WorldNetDaily: 'Godless' causes liberals to pray ... for a book burning

Ann Coulter is back in action, and in her usual top form. She opens thus:

I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging.

Zounds! The only reason I can't--quite--approve of that statement is that I am not dead sure of the motive for fragging. It could have been a treasonous motive--in which case the real reason Vietnam-era draftees invented fragging was General John C. "Westy" Westmoreland, and he would not be an honorable reason.

And while I'm on the subject: I promised you a review of Godless: The Church of Liberalism when I got the book. This was when those two idiotic (literally, in-a-world-of-their-own) New Jersey Assemblywomen called on New Jersey booksellers to refuse to carry the book. (I asked them how they'd like to explain themselves to Ray (Fahrenheit 451) Bradbury, and they never answered.) Well, I got the book yesterday, and have at least skimmed it.

How much time did Ann devote to The Jersey Girls, the thing that caused all the excitement? All of two pages. She then discussed the real object of her wrath, which was the "Nine-eleven Commission" that was the JGs' pet project. After excoriating that Commission and demonstrating that it was nothing but a whitewash of the Clinton administration, then she returned to the Jersey Girls, and said the only really nasty thing with which I would take issue: she said that they ought to hurry up and do their centerfold spreads in Playboy before people forget about them. Now for the record: I would never suggest that anyone pose in that rag, for the simple reason that I wouldn't touch it with a seven-cubit pole, nor suggest that anyone else touch it. That includes the Jersey Girls, and any other woman--because the very premise of Playboy is insulting and degrading and, in general, violative of Matthew 5:28 and following.

I will say that the four women who cut commercials for John Kerry's Presidential campaign and instigated the formation of a commission to investigate what a Congressional committee ought to have investigated, were traitresses to themselves, their husbands' memories, their neighbors, and all the rest of us, in that they have given aid and comfort to the organization that sent the nineteen murderers of their husbands (and 3,000 other people). But I will also lay the blame for that joke of a commission on a Republican Party who acceded to their demands, and a White House that had already gone out of its way to whitewash the previous administration (by covering up their wanton vandalism of White House office equipment and other property on their exit, and failure to investigate the possible theft of towels, china, and other items from the White House residential quarters and the Presidential transport). Why the White House refuses to throw former Clinton administration officials into prison where they belong (including Sandy Berger, who stole classified documents from the National Archives and willfully destroyed them) is anyone's guess. (Joseph L. Farah at WorldNetDaily seems to think that Bush and Clinton are together "in on" a Rockefellerian plot to inaugurate a one-world federation.) The difference between me and Ann Coulter is simply this: Ann Coulter has a brief to excoriate identified liberals. I, however, reserve my harshest criticism for "conservatives" who will not deal justice when justice is due.

But I digress. I do want to review Godless, and I will.

Basically, you get a book in two parts. The first part talks about the "sacraments" of the liberal anti-religion, including abortion and pacifism. But the second part is the most comprehensive deconstruction of the theory of evolution and the various demonstrations (most of them fraudulent) of it that I have yet seen. Evolution receives most of Ann's ire because evolution remains today the favored explanation of life origins that liberals advance so that they don't have to admit that God exists. By the time you finish Godless, you will realize that evolution simply cannot be, and that nearly all the evidence adduced for it has turned out to be fraudulent. A nonexhaustive list of the frauds that she exposes includes:

• Piltdown Man--which turns out to be a mixture of human and simian bones, all of which were practically modern.
• Archaeopteryx--which turns out to be a cobbled-together skeleton from various bird species.
• The tired example of the Peppered Moths, and how that, also, was fudged.
• Ernst Haeckel's Comparative Embryo Drawings, all of which he fudged.
• The Miller-Urey reducing-atmosphere experiment, which assumed conditions since shown never to have been able to exist.

Oh, but you didn't know that Ann was conversant in scientific matters, did you? She's not a scientist by trade--but she is a lawyer. Lawyers deal with logic and evidence. (Ask the Law School Admissions Council, or better yet, take a practice LSAT.) And Ann's case is unassailable.

Not satisfied with that, Ann next describes the two other anti-God origins theories that Sir Fred Hoyle on one hand, and Drs. Francis Crick and Leslie H. Orgel on the other, developed to replace evolution. Hoyle gave us generalized panspermia--the notion that a super-intellect invented the stuff of life and spread it around in comet tails. (He doesn't know the first thing about where comets come from. Hint: they come from earth, and are a leftover of the Great Flood.) Crick and Orgel gave us directed panspermia--the notion that this super-intellect put the stuff of life into a brace of guided missiles and shot them hither and yon--and one such missile crashed on earth, and we are its by-product.

And, of course, Ann shows how the public-school establishment refuses to countenance the teaching of anything that hints of God. Interestingly, they insist on promoting evolution, even though at least three scientists who know better, have already abandoned it! I suppose that panspermia is still too outlandish even for liberals to trot out--yet.

In sum: Get this book now, befure the liberal establishment manages to ban it. Follow the references that she gives. Your view of the world will likely never be the same.

UPDATE: Francis Crick actually realized that his brace-of-missiles idea wouldn't wash, either. So he returned to the simple faith in abiogenesis that all evolutionists share, though they won't admit it--and Crick won't even hazard a guess as to how abiogenesis is supposed to have taken place.