Mikael of ImpeachforPeace Empowering citizens to hold our elected (or otherwise in power) servants accountable

Friday, August 11th I had the distinct privilege and honor, thanks to my friend and Impeach for Peach associate, Sgt. Daniel Fearn – self-proclaimed “Impeachment Grunt” – to be a speaker and a panelist on the Impeachment Panel at the Veterans for Peace annual Convention at the University of Washington in Seattle. Sgt. Fearn, David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.org and Progressive Democrats of America and Bill Moyer of the Backbone Campaign were also panelists. Mike Ferner of Veterans for Peace was on house arrest for spray painting graffitti on freeway overpasses and couldn’t make it. It was an astounding experience to be there and to represent my fellow members of Impeach for Peace and World Can’t Wait.

I met and had discussions with Iraqi War journalist Dahr Jamail, ex-CIA official and Rumsfeld antagonist Ray McGovern, Recent Conscientious Objector (C.O.) Sergeant Camilo Mejia, President-Elect of the National Lawyer’s Guild Professor Marjorie Cohn, and C.O. Army Lt. Ehren Watada, among others. Of course many of the most impressive people were just members I happened to strike up a conversation with, including a gentleman who hasn’t cut his beard since Bush re-assumed the ‘residency in the White House in November of 2004.

A highlight was last night’s banquet at which Lt. Watada spoke. A full minute of applause followed his introduction, but before he could begin, the 30 or so members of Iraq Veterans Against the War silently walked onto the stage and stood behind him. I can barely hold back my own tears just thinking about it as I type.

It was one of the greatest honors and privileges of my 48 years to be an invited guest and to speak at such a gathering, and an even greater privilege to be a witness to that simple act of solidarity. There is a rally in support of Lt. Watada at Fort Lewis this Wednesday which I hope to attend. His pre-trial hearing is the next day.
If you don’t already know, Lt. Watada has evaluated his order to return to Iraq and acted on his conscience which would not allow him to return to service in this illegal and immoral war of imperialism and conquest based on lies to kill, torture and maim innocent Iraqis and those defending their country from its invaders and occupiers. I have an earlier blog entry dedicated to his honorable and courageous act.

Recreated from my notes and as best I remember, the following is what I said to an audience of about 50. There were about 500 registered for the convention, up from 350 last year. We were one of six simultaneous seminar options at 2 p.m. on Friday. Anyone who wishes to purchase a copy of the DVD of the session or any other sessions can do so by e-mailing: Veterans for Peace Convention.

~~~

I’d like to thank Veterans for Peace for inviting me to participate in this panel and Veterans for Peace Chapter #27, of which I am most proud to have recently become an associate member. I’d also like to thank the Vice President…

… of chapter 27, Sgt. Daniel Fearn for inviting me, the other distinguished members of this panel and all of you in attendance. I could make an issue of all the empty chairs, but they don’t matter at all. It is those of you who are filling chairs here that matter. Thank you for coming.

Who am I? I am just a guy. I am a citizen of the world and of the United States of America, of which I was never more ashamed than I was the day we invaded Iraq. I got sick to my stomach that day looking at an American flag for the first time in my life. Yet I have also never been more proud to be an American as I have in meeting the fellow citizens I have met recently in this struggle to retain and protect everything good about this country.
I am not a vet, although my father was in the Phillipines in 1945 ready to head north when atomic and nuclear power was used explosively for the first and only time in warfare… so far. I am a theatre professional who helped get John Kerry elected President in 2004, became the Minneapolis organizer for World Can’t Wait-Drive Out the Bush Regime shortly thereafter and then a co-founder of ImpeachforPeace.org, a non-partisan governmental accountability organization. We are dedicated holding elected officials accountable to the Rule of Law and have been working recently to network and link with like-minded organizations, such as Vets for Peace.
I’d like to open things up for a short discussion on the “why?” impeach…

… okay, great… Let’s get to the “how?”.

Seriously, as David Swanson eloquently laid out just a moment ago, the reasons are abundant. Spying, lying, dying, not trying, hiding and tyranny. The spying and lying are clear. Those of you here need no clarification of the dying.
“Not trying” could refer to Condileezza Rice shopping for shoes for three days while New Orleans residents drowned or Bush’s plentiful vacations, but in this context I am talking about “no trials”, the blatant disregard for the Rule of Law this administration has made a practice of in their treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Bahgram Air Force Base, Abu Gahrib and former Soviet gulags in Eastern Europe we are just beginning to find out about. When the Supreme Court recently ruled against the Bush Administration in saying that their designation of “enemy combatants” was a violation of American Law, the Geneva Accords and the Nuhremberg Principles – the original Japanese and German violators of which were presecuted, convicted and some put to death for – Tony Snow said on behalf of the President that he would take the ruling “under advisement”. “Under advisement!?!” The Supreme Court lays down the law of the land and the President says that he will take the decision “under advisement?!?”
In saying “hiding” I am referring to the most secretive administration this nation has ever known. Regarding the tragedies of 9/11, don’t you think there are at least 3,000 families who deserve the truth?, not to mention all the families who have lost loved ones since – based on lies. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories which is why I don’t believe the mother of all conspiracy theories, published by our government as the official 9/11 Commission Report. As Dr. Robert Bowman said at the Los Angeles 9/11 Truth Meeting (go to 9/11Truth.org for more information, please) which has shown many times on C-SPAN recently: “If this administration has nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?”.
“Tyranny”? The Declaration of Independence makes abundantly clear that this kind of prince, who proves himself to be in every way a tyrant does not deserve to hold office any longer. I encourage you to do the little bit of research it takes to understand the fourteen tenets of fascism and decide for yourself how far down the road we already are.
Among those who agree are Representative John Conyers, Jr. and the signers of House Resolution 635 calling for censure leading to impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Conyers’ recently released: “Constitution in Crisis” lists over twenty crimes and violations and abuses of American law and international law by this administration.
Others who agree can be found on the webite of our parent organization World Can’t Wait. Go the Worldcantwait.org and read “The Call”. If you agree with what it says, please sign in agreement.
Garrison Keillor and the Chicago Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild are also in agreement, and… is there anyone here from the Seattle Library Workers Union? No? Let’s give a round of applause to the Seattle Library Workers Union for their resolution of impeachment!

The path to Peace runs through Justice. There is no avoiding it. The authors of the Project for a New American Century: Cheney, Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Perle, Wolfowicz, Jeb Bush and many other CEOs of defense contracting companies and now Bush cronie appointments made very clear years ago that they intended to gain a strategic economic “toehold” in the Middle East and that they only needed a “New Pearl Harbor” in order to get the American public to go along with their plan. Within the first year of Bush’s first term they conveniently got their “New Pearl Harbor” and now have invaded and occupied Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon by proxy. Iran and Syria are next and nukes are “on the table” according to the President.

In recent, completely unrelated news, Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in Vermont, Bush and Blair spoke, and then, completely unrelated mind you, a “terrorist attack” in England was thwarted, we moved to Terror Alert Level Orange and I had to move my toothpaste and hair gel from my carry on to my checked baggage, thus keeping America safe for Democracy.
At the Minneapolis airport on my way here, the skycap saw my “Ask Me About Impeachment” button and asked: “Who are you going to impeach? Nixon? Clinton?” I replied: “From the top down – all who consider themselves above the Rule of Law”. He shook his head. When I offered him a tip a moment later he refused it. I said to him “Clinton had lipstick on his cigar. Bush has blood on his hands”. What I wished I had said to his original question was: “Every Democrat, Green, Independent, Libertarian or Communist Party official who considers themselves above the law and acts accordingly must be held accountable through impeachment and/or the courts. Oh… and Republicans too. Why do you hate the Constitution?”

“How?” do we impeach them? For those of us who enjoy the distinct privilege of being U.S. citizens and choose to live under the Rule of Law, our forefathers left us a means and a procedure by which to hold Federal Officials (other than Congress) accountable and most specifically to protect “We the People” from the theocratic tyranny from which we escaped from under the rule of the first King George: King George of Great Britain.
IMPEACHMENT! It is all we have. It is the only legal means be which to remedy this situation. There is nothing else. That is it. We don’t have any other options short of going over the White House fence with torches and pitchforks.
One of my Impeach for Peace co-founders, Jodin Morey, got frustrated one afternoon and spent a day researching the topic of impeachment, which dates to the 16th Century. The House Rules as ratified by the 109th Congress, and hopefully the 110th this January, are still based strongly on Jefferson’s Manual whose procedures carry strong legal authority. Jefferson’s Manual offers various means of initiating the process of impeachment, all by resolution to the House Judiciary committee.
The first and best known is a resolution intitiated by the House Judiciary itself, which is why H.R. 635 is poised and ready to go should the House turn Democratic in November, and with Democrats with spines.
The second is by the States. Illinois, California, Vermont, Wisconsin and other States have in place or in process resolutions calling for impeachment.
The third and least known of these is through a Grand Jury. Oklahoma and Nevada can impeach a federal official by getting enough signatures on a petition to empanel a Grand Jury. Muskogee County, Oklahoma has one in process.
Among other means mentioned with an established legal precedent is by an individual citizen’s “Memorial”. A single citizen by the name of Lawless filed a Memorial based on Jefferson’s Manual against a Federal Judge by the name of Peck, who was impeached but not removed.
We have on our website what we call a “Do It Yourself Impeachment Kit” which you can download as a .pdf, print, fill out and mail in to House Judiciary Committee Head James Sensenbrenner, who will throw it away but we ask that you also mail one to Conyers, who will not. Our “Petition of Memorial” has been evolving and we are presently adjusting it based on the work of Anthony St. Martin in Los Angeles, whose “Fifth Estate” blog has a similar plan that carries with it strong consequences for Congress ignoring our demands that we are working on combining with. The Portland Chapter of World Can’t Wait downloaded a .pdf, made 500 copies, got them all filled out and mailed them in to a contact they have in Conyers’ office one month and then did the same the next month so we know that Conyers has a thousand in hand. We have no way of tracking how many individual petitions of memorial they have received.

As Jodin has said, our victory will be one of “a thousand cuts”. It will take a combination of internal and external pressure. Outside pressure consists of protests and marches of which World Can’t Wait is at the cutting edge, letters to the editor, face-to-face and door-to-door meetings. I have a few copies of the Center for Constitutional Rights’ DVD for teach-ins, entitled “How to Impeach a President” for sale at my cost, less than you pay ordering them from the website. The blogosphere, chatrooms, MySpace, Forums, etc. Veterans for Peace has called for impeachment twice.
Financial support of AfterDowningStreet, the Backbone Campaign, and ImpeachforPeace is always needed and welcome.
All of this outside pressure is non-binding but critical in support of the inside pressure simply because politicians by nature are vulnerable to “We the People”. Lieberman is the first to fall. Poor Joe. I feel so bad for him. The Republicans are putting on a happy face, but they are whistling in the dark.

Pressure from within: Financial and campaign support for those who support impeachment and calls to Congress – I have the Congressional Hotline on speed dial on my cell phone and can give it to you afterwards if you like. Call your Representative every time you get ticked off about anything. We in Minnesota have three Representatives who are signers of H.R. 635, including my Rep. Martin Sabo. Is yours onboard? Letters, e-mails, every bit of pressure is good pressure.
Ultimately it is all about subpoena power. Only those who hold a majority in the House have subpoena power. If a miracle should occur and the Democrats regain or come close to regaining a majority in the House, what happens is that suddenly every secret this regime is holding from us opens up. A Pandora’s Box of information they are withholding is released.
In conclusion, as the movement grows and interlocks the question is where does the nexus or epicenter of the movement lie? Ultimately this is a political problem and the solution will involve lawyers, unfortunately. Because of that it must be based in Washington D.C. yet be national in scope. It must be non-partisan. I believe it is Camp Democracy which will be setting up outside the White House gates very soon.
This is absolutely crucial. If we don’t impeach this President, what will the next President look like who inherits these grossly expanded powers and rules without the checks and balances our Constitution was designed to enforce? Bush may not be Hitler but the next President could be. Will this election’s October Surprise be the smoking gun of a mushroom cloud? We are one “terrorist attack” away from martial law.
Thank you very much for having me.

Members of MAP, We of ImpeachforPeace.org thank you for considering our application. Here is our mission statement in its current form. It is in process, but we have ratified this for now:

Established in 2006, ImpeachforPeace.org, the Minneapolis Chapter of WorldCantWait.org, is a non-partisan organization dedicated to justice: holding American public officials accountable to the Rule of Law and U.S. Constitutional limitations and seeing that politicians who prove themselves (roadblocks) to peace and justice are removed from office.

(The word “roadblocks” has replaced “enemies” for now after the mission statement was ratified including the word “enemies”. Some members thought the word “enemies” didn’t adequately reflect our commitment to peaceful means. We will vote again on the suggested adjustment at our next meeting).

We of ImpeachforPeace.org are greatly encouraged to see that the number one Guiding Principle from the MAP website is entitled “The Primacy of Justice”. Impeachment is the foremost legal tool of justice given to us by our country’s forefathers in order for “We the People” to protect ourselves from being ruled by those who would consider themselves above the law (tyranny), would seek to suppress those who disagree (an aspect of fascism) and who would work to subjugate the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and rightful American submission to International Law, Accords and Principles.

We of ImpeachforPeace.org do not believe that advocating accountability through the process of impeachment of law-breaking officials is a partisan act. On the contrary, NOT considering it when rampant lawbreaking by our leaders has become public knowledge is the effort that reflects a highly partisan bias.

There are many examples by which President George W. Bush and the current White House administration have proven to hold themselves “above the law” and therefore roadblocks to peace and justice. Not the least of these are over 800 “signing statements” through which President Bush has claimed the authority to release himself and his Administration from the obligation to obey laws enacted by Congress as well as reports of FISA law violations that have surfaced showing Americans were being spied on prior to 9/11 by our own government.
The most striking recent example is that immediately after the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 against the Administration in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, making the stand against denying Guantanamo Bay detainees their rights by declaring them “enemy combatants”, Bush spokesman Tony Snow said that the President would take the decision “under advisement”.
The Supreme Court lays down the law of the land and the President takes the decision “under advisement”?!? Congress writes laws and the President signs them with the caveat: “this doesn’t apply to me”?!?
The Primacy of Justice should apply to this President.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Now the White House is simply attempting an “end run” on the Supreme Court decision by instituting “tribunals” to deal with the detainees in which all rights and protections would be eliminated or considered “optional”. What isn’t getting a lot of press is that this latest proposal includes the option to designate U.S. citizens ACCUSED of involvement with “terror plots” unworthy of a trial, but instead being given a tribunal:

White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts – Washington Post

What is getting even less press or notice is that Hamdan v. Rumsfeld makes clear that not only does the court deny this Administration the right to continue the practices, but reveals a four and a half yearlong trail of illegal treatment of detainees ordered from the highest offices of the Pentagon and the White House in gross violation of “quaint” Geneva Accords and Nuremberg Principles.
Many German and Japanese politicians, officers and soldiers during World War II who violated what became the Nuremberg Principles were indicted, convicted and executed for their crimes.
Is there really any question that it is our patriotic duty and obligation to mankind and the pursuit of World Peace to hold our own leaders accountable to pervasive crimes that have violated the very same Principles? If not us, then whom? We are the ones we have been waiting for.

If a Democratic President is elected in 2008 and continues this pattern of unlawful abuses, we of ImpeachforPeace.org will refocus our impeachment efforts toward him or her. No leader who proves an obstacle to justice or peace should be immune to being held accountable to the rule of law.

Thank you all for your work and for considering our membership application.

Sincerely, Your Partners in Justice,

Peace.

Ann Coulter is often touted by the neo-conservative Republican Christian Right as a respectable spokesperson for their views. I just read an interview with her which I link below and then respond to. My thoughts and musings are added in parenthesis’. I edited out a few of the exchanges and changed a couple of her parenthesis’ into commas to keep my thoughts clearly separate. I include a link to the original article as a comparative resource:

Church Militant: Ann Coulter on God, Faith, and Liberals

BeliefNet.com Interview with Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter, a constitutional lawyer turned conservative pundit, makes her living saying outrageous things about what she deems the outrages of the left. She is the author of five best-selling liberal-bashing books, including her latest, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” in which she argues that liberalism is a form of atheistic religion. Beliefnet editor Charlotte Allen recently interviewed Coulter via email.

You title your book “Godless.” Are all liberals atheists?

No, but it increases the odds. (Source, links Ann?)

What portion of liberals would you say are religious in the more conventional sense of the word: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, even Wiccans?

Hmmm, so you consider Wiccans “religious… in the conventional sense”? That would definitely get liberals’ numbers up! I’d have no way of knowing (that would require research), but make no mistake: Liberals are everywhere, in every religion, denomination and spiritual practice–especially Wiccans! (That’ll play well in inspiring fear and loathing among the uneducated, red state voters).

We’ve done some polls here at Beliefnet, and a surprising number of Democrats at least say they are religious. Some 61 percent say they pray daily and 72 percent attend worship services once a month or more. How would you explain that?

Just curious: What percentage of them know which Testament the Book of Job is in? (It is in the Old Testament. Coulter asks a question as a baseless accusation, without any statistical link or traceable source).

When you say that most liberals don’t believe in God, what is your evidence? According to a Fox News poll last year, 92 percent of Americans believe in God. And nearly half of Americans voted Democratic in the 2004 election. So doesn’t that suggest that most liberals do believe in God?

First let me say that I think it’s terrific to hear a journalist citing a Fox News poll as authoritative evidence and would like to encourage this development (as would all loyal Neo-con propagandists more interested in their agenda being pushed forth than actual fact-based journalism). I don’t say “most liberals don’t believe in God”; I say liberalism is a godless religion. Some liberals don’t understand the underlying religious dogma and principles of liberalism–if they did, they would flee the building.

You write: “Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man’s immortal soul.” (I am a politically progressive christian who believes in each human being possessing an immortal soul. I state this inclusively of men and women, although Ms. Coulter does give me just pause to reconsider my own beliefs) Yet our Beliefnet polls show that 58.7% of Democrats believe in life after death. Doesn’t that disprove your statement?

No, I think it proves it–58.7% of all Democrats? That’s pathetic. (Anyone who disagrees with Ms. Coulter is considered “pathetic” from her perspective) Also, you forgot to ask them the follow-up question: Is that because you hope to come back as a snail darter?

Will most liberals go to hell or heaven?

I really can’t improve on Jesus’ words: “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.” (How clear is the hypocrisy of “christian” Ann Coulter being lockstep supportive without question of an administration that openly condones the use of torture and denying detainees and prisoners of war their Geneva Convention and Nuremberg Principles protections? Jesus of Nazareth, whose country was occupied by a foreign power, was arrested in the middle of the night, taken away from friends and family, rendered from place to place, tried without being afforded due process in line with the laws of his own country nor the laws of his occupiers, convicted, tortured, publicly shamed and put to death. Who would Jesus torture, Ann?)

You cite opposition to the death penalty as a key tenet of the Church of Liberalism. Yet Pope John Paul II stated that the death penalty should be rarely, if ever, applied: only “in cases of absolute necessity.” How do you square this with your assertion that “adoration of violent criminals” is the main factor behind opposition to the death penalty?

I agree with the pope. I also believe that it is an “absolute necessity” to execute cold-blooded murderers (Does that include 9/11 insider conspirators as well as those whose policies are leading to torturing detainees to death and whose pre-war lies led to hundreds of thousands of innocent lives being lost for their profits and the profits of their cronies?) and, rapists, and child molesters. (Does that include any of the following Republicans, Ann, or just “liberal perpetrators”?:

Republican Sex Scandals

or those who let Jack Abramoff pay for travel overseas to the Marianas Islands in order to have sex with underage prostitutes? :

Conrad Burns Pulled Closer into Abramoff Probe)

As your own question indicates, opposition to the death penalty is not a “key tenet” of even Catholicism. That would be a difficult position to maintain inasmuch as God himself commanded the Israelites to go to certain cities and kill every living thing. If memory serves, the pope was also opposed to abortion. Liberals are not. (Not even close to universally true, actually. Very few Americans, liberal or otherwise, believe in abortion-upon-demand without restrictions. Very few Americans support a comprehensive abortion ban either.) How would you explain opposition to the death penalty for heinous murderers, but not for innocent children? (Ummm… I am opposed to the death penalty for heinous murderers as well as opposed to the death penalty for innocent children… You might want to re-write this paragraph Ann).

You say that the Episcopal Church is “barely even a church.” Why?

Because it’s become increasingly difficult to distinguish the pronouncements of the Episcopal Church from the latest Madonna video. (Another completely unsubstantiated, stridently specious and grossly inaccurate smear – the Coulter specialty).

Are churches that don’t agree with your politics or religious beliefs not really churches?

Correct: They’re called “mosques.” (Which are most often filled with brown-skinned people who hold different beliefs than Ms. Coulter, reasons to merit death by any means in CoulterWorld).

Actually, the answer to that question is contained in what those in the publishing industry refer to as the “title” of my book, which is: “Godless: The CHURCH of Liberalism.” (Anyone who doesn’t agree with Ms. Coulter’s radical opinions is “godless” in her mind. It is indeed a narrow door. I would propose that the judgmentally intolerant might have a tough time squeezing through.)

In a footnote, you say: “Throughout this book I often refer to Christian and Christianity…but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others.” Isn’t it odd to define “Christians” as including people who are Jewish?

Yes, that would be very odd, but I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m not defining Christians as Jews or Jews as Christians or zebras as elephants. I’m informing the reader that when I use the term “Christian,” I am using it to include anyone who believes in the God of Abraham because it got a little wordy to keep saying “Christians, Jews and anyone else who believes in the God of Abraham” throughout the book. I don’t know how that could be any clearer. If everyone who believed in the God of Abraham were a Christian, I wouldn’t have needed the footnote. (She adamantly states that she is not mixing christians with jews and then immediately attempts to explain and justify why she did it. The denial/justification isn’t just eerie and odd, it seems indicative of a deep-seated confusion bordering on mental illness. If she wanted to be more clear, she would have made a consistent distinction between “christians” and “jews”. Of course, linking Neo-con Republican christians with jews plays well with the Zionistic and militarily imperialistic political forces whom she serves over and above the patriotism and devotion to God that she gives lip service to. Oh, and by the way, Ann… muslims also are considered part of the “Abrahamic tradition” because they are among those who believe in the God of Abraham.)

And don’t many people whom you would classify as belonging to the Church of Liberalism define themselves as Christian or Jewish? Jim Wallis of Sojourners and Michael Lerner of Tikkun claim to be applying authentic Christian and Jewish theology to political and social questions. Are such people not really Christians or Jews?

Yes, the percentage of liberals who define themselves as practicing Christians or Jews goes up in direct proportion to their proximity to elective office. (Neither Jim Wallis nor Michael Lerner hold political office, are seeking political office nor are they closely linked to anyone holding or seeking political office to my knowledge. How many times has Ms. Coulter visited the White House or met with Bush Administration officials?)

Tikkun (Rabbi Michael Lerner)

Sojourners (Pastor Jim Wallis)

I cannot speak to individual cases–only God knows who is truly following Him–but claiming to be Jewish or Christian doesn’t immunize one from bad ideologies. (AMEN, SISTER!!!) Some slaveholders claimed to be Christians, too. (As do many of those those who are fighting to keep the right to hire Mexicans at “slave wages” at the expense of American workers and are attacking Unions across America – hell bent on taking worker’s rights back a hundred years) Howard Dean, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry all belong to a church that believes it’s okay to stick a fork in a baby’s head. (Link? Source? Cite?) To the extent one is practicing liberalism, one is not practicing the religion of our Father. (One and one is two. Two and two are four, ergo sum… everyone who disagrees with me, Ann Coulter, is the anti-Christ).

Is it possible to be a good Christian and sincerely believe, as Jim Wallis does, that a bigger welfare state and higher taxes to fund it is the best way in a complex modern society for us to fulfill our Gospel obligation to help the poor?

It’s possible, but not likely. Confiscatory taxation enforced by threat of imprisonment is “stealing,” a practice strongly frowned upon by our Creator. (Anyone found guilty of tax evasion in America risks imprisonment. So all taxation is godless, Ann? The IRS is “of the beast?”) If all Christians and Jews tithed their income as the Bible commands, every poor person would be cared for, every naked person clothed and every hungry person fed. Read Marvin Olasky’s “The Tragedy Of American Compassion” for further discussion of this. (We might actually have something we agree on. I would be curious to see research into the tithing habits of Republican christians and Democratic christians. This would be tough with the wealthiest as so much is hidden from public eye and so many accountants play “cup and balls” magic tricks with their client’s finances).

You devote four of your eleven chapters to evolution, and say that Darwin’s theory of evolution is “about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor.” So what do you think really happened? Did God create the world in six days? Did he create each species separately? Did he set a chain of causation in motion? Did he “cause” evolution in the sense that all the species are related to each other but God guided their descent?

These are unanswerable questions–except the latter. (NEWSFLASH!!! Ann Coulter labels as “unanswerable” questions about the veracity of Exodus 20:11!!!: “…for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day …”) God did not “cause” evolution because evolution doesn’t exist. (There is not a single peer-reviewed scientific study to my knowledge that questions the existence of intra-species evolution. Animals evolve over time inside of their own species. That is a universally accepted scientific fact proven many times over in many studies of many species. Inter-species evolution, in which the DNA of one species transforms into a new DNA conformation, such as ape-ape-ape-human, is the one that is questioned, debated and challenged in the scientific community. There does not exist, to my knowledge, scientific confirmation of this ever having taken place.) Thus, for example, He also didn’t “cause” unicorns. (OUCH!!! conversation whiplash!!! Where the heck did THAT come from??!?!?) My faith and reason tell me that God created the world and I’m not particularly interested in the details. (Those darn facts are so problematic, aren’t they Ann?) I’ll find out when I meet my Maker. (By your own “death sentence” measure, if held accountable for your aiding and abetting this administration’s multiple war crimes and misdemeanors, that will come sooner rather than later and may be permanent in its effect on your soul).

Can there be such a thing as “intelligent design” without a divine designer?

Yes–you should read my book! (NEWSFLASH!!! ANN COULTER CLAIMS CREATION MAY NOT HAVE HAD A CREATOR!!!!) As I describe in my book, Cambridge astrophysicists Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, as well as Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, didn’t believe in God, but realized Darwin’s theory was a crock. (I am not immediately familiar with their work, but I strongly doubt that they used the word “crock” in their scientific critique of Darwin’s work.)

Many arguments in favor of Darwinian evolution strike me as actually being arguments against the existence of God–that is, why would a creator create tapeworms, disease viruses, and other bad things? Why do you think such things exist in a world of intelligent design?

Your question is incomprehensible. I assume you are trying to ask me: “Why would God create tapeworms?”

My answer is: God also created mosquitoes, which I hate. But purple martins love mosquitoes and would probably all starve without them. It’s kind of a “big picture” thing. Of course that doesn’t explain why He created Michael Moore. (Cheap shot… but at least she didn’t call him “fat”‘ this time. “Judgment is mine, sayeth Ann Coulter” ~Coulter 9:11) For that, I have no explanation. My guess is that disease, pestilence, and Michael Moore are all perversions of the good that God created, a result of sin entering the world through Adam and Eve. (Ms. Coulter appears to hold a canonical belief in the inerrant, literal truth of Genesis and the rest of the bible with the striking exception of Exodus).

While I agree with you that the “Jersey Girls” turned themselves into political opportunists, one of your statements about them does strike me as over the top: “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.” By contrast, you admit the genuine nature of Cindy Sheehan’s grief, even though you’re pretty hard on her–and you haven’t been criticized for what you said about her. Is there anything you’ve said about the 9/11 widows that you wish you hadn’t said?

(She ignores the first question question completely. Apparently she is happy to live with her quote “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.” regarding American citizens who dare to insist that they have a right to know the whole truth from our “public servants” about why their husbands died in 9/11 in an attack on the World Trade Center Towers.)

Well as long as you bring it up, I think Cindy Sheehan is enjoying the celebrity status her son’s death afforded her too. Thanks for pointing that out–I’ll correct it in the paperback edition.

(Is there no end to Ann Coulter’s lack of compassion?)

You make fun of journalists who predicted that AIDS would become a heterosexual threat: “It’s been twenty years, and we’re still waiting for that heterosexual outbreak.” While it’s true that here in the U.S., AIDS is an overwhelmingly gay disease – about 80 percent – that’s not so true worldwide, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 40 percent, perhaps up to 48 percent, of those with HIV are women, according to U.N. figures. What do you make of that?

(One million Americans are living with HIV and 40,000 new infections happen each year. Twenty percent of that would be 200,000 heterosexuals living with HIV and 2,000 newly infected heterosexuals per year. What is the definition of “outbreak”? The Bush Administration/FoxNews pushes for us to be afraid of anthrax? Bird Flu? Mad Cow Disease? How many cases of each of those have been confirmed? Shall we bother Ann with that darned “truthiness” again?):

Until There’s a Cure

Same lie, different continent–with the same evil consequence: Millions of lives being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Could we get back to Fox News polls and dispense with U.N. studies? (That darn truth having a definite liberal bias again, Ann?) AIDS is overwhelmingly spread by anal intercourse and dirty needles. In the U.S., dirty needles come mostly from junkies; in Africa, dirty needles come from medical workers. See, e.g.:

Craig Timberg, How AIDS in Africa Was Overstated, Washington Post
Michael Fumento, Why Is HIV So Prevalent in Africa
Michael Fumento, The African Heterosexual AIDS Myth
By the way, those journalists I make fun of were talking about AIDS in the U.S. So the above information is merely for your edification.

(And as a distraction from the point at hand, perhaps? Why are the only links she provides in an entire e-mail interview exchange not “on point”?)

You say: “The core of environmentalism is that they hate mankind.” (Another statement she allows to stand by. Can anyone really continue to believe this is a rational human being?) But in February the National Association of Evangelicals, including such signers as Ted Haggard, James Dobson, and Chuck Colson, etc., issued a statement urging Christian stewardship of the environment, “creation care,” and so forth. Are these people godless liberals who hate mankind?

Of course not–but I’m beginning to suspect you are. As Dobson and Colson say: God asks us to be good stewards–a statement that presupposes we are stewards of the plants and the animals, they are not stewards of us, as liberals prefer. (One more ridiculous statement with no substantiation. It is purely divisive, baseless, hateful crap. She would be laughed out of any decent graduate school classroom.) We are commanded to worship the Creator of the environment, not the environment. As Jesus said, we are of “more value than many sparrows” – Matthew 10:21.

You say you’re a Christian. Do you think Jesus would want you to be nicer to your political opponents?

Who knows? (Should I even bother to begin quoting scripture here? Not only does Ms. Coulter ignore and deny any scientific fact that gets in the way of her baseless and calcified opinions, she selectively edits scripture that might challenge her to be more like Jesus Christ and less like Andrew Dice Clay.) Maybe He’ll say I was too tough or maybe He’ll chastise me for not being tough enough on those who hate Him. (Jesus’ final recorded words on the subject: “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”) Ask the money-changers in the temple how “nice” Jesus was. (One single example in which Jesus physically turned over tables of those who had set up profit-ventures in the temple of worship. Jesus definitely had strong opinions about those who mix profiteering with religion. How is the ‘spreading hatred in the name of Christ’ business going for you, Ann? Selling lots of books?) Maybe He’ll say I needed more jokes or fewer adjectives. I’ll just apologize for not getting it right and thank him for dying for my sins. (The classic evangelical “salvation switch” theological perversion in which everything is promised to be forgiven so any behavior can be justified).

If the Church of Liberalism lets you do anything you want, why do you think the divorce rate is higher in red states than in the godless blue states?

Assuming that’s true, probably because marriage is more popular in the red states than in the blue states and because of all the blue-staters living in the red states. (Interesting hypothesis. I won’t hold my breath waiting for her to back up this pipe dream with any facts or links or sources or statistics.)

Is it important to you as a woman to be standing up for positions that many people, especially liberals, think are unrepresentative of women: opposing abortion, favoring the death penalty, and so forth?

The answer to any question beginning “Is it important to you as a woman” is: No. It’s important to me as a Christian and an American to take the positions I take, but I would hold the same positions if I were a man. And by the way, despite your nearly mystical fascination with polls in earlier questions, you have apparently not brushed up on the abortion polls if you think opposition to abortion is “unrepresentative of women.” No matter who takes the poll or how the questions are asked, women almost always oppose abortion more than men do. Abortion is a convenience for men who want to be able to have sex with women without consequence. Women love and protect children.

(Men bad. Women good. Ann Coulter was never more real than with those last two statements. I’ll pay for the counseling Ann, please, just go… work out your hatred for half the human race.)

Godless men–like Herod in Jesus’ time, the Pharaoh in Moses’ time, and Bill Clinton in our time–target babies for destruction.

(White phospherous bombs target babies for destruction. Apparently babies that live near oil fields and pipelines are especially guilty and must be put to death indescriminantly by the Rumsfeld/Bush war machine. Godless men such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush target babies for destruction daily, aided and abetted by God-less women such as Condoleezza Rice and Ann Coulter.)

As a woman, do you long for that source of great fulfillment for many women: a husband, a family? Or do you see your life’s vocation as primarily in the public arena?

As a journalist, do you long to have a sense of decorum? Or do you see your life’s vocation as primarily asking strangers utterly inappropriate personal questions?

(Oooooohhhhhh… touched a nerve there, didn’t she? I didn’t see that as a particularly invasive question. Am I wrong? When I am asked why I am not married in public, I do not feel threatened, nor do I get instantly defensive.)

I found your book enormously entertaining. But when I finished, I asked myself: What was the point of this book? What would you say the point of “Godless” is?

It is a clarion call, a flashing neon sign warning people that liberalism is the opposition party to God. And by the way, I had the same reaction the first time I read the Bible: Sure, it’s fascinating and wise and full of important information, but what was the point of it exactly?

(In Ann Coulter’s mind, Bible = Ann Coulter’s book)

What does it mean to be a good Christian, and do you consider yourself to be a good Christian?

To believe with all your heart at every moment that God loved a wretch like you so much that he sent his only son to die for your sins. Most of the time, I’m an extraordinarily good Christian. (Wow. Quite a statement. Sounds like most of the time, she doesn’t need a saviour.)

What’s your favorite Bible verse, if you have one, besides “By their fruits you shall know them”?

I don’t have a favorite, they’re all pretty good. Among some I like are:
So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. (So there is hope for the Jersey Girls that they will get from God what has been refused to them from the Bush Administration?) What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. – Matthew 10: 26-28

Do you have a favorite prayer?

Yes, as our Creator taught us: “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name…” and so on.

(Yes, Lord… Deliver us from evil… www.ImpeachforPeace.org)

A five minute documentary video of the State of the Union protest in Minneapolis on Groundhog’s Day, January 31st, 2006 at which I met Jodin, Dave and D.L. Corvin, now all foundational members of our chapter in Minneapolis. They are the original three at the Federal Building in the video clowning around before the guy with the long straight hair shows up. It was about 12 degrees and blustery cold as those who know the Upper Midwest can relate to.

I read about the protest on the World Can’t Wait web site and can be seen standing closest to Jodin on a “grassy knoll” as he speaks through a megaphone later in the video toward the end of the “Say Goodbye” song overlay:

Drowning Out the Lies

A FAUXNews van came, set up a camera, videotaped the bunch and likely sent the video directly to Homeland Security as it never showed up on television that I heard about.