Real Men

By: Nancy Morgan
Right Bias

Rush Limbaugh stated emphatically last week that “Real men aren’t liberal. And real men, real men, don’t vote for liberals.” Rush, once again, hits the nail on the head. And here’s why.

Real men have an innate sense of self that is not dependent on group approval. They have not succumbed to the sanitized, homogenized, and feminized version of manhood that the academic, media, and political elite have adopted. Instead, they have the courage to form their own opinions, relying on independent thinking instead of political correctness.

Liberal males, on the other hand, have taken the much easier path of allowing a group identity to define who they are. They have willingly adopted the leftists’ focus on feelings and emotions when confronted with immutable facts, thus allowing them the ability to retain the all-important moral high ground when those facts prove inconvenient.

Liberal males allow the left to define the issues and set the rules. These rules allow them to claim morality, compassion, and virtue the easy way – by voting to spend someone else’s money on whomever the left designates as the latest “victim” group.

As an added bonus, liberal males are allowed to define their own reality, under the guise of “empowerment.” They are not held accountable when the policies they vote for fail. They are judged on intentions instead of outcomes.

Real men have chosen the harder path of relying on themselves to provide for themselves and their families. They have learned through experience that relying on government is a losing proposition. They know what liberal males don’t – that government is the source of their problems, not the solution. And they vote accordingly.

Liberal males have chosen to follow the rule of man instead of the rule of God because, as Russian novelist Feodor Dostoyevsky once said: “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” Real men choose to follow the rule of God. Guess which path is easier?

Liberal males have adopted the leftist notion that they are more “evolved” than Joe-Six Pack and Susy Homemaker. They have been told that they have a lock on moral superiority and compassion. They are free to focus on rights while ignoring responsibilities. After all, that is what Uncle Sam is for. Right?

Real men know that their role is to provide for their families and protect their country. If they fail, they take responsibility. Liberal males, however, have succumbed to comforting group-think that assigns no blame (except to conservatives) for failure. Whew! They have bought into the liberal fantasy that men and women are equal and alike, that all cultures are equal, and that nothing is ever their fault. And they will consistently vote for any politician who validates this concept for them.

Real men don’t vote for liberals. Real men, when facing a problem, solve it. They don’t form a commission to investigate. Real men accept reality and work to improve it. Liberal males seek to merely redefine it.

Try this simple exercise: Picture President Obama as a grunt on the front lines of a battle in Afghanistan, shooting at the enemy, and fighting for America. That image doesn’t compute, does it? In a nutshell, this is the difference between liberal males and real men.

Real men know that terrorists threaten our very existence. Liberal males choose to believe they are merely misunderstood victims of America’s excesses. Real men know that feelings count for zilch when faced with evil. Liberal males have bought into the notion that real evil exists only on the right.

Real men have actually earned the self-esteem the left believes is their exclusive right to bestow. By their very actions, real men expose the fallacy of liberalism.

Throughout history, real men like Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill and George Patton have come to the rescue when liberal’s touchy feeley “Can’t we all just get along?” policies have failed. For this, they have been roundly denounced by the left. What was their sin? They were right.

Just as Rush Limbaugh was right when he claimed that real men aren’t liberal.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com She lives in South Carolina



By: AJ

While Americans are still stinging from the slap in the face we received from President Obama’s condescending scolding late Friday evening, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) released a statement indicating that the Ground Zero “mosque should be built someplace else.” Color me surprised!

Up to now, Harry Reid has been in lock-step with President Obama and Nancy Pelosi as they’ve rammed every bit of their intensely unpopular agenda down our throats to transform America. So what’s up?

Could it be Reid’s poll numbers? Despite his huge treasure chest of campaign funds from the Democratic Party, he is virtually tied with Sharon Angle as the November election nears, so it appears that Reid may be starting his campaign in earnest. A fitting campaign slogan – “PANDERING YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!”

Nearly 70% of all Americans do not support the Ground Zero mosque; 56% of Democrats do not support it. We heard the President say from the White House at the Ramadan celebration, that the Muslim community has a right to build a mosque, but it’s what he said next that made it crystal clear he’s talking about a mosque at the site of Ground Zero…

“That includes the right to build… IN LOWER MANHATTAN …”

President Obama’s words were crafted in advance and his speech was released 1 hour prior to the event. He knew exactly what he wanted to say and how he wanted to say it. His delivery was sharp, condescending and cutting. Masterful tone and inflections left no doubt that this man, this President, is accusing the American people of being intolerant and his lecture sent a clear message that he intends to ram the Ground Zero mosque down America’s throat. His disloyalty to America and her citizens couldn’t be more visible.

By Saturday morning, when no longer surrounded by the Muslim delegates who attended the Ramadan celebration and applauded and approved of what he said, he changed what he originally said with this….

“…I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there.”

Did the President realize the fire storm he created when he came out in full support of the Ground Zero mosque? On Friday night he made his support for the mosque crystal clear, as well as his disdain for America – the shrew he intends to tame. So why the change?

He’s a very intelligent person… the media reminds us of this everyday. While the President, Imam Rauf and a few others vehemently push for construction of the Ground Zero mosque, they continue to tell us that Islam is a religion of peace and this mosque will build a bridge for Muslims to reach out to Americans and promote tolerance. Can it be that they’ve underestimated the intelligence of the American people?

Governor Sarah Palin brought forth the most intelligent point I’ve heard thus far… Why haven’t the 100 mosque’s that already exist throughout New York City started this outreach? When we consider what she’s pointed out, it completely dissolves the President’s and Imam’s position that the mosque is needed for the purpose they claim.

The 100 mosques have been in place since 9/11/01 and – nearly 10 years later – have done nothing in the way of outreach and a show of tolerance. It’s looking more and more like the true motive behind building this mosque is to enable politically organized Muslims to mark their territory of conquest as they have done time and again in other countries.

Never before has America had a President more versed in the tenants of Islam as set forth by the Qur’an. President Obama openly states his knowledge of Islam; he tells us that his father was a Muslim and he comes from generations of Muslims.

This brief video shows the President professing his knowledge of Islam on 3 continents and he’s clearly able to quote the Qur’an. President Obama knows Islam intimately.

Fully versed in the teachings of Islam, President Obama and Imam Rauf continue to deliver the talking point that Islam is a religion of peace. The Ground Zero mosque controversy has led many Americans to take a closer look to educate themselves about the foundation and teachings of Islam as it relates to politically organized Muslims who pursue the Islamic political ideology.

Prominent Muslim leader Imam Anjem Choudary states that Islam is not a religion of peace and the Qur’an “is full of – Jihad is the most talked about duty in the Qur’an. Nothing is mentioned more than the topic of fighting.” Imam Choudary wants Islamic Sharia Law to rule the UK and is working to make that dream a reality. His organization, Islam4UK, was recently banned in Britain under the countries counter-terrorism laws.

If Islam is not a religion of peace, why would the President, Imam Rauf, politicians and pundits promote this talking point in order to further the case for building the Ground Zero mosque?

Pundits like Penny Lee and Mike Papantonio who appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on Monday, August 16, can be given a pass for their ignorance about Islam and we’ll assume that most politicians have not done their due diligence to learn about Islam either – despite the attacks on U.S. soil that massacred 3,000 innocent American civilians on 9/11/01 – but President Obama and Imam Rauf have intimate knowledge of Islam. So why would Imam Rauf tell Americans one thing, but as has been extensively reported, tell Arabs something different?

TAQIYYA, according to the Qur’an, instructs Muslims to lie to non-Muslims about their beliefs and political ambitions to protect and to spread Islam. Muslims are allowed to deceive non-Muslims if it helps Islam.

Former Islamic terrorist, Walid Shoebat, author of “God’s War on Terror,” explains why Imam Rauf tells Arabs one thing, but tells Americans something different:

Stay tuned for the next article which will explore Islamic infiltration and President Obama’s governmental actions in greater depth…



Review – Three things about Islam that you need to know: