Papa Can You Hear Me?

Is it really possible that the media is that biased to ignore a story; granted by the National Enquirer, but backed up with a Photo of former Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards holding his alleged “love child?”

Indeed, nobody can pick it apart like Ann can and it really is easy to imagine what the press would be saying if these rumors; especially backed up with photos, were about Mitt Romney.

Not too long ago the MSM was certainly quick to take the word of a street-hooker in outing alleged “evangelist” Ted Haggard and plastering the news on every front page from New York to Los Angeles. 

Aside from their blatant bias, one thing Ann misses is what I contend.  Americans (even liberals) don’t expect this type of behavior out of conservatives.  Of course, we expect it out of liberals though, so perhaps a Democrat cheating on his wife and making a baby with someone else really isn’t “news.”

It’s amazing.  The only true way for John Edwards to get his name in the headlines is for Ann Coulter to make a joke about him.

Now that she has written a column about it, we’ll see how quick Elizabeth Edwards is to call her up and challenge her.

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!

Some of us just aren’t fooled

Since the late 90’s when so-called minorities started to “come out of the closet”, liberals have always had a fascinating way of dealing with them.  Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure it had something to do with the Clinton administration’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy along with the fact that unlike either Bushes, Bill Clinton failed to appoint an African-American to a position of high power.

As has been well documented by anyone with one eye and half of a brain, the closest African-American to President Clinton was his personal secretary — Betty Curry.  Remember the praise Clinton received for appointing the first female Secretary of State?

How about the praise Johnson got for appointing Justice Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court fresh out of the Civil Rights movement?  Back when white-Democrats didn’t mind avoiding “alleged” litmus tests for justices, Johnson was sure to be the first politically correct Democrat by making sure a judge would sit on the Supreme Court that did his best to defend hardened criminals who raped and murdered, worked feverishly with William Brennan to whole-heartedly support abortion rights and oppose the death penalty which led to dire consequences (oh yeah, he was black, too).  Convicted felons were leashed onto America by the thousands because of previously issued opinions of the Warren Court, where just one year earlier before Marshall came on, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) basically stripped the police of the ability to gain confessions.  At this point, the “avoided” litmus test for judicial insanity was running strong among the most liberal court in the history of this country — thus, Thurgood Marshall was appointed because he passed the “insanity test” even though the majority of the country (aside from the Lennon-lovers and Vietnam draft-dodgers) lived in fear of the kinds of opinions he was issuing.  Johnson boasted of his “historic” decision to appoint an African American by proclaiming that the majority of black-baby-boys would be named “Thurgood” in honor of his choice.  Historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin researched medical records in New York and Boston shortly thereafter and sadly, Johnson’s prediction utterly flopped — even the blacks that were just granted Civil Rights a few years earlier didn’t like this new justice!  Nonetheless, this was celebrated and like the case of Bill Clinton with Madeline Albright, Johnson was slurped up one side and down the next by white liberals who love crime and the baby-killing procedure known as abortion.

Upon announcement of Thurgood Marshall’s retirement, you would have thought that President George H.W. Bush would have received rave reviews for replacing him with another African-American — a true Justice — Clarence Thomas.  But unfortunately it took white-liberals all over the country all of five minutes to begin labeling Thomas as “Uncle Tom” or “Uncle Clarence.”  Somehow the love of promoting African-Americans to positions of higher power had managed to fizzle amongst the “Ebony and Ivory” crowd.

Since Clinton was elected in 1992, I have no choice but to flash forward eight entire years to highlight the next set of African American Promotees —

Under President George W. Bush, we had the first black Secretary of State, Colin Powell.  By the time this announcement was made, liberals had already decided that Bush was a war-mongering hater of anyone that was not white, straight, or rich.  Unfortunately, pausing for a moment to document this massive history-making promotion would have directly contradicted their position.  After all, coming up with a new lie would have required energy.

Soon thereafter, Bush also appointed women to the Federal Appeals Court.  One in particular was African-American, the brilliant Janice Rogers-Brown.  This black woman was loved so much by white liberals in Congress that they filibustered her nomination for two years before she finally got to go to work. 

Finally, let’s not forget Condoleezza Rice.  The first-ever black-female Secretary of State.  The woman who learned Beethoven by the age of five, the woman who graduated college at the age of 19 and was already teaching at Stanford by the age of 26.  When liberal cartoonist Jeff Danziger got news of the nomination, he celebrated this moment of equal rights by publishing racist cartoons of Condi:

  condicartoon.jpg

Bless the hearts of all those elitist and equality-loving liberals!!

When taking into consideration the overwhelming evidence of liberals’ blatant racism, I think it is safe to say that in any sane world outside of San Francisco, most Americans now know which party truly cares about equality for blacks. 

Given the fact that this liberal-trick isn’t working anymore, straight liberals have moved on to claim possession of the gays.  White liberals like Bill Richardson, Howard Dean, and most recently, Elizabeth Edwards run around talking big-talk when it’s time to rally votes.  Considering the latest development that gays also have an incredible sense of style, Elizabeth has even managed to steal-away a fabulous hairdresser for John.

I have to say that these various articles written about me (and other gay conservatives like Kevin-QueerConservative) are beginning to remind me of what white-liberals are saying about the blacks.  The only difference is, these things are being said by members of my own community.

Before I move forward, I would like to point out a few Republican v. Democrats issues regarding the gay community:

  • In 2000, after the Vermont ruling, gay activists got cocky and were ready to start putting the test of gay-marriage to acts of Democracy.  What better place to start than California, right?  After Proposition 22 (to keep marriage between man and woman) passed overwhelmingly in the most liberal state in the land, activists did what they have always done best: silence their opposition and return to the courts for their victories.  Thus, explaining their mad campaign in May of 2000 against Dr. Laura Schlessinger for something she said on December 8, 1998.  (message for the future Matthew Shepards of the world: if you want true justice for crimes committed against you, it’s not a good idea to wait for GLAAD to respond.)  After the passing of Proposition 22, it became apparent that whomever was going to be in the White House shortly thereafter was going to have to respond to the voice of the people on this issue since GLAAD had returned full-force to their old trick of pressuring liberal-judges to handing them their victories on silver platters.  Listen up fellow gays — it did not matter if it was George Bush, it did not matter if it was Al Gore, somehow and someway the President of the United States was asked by the people to respond to this on a national level.  This of course led to the Federal Marriage Amendment.  Boy did Clinton get out just in the knick of time!
  • After the Federal Marriage Amendment was introduced to the country, Americans voted and voted overwhelmingly on mandates against gay marriage.  In California, gays were sold out by the straight liberals in 2000 with Proposition 22.  In Oregon, straight liberals voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage by 73%.  (Bush got 37% of the vote in the general election for Oregon that same year.)
  • Arizona rejected the ban on gay marriage.  (A red state where Bush won 55% of the  vote and a state that overwhelmingly rejects abortion.) 
  • In the 2004 debates, John Kerry vocally admitted opposition to gay marriage.
  • By in large, most of the gays I know make nice-sized incomes and are certainly enjoying the Bush tax-cuts (even if they don’t admit it.)
  • Currently in 2007, Democrats like Sheila Jackson-Lee are trying to convince us that they want irrationally detailed “hate-crimes” bills passed (because they really, really like us) while they simutaneously want criminals pardoned like Tookie Williams by the types of judges described above.  If you were the victim of a beating, would you want your attacker going before that crowd when it was time for justice to be served?

After I posted a brief and somewhat light reply to a liberal-gay man who decided to vocally express his concerns toward myself and other members of the gay-conservative community like Kevin, I did receive e-mails and I did get some comments from one of his readers.  (Frankly I’ve been too busy having fun and irritating the atheists lately.)  In addition to this, other posts have followed on the same websites along with discussion that basically boils down to one age-old question: “how can someone be gay and conservative?” 

Let me be clear by pointing out the fact that I was not “ripping” a new one to anybody.  I have been a Republican since 2000 and have faced far worse adversity within my own community than anything the original article said about me.

The only thing that saddens me is how members of the gay community within this country have allowed themselves to become sheep for the Clintons, for Howard Dean, for John Kerry, and Bill Richardson when these politicians have all factually declared that they have no interest whatsoever in advancing the rights for gays to marry.  This point will be especially re-confirmed all through 2008 as Hillary will be doing her damndest to prove that she does; in fact, believe in God and really does have “religious values.”

So in conclusion, while some other members of our community are out celebrating abortions, hugging trees, and sweating over global-cooling (ooops I forgot, this isn’t the 70’s!) and allow themselves to continue to be snowed by straight liberals, there are a few of us like myself, Steve YuhasJeff GannonKevin, Patrick, and Philip who tend to think outside the realms of Gayville.  All evidence proves that the goal of the Democratic party remains to keep blacks and gays in a sick-victim state to serve at their electoral pleasure.

Noticing this requires objectivity, something that is crucially missing from our community. Until gays wise up, I’m happy to be the “self-loather” and the “Uncle Tom” of the gay community.  Anyone else care to join me?

Elizabeth Edwards: Sticking to the Issues

kerryedwards.jpg 

Who does Elizabeth Edwards think she is, Evita?

Parading around and giving speeches to the descamisados of San Francisco, Edwards allegedly has made gay-marriage a new concern and is using the death of a Sacramento man for leverage.

Unfortunately for Elizabeth, some of us remember John Kerry admitting his opposition to gay marriage during the 2004 debates while John Edwards simutaneously baited Mary Cheney by using her name against her father.

Fortunately for Elizabeth, half of the gay community does not pay attention to Presidential debates so it’s not all bad news for her husband’s failing campaign.

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?

Ron Paul Promoted by 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

Well, at least it’s a lot better than promoting John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich…so it’s not all bad news.

Since we know most the crazies buying into 9/11 conpiracy theories exist on the left, I’m wondering what will happen when they actually read into his voting record on social issues. 

“There have always been rotten Republicans, but there are no good Democrats” – Ann Coulter