Ann Coulter: Wikileaker An ‘Angry Gay,’ Gays Can’t Be Trusted To Serve

Why is it that “angry gay” sounds so derogatory? Why doesn’t, say, “angry, bleached blond bigoted bitchy straight” sound as insulting?

Ann Coulter, the woman who would sell her soul (if she still had one — anyone know? Anyone seen it?) for, say, a chance to tell anti-gay jokes at a gay Tea Party fundraiser, is allowed to be so damn nasty?

Her “column” this week is titled, “Bradley Manning: Poster Boy For ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.” For those of you who haven’t yet heard, Bradley Manning is the Wikileaker — the man who reportedly used a recordable CD (on which he delightfully recorded Lady Gaga) to transport hundreds of thousands of classified documents that have since embarrassed the U.S. Government.

And, he’s gay.

Though, I’m not sure how angry he is.

But I am sure that Ms. Coulter is. When she’s not taking her anger out on, well, anything to the Left of Ronald Reagan. (Or, say, trying to get the voting age raised to 21 to reduce the number of eligible voters.)

She writes, “The two biggest stories this week are WikiLeaks’ continued publication of classified government documents, which did untold damage to America’s national security interests, and the Democrats’ fanatical determination to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow gays to serve openly in the military.”

“The mole who allegedly gave WikiLeaks the mountains of secret documents is Pfc. Bradley Manning, Army intelligence analyst and angry gay.”

Not, “an angry gay,” which would have been gramatically awkward, or, “an angry gay man,” which would have been neither here nor there, but, “angry gay,” as in, “mad fag.”

“Angry gay” is about as nasty as one can get without using the “F” word.

Which, of course, Coulter has no problem doing.

She’s already called former presidential candidate John Edwards a “faggot.” And if there are degrees of homosexuality, I suppose that at least gets Coulter points for nuance, when she called Al Gore a “total fag.”

But I digress.

Coulter says, “According to Bradley’s online chats, he was in “an awkward place” both “emotionally and psychologically.” So in a snit, he betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history.”

I suppose if he were allow to be openly-gay, perhaps he wouldn’t have felt so “emotionally and psychologically” upset, and maybe, just maybe, he wouldn’t have Wikileaked.

Who knows.

But to say that Manning leaked because he is gay is unacceptable, and, frankly, disgusting.

But is it more disgusting than her next “thought?”

“Maybe there’s a reason gays have traditionally been kept out of the intelligence services, apart from the fact that closeted gay men are easy to blackmail. Gays have always been suspicious of that rationale and perhaps they’re right.”

Yes, Ann, you just made my point. If gays didn’t have to be closeted to serve their country, they wouldn’t be blackmailable? So, let’s lose “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” once and for all, OK? If rabidly-homophobic Dr. Laura can support repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” so can you.

But Coulter can’t reason that far ahead of her self.

Hers is the same stupid line of reasoning that president of the hate group, the Family Research Council (FRC,) used this fall when the teen suicides were making news. Tony Perkins said, homosexuality is “abnormal,” and it drives gay teens to suicide. No, you jackass, it’s not. YOU and the FRC’s hate-mongering drive gay teens to suicide.

Anyone sensing a pattern here?

Coulter, Perkins, Gallagher, et al, all demonize gays, then claim we’re not fit to serve, that we’re blackmailable because we have to stay in the closet, that we are suicidal. It’s ALL BECAUSE OF YOUR DEMONIZING US.

I don’t know. What do you think? to me, “angry, bleached blond bigoted bitchy straight” is sounding just about right.

(image)