About This Blog
Remember Mr. Ken Starr? Great guy...Mr. Starr. Such a good and righteous, god-fearing man....Mr. Starr. A dedicated Christian man...Mr. Starr. The kind of man who wouldn't say, sh*t, if he had a mouthful. Like I said, a good man.
So righteous a man, Mr Starr, that he wrote his own national pornographic account in concluding the Lewinsky circus. A detailed pornographic account of the world-and-nation-threatening event of a very willing Monica Lewinsky fellating a more-than-willing-to-be-fellated Bill Clinton. Mr. Starr saved the nation by exposing all the graphic details that make up consensual, you know, sex.
I'm sure that Mr Starr, possessing such a spotless Christian character, would insist that he just hated to write all that porongraphic stuff.....but he had to protect our nation from the imminent threat, the pressing danger of a national blowjob insurgency.
Ever read the Starr Report? Here's just a sampling from the righteous and pure-hearted work of Mr. Morality, Ken Starr....
Ms. Lewinsky testified that her physical relationship with the President included oral sex but not sexual intercourse.(38) According to Ms. Lewinsky, she performed oral sex on the President; he never performed oral sex on her.(39) Initially, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President would not let her perform oral sex to completion. In Ms. Lewinsky's understanding, his refusal was related to "trust and not knowing me well enough."(40) During their last two sexual encounters, both in 1997, he did ejaculate.(41)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she performed oral sex on the President on nine occasions. On all nine of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts. He touched her genitals, both through her underwear and directly, bringing her to orgasm on two occasions. On one occasion, the President inserted a cigar into her vagina. On another occasion, she and the President had brief genital-to-genital contact.(42)
I only hope that Mr. Righteous didn't give-in to temptation while he was typing his pornographic report and become, you know, aroused. Must resist Satan, no matter the circumstances.
Consider for a moment that Starr's porno depiction was the end result of a six year long moving target legal pursuit that began over a failed real estate deal in which the Clinton's lost money. Like I said, Starr is simply above reproach.
You've probably heard by now....Ken Starr is back, recently riding into California on his pure-white stallion of moral rectitude....attempting to keep any more of those nasty California gays and lesbians from being treated equally with god-ordained heteros.
Starr is defending California's Proposition 8, which passed by the slim margin of 52.7% of the state's voters last November. Prop 8, if it stands, overturns a previous California Supreme Court ruling from May, 2008, which allowed same-sex couples to marry. In effect, Prop 8 was an amendment to the California state constitution.
Consider some of Mr. Righteous' arguments before the California Supreme Court........
Kenneth Starr -- the chief lawyer defending Proposition 8 and former U.S. solicitor general who led the inquiry into President Bill Clinton's affair with an intern -- repeatedly told the court that a simple majority could limit rights up to and including free speech under a state constitution that gives citizens broad power to legislate through the ballot box.
"The people do have the raw power to define rights," Starr told the justices. "The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle." Link
Really? Does the federal Constitution really allow for "a simple majority" of state voters to limit equality rights guaranteed by that same Constitution? I wonder.
If Mr. Starr is correct.....would Ohio's voters have the right to limit the free speech, say, of Hispanics, through a referendum? How about reinstituting slavery....on a limited basis, you understand....if, indeed, a simple majority of state voters can "define rights"?
Take one of the Bible-belt states.....please.....if Starr is correct, why couldn't, say, Alabama, "limit" a citizen's right to practice his Islamic faith? I mean, Starr said that state referendums had every right to "limit rights up to and including free speech."
What about voting rights? Say a state decided to hold a referendum limiting the rights of poor people to vote.....or limiting a married woman from voting because she might negate her superior's....her husband's...vote? Would that be acceptable?
Because I'm no expert, maybe I have it all wrong.
Whatever the case....I'm not optimistic about the California Supremes doing the right thing ......but I would like to know if other people agree, or not, with Starr's definiton of what states can or cannot do in relationship to people's rights.