Townhall columnist, talk radio host, and frequent cable news guest Kevin McCullough has at last broken the silence, and spoken out about the greatest threat to America’s precious bodily fluids — the Manchurian Woman.
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!
Ladies, as you go about your day — squeezing the Charmin, thumping the melons, and carefully picking through the riches of perversion (because Choosy Mothers Choose Perversion), while trying your hardest to live up to your potential as a victim – do you ever even suspect that you’re hiding perverts behind your skirts when you refuse to protect nakedness? No? Well then I guess Kevin’s proved his point.
They will say it with a lawsuit. They will say it in print.
They will say it in a box. They will say it loud on Fox…
Liberals at their core have no sense of true north.
Granted. Although I do have pretty good sense of True West, having seen it twice at the Cherry Lane Theatre with John Malkovich and Gary Sinise.
If you have ever dreamed of taking that fabulous shopping trip to New York City…
Note: These are officially the gayest words ever written by someone who calls his blog “Musclehead Revolution.”
…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.
It’s a grim time for masculinity in America, when a man’s dream of a fabulous shopping spree is spoiled by the possibility of peepholes in the boutique fitting room.
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 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.”
Actually, I’d just call it “crappy lawmaking.” Really, how far would this get before a judge irritably smacked it down like Sidney Greenstreet swatting flies at the Blue Parrot in Casablanca? Someone might catch a glimpse of Kevin’s groin, for instance, and find its Ken Doll smoothness vastly entertaining, while others might find it merely repellent. And what are these “other intimate parts,” of which the bill speaks? The tender backside of the knee? An errant lock of a Muslim woman’s hair? Your bouncing and bobbing, undulating and ululating, quivering, pink, and oh-so-fleshy uvula? Do we really want to make it as tough to find an eye-ear-nose-and-throat man in New York as it is to find an abortion provider in South Dakota?
Donna Liebermann the NYCLU’s executive director (and reportedly a female)…
Kevin used to take a woman’s word for it that she was female, but that was before he tried to hit on a waitress at Lucky Cheng’s.
…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…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.
Don’t hate him because he’s beautiful. There’s plenty of other reasons…
It’s only “imprecise” if no one desires justice or decency for the privacy of women and children.
Hey, what about us men? Don’t we rate protection from perverts spying on haberdashery changing rooms, creeps peeping at us in hotel showers, or senators peering into our toilet stalls in midwestern airports?
And it is impossible for it to be an invitation to abuse if men have their heads faced forward…
Unless there happens to be a woman in front of him.
…and would perhaps bother to look women in the eyes. (Maybe Donna shops in New Jersey.)
…um…where men are required to wear head-immobilizing cervical collars when they go to the mall?
Liberals will profit mightily by giving aid to perverts, pandering to peeping toms, and giving sanctuary to 31 count indictees of child rape/executioners.
I just got my check today from the Peepers Guild!
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.
Well if the little be-ovaried darlings are that susceptible to suggestion, I guess they do need the strong, guiding hand of a man to protect them from forming legal opinions on pending legislation.
So which is more “creepy” – banning the perverts or defending them?
And have you stopped beating your dead horse yet?
Have we really arrived at the day in which we have to ask such questions?
Turns out…No! We don’t! I’m afraid the whole thing was an elaborate practical joke at your expense, Kev. And to make it even more ironic — you’re on Candid Camera!Posted by scott on Wednesday, August 29th, 2007 at 9:05 pm.