Kevin McCullough

When liberals are given the choice between acting decently or choosing the riches of perversion - liberals prefer perversion. And if protecting the honor, privacy, and even nakedness of vulnerable women and children is juxtaposed to say the slightest possibility that someone's right to practice perversion might be curbed - liberals will come running to the aid of the pervert. In fact liberals will go so far to protect perversion that they will actually enlist the use of potential victims to make the case, consequences to the unsuspecting females be damned!

They will say it with a lawsuit. They will say it in print. They will even brag about it in mass media.

Liberals at their core have no sense of true north. They can't determine right from wrong, good from evil, and in this case even help from hurt. Worse yet - they don't care. The hardness of their hearts towards the victim is not only apparent in their actions, but the mockery of their words adds insult to injury.

Hence why Geraldo Rivera would defend the concealing of an illegal alien's identity from the feds - even though he had been indicted on 31 counts of child rape, before executing three college kids in Newark this summer.

It also explains the actions this week of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

If you have ever dreamed of taking that fabulous shopping trip to New York City, you'd be advised to stay away. Because right now, this very minute, today...there is no law protecting the women you cherish in the dressing rooms of New York City boutiques, shops, department stores or even their hotel showers or bathrooms.

See if the owner of the hotel, the proprietor of the lingerie boutique, or the manager of any of the major shopping hot spots in Manhattan decided he wanted to drill a hole that allowed prurient viewing of your wife, fiancé, mother, sister, daughter or niece - in a space they would otherwise have reasonable expectations of privacy in - then he could do it, just for kicks, and there is no legal recourse you can take in response.

As long as there is no camera involved they can spy on your lovely's lovelies and you can't say "boo" about it.

This is why one lone city councilman is desperately attempting to change the law.

Peter Vallone Jr. had been receiving complaints in his Queens district office for a number of weeks about a pervert who had been ordering a bagel and coffee every morning and then parking himself directly under the train platform vent for the N-line subway. This particular perve had a thing for looking up women's skirts and he found it amusing to calmly eat his breakfast while stretching his neck to peep. Vallone's own staffers even complained as the place the man like to do his viewing from was literally steps from the councilman's front door.

Vallone began to research the matter and discovered that the man was breaking no known law in New York. Incredulous at this dismaying fact the councilman drafted a resolution that would punish such behavior. As the New York Times put it:

The bill would make it illegal to look at a person’s “sexual or other intimate parts, in other than a casual or cursory manner, for the purpose of entertainment, sexual arousal or gratification, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing the person being viewed."

Pretty straight forward right?

Not according to liberals.

The New York Civil Liberties Union (directly associated with the ACLU) issued a statement on Thursday calling the proposed legislation, "creepy lawmaking."

Liberal radio talk show host Ron Kuby mocked Vallone for drafting the legislation. Kuby is also a slip-and-fall/criminal defense attorney. With great bravado Kuby bullied the councilman in the few minutes they had on-air together, and then went on to brag about all the money he would win from clients for the misapplication he potentially sees from such a law being passed.

Donna Liebermann the NYCLU's executive director (and reportedly a female) added her own sentiments saying, "The problem with this legislation is that it’s trying to get at this amorphous, vague behavior of looking, which is very imprecise. The language of the bill reflects how vague the activity that they’re trying to get at is, and the problem is that it’s an invitation to abuse, to selective enforcement based on the whims or prejudice of the individual police officer." Adding, "What kind of a look is degrading, and therefore unlawful, who's to say?"

Well Donna, any woman who's ever been the slightest bit attractive could tell you.

They get degrading looks, mental undressings, and even unwanted physical contact from creeps in society daily.

It's only "imprecise" if no one desires justice or decency for the privacy of women and children. And it is impossible for it to be an invitation to abuse if men have their heads faced forward, and would perhaps bother to look women in the eyes. (Maybe Donna shops in New Jersey.)

So while liberals pledge to get rich while killing this bill, and labeling it "creepy lawmaking," they have given us a supreme glimpse - a window to their soul if you will...

Liberals will profit mightily by giving aid to perverts, pandering to peeping toms, and giving sanctuary to 31 count indictees of child rape/executioners.

They will do this as opposed to protecting the privacy of their own girlfriend, fiancé, wife, mother, or daughters.

And when necessary they will even brainwash women to make the case for them.

So which is more "creepy" - banning the perverts or defending them?

Have we really arrived at the day in which we have to ask such questions?