Yes as tragic as it is, it seems like only yesterday when the press was camped outside of the church they were marrying in.
Ya know, here we are again – three kids (one from her trainer and the other adopted from Malawi) removed from a familiar existance.
Tell me, why do celebrities even get married? Is it so they can divorce and use the media attention as career boosters?
As a performer though, I shall vow to love her forever, but I do have a personal question to ask my friends who show up regularly.
On this topic, I’ve received a wedding invitation for someone I’ve know most of her adult life who is indeed on her third marriage. I’ve attended the other ceremonies, gave up weekend days of rest and relaxation, gave money or expensive gifts before.
How many times are we obligated to attend weddings of friends when they have a proven track record of picking bad mates?
In light of the fact that four major oil companies have placed bids with Iraq to start refining oil; in an interview with Bill O’Reilly, Democratic Strategist-Veteran Bob Beckel said that we should draft a 100 year contract with Iraq since they now owe us.
Again – what would happen if Bush said that?
In any case, he also stated that if indeed we got contracts with Iraq, that not even Obama would pull troops out of Iraq.
Of course this is an act of appeasment to the environmentalists that want us to refrain from drilling in ANWR.
Great! I actually think Beckel’s idea is pretty good. Now, can we begin to get the Democrats to stick to issues they are good at like Global Warming hysteria and other things it will take Republicans 1,000 years to prove them wrong on?
Leave National Security to the Republicans. Thanks!
I was a happy boy this morning. The Supreme Court affirmed what conservatives knew all along – the Second Amendment to the Constitution affords American citizens the right to bear arms. Go figure!
The 5-4 majority opinion was authored by Antoin Scalia and joined by Justices Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy. Thank you Mister President for giving us Alito and Roberts. What a relief. Here is the decision in a nutshell.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home,” Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans’ preferred weapon of self-defense in part because “it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.”
Scalia’s opinion dealt almost exclusively with self-defense in the home, acknowledging only briefly in his lengthy historical analysis that early Americans also valued gun rights because of hunting.
The brevity of Scalia’s treatment of gun ownership for hunting and sports-shooting is explained by the case before the court. The Washington law at issue, like many gun control laws around the country, concerns heavily populated areas, not hunting grounds.
I will echo the sentiment of other conservative commentators in expressing my disbelief that 4 justices actually dissented. The Second Amendment is clear. And the writings of our forefathers clearly place this into proper context.
Nevertheless – here we go again. This was a 5-4 decision. Are you folks beginning to understand the stakes in November? The person we elect as President will make nominations that will make a difference for a long time to come. Conservatives have no room for error.
Here’s my new take on the Serenity Prayer. “God grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change; the courage to change the things that I can; and the patience to endure liberal members of academia who have no clue what the devil reality entails.” I’m not trying to be sacreligious. I honestly had to come up with something to calm myself after reading the pseudo-intellectual garbagespouted by a couple of profs from Georgetown and Princeton in today’s Washington Post. You have to read this stuff to believe it. The person at the WP responsible for letting these intellectual lightweights write a column should be canned if not committed to a psych ward.
For the first time since 1964, Democrats have a good chance not just to win the White House and a majority in Congress but to enact a sweeping new liberal agenda. Conservative ideas are widely discredited, as is the Republican Party that the right has controlled since Ronald Reagan was elected. The war in Iraq has undermined the conservative case for unilateral military intervention and U.S. omnipotence. Economic insecurity has led Americans to question the rhetoric about “big” government, while President Bush‘s embrace of new federal programs has undermined GOP promises to cut spending. [Emphasis mine]
I love how Kazin and Zeilizer throw in that last bit about Bush’s “embrace of new federal programs.” The dumbly duo rip conservatism then use GW to show that a Republican has embraced big government. Why even throw that in there given the fact that the authors go on to praise the virtues of the New Deal and Great Society? They should be praising Bush for expanding entitlements and the scope of the federal government. But you won’t see that from these two. They have an agenda.
The authors use the word “insecurity (-ies)” four times in this short article. I think that is basically because they are trying to play on insecurities to make a point. Their implication that liberals are the better protectors of the middle class and families is laughable at best and damnable lies at worst.
Now, Democrats are grappling with insecurities faced by entire families, that institution conservatives always claim to represent. The past three decades have produced growing economic inequality and a shrinking middle class. Younger Americans no longer expect to enjoy as good a life as their parents did. Wage-earners fear for the future of their jobs and incomes. No family is secure.
How have the Dems helped the family or the middle class? They have constantly attempted to redefine the “middle class” in terms of taxation. Remember how Bill Clinton tried to shift people making $40K a year into a higher tax bracket? How does that help the middle class? Let’s discuss the marriage penalty. Republicans sought to eliminate that unfair tax burden. Liberals fought against it. Who supports families?
I read this article and I really became concerned about my blood pressure (I need to get that checked again). The authors point to FDR as the shining example of how liberal economic policies should work and can work. But the fact is that FDR tripled taxes, spread aid around to swing states while neglecting others, and went on a rampage against banks and the private sector. Newt Gingrich can admire Roosevelt, but others like myself understand that he did little to help this nation economically. He merely created entitlements that haunt us to this day and created atrocities like the Tennessee Valley Authority (which the WP authors seem to love).
That is the liberal vision for this nation. They offer failed economic policies and then respond a few years later with the same failed policy solutions. The best thing that libs have going for them is that Americans tend to have short memories. Unfortunately, that means that the rest of us will have to suffer as the liberals put this nation through more suffering in their laboratory attempts to turn the US into a Euro-socialist state. And we know how well that working out in Europe.
I know I’m a little late on this one, but I want to put it out there. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees should be afforded the same legal rights as an American citizen. Andrew McBride sums up the decision in his WSJ opinion piece. I’m not a legal expert, but McBride succintly spells out the ramifications of this sorry decision -
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion confuses the civilian criminal justice system and the waging of war. The Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court places many roadblocks in the path of a conviction for a crime, and for the loss of liberty, or even life, that may follow. The guarantee of counsel, the right to subpoena witnesses and confront adverse witnesses in open court, and the suppression of evidence gathered in violation of law, all make sense in the context of domestic law enforcement. To protect liberty, we are willing to sacrifice some efficiency in our criminal justice system. Our motto remains: Let 100 guilty men go free before one innocent man is convicted.
The situation is entirely different when the nation faces an external threat. In fighting an enemy, there is no reason for the judicial branch to “check” the political branches. The idea of our judiciary protecting the “rights” of the Nazis or the Viet Cong from executive overreaching is every bit as absurd as it sounds. But had Boumediene been decided in 1940, more than 400,000 Axis troops held in more than 500 military facilities in this country during World War II would have had a right to challenge their detention in federal court.
As you might have guessed, this decision was made by the liberal wing of the Court joined by Anthony Kennedy (who authored the majority opinion). I’ll keep posting this stuff to remind people about the stakes of the next election. If Obama is elected, we can only expect more of these types of irrational, misguided decisions.
Thank God this happened in Canada. But it’s sure to happen here soon. Let’s just hope that US Courts are not as dumb.
A Canadian court has lifted a 12-year-old girl’s grounding, overturning her father’s punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet, his lawyer said Wednesday.
The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting “inappropriate” pictures of herself online using a friend’s computer.
You HAVE to be kidding me. The question is – how did this case even make it into a courtroom? In the US, parents that take a hand or a belt to a kid’s ass are subjected to a new, alarming scrutiny as the government attempts to assert itself into the realm of child-rearing. But this didn’t even involve corporal punishment.
According to court documents, the girl’s Internet transgression was just the latest in a string of broken house rules. Even so, Justice Suzanne Tessier found her punishment too severe.
Too severe??? I would argue that it probably wasn’t severe enough. I’d love to hear from our “resident mom,” airforcewife, on this one. I’m probably just arguing from the perspective of someone whose butt was blistered many a time growing up. I can honestly say that I’m glad my parents were able to exercise that option. It made me a better person.
I find it fascinating that Democrats are still pretending to be appalled by high gas prices.
Barack Obama said recently in an interview with CNBC:
Well, I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn’t had an energy policy.
Don’t you just love when a Democrat uses the word “frankly” to make the point seem shocking? I wonder if FDR used it.
Well excuse us, Barack. On the “list of things to do” for President Bush the last eight years we had 9/11, a war against terrorism, hurricanes that Bush got blamed for, and we were a little busy keeping North Korea from shooting a missile towards Hawaii because of inept liberal policies that virtually gave them the money, the fuel, and the technology while stopping the U.N. from inspecting them for five years.
What President has placed an “energy policy” at the top of his priority list? Did FDR? Did Carter? How was Clinton’s?
Less than a decade ago, Universities began the hype on “Global Warming” by conducting “studies” showing that if we imposed an excise tax of 25 cents a gallon on gas, we could use the proceeds to fund studies on the effects of global warming.
The fact is, liberals aren’t enraged over gas prices in and of themselves. They’re just enraged that it was free market that raised them, and not taxation.
It’s common sense, folks! Americans are cutting back on other expenditures to accommodate the new fuel prices. Now that demand for the other items have gone down, so are the prices! As they will continue to do. We demand gas, we must pay for gas. We don’t demand I-Pods and digital cameras anymore, so we won’t be paying as much for them.
An article written yesterday by CNBC proves this point arguing “What Inflation?”
It’s the free market we love and the market should be the dictators of our national wealth. We decide how much things cost by purchasing them at a stated price. Gas is one of those things.
The question is, who are we going to give it to? American proprietors who crave success? Or Democrats that want the success earned by one person to be split up twenty ways and re-distributed to people who aren’t willing to work for it?
Apparently Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez, has some good media and image consultants. He’s come so far that he is finally back in the good graces of the New York Times. That’s sweet.
There is good news inside Venezuela too. On the same weekend that Mr. Chávez turned on the FARC, he suspended a chilling new law he had enacted by decree that would have forced Venezuelans to cooperate with the intelligence services or go to jail. He has also withdrawn a school curriculum that blasted capitalism as a force to subjugate the people.
That must be a relief for the NYT editorial board. After all, Chavez toes their ideological line. He’s just making it easier now for the liberal press (what an oxymoron) to justify another despot. Maybe Reid and Pelosi should call up Hugo and get the number of his consultant.
While we’re dealing with race and hypocrites, let’s turn to one of my favorite subjects and one of my favorite writers. Jeff Jacoby, of the Boston Globe, broaches the hypocrisyrampant in the West’s response to the events in Zimbabwe.
In less than two weeks, the people of Zimbabwe will vote in the farcical presidential runoff election. As I’ve stated before, the runoff is unnecessary as MDC candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai defeated Zimbabwe’s dictator with at least 60% of the vote – that is before Mugabe and his minions changed the results to force the follow-up election.
There’s probably no need to recount the reasons that Mugabe needs to go. But in case you were comatose or just sleeping, Jacoby sums it up rather nicely when pointing to Mugabe’s paranoia about humanitarian aid agencies -
Mugabe claimed, preposterously, that the humanitarian agencies were trying “to cripple Zimbabwe’s economy” and bring about “illegal regime change.”
Actually, it his own demented and dictatorial misrule that has destroyed the country, turning what was once a prosperous land into the world’s most rapidly collapsing economy. And it is his determination to cling to power by any means – including starving and terrorizing voters who support a change in government – that has filled Zimbabwe not just with hunger and sickness but with savagery and bloodshed as well.
The runoff now seems to be hopeless for the MDC as Mugabe and his ZANU-PF loyalists have terrorized the voters and stifled (or tortured and killed) the opposition.
“ZANU-PF and its allies have . . . established torture camps and organized abusive ‘re-education’ meetings around the country to compel MDC supporters into voting for Mugabe,” the report says. Hundreds of voters have been flogged with sticks, whips, bicycle chains, and metal bars. In one “re-education” meeting May 5, “ZANU-PF officials and ‘war veterans’ beat six men to death and tortured another 70 men and women, including a 76-year-old woman publicly thrashed in front of assembled villagers.”
In other meetings, military officers have threatened to kill anyone who votes for the opposition. “Each villager would be given a bullet to hold in their hands. Then a soldier would say, ‘If you vote for MDC in the presidential runoff election, you have seen the bullets, we have enough for each one of you, so beware.’ “
So, what is the international community (specifically the West) doing about all this? Precisely the same thing they did about Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime for decades – nothing. Oh sure – there have been the obligatory condemnations and petty sanctions. But, just as they were willing to turn a blind eye to Saddam’s rape rooms and the millions killed in the Rwandan and Darfur genocides, the world has refused to do anything substantial about the tragedy in Zimbabwe.
Why not? Well, Jacoby says it best -
But why do the rest of us do nothing? Why is the free world so indifferent to the enormities committed by Mugabe and his bullies? Where are the demonstrations outside Zimbabwe’s embassies? Where are the international boycotts, the UN resolutions, the presidential and papal condemnations? Where is the International Criminal Court indictment of Mugabe for his long career of murder, torture, and other crimes against humanity?
Let us be honest: If the people of Zimbabwe were being terrorized by a white despot – if it were a white ruling party whose goons were beating them and burning their homes – the whole world would be aroused on their behalf. Surely they deserve no less just because their oppressor is black.
Touche, Mr. Jacoby. The prosecution rests its case. How sad and vile.
I try not to make it a point to discuss things that seem silly. I did comment on this horrid crowd of people at one time, but I always make it a point to thoroughly investigate and read up on people that make me very sick – which explains my dislike of Obama incidentally. So, I read some articles, watched an entire documentary on the Westboro Baptist Church where they allowed a man to come in and spend a few days with them. He got to know the entire family and other than the picket scenes where they go, they turned out to be a normal interacting family that were courteous to him.
They lost my interest though after a few things: 1.) When asked a series of questions, Fred Phelps (the originator) was condescending and rude, avoided answering questions, and basically told the fella he was doomed for hell. 2.) The fact he was so unlike them, yet, it was okay to bring him in sort of proved to me that this was a crusade of folks looking for media attention – and searching it out every chance they get.
Finally, tonight I stumbled upon three videos. The first was a parody of “We Are the World” where the Phelps re-wrote the words to the same melody and re-titled it “God Hates the World.”
In the video – they depict everyone from Jerry Falwell, to the US Military, to President Bush as people doomed for hell. What I found interesting was the comment sections where extremist atheist types commented on why Christianity is bad and why God is a crock.
It all began to make sense of why the popularity of these lunatics has increased so much. Two things are served. First, the apparent starving media whores they are – in search of their own riches – will do ANYTHING for attention. Second, it gives the irreligious basis for denouncing religion and Christianity as a whole. While Shirley Phelps-Roper remarks about “fags eating feces” it seems they are licking the behinds of the atheists and vice-versa. (Sort of like Democrats in Congress that love for blacks and gays to continue feeling like victims to prey on both communities for votes.)
That, plus the fact that Christ died for all sins. Can you imagine the poor Lord (according to the gospel of the Westboro Baptist Church) having these folks as His eternal company? Talk about wrath!
Moving ahead, there was one final 2-part video that caught my attention of a street evangelist who called the Westboro Baptist Church over one of their latest websites entitled “God Hates Ireland!” The fella was Irish and apparently had a bone to pick with Fred Phelps’ granddaughter, Sarah. You can tell by her jumpiness that he gave her a biblical run for her money.
In ending, he makes an excellent point. If God had this “wrath” as they proclaim, why would He selectively destroy one person, slowly, at a time? Could he just wipe all the “bad people” out at once?
Part of their rationale explains that soldiers in Iraq are dying solely because of God’s wrath on America particularly for accepting homosexuality. This doesn’t make sense on the basis that we lost 600,000 in the Civil War, 300,000 in WW2, and 60,000 in Vietnam. We now know the war in Iraq is being won, the terrorists are running for cover, Iraq’s army is stronger than ever, violence has dropped massively to the point where even the media has stopped writing about the war since there is barely anything negative to report.
Everything accomplished by our great military, at the cost of 3,000 greatest Americans, and comparing this to the numbers of Americans lost in previous wars, wouldn’t this mean that God must be in a pretty good mood now?
They’re attention whores and liberals love them because it allows them to denounce Christianity. Beware of future conversations with liberals as they use this in their arsenal of irreligious arguments.
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
