RS McCain has the news, which is shocking, but not because Smith is Gay
So, no, it’s not “news” that Shep Smith is gay.
What is news is that a reasonably attractive 26-year-old guy named Giovanni “Gio” Graziano was willing to have intimate contact with that scrawny orange-skinned 49-year-old anchor-thing.
All together now: Eee-eww, gross!
It’s not necessarily homophobia to feel an overpowering sense of nausea at the mental image of Shep’s squealing paroxysms of erotic ecstasy while getting sodomized by his studly boy toy.
Our deepest sympathy to the Graziano family.
Frankly, I never thought, or cared about Shep’s proclivities. That is his business, and believe me I do NOT want to know, but it is funny to listen to Liberals rant as if a Gay Fox anchor somehow defeats Conservatism. Of course now that we “know” how far away is a Shep Smith sex tape?
I have been getting to the range 1-2 times a week since getting my Taurus .40 S&W earlier this year, the only thing holding me back is the continued shortage of ammo. So far I have put maybe 1200 rounds through it, and am finally really comfortable with the guns recoil, sighting, and the feel for it. I actually do a bit better if I focus more on just aiming rather than using just the sights. Today was my best day by far, getting much better accuracy from 15 yards 45 out of 50 shots in the target (7-10 areas) and from 3 yards, 30 shots and 7 yards, 50 shots, I am in the center 8-10 area every shot with most in the 9-10 areas.
Here is a sample target, if I had a better phone, I could post a picture, I pretty much wore out the target today. Since my Taurus .40 is for concealed carry/home defense, I also have a Smith and Wesson Sig .357 for home defense, I am quite confident in my ability to hit what I aim at in a vital area. Now I pray I never have to fire in self-defense, but if I do, I want to be prepared and proficient.
By the way, just so Crazy Uncle Joe Biden feels better, I also have a Mossberg 12 gauge pump shotgun.
God bless these patriots
Two hours earlier, sheriffs from 17 counties held a rally at a nearby park to lambast the state measures and call out the White House for using Colorado as a “guinea pig” for its national gun-control agenda.
“If the issue that we’re focusing on is community safety and reducing violence, it could have been done without some of these very serious impositions on our citizens,” said Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith. “The fact they ignored that and the president showed up for a victory lap, I think, is a slap in the face to Coloradans.”
“We are here to remind you that the voices of the 62 elected Colorado sheriffs were silenced by the leaders of the majority party in the statehouse,” Sheriff Smith said. “Your governor found it too inconvenient to allot even 15 minutes to hear the concerns of the sheriffs of his state.”
Sheriff Smith also criticized the Denver Police Department for putting pressure on officers to appear on stage with the president during his speech at the Denver Police Academy. At least one officer filed a complaint this week with the city’s ethics board over the request, saying it violated police rules on appearing in uniform at a political event.
A department memo obtained by KUSA-TV in Denver offered police the opportunity to appear with the president, but Sheriff Smith said officers told him that they were “coerced into being there.”
“I can tell you I’ve personally talked to Denver police officers who’ve assured me they had felt pressure, that they were told, ‘You’ll be at this event,’” said Sheriff Smith. “Only when officers refused to attend were they then were allowed to go to their normal districts. They certainly knew they could not stand up here today [with sheriffs] without potential repercussions.”
The Left loves to say that law enforcement supports gun control, these sheriffs would beg to differ. What the President bis doing is creating a false image about support for gun control, and a false image about what these new laws would do.
Comes from JWF the topic is the Left’s intent to be our National Nanny!
Is it just me or is the left interested in banning pretty much everything these days?
Ah yes, the Left is a movement about control!
A Democratic state legislator in Georgia is pushing to make inappropriate use of Photoshop a crime and he was made the victim of such a prank in retaliation.
State Representative Earnest Smith was one of two co-sponsors of a bill tomake it a crime if someone Photoshops a person into an obscene picture.
He pushed forward with the plan in spite it’s the obvious interference with First Amendment rights, and an internet prankster made him the latest target in response.
One of his constituents took a picture of a nude porn star and put Mr Smith’s head on top.
‘Rep. Smith needs to grow some thick skin if he’s going to be an elected official. Trust me when I say the altered photograph shown above was not the worst I could have done,’ prankster Andre Walker said on his blog where he claimed responsibility for the image.
If Smith, and co-sponsor Pam Dickerson, have their way then such an action would result in a $1,000 fine.
Their proposed law would be broken when any ‘person commits defamation when he or she causes an unknowing person wrongfully to be identified as the person in an obscene depiction’.
The fact is this. In a free society, everyone is going to see, and hear things that offend them. DEAL WITH IT! It is far better for me to be occasionally offended than to live in a nation where Mommy and Daddy Government control everything we say, read and write!
Smith sees this differently
“It’s clear that we need to do something,” he said.
Smith said Monday that he learned last week that someone had digitally pasted his head on the body of a nude man, but he doesn’t know who did it.
“I could not venture to give you an answer,” he said.
The bill received no action last year, but Smith hopes this year will be different, perhaps because the picture targeting him illustrates how vulnerable all politicians are.
“It can be done to anyone at any time,” he said.
So far, he has heard no objections from free-speech advocates defending the Constitution’s First Amendment.
“No one has a right to make fun of anyone. You have a right to speak, but no one has a right to disparage another person. It’s not a First Amendment right,” he said.
Well if no one has that right we better tell every stand up comic to cease and desist I guess. And I do not have a right to slander someone, and there are laws against harassment. But, yes, Mr. Smith I certainly DO have the right to make fun of you. For instance, I am free to call you a bottom-feeding Statist. Or I can call you, sir, an overly sensitive Liberal whiner. See, we are FREE to express opinions. And when we disagree with someone, we are free to criticize them. And why do I imagine that a law, such as you are sponsoring would be used by Liberal politicians and organizations to silence criticism? Maybe because that is what Leftists ass hats like you SIR have engaged in for decades now.
I wonder how the media will handle this.
Will Smith get a pass? Likely so, the media would have a field day if a Conservative had done this, but a Hollywood actor? Nah. This does point out the hypocrisy of the “Gay rights” activists though. Smith is more likely to catch grief than, say, his wife, Jada Pinkett-Smith would if she had smacked a reporter who groped and tried to kiss her. Back in the early 1990′s I had a heated debate, in a bar with two pretty girls over “Homophobia”. How we got on the topic I forget, but at one point they asked me what I would do if a Gay man tried to kiss me. I believe my response was “knock him on his ass” or words to that affect. They accused me of being afraid of Gay people, an accusation they thought would shut me up. Instead of being silenced, I asked them what they would do if a man they did not know tried to kiss them. Without blinking, they said they would slap him, shove him away. Then you are Heterophobes I shot back. That gave them pause, until they came back with a typical Liberal response that there was no such things a Heterophobes.
As I have said before, Liberalism is largely an ideology of convenience. To these girls, one of whom I ended up dating for a few months, yes it was strictly physical, it was morally righteous to have such a blatant double standard. They wanted, or they thought, equal rights for Homosexuals, but they did not want to hold Homosexuals to equal expectations. To them, somehow, it was OK to hold straight guys to a higher moral standard than Gay guys. I suppose they never realized that by imposing lower standards of decency upon Gay men, they were actually demeaning those men. But, again, Liberalism is an ideology of convenience. And, it would have been inconvenient for these girls to actually expect “equality” to include equality of behavioral standards.