A Stroke of Pure Genius

You remember last week when the White House press secretary Mick Mulvaney frankly admitted that there was a quid pro quo between the Ukranian government and the White House, and then scant hours later denied that there was any quid pro quo?   Sure you do - he clearly stated that the White House held up aid money in order to pressure the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden and the DNC.   And spent the rest of the week and weekend pretending that's not what he did. 

You might have thought that would be pretty embarrassing - but you don't have the deep political understanding of Kevin McCullough.  He notes that most people think that Maculvey really screwed up

Excuse me if I disagree.

It was a stroke of pure genius on the administration’s part. And for the record they would do themselves a huge favor by continuing this practice for the duration of Pelosi’s faux impeachment.

In fairness it appears that McCullough is focusing on the idea that elections have consequences and that corruption of our political processes is fine because the Democrats are way worse.  This goes back to a truly bizarre conspiracy theory that data that proves the Russians were working for Clinton ended up on a server in the Ukraine, and that if the White House had access to that server they could prove that it was Clinton who was the real villain. 

In an election that she lost.  Three years ago. 

President Trump laid out a Quid Pro Quo doing things that he wasn't allowed to do - but he did them anyway.   The unlawful actions of an out of control President who is willing to strong arm or beg other countries to help dig up dirt on his political rivals is despicable.   And if we give him another 4 years in office I would be very afraid of the consequences. 

The Liberal Plan for Women

Kevin McCullough's latest article takes Liberals to courting the woman vote, doing things like allowing Debbie Wasserman Schultz to assume control of the DNC.

They intend to win the votes of women, and they will lie, confuse, and mislead if necessary to do so.

Yep we're just awful. He lists a number of prominent Conservative woman politicians to prove that Conservatives just care about women more, and then says this.

. . . a simple question for Rep. Schultz, "Where is your proof that the GOP is at war with these ladies?" Because while I'm not 100% certain, I'm fairly sure none of them embrace your ideas of equality for women--a world without men, where butchery of your own children is praised, immoral liberties are encouraged, and the idea of nurturing one's children is the equivalent to dropping a nuclear bomb.

A world without men? This in an article where he admits that admits that Schultz is married and has children (and even concedes that she might be a pretty good mother). It then turns around and ascribes to Schultz all of these cliches.

Presumably McCullough really does believe that we liberals, particularly liberal woman, want a world with no men and praise the butchery of our own children. Either he believes that is what sort of people we are or he is simply a deceitful propagandist.

The comments seem to contain multiple posts by a guy who believes that Liberalism is wanting to turn Heterosexual males into Diaper Dads.

UNTIL 50% of men in office are repalced by women.. that's their whoopi-agenda.

(now you know...) .. DIAPER DADS WE ARE TO MADE...

This includes School Boards, local, County and State government (in which to warm up) along with the Federal Government. To be 'included' are Judges all the way up to and 'including' SCOTUS. Add to this.. corporations plus Government departments and agencies.

YOUR SONS.. 50%.. ARE TO BECOME DIAPER DADS

.. while mommy legislates, adjudicates, governs or runs a corporation.

That should probably be "DIAPER DADS WE ARE TO BE MADE." Still kind of awkward.

Fear and Loathing at Ground Zero

In this case Fear and Loathing of Muslims, at least according to Kevin McCullough's latest article. Apparently Obama made some remarks in favor of the right of Muslims to build a Mosque on land that they own that happens to be near Ground Zero.

Question, Mr. President, "Do you feel that all Muslims have a right to exercise their religion?"

How about the nearly 2 million of them world-wide that buy into the exact same brand of Islam that the killers of 9/11 practiced? Do you feel that they have the right to practice that brand of Islam in the United States? How about on the sacred ground of Ground Zero?

Even the "moderate" practitioners of that faith seem to be having some real trouble coming to clarity on not encouraging their fellow Islamists to be so very insensitive.

"Moderate" Muslims, like "Moderate" Blacks or "Moderate" Hispanics need to spend a certain amount of time berating their fellow Muslims for not being more accommodating the white males who basically run everything.

Let's also point out that McCullough doesn't understand what the free exercise of religion entails. Allowing Muslims to exercise their freedom means letting them worship; it does not give them permission to commit terrorist acts. It's also clear that the Mosque at ground zero is not going to be sympathetic to Islamic Terrorists, except in so far as just advocating Islam is sympathetic to Islamic Terrorism.

One wonders if a Baptist organization that seemed sympathetic to Anti-Abortion terrorists was to want to set up a church across from an Abortion clinic, if McCullough would have trouble separating the terrorist act from the religion itself.

Who is Reponsible for your Health and Happiness?

Kevin McCullough's latest article is warmed over tripe on the theme of personal responsibility. He claims, as conservatoids often do, that liberals want the state to take care of individuals while conservatives want individuals to take care of themselves.

If you wish to see an enjoyable evening with friends become quite animated, then overly hostile, and end in exacting bitterness, ask those in attendance to choose between the following.

As an individual citizen, is it more American to believe that you have a personal responsibility to be personally accountable for your actions, and those of your family? Or is it more American to believe that you should wait for the giant collective to take care of you?

Of course this presupposes two situations.

One a state of nature where individuals are completely responsible for their own actions and live or die on their own merits.

Two a state of collectivism where the individuals needs are the responsibility of the nanny state.

There's quite a bit of a gap between those two. The state of nature, which McCullough apparently supports is, inevitably, one in which the strong control the weak and their is little to no recourse. You may believe I'm exaggerating, but consider how much of the right wing's program is involved in ensuring that citizens have no way to protect themselves from corporations.

I can't speak for all liberals, but I want a society that allows each citizen the space to find his or her own success - governments job isn't to coddle and take care of citizens. It's to protect them from those societal forces like crime and corporations, that would prevent them from seeking life, liberty, and happiness.

Is an Honest Debate on Abortion possible?

I have doubted it for a long time. Take the flap over a Superbowl ad in which the mother of Tim Tebow explains how she was asked to consider aborting her future son, but she didn't and she's glad she didn't. On the face of it pretty benign - certainly better than that truck you see occasionally with aborted fetuses on it.

Maybe they don't have that truck where you live - but yeah, it's a billboard truck, with a billboard of an aborted fetus. I hate it particularly because the first time I saw it, my brain didn't process what it was initially. I thought it was Mongolian Beef, and thought it looked kind of tasty - until I pulled a little closer. That was unpleasant.

At any rate, they have pointed out some potential problems in Pam Tebow's story, and in his latest article, Kevin McCullough takes them to task for it. Some pro-Choice people have suggested that Abortion in the Phillipines was illegal; he counters with illegal or not, up to 0.27% of women have abortions even today (he uses 27 out of a 1,000, but I put it into percents for you), and that as she had amoebic dysentery, it's likely that she would have been offered it.

I can't parse it myself, and don't see any reason too. I tend to doubt that the Tebows are making anything up, but they may have embellished it over the years as their opposition to Abortion seems heart felt.

What's frustrating about the debate however, is that the Tebows and McCullough pretending they don't understand the issue. All they want, apparently, is to encourage woman to think twice before having an abortion. But of course that isn't all they want. What the Tebows and McCullough would like to see is an America where Tebow didn't have that decision to make - they are very clear about that. They want an America in which Abortion is illegal, like it is in the Phillipines.

So behind that heartwarming story about Pam Tebow choosing to have her son is her belief that it shouldn't be a choice but a requirement.

In fairness there is a bit of this on the other side as well, since as the Pro Choice movements regular unwillingness to grapple with why, exactly, the Pro Life people are upset with the practice of Abortion. Rather some ascribe it all to a desire to control women, which I guess I can understand, since there certainly is an element of that in all of this.

Bravely pointing out typing Errors since 2002

I assume this is an error. This is from Kevin McCullough's latest article, in which he argues against the rule of law on the grounds that it would be psychologically difficult for New Yorkers.

These trial proceedings will reopen the still mending emotional, psychological, and physical wounds of 9/11. In deciding with such reckless abandon to make a political pay-off to the far left, and the radical Islamic sympathizers they ignorantly embolden, President Obama is ripping the stitches out of the hearts of those that have wondered if closure will ever come. When the Attorney General promises court room cameras and complete transparency of the proceedings, he seems to ignore the possibility of radicals on camera shouting inaudible commands, jibes, and insults at those in the room as well as those sitting in caves across the globe.

I assume he means audible rather than inaudible. It's hard to shout inaudibly.

As for the desire to abandon the rule of law, I disagree with McCullough. I believe that our founders were inspired when they created it, and that many good and great men have toiled in the vineyards of justice to create our modern legal system. Yes it has problems, but it is more than equal to the task of providing justice to these men.

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

Well, as you all know, Obama is going to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. For the record, I believe this was premature. It really seems like he is getting the prize for not being George W. Bush, and that's not a good enough reason for getting the prize. And yes there are other candidates, such as Morgan Tsvangirai, Prime Minister of Zimbabwe. I hope President Obama earns the Nobel Peace Prize but, in my opinion, he hasn't yet.

Of course Conservatives have a somewhat different take. Or, they agree with me that he hasn't earned it yet, but they don't agree with me that he can earn it down the road. Kevin McCullough's latest article basically argues that he should return it. And why should Obama return it? Basically because he's a bad president and a bad human being. And that's most of his argument.

Oh and Obama would look humble instead of looking like a braggart. But McCullough confuses being Presidential with being a braggart so you have to take that with a grain of salt.

Looking at Conservatives Charitably

Do Conservatives believe that their policies will enrich the wealthy at the expense of poor and working class Americans? I'm willing to concede they mostly don't. Every so often you read a screed by someone who really does seem to have it in for America's poor, but for the most part Conservatives believe that if Conservative policies are followed they will be good for everybody.

Take for example, Kevin McCullough's latest article.

The bailout, the stimulus, the omnibus, and the proposed budget all do nothing to assist a poor person in finding independence and they all aim to create an enslavement to entitlements that dehumanize the individual, create embarrassment for their family, and ultimately rob that person of one of the most cherished gifts God grants us--the satisfaction of personal achievement.

Now I'm going to take McCullough at his word; this is genuinely how he looks at the world. The damage done by helping poor people would be greater than the damage they are are already suffering. I disagree with his assessment; rather I think following his policies will make wealthy people more powerful and more wealthy while making life harder for America's working and middle class. That's why I disagree with and oppose the policies he and other conservatives espouse, but I generally don't doubt that such policies are honestly held (with a few exceptions I must admit).

But McCullough is not likely to extend to me the same charity.

Democrats, and the progressive left in particular, exploit the poor, they use the poor, they write speeches about them, and manipulate their "unrepresented voices" in debates. But one thing is increasingly clear from the Obama administration and the popular left in America, they don't have any interest in helping them.

So there you go.

Radical Change

Kevin McCullough's latest article is entitled "Why Obama Wants America to Fail." Promising title. In it he takes Obama to task for failing to solve our nations financial problems. Obviously if he wanted an economic upturn he'd return to the Bush policies of endless tax cuts. His decision not immediately enact Bush-style Tax Cuts proves that he wants America to fail.

It sounds like I'm over stating his case for humorous effect I admit; but other then the reference to President Bush, that is pretty much his argument.

If it makes no sense to the free market economists that populate the best economics programs across the nation, if it weakens the ability for the average family to make ends meet, and if it does not increase the number of people actually working, why is President Obama so stubbornly continuing to pursue his economically diabolical plan of destruction?

Fortunately for us all, McCullough has an answer to this conundrum; Obama wants Americans to suffer so they will support his policies of making America worse for everybody.

President Obama and his team do not intend to solve this crisis as quickly as they possibly could--like he promised on the campaign trail. Instead, his intention is to let us bleed until the whimper we are expressing now finally builds into an all out, gut wrenching, cry of anguish. He does not care what must be done to arrive at that reality, only that we arrive there.

This is pretty nasty stuff; but I think McCullough believes it. And I think a surprising number of conservative Republicans would agree with his analysis. Which is why their party is headed, in the short term, towards obscurity.

(title withheld due to excessive profanity)

Yes I'm angry. I take a few weeks off (not that I was enjoying myself as those weeks included a root canal and jury duty), and my first article of the day starts with Kevin McCullough explaining that everybody knows Liberals are pro-pedophilia.

Liberals are long known for light sentences for child molestors, opposition to child rape and child porn laws, and the speedy expediting of "freedom of speech" protections to pornographers, pedophiles, and male homosexuals who belong to the group NAMBLA. Slightly less well known but easily documented are the sympathies the left has towards lowering the age of consent laws so that it's not really a crime for adults and children to have sex.

There's not much to say about this.

I get told a lot that the Townhall crowd isn't representative of Modern Conservatism; I'm not sure I see it. It's clear, for example, that the Congress is taking its cues from Rush Limbaugh, or, if you prefer, they are representing their base which is on the same page as Rush Limbaugh. And in the Limbaugh/McCullough way of looking at things, well, Liberals are pretty awful people.

As for whether these slanderous style attacks will play in general with the American people, well, we'll have to see.

Liberals and the KKK

Kevin McCullough isn't an innovator in Conservatoid rhetoric. He doesn't create many tropes; but he knows how to repeat them. And this week, he repeats a lie about liberals, one conservatives have said before, but does it was a notable nastiness.

Here's the truth, the Ku Klux Klan was started by [b]Conservative[/b] Democrats after the Civil War as a way to terrorize Blacks and Northerners.

Here's the way McCullough puts it.

When the party of left-wing America founded the Ku Klux Klan they did so because they wished to seize the rights of an entire people group, intimidate them into voting for the candidates they decided, and for anyone so messy as to get in the way they became people who did not deserve to live. One of the sitting members of the Unites States Senate who participated in Klan activity still sits seated by the same party that founded the Klan. His name is Robert Byrd. Power--even if gained through ruthless means--was the absolute objective to the Klan, and the Democrats who founded it.

The same historical parallel could be made by the ruthless rise of Adolph Hitler and his hatred based upon a person's race, skin color, or disability. For no better reason than to satisfy a dark perversion of his soul and to insure the kind of power that absolute fear instills in followers Hitler manipulated his own people to reach his objective, and to take lives.

Ah - you see the little twist McCullough does there? He blurs the line between party and ideology to hide the fact that the people who started the Ku Klux Klan had far more in common with Conservatives than Liberals.

His proof by the way? Liberals don't whole heartedly support the actions Israel is taken in the Gaza strip. Why some liberals sent in letters to the editor of the Jerusalem times criticizing their actions. These included one liberal with the curious name LibertarianSoul.

He also tells another lie. One not quite as far reaching as suggesting the KKK is a liberal organization but certainly a lie nonetheless.

In America, none of the anti-war groups that wished to see Bush impeached, said even a word about Saddam's brutal crimes against his own people.

That's a total lie but McCullough can probably get away with it. In fact the protests against the war regularly pointed out that Saddam had brutalized his own people. There were some individuals or even organizations who ignored that, but they weren't the majority. And hell, the way McCullough sets this up, if even one liberal said "Yeah Saddam's definitely a bad guy" it would make him a liar.

But anybody who has gotten that far in the article and still agrees with McCullough is probably too stupid to realize the lie there.

Why does Kevin McCullough Hate the Truth?

Kevin McCullough despises the truth. This assumption can be made on sound reasoning and easy logic. Anytime someone works to oppose something - it is assumed.

Kevin McCullough's latest article, for example, takes Barack Obama to task for despising marriage. What is his proof? Well Obama is opposed to work place discrimination, he is in favor of allowing homosexuals to work openly in the military, and is in favor of repealing the defense of marriage act.

Or, in short, Obama does not hate gays sufficiently to love marriage.

What is a Christian?

For every time that Coulter slips a "B. Hussein Obama" into the discussion with Neil Cavuto, he simply slips in a little bit of "I pray to Jesus every night" at his next campaign stop. Partisan sides are already disinclined to believe the other anyway, and the useless rhetorical exercise repeats itself all over again the next day.

. . . The bigger danger in the controversy is that it is giving cover for the candidate to continue to spread the fraudulent idea that he is, in fact, a Christian.

This is from Kevin McCullough's latest article.

If Obama wins the nomination (as I hope he does), this will be something we will hear nearly constantly for the next 8 months. Conservatives have already set lines of attack on Clinton, but with Obama they have to pick new attacks. And one line of attack will be an attack on his Christianity. We will hear that he's not really a Christian over and over again.

But why does McCullough get to decide who is a Christian and who isn't? And what are the odds that he will judge any Democrat, ever, a Christian?

Presented without Comment

If William Jefferson Clinton was America's first "black" president, could it be that Barack Obama is positioning himself to be the nation's first "gay" president?

. . . Yet as someone who has followed his career since long before he was a national stage player, I have warned that his aggressive support for the radical homosexual activist agenda in America is a part of the overall picture of who he is.

In this way he may be more "gay" than Clinton was "black" - and by a wide margin at that.

Kevin McCullough, "Obama: America's first Gay President?"

Hillary Clinton vs. Rush Limbaugh

Kevin McCullough's latest article takes an unusual tack - he asks Talk Radio to lay off of Ms. Clinton. Not what you normally expect, but he makes a good case for it. Hillary Clinton can't lose fighting conservative talk radio. Conservative talk radio's audience is not in play for Clinton anyway and the argument gains her sympathy (and shores up her liberal credentials such as they are).

Of course what's a Conservative article about Hillary without a little misogyny.

Women - vote irrationally. Some women will be offended by the observation but most will agree, women do not vote according to what they know. They tend instead to vote based on intuition. They get "a feeling" about a candidate and that's what they trust.

Thank you McCullough. But some woman might not actually agree with this, particularly if you exclude Ann Coulter from your survey.

Confrontation

Kevin McCullough's latest article is about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting ground central. As you might expect he's against it. He makes sure to mention his contention that Liberals are going to get you killed, but his real purpose is to encourage American Citizens to pick a fight with the Secret Service, who will be providing security for Ahmadinejad.

It's for all these reasons and a dozen more that he should not be allowed to set foot in our nation. Yet there is not much neither you nor I can do about that.

But we CAN physically prevent him from getting near ground zero - which at 7:08pm Saturday evening is still on his schedule at 10am Monday morning.

My idea on-air was 2700 bodies between him and the site. We lost that many in that place that fateful morning six years ago.

Join us?

If you love your nation, and hope for the defeat of our enemies - stand with us?

I love my nation, and yet I'm pretty sure this is a foolish idea. But I'm also a liberal, which means I'm going to get you killed. Apparently.

Islam and American Democracy are apparently not compatible

According to Kevin McCullough's latest article, at any rate.

Islamic scholars like Spencer, and Dr. Ergun Canor, have long pointed out that the Islamic experience is, not akin to, nor compatible with the American mainstream. In Arabic society and culture there is no distinction between the mosque, the school, the house of government, the home, or the courts - it is all Islamic. All of the systems are centered around the teachings of the religion. And when the religion is as big of a fraud as Islam is, tight control must be maintained over every aspect of life.

So when liberals speak of tolerance for Islamic instruction, what they mean is, "let's let them convert the mind, bodies, and souls of the next generation." No wonder Osama spoke with such high praise for the Democrats in his video this week.

I'm tired of it - so I'll just note that as power slips through the Republicans / Conservatives fingers, they are getting a bit more honest about who they really are.

Protecting Shoplifters

Conservatives, when it comes right down to it, don't care how you earn your money. Whether or not you make your money fleecing the stupid, poisoning children, scamming the elderly, or shooting Wolverine repeatedly with a gauss gun, they don't care. In fact it's every American's God given right to earn money by fleecing the stupid, poisoning children, scamming the elderly or shooting Wolverine repeatedly with a gauss gun.

So it's not surprising to see Kevin McCullough arguing against Security Systems put in place to stop shoplifting. He does so in the name of "decency."

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.

That sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? Well that's what McCullough and his "shoplifters lobby" want you to think.

Their solution is a law that would criminalize installing cameras in what are traditionally private areas - dressing roomsa and bathrooms - for the purposes of entertainment. The legislation is vague enough that it could people for using those cameras legally if they looked at a naked or underclothed woman.

Of course if you put cameras in a dressing room you are going to see a naked woman eventually. But why are those cameras there? Because the dressing room is a great spot to stash goods that you want to shoplift out of the store. Given privacy in dressing rooms, shoplifters, properly equipped, can quickly and easily remove any security devices and hide the items around their body.

I don't know why McCullough is pro-Shoplifter. I suspect he has a poor moral character. But when you fight for a law that will make shoplifting easier, it's not necessary to know why to know that it's a bad idea.

Lieing about Sex

For those of you not in the know, Sen. David Vitter, legitimate champion of "family values," has confessed that he frequented a New Orleans Brothel. He hid this from the American people and his own wife, apparently, for quite a while, but recent events have forced him to come clean.

Just keep that in mind as I direct you to the latest article from Kevin McCullough, entitled "Why Liberals lie about Sex."

As it turns out this article is about Sex Education; but I get the impression McCullough must write his articles long in advance or he might have named this one a little better.

It starts out with this promising paragraph.

Liberals want your child to have sex. They want this to occur in spite of your religious, health, or parental objections. They are willing to substitute false thinking for solid fact on the consequences of what will happen. And they do so while simultaneously insulting you and your child's ability to comprehend, discern, and choose behaviors that make the most sense.

That's pretty scary. I guess it'd be even scarier if I had a child to have sex.

The whole article is crowing about how the number of kids claiming abstinence has gone up a bit since Clinton Left office (it's up to 53% apparently. Using the Kevin McCullough Method of Analysis (AKA Wishful Thinking), this means that American kids are rejecting the liberals message of "Hey kids, have sex and be stupid." Hooray for American Kids.

Kevin McCullough wonders whether Jeapordy Champ is a Terrorist

On week after eight Muslim doctors were taken into custody for plotting three car bomb attacks in the U.K. only a week ago, and following the discovery of a plot in which forty-five Muslim doctors intend to penetrate America's borders and do the same thing - the reigning champion on Jeopardy this very weekend - is a Muslim doctor.

He's smart, well put together, and very, very knowledgeable about all of the categories in his two day run that relate especially to American politics, relatively unknown heads of state in the Middle East, and fared very well on some relatively obscure chemistry questions too.

Does that make him a jihadi bomber?

Of course his larger point is we shouldn't trust Muslims, until they prove they are our friends.