What the f***?! You can’t just "forget" about an amendment! Gee, why am I not surprised...the second amendment is the one amendment that liberals and anti-gun people would like to see gone. Where the hell is the ACLU when you need them? Oh wait...they only support every other right, but the right to own a gun is always brushed aside, with people saying that it’s "old-fashioned" and "there’s no reason that people should have gun nowadays." I actually heard someone say that to me.
The next time that liberals have a protest or say something stupid (which is all the time) and go on trial, the jury should be told to forget the first amendment.
Ugh! This frusturates me so much! ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gag on 2nd Amendment Is City’s Aim in Guns Suit
Lawyers for Mayor Bloomberg are asking a judge to ban any reference to the Second Amendment during the upcoming trial of a gun shop owner who was sued by the city. While trials are often tightly choreographed, with lawyers routinely instructed to not tell certain facts to a jury, a gag order on a section of the Constitution would be an oddity.
Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, along with Jasper, GA lawyer Ed Marger who represent Smyrna, GA firearms retailer Adventure Outdoors, today issued the following statement in reaction to yesterday’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Jack Weinstein, in the lawsuit pending against Adventure Outdoors by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg:
“The ruling by the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, NY finding that the court in that city has jurisdiction over Adventure Outdoors, was not at all unexpected. In fact, Adventure Outdoors has contemplated all along that the court would decide to maintain jurisdiction over the lawsuit brought by New York City.
Adventure Outdoors intends to continue to aggressively defend itself against what it considers an outrageous effort by Mayor Bloomberg to dictate how a lawful business in Smyrna, GA should carry out the business of providing a constitutionally-guaranteed product to the citizens of Georgia. While Mayor Bloomberg obviously believes the citizens of New York City should be denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, he has no business telling the citizens of Georgia they should be denied those rights as well.
Hi everyone. I'm Rachel, an ultra-conservative junior in a CALIFORNIAN high school (yes, I know. I feel sorry for me too), and this is my first post here. (God, I have a huge rant about how the public schools are basically indoctrinating all the students and basically brainwashing them into thinking that liberals=good and conservatives=the most unedumakated red necks in the whole freakin' country... but I'll save that for another post.)
I was just watching this video:
I honestly don’t understand why people say Ann Coulter is an “Anti-Semitic”. She’s not advocating the wiping out of millions of Jews, she simply spoke on behalf of her religion. I must agree that it was a pretty radical and extreme statement but–come on! Ann = Hitler? Don’t they think they’re taking it a bit too far? I also understand that "Anti-Semitic" doesn't always mean "KILL ALL THEM JEWS" but, that's how the public is going to interpret this man's comment.
Yeah...here's another story of those evil American baby-killers over in Iraq. How dare this man bring a disabled Iraqi boy here for fantastic medical care and then adopt him?! Ugh - those terrible American troops. They make me sick. (/end sarcasm)
GI Saves Iraqi Boy in Long-Shot Adoption
Capt. Scott Southworth knew he'd face violence, political strife and blistering heat when he was deployed to one of Baghdad's most dangerous areas. But he didn't expect Ala'a Eddeen.
Ala'a was 9 years old, strong of will but weak of body - he suffered from cerebral palsy and weighed just 55 pounds. He lived among about 20 kids with physical or mental disabilities at the Mother Teresa orphanage, under the care of nuns who preserved this small oasis in a dangerous place.
October 25, 2007 -- ANN Coulter - who might be more despised than Dick Cheney in some neighborhoods - riled up some enemies even more with her recent remarks on "The Big Idea With Donny Deutsch" over how Jews could "perfect" themselves by becoming Christians. While the leggy blonde was dining with Andrew Stein at Centolire on Madison Avenue the other night, a wild-eyed man came up to their table and shouted at Coulter for her right-wing views and at Stein for dating her. Stein told the heckler, "Listen pal, get lost and learn some manners!" The lifelong Democrat, who was City Council president before he quit politics, told Page Six, "On the issue of her supposedly anti-Semitic remarks, I'm a Jew, and Joe Lieberman is her favorite Democrat. While I disagree with her on a lot of issues, she is a strong supporter of Israel and doesn't have an anti-Semitic bone in her body."
As we speak, Gen. David Petraeus is addressing the U.S. Congress with a long-anticipated report about the progress of our mission in Iraq.
The news is encouraging: the surge is working, the Iraqis are beginning to take back their country and our troops are defeating al-Qaeda!
Unfortunately, the pro-defeat groups - MoveOn.org and their allies in Congress - have decided that any good news regarding Iraq is bad news for them politically.
MoveOn.org is viciously attacking the character and integrity of Gen. Petraeus with a full-page advertisement in today's New York Times calling him "General Betray Us!"
Let's be clear: the anti-war crowd is calling our top commander in Iraq a traitor!
Who do you trust to fight the war in Iraq: Gen. Petraeus or Congress?
I think the answer is clear, but we need YOU to act today!
Please, call 1-877-222-8001 today. An operator will connect you to your Member of Congress. Tell them what the anti-war crowd is saying about our brave American commander and our soldiers! Tell them victory is America's only option in Iraq.
In a terribly off-topic comment to a John Edwards post, anonymous commenter with no contact information Yak asks:
Exactly why is the U.S. deployed in Iraq, according to you?
Let's stop mincing words.
We're in Iraq because Muslims have stated over and over and over that their only goal is to kill all non-Muslims.
After 9/11, we started taking them at their word, and since we didn't want to be killed, our only choice was to start killing Muslims before they killed us.
Iraq had Muslims in it, so it was as good a place to start as any. In fact, better than most, because it was in the heart of Muslim country, and having troops there gives us a credible force-projection threat throughout the entire putrid, corrupt, murderous Muslim region. It's easier to kill Muslims in other countries from Iraq than it is from Kuwait.
And now Muslims have two choices:
They can reform their vicious, degenerate religion so that it allows for peaceful co-existence with other religions and - after embracing this enlightened, live-and-let-live philosophy whole-heartedly - they can become productive members of the civilized world, much like post-WWII Germany and Japan.
They can be exterminated like vermin.
All the rest of this crap about WMD's, and mass graves, and liberation, and oil fields, and insurgents is just so much political window-dressing. America is fighting for its life against an insidious, deadly ideology. The people who cling to that sick, 7th-century belief system must either change their minds or be killed.
I wish with all my heart that we had enough manpower to conquer every damn last Muslim nation on earth and root this virus out once and for all, but we don't. So we'll start in Iraq, dragging these barbarians kicking and screaming into the 21st century. After that, hopefully the rest of the Muslim world will get the point. If not, there will be further examples, nation by nation, until they do.
Then, when the Muslim world is either civilized or dead, the war will be over.
I hope that answers your question.
I think you have to be incredibly brave to voice that non-PC view when CAIR is running rampant and the John Doe amendment just went down in flames.
Not that I necessarily agree with that summary wholeheartedly, but I admire the ability to put it in such succinct terms that a LOGICAL person would find it hard to argue with.
THAT WAS NO LADY — THAT WAS MY HUSBAND June 28, 2007
The Edwards campaign is apparently still running low on donations, so this week they went back to their top fundraiser: me.
I doubled the ratings of the lowest-rated cable news show on Tuesday by agreeing to go on for a full hour to promote my new paperback version of "Godless" — a mistake I won't make again. As I was walking to the set, minutes before airtime, it was casually mentioned to me that Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, might call in.
For the first time in recorded history, the show's host did not interrupt a guest, but let Elizabeth Edwards ramble on and on, allowing her to browbeat me for being mean to her husband. (This delicate flower is very sensitive to rough words, having hired the Edwards' campaign staffer who wrote this: "What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit"?)
Say, did any TV host ever surprise Al Franken, Bill Maher or Arianna Huffington with a call by the wife of someone they've made nasty remarks about? How about a call to John Edwards from the wife of a doctor he bankrupted with his junk-science lawsuits?
I think I may have tuned out at some point, so I can only speak to the first 45 minutes of Elizabeth Edwards' harangue, but it mostly consisted of utterly dishonest renditions of things I had said on my "Good Morning America" interview this week and a column I wrote four years ago. (You can't rush Edwards' "rapid response team"!) She claimed I had launched unprovoked attacks on the Edwards' dead son and called for a terrorist attack on her husband.
These are bald-faced lies, and the mainstream media knows they are lies. Yet they were repeated ad nauseam on Wednesday by The Associated Press, the AOL pop-up window, CNN, NBC and — stunningly — the host of the lowest-rated cable show himself, who personally told me he knew the truth.
So for those of you who haven't read any of my five best-selling books: Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly.
Here is my full sentence on "Good Morning America," which the media deceptively truncated, referring to a joke I told about Edwards six months ago that made liberals cry: "But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack — so I've learned my lesson: If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."
The usual nut Web sites posted a zillion denunciations of my appearance on "Good Morning America" immediately after I appeared Monday morning. But it didn't occur to any of them to simply lie about what I had said. No, it took them nearly 36 hours to concoct a version of that quote that included the Edwards part, but not the Maher part, or what English language speakers call: "the point."
By tomorrow it will be: "Ann Coulter tried to kill John Edwards on 'Good Morning America'!"
Judging by his fundraising efforts so far, I gather most of you don't know who John Edwards is — unless you're an overpriced hair dresser. He's the trial lawyer who pretended in court to channel the spirit of a handicapped fetus in front of illiterate jurors to scam tens of millions of dollars off of innocent doctors. According to The New York Times, Edwards told one jury: "She speaks to you through me ... And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."
Let me also quote from campaign consultant Bob Shrum's book "No Excuses":
"(Kerry) was even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else — that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before — and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again."
Apparently every time Edwards began a story about his dead son with "I've never told anyone this before," everyone on the campaign could lip-sync the story with him.
As a commentator, I bring facts like these to the attention of the American people in a lively way. Thus, for example, in a column about the Democratic candidates for president written in 2003, I pointed out that the Democrats refused to discuss the economy or the war, but had recently "discovered a surprise campaign issue: It turns out that several of them have had a death in the family."
(The full column is available at www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter112003.asp, www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=2428&keywords=the+party+of+ideas and www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2003/11/20/the_party_of_ideas.)
Among several examples of Democrats talking about a death in the family on the campaign trail was this one:
John Edwards injects his son's fatal car accident into his campaign by demanding that everyone notice how he refuses to inject his son's fatal car accident into his campaign.
Edwards has talked about his son's death in a 1996 car accident on "Good Morning America," in dozens of profiles and in his new book. ("It was and is the most important fact of my life.") His 1998 Senate campaign ads featured film footage of Edwards at a learning lab he founded in honor of his son, titled "The Wade Edwards Learning Lab." He wears his son's Outward Bound pin on his suit lapel. He was going to wear it on his sleeve, until someone suggested that might be a little too "on the nose."
If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent's criminal record for partisan political advantage.
Manifestly, I was not making fun of their son's death; I was making fun of John Edwards' incredibly creepy habit of invoking his son's tragic death to advance his political career — a practice so repellant, it even made John Kerry queasy.
I'm a little tired of losers trying to raise campaign cash or TV ratings off of my coattails, particularly when they use their afflictions or bereavement schedules to try to silence the opposition. From now on, I'm attacking only serious presidential candidates, like Dennis Kucinich.
I feel as if I have really bad timing by joining this community in the wake of "Faggotgate", but none the less I recently searched several of my interests here on LJ looking for communities that may provide me with a better network of online pals who are on the same page as me.
I have followed anncoulter.com for some time now, yet for some reason I never thought to search her name here (even though I've used LJ for a while too). Go figure.
Anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself to the community.
POSTED: 9:19 p.m. EST, March 5, 2007 Story Highlights
• Three major companies have requested their ads be pulled from AnnCoulter.com
• A blogger from DAILYKOS posted contact information for some companies with ads on the site
• Companies didn't know their ads were on the site until they received complaints
• Coulter referred to John Edwards as a "faggot" during an address last week
From Peter Hamby
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- At least three major companies want their ads pulled from Ann Coulter's Web site, following customer complaints about the right-wing commentator referring to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot."
Verizon, Sallie Mae and Georgia-based NetBank each said they didn't know their ads were on AnnCoulter.com until they received the complaints.
A diarist at the liberal blog DailyKos.com posted contact information for dozens of companies with ads on Coulter's site after the commentator made her remarks about Edwards at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington on Friday. (Full story)
"One of the best ways to communicate one's distaste for Coulter's repeated incidents of hate speech is to respectfully but firmly let her advertisers know you are deeply troubled by their indirect support of bigotry through their advertising on Coulter's Web site," the blogger VolvoDrivingLiberal wrote on DailyKos.com on Sunday.
Verizon, Sallie Mae and NetBank said the ads were put on a variety of sites by a third party company. In many cases, advertisers do not know which sites feature their ads.
"Per our policy, the networked Web site ad purchases are supposed to be stripped of certain kinds of Web sites," said a Verizon spokesperson. "This one could be considered an extreme political Web site, should be off the list, and now it is off the list."
A Sallie Mae spokesperson said the company was only testing an online advertising agency, and that their ads were not meant to show up on Coulter's site. The company said they planned to pull ads from other political and religious Web sites as well.
A spokesperson for NetBank said Coulter's page "is not the kind of site we want to be on."
Coulter did not respond to CNN's request for comment.
Guys, check out the post by 'directordale' at the community "ask_me_anything" (Sorry but I've been having trouble getting the username tags to work.) There you can watch tolerant liberals who value free speech advocate the violent rape and murder of Ann Coulter for saying something John Edwards didn't like. Good thing they don't have such intolerance for those who, say, advocate the genocide of entire people...
She made a joke; one that I bet most people didn't even understand (at least not fully).
Was she in any way linking John Edwards to the word faggot? Yes. So what's the uproar, that she made any reference to Edwards and homosexuality or her choice of terms? Did anyone even pay attention to the rehab part of the joke? Do they get what she was referencing? I'd never heard of it, so I doubt many others did.
Isaiah Washington, Dr. Burke on Grey's Anatomy, called a co-star a faggot in an argument, basically outed him. Washington has since gone into rehab for his behaviour (over a month ago, actually). To me, Coulter's joke was 80% noting how stupid it was to go to rehab for saying a word, 20% a jab at Edwards (which is what she DOES).
Even Fox News is mis-stating the story saying Coulter "referred to Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards as a "faggot" during a speech Friday at a national conservative gathering." Coulter implied an association between Edwards and the word faggot. She basically said she'd have to say faggot to talk about Edwards, but that's not calling him one or saying that she'd have to call him one. Going that far is conjecture and inference. Now we're attacking people for what they're not saying, what we think they say, think they mean. That's bullshit.
Howard Dean has called on GOP Presidential candidates to denounce Coulter for it. Giuliani, McCain, even Romney, have issued statements through their campaign spokespersons to distance themselves from the matter. This is PC idiocy at its worst. Two kinds of people are getting on Coulter about it: the ones who already hate her and would scream over anything she does or says and the people trying to save face in public relations. We're so far entrenched into a society of demonizing people for being "insensitive" (read: not following a dictated line) that few people have a shred of integrity left in them to call a spade a spade, to be open and honest about things. The more you hide to avoid offending people, the greater risk you run OF offending them because you've dealt them all the cards, handed them the whole bloody deck. They tell you it's bad to say A, B and C, so you avoid saying them. Now they're going to attack you for D, E and F until you avoid those too. You're submitting to the will of others, to peer pressure, to mob rule. Stop it.
I'm new and I thought I would post an introduction. I'm a Canadian Coulter fan...which is a bit like a dog that speaks norwegian. I discovered coulter about 3 years ago, and have How to talk to a Liberal in hardcover. Must get the rest...
You know, I adored her then, particularly around the election, but am I the only one who's wondering if she's losing some of her edge? In that I mean- she's always been direct, to the point and gleefully ridiculing the insanity of the Liberal agenda, but I was finding her a tad shrill this summer- almost like she was trying too hard.
I need to get caught up with her articles of december, so maybe that's disappeared... I was just wondering if anyone had noticed that.