Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers


Monday, August 31, 2009
She's Carrie Prejean and she's NOT going to take it anymore!
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 5:15 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/media/ALeqM5iBfUcb2h5CxErRIzwGLOmf0LF2-g?size=l
Fighting Back!

I am not always a big fan of people suing for every little thing under the sun. But when you've been slandered, libeled, been treated horribly in public by your employer, fired for what was said to be the refusal to carry out your duties... when you fulfilled every single one of them, I'm not so much against it.

Carrie Prejean is suing for all of the maltreatment she was harassed with following the answer of one simple question in the Miss USA pageant.

I'm glad she is, I hate to see people being punished for simply answering a question honestly.

The religious bigots of America are patently un-American, Perez Hilton being chief among them. So it behooves the religious bigots running Miss USA California to remember that, and I'm guessing their about to receive a legal bill that might serve them this valuable reminder.










Saturday, May 23, 2009
You know I have this habit of being right...
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 12:28 AM
apereznoh8.jpg

Anarchist Perez

I was the first pundit in America that told you Barack Obama would be President. I predicted Trump wouldn't fire Carrie Prejean. And I told you Adam Lambert would not be the American Idol...

This one I'm not nearly as sure about...

I did tell you that I felt the California Supreme Court would likely take up the measure of the "constitutionality" of a Constitutional Amendment. (Something they have no authority to do.) I also have said repeatedly that if they did, expect them to rule against the people of California. (Especially when their own representation in Jerry Brown sides against them as well...)

Everyone remembers the feces throwing monkeys that were hitting little old ladies going to church last fall, simply because the radical activists wanted to change the definition of marriage that has stood since the beginning of time. Even when the people of California overwhelmingly TWICE voted for the definition of marriage to remain what it had always been, the tree-dwelling bottom feeders couldn't resist in heaving poo at people who didn't agree with them.

Lovely people you've got representing your side Perez.

As the news spread today that the Supreme Court will announce its decision on the "constitutionality" of a piece of the Constitution, large groups of the poo-flingers are gathering critical mass to, as one hyperventilating, gender confused, blogger who despises his own Hispanic heritage put it, the radicals will "rally all over the country, regardless of the outcome!"

Meaning, if they lose look for mob action and lots of flying poo.

These are the least rational, most hyperbolic, overly emotional, drama queens in history.

But the people of America need to understand what the court will be saying in ruling on such a matter. For in fact it doesn't matter nearly as much which way the ruling turns out on Tuesday, as it does that the court decided it had a say in the matter to begin with.

The Constitution of a nation, company, or church is a sacred document. In our nation nothing is allowed to infringe upon the words--particularly direct words--that state specific ideas, concepts, or legal principles.

The Constitution trumps the courts, the legislature, and the executive.

But not now, at least not in California...

The California Supreme Court has now placed itself, not under the direction of the state constitution, but in sovereignty above it. The California Supreme Court in doing so is willing to literally shred the only authority that the people of California ultimately are sworn to obey.

So today the Court believes it has the right to override one part of the Constitution, next week they could believe they have the right to override all of it. And the precedent would already be in place to give themselves permission too.

The Constitutional process for the people of California to adjust their own Constitution is arduous. There are specific thresholds that have to be met, every step of the way, in order for an amendment to be ratified and for it to be "constitutional" in its authority over the people. For that very reason the designers of California's constitutional republic specifically prevented the courts from being allowed to change it randomly, especially once the people had spoken.

By reaching in their desk drawer, taking out a pair of scissors and deciding to snip out the amendment that defines marriage--yet had been arrived at in a just and appropriate manner, as so defined by that same constitution--the justices are making themselves the most powerful authorities in the state.

In addition, and most importantly, they have now completely invalidated ALL constitutional authority in the area of the State of California's jurisdiction.

In fact a sound argument could be made that for the court to invalidate the constitutional text, that had been arrived at in a constitutional means, that essentially there is no more governing authority for the state.

It is the constitution after all that establishes the rules for the government, the process of taxation, the enforcement of the laws, and protection of the people.

In tearing that document up... which they did the moment they undertook the hearing of the case, they have initiated anarchy. The tyrants in black robes will now be using their bully powers to manipulate the residents of California en masse.

It is a Constitutional crisis, and one that effects the entire nation.

Even if their ruling on Tuesday reinforces the will of the people (and on that point I'm exceedingly skeptical) the justices of the California Supreme Court should be replaced. They are exceeding their governing authority, and thereby jeopardizing the rule of law for all Californians.

Of course that's what The Perez Doughboy wanted from the beginning...


TRACK KMC 24/7:
http://www.brtstage.org/images/myspace_logo.jpg





Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Why Angry Gay Guys are so threatened by raw female beauty...
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 12:48 AM
http://sitebuilder.yola.com/sites/D074/D51b/D70d/D4de/U8a4986cb1bdffd12011bed4d07b15470/8a4986ca1cfca030011d0654a34e5547/resources/carrie_1_full.jpg
Fearsome

Ok everybody now knows that Donald Trump restrained himself from creating an even bigger star out of Carrie Prejean today. If Trump had tossed her he would've been looking at one mother of a lawsuit, and it would have simultaneously been the biggest help to further catapult Carrie Prejean to even more national prominence.

He allowed to retain her crown over the objections of the Miss California home office. He also knew that she had not violated her contract so he really had no choice.

What I find to be interesting about the new pics that have popped up on gossip and gay sites in the past 24 hours is the fear/anger that a beautiful woman puts into the hearts of men who dally in homosexuality.

But when you contemplate it, it makes total sense.

What's the one overriding element of the human world that prevents the real catches in the universe of males from being seduced, exploited, and brainwashed into acting out sexually with other men?

A gorgeous woman.

What is so utterly laughable about the Carrie controversy is the idea that she's some sort of hypocrite because she posed in the shots that are very little worse than the average swimsuit model.

The debate within fundamentalist Christian circles over whether bikinis or one-piece suits are the most apporpriate for Christian women to wear IS a debate that still happens, and in some circles can cause actual accusations to fly over the potential for immoral thought to occur within the mind of the men who come near them.

It should be pointed out that there are also geographical regions where this debate no longer occurs... like California, where the beach is everyone's cheap form of weekend entertainment.

But even IF Carrie had shown her nether region, the homosexuals that are now accusing her of being a hypocrite would STILL not accuse her of immorality.

And that is a striking difference.

Homosexual activists never want to discuss immorality. In fact the most immoral thing they can ever accuse someone else of is being a hypocrite.

Let me be clear, they will never accuse adulterers of adultery, porn addicts of pornography, or even adult males who sex up minors of being pedophiles or statutory rapists.

And why not?

Because they know as clearly as they breathe and walk, that the behavior they engage in IS immoral.

So morality must NOT be brought up...

Only hypocrisy...

The truth is Carrie's beauty is evident, abundant, and her worldview represents the majority of Americans--not to mention Californians specifically--who she was expected to represent in winning her coveted title.

Nothing intimidates homosexual queens more than statuesque, beautiful, and gracious women.

And now, they have to put up with at least one, for a good deal longer...


TRACK KMC 24/7:
http://www.brtstage.org/images/myspace_logo.jpg





Saturday, May 02, 2009
Miss California USA prepping to strip Carrie Prejean?
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 12:08 PM
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/images/gallery/kristen-dalton-carrie-prejean_502x384.jpg

According to a senior spokesperson for the Miss California USA organization it appears there is backroom consideration being given to whether or not reigning Miss California Carrie Prejean will be stripped of her title. Doing so for citing her in defending herself from the attacks of purposeful sliming attempted by Perez Hilton, a blogger who engages in homosexual activity.

When asked by a prominent homosexual activist website:

So why not just take her crown if she's in violation?

This was their reply:
We are really faced with a dilemma [over whether] to exercise the contract and remove her crown, because it would in fact only escalate her standing within the very issue that we are trying to minimize and only escalate her standing with those individuals who have stolen her title.

We want to make sure that our legacy is one that we are proud of.  I do admire her courage for standing up for her beliefs and yet at the same time, I'm very much aware of the role of Miss California and what we are trying to do with the woman who is crowned and represents the state of California.

Because of the vile nature of the referenced website, I've chosen not to link in this post.

Here's the problem with the representative from Miss California USA. His rationale is that they wish the winner of the Miss California contest to represent the state of California.

Then who better than Carrie Prejean?

Californians have now voted overwhelmingly on two occasions to declare that marriage in their state is exclusively the union of a man and a woman. They did so on a state referendum a number of years ago, and this past year they again did so overwhelmingly to write the language into the Constitution of the State of California.

As a part of the state constitution the courts have no power to rule against the people. Not legally anyway.

All this to say that Carrie Prejean is the perfect representative of California because she reflects the view of most Californians that marriage is the sacred union of a man and woman.

What she did not say was that anyone else should be barred from having other sexual unions if they so wished. What she never said was that someone should be discriminated against based on who those people choose to have sexual unions with. What she did not say was that any basic right should be denied to ANY people group.

She was asked her opinion. She gave it. She reflects the view of the majority of Whites, Blacks, Latins, and Asians in the state of California... hence she represents California quite well.

And a word to the Miss California USA pageant organization.

Don't touch her crown. You would not appreciate the outcome that would flow from your decision to do so.


TRACK KMC 24/7:
http://www.brtstage.org/images/myspace_logo.jpg






Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Perez Hilton's: "Miley, Heidi, and Britney defense..."
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 10:52 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/05/30/perezhilton_narrowweb__300x437,0.jpg
Angry, Lonely, Projectionist...

His real name is Mario Lavandeira. He's the anonymous personality that proudly desires to be the most hated person in Hollywood.

Well that's what he says anyway...

Anyone that has ever heard Perez Hilton weigh in on the issue of redefining marriage to make it something its never been before knows two things.

1. Perez Hilton/Mario Lavandeira is as emotional as a girl on hormone boosting supplements times ten...

2. And he's perhaps one of the most irrational human beings to ever live.

Nevertheless the potty mouth, who slandered an upright contestant in the Miss USA contest only nights ago for simply disagreeing with his position, is a hard working "lady of the night" when it comes to seeking his own attention. Tonight he goes up against Dennis Prager, one of the clearest thinkers in America, on Larry King.

It's so sad that nobody watches Larry King anymore...

But all day long he's been outing people who have written him e-mail to disagree with his position.

mileyandheidi.jpgwenn2194697.jpg


And he's been defending his own position by citing the intellectual prowess of Miley Cyrus, Heidi Montag, and Britney Spears. Claiming they hold his position on the issue is evidently *proof* of his "rightness."


His arrogance dripping with scorn and disgust has been an interesting contrast to the humble, and God-fearing response Miss California has had since the incident.

Bottom Line: Perez, like many men who engage in homosexual activity, is a person who does not like himself, his choices, or his life. He makes a living by ridiculing people, sometimes for merely their appearances in horrible pictures. He struggles with his own weight, self image, and confidence. His lack of balance is always on display and it is a very sad commentary on the peace he has about life or lack thereof, and he deserves our pity and prayer. He is deceived on the issue of fairness. He is allowed to marry right this very second. He is allowed to enter into marriage equally to every other man/male on the planet. He is also legally allowed to enter into any sexual activity he so wishes, though God has advised him towards a healthy life of abstainence until marriage and then monogamy within it.

If he chooses to keep the anger in his voice, diatribes, and campaign he will only be injuring himself.

And that's the saddest part of all. Because believe it or not God loves Mario/Perez and wants him to find real peace, true joy, and lifelong contentment.

Come to think of it, that might be why Perez fights so hard against normalcy, Jesus knows his name and has his number... but Perez keeps hitting the button sending the communication straight to voicemail.

Those are my thoughts... and they are far more kind than those of Perez' fellow friends who engage in homosexual activity and who also support the attempt to change the definition of marriage.


TRACK KMC 24/7:
http://www.brtstage.org/images/myspace_logo.jpg






Wednesday, April 01, 2009
The GOP's Alternative Budget
Posted by: John Campbell at 9:13 AM
In my opinion, the best and most articulate Member of Congress, present company included, is Paul Ryan (R-WI). He is the Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, and a guest blogger here at the Greeneyeshade. Here is a 4 minute clip of his very powerful closing argument in last Wednesday’s debate.  Right below the video, I have included a link to his Op-Ed in today's edition of the Wall Street Journal.




The GOP's Alternative Budget - WSJ.com

President Obama offers us the option of European big government.






Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Obama: 'I'll Take Responsibility, I'm The President.' 'But We Didn't Draft These Contracts.' UPDATE!
Posted by: Greg Hengler at 7:46 PM
Ummmm. Does he know that Dodd is spilling the beans? See Carol Platt Liebau's post under this and the Dodd confession.

UPDATE: If you're looking for insight AND entertainment value regarding today's show-trial look no further than FOX's Shep Smith and what he had to say immediately after the hearing concluded.






Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Op-Ed: Thirty Years Later, a Return to Stagflation
Posted by: John Campbell at 2:58 PM
This Op-Ed was published in the New York Times on Saturday February 14, 2009.

New York Times

Thirty Years Later, a Return to Stagflation

By Representative PAUL D. RYAN

Congress has made a terrible mistake. Amid a rhetorical debate centered on words like “crisis,” “emergency” and “catastrophe,” it acted too fast. While arguments were made about the stimulus bill’s specific components — taxpayer money for condoms, new green cars and golf carts for federal bureaucrats, another round of rebate checks — its more dangerous consequences were overlooked. And now the package threatens a return to the kind of stagflation last seen in the 1970s.

To get a sense of the pressures ahead, we must first assess our fiscal health. We started this year with a projected trillion-dollar budget deficit for the 2009 fiscal year. In 2008, we spent $451 billion just to pay the interest on our debt.

With the stimulus bill now becoming law, we’re digging even deeper into debt. The headline price tag of $787 billion doesn’t include the extra $348 billion it will take to finance the new debt, or what it will cost when Congress extends the spending programs in the bill, as is likely — as much as $2 trillion more. Add in the billions that are being used to prop up the financial system, and when the dust settles on 2009, with millions of baby boomers retiring and entitlement spending exploding, taxpayers will face a financial nightmare.

From a global perspective, the picture only looks worse. As we have debated how much money to borrow and spend in hopes of jump-starting our economy, we’ve ignored the worldwide stimulus binge. China, Europe and Japan are all spending hundreds of billions of dollars they don’t have in hopes of speeding up their economies, too. That means the very countries we have relied on to buy our bonds, notably China and Japan, are now putting their own bonds on the global credit markets.

American Treasury bonds have been selling briskly on the global credit markets because they have been the calm in the storm of the global credit crisis. This has allowed advocates of borrow-and-spend to argue that for the United States, borrowing is uniquely cheap. But what happens when there is an excess supply of bonds on the worldwide markets? The cost of borrowing will rise. Today we fear deflation, but eventually our fears will turn to inflation.

It seems that no one in Washington is discussing what happens when the world begins this gargantuan borrowing spree. How high will interest rates rise? And more fundamentally, who will have the money to buy our bonds? It is possible that the Federal Reserve will succumb to pressure to “monetize” our debt — that is, print new money to buy our bonds. In fact, the Fed is already suggesting that it will buy long-term Treasury securities in order to lower borrowing costs. If it does, then our money supply, which has already increased substantially over the past year, will grow even faster.

As Milton Friedman noted, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” It is a situation in which too few goods are being chased by too much money.

To American families, inflation is a destroyer of savings, a killer of wealth, a crusher of confidence. It calls into question the value of our money. And while we all share in the pain, the people whom inflation hits hardest are elderly people who live on fixed incomes, those in the middle class who are struggling to save for retirement and college and lower-income people who live paycheck to paycheck.

Combine high inflation and high unemployment and you have stagflation. Hindsight shows how the pain of the late 1970s and early 1980s could have been avoided, yet we’re now again planning to borrow and spend — and raise taxes — as President Jimmy Carter did. Soon we may again find ourselves watching a rising “misery index” of inflation and unemployment together. If that happens, individual earning power will evaporate, and our standard of living will decline.

To prevent stagflation, we should enact fiscal policy reforms that apply the lessons we learned from the 1970s. Keynesian stimuli based on borrowing and spending have not worked and will not work. One-time rebate checks do not increase the incentive to expand business operations and create jobs. But marginal cuts in tax rates do. We also must lower our job-killing corporate income tax rate, the highest in the industrialized world after Japan, and ease business worries by making it clear that there will be no tax increases in 2010.

We should also re-establish the sound dollar. For the past decade, the Federal Reserve has manipulated interest rates and vastly over-expanded the money supply — and in so doing fueled the housing bubble that precipitated our current crisis. To end uncertainty about the economy, to keep interest rates down, and to give Americans the confidence they need to take risks and ensure future growth, we should make price stability a priority, guaranteeing the value of the dollar.

Finally, we should tackle the entitlement crisis, which will be a $56 trillion liability that we have not figured out how to pay for. As members of the baby boom generation retire, and health care costs continue to spiral out of control, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will collapse. By reforming those programs and bringing their costs down to sustainable levels, we will show the world and the credit markets we are serious about reducing our debt. Then our credit will improve, the cost of necessary borrowing will drop, and we can stave off stagflation.

Paul D. Ryan is a Republican representative from Wisconsin, and the Ranking Member on the House Committee on the Budget






Friday, February 13, 2009
Guest Blog: Liberals Celebrate Big Government Today, But Americans Can Still Win Battle to Save Freedom
Posted by: John Campbell at 4:57 PM

Guest Blog by Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)

Just a few hours ago, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 246-183 to pass the so-called “economic stimulus” package proposed by President Obama and written by congressional Senator Jim DeMintDemocrats. Every single House Republican opposed the bill. (Roll Call)

This evening members of the Senate will meet to cast their votes as well. Sadly, three Republicans will likely join Democrats to ensure the bill is passed.

The massive spending bill, filled to the brim with a liberal wish list of pork projects, spends a minimum of $789 billion and possibly as much as $3.27 trillion (Heritage Foundation).

As my friend, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, and I wrote today in the Washington Examiner (DC Examiner):

"Each and every one of the $800 billion in  taxpayer dollars that Mr. Obama wants to inject into the economy has to come from somewhere, and in this case, we are laying the bill at the feet of those  very children and grandchildren whose future the President says he’s committed  to protecting. And we share the belief that mortgaging the economic future of  successive generations of Americans in order to buy ourselves some short-term  job relief is not only bad policy, it’s an abdication of our  responsibility.  A moral argument is certainly in play here—Obama just  happens to be on the wrong side of it."

The final version of the bill was made available to the public (and to us Republicans in Congress) yesterday at 11 p.m., which gives us less than 24 hours to read 1,071 pages. I can guarantee you that none of my congressional colleagues will have read this bill in its entirety before they vote on it today. It will likely be years before we learn the true consequences of today's irresponsible action.

It is disappointing to see the same old games being played in Washington after being promised that things were finally going to change. However, there is reason to be hopeful. For weeks my office and others on Capitol Hill have been flooded with calls and letters from constituents voicing angry opposition to the stimulus package that will do little, if anything, to stimulate the economy. (McClatchy) It’s heartening to hear from so many of my fellow Americans who are informed and involved and anxious to preserve their freedom.

So while liberals rushed through a temporary victory for Big Government today, I am confident Americans will win the final battle for freedom in the days to come -- as long as they are vigilant in their quest and speak out to protect their liberties.

Elected as South Carolina’s 55th senator in 2004, Senator DeMint quickly established himself as one of the most effective conservative leaders in Washington, seeking to enact innovative solutions to improve America for future generations. He has been a tireless advocate for smaller government, individual liberty, a strong national defense and traditional values.






Thursday, January 29, 2009
For the Non-Believers
Posted by: John Campbell at 2:16 PM
I listened to many of the speeches given by supporters of the bill yesterday. I also had the opportunity to question the Director of the Congressional Budget Office on the subject. The tepid arguments and weak rebuttals of the proponents here lead me to believe that perhaps even they know that this is not really about stimulus. Being generous, I can say that maybe 25% of the items in this bill have some multiplier effect. But the rest is just spending. Just 2 months ago, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, said “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."  

Couple that statement with the President’s repeated comments yesterday that this is just “the first” in a series of economic recovery actions, and it becomes clearer to me that this bill is really about getting about a 20% annual increase in non-entitlement federal spending right now, and paying for it with tax increases to be named later. The public would not stand for that in the normal course of politics.

If you don’t believe that, I hereby submit for your consideration a document that was sent to me by a Democratic Congresswoman from California in order to entice me to vote for the package because of the money that California would receive. It actually pushed me even further in the opposite direction. I think it will have the same affect on you so here is link. Virtually all the spending in here is merely the federal government paying for programs that the state is already doing. In another case,  billions of dollars are allocated for more school construction, at a time when we have just borrowed and spent $30 billion on school construction in California, and where some of our failing schools happen to be housed in beautiful new buildings.  The State of California will get a $32 billion spending increase in this bill, paid for by federal taxpayers. I hope that the idea of raising taxes in California will be dead now. Isn’t $32 billion more spending enough for now?




Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Legislative Formulas?
Posted by: John Campbell at 10:26 AM

In today’s edition of Roll Call, there is a rather telling article regarding earmarks in the Economic Stimulus Package.  The article, titled “Artfully Redefining Earmarks,” clearly points out that some members clearly don’t get it, including those close to Speaker Pelosi.  House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) is quoted in the article saying: “I know the politics of all this.  I just think they’re wrong about it…I love earmarks.”

It should be noted that President-Elect Obama has clearly stated that any stimulus must be earmark free.  Therefore senior Democratic Members of the House are crafting “Legislative formulas …to ensure that their districts share in the wealth…,” in clear defiance of the standard bearer of their party.

It is Clyburn’s intent to have these formulas act as trade-offs for members, particularly freshmen, who need political cover in order to support a stimulus package. 

As I have said time and time again, Members of Congress are not ATM machines.  Fiscal stimulus goes beyond ideological boundaries; and earmarks, or legislative formulas for that matter, have no place in legislation designed at tackling our nation’s economic woes.






Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Prop 8 h8te: The great GAY lie!
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 2:26 PM

symbol of a lie

There are actually a good number of lies the radical activists who choose to engage in personal homosexual behavior have been telling people for a while.

And I separate the activists from the average person minding their own business (but who still chooses to engage in the same behavior), because I think the difference between the two groups is notable.

I know a number of strongly decent individuals who have made the choice to engage in the behavior but who have REJECTED the rampant, animalistic, absurdity that we've seen in California since the election. But the goons and thugs on television news screens are just shameful.

They are also dishonest.

They preach "tolerance" for people who are different "than you." But they don't really desire that. Tolerance means that we can live on the same block and agree to disagree, but treat each other with respect. The animals at the protests in California are not capable of either agreeing to disagree, nor or they capable of treating those who are DIFFERENT than them with any modicum of respect.

But they are dishonest in other ways as well, especially in the messaging of what they are about. They continue to insist that they will not be given "equal rights" until they are allowed to "get married."

This is a patently gross lie on two counts.

1. They are as "equally" capable of getting married as every other person on the planet. Marriage is the sanctified sexual union of a man and a woman. If they chose to find a man (if they were a woman) or a woman (if they were a man) they would be free to enter into marriage with said individual. The law makes no distinction against them because they choose to enjoy sex with someone like themselves. They are still free to, permitted, and welcomed to marry. Remember: Marriage IS the sanctified union of a man and a woman.

2. The other part of their great lie is that they are being denied any sort of fundamental rights. First off marriage is not a right, it is a responsibility, and one that is limited by government for its own health. Although the sex radicals of our day would like there not to be limits on it, the U.S. does regulate it--mostly for the purpose of producing healthy offspring and thus further the existence of the nation by giving birth to the next generation. But aside from marriage not being a "right" they are still dishonest on being "DENIED" anything. They are with the power of any attorney and the will of two individuals enter into ANY contractual agreement their minds can produce. They can dictate hospital visitation, inheritance, living arrangements, financial responsibility, terms of the relationship, etc. They can even in such a contract get really funky and allow third or fourth party members to be added, dictate the rotation of who sleeps with who, who feeds dog, who does the cooking, and who pays the bills. In short - the construction of a contract is already allowable and is limited only by the "imagination" of the two parties involved.

This group went on a rampage in a church in Michigan on Sunday, interrupting the service, saying stupid things, and generally making a huge nuisance of themselves. The church members were kind and did not even press charges. Yet the hate-filled intolerance of the people who choose to engage in homosexuality that had infiltrated the service with the direct purpose of disrupting the proceedings were completely INTOLERANT of those who eventually showed them kindness in NOT exercising their rights to arrest and prosecute the trouble makers.

The Anti-Prop 8 haters across the nation are demonstrating the biggest LACK of tolerance they could possibly show. And the goons in Michigan that carried upside down pink crosses demonstrated that the Christians they chose to attack tolerate far more from the acidic portions of society than they demonstrate.





Friday, November 07, 2008
What the Genius "Gay" Protestors of LA don't get...
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 12:09 PM

"Mama Joi"

For the past few days since the election has passed I have been in Southern California. It was one of the few bright spots to be for social issue conservatives in the nation. 1.6 million Barack Obama VOTERS helped push across the finish line the final word on what definition the word "marriage" gets to enjoy in that state.

Every day since a few hundred geniuses have gathered in West Hollywood, and in one place or two in San Francisco to scream at the wind, bark at the moon, and demand that the stupid damn people of California weren't so... LITERAL.

The problem here for the protesters is in part that they have NO IDEA what they're actually protesting.

The ballot measure was simple... that marriage would continue to be--as it always has a union between a man and woman. Society has always sanctioned that one particular form of sexual expression/commitment because of its potential to bring children into the culture--AND THUS--to be able to keep society reproducing future generations of citizens. (In case anyone hasn't explained to the silly protesters, a pair female genitalia doesn't do so and vice versa...)

The protesters believe that much, much, more was on the ballot...

They think that there will be a sex police force breaking into the bedrooms and halting one man from performing disgusting acts with another...

They think that they will be kept from getting a place to live if two women show up for the apartment showing and they introduce each other as their best friend...

They think that they can't go visit each other in the hospital, or leave each other all their worldly possessions.

They believe that society looks down upon them as people. (Which is patently false, though many of us do not wish to see them perform their acts of sexual pleasure and think it would be much better if they left that in the bedroom - which is where those of us who act sexually in more traditional ways do it.)

They are not arguing for equal ANYTHING, because they are presently NOT being discriminated FROM anything...

They wanted to take a term--marriage--and make it mean something its never meant before.

Marriage *IS* a union of a man and woman--a sacred commitment--for life.

That doesn't mean that if Mama Joi (pictured above with megaphone) wants to get groovy with her Susie Sad, Aunt Betty, or Ralph the puppy that anyone is going to stop her, it just doesn't mean that it has become marriage.

Long story short--in as secular a nation as the left has forced America to become--no one is going to disallow Mama Joi from cruising for chics on a Friday night while jamming to "I kissed a girl and I liked it..."

The only thing that the REAFFIRMATION of Prop 8 does mean, is that the philosophical bullies can't do whatever they want with words.

Words mean things, and in California the people have now on MULTIPLE occasions spoken in overwhelming majorities (despite being outspent 3 and 4 to 1) that marriage will continue to be defined as it always has been defined.

They don't need to be mad at the Mormons, Catholics, Mexicans, Blacks, Evangelicals, or any other group that voted in overwhelming numbers against changing the definition... In reality they should really be much more angry with... Mirriam Webster.





Monday, October 13, 2008
1st Grade FIELD TRIP: Lesbian Wedding...
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 9:28 PM

"Hi class, this is my wife, er husband, uh, uh, whatevs..."


According to the mayor of San Francisco, it's coming "whether you like it or not..."

And now school districts believe that taking first graders to observe the faux, the fake, the unnatural, and the non-genetic act of sexual choice is appropriate material for class curriculum...






Monday, May 19, 2008
McCain's Marital Woes...
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 2:10 PM
    

Grasping defeat from the jaws of victory...





« Previous12Next »
Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 3 Minutes 4 Seconds Ago
Last updated 10 Minutes 15 Seconds Ago
Last updated 17 Minutes 24 Seconds Ago
Last updated 36 Minutes Ago
Last updated 1 Hours 8 Minutes 1 Seconds Ago
 

Archives of our Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs

Blog Search



Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Townhall Blogs
Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Columns Columns
Your Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Your Blogs
By Month
 December 2009
 November 2009
 October 2009
 September 2009
 August 2009
 July 2009
 June 2009
 May 2009
 April 2009
 March 2009
 February 2009
 January 2009
 December 2008
 November 2008
 October 2008
 September 2008
 August 2008
 July 2008
By Issue
 A Culture of Life
 Budget & Government
 Campaigns & Elections
 Education
 Energy & Environment
 Faith & Family
 Foreign Affairs
 Health Care
 Immigration
 Jobs & Economy
 Judges & Courts
 Media & Culture
 Property Rights
 Safety & Security
 Science & Technology
 Second Amendment
 Social Security
 Tax Relief
Advertisement

Comments Comments

Monk
 Re: What's Wrong With This Picture? Everything.
  By NOTW
What does evil look like?
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By Allen Caeden
It's Official!!!!
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By arch
Arch just remember...
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By Allen Caeden
Arch
 Re: What's Wrong With This Picture? Everything.
  By NOTW
Bob offers no defense. Pure degenerate!
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By arch
Too Funny
 Re: When Climate Hippies Attack...
  By NOTW
My new name for Munck.
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By Allen Caeden
Bob Munck
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By arch
Taking a break huh Bob.
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By Allen Caeden
Arch don't forget
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By Allen Caeden
Allen Caeden 12:24 AM
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By Bob Munck
Allen. They fit the bill!
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By arch
O.B.A.M.A
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By Allen Caeden
Allen has Munck's number too!
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By arch
Are they pimps?
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By Allen Caeden
cottoneyed
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By arch
"Saint" Nick?
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By Allen Caeden
Hey "Saint Nick"
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By cottoneyed
The true Bob Munck
 Re: White House Serves Acorn Cookies at Holiday Party
  By Allen Caeden

The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall


Blog Roll Blog Roll