These fanatics that carry the desire to terrorize freedom, peace, and liberties all over the planet are telling a pretty clear story.
Of course this means that terrorism is very real and continues to exist and plagues our planet globally. Liberals will either deny that or will agree but throw in their infamous qualifier of blaming this on Bush’s war policies. Since this will not be “news” to anyone, I am choosing to turn my attention elsewhere.
Let’s take a quick recap of the last few would-be attacks. We had Fort Dix and we had the JFK Terror plot. Now we have three very sloppy terrorist attempts in London that have announced anything but “clever” in terms of adequate adjectives used to describe these individuals. I think we can save all the adjectives and boil it down to “crazy.”
Today in Glasgow, Scotland – the terrorist who was submerged in flames fought off authorities by shouting “Allah Allah Allah.” Seeings as successful as the attempts were in London yesterday as well as how the plots at Fort Dix and JFK Airport went, this tells me that these terrorists aren’t quite as smart as liberals are proclaiming them to be.
This means that Bush’s anti-terror policies are effective. It also means that his mission in effectively sweeping up the top leaders of Al-Queda has done us justice as well.
9/11 took years to orchestrate. It had a mastermind and a leader to its mission. The only thing America lacked was the sense of how serious these threats were.
I believe we need to take this war to London – this does remind us again that we are up against insanity but also shows how sloppy our enemies are.
We defeated Hitler and the Nazi regime because we went to war and did not have the mainstream media serving as the war-mascot. We are fully capable to end this nonsense next week if we really wanted.
This is complicated only in the respect that terrorism is not confined to just one country. The terrorists are now desperate. We need to defeat their will to continue by reminding them over and over again that they will never over-power or outsmart the United States of America.
All we need to do is get liberals and the main stream media to shut up, continue full execution of Bush’s anti-war policies, and increase our power with more aggressive military action.
Tonight on the O’Reilly Factor, the wonderful Michelle Malkin filled in for Bill O’Reilly and faced off with Newsday-writer and Democratic-commentator, Ellis Henican along with illegal-alien activist (or “immigrant activist” in the politically correct world of the mainstream media), Juan Hernandez who is basically an open-borders loon.
The main message by individuals like Hernandez is that there are a lot of hardworking Hispanic illegals that deserve a fair break and they plead with Americans like Malkin to “have a heart, Michelle!”
Nobody is denying the fact that Hispanics are hardworking people.But Hernandez, Ellis Henican, Gerald Rivera, and other open-borders fanatics are indeed the ones making this all about Hispanics and Latinos.
Ellis Henican proclaims that this is going to hurt Republicans in the next two presidential elections.Hernandez claims that Latino voters will punish both parties for rejecting the “shamnesty” bill.
What does Hernandez think that this says to decent Mexican-American immigrants who immigrated here legally and earned their way in the great American culture respectively?He says that it’s okay for illegals to bypass all of the steps they took?Why would legal-Mexican-Americans care about the reaction of America to people that lacked the respect and character that they have?Would these crazies also support illegal Doctors, non-degreed attorneys, or Presidential candidates that have no adequate experience?Oh wait, that last one is correct!
Moreover; why is it always extreme-leftists like Ellis Henican or Geraldo Rivera that promise Latino-backlash onto Republicans that are the ones making this ALL ABOUT HISPANICS!?
Comparing hardworking LEGAL AMERICANS (including the Mexican ones, the Arab ones, the African ones, the Polish ones, etc) and grouping them up with disrespectful criminals seems to me that Geraldo, Ellis, and Juan are indeed the ones taking the true racist position!
If indeed they are also proclaiming that Mexican-Americans are stupid, I suppose they are right.Legal Mexican-Americans that worked to earn their citizenship will reject the party that stood up for their character and their contribution to our society that says “Shamnesty is NOT okay with us!”
Liberals will continue to work as hard as they can to segregate groups to create civil wars and politically correct barriers that make it difficult for all of us to stay on the same page.Luckily not all Americans are as stupid as they take us to be.
Here is more on the latest “attack” on John Edwards. Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter actually show the entire segment of the ABC interview in its context.
I wonder if liberals and hysterics will continue to talk about how much bad news she is for the right wing after seeing this.
Yeah, probably.
By the way, John Edwards went on Hardball last night to speak solely about Ann Coulter. Was it damage control to correct a stupid mistake made by Elizabeth Edwards? Or was it an accentuation of his “victim” moment to hopefully put him above Clinton and Obama in the polls while simultaneously raising more money for his campaign.
I have to admit, when I learned that Chris Matthews on Hardball had a secret deal with Elizabeth Edwards to ambush Ann Coulter on a few “comments” during Matthews’ interview with Coulter to promote her updated paperback version of Godless: The Church of Liberalism, I was immediately affected by this as I again was shown how devious liberals can be and indeed how clueless some “conservatives” are.
In the video posted above, Chris Matthews and Elizabeth Edwards (wife of John Edwards) uses this opportunity to stress to Ann Coulter the importance of sticking to the issues and cutting out the “personal attacks.”
It all started about six months ago when Ann Coulter joked about the pathetic state of our politically correct society when asserting that she would not be commenting on John Edwards because using the word “faggot” would put her in rehab.Immediately afterwards in the same speech when asked about gay rights, Ann said:
“Screw you, I’m not anti-gay, we’re against gay marriage, I don’t want gays to be discriminated against”
and went on to say………….
“In addition to blacks, I don’t know why all gays aren’t Republican because I think we have the pro-gay position which is anti-crime and pro-tax cuts, gays make a lot of money and they’re victims of crime.”
There, Coulter genuinely acknowledged the history of cruelty, bigotry, and crimes against the gay community.Conservatives have acknowledged that same fact for years.But apparently being against gay marriage equals a level of hate directly associated with the types of morons that partake in such awful crimes.
The same weekend that Coulter made that comment, Bill Maher remarked about Dick Cheney being slaughtered by terrorists.Not one liberal came out against him with a fraction of the energy they put into focusing on one line uttered by Ann Coulter.
Say, when will we get a phone call from Lynne Cheney as Maher is being interviewed by Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity?
Next, the “Coulter makes Edwards cry like a big girl” drama-fest was extended when Ann Coulter; on ABC, just a few days ago stated her obvious surprise that Maher’s comment about Cheney being assassinated by terrorists got no press attention compared to her joke about John Edwards.In this current interview, Coulter said two funny things.
Holding to her intention that her “faggot” remark had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with John Edwards being a total wuss she remarked:
“I wouldn’t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards….THAT would be mean”
Then realizing the striking difference displayed by liberals in their reaction to what she said versus what Bill Maher had said, she joked:
“I’ve learned my lesson, if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish that he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
Now, a few days later, Elizabeth Edwards and Chris Matthews use this as evidence of a “personal attack” against John Edwards.Nothing she said in this interview on ABC attacked John Edwards personally, other than the cute joke about not comparing all gays to him.
There are a few things I’d like to point out in the midst of the entire hullabaloo raised by liberals and “concerned conservatives.”
First: Every time Ann Coulter makes a joke about a liberal, I get buckets of e-mails and messages from liberal friends, gay friends, conservative friends, etc. wondering if this is finally the moment that I would be willing to denounce Coulter.
Let me be the first to say that I proudly agree with the idea that John Edwards is a total wuss.In fact, my agreeing with Ann Coulter in that respect has been utterly confirmed by the wife of this Presidential candidate when she feels the need to conspire with a liberal talk-show host to insinuate that Coulter stop writing and speaking in a way that she chooses to express herself which is an amusing way that attracts enough folks to score her five massive NY Times bestsellers.
In fact, if I could be mad about anything, it would be because the Edwards people have scored massive amounts of campaign-funding since Coulter’s remarks.
So when Coulter says something that makes liberals go crazy, what is the real message here?While some of my most soft-hearted friends and concerned conservative folk characterize it as:
Coulter gives energy to liberals, they will win because she expresses herself, speaks her mind and God forbid exercises her right to the first amendment.
I seem to be one of the only ones with enough common sense to discover the real message here which is:
Edwards cannot handle jokes, attacks, or criticism from a blond 100-pound writer but he simultaneously wants us to believe that he’s going to effectively combat members of Al-Queda, deal with Iran, North Korea, and pull us out of Iraq in a way that does not portray us as a country full of Barbra Streisands and Rosie O’Donnells.
Is Edwards going to have to his wife call up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the case he is so politically incorrect to assassinate Edwards with a “personal attack?”What would conservatives think of George Bush or Ronald Reagan if they had Laura or Nancy calling up talk-shows to do their fighting for them?
Second: While Chris Matthews and Elizabeth Edwards blathered on about “personal attacks” and “debating the issues,” did it occur to them that they never touched on one issue at all in that entire time?The entire interview was a “personal attack” against Ann Coulter.I have read Godless from cover to cover and can personally attest to the fact that Ann Coulter covered many “issues” in her book.If Matthews and Edwards want to debate issues, why didn’t they pick at least one of them to debate Coulter on?
To all the hysterics out there, I ask that you realize the fact that there is a reason why Edwards and Matthews could not stay on the issues and chose to parse Coulter’s language for the entire course of that interview.
Third:The latter part of this interview features Matthews engaging in another personal attack on Coulter by again; avoiding the issues, and scolding her on words that Coulter used to describe Hillary’s legs.
Curiously enough, one year ago on Hardball, Chris Matthews in an interview with Tucker Carlson asked Tucker if he found Ann Coulter attractive.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you find her physically attractive, Tucker?”
CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Well, she doesn’t pass the Chris Matthews test.”
Utter hypocrisy at its worst.
As a gay man, I was not offended at Coulter’s use of the word “faggot.”I knew what she meant, I agree with her that putting someone in rehab over the use of a word is crazy, and I knew how liberals would respond.But the way conservatives are responding is what is making me sick.
Conservatives are now buying into this rhetoric without understanding the price they are willing to pay which involves compromising everyone’s right to true free speech!
We are selling ourselves out as conservatives by caving into the politically correct madness created by the mainstream media.We are more obsessed now with monitoring the words uttered by Ann Coulter than we are at observing our enemies.
Coulter has been attacked repeatedly on the Senate floor by various Senators including John Kerry.She is the first political writer to ever be called up by the wife of a presidential candidate.Couple these firsts with the fact that she continues to sell massive amounts of books, I’d say that I am ready to make my final point:
Liberals (even the elected ones) are so threatened by Ann Coulter’s ability to articulate political messages that they use their time on the Senate floor and their time as political candidates to test the backbone of the Republican Party.I have to say, by recent actions, I am completely disgusted at Republicans for caving into this utter manipulation.We are reacting just as they want us to.
Being a victim today is like taking a turn on the Ferris wheel.It’s stardom, it’s attention, and it’s a sorry excuse to be indignant and to sound interesting for about five minutes.
If Republicans lose the election because of comments uttered by Ann Coulter, it won’t be because of her comments alone.It will be because of our “wuss” reactions to the mainstream media, the tree-huggers, the anti-war moms, and the political correctness set forth by hypocrites like Chris Matthews and Elizabeth Edwards.
If people don’t want to be characterized as “faggots,” how about they stop giving illustration to the characterization?
I haven’t been around much lately but I did manage to do some surfing tonight and came across Ann’s website. Even though her new book “If Democrats Had Any Brains They’d Be Republicans” is not being released until October, I’m sure there will be much pre-release liberal crying and protesting. I hope Matt Lauer is her first interview again!
That’s rather interesting. Assuming that the war goes on (as it will), it seems to me that Howard Dean is admitting what wusses the Democrats really are and could really do nothing in fighting Islamic terrorists. After years of screams from the Democrats on how “failed” the Republican war strategies have been, why does he think America would re-elect Republicans again if indeed Americans really did buy into all of the hullaballoo about “it isn’t working”, “we must withdraw!”, “it’s going badly!”, “we need more troops!”, “we need less troops!”
In other words, why would America re-elect Republicans in the first place if Howard Dean was confident in the idea that Democrats could end this war successfully or fight any other anti-terrorism war since Republican strategies allegedly aren’t working?
This proves two things:
1.) Howard Dean does not believe that Americans believe that Republican war strategies are a bad thing (after all, they may even RE-RELECT THEM).
2.) Howard Dean believes that if the war goes on, that Americans certainly won’t trust their leadership in fighting it. I.E. THEY ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO FIGHT ANY WAR AS IMPORTANT AS THIS ONE.
I hope this is pointed out over and over and over again.
Okay, this is a bipartisan view of an idotic writer registered with the Associated Press. The reporter’s name is Pat Milton.
Today; 45 minutes ago to be exact, he/she decided to report to the world that the JFK airport plot to cause MASS destruction was being further investigated and others overseas are being sought after because a “source” told them that the ones caught and detained were “just a piece of it.”
Here we have a plot that would have greatly surpassed the tragedy of 9/11 killing thousands and thousands of innocent Americans.
This is the part that makes my blood boil:
The official that delivered this information WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO RELEASE IT TO ANYONE.
DAMMIT – isn’t there a reason why? Now the AP tells what government officials want kept secret to millions around the world INCLUDING the ones that the officials are allegedly looking for.
Freedom of the Press doesn’t keep us safe. It is more important to keep this quiet and to keep Americans safe than it is to inform all of us at once against the wishes of government officials.
In light of a ridiculous sentence to Scooter Libby, my faith in our Democracy gets a boost! Just moments ago, documented by Michelle Malkin throughout the evening, the bill for granting special conditions and special amnesty to illegals was stomped out.
Bush needs to give us a real proposed bill with true conservative American interpretation.
He seems to do better with his second chances lately.
I watched the Republican debate on CNN while simutaneously switching back and forth to Hannity & Colmes to watch the Fred Thompson interview.
McCain is really starting to alienate Conservatives with his immigration bill. Moreover; he responds by asking detractors to come up with something else. Romney last night answered this question, though I have a feeling McCain missed it and is still walking around today believing that he can still use the “do you have anything better to offer?” line. Romney said that the visas issued to the 12 millions illegals should not be permanent. Rather, they should be temporary. In his words, to do otherwise is “not fair” to all Americans.
I did not like that Thompson split-voted during Clinton’s impeachment. Basically, Fred Thompson presented himself as a good potential and I would have to support him. However; Mitt Romey is still my favorite among the official candidates.
Ann Coulter was interview on H&C immediately afterwards and made two excellent points:
1.) Thompson is a true conservative from a very conservative state. What this means is that Thompson had to live up to a minimum amount of conservatism to get elected in Tennessee. Romney on the other hand holds many of the same values but manages to get elected as a red-stater in a massive blue-state.
2.) Since Thompson was elected as a conservative in a red-state, we are left to judge him on the outside points. According to Ann Coulter, the split vote on the Clinton investigation was indeed one of those moments and in fact Thompson failed that test.
The fact that Romney got elected in a blue state holds A LOT of weight. He is not shy in answering McCain’s shamnesty bill and is excellent on spending.
At this point, it’s very hard for me to give all of my support to just one of them. I will make sure to observe in the weeks to come before making my final decision.
Welcome to our blog. We won't agree on everything, but that is part of the human experience and we welcome the civil debate.
It is believed that around 75% of conservatives in America are supportive of the gay conservative movement. Even among that number, there are many who ask, "why do you need to flaunt your sexual orientation? Why do you rub our faces in it?" The answer is that we're actually not flaunting anything.
It is important to us that conservatives understand that not all gay people are in lock-step with the liberal movement. We do think for ourselves. It is also important to us that other gay people who feel ostracized for their conservative politics have a safe place to discuss their views and get support from others who understand how difficult it is to be conservative in our community. We don't wish to rub in anyone else's faces anything that isn't shown to us by straight people, either. We live, we love, and we want to share our happiness with the world the same way you do. That's all.
Whether you are among the 75% who support us or among the 25% who are trying to run us out of the movement, we all believe in a number of similar values and we ask that you join us in stabilizing America for future generations. The rest is in the details, and that can be dealt with (in a civil manner) later.
Our Message to Liberals
Welcome to our site. You likely won't agree with us, but you are welcome nonetheless.
The most frequent comment we hear is, "how can you be gay and be politically conservative?!?" That is generally followed by every political slur in the liberal vernacular - idiot, moron, brainwashed, traitor, deviant, and the ever-popular "self-loathing closet case." If you have a comment along those lines, then with all the respect we can offer, please stow it. We've heard it quite enough. If you wish to comment, you are welcome to; it is our policy not to delete comments regardless of whether they agree or disagree with our beliefs. Threats and abuse, however, will not be tolerated. Those type of comments WILL be deleted.
As for the questions about how we can be gay and politically conservative, the answer is simple...such ideas make sense to us. Limited government, individual liberty and patriotism are all a part of our beliefs. Not all of the five contributors agree on every single issue, but for the most part we do agree and none of us is willing to come to a conclusion about any issue lightly. We do not allow our emotions to drive our beliefs; rather, we prefer to see all sides of an issue and think about it rationally before deciding where we stand.
If you are a fellow homosexual, please treat us the way you would wish to be treated. Do not speak to us in condescension or make claims that you refuse to provide solid links for (by solid, we mean non-op-ed news from a valid source). Be the source of tolerance that you demand from others.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
