Coulter Will Support Giuliani…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d70_083nWs] 

This is big news for me….and as such I’d like to share it.  As expected, Ann Coulter has been giving many interviews lately for her funny new book “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” and in a discussion with Geraldo (of all people) Coulter basically finally said she would support Giuliani if he was indeed the nominee.

 She of course gives the obvious reasons…terrorism and the fight against it.

This is very different from her interview with O’Reilly earlier in the year where she said that she would not support any pro-choice candidate. 

In the end, I do agree with her in the sense that if it’s between Giuliani and any of the front-running Democrats, of course he would be better for the country.  But I still believe we should fight as hard as we can up until.  In the small chance Hillary wins, we will have four years of Democrats luxuriating in the fact that all Republicans supported someone who was pro-choice – thus painting us as a party with no principles and a party of hypocrisy and I guarantee it will show up in elections to come.

And There are Those That Love Attention:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQMR85Ak02Q]

And it’s so funny, I don’t mind giving it to “him.” 

Following up to my last post, the fine fella in that video made a video responding to Fox News. 

Of course they showed the clip on Fox because they were homophobic.  I suppose it has nothing to do with the fact that he’s a psycho.  And of course, he degrades his own people by insulting Ann Coulter by insinuating she has an adam’s apple.

Tell me again, why does mainstream America think that gays are freaks?  Is it the Republicans again?

What is Ann Coulter Thinking?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOYuYuqf9E0]

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:

She is dead wrong!

Just How Many Books Are They Reading?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnqbjtChaGM]

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.”

John Who?

ann.jpg  

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.

Suffice it to say our champ, Ann, is getting bored with John Edwards.  Poor John, Ann Coulter has not even responded to this latest attack.  John called her a “she-devil” just months after Elizabeth Edwards joined up with Hardball host Chris Matthews to lecture the best-selling author on proper political dialogue.  I wonder if Elizabeth lectured John over this one as she did with Ann?

Reading Coulter’s last three columns, we see that she has fun with all liberals:

August 1, 2007

“Noticeably, Gov. Bill Richardson got the first “woo” of the debate — the mating call of rotund liberal women — for demanding a federal mandate that would guarantee public schoolteachers a minimum salary of $40,000.”

August 8, 2007

“But when that clever retort failed to quiet rumblings from the right wing, The New Republic finally revealed the “Baghdad Diarist” to be … John Kerry!”

August 15, 2007

“All the Democrats’ most dearly beloved anti-war/anti-Bush heroes invariably end up in the Teresa Heinz Kerry wing of the nut-house.”

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?

How about Ron Paul?  That would be funny!

Kos: Fox News vs. “Hundreds of Thousands of Voices”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANuZJJmm830]

In a usual display of liberal-whining and Fox News-bashing, Kos uttered the following line when his site’s insanity factor was questioned by Harold Ford: 

“It’s called Democracy, if you don’t like regular people…”

On Meet The Press, Kos showed his true-blue colors by complaining to Harold Ford about his appearances on Fox News.  He then labeled Ford’s recent comments on Harry Reid as an “attack.”

Ford then directed some of the attention to the insane things put out on Kos’s website and Kos then decided to start throwing in the old Democracy (the kind that they love when they denounce their country and root for U.S. troop failure in Iraq, but the kind they hate on Fox News) canard.

Since Kos has so much respect for the voices of “hundreds of thousands,” then how about the “millions” that did the following:

— “millions” watch Fox News and continue to keep Hannity & Colmes and O’Reilly Factor number one among top-rated cable TV shows. 

— “millions” voted in the last two national elections for George W. Bush.

— “millions” of Iraqis showed up in three elections to show their true desire for the same “Democracy” that Kos allegedly celebrates.

— “millions” of Americans want Roe v Wade overturned.

— “millions” of Americans buy books by Ann Coulter.

“millions” of Americans buy books by Michelle Malkin and read her blog weekly.

I think you get the point and I could go on and on.  If Democracy is such an important issue to Democrats (as it is not) then Kos wouldn’t have to keep complaining about Fox News and liberals would have a new-found respect for Rush Limbaugh!

“Democracy” for the Kos apparently means a club of hand-picked, finely-selected collections of nuts that want to hold hands and sing “Give Peace a Chance” with Muslim fanatics while they have bombs strapped to their chests. 

Apparently, Meet The Press is no longer the serious forum for discussion anymore, and perhaps this explains why the real Democracy of America continues to float toward Malkin, Coulter, Fox News, and conservative talk-radio.

Does he really think Hillary is going to show up to his “convention” again after she wins the Democratic nomination?  Won’t she be too busy appealing to the moderate Christians, then?

Good luck with next year’s convention, Kos.

My Tribute to Liberals Crazier Than Rosie..

boohoodems.jpg 

You know, whenever liberals try to debate common sense, it’s always fun to throw a general question out there to them like “what could George Bush have done to prevent 9/11?” taking into consideration liberals’ policy of “be nice to our enemies.”

I’m always leery of folks like this fella; Jurassicdork, whose website has one of those phony counters claiming that the United States is responsible for almost one million deaths from the Iraq invasion.  That number; by the way, greatly exceeds the phony John Hopkins’ study performed three years ago — the one Rosie O’Donnell still cites —  “655,000 dead, who are the terrorists?”  Whenever someone owns a blog that posts a phony death counter that exceeds the insanity of Rosie O’Donnell, I become suspicious.  But like a trainwreck, Lindsay Lohan, or the Anne Nicole Smith Show, it’s kind of fun pokin’ your nose in every once in awhile.

Low and hehold, this is just a bellicose blowhard who needed some attention.  I’m happy to say that we over here at the loving and accepting GayConservative.org (people like myself, Philip, Airforcewife, Jennifer, Shawmut and more) were happy to oblige.  In getting his feedback, I’ve decided to highlight some of the funniest moments ever in the history of liberal repartee.

Jurassicdork states in response:

“Because it seems Gay Conservative Steve has a problem with my pointing out the holes in Ann Coulter’s argument”

I don’t think so — I merely asked him to answer what Al Franken could not.  With all of the ridiculous rules and regulations put onto our CIA post-watergate by idiot-Democrats in Congress, what could George Bush have done even if  he knew all of the specific details of the September 11th attacks?  All of his blather factually boils down to once conclusion: NOTHING.  (Also, there were no “holes” in Coulter’s response.  In fact, Coulter pointed out the “holes” in the Democrats’ argument by putting the question to Franken.)

Next, he says:

“Coulter’s stupidity speak for itself without resorting to ad hominems.”

Has JurassicDork checked YouTube lately?  Has he checked with Al Franken?  Has he checked with Bill Maher?  Generally, when people are stupid, we don’t spend endless hours and millions of George Soros’s dollars on attempting to debunk them.  Moreover; let’s ask the college liberals on campuses that throw pies and hurl insults not only at Coulter but at countless other conservative speakers.  When was the last time a conservative threw a pie or attempted to physically attack a liberal speaker?

He says:

“Alas, logic and civility are not enough when dealing with that “other” ilk.”

While in the same message he simultaneously says:

“I’ve taken heat in the past from my own readers that sometimes my cursing is too gratuitous, that I’m too angry. So this first paragraph is for those readers. Your thoughtful pleas for more civility and less anger are very often taken under advisement and, when the mood strikes me, I oblige by laying out the facts with my arguments while not resorting to angry rhetoric. Today is different because circumstances compel me to do otherwise. So, to you gentle souls, if you have delicate sensibilities, allow me to warn you right now that what follows will be the vilest, filthiest, most furious post that perhaps I’ve ever written and will act on you like a microwave oven on Dick Cheney. So take this as your final opportunity to allow your mouse to migrate on over to the right side and click on the link of someone more civil and elegant, like Glenn Greenwald, for instance.”

Is his goal to be “gratutitous” or “angry” or is he begging for “civility”?  Moreover; whenever I hear a liberal discuss civility, I politiely refer them to the loving reactions of Alec Baldwin or Sean Penn (along with the college campus incidents mentioned above.)  Just like their love of the gay community while liberals will use being transgendered or gay in a moment of convenience to better attack Ann Coulter, this joke excuses himself and his rhetoric by proclaiming that it’s the only way to deal with conservative “ilk.”

That part isn’t even the funniest or most ridiculous of his snorefest.  The best is when he “attempts” to inject facts and “common sense” into the debate, which in turn only strengthens the conservative argument against big-government policy and the possibility of liberals owning “common sense” to begin with.

He says:

Yeah, Ann. Better to ask a comedian when the next al Qaida attack will be than to ask your hero who’d been posing as the leader of the free world for the last six and a half years.”

How idiotic!  If a stand-up comedian (or a bellicose-blogger for that matter) is going to continue to run around using the idiotic “Bush was warned!” argument, they better damned well be able to sufficiently answer the questions put to them by anyone.  If Al Franken is just a “comedian” (Jurassicdork’s words, not mine) — that happens to be running for office by the way — then why in the hell is he even blathering about something that Jurassicdork himself even admits that he is unqualified to talk about in the first place?  See to him, Franken’s using it to promote Bush-hate is sufficient, but Coulter asking him to clarify what it is that George Bush could have done with the inept policies put in place by Jurassicdork’s party is totally out of the question.

Hey Jurassicdork, how about unqualified liberals shut up about it altogether?  Then we’ll stop imposing our questions of common sense onto you, okay.

He then inadvertently reminds us of the utter failure known as big government by droning on about ridiculous federal programs like FEMA with the intent to spotlight Bush’s cronies.  Right along with Hillary, Jurassicdork is happy to portray the Federal Emergency Management Administration as “Bill’s FEMA” where eight years ago (long before Katrina), Hurricane Floyd occured in North Carolina that killed 56 people and evacuated over two million.  Clinton, the king of crony placement, and his wonderboy James Lee Witt (then director of “Bill’s FEMA) were so slow to respond to the tragedy that even Jesse Jackson complained.

Conservatives in 1999 could have used this chance to do to Clinton what liberals do to Bush and spotlight Clinton’s cronyism with appointing Witt.  However; as a general matter, it is not conservatives that endorse ridiculous federally funded organizations like FEMA.  In North Carolina and Mississippi for example; when there are massive storms, the local government are on the spot as well as the residents who pull up their britches and get to work.  “Bill’s FEMA” believes the best way to handle an emergency is to pass out debit cards to victims and watch our federal funds be used for such vital supplies from merchants as Bloomingdales and don’t forget the visits to the strips clubs as part of the victims’ healing process.  (Taking the strip clubs into consideration, no wonder Hillary refers to it as “Bill’s FEMA!”)

Liberal idiocy has decided to set up these nuisance organizations at our expense while simultaneously selecting moral outrage over which cronies are worse.  How about we just do away with liberal policies altogether? 

He then complains and mentions Walter Reed.  It has been well-documented that indeed it is again – liberal policy- that put no-good maintenance men in charge at these facilities, that are funded and paid for by taxpayers, to care for the facilities that serve our wounded troops.  While all individuals can agree that the actual medical care at Walter Reed is excellent, liberals then decided that it was Bush’s fault that maintenance men working under liberal policy (making it impossible for them to be fired) aren’t doing their jobs. 

He blathers on about toothpaste, bad food, and liberal hysteria that admit problems with — say it with me — LIBERAL POLICIES AND PROGRAMS.  We all know the kind of people that work for places like that and if it makes Jurassicdork feel any better, I will voluntarily sign away all nomination rights to FEMA and the FDA.  Hell, put Teddy Kennedy in all of those positions for all I care!  We conservatives advocate taking care of ourselves and we’ll save our desired appointees for real positions like the Supreme Court.

This is a perfect example of how a liberal is when they are forced to recognize the failure of large government.  It’s these same idiots that create myths of global warming (just 30 years after they were warning us of the next ice-age) to propose massive tax on gasoline and government funded “programs” (like FEMA) to pay unqualified folks to pointlessly count how many leaves fall from oak trees in November.

The frustration is equal, but liberal socialization and big government have been failures stemming way back to FDR.  I’m paying the maximum amount of social security tax that anyone can pay each year to put into a fund that is currently paying for others who did not put in nearly as much as I have.  (And I’m only 33!)  Will it be there for me when I’m 62? These programs have served liberals in two major ways.  First, they get to take more of our money (since working for their own is out of the question).  Second, they get to blame the failures of their own programs on Republicans. 

Moving forward, Juassicdork continues:

“You ask what Bill Clinton had done to fight terrorism. First, let me ask you: What did HW do to fight terrorism because the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was just a couple of months after Clinton took office.”

More attacks happened during Clinton’s tenure than any other administration’s except for Reagan’s.  Reagan had an excuse, he was stuck cleaning up a mess created by the peace-lovers who handed us buckets of unemployment and international enemies, Carter and Mondale.  I forgot, Clinton did bomb an aspirin factory.  That went over well, didn’t it?  I do believe it was Senator Feinstein who insinuated that it was this sloppy attack that made Bin Laden angry enough to plan and execute 9/11.

What did HW do?  Well if you pay attention, between the 1988 Pan-Am flight hijacking and the WTC bombing of 1993, we enjoyed a near five-year break from Muslim violence (all through HW’s term).  This was the longest span of peace between attacks on our interests from 1979 to 2001, but not quite as long as the gap of Muslim violence on American interests since 2001 until the present (six years).  I think HW’s five-year break may have had something to do with us bombing the snot out of Saddam’s regime in Desert Storm that made them think twice before messing with America, plus I think George W.’s six-year break has something to do with our troops kicking some major ass in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

The surge of Muslim violence got its confidence up after Clinton ripped our troops out of Somalia. 

Continuing with his sad concern for national security he says:

“So far in Iraq, Bush has killed a million hostages to get at a few hostage takers.  At the very least, Clinton never went on record to say, “I am truly not that concerned about him” less than seven months after the original World Trade Center bombing.”

That is incorrect.  We have rounded up all of Al-Queda’s top guys (explaining why we aren’t as worried about OBL as an imminent threat) and are holding them at Guantanamo (you know, the thing you guys keep crying about while simultaneously proclaiming that Bush could have done more to prevent 9/11.)  We have deposed of Saddam, had three elections where millions upon millions of Iraqis have voted, killed HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS of insurgents and terrorists and rounded up more.  All of this with 3,000 American deaths.  Compare that to the 60,000 in Vietnam, 300,000 in WW2, or 600,000 in the Civil War, and I cannot help but wonder what exactly Jurassicdork would have had to say during WW2.

We will win this war and even Jurassicdork’s own Democrats in the House and Senate refuse to put their money where their mouth is and vote against it or its funding.  We can win it a lot sooner if we stop catering to the idiot Democrats in Congress who keep crying phony crocodile tears of concern over blacks, gays, civilians, and the troops. 

To quote Michael Scheuer in regard to winning this war, we can win it:

“Anywhere we can, whenever we can, without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties. As I said, war is war. The people who got killed when they were hosting Zawahiri to dinner were not the friends of the United States.”

If liberals would stop politicizing our troops and Iraqi civilians with their counterfeit concern, we could finish this thing tomorrow but as has been pointed out and proven over and over again by liberals like Jurassicpork, they; in their mission to watch this country and its humanity self-destruct, would rather our troops fail to further illustrate their hate for Bush rather than grant Iraqis the same freedom that they take for granted everyday.

Coulter Serves Franken His Ass….

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYV4D_jKepc]

Since these debates, Franken has used them to his advantage by proclaiming himself the winner of them. 

No wonder he hasn’t been anxious to get these out to the public!

This was after 9/11 and in the early days of the years when liberals were harping then like they are harping now about how Bush didn’t do enough for 9/11.

Listen to Coulter, and watch Franken get pissed when she points out the logic (or lack thereof) to this position of the left.

(Video Couresy of www.ctforum.org)

Mark Segal: The True “Self-Loather”

It’s no surprise to me that activist types and those out there who make being gay 99% of what makes them up as a human beings will avoid having to come up with logical debate techniques other than “you’re stupid” or “you’re a Nazi” to make their point.  After all, these are liberal-gay men we’re talking about here.  But you would think that the ones crying the hardest for gay rights would avoid using “you’re gay” as an insult.

In this hilarious piece of journalism, Mark Segal of Philadelphia Gay News decided to pen a column citing anonymous sources that declare Ann Coulter as being a lesbian.  Okay, fine.  So, we are declaring that Ann Coulter might be gay, do you have a follow-up point?

Apparently not.  Unless of course talking about the use of sex toys can be considered a legitimate political argument that is going to strengthen the path to gay rights in this country. 

This is one of those activist-types that I warn the gay community about.  They begin their articles with a flaming title “Mark My Words”  (probably with a hand on his hip and following up with “gurrrrlfriend”) and immediately begin the attack by labeling their subject (Ann Coulter) as someone who is homophobic. 

He then mentions Coulter’s “support” of Mary Cheney’s baby, only to further it with more insults:

“Ms. Coulter’s support of Mary Cheney’s new baby should not be confused with the idea that she wishes to become just another pregnant lesbian herself. She rejected that path after numerous attempts with the turkey-baster method. And like the vice president’s daughter, she does not believe in the new domestic-partners legislation legalizing lesbian marriages, and therefore does not wish to give birth to a bastard — many of course would say like the child’s mother.”

To begin with, Mary Cheney is an advocate for gay rights, as she has mentioned over and over again.  But see, to insane liberal-activists like Mark Segal, casting your vote while keeping in mind that there are other issues out there to be dealt with such as terrorism is a completely self-loathing and homophobic thing to do.

I only wonder why he didn’t attack Tammy Bruce in this column?  We know that she is gay, supports the President’s war policies, owns a gun, and simutaneously supports progressive rights.  At least he would have had a solid start.

If Ann Coulter is straight, I know that she doesn’t hate me.  If Ann Coulter is gay, I welcome her to the land of gay conservatives that recognize the true damage that idiot activist types like this are doing to our community.

To Liberals, 9/11 Victims Are Just as Dispensable as Cindy Sheehan

The funny blog, News Hounds wrote a whine-fest in response to Ward Churchill for finally getting his ass sacked and decided to draw a parallel between Ann Coulter and Ward Churchill.

Let me make the distinction for them — Ward Churchill actually INSULTED 9/11 victims as a whole.  Ann Coulter on the other hand spotlighted FOUR WOMEN from New Jersey who were using their husbands’ deaths to get rich and promote the same half-baked liberal ideology that someone like Churchill promotes.

News Hounds (We Watch Fox, So you Don’t Have To Because MSNBC is Boring), in their article draw the real parallel for what is acceptable to liberals.  You ready?  Whichever one is promoting their insane agenda is the one they are sticking up for. 

Liberals once again make me sick to the point of upchuck with their phony compassion for the troops, for 9/11 widows, and for Cindy Sheehan.

It’s no secret that when Cindy Sheehan was running around as the anti-war spokesperson, the left gave up on reasoned debate immediately and latched onto Sheehan as their terrority (just like they claim possession of the blacks and the gays).  Once Sheehan started to hold Democrats responsible as well, suddenly the left-wing blogs wanted nothing to do with her, even going so far as calling her an “attention whore” and threatening to remove her from their blogs if indeed she chose to run against Nancy Pelosi.

Liberals really are stupid and inconsistent in times like this.  See, we Republicans have always been happy to call the Jersey Girls “harpies,”  we have always been happy to call Sheehan an “attention whore.”  Our positions have never changed unlike those of the Democrats that shift weekly based upon who the victim is and what political position of the left’s can be supported by exploiting their pain.  It’s sick, like making a deal with Satan.

When Coulter factually points out how four women from New Jersey are harpies, liberals are outraged, not because they care about the Jersey Girls, but because Coulter just happens to be on the right side of the political debate.  When Churchill actually insults ALL 9/11 victims and blames 9/11 on his own country, it’s free speech and supported by the Constitution.

Laughable to say the least.  Churchill was fired because he was uninspiring, a plagiarist, a phony, and another “attention whore” used by the left long enough to promote their idiocy. 

Comparing this burnout to someone as intelligent as Ann Coulter is hilarious in and of itself.  But what’s even funnier is how apparent it is that Churchill and his attorney have now sold their souls to the left.  

My advice to him based on what happened to Cindy Sheehan: NEVER TURN ON THEM, WARD.