PunkAssBlog.com

I hate women and children.

Unless they’re naked.

And hopefully being abused.

After all, that’s what being a liberal’s about — harnessing the power of “perversion” to degrade our womenchattel and child sex-toys.

It’ a shame the powerful deductive mind of one Kevin McCullough (he of the oh-so-thoughtful Musclehead Revolution) had to go and figure us out:

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!

Amen brother! Preach on about how we’re out to harm the helpless while you protect them with capital gains tax cuts and voter suppression. Hallelujah!

I’m no longer ashamed of our liberal evils, and I think it’s time we relished them. But just how did Kevbo uncover who we really are? Curious, I felt compelled to read on.

It turns out that a NYC councilman wants to make lewd gawking/peeping illegal and introduced legislation to that effect for the city. According to the Times, the proposed law says:

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.”

Under the guise of calling it overvague, our liberal cthulu monster, the NY Civil Liberties Union, has opposed the legislation. I mean, I don’t see how on Earth anyone could ever be unjustly prosecuted under such precise, airtight wording, but hopefully we’ll trick the masses with our media potions and witch magicks.

Kevin sees right through us, though, and drops the logic as only a true MuscleHead can:

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.

I’m glad Kevin pointed out that she’s *reportedly* a female, otherwise I’d have to assume that he had participated in a lingering stare at her crotch or chest and would thus be in violation of Vallone’s proposed law.

Meanwhile, in a stunning act of clarity, McCullough included this photo in his expose:

No explanation was offered, but only a doofus or a pervert would fail to make the obvious connection.

Anyway, if this law passes, it’ll be time to hand out the liberal sunglasses, the ones with extra tint for maximum perversion. We can’t let a few muscleheads get in the way of our time-honored tradition of protecting of civil liberties peeping.