better life for themselves. Nope. All a Democratic scheme to build its party.
As for these “Third Worlders we’ve been dumping in the country,” hijacking the Republican Party, uh, hello Ms. Coulter, only U.S. citizens can vote. And no matter where they were born, they have as much right as you to support any political candidate of their choice with a vote.
That the Democratic Party is seeming to benefit from our immigration and naturalization programs, well, maybe that’s because the Dems’ platforms have been on human rights, gun control, keeping the world green, and freedom from oppression that brought them here in the first place.
And if they went to all the time and work it takes to become a U.S. citizen, then they can vote any way they like. And Ms. Coulter can take her hate speech and stuff a sock in it.
I suppose it’s good that our paper furnishes us with opposing sides of the political spectrum, but I must admit, reading Ann Coulter’s white nationalism spews first thing in the morning does tend to put me off my morning coffee.
Susan Straight, Waimea
Moore scandal a misuse of power
Regarding the Nov. 16 cartoon in TGI: The suggestion is that past-President Bill Clinton should be nervous because of thecurrent sexual harassment scandals.
It is important to note that the current scandal regarding Roy Moore, Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama, is a verydifferent scandal.
The different elements of the Moore scandal should give any thinking person pause.
While most of us agree that Bill Clinton should have been a faithful husband, his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was with awilling woman who was of legal age. She openly joked to a friend that when she headed for Washington, she was putting onher “presidential kneepads.” That was certainly not a good situation — but both were consenting adults.
That is very different than a minor public official pursuing teen-age girls at a shopping mall or restaurant, and then using hisposition of public power to intimidate them and try to force them into situations of sexual compromise.
The outrageous misuse of power in the Moore scandal is a strong warning to any voter.
A person who misuses the power of a minor public position to obtain and conceal sexual favors from easily intimidatedteenagers is an extremely high risk when it comes to corruption in public office.
In 2017 America may have reached the tipping point when it comes to respecting women — we hope. The Moore scandalmixes both issues. The misuse of power against young girls is a serious indication that power in public office is likely to bemisused.
Mary Mulhall, Kapaa
Thank you, Susan. I hope that Bill Buley reads your letter and takes heed. Seems to me that TGI could choose any number of better conservative commentators — someone like George Will, for instance, who is very eloquent (as well as honest!) in his opinions. Peggy Noonan, David Brooks or Caroline Baum would also make good conservative choices. Ann Coulter is, quite simply, a big, fat LIAR and for TGI to continue to run her deeply prejudicial and bigoted opinion does not reflect well on their good judgment.
Susan:
So let me get this straight. Diversity is great, unless it’s an opinion other than yours. In that case, it’s “hate speech”?
If Coulter’s opinions bother you so much, don’t read her pieces. It’s not like she has one of those terrible guns to your head forcing you to her articles.
RG DeSoto
@ Mary – “Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States (1993–2001), has been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by three women. Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape; Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her without consent; and Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself and sexually harassing her. Many other women claim to have had consensual adulterous liaisons with Clinton.”
Manawai,
In 1999, Broaddrick was subpoenaed and denied under oath that Clinton had raped her. In addition, Broaddrick had previously signed a deposition, under oath, stating that no sexual contact had occurred.
In April 1998, the Paula Jones sexual harassment case was dismissed by Republican Judge Susan Webber Wright as lacking legal merit.
Special Prosecuter Kenneth Starr, who had deposed Kathleen Willey, determined that she had lied under oath repeatedly to his investigators. Starr and his team therefore concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue her allegations further.
In other words, these three had their day in court, so did Bill, and nobody gets to use this stuff except in the Dark Side alternative fact worlds of Sean Hannitty, Stephen Kevin Bannon (like serial killers, I give him 3 names), and trump supporters who can’t recognize a narcissistic jerk even when he kicks them where it hurts!
Pete… What about the seamen on the blue dress? Does that play any significant role in Clinton’s actions of past?
Steve,
You’ll find seamen on a ship; not a dress. I think I know what you meant. However, infidelity between consenting adults is NOT the issue of the day.
That issue is sexual harassment, conditional sexual harassment, and sexual harassment of minors
In other words, he got away with it. I wonder if Roy Moore and John Conyers will too.
Manawai,
When people get their day in court and lose, that does not mean that someone “got away” with something! It does mean that their charges, and yours, become baseless!