LIBERAL TALIBAN ISSUES FATWA AGAINST MISS CALIFORNIA By Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Wed May 13, 9:57 pm ET Not even Dick Cheney can incite the blood-curdling rage of liberals at the sight of a sexy Evangelical Christian. Paula Jones, Katherine Harris, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and, most recently, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, have all come under a frenzy of attacks from liberals. Christians are supposed to be fat, balding sweaty little men with bad complexions. It's liberals who are supposed to be the sexy ones. (I know that from watching "The West Wing" and all movies starring Julia Roberts.) But sadly for liberals, in real life, the fat, balding sweaty little guy with the bad complexion is Perez Hilton and the smoking-hot babe is Carrie Prejean. This apparent contradiction incites violent anger in liberals, triggering their famous "flight or flight" response. So liberal masturbators are, once again, launching furious attacks on a beautiful Christian in a fit of pique similar to the one directed at Joan of Arc. First, the Miss USA contest held a press conference to announce that Prejean had breast implants. Take a Christian position in public and Satan's handmaidens will turn all your secrets into front-page news. Next, a photographer released a single cheesecake photo of Prejean. This prompted liberal reporters who have never met a Christian to proclaim that Christians were outraged by the photo. Liberals believe abortion is a sacrament, but smoking, wearing short skirts and modeling lingerie are mortal sins. (And if wearing women's underwear is a basis for being disqualified from the pageant, that's the end of Perez Hilton's judging career.) Then on Monday some genuine "semi-nude" photos were released. These were not what we'd call appropriate for a Christian. In a curiously similar attack, the left's final attempt to destroy Paula Jones was to lure her into appearing naked in Penthouse magazine. Oh well. Christians aren't people who believe they are without sin; they're people who know they're sinners and are awestruck by God's grace in sending his only Son to take the punishment they deserve. This is in contradistinction to liberals, all of whom believe they're on a fast track to heaven on the basis of being "basically good" people -- and also believe that anyone who disagrees with that theological view is evil. Finally (so far, anyway), reporters gleefully released the divorce records of Prejean's parents. Because when you want the truth, what is more reliable than angry accusations traded in the middle of an acrimonious divorce? Liberals used the divorce papers to argue that Prejean had some deep-seated psychological disturbance causing her to oppose gay marriage. Symptoms of this debilitating illness include a belief in some sort of "god" and a reverence for the Bible. It's not as if Prejean's special talent in the Miss USA contest was to perform an opposite-sex marriage. (Or, as the president and I call it, "marriage.") She didn't even volunteer her "controversial" views on marriage. Rather, she was asked for her opinion on gay marriage and gave it -- in an answer wrapped in so many layers of sugar it took 10 minutes to get to the point. "Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised, and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman." What a vicious hate-monger! Any second there I was expecting her to bust out a "by golly!" or an "oh my gosh!" Angry gay-marriage supporters should be happy they didn't get my version of that answer. It contains some terms you won't find in your Bible. Liberals wouldn't attack James Dobson with the amount of bile they've directed at a 21-year-old beauty contestant. It's not just Christianity -- it's women liberals hate. From Jean-Paul Sartre, Pablo Picasso and Bertrand Russell, who treated women -- mostly their mistresses -- like dogs, to Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton in our own day, liberals are ferocious misogynists. They share Muslims' opinion of women, differing only to the extent that liberals also support a women's right to have an abortion and to perform lap dances. You'd be better off in a real burqa than under the authority of a liberal American male. I'm not sure we needed a psychological profile of Prejean to figure out why she holds the same position on gay marriage as: the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and his mistress, and the vast majority of the American people. But what is crying out for an explanation is why every bubble-head TV news anchorette from a nice, churchgoing red state ends up adopting the political views of Karl Marx. From Katie Couric on CBS to Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC, the whole stable of TV anchorettes weirdly have the exact same politics as their liberal masters. It's the ideological burqa women are required to wear to work in the mainstream media. As with a conventional burqa, it enforces conformity and severely restricts the vision. The only way to protect yourself is to do the liberal male's bidding, as the bubble-head anchorettes do, or stand on the rock of Christianity. Now, another beautiful Christian has thrown off the liberal burqa, thereby inciting mass hysteria throughout the liberal establishment. Prejean doesn't care. She is blazing across the sky, as impotent nose-pickers jockey for a piece of her reflected light by hurling insults at her. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/liberaltalibanissuesfatwaagainstmisscalifornia/print
You care, otherwise, why would you respond to the thread? Why are you tired again? Is it your advancing age, or another late night in the Castro district?
She poses a great question. Why is it exactly that liberals go into such fits whenever they are confronted with a beautiful Christian woman? Or a conservative african american? We know they hate Christians and secretly view african americans as dumbass thugs who can't feed themselves without liberals' help, but why all the hate and rage? Why the obsessive need to destroy them, instead of just voicing disagreement or disapproval? PS. I saw today that the director of the California Miss USA pageant, who had been extremely critical of Prejean and tried to have her stripped of her crown, herself "resigned." Maybe Trump finally woke up and saw he was on the wrong side of something that wasn't going away and it was loss cutting time.
Miss California strips for money... <img src=http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/stadium.weblogsinc.com/tmz/images/2009/05/carrie_11_full.jpg> http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/carrie_prejean_2 ...and the right wing party of "family values" thinks Jesus loves strippers... <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2427411>
I'm so sick of these asshole douchebags criticizing her. She was ambushed with a question that would have provoked controversy no matter how she answered it, she gave a thoughtful, earnest and reasonable answer (whether one agrees or disagrees with it) on the spot, she has a right to her opinion and to express it when asked, and this is all a bunch of bullshit that really is going to end up making the militant gays look much more out of touch than she is.
What was thoughtful in her response? She said she was raised a certain way, and so that justifies her position. That is neither thoughtful nor reasoned, that is mindless adoption of values based on family training. Fox News has offered her a job...does that fill in the holes yet?
She isnt very christian at all.She is a slut according to the bible/christian values.She is a liar by any measure.She is a bigot. Pure garbage.
I happen to think it's not only thoughtful, but logical, to believe that the social contract of marriage, which historically has been thought to include procreation (the old fashioned way; by sticking the male end into the female receptacle) and raising a family the way nature intended, should be between a man and a woman. I have nothing against gays doing what they want within their private realm, and G_dspeed to them, but I will not accept the notion that it's logical or natural to have a world whereby it's considered natural to raise a family with two moms or two dads, where the children were conceived through exclusively artificial means. If not for intense scientific intervention, left to their own devices, gays could not procreate, and would be destined for inevitable extinction, assuming that homosexuality is not a choice (and I don't believe that it is, whether the consequence of hormones or mental attributes or whatever the case). Carried to the logical extreme, your POV would endorse humans having the legal right to marry sheep, and to clone offspring.