My Apologies to the Atheists…

Wow, I thought this one was put to bed.

This all started just a couple of weeks ago when I posted a humorous reply that Ann Coulter had to Christopher Hitchens.  It was not a debate of science, it wasn’t even a serious opposition to the overall theory of atheism.  Yes, we all know that Ann Coulter is a believer and does not agree with Darwinism (along with 76% of the country by the way).

For some reason, that very general comment drew the fire of a lot of non-believers which is perfectly fine with me.  I am not an enemy of discussion (otherwise I wouldn’t be here.)

In response to those comments and discussion, I posted a second video which featured Bill O’Reilly debating Richard Dawkins.  In this video, I proved that even Dawkins (the Atheists’ God) himself cannot prove that it all started without the force of a Creator.  When O’Reilly asked him where his proof was, he stated “We’re working on it.”

So, basically we have two men.  We have Jesus Christ and we have Richard Dawkins.  Jesus Christ professed a belief in God used that belief to stop a prostitute from being stoned to death, probably the only thing that liberals and the ACLU would have endorsed on His behalf. 

I then posted different perspectives from very different sources.  I also showed how scientists all over the place disagree with one another on the various theories that have been concocted all on the basis that God “probably does not” exist. 

While Darwinism has proven itself a totally flawed theory, my argument has always remained the same which is: why should our tax dollars support the theory being taught in public classrooms?

We had some atheists hell-bent on making Christians direct enemies of science.  After I pointed that out, another atheist stated the contrary, and finally in this post, I am accused of censoring comments and believing that biology is NOT a natural science.

There is not one quote from me that suggests that.  This is just another pathetic attempt for atheists to make science an enemy of religion. 

So here we go one more.

1.) Darwinism is a byproduct of Evolution.  Christians and believers do not discount Evolution altogether.  What they denounce is the idea that we all share a worm.

2.) Darwinism and the crack-pot theories of someone like Richard Dawkins are not true bonafide science in the sense that it is linked to real science like Biology or Natural Sciences!

3.) Dawkins admits that he does not know and claims to be “working on it.”  So, we are just supposed to believe in the meantime and err on the side of idiocy that says it all “just happened” — that everything in the galaxy occured without the design of a magnificient being.

4.) 76% of this country agrees with me — if you are an atheist and you are reading this, I am not interested in convincing you!  You are the frustrated one because you are the one unable to provide the proof that backs up your idotic assertions (while shamefully using the good name of science to promote that same idiocy.)  I’m not here to convince you, and you guys have a lot of work to do if you want to change the mind of 228 million Americans.  Good luck.

5.) I do not delete comments.  I did; however, in the beginning (you know the Creationist in me) select an automatic setting that automatically blocks postings that contain more than two links as it usually indicates spam.  I don’t want my readers clicking on something and getting a virus.  But no comments were intentionally deleted. 

Now for the love of “God” (literally), quit crying like big sissies everytime someone exposes your extremism.  You have the choice to change that by respecting others’ rights to believe and keeping out of our pockets to promote your phony science.

Duncan Hunter on Ann Coulter

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAe597SYoIA]

It’s a shame conservatives really have not paid more attention to this guy and I have to hand it to Ann Coulter because she has always endorsed Hunter regardless of how unpopular he was compared to headliners like Giuliani or Thompson. 

Idealogically, for conservatives this would have probably been the best shot.  Perhaps Thompson can look his way for Vice-President at least.

He makes a funny joke at the end of this short clip and comments on the hoopla between Elizabeth Edwards and Coulter a few weeks ago.

Coulter’s Response to Atheist Copy-Cat

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9-ni1JDwRY]

This Christopher Hitchens character is just too much.  But ultimately here, Coulter is correct.  Christians and conservatives alike couldn’t care less about Christopher Hitchens and ultimately it will be God who will deal with him in the end, it’s out of our league and is not worth pondering.

However; I would like to make an objectional observation.  Last year when Ann Coulter released Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Christopher Hitchens wrote for Vanity Fair and wrote the review for Coulter’s book. 

A year later, he puts out a book called God is Not Great?  In the book he makes many statements that would be perceived by the whining left as provactive if they were being said about liberalism, the Jersey Girls, or Obama.  (The only difference is, conservatives couldn’t care less.) 

It seems to me that this man cares less about his position as a Godless liberal and more about his sad attempt to adopt Ann Coulter’s writing style to cash in on Coultermania.

He should have went all the way by growing his hair long and wearing a black sports-dress on the cover of the book, too.

Liberals are such clones. 

The Intellect of an Edwards Supporter:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8vs7a1XVyQ]

 Ann Coulter supporter being harrassed by an Edwards’ supporter.

 Say, shouldn’t we be sticking to the issues and cutting back on the immature personal attacks?  LOL.

But for the fact that Edwards at this point needs all the supporters he can get, I’m surprised they are settling for types like this.

“Faggots” and Ferris Wheels: Continued

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s3a1fxcHI0]

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.

My answer is C. All of the Above.

“Faggots” and Ferris Wheels – Elizabeth Edwards vs. Ann Coulter

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t36TDc8m19A&mode=related&search=]

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?

Nothing Like a New Ann Coulter Book to Brighten the Day!

annsnewbook.jpg

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!

🙂

Pre-Order Yours Today!

Mitt vs. Fred: My Top Two Picks

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.

Cling Around the Rosie

rosie_edited.jpg 

Silly me.  I totally forgot about the media’s obsession with Rosie O’Donnell leaving “The View.”  So I suppose we won’t be hearing about the report released that proclaims that Bush was warned about the troubles we would face in Iraq (discussed in the previous post.)

 Though I’ve been at work all day, Fox talk radio as well as CNN and MSNBC have been droning on about how Elisabeth Hasselbeck finally stood up to the big bullying lesbian (self-proclaimed). 

I am growing tired of this story but if it really is true that Rosie finally left because of Hasselbeck’s debate with her last week, I’d be curious to know what would have happened to the duration of Rosie’s tenure if it had been Ann Coulter sitting across from her.

I’m guessing about two weeks. 

Obviously, Rosie is nowhere near the brain that Coulter is.  However; I have to admit that I’ve always wanted blather-engines like O’Donnell or even Michael Moore to have to face Annie.