Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
8:44 PM
The Lovely Bride and I have been, uncharacteristically, sucked into all the Christmas TV classics this year. Tonight it was the "Grinch who stole Christmas" - the real one mind you, not the Jim Carey remake.
Here's the bet I need settled. "What are the 'whos down in whoville' all singing?"
I was trying to explain to the Lovely Bride that the first few words were, "The Who Forest..." The Lovely Bride believes it is not intelligible words at all... Can someone, anyone, locate the lyrics to the song? kmc@wmca.com if you can find them. First one to get me the legit lyrics and you've got an autographed copy of my new book MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking on the way to your house.
I also found this little treasure on YouTube - the entire 25 minute original presentation:
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
3:18 PM
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
1:36 PM
Ok this particular reason might not so much fall into the category of why he will win the general election - but more so why he will win in the primaries.
Today Senator Ted Kennedy is withdrawing his support from fellow same-stater John Kerry. Kennedy was a senior advisor and campaigner for Kerry in 2004. And right now, from this very moment - even if Kerry were to get in - he would probably run fourth place to Obama and Hillary in a three-way race.
(By the way... how 'bout those ESPN'ers keeping that "no politics" policy firmly in place since dumping on Rush Limbaugh after his rather accurate statement about the highly overrated Donavan McNabb?)
Monday, December 11, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
2:00 PM
For the mush-heads that have just been elected to office, and actually take control of the reigns next month, here's a little pre-holiday heartburn just for you to digest and enjoy.
For all the Pelosi-piddidles that have no clue about the size, scope, and seriousness of the threat we face - I hope you sleep not one wink through Christmas Eve, Christmas Day etc. - because it doesn't look like our best allies will.
From just one link, Islamic terrorists wish to rape, nuke, and terrorize - now that's the holiday spirit, so good luck to all you geniuses who still think its a grand idea to weaken ourselves in the most ginormous struggle of our nation's history.
One last thing, does anybody know Ms. Pelosi's burkha size? Because Mr. Adolf-a-dinejhad called and he's trying to surprise her for Christmas. (Just a little "get to know me" gift.)
Monday, December 11, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
1:30 PM
Yesterday while waiting for make-up at the CNN studios, I picked up the front section of the New York Times. This story was top left hand corner. To summarize:
1. Groups who hate faith, are upset that faith is being used in prisons to reform criminals. 2. Said groups are claiming that in doing so from a Christian perspective that it is discriminatory against those inmates who are of different faith backgrounds. 3. All funding for such programs should be halted unless said programs remove the faith elements to their programs. 4. It is irrelevant as to how effective the reform programs are - they have to go... 5. The same principles should also be applied to youth homes, camps, organizations that are also using faith as part of the message...
There's about 4000 more words to the piece...
But sometimes you have to ask yourself, "what in the heck do they want to see happen?" Do the groups that are now suing actually WANT these programs to stop? Are they willing to deal with the baggage of non-reformed criminals that re-enter society? Are they oh-so-willing to prop up the "seperation of church and state" (which is NOT a Constitutional idea) that they are willing to sacrifice the good and safety of the culture? And my favorite...
SINCE WHEN DOES A CRIMINAL PAY CLOSE ENOUGH ATTENTION TO HIS FAITH BACKGROUND SO AS TO BE OFFENDED BY CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES?
Correct me if I'm wrong - but I think most criminals reject the moral tenets of whatever/if any faith they've had - thus why they are committing crimes.
Evidently the answer to these questions is - YES. We would prefer for society to become a much more dangerous place than to admit - that God's way just MIGHT straighten out a few bad apples.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
1:29 PM
Actually Gore said nothing of the sort. But wouldn't he HAVE to if he was intellectually honest about his feigned outrage concerning the SUV and the damage it is doing to the global warming picture?
Today's headline from THE INDEPENDENT in London find's a story that NO global warming advocate will take great comfort in...
Because in essence it's solution is to have "The World's Biggest Barbecue" and that would cause the PETA crazies to turn on the Global Warming crazies and then you'd just have udder chaos...(Sorry, I couldn't refuse...)
Monday, December 11, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
1:28 PM
I was the first person to predict that Obama will win the 2008 election. I based my pick on five specific reasons. But as I have turned this topic serial, I have realized there are more reasons than the original five.
For review the original five were: 1. Raging Liberals will seem too extreme, voters want someone "above the fray." 2. Disgusted Conservatives have no charismatic options - Guiliani, McCain, Romney - they've all got problems. 3. Exhausted Moderates - they want "a candidate who makes me feel good"... 4. Energized Blacks will turn out record numbers... 5. Gullible Evangelicals like Rick Warren will be duped into setting Obama up to peel off 15-20% of the GOP's most loyal base.
Here's number six: 6. All he will have to do is get past Hillary, and he's already well on his way. But there are several layers to this.
MONEY/DONORS - We are seeing that he is converting Hillary donors. George Soros held a party last week that was stuffed with former Clinton funders and the word was - Obama impressed. Soros is withholding any support for Hillary this go around until he makes a final decision - that's not good news to the woman who had already been more or less crowned as the Democrat in the race.
AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRIMARY VOTES - Then there's the pesky African-American vote. This block went 89% for Kerry, even if they were holding their nose while doing so. Hillary is not as well liked in the African-American community as her husband was adored. She's been given the benefit of the doubt much of the way, but compared to Obama she lacks the natural warmth. All Obama needs to do to win the primary is sway 45% of African American voters? With his personality, the access he will be given to nearly 90-95% of most black pulpits, Hillary won't stand a chance in this category of votes. And that means she will have to look elsewhere to counter balance the offset she will lose to him.
ISSUES - Two issues Obama seems clearly preferable to Hillary on amongst the minds of lefties. He is unequivocal on universal health care. You may remember this was Hillary's issue as first lady - and a complete disaster. Voters have heard her plan, and what she wants to do along these lines. Now most democrats are scared to touch it. Obama advocates for it, without details as to how to make it happen, and sermonizes why it's the "right thing to do." Hillary comes off looking like a retread. Secondly is the war, for Democratic primary voters Obama opposed from the beginning, Hillary attempted to triangulate - that may in fact come back to haunt her.
Remember the media is sucking up ALL the media oxygen for Hillary and Obama. To listen to the coverage right now - you wouldn't even know that there are other candidates - some even who have formally announced. Should Obama and Hillary eventually make their formal announcements look for that to continue, even accelerated.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
12:50 PM
I've said it a million times, the right is always girded by their sensibilities when it comes to propriety. The left NEVER is...
Yesterday my appearance on CNN was just the latest example. Just for kicks I went to AmericaBlog to see what my opposing guest's readers would be saying about our give and take on Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz.
See for yourself, how the inability to articulate an opinion devolves into salty name calling of me, and of course more speculation that I am somehow a repressed sexual activist myself. (So original guys...)
What I found interesting was that there was at least one reader of AmericaBlog that seemed rather disgusted with the little tantrum parade that everyone (including John Aravosis - while he was on the segment) was having. The poster appears to be a regular and summarized this way:
It was kind of weird the guy on the left comes across as a the hothead while the guy on the right was cool and collected. I loved John's points and agree with them but the other guy got the best of the TV moment in my eyes. Too bad.
I made mention during my segment of two blogs in particular that were particularly tasteless examples of the left's vehemence towards the Cheney family. One of which was John's AmericaBlog that ran a contest of people nominating the names of men they think are the "true father." Notice "Chris from Maine's" list.
The truth is the left WANTS this to be entirely about the Vice President, and the enmity they can create between he and his daughter. Those of us on the right who have brought it up are doing so in the context of asking the more legitimate, philosophical, and idiological debate, "what do we as a society say creates a family." And I continue to be fascinated at how we, those who may disagree with Mary's decision on the moral grounds, have done a far superior job of respecting her than the bottom feeders of the left who will bang any drum - if they believe they can use it for their advantage - no matter the outcome to the individual.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
9:30 AM
I will have more to say about the Reliable Sources segment, after it actually happens and I can return to my keyboard.
We are slated to discuss the House Ethics Investigation into the Mark Foley matter.
We are also expected to discuss the media coverage of announcement that Mary Cheney is pregnant.
I believe that the answer to the second is simple. The left has taken the opportunity to attempt to bloody the Vice President by again attempting to create a dividing line between he and his daughter. The left's discussion has been nasty, and very very lewd.
The right has been more divided on the issue, but all have been respectful. For one, many on the right have refused to acknowledge the discussion because Mary herself has not mentioned it publicly. Hugh Hewitt, The Corner, and a number of others have chosen not to comment on the matter. Others like yours truly, Focus On The Family, CWA, and Ben Shapiro - have weighed in - but in doing so have attempted to not focused on Mary in particular but the larger societal issues involved. Overall the reaction, by the right, has been head and shoulders more dignified whether discussing it or not - than nearly ANY of the debate on the left.
For those of you who saw the segment and wanted more info on my book please feel free to check it out.

More later...
Friday, December 08, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
1:49 PM
Someone I look up to a great deal, someone who has done much for me in personal help in advancement in my career and craft, and someone who is personally friends with the Cheneys has asked me to reconsider going on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday morning.
Their main beef was that Cheney's conception and ensuing pregnancy is a "private matter" and one that no forum has any business discussing.
The Washington Post disagrees... or at least Ruth Marcus does.
So did Drudge, 1000's of additional media outlets, and especially those with poor taste...
But none of these speak for me. That's why I write my column and this blog. That's why I dedicate hours upon hours each week on-air.
I believe that the biblical view of this and all matters relevant to the development of our world has a place at the table.
The debate of ideas continues to be the best thing going for the American social and political development of society. I have no guile in my heart towards Mary Cheney, nor her partner. But I have an extra-ordinary capacity of concern for the children of the next generation and what we are putting them through...
And some we are putting through it for no good reasons at all...
Friday, December 08, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
11:20 AM
I'm to appear this Sunday morning at 10:45am EST. I was told I will be asked to give an assessment of the media coverage of Mary Cheney's Conception.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
12:16 PM
That economy is horrible I tell you, terrible, terrible, horrible, nasty...
Biggest drop in jobless claims in 6 months. New jobs added in November outpaced October by over 13,000. And the unemployment rate is going to be lower than 5% for like the dozenth month in a row...
Terrible, terrible, terrible...
Rotten...
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
11:00 AM
Read it all.. Barnett's bare-knuckled, death defying common-sense puts the Surrender Monkeys (the Iraq Study Group) under the microscope.
It's kind of like ants and a magnifying glass when the sun hits the lens just right.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
10:00 AM
The New Mexican governor IS running for President right? Has he paid attention to ANYTHING that happened in 2006? So what the holy hellfire is he drinking?
"The fence is very unpopular on the border in Texas and New Mexico, in Chihuahua," Richardson, a Democrat, said after meeting Wednesday with leaders from the Mexican state of Chihuahua. "So one of the most significant and constructive acts the U.S. Congress should take is to get rid of it."
Are you kidding me? Unpopular with WHO? Mexicans who don't have the right to be here?
First came the surrender monkeys, now Richardson is leading the charge for the invasion monkeys...
There you go - the U.S. is becoming an Ape House...
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
9:00 AM
It's true. Her MOST FAVORABLE ratings have always come when she's been seen as the victim... Monica Lewinsky years - huge favorables. When Chris Lazio crossed the stage and invaded her space - landed her the Senate seat.
So if she's going to win the Presidency she will have to be "victimized" once again...
And since Obama is off to such an early lead... why not get the victim party started early?
|