Thursday, May 14, 2009

Ann Coulter: "Liberal Taliban Issues Fatwa Against Miss California"

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.

by Ann Coulter
Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Miss California on the front lines of the marriage wars

In the wake of the national controversy surrounding bigoted misogynist Perez Hilton's attacks on Carrie Prejean for her moral beliefs about same-sex marriage, Ms. Prejean has become a spokesperson for the National Organization of Marriage, an outstanding defender of traditional marriage.

View NOM's new TV ad featuring Ms. Prejean:

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Letter to the Editor About Anti-religious Bigotry by Prop. 8 Opponents

The aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8 has revealed that among the opponents of that initiative are anti-religious bigots who have no regard for the democratic process.

Thousands of opponents of Prop. 8 have shown themselves to be the political equivalent of thuggish sports fans who, when their team loses the game, proceed to beat up the opposing team. Except that Prop. 8 opponents lack the courage to take on everyone (including the 70% of black voters and 53% of Latino voters) who voted to preserve natural marriage, so they have focused their attacks upon those whose religious beliefs they despise. Their tantrums have not been limited to marching in the streets. They have also resorted to vandalizing and impeding access to places of worship. Via the Internet they have openly advocated physical violence against religious worshipers.

A bigot is defined as one who treats others with hatred and intolerance because they are members of a group (e.g., racial or religious) or because they hold an opposing opinion. The bigotry of Prop. 8 opponents is demonstrated by their hateful attacks upon groups of people whose sincerely held religious beliefs differ from their own. They intolerantly revile all Prop. 8 supporters as bigots and refuse to acknowledge that they are motivated by legitimate concerns over the harm – to society in general and to children in particular – that will flow from legally redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

Everyone who values our constitutional system of deciding important social issues by the democratic process should be alarmed by a radical minority that will not hesitate to force its views upon the majority through violence and intimidation.

(Sent to a local newspaper but not published)

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Legal/Philosophical Support for Traditional Marriage

This distinguished Princeton professor's excellent address strongly supports traditional heterosexual marriage with a highly sophisticated legal and philosophical analysis. The first half covers abortion and the sanctity of human life. The second half covers the principles underlying traditional marriage and is more particularly relevant to Prop. 8.

Click here.

The speaker, Professor Robert P. George, is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, where he lectures on constitutional interpretation, civil liberties and philosophy of law. He also serves as the director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. He was educated at Swarthmore College (BA), Harvard Law School (JD), Harvard Divinity School (MTS), and New College, Oxford (DPhil). At Oxford he studied under John Finnis and Joseph Raz. Formerly, he served on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and as a fellow at the U.S. Supreme Court. He currently serves on the U.S. President's Council on Bioethics. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He serves on the editorial boards of Touchstone and First Things magazines, as well as several academic journals.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Who's Really Lying?

Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials claiming that the Yes on 8 campaign is lying in ads that say same-sex marriage will be taught in public schools. However, a review of briefs filed with the federal court of appeal in Boston shows that the very same organizations who now dispute this statement actually fought in court to ensure that same-sex marriage would be taught in Massachusetts schools and to ensure that parents with moral objections to this instruction would not have a right to excuse their children from pro-homosexual indoctrination.

The Massachusetts History

As in California, same-sex marriage was legalized by a bare, 4-3 majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003. The Lexington Massachusetts school district adopted a curriculum that included teaching children as young as kindergarten about same-sex marriage. The district refused to give parents prior notice of the instruction and refused to allow parents to excuse their children from the instruction, even though a Massachusetts statute required that parents be given notice and an opportunity to exempt their children from any curriculum that "primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues" (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 32A).

The parents sued the school district (Parker v. Hurley, 474 F. Supp. 2d 261 (D. Mass. 2007)) and argued that by forcing their children to be subjected to a curriculum that is contrary to their religious beliefs the district violated their constitutional right as parents to direct the moral training of their children and their right to the free exercise of their religion. The trial court dismissed their claims, relying in part on language in Massachusetts law that is very similar to California Education Code section 51933. [Section 51933 provides that sex education course content must teach “respect for marriage and committed relationships”; that “Instruction and materials shall be appropriate for use with pupils of all… sexual orientations”; and that “Instruction and materials may not reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by Section 220” (which includes sexual orientation).] Citing this statute, the court stated: “Massachusetts law prohibits discrimination in public schools based on sex or sexual orientation. It also requires that public school curricula encourage respect for all individuals regardless of, among other things, sexual orientation.... In view of the value to the community of preparing students to respect differences in their personal interactions with others and in their future participation in the political process, the conduct at issue in this case is rationally related to the goal of preparing them for citizenship.”

The parents appealed to the federal Court of Appeal (Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008)). Some of the very organizations that are now funding and driving the No on 8 campaign – and claiming that same-sex marriage will not be taught in California schools – filed briefs with the Court of Appeal in which they argued that same-sex marriage must be taught in the public schools and that parents are not entitled to receive prior notice of such instruction or to excuse their children from it. Their briefs show that the No on 8 campaign is deliberately deceiving California voters when it says gay marriage will not be taught in California public schools.


The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is a leading member of the No on 8 campaign. The ADL’s Amicus Curiae Brief stated:
  • "In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents." [p. 5]
  • "Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students' formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction." [p. 3]


The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has funneled over $2 million to No on 8, Equality for All, the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee. HRC’s Amicus Curiae Brief stated:
  • "There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment's free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one's children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue - or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system." [pp. 1-2]
  • "In short, there can be no serious dispute that the books in issue are both age-appropriate and reflect the growing diversity of American families." [p. 9]
  • "Lexington's selection of the [three] books...for inclusion in its curriculum is firmly rooted in the long-recognized tradition of public schools as a place for disseminating the knowledge and information that helps to foster understanding between diverse groups and individuals for the overall benefit of society." [p. 13]


The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All. The ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief stated:
  • "Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children's book...'King and King'." [p. 9]
  • "This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief." [p. 18]
  • "First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden...Second, in contravention of the axiom that 'the classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas' [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom...Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students." [pp. 22-23]
After considering the briefs of the parties to the case and of these organizations who are now leading sponsors of the No on 8 campaign, the Federal Court of Appeal held that parents do not have a right to excuse their children from instruction on same-sex marriage.

Prop. 8 Opponents v. Parental Rights

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) is a coalition member of and major donor to the No on 8 campaign. The NCLR opposes the right of California parents to receive prior notice of instruction regarding same-sex marriage and to opt their children out of such instructions. The NCLR published a document entitled LGBT Legal Issues for School Attorneys that purports to advise school district attorneys regarding issues related to sexual orientation. This document states:
  • “State law explicitly provides that ‘instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions’ is not subject to the parental notice and opt-out laws. California Education Code § 51932(b).”
  • “So long as these programs do not include sexually explicit content (i.e., discuss the human reproductive organs and their functions), parents are not entitled to prior notice and the opportunity to opt their children out.”


The opponents of Proposition 8 intend to insert same-sex marriage into our public school classrooms, and they will seek to nullify the rights of parents to direct the moral education of their own children. They desperately seek to conceal their plans by falsely accusing the Yes on 8 campaign of lying. Yet their briefs and published documents reveal their true intent, in their own words.

This article incorporates content provided by

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Prop. 8 FAQs

Why not let same-sex couples marry? They’re not hurting anyone, are they?

The most fundamental purpose of marriage has always been to provide children with the optimal environment in which to grow up emotionally healthy and prepared to succeed in life as adults. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will hurt, first, children and, ultimately, our society as a whole.

Harm to Children. Boys and girls need both a male and a female parent in order to grow up as emotionally healthy, well rounded men and women. Boys learn how to be men from their fathers, while girls learn how to be women from their mothers. Both boys and girls learn how to relate with the opposite gender by relating with their parent of the opposite gender and by watching their father and mother relate with each other. Children raised by same-sex couples are deprived of these essential formative experiences. There is also abundant evidence that children who are not raised by their natural father and mother in a stable marriage have significantly higher rates of many social problems, including school failure or expulsion, drug abuse, criminal activity, physical and emotional health problems, poverty, unwed motherhood, and the breakup of their own marriages as adults.

Harm to Society. For many centuries and in all cultures, man-woman marriage has been the fundamental building block of a healthy society. Our society depends on stable, man-woman families to raise each new generation of children into healthy, well-rounded adults who are qualified and prepared to assume a responsible role in society. Children who are not raised by their married mother and father experience significantly higher rates of many social problems, including school failure or expulsion, drug abuse, criminal activity, physical and emotional health problems, poverty, unwed motherhood, and the breakup of their own marriages as adults. These problems negatively impact society as a whole in very significant ways.

Won’t Proposition 8 deprive same-sex couples of important legal rights?

No. On the contrary, failure to pass Proposition 8 will deprive millions of Californians of fundamental religious liberties.

Same-sex Legal Rights. Same-sex couples are free to live their lives as they choose, and California law already grants to same-sex couples all of the legal rights that can be obtained through marriage. Proposition 8 will not change any of that. The debate is not about the legal rights of same-sex couples. It is about whether four judges should be allowed to cancel out the will of an overwhelming majority of California voters by changing the very nature and definition of marriage, and it is about the harmful effects of that change upon children and society.

Infringement of Religious Liberty. If same-sex marriage is given legal recognition, public schools in California will be required to teach all students that there is no difference between man-woman marriages and same-sex marriages. Schools will contradict and undermine parents who teach their children that homosexual behavior is morally wrong based upon their religious beliefs. In countries where same-sex marriage has been legally recognized, people who express their religious belief that homosexual behavior is immoral are being criminally prosecuted. There is also a possibility that a church that opposes same-sex marriage will be denied its tax-exempt status once same-sex marriage is legally recognized.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Permission Granted

I may not have made this clear, but by all means everyone is free to copy, use, and quote from the contents of my rebuttal to Morris Thurston's commentary. You can also send the URL:
to others via e-mail so they can access it easily.