Freedomswatch.org is a new organization finally bringing the truth to the American public by bringing in real troops and family members who lost lives and limbs and still support winning in Iraq. The funny part is when you head to the forums in the youtube videos comment sections, you will see that the moonbats are out like crazy (there goes their weekend!) .
All of a sudden it is okay to attack people who lost loved ones and limbs in the military. Amazingly now that this shows the moonbats (liberals and Ron Paul stompers) whose side the military is really on here, it took them all of five seconds to reveal their true crocodile-concern for troops and civilians.
Thank you to all the troops and visit the website today and donate! We finally need to get the real truth and the real message out there.
I’m sure everyone out there knows who Jeff Gannon is. I’ve been reading his website and various articles he has written in the last couple of years and he’s a pro at hitting the nail on the head! Check his book out today!
As a guy who has always been one of the first in the gay community to defend Ann Coulter over “comments” she makes, I have to finally say there are a few things about her speech lately that have been making my blood-pressure move up.
In February when she referred to John Edwards as a “faggot” and everyone was screaming, I was one of the few who actually concurred with her point from the start. Never once did it enter my mind that she was making a homophobic remark. I understood the meaning of the word in which she intended and also understood how referring to Isiah Washington going to rehab over using the same word (even though he used it incorrectly) made for a pretty good punch line.
I’ve been sitting back waiting for folks to respond to some of the more serious problematic remarks she has been making lately — and if anyone is out there reading thinking that I am purposely trying to attack her for no reason, I refer them to ask anyone I have talked to in the last five years about her or any other conservative speaker or blogger out there. I buy her books, I laugh at her jokes, and appreciate her small government, lower taxes, and pro-life stance that I think everyone must hold near and dear to earn their Republican title and wear it proudly.
In the interview posted above via YouTube, Coulter refers to Bush coming out for Civil Unions right before the year 2004 as one of the top three major disaters of his tenure. The other two of course were Harriet Miers (agreed) and his amnesty plan (agreed).
I’ve always referred to the subject of Civil Unions as a middle-ground for the issue of gay couples who are living as all others that are in love and making a home and life for themselves. I hardly bring my personal views into this because my overall stance on the whole issue of gay rights stems from my love of Democracy and letting the people decide on these issues.
I respect the fact that the majority of Americans are against gay marriage. If the majority of Americans are against Civil Unions, I would respect that accordingly. But obviously, George Bush coming out for Civil Unions before 2004 did not prevent him from getting re-elected.
As Democrats in Congress and the ones running for President are promising to do more for our community, I watch as Democratic voters in very blue states like California and Oregon betray us when it’s time to take these issues to the polls. I also watch how red states like Arizona reject these restrictions. These are what we like to call cold-hard facts when objective folks are trying to sift out bullshit being fed to us by Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich about how Republicans hate gays or anyone who is not white, straight, and rich.
Moving forward, Coulter’s current column takes another stupid turn in which she decided that the “gay lifestyle” was comparable to abortion by saying:
“Liberals know they’re losing the demographic war. Christians have lots of children and adopt lots of children; liberals abort children and encourage the gay lifestyle in anyone with a flair for color.”
If she were just making the point about the “demographic war” I could be objective enough to understand that she was solely comparing the two things to illustrate practices that do not result in reproduction. Obviously, abortion and gay-sex qualify as a “no-baby” ending.
But where she went wrong is when she proclaimed that “liberals encourage” the gay lifestyle just as they do abortion. If her definiton of the “gay lifestyle” is radicals that denounce God and have dozens of sex partners determined by what night of the week it is, then yes it is a fact that liberals and Democrats support this kind of behavior. Irresponsible sex; gay or straight, is not helpful to the reproductive process. If you’re gay, you aren’t risking pregnancy and if you’re straight and sleeping around like that of course you’re more likely to have an abortion than responsible folks are. If this is her example of the “gay lifestyle” that liberals support, then she should have clarified that.
Ann Coulter has brilliantly pointed out in the past how gays are more protected overall by Republican policies and tax cuts. She has also illustrated the often misquoted line of Falwell’s post-9/11 comment where most folks deemed him the biggest homophobe of all.
But to say that Bush made a mistake coming out for Civil Unions and then to say that liberals are the ones encouraging the gay lifestyle will only serve as ammunition for liberal politicians who have already succeeded at getting the bulk of our community to believe that it is indeed Democrats who like us more than the Republicans.
In a time where the next Presidential election’s results are so vital to the safety of this country and to mankind everywhere, she needs to focus more on facts when it comes to how much the Democrats encourage my true “lifestyle” with such an idiotic broad-brushing quote as the one posted above.
This pisses me off as a gay man but mostly as a Republican. Not only will Democrats not do anything more for gay rights than Republicans will, but her confirming the misguided gay-liberals’ belief that Republicans are their enemies is dangerous for elections next year. This isn’t just about “rights,” this is also about our safety.
Coulter needs to return to letting Democrats say the stupid things and do a little more thinking before she uses her voice and podium to give liberals a leg-up when it comes to gay rights.
So to all those out there who thought they would never hear me say this in regard to Ann Coulter, listen up:
To counter this, I searched everywhere for a running count of captured or killed insurgents and terrorists along with a running tally of successes that have occurred since 2003.
For some reason, I can’t find any.
Isn’t that weird?
Well, thanks to this headline Ron Paul and his supporters will have something to campaign on blather about this week.
“Sadly, the CIA’s 9/11 accountability review serves as a sobering reminder that the Bush Administration policies for the past six years have failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden”
That is what West Virginia Democrat, Jay Rockefeller had to say in response.
–During the Clinton administration, we knew (or “suspected”) that Al-Queda wanted to attack us. Some called this clever CIA intelligence, others were tipped off by the various attacks that Clinton did nothing about during his administration.
–From 1998-2001, the CIA refused to do enough to track Al-Queda’s every move to keep us safe here in America. (But at the same time, liberals would not have allowed us to throw suspicious Arabs out of the country, profile them at airports, or create a Patriot Act back then.) Democrats cry over the Patriot Act post 9/11, we are supposed to believe they would have supported the CIA taking more serious measures in monitoring Al-Queda before it happened? Would liberals have supported NSA wiretappings before 9/11?
Suffice it to say that with liberal policies and crazy rules and regulations delivered by them to the CIA along with the fact that most of this “pre-9/11″ surveillance occurred during the Clinton administration, I can see why liberals could blame this on George Bush.
The article goes on to clearly state:
“Yet the review team led by Inspector General John Helgerson found neither a “single point of failure nor a silver bullet” that would have stopped the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.”
So in conclusion we had a planning and tracking phase that the CIA could basically do nothing about thanks to half-baked liberal policies, a President in the White House who refused to do nothing in response to the largest number of attacks on America’s interests since it all began in 1979, and a report that basically tells us: they could have done stuff, but in the end none of it would have done any good anyway!
And Jay Rockfeller says this is a reminder of Bush’s policies that have kept us safe since 2001?
I swear, if they could get away with it they would find a way to blame George W. Bush for the stain on Monica’s dress.
Ann Coulter has this video linked from her website tonight.
She also mentions the Pat Schroeder proclamation already mentioned here tonight by Philip and refers all readers of that “study” to this video.
Good stuff!
Now if we can just get those deep-thinking readers to stop throwing pies and other condiments at conservative commentators, we may be able to put the progress back into “progressive.”
I’m not sure how many sports fans are commenters on this blog. I warned Steve a long time ago that I am an sports nut (wait til my OU football blog next week). The case of the Atlanta Falcons star quarterback, Michael Vick, has transcended the lines of sports gurus into public discourse. So, I feel that it is fair game for the blog.
Mike Straka writes a regular and annoying column for FoxNews.com. I regularly agree with him, but he’s just way into his work. He wrote a good commentary on Michael Vick though. Vick is accused of bankrolling a dog-fighting operation that occured on a property that he owned. Pitbulls were set up against each other in fights. Losing pups were often killed for their failures – usually by drowning, beating electrocution and other inhumane actions. And apparently, Vick participated in killing the losers.
Sorry to sound like a leftie, but I have 3 pups that are my life. Any person who kills a dog for such a ridiculous reason in such an inhumane manner is “scum” in my book. And Michael Vick has placed himself squarely in the realm of scum.
I don’t care if he is a pzro football superstar. Fame and money weren’t enough for this jackass. He is a role model to lots of kids and young players. And this is the example they are offered.
I’ll profess right now – I am not a fan of pro sports. I am a fanatic of college and Texas high school sports. Those players mainly do their thing for the love of the game. I’ve become disenfranchised with pro sports precisely because of idiots like Michael Vick.
Consider this my sports rant for the week. Anyone who is capable of doing evil, unspeakable things to an animal is probably capable of doing the same things to a human. You wonder why folks like me are so disillusioned with pro sports?
If the National Football League reinstates this jerk after his much-deserved trip to jail, I’ll lose all respect. It’s time to readjust the expectations of pro athletes and let them know that they are to be held to the same standards as the rest of us.
In another case of liberal elitism, former Colorado Rep. Pat Schroeder, has determined that I (and all my ilk) are backwards and uneducated. Her source? An AP-Ipsos poll showing that self-identified liberals and Dems read more books than their Republican-Conservative counterparts.
“The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: ‘No, don’t raise my taxes, no new taxes,’” Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. “It’s pretty hard to write a book saying, ‘No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes’ on every page.”
Schroeder, who as a Colorado Democrat was once one of Congress’ most liberal House members, was responding to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that found people who consider themselves liberals are more prodigious book readers than conservatives.
She said liberals tend to be policy wonks who “can’t say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion.”
Evidently, that means we are dumb. I will tell you now that I read maybe 5-6 books a year. Most of those are for enjoyment. I read relatively few educational books because I get most of my reading done online. I would, however, point you to the book by former Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) called “National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat.” That was one I read with enthusiasm. I’m sure that was on Pat’s reading list. If not, it should be (yours too).
One interesting finding of the poll was -
Among those who had read at least one book, liberals typically read nine books in the year, with half reading more than that and half less. Conservatives typically read eight, moderates five.
So I guess Schroeder’s reasoning would be as follows: She would conclude that I, Philip, am a moderate since I didn’t read 8 books. And moderates are dumber than both conservatives and libs because they didn’t read as many books as the other two groups. What specious reasoning. And the independents in this nation should be a little perturbed.
I’m not going to go nuts over this. The fallacies and Schroeder’s condescension speak for themselves. Just suffice it to say that the GOP and conservatives, in particular, will always be subject to the scorn of self-obsessed libs who are out to convince the American people that our ideology is intellectually inferior. Nice try, Pat.
With the MSM lovemaking-threeway with Hillary and Barack, it’s a little hard to focus on the insanity of the remaining contenders bucking for President next year. But, as I have enjoyed pointing out how crazy Ron Paul and his supporters are lately, Ann Coulter is our equal opportunity offender when it comes to having a blast with liberals and their political dysfunction.
Ms. Coulter is an inspiration to many – such an inspiration that the most failing Presidential candidates still feel the need to clutch onto her coattails.
As pointed out by my punctual news-reading site co-author Philip, John Edwards attacked Ann Coulter again. This was posted by ABC and reported in the most liberally-biased way possible. But, I won’t rant about that so much. If you click on the link yourself, you will see that many commenters went on and for the first time in major news-reporting history in terms of the MSM, a vast majority of the readers and commenters are defending Ann Coulter.
So as we can see, Coulter herself has become quite bored with the Edwardses. But for some reason, Edwards still feels the need to remind us over and over again of the feud between the two of them. Could it be that he needs more campaign funding? Could it be that nobody cares about it?
This is almost as transparent as famed-9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser writing a book and responding to Ann Coulter MONTHS after Godless came out.
It gets interesting when Senators like John Kerry and candidates like John Edwards use the name of Ann Coulter on the Senate floor and during their campaigns to get attention. If war-opposing crazies who don’t stand a chance for making the Presidency next year are going to use her everytime they run out of PR, could they at least pass the hat around?
Oooooo. Please don’t hurt me, Mr. Iranian Military Terrorist Man!!!!
Local press in the Iranian capital of Tehran quoted Revolutionary Guards leader Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi saying that he could understand Washington’s ire toward the group because of their “leverage” against the U.S.
“America will receive a heavier punch from the guards in the future,” he was quoted as saying in the conservative daily Kayhan. “We will never remain silent in the face of U.S. pressure and we will use our leverage against them.”
There was no elaboration on what Safavi meant by the punch or the organization’s “leverage.”
Probably because the barbaric, 4th world dufus had no idea what he meant himself. So is the the word from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in response to the Bush administration’s threat to list either the entire Guard or its special forces as an official terrorist entity. This action would allow the government to cut the Guard off economically and take action against companies who deal with them.
Naturally, Iran is pissed. No foreign military force has ever been designated as a terrorist group. This action would be unprecedented but well-deserved. Consider the role of the Guard in the violence rocking Iraq, training and arming Hezbollah against Israel and generally lending tactical and military support to any thugs who wish to undermine the US and/or Israel. If that doesn’t meet the definition of a terrorist, I’m not sure what the word means. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard seems to meet the criteria.
I read over the US State Department’s guide for the designation of an FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization). I didn’t have to read very far to see that the Guard clearly meets the criteria.
As used in this chapter [chapter 8 of the INA], the term ‘engage in terrorist activity’ means in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization–
to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;
to solicit funds or other things of value for–
(aa) a terrorist activity;
(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization’s terrorist activity;
Or maybe you can try this -
to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training–
(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;(cc) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization’s terrorist activity.
I think those are pretty solid standards when it comes to defining a terrorist organization. And I don’t give a crap if it is “unprecedented” to name a foreign military force as a terrorist organization. Since when have the Iranians had any respect for precedent or convention? The mullahs have dedicated an entire branch of their armed forces to promoting terrorism. THAT is unprecedented.
So the Iranians can cry and whine all day, and Europe can come running to them with a box of Kleenex. But regardless of what you think of the Bush administration, I can say this – they have some balls and they aren’t afraid to call a spade a spade.
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
