He was a pillar of their community. The problem is we have let the left pander to evil, and eventually evil rises.
 August 7, 2015 at 3:07pm
Any question is fair game. The issue is bias in the choice and the way the moderation is handled. Kelly clearly switched from moderator to interviewer when she initiated a tit for tat with Trump. She interjected her “ideas” into the discussion as did Crowley – and Trump naturally became angry with her and let her know it. I have liked Kelly as an interviewer but this episode has damaged her credibility with viewers – and she knows it because she asked both Baier and Hume if what she had done was over the line. Yes, Megyn, it was over the line.
 August 7, 2015 at 10:24am
Hey, she was treated the same way as a man would have been treated. Your statement is sexist.
 August 7, 2015 at 10:21am
Megyn Kelly became the story in much the same way Candy Crowley became the story. As such, she skewed the debate from the beginning. While I don’t think much of Trump for having lost his cool, he clearly was blindsided by Kelly. She should know better but apparently she doesn’t like Trump as is the case with Chris Wallace. When the moderators become part of the story, the audience loses – and that was the case last night. Kelly needs to apologize to both the audience and to Trump, but I doubt that will be done. By the way, both Hemmer and Bair did credible jobs. McCallum talked too much and Wallace came off as cynical.
She will never apologize to Mr Trump. She doesn’t have class. She is an attack dog. A pretty one, that’s it.
Also , McCallum looked great-oops, now I’m at war with women.
Wallace clued me off to what he (and, I suspect, quite a lot of people) thinks of our country when, in the 'pre-game warm-up', referred to our highest elected office, as being our "king".
 July 19, 2015 at 2:21pm
When McCain ran for president, I volunteered in a Republican campaign office – dead silence and no visitors. Then McCain picked Sarah Palin and the place became a bee hive of activity. McCain couldn’t stand the fact that Sarah was more popular than he and still is. He is a bum who has ridden a four decade old story to the detriment of us all. Was he a hero for fighting and surviving in a POW camp – yes. But he no longer respects the people he is supposed to serve.
 July 7, 2015 at 10:40am
You need to read about micro aggression. If a white woman clutches her purse while walking near a group of young blacks, she is assuming criminal intent – and that is akin to a hate crime.
 July 7, 2015 at 10:31am
The recent murders of two young women, one in SF and now one in LA, point out the fact that unarmed is dangerous. Being armed doesn’t guarantee survival, but if the thugs know that there are lots of folks carrying, they know that their life may well be at risk. A cell phone camera is no substitute for a concealed carry pistol.
 July 2, 2015 at 5:53pm
The rape of these alien women isn’t about sex but about power – thus you rape them even the relatively young or unattractive ones. The message is if we can do it to you now we can do it to you later if you create a problem.
 June 30, 2015 at 4:27pm
Set the biblical aside and focus on the biological. The gay population has brought society numerous specialty diseases, some which are quite lethal and can be spread to others regardless of sexual orientation. It damages adopted and fostered children not only by depriving them of the male and female, but also through high levels of molestation. .
Get a load of this idiot getoffmylawn will ya? What a prog moron.
See, the South was right. Our leaders knew what an oppressive, controlling federal government looked like and now YOU do too. If your ancestors ever fought in North FL, Ga, or SC, it is very likely that they fought against my ancestors in the Confederacy.
me too - native NY'er LOL never loved/carried/cared about the Confed flag
HOWEVER as we now live in a nation where the FEDERAL govt feels free to OVERRULE state's rights by using the unelected Supreme Court or one's man's PEN to make law, instead of enforcing it, I have long feared we are heading to civil war2.
This is an issue for ONE STATE not the entire USA
as was MARRIAGE law and Healthcare
WE are being TREAD upon by one party and I cannot ever support that
so now that FLAG's meaning has forever been changed.
In future it will represent the people of USA who do not want our foundations demolished
it will stand for those of us who KNOW, Federal GOVT has no RIGHT to trample us
this Yankee will now salute that flag and the people who understand what it really means
 June 29, 2015 at 9:45am
Being forgiven and not changing the offending behavior is meaningless. There is a connection between forgiving the crime and accepting the punishment.
 June 29, 2015 at 9:41am
They are dangerous to themselves and society at large.
 June 29, 2015 at 9:40am
Father Morris needs to treat this as a serious matter. The gay community carries HIV/AIDS in numbers disproportionate to the average citizenry. Since half of the homosexuals over 50 are infected by this one disease, and there are others specific to gays, this is not just spitting but an assault with the intent to infect. Individuals who have HIV/AIDS have been tried, convicted and sentenced for knowingly infecting others. Just another contribution of the homosexual lifestyle to America.
You will be called a homophobe if you make statements like this in the future. Just like with other “protected” groups, like blacks, you cannot use actual facts and statistical data. That is bigoted and prejudicial.
I work around a lot of gay men. Here is an aside. Has anyone here heard of a bug hunter or a stealth pozzer? Look it up you’ll be amazed. I know I was when I first heard the terms and that was years ago. My point is that many of these people are so far gone and depraved, not to mention self hating, that they do this to their own kind.
So yes you are correct. There is a certain segment of the LGBTQ community that wants to hurt anyone and everyone by whatever means possible. I have no idea how large this subset of people is but it doesn’t matter.
 June 28, 2015 at 8:03pm
Get the government out of the marriage business altogether as is happening in Alabama. You don’t need a license to get married, you just need a civil contract. The Supremes can push the States but they can’t push the People.
Good idea. Here’s how to do it: Proposed: Amendment XXVIII
SECTION ONE: “Neither Congress, the Courts of the United States or of the several States, nor the Legislatures of the several States, shall make any law respecting the definition of marriage and neither shall the President of the United States nor the governors, agencies and civil departments and offices of the several states make any rule, regulation or policy regarding same.
SECTION TWO: After the adoption of this amendment, and excepting matters involving the estates of certain decedents and incompetent persons hereinafter defined, the resolution of all matters theretofore requiring a government to apply, make or recognize a definition of marriage shall instead be resolved pursuant to the law of contracts and other legal principles not requiring the government to apply, make or recognize a definition of marriage. Law then existing shall remain in force and effect, including laws respecting the definition of marriage, only insofar as applied to the estates of decedents who die and incompetent persons who are legally declared incompetent prior to the adoption of this amendment.”
Go to continuation of this post above.
Go to first part of this post above:
SECTION THREE: “Only the legislatures of the several states may make laws respecting the personal, cohabiting, family and child rearing relationship between persons, which laws, if made, must provide that such relationships may only be created, enforced and terminated pursuant to each particular state’s laws of contract or other applicable legal principles not requiring the definition of marriage, the reciprocal comity of such laws shall be determined by each state and the recognition of such laws shall not be denied by the United States. Individual states may limit the parties to such contracts to one man and one woman. Such relationships defined by or based upon consanguinity are not hereby affected.”
SECTION FOUR: “All laws made hereafter, and the application of such laws, which distinguish between a male person and a female person must do so by defining male and female on the basis of the presence and combination of a person’s male and female chromosomes. All prior laws and existing laws which are contrary to this amendment shall be interpreted and enforced in compliance herewith.”
 June 28, 2015 at 8:00pm
If it’s she, she is for it. She knows her congregation and has decided to walk very carefully. If your church is Episcopal, they are for it. If baptist, probably not.
June 28, 2015 at 7:57pm
I am going bananas trying to answer that question myself.
 June 28, 2015 at 7:56pm
That will be tested immediately.
 June 28, 2015 at 7:52pm
Or that the State get out of the marriage business and leave marriage to the discretion of the people as it was a 100 years ago.
 June 28, 2015 at 7:44pm
We need a good starting point. It really should start in the conservative churches.