Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘President Obama’

Even a broken clock like Rick Santorum is right twice a day. Senate greenlights bestiality.

If you missed this week’s press conference at the White House, you probably haven’t heard about the ridiculous question World Nut Daily reporter  Lester Kinsolving posed to press secretary Jay Carney. He actually asked what the president’s position is on bestiality! Oh for crying out loud, what a doofus. I can’t believe World Nut Daily reporters even get press credentials at the White House.

But alas, they do. Kinsolving was referring to the recent vote in the US Senate to abolish Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The article prohibits sodomy in the military, as well as sexual relations with animals. Presumably, repealing the whole article would have the effect of legalizing both behaviors in the US military.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

To Carney’s credit, he refused to entertain the ridiculous question, preferring to dismiss it off the cuff. Of course the commander-in-chief opposes bestiality in the armed forces. That’s why he plans on signing the bill just as soon as it hits his desk.

Okay, okay–so the Senate just voted 93-7 to abolish the article. But that doesn’t mean it would be legal to boff your poodle. That would still be punishable under other articles. Presumably, however, my favorite activity–sodomy–will not continue to be punishable under other articles. By abolishing the article that specifically prohibits sodomy in the armed forces, we are legalizing butt sex in the barracks. But by abolishing the article that specifically prohibits barnyard play, we are not legalizing it. Not sure why, we just aren’t.

Ho hum. Okay, so that explanation doesn’t work. How about this? I’m sure that the Congress will fix it at a later date. This whole thing is a mistake that will be straightened out eventually. Kind of like how two persons who are closely related by blood can get married in my state, just as long as the marriage is homosexual. Seven years after gay marriage came to the Bay State and brother/brother marriage remains legal. They’re still getting around to fixing it. State legislators are very busy people, you know.

Every time I watch this video, I imagine that horrible bigot Rick Santorum sitting at home, rubbing his hands together in glee. I bet he thinks he was right about the whole “man-dog” thing, which is just silly. As he famously remarked in 2003:

“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. “

Can you believe that? It’s one of those ridiculous slippery slope arguments. If we redefine marriage, there will no end to it. Next thing you know, we’ll have man-on-dog sex in the barracks! Ha! So stupid. Well, I mean it would be stupid if it weren’t for the fact that the US Senate just voted to legalize it. But I’m sure it won’t pass the House, and if it does, I’m sure the president will veto it. Even so, Santorum was technically wrong–sex with animals will now be permitted, but the full benefits of marriage are still an elusive dream from soldiers who love their house pets. I guess that’s tomorrow’s civil rights battle.

Yeah, I bet he smuggles cock on the side. They're all repressed homos. It would help though if the vandal would learn how to spell simple five letter words, such as "needs".

I remember the infamous Santorum “man/dog” interview. I was so offended that he would compare loving sodomy with my husband Michael (and a few score other casual partners) to something as repulsive as bestiality. There’s a HUGE difference between the two. In the case of homosexuality, the sex is consensual. It’s just two consenting adults gettin’ it on in the privacy of their home. But an animal can’t consent, and so it’s actually a form of rape.

Wait a second, did I just say that homosexuality involves consent? I slipped up there. There’s nothing consensual about two men sodomizing each other, because if there were, that would mean that there’s a choice involved. And as we all know, homosexuality is NOT a choice. If it were a choice, who would choose it? Nobody. So let’s just abandon the silly notion that we choose our sexual practices and partners. I know that I sure don’t.

And while I acknowledge that animals don’t consent to sex with humans, it’s also true that they don’t consent to being killed and stuck on our dinner plates either.  They probably don’t consent to having sex with each other, considering the fact that most non-human forms of life don’t possess the faculties to make rational decisions. They act on instinct.

The truth is that we consistently treat animals as lower forms of life. Humans do what we please with them, even without their “consent”. That’s why we find it acceptable to kill animals for food or sport, to do grotesque experiments on them for the advancement of medical research, to skin them and use their hides to make wallets and belts, as well as to place wagers on them and watch them race around tracks. We employ them to serve as guides for the blind, and to entertain us at the circus and SeaWorld. We do all of these things to animals without their consent, and we don’t give a shit. Because they’re friggin’ animals, that’s why.  No one cares about the consent of animals.

Except we don’t usually have sex with them. Because that’s gross.

Even so, just being “gross” isn’t reason enough to ban a person’s behavior. Some people think that it’s gross when I open my asscheeks to other men. Some might say it’s gross when all of that ‘Santorum” comes dripping out after the fact. For those of you not “in the know”, Santorum is a mix of fecal matter, lube, and jizz that sometimes seeps from a person’s asshole after anal sex. Kind of a little bit gross, I suppose.

The dilemma I face here is that I have to think of a reason why bestiality is wrong on a rational basis. I can’t just say that it’s wrong because it’s disgusting, immoral, unnatural, or against some religious doctrine of mine. Because then I wouldn’t be able to dismiss those arguments against me as mere prejudice. I need to think of a reason why my objection to man/dog sex is based in reason, while the homophobes’ objection is simply overbearing religiosity. What we came up with is the old “animals can’t consent” canard, which really isn’t all that believable.

The more I think about it, the more I see that this prohibition against bestiality has got to go. With a few simple questions, I can determine whether or not bestiality enthusiasts “choose” their lifestyle or not. I’m leaning towards no.

First of all, if bestiality were a choice, who in their right mind would choose it, knowing that society would shun and hate them? Does someone reach a certain age and just decide ‘Hey, I want to be known as the neighborhood animal fucker?’ Who would choose it knowing that their old, religious, intolerant mother would cry herself to sleep every night knowing that her child is a perv? Who would choose to be at the bottom of the social stratum, denied equal protection under the law? Any takers? I thought not. So it can’t be a choice.

Second, if sexual attraction to another species is a choice, it naturally follows that sexual attraction to the same species is a choice. I ask myself, when did I choose to be attracted to homo sapiens? Hmmm? Well, I didn’t. It’s just part of my DNA code, the same way sodomy is part of the code. (I’ll find the gene later, m’kay?) So zoophilia (attraction to animals) is obviously not a choice, since androphilia (attraction to human beings) isn’t either. It’s science! There’s no way you can argue with that.

Third, I must say that I would fail Dan Savage’s “choicer” challenge. The pushy, annoying fag coined the term “choicer” in an obvious allusion to “birther” and “truther”. Because if you think that homosexuality is a choice, that means you’re as crazy as the people who think Obama was born in Kenya or that the Moussad pulled off 9/11.

You’re. that. fucking. crazy.

If you think I "choose" to open my asscheeks to other men, you're as crazy as this guy. For reals. There is no choice involved in my consensual behavior.

Dan Savage was a little perturbed when Canadian MP John Cummins mentioned on the radio that homosexuality is a “choice”. Enraged as always, Dan devised the ultimate test that would determine whether or not guzzling cum is a choice.  He threw the gauntlet down at Cummins’ feet.

But what if the choicers are right? What if being gay is something people consciously choose? Gee, if only there were a way for choicers to prove that they’re right and everyone else is wrong… actually, there is a way for choicers to prove that they’re right! I hereby publicly invite—I publicly challenge—John Cummins to prove that being gay is a choice by choosing it himself.

Suck my dick, John.

I’m completely serious about this, John. You’re not my type—you’re about as far from my type as a human being without a vagina gets—but I have just as much interest as you do in seeing this gay-is-a-choice argument resolved once and for all. You name the time and the place, John, and I’ll show up with my dick and a camera crew. Then you can show the world how it’s done. You can demonstrate how this “conscious choice” is made. You can flip the switch, John, make the choice, then sink to your bony old knees and suck my dick. And after you’ve swallowed my load, John, we’ll upload the video to the internet and you’ll be a hero to other choicers everywhere. It’s time to put your mouth where your mouth is, John. If being gay is a choice, choose it. Show us how it’s done. Suck my dick.

Ha! Ha! Savage sure showed him. Of course, the cowardly Cummins chose not to take him up on the offer, thus proving that sucking Dan’s dick never really was a choice. See how that works? If you choose not to engage in a behavior, you inadvertently prove that the behavior is not a choice.

Savage later offered the same choicer challenge to Herman Cain. Cain too declined to suck Savage’s cock, thus failing the choicer challenge. Bitch.

The legendary Dan Savage. He's a genius. I love his choicer challenge.

Now, let’s say a bestiality enthusiast devised a similar “choicer” challenge. You know, he could bring in his prized thoroughbred horse and part-time lover, then offer me the opportunity to get down on my knees and suck it. If I failed to go through with it, that would be proof enough that sucking horsecock isn’t really a choice at all. If it were, I could choose it.

I can say with 99% certainty that I would fail a bestiality “choicer” challenge. I say “99%” because there’s always that lingering doubt in the back of my head that I might be able to get hip to it. But I probably wouldn’t, because sex with animals is not really a choice at all.

The more I think about it, the more I see that zoophiles are kind of like gay people. And gay people are, as we’ve already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, kind of like black people, left-handed people, and redheads. Yeah. Makes sense to me!

So let’s not let the H8ers write the laws in this country. I’m glad Article 125 is being abolished, most of all because I am a sodomy enthusiast, but also because I can see that it unfairly targeted animal lovers. They have civil rights too, you know.

I’d bet that silly World Nut Daily reporter even harbors a secret love for the animal kingdom. He and all the other uptight anti-bestiality people are all a bunch of closet cases. The ones who scream the loudest always end up getting caught later on sneaking around with an Irish setter. Seriously, who spend their time worrying about this stuff other than a repressed animal lover?

Florida school district hates the Boy Scouts. And so do we!

The never-ending war against the Boy Scouts of America continues in Pinellas County Florida. The local school board has voted to cut funds to a Scout-affiliated program called Learning for Life due to its policy of excluding agnostics, atheists, and members of the LGBTQXYZ community. The organization will now miss out on a grant worth $54,000.

The organization’s mission statement is as follows:

“To develop and deliver engaging, research based academic, character, leadership and career focused programs aligned to state and national standards that guide and enable all students to achieve their full potential.”

Yeah, and to teach the little tykes to be judging, judgmental homophobes!

I say good riddance to the Boy Scouts. Get lost and don’t come back. We’ve had enough of your “values”, your helping little old ladies across the street and such. We’re on to you. We know that when you say “values” you really mean driving homosexuals to kill themselves!

The Boy Scouts of America--Ku Klux Klan in neckerchiefs.

Seriously though, if I threatened to kill myself do you think the government would force them to allow me to join? Because I would really be interested in taking some young boys camping. Threatening to kill myself usually works, but this time it might not. You see, back in 2000, there was this supreme court decision called Dale v. Boy Scouts that actually said that private organizations can maintain their own membership requirements because they are private! Can you believe that? I thought “private” meant that the government decided their membership requirements. That’s what private means to me. And because I’m so used to the government forcing people to accept my behavior, I was shocked–shocked!–to find out that this private organization had the right to free association.

Since the Dale decision, we homosexuals have teamed up with the godless community (and there’s a A LOT of overlapping there) to engage in a war of attrition against the BSA. We failed in our attempt to force them to accept us as members, so now we’re going to have harass them on every front, push them out of their long held meeting places, and cut their funding until they cry uncle and let homosexuals like me take their sons out on camping trips.

So what is their rationale for excluding sodomites? Apparently we’re “unclean”.

“Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed.”

Huh? So their lame ass excuse for keeping us out is that we’re “icky”! Nothing icky about two men buttfucking. And as far as morally straight, well…I don’t have a straight bone in  my body.

But seriously, what’s unclean about sodomy? Let’s ask radical gay bully and all around pervert Dan Savage. He knows. He coined the term “Santorum”, defined as:

Feces, jizz, and KY jelly. What’s unclean about that?

Just to underscore the point that sodomy is definitely NOT an unclean practice, let’s refer to that taxpayer funded youth-oriented pamphlet that I distribute out of my office at the high school. Let’s see, besides fuckin’, suckin’, piss play, and “lickin’ butt”, there’s also a section on toys.

“There is some risk of hepatitis, herpes, warts, and parasites.”

PARASITES? So I could get little critters crawling around among my dingleberries? Geez, that does sound a little gross. But it’s definitely not unclean as the bigoted Boy Scouts will tell you.

Oh yes, and the pamphlet also warns that the risk of intestinal parasites is very high when “rimming” (lickin’ butt). But all of that can be avoided if we just teach the little tenderfeet to do all of these things safely! Rather than discouraging such behaviors, scoutmasters should be offering instruction on how to properly clean toys between one boy’s anus and the other. That way they would be able to do it safely and it wouldn’t be at all unclean.

But no! These uptight prudes think the best solution is simply to teach their sons not to do these things. Which is just dumb. I want to get into this club so I can teach them my way of doing things.

Luckily, we have the Democratic Party in our corner on this one. They hate the Boy Scouts just as much as we do. Who can forget when delegates at the 2000 DNC National Convention in Los Angeles actually booed the Boy Scouts while they were presenting the colors?

That was truly the highlight of the convention, even better than watching Al and Tipper make out. Now, at first I was a little confused. As I was watching the whole thing unfold, I thought to myself, “Are they booing the Christofascist scouts or are they booing the colors?” I’d be in favor of booing both, actually. But then I watched as the delegates quickly drew up makeshift signs that read “we support gay scouts”, and my heart swelled with pride. So they were booing the children. That was very sweet of them.

Interesting side note: the little scouts actually got their revenge on the Democrats. At the 2010 National Jamboree, the scouts booed President Obama. Ouch! I guess they can boo back. If I had been president, I would have called in drones on the whole encampment of little terrorists. Too bad he didn’t.

The Boy Scouts of America, a dangerous hate group. They're not yet on the SPLC's list of hate groups, though I trust they will be soon. Somebody's got to stop them.

I recently learned of the existence of a wonderful group called “Scouting for All” that works to pressure the BSA to repeal its ban on pole-smokers and the godless. Scouting for All holds “tolerance” and “diversity” as its highest ideals. Just in case you were wondering if those two words are codewords for homos infiltrating kiddie organizations, now you know that they are.

I hold the highest respect for one of Scouting for All’s leaders, a certain defrocked priest named John Hemstreet. He’s a gay man, a convicted child molester, an alcoholic, and the president of his local chapters of Scouting for All and PFLAG.

Wait–did I say that he’s a gay man and a child molester? That’s not possible. Because child molesters are not really attracted to their victims, they just rape them for the sense of power it provides. That’s the pat answer I’ve been given anyway. Child molesters are not gays and gays are not child molesters. The definition of one precludes the other. Because if you consider the fact that nearly all of the child predatory aspects of scouting are male-on-male, you’d have to assume that these people are in fact homosexuals, or at least bisexuals. But no, I prefer to believe that men who rape little boys don’t have a homosexual bone in their bodies. In fact, they don’t even get off on it. Again, as I mentioned before, there is no sexual attraction  involved. It’s merely a sense of power. Kind of odd though how child molesters seem to have a preference for one sex or the other. Even odder that a convicted child molester would be the president of his local chapter of an influential gay rights group (PFLAG).

As I mentioned before, John Hemstreet was a Catholic priest but then he got caught boinking the altar boys and he had to leave the priesthood. Normally, I would get all upset about that. I don’t really hate child molesting Catholic priests because they’re child molesters. I hate them because they’re Catholic priests. But this particular child molesting Catholic priest redeemed himself by leaving that awful church and spearheading two gay rights groups in his area. Which is kind of odd, considering the fact that he’s not gay, he’s a child molester. And it’s literally impossible for a person to be both. Weird.

Scouting for All knot. It interweaves the purple and white of the international scouting movement with the rainbow colors of the pro-sodomy movement.

Hemstreet led a protest outside the offices of the BSA’s Erie Shores Council in May of 2000. He says that he’s great scoutmaster material and the BSA should quit being H8-ful H8ers and just let him be a scoutmaster again, despite the fact that he’s already been to jail for raping little boys.

And really, why should that exclude him from being a scout leader? Hemstreet explains:

“The thing that I did seven years ago is a horrendous thing. I’m not denying that. Nor am I denying that I did it. I was arrested. I was arraigned. I did go to court. I served my time and I am off on probation.”

Furthermore, it wasn’t even scouts that Hemstreet was convicted of raping. It was altar boys. Big difference.

“The crime that I committed was committed after I, kind of, retired from the active priesthood. It was not related to scouting at all–I was drunker than a skunk.”

See? So it was the booze, not his pervy desires that drove him to bang children. And besides, the boys weren’t even associated with the scouts. It was completely compartmentalized. Even though he might force a child to pleasure him in the sacristy after mass, he would never–and I mean NEVER–force a child to pleasure him in his tent on a camporee.

“At the time I was mainly in denial, and I certainly wasn’t coming out.”

Wait, wait, wait. Did he say “coming out”? You mean like coming out as a homosexual? Damn it, will someone tell this guy to get back on script? He’s NOT GAY! He’s a child molester. And child molesters are not gay. He’s not really attracted to the male of the species, he just likes the feeling of power he gets when dominating boys. Because if we had to admit that men who molest boys are in fact homosexual–a fact that appears glaringly obvious to anyone who hasn’t been inundated with homosexual propaganda–we might have to admit that homosexual men are responsible for an alarmingly disproportionate amount of child molesting.

Hemstreet explained that his interest in scouting flows from an honest desire to “give back” to the community. He has hurt little boys in the past so now he wants to join the Boy Scouts to do some penance. I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t believe an explanation like that coming out of the mouth of a convicted child molester. I believe him. Sure, he’s raped little boys before–not boy scouts, but other types of little boys. Sure he did time in prison. But now he’s out and he wants to repay his debt to society by…taking little boys camping! Nothing suspicious about that. He just likes kids and wants to do something to help them.

Sadly, the Scouts continue their evil discrimination. It takes a better organization full of kind and accepting people to extend membership to a guy like Hemstreet. Two organizations I can think of–Scouting for All and PFLAG– seem to have no problem whatsoever with allowing Hemstreet as a member. Heck, they have no problem with allowing him to serve in a leadership role. Now that’s what I call tolerance. The Boy Scouts could learn a thing or two from these two fine organizations.

Tag Cloud