Archive for January, 2012

The Deteriorating “State of the Union” Parody

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

 

The annual charade known as the “State of the Union Address” has clearly become the most telling example of everything that ever went awry within the federal government over the past few decades. Compared to the constitutional premise on which it is based, the fraudulent and politically tainted monstrosity presented to the Congress and the American people this week represented a total departure from its originally stated purpose. Yet it was typical of the rash of nanny state excesses obsessively advanced by the Obama regime.

In contrast to the present day orgy of posturing and self-aggrandizement, the applicable constitutional text merely states that the president “shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” In short, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the president maintained an open line of communication with the Congress, in order to best enable the legislative and executive branches to operate in concert, and not inadvertently engage in activities that might ultimately conflict with one another.

In earnest conformity to this premise, President George Washington fulfilled his constitutional duty in eleven hundred words, hand written. In his brief dissertation, he addressed such topics as the rising status of the United States on the world stage, the necessity to improve and standardize the military, and difficulties faced by Americans on the frontier.

Since that time, the event has mushroomed into an enormous exercise in raw politics, completely subordinating the real need to assess the condition of the country to the desire of party hacks to extol themselves in shameless terms. As if Americans did not already suffer sufficient dosages of high level narcissism on a regular basis, a coast-to-coast spectacle conducted in front of a joint session of Congress is shamelessly foisted upon them under the guise of being a solemn “constitutional” obligation.

Never missing an opportunity to serve themselves, the “ruling class” has over the years attached a host of grotesque and parasitic appendages to the event, each time seeking to garner some specific benefit to one faction or another in the process. Opposition party “rebuttals” became standard fare in the middle of the last century, and congressional Democrats further cheapened the affair by occasionally presenting their responses in the form of extended infomercials, complete with mood music and cheesy special effects.

Of course the current administration could be counted upon to reach new extremes in the exploitation of such an opportunity. Barack Obama’s latest iteration lasted for more than an hour, and could more precisely be characterized as the “state of Obama’s ego.” Rather than dealing forthrightly with the problems facing the nation, which would require a blanket repudiation of his own governing philosophy, he engaged in predictable pettiness and “spin,” insisting that the circumstances he faced were inherently difficult (It is all Bush’s fault…) and made more so by the current “obstruction” of Republicans.

He also could not resist engaging in a transparent campaign attack against his presumed general election rival Mitt Romney, asserting that millionaires “should not pay less than 30 percent” of their earnings in taxes. So as the nation’s highest governing authority, he asserts that he would establish income tax standards based neither on the true need for revenue nor the ability of the economy to sustain the burden, but on an obsession to get “one up” on Mitt Romney. In short, abdicating his responsibilities to the people, and playing such games, he demeaned his office and the Congress, and insulted the intelligence of the American people.

Unfortunately, this appalling degree of silliness and petulance is not confined to the Executive Branch. Truly juvenile banalities also permeated the combined membership of the Congress assembled for the spectacle. In the wake of the landslide 2010 elections, in which Democrats decisively lost their House majority, a desperate ploy was concocted by which they sought to conceal the extent of their losses from the public eye. Under the phony premise of advancing “civility” as a repudiation of the Tucson massacre, they challenged Republicans to engage in the childish exercise of sitting with opposing party members during Obama’s speech.

Displaying all of the wisdom and survival skills of lemmings, Republicans complied. Somehow, this folly had little effect on the “civility” of Democrats in the ensuing months, as they regularly engaged in despicable fear mongering, leveling the same overused and hysterical accusations of oppressing minorities and otherwise fostering suffering and death among needy and helpless Americans.

Not surprisingly, they were confident that the people would remain totally ignorant of their duplicity and hypocrisy. Despite an entire year of reprehensible slanders that are totally contradictory to the sanctimony they spewed in the aftermath of Tucson, the bipartisan “sit with me” invitations went out once again this year. Regrettably, a sizeable number of Republicans took the bait. If Tea Party activists want to know which GOP members will most quickly and stupidly sell them out in upcoming legislative battles, they need merely to review the list of Republican Representatives and Senators who accepted the ludicrous invites. Such individuals were willing to ignore reality in order to create the impression of consensus with a partisan and hard-left Democrat party, whose members are devoted to advancing the liberal agenda at any cost.

In like manner, Barack Obama was not motivated by any sincere interest in fulfilling the “constitutional” responsibilities of his position or the obligation to inform the Congress of the actual condition of the nation. Rather, he outwardly embraces such notions when they provide a convenient means to advance his agenda. For someone so completely lacking in character or principle, a joint session of Congress and a nationwide audience might be a good springboard from which to put his reelection campaign into high gear.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming. He has been involved in politics at the local and state level for many years. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Comments Off more...


Another Idiot Speaks

I was watching CSPAN2, the book thing, where any jackass that writes a book can parade their pompous, arrogant, self-proclaimed intellect. This guy says that Conservatives all think that all taxation is theft. He says that we should borrow, borrow, borrow from the Chinese (who by the way have increased their military spending by 12.5%) so that we can fund repairs and upgrades to infrastructure.

Well, not to correct such an obviously smarter-than-us book writer, but it isn’t in the federal government’s power to so so. Obviously he is so completely enlightened and above the Conservatives he felt no need at all the actually read and understand the United States Constitution, which was written so that even an uneducated farmer can understand.

The Interstate system was and is illegal. They are NOT postal roads. We tend to let that go because Truman developed it because he envisioned a military need. Bridges are the prerogative of the states. Power lines are the responsibility of the power companies. There are eighteen enumerated powers of the federal government. This is elementary, yet he failed to learn this absolute fact. Or, perhaps he wants to disregard the Constitution, which is treasonous. A prison cell should enfold him, and anyone else that desires to violate the law.

Public schools are not only a very bad idea, they are certainly not the responsibility of the federal government. The EPA must go, the Department of Education serves only to propagandize our children. No Food and Drug Administration should exist. No federal money to these colleges which exist ostensibly to teach our children. Yes, I said children. Young people of this past generation are the very immature, perhaps as much as ten years, so that we have children in college with the mentality of ten year olds. What better way to produce more child-minded liberals?

He also lied and said that Conservatives want businesses to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with no regulation. That isn’t so, even slightly. The states are responsible for the conduct of the people and businesses within. The federal government has no power to restrict anything at all unless it is specifically written in the Constitution. The Welfare Clause does not mean giving away free stuff to anyone at all. It means the welfare of the union of states, which the federal government and people like this imbecile have worked to destroy.

So when this guy blathers on, his attentive audience being hugely child-minded people as himself, the aloof propagate without their ability to think for themselves, and another infantile mind is secured into the wrong thinking of an undisciplined kid.

Comments Off more...

The Bigots

I was watching an old episode of Law and Order, where a high school age girl was accused of murder. She was a lesbian. Several lawyers were talking about offering her a plea deal and therefore not exposing her immoral sexual choice.

the DA responded:

It runs on the notion that there is actually something wrong with being gay. We risk the chance of being called bigots.

And, since I know that there is something wrong with sexual immorality, and their agenda will lead to the following:

It runs on the notion that there is actually something wrong with molesting children. We risk the chance of being called bigots.

The point being obvious to all but hand-wringing, bed-wetting, loud-mouthed liberal/progressives, is that if you see the sickness of the mental illness of homosexuality, you are labeled an ignorant bigot. So if I see the mental illness of child molestation I must also be an ignorant bigot.

If you read this, you can see that the very ones that say it’s okay to be a homosexual, also molest children in the name of “science.”


The Supreme Court – What’s Broken

Overwhelmingly, the Internet and school text books are filled with propaganda. If you haven’t read Saul Alinski’s Rules for Radicals, the Communist Manifesto, and The Naked Communist, you’re not qualified to vote. The very evil agenda has submerged us in a sea of lies.

One important issue is the purpose of the Supreme Court and the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court does not have the power to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution was written in plain, simple English not requiring a law degree to understand. All that the Supreme Court has to do with it is answer challenges to the Constitutionality of certain aspects of laws created to damage our society. Even this isn’t necessary except for the evil hatred for the United States that was allowed to slither into our schools and government.

The Second Amendment is a good example. All we need to do is read the very clear text. Yet so many that wish to remove firearms from the citizens of this great nation, the individual, twist and bend the clear intent of the amendment. These very criminals who wish to destroy our nation for their own bitter hatred, benefit, greed, and power look no farther than the blathering mantra of themselves. Did the people, ordinary citizens, both before and after the amendment have firearms on their person in order to defend themselves from the very people who seek to make us easy targets for their immoral agenda? Yes. And the people were equally armed.

Activist judges pass their own criminal agenda down upon us is the form of lies and deception.

Comments Off more...

Debunking The Myth of Santorum’s “Big Government Conservatism”

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

 

The most often quoted passage from the Declaration of Independence is its proclamation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as self-evident and unalienable rights. Sadly, in modern day America, only a comparative few have any knowledge whatsoever of the sentence immediately following: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Without a thorough understanding of the premise embedded in this statement, and its vital importance to what the Founders were attempting, the entire American experiment would have been rendered wholly unfeasible.

That so many people no longer recognize this principle or worse yet, choose to pretend it never existed, is evidenced by the ludicrous versions of the American ideal being promoted, even by some self-described “conservatives,” during the current election cycle. In particular, the accusations currently being leveled against former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum reveal a horribly jaundiced view of America and what made it great. In the wake of his outstanding showing in the Iowa caucuses he has become the target of a contrived defamation campaign based on this thoroughly flawed premise.

With so much of the nation’s foundation under assault, a failure to immediately reclaim those basic truths on which it was established, or the blind acceptance of a perverted substitute in their place, will only ensure the continuation of its orchestrated decline. And while certain elements within its culture would rejoice at this fate, others would be thoroughly shocked at such an outcome, though they have unwittingly but diligently lent their assistance to the ensuing disaster.

It is extremely telling that the post-Iowa assault on Santorum came first from the leftist media, but was then immediately picked up by supporters of Texas Congressman Ron Paul. In a manner disturbingly reminiscent of Senate and Congressional Democrats who, in the midst of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, jubilantly echoed the propagandists of al Qaeda and other Islamist organizations in their criticism of American policy, Ron Paul’s minions were quick to repeat and magnify the disparaging commentary from the liberal punditry. So much for their incessant claims of being in the camp of the “only true conservative.”

The essence of the attack on Santorum is that he cannot claim to be truly conservative, since he recognizes the responsibilities of a just government in the protection of the unborn, and maintaining such time-honored cornerstones of our society, and civilization in general, as traditional marriage. This sorry episode unmasks the bogus notion that Ron Paul supporters are interested in restoring the greatness of America. Rather, they promote a philosophy that would supplant traditional America with their “enlightened” libertarian version of how they believe society should operate.

It is intellectually dishonest to deny that Rick Santorum would take the nation in a drastically different direction than that in which it is currently heading under Barack Obama. Nevertheless, Santorum does understand that government is vested with certain responsibilities to intervene in the lives of the citizenry, particularly on behalf of those who are the most helpless. In sharp contrast to the misrepresentations coming from his critics, be they professing liberals or Ron Paul “conservatives,” Santorum upholds the indispensible need for government to perform specific functions, and these he fiercely advocates. So how does this square with the nation’s founding documents?

Referring once again to the Declaration of Independence, government was not intended to become a metastasizing tumor, leaching from the citizenry in order to enrich and enlarge itself. And admittedly, this is its current condition. Yet neither was it rendered wholly impotent and inconsequential. Rather, it was recognized as absolutely essential to the implementation and enforcement of certain standards, thereby enabling it “to ensure these rights” that are so cherished by the citizenry and so essential to a free and prosperous society.

In this role, it has specific and very legitimate functions. Santorum’s purpose for involving government in such “controversial” issues as the right to life of the unborn is simple and inarguable. He understands that if the rights of any one segment of society can be arbitrarily ignore or trampled, the rights of everyone are in jeopardy. Justice must be meted out to all, or it ceases to be justice. Thus, the horrific indifference shown to the unborn since the Supreme Court handed down its “Roe v. Wade” decision in 1972, if not corrected, could be fully expected to leach into the rest of society. And has that not been its exact effect on life in America during the past four decades?

Few would seriously argue that the timeline of eroding rights and freedoms in this nation has paralleled the institutionalized abandonment of traditional morality by federal, state, and local governments. In the name of “freedom” from the moral restraints of the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage, the people are increasingly subjected to a new and onerous “morality,” devoid of compassion or mutual respect for the plight of common folk. Such quaint concepts have been thoroughly supplanted by the insidious encroachment of a secularist “nanny state,” dictating every aspect of life from the amount of water per toilet flush to the kind of light bulb deemed “acceptable” by the state.

If one citizen’s right to life can be nullified at the convenience of another, should we be surprised that “liberty,” “the pursuit of happiness,” “property,” or any other venerated component of the American ideal will eventually be consigned to a similar fate? Any objective assessment of human history, and the unalterable nature of the human condition, provides ample proof that this is indeed the case.

Rick Santorum is no advocate of the “big government” that confiscates private property and redistributes it in the name of “social justice.” Yet he understands that government must be “big enough” to fulfill its constitutional role if the nation is to survive and flourish. Many of his critics are wailing and gnashing teeth over the dismal path the nation has recently taken. Yet they stubbornly refuse to admit that no shortcuts exist by which it can be restored.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming. He has been involved in politics at the local and state level for many years. His archives and contact information can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Comments Off more...

Man Ordered To Jail Over Animal Sex

BLOOMSBURG, Pa. — A man who admitted having sex with 10 horses and a cow must spend a weekend in jail after having his probation revoked because he told a counselor he had done it again.Paul Ganter, 44, was nearly finished with court supervision when he was ordered Tuesday by a Columbia County judge to serve time instead, prosecutors said.He was sentenced to a year of probation last January when he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct.The Press Enterprise of Bloomsburg reported Ganter was charged after having sex with the animals and filming some of the activity at a farm in Main Township.Ganter was otherwise a model of good behavior, paying fines and meeting his probation officer as scheduled, probation officials said.

 

Well now I suppose that according to the liberal/progressives, as long as the animals were adults it’s  just 2 consenting adults.

Read more: http://www.wgal.com/news/30187398/detail.html#ixzz1jHp5Q6JH

Comments Off more...

The Real Iowa Caucus Winner: “Not Romney!”

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

 

In a fitting epilogue to Mitt Romney’s eight-vote “victory” over Rick Santorum in the Iowa caucus, the former Massachusetts Governor has received an endorsement from Senator John McCain (R.-AZ) who some might remember as the 2008 “Republican” presidential nominee. Such a ringing affirmation from a politician who epitomizes every negative aspect of the Republican “Establishment” will eventually do Romney more harm than good. Yet he is not likely to perceive it that way.

Nor was that the only accolade Romney received from the Republican Party “inner circle.” On the following day Karl Rove, former George W. Bush strategist and consummate political pragmatist, applauded Romney while offering a cursory tip of his hat to Santorum. In Rove’s world, Romney’s likely win in the New Hampshire primary on January 10 would render him virtually unstoppable while Santorum faces a long and difficult uphill battle in coming weeks with little hope of actually prevailing.

Rove contends that for Romney to triumph in the conservative heartland as well as among the northeastern Republican “blue bloods” of New Hampshire, he must have established a nearly universal appeal spanning the political spectrum, which no other candidate could possibly challenge. Thereafter, such “centrism” must be the core of the Republican effort. And in mindless devotion to this flawed reasoning, GOP party insiders get their way, the nation will go into next November’s elections facing a choice between a ravenous liberal Democrat and a “business as usual” Republican. This is a historically disastrous course for the Republicans, but it is one that these politically inbred “experts” continue to trumpet as the best game plan.

However, since the early days of the Obama Administration (which in a strong sense was itself the abhorrent byproduct of brilliant “strategizing” by Establishment Republicans), grassroots America has awakened and recognized the critical need to assert real conservatism as the proper alternative to the Washington status quo. In a very real sense, the two party system has since been transformed and realigned, with the Beltway insiders and their dwindling cadre of supporters populating one party and Heartland America comprising the other.

Understanding the magnitude of the threat that this realignment represents, the Republican Establishment is going all out to reassert its primacy, and now loudly proclaims that the results in Iowa prove its uncontested dominance. However, a breakdown of the actual tally in Iowa indicates a starkly different trend, which is likely to become increasingly obvious as the primary season progresses.

While Mitt Romney, after vastly outspending Santorum, did indeed receive the greatest number of votes, it was by the razor-thin margin. With each of them receiving slightly over thirty thousand votes, this is hardly a decisive win. Yet even these numbers, on which Romney and his Establishment cronies base their claims of supremacy in the Hawkeye State, deceptively cloak the real picture.

For starters, Santorum received his strong showing in a field split four ways by fellow conservatives. Having to share the conservative support with Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann, Santorum nevertheless ended up in an essential tie with Romney. Had the conservative base been able to coalesce around a single contender as did the Party Republicans around Romney, he would have remained at twenty-five percent, while “Generic Conservative” could have climbed as high as fifty-five percent.

In contrast, no alternative scenario of shifting loyalties or departing candidates would yield any bounce for Romney. The overwhelming remainder of Iowa votes went to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who garnered a noteworthy twenty-two percent. With a well-organized and fiercely dogmatic following, Paul has indeed established a prominent position in the field. Yet his base of support is made up of a mix of Libertarians who, for the moment, claim to be the real soul of the GOP, abetted by significant numbers of liberal interlopers seeking to nominate the least electable Republican contender in hopes of bolstering Obama’s chances for a second term. As such, they will do little to benefit any remaining candidates in the extremely likely event that Paul eventually drops out of the race.

In the immediate aftermath of the Iowa caucuses, Michele Bachmann ended her bid for the nomination. Were she to have done so barely twenty four hours previously, Santorum would most surely have gained the lion’s share of her six percent showing, and thereby prevailed over Romney by a substantial margin. Going forward, the departure of any one of the three remaining candidates presently splitting the conservative vote will likewise amass heightened support for each remaining conservative.

It is extremely telling that Romney’s strategy has been to prevail by ascending above a divided field of conservatives. In many ways, it is reflective of the games played against him four years ago by his new benefactor John McCain. And in the long run, this manner of politicking is liable to generate the same degree of disconnect with the American people that ultimately doomed McCain’s White House ambitions in 2008.

Yet even as cataclysmic as was the victory of Barack Obama in the last election cycle, a second Obama stint could increase the devastation to America by exponential terms. The national debt is soaring, expenditures are ballooning, the jobs on Main Street needed to sustain the nation (and feed the federal leviathan in perpetuity) simply do not exist, and every wise restraint placed on that government by the thoughtfulness and wisdom of the founders and the Constitution they established is being violated. Consequently, most Americans regard the possibility of another four years of such outrage as unthinkable.

Americans abhor the damage done to their nation by the Obama regime. But they have little affinity for the fecklessness of Republican “moderation” that would only serve to keep the nation in its dismal condition. In overwhelming numbers, the conservative people of Iowa rejected the prospect of leaving the government in the hands of a slightly diluted, but fundamentally equivalent overbearing nanny state that would only differ by way of calling itself “Republican.” On the day of the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum’s most defining virtue was that he represented an opportunity to rise from the present morass in which America finds itself.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming. He has been involved in politics at the local and state level for many years. His archives and contact information can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Comments Off more...

Young Blanchard Oklahoma Woman Defends Herself and Baby

Oh my god, oh my god! We need more gun control, gun control, gun control! Oh my god something must be done immediately!

Sarah McKinley had just lost her husband to cancer on Christmas Day. For those of you who don’t know, Christmas is the day the birth of Jesus Christ is celebrated.

Thursday night, the creep came by to “express his condolences.” Actually all but liberals know he was there to “case the joint.” This just means he came to explore the possibility of taking advantage of this unfortunate young woman.

She calls 911 and has to wait a full 21 minutes for the cops to show up. She waited until the criminal actually came inside before she blasted the dirt bag. The other loser ran for his cowardly life, later turning himself in to the police.

Note to liberals: be certain someone is looking out for the survivor’s voting rights.

Sarah said that the 911 operator told her she had to do whatever is necessary to defend her baby. But, what about her? You mean if there were no baby, she couldn’t defend herself? Of course not. However there was a baby involved and the hand-wringing, bed-wetting, loud-mouthed liberals can’t find any way of condemning her without pissing off most mothers in America.

Near the end of the video there is an unidentified man saying how the law is clear that you may defend yourself inside your home. Oh, how completely gracious and generous of you to allow someone to defend themselves under your conditions. And, does this mean to say you are forbidden from defending yourself outside of your home? She couldn’t defend herself from the thugs with the hunting knife if she were getting out of her car? We just need to have a clear understanding of your graciousness and rules.

Here’s a white 18 year old woman who has a 3 month old baby. She lives in a mobile home. Liberals absolutely hate this because:

  • She should have had an abortion
  • Rape is perfectly acceptable
  • If they succeeded in murdering her there would be one less vote against Obambam.
  • There is now one less vote for Obambam
  • She is female and not likely an Obambam supporter
  • She isn’t rich
  • If hunting was banned, there would be no such thing as hunting knives

 

We don’t need gun control. We need thug control. I carry a gun because cops are to heavy.

The fact is, liberals create and support criminals. Then they rant and scream and stamp their little feet when we are actually able to defend ourselves.

Watch the video. You’ll have to wait until they finish exploiting Sarah’s misfortune with a commercial.

 

 

 

 


Homosexuality – The Truth

Until 1973, homosexuality in the United States was a mental disorder, according to the American Psychiatric Association.

Islamic shrinks still know that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

If you are female and wish you were a male, and vice verse, you have Gender Identity Disorder, according to the APA.

If you like dressing up in the clothing of the opposite sex, you have Transvestic Fetishism Disorder, according to the APA.

Ancient Greece and Rome openly accepted homosexuality.

Psychiatrists in America cannot agree on whether homosexuality is a disorder. However, if you look at the hard facts, i.e. that psychiatrists are molesting children in order to determine at what age a child can have orgasms, you can get a very clear picture of which ones are saying what. If a homosexual is a shrink, he or she will say that homosexuality is normal. If a shrink has no personal agenda, he or she will say it is a disorder, and rightly so. Homosexuality only fits in a culture of severe perversion. Morals, in the absence of religion, declares a grasp of the knowledge of right and wrong based on the results of experience and intellect. Yet with or without religion, homosexuality fits nowhere but in the mind of the pervert.

Most laws are based on morals, not religion. For instance exhibitionism is illegal in the form of exposing oneself in public. Sex with children (what the pro-homosexual psychiatrists have done in their dirty experiments), known as pedophilia is illegal. Incidentally, the philosophical leader of the homosexual community states that if you are looking at a homosexual, you are looking at a child molester, whether they have actually molested a child or not. According to their own highly regarded representative, homosexuals are in fact at least very likely to molest children. In fact, part of the homosexual agenda is to lower the age at which adults may have sex with children.

Voyeurism, or better known as “peeping Tom” is against the law based on morals, not religion.

The American Psychiatric Association bases their social disorders on morals, or lack thereof. Yet the liberals in America constantly whine and wring their hands because they claim that someone else’s morals are forced upon them. That is correct. We have laws against all sorts of depravity. We have stop signs to prevent the rude, obnoxious liberal from killing others by selfishly racing through, as so many children with a license to drive.

If you violate the moral code of the APA, you could be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital and poisoned with the drug that is best suited to force you to comply with their ill standards. The only reason homosexuality has been able to invade our culture is because of criminal psychiatrists, politicians, and judges.

The APA actually lists Mathematics Disorder. This is for those that are bad at math! Would that not be Obama, Pelosi, and Reid? Or those that play the lotteries?

The psychiatric community has the ability to form an opinion about you, based on their standards of morality, and if they so choose, can have you sent off to an institution and drugged and shackled, without any hearing, jury, or judge.

It is crystal clear, especially if you have read the pdf, that homosexuality is just as repulsive as pedophilia lest they that inflict their immorality upon us change the definition of pedophilia, which is certainly in the works. The argument used is that homosexuality occurs between consenting adults. Fine, so if a mother and son choose to have sexual relations, that’s okay? If someone finds that repulsive act, say, repulsive, does that make them an incestophobe merely because it goes against the hate monger bigotry of those that accept and support the filthy act?

 

Comments Off more...

  • Catagories

  • RSS Judicial Watch

  • RSS Drudge Retort

  • Copyright © 1996-2014 Skewed Horizon. All rights reserved.