Kristi Allen-Gailushas Declares War on “the Gay Community”

Here’s the thing Ms. Allen-Gailushas, your every action confirms how crazy and stupid your tea-bagging and candidacy for the Montana GOP really are.  Nobody wants a war, except you and your fellow tea party officer Tim Ravndal.  Even a “not a literal gun war but a war of the truth and hypocrisy they espouse” whatever that blabbering jibberish is supposed to mean.

Kristi Allen Gailushas is out to lunch.  Probably at Taco Bell.

Posted: September 6, 2010 at 1:16 pm

This post was written by Cowgirl

88 thoughts on “Kristi Allen-Gailushas Declares War on “the Gay Community”

  1. Turner

    I’m trying to imagine what she means by someone pushing a homosexual agenda in schools at the expense of math and reading. Would the school day consist of classes in interior decorating and hair styling? Show tunes over the intercom? Snitty counselors?

    Math and reading could still be taught, though. I suspect that math board work would be a lot neater. And texts could be individualized on the basis of how well color-coordinated book covers were with students’ ensembles.

    Schools would be different but probably more fun.

    1. katatinka

      What she means by ‘pushing a homosexual agenda in schools’ is the sort of thing we have to go through every day at our college in LA. For example, she means the sort of teacher who comes out with stuff like, “I mean…what has the United States DONE…since the Moon Landing in 1969?…In 2005…Spain…legalized…gay marriage!” We are studying the History of Spain, not the history of homosexuality. We sign up for English and we get gay marriage. We sign up for Spanish, we get gay marriage. This is fraudulent. We want to learn about what we enrolled for, not Homosexuality 101. That is what she means. We know some people are homosexual. We heard you the first time. We are not as interested in the subject of homosexuality as you are. We are bored by it. (Zzzzzz) I am glad to have had the opportunity to explain this to you, so now you know. At long last.

    1. Ben Frank

      If you don’t like a country based on Christianity then move. These folks can be a s gay as they want, but don’t force it on us and our children. We are a country of comman law, not a few nutcakes making laws so that only a very small minority rule the people. Oh, and DGSmith, Jesus would follow his Fathers word and know that God created man and woman to be togther in marriage.

      1. Jack Ruby

        Ben Frank, if you dont understand that the seperation of Church and State is enshrined in the Constitution then you are failing as an American citizen. That means you dont get to force Christianity on anyone.

        1. Ben Frank

          I’m not forcing anything. So, if you want to learn something, please find me where in the constitution it says “separation of church and state”. I’ll give a hint, it’s not there, but please do your research so you won’t post ant more fallacies.

          1. Jack Ruby

            I see we have a Constitutional scholar here. Its amazing to me that your group that continually touts the Constitution as the base of everything you do lacks this basic understanding of the Constitution. Im sure you have a grand conspiracy theory about how the founders did not actually intend to seperate church from state but that its all a liberal plot, this from your ‘research’ on conspiracy websites and Alex Jones treatises Im sure.

            1. LChad

              Separation of Church and State concept is from a letter written by T. Jefferson, and never written into any Article or Amendment to the US Constitution.

              1. Jack Ruby

                OK if you say so LChad. The problem is that the federal courts disagree with your interpretation of what the Constitution means. In our republic it is the Court system that interprets the Constitution not random yokels with a dial up connection surfing infowars and citing Alex Jones as a credible source of information.

                1. LChad

                  Interpretation is for Yeats or Longfellow. The U.S. Constitution is written in plain English with precise punctuation and interpretation is a side road that socialist leaning attorneys and have driven this Republic down long enough.

                  1. Jack Ruby

                    Wow, I guess the forefathers just dont agree with you considering the system they set up specifically requires the Courts to interpret the Constitution as well as legislation. You are really failing at civics here.

              2. intercede007


                Have you read the 1st Amendment?

                Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

                In plain English, there is no religion in our government. It’s right there, and it’s unambiguous.

                1. Shane


                  You need to try and comprehend what your wrote. Congress ( Government ) shall not make any laws etc. So in others words. The Government is not allowed to make any laws that establishes a religion, or prohibits the exercise of a religion. It doesn’t state what your wanting it too.

                  LChad = congrats on actually being able to comprehend the things you read. Bravo, its not seen much anymore.

                  Jack Ruby, The Federal Courts are only allowed to interpret laws. Anything dealing with constitutional issues is suppose to be seen by the Supreme Court.

          2. JS

            Ben –

            Right here –
            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

            (You’re welcome.)

            In the future – “please do your research so you won’t post ant(sic) more fallacies.”

            1. Ben Frank

              Nice try, but that is completely different from “the sepparation of church and state” As far as I know, the government has not established a church or prevented any once else from doing so. By the way, I don’t know who Alex Jones is and there is no conspiricy. Remember, you jumped to the Constitution instead of defending your position on the gay marriage issue.

              1. Jack Ruby

                Ben, with all due respect and doing my best not to insult your intelligence, the plain language of the Constitution (as well as hundreds of judicial decisions)clearly prevents the government from enacting legislation that establishes religion or prevents the exercise of it which in layman’s terms amounts to a “separation” between govt and religion. Wow.

                1. Ronny

                  Ben does not agree because he can only cherry pick bits and pieces for the constitution and the bible that fit into his pin headed world view.

                  1. Ben Frank

                    I said nothing about the Gov forbidding gay marriage. You asked WWJD and I answered that question. Prior to that, I was taliking about school and should it be taught to our children.

                2. Ben Frank

                  Well good, you found out that it was in a court decision! Now,go back to the original blogs that started this debate. Why should all this stuff be taught in or public schools? If we make a law do do so, then isn’t the government doing just what you say I’m wrong about?

                  1. Jack Ruby

                    Ben, the Courts interpret the Constitution, that is there Constitutional role in our republic. Religion is not being taught in public school. Where in the Constitution does it say that no sex education will be taught in schools?

                    1. LChad

                      The Federal Government should have NO ROLE in determining what content is taught in public school. Article I Section 8 outlines what Congress “shall have the Power” to do – education is not there…

                    2. Jack Ruby

                      OK Lchad, then where in the STATE Constitution does it say there will be no sex education in schools?

              2. Jack Ruby

                Ben, I pointed out to you the separation of church and state in the Constitution because you were relying on your religious beliefs to justify your position that the government can forbid gays to marry. It seems you need to do some research on this subject.

              3. Richard

                Ben, try as you will..the Christian nation thing is a hoax. The founders were deists with an intense hatred for religious power in government. After life under the Church of England who could blame them. Winger GOP interpretations of the First and Second amendment are just that: bunk. It is true that anti-establishment was poorly imaged in the first amendment but Jefferson made the point very clear in his “Letter to the Danbury Baptists”..look it up.
                The founders wanted Re legion out of Government and Government out of Religion. It matter’s not what religious people think..its what the founders demanded.

                “the problem with you is your religion”…Jesus Christ

            2. LChad

              The ‘establishment of religion’ clause refers to a church or house of worship [a national church] – the federal government is prohibited to establish – as was done in England – which led to Religious persecution. We the People retain freedom of religion not freedom from religion. That said, the religious roots of the founders was without question -Old Testimate and New Testimate.

              1. Jack Ruby

                Are you really not getting it that by claiming the right to have your Christian principles taught in schools you would be ‘establishing’ a de facto government religion? Why do you insult the forefathers by claiming they did not come here for freedom of religion? If they wanted to make Christianity a state religion it would have said so in the Constitution right? You make the claim that the word ‘separation of church and state’ do not exist in the Constitution so therefore there is no separation. Yet the words ‘we are a Christian nation’ dont appear either do they?

                1. LChad

                  How did you come up with that from what I wrote? Jack, you presume to ASSume to much in you diettribe. The only thing public schools should be giving instruction in is reading writing, math and U.S. Civics. – Sunday [or Saturday] School is there for the rest. Trouble is that the public schools have become institutions of indoctrination to the political correctness of the day and not campuses of inculcation of serious subject matter, which has led to sloppy thinking and irrational reasoning of generations of persons like yourself.

                  1. Jack Ruby

                    I went to Catholic School my whole life. True. Funny how you keep clumsily attempting to change the subject. Looking up above the point of this thread was the original claim that because we are a “Christian nation” no mention of homosexuality should be in the curriculum. So now its not about Christianity now that you have failed at arguing there is no Constitutional separation between church and state?

                  2. Steve T.

                    It’s clear historical record that not all of the founders were Christian. Jefferson and Franklin were deists.

                    In fact, Jefferson was so proud of his work promoting religious FREEDOM in Virginia that he had it engraved on his tombstone. You should Google his tombstone and then refer to the piece of legislation that Jefferson is referring to. If you have a brain at all, you’ll be able to see clearly that he is absolutely against the idea of the state sponsoring any one religion over another.

        2. jeremiah

          Just because we don’t believe in an invisible man in the sky, and a zombie jesus doesn’t mean we are less american. Just smart enough to know at some age you’ve got to stop believing in imaginary friends.

      2. DGSmith

        A country based on Christianity?
        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.”- First Amendment to the US Constitution.

        Nowhere does it endorse Christianity as the basis for the United States of America- or any other religion for that matter. My religion says I can love whomever I choose, and if you’re getting in the way of that, then you’re violating my First Amendment rights.


      3. Miles

        So Ben Frank, where in the Bible does Jesus say anything about homosexuality? I know one thing the Bible does say, the eagle is detestable (Leviticus 11:13 NIV). So if we are a Christian nation, why did the founding fathers choose a bird that God detests as our symbol? I guess we will forget that one. Like all the other weird and horrible stuff in the old testament that Christians conveniently ignore.

      4. DTM

        I believe Jesus would love us all… ALL of us. Love has no need for selfishness, it is not puffed up, it does not follow its own way. Love is GENTLE and KIND. God IS love and therefore hates NOTHING. Jesus would bless us all just as he blessed the tax collectors (pretty bad people in his time), the prositutes, and the other sinners he came across.

        I don’t know this for sure, just as you don’t know for sure. None of us know for certain what God really thinks today. I, for one, do not believe the Holy Spirit has stopped speaking. I do, however believe that we have stopped listening.

  2. Cowgirl Post author

    If by “real” you mean “utter moron” then yes, she is. I also find it interesting that her fellow knuckle-draggers even appear to have a hard time believing her.

    1. LChad

      Okay – Cowbird – enough of the ad hominem name calling. It makes you and your bunch look immature [which you may well be] and shallow [which you also may well be].

      1. Wulfgar

        Cowbird? Ad Hominem name calling?

        You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means … moron. Or would that be hypocrite? Why specialize. You’re both.

      2. DTM

        An ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

        What is “ad hominem name calling?”

  3. Farmboy

    Where do they find these nut jobs????? Is there a convention or something??? And how much nuttier will these teabaggers get??????

    1. Cowgirl Post author

      Where do they find them? Great question – they are recruited by Bowen Greenwood, Executive Director of the Montana GOP, who is (obviously) a great appreciator of intellect and character, to be sure.

  4. Jeph

    Hey, Kristi;

    Surely you’ll read this (or someone will read it to you), so please respond and tell me where you want to have this ‘war’ with gay people.

    I’m there.

    On my watch, there’ll be no more murders like the one Matthew Shepard suffered. Be very, very careful when you call for a war against gay people, because not just gay people will show up, and you’ll find quite a few Republicans who are not on your side of this one.

    1. Cowgirl Post author

      Hi Jeph – Thanks for your comments. We’ve already won this one based on logic, in the polls, and on the moral high ground. Kristi just hasn’t figured it out yet.

  5. Jeph

    I’ve tried to find her page on facebook, but I think she has all her insecurities very securely tightened.
    I want her to know she’s being watched—and carefully.
    If even one drop of Montana gay blood is spilled, I’ll make sure all law enforcement at all levels are aware of the war threat she has made. She’ll be broke in only days from the expensive and desperate legal team she’ll have to hire to try to explain how she is not either responsible or at the very least, culpable.

  6. bandit

    So…let me get this straight.
    Two of the four elected Big Sky Tea Part Officials have made homophobic and violent statements.
    Is it just a matter of time before Janet Myers (Vice President) or Sheila Levins (Treasurer) spew their beliefs?
    And if their leadership is this vocal, what does this say for the baggers who’ve elected these upstanding individuals?
    And has anyone checked the roster to see if Rev. Fred Phelps is a member of the Big Sky Tea Party?
    So many questions…

  7. Puma

    Let’s continue to encourage these folks to hoist themselves on their own petards of bigotry and prejudice. They have hidden their bigotry for years behind walls of hushed statements made privately. Those quiet racist and bigoted comments that are made and assumed to be agreed with when met with dignified silence- which is assumed assent. Let them yell them out loud- and face the consequences.

    They are afraid because they can’t prevent change.

  8. Jake

    NeoCon: “Those pervert fags wanting to get married don’t deserve it!! They’ll loose this war!!”

    Someone: “What? Crazy homophobe …”

    NeoCon: “Like, LoL … I’m not a homophobe, I have plenty of gay friends! ;)”

    GayCousin: “Dilusional asshole” -defriended

  9. Terry

    She may have done better with her privacy settings than redneck Tim Ravndal, king of the hill no more, but she hasn’t figured them all out yet. Her friend list is still wide open, and guess who’s still on it?
    Wait for it……………..
    Tim Ravndal.
    I’d say that speaks volumes about her right there.

  10. Terry

    See the pic(seriously) on backtostonewall that Will linked above. She’s a scary one. LOL.
    I’m gay and I have a bigger handgun than that.
    But I’m not that mean looking or nearly as butt ugly.

        1. Wulfgar

          That’s probably enough, gentlemen. What she looks like outside isn’t at issue. It’s how ugly she is on the inside, and that putrid visage is not open to question anymore.

  11. Paul

    If this b*tch wants a war, then in the words of Bush, bring it on. This is one gay who will be happy to excercise my 2nd amendment rights. Also, her hair is tired.

  12. GPM

    She looks like Ed Meese or W.C Fields with long hair (take your pick). Maybe she can get a job doing impersonations.

    1. Wulfgar

      Once again, enough. The blogger here has requested that you not be an ass by insulting someone’s attractiveness based on assumptions of gender qualified bullshit. Please, don’t be an ass. That’s not that tough a request.

  13. Rhetoric

    @ Ben Frank

    Wow, I am so happy to see that someone has finally spoken to God and has found out how He would like to handle the matter! Please tell us Mr. Frank, did God tell you anything else? Did He give you the winning lottery numbers for this week? Did he explain the existence of evil in the worl? Did he weigh in at all on all the human-made atrocities that are happening all over the world because people cannot stand to see the world from anothers’ perspective? Please tell us oh great prohet Ben. Please tell us what God has shared with you so that we can better understand why there is a rise in hate crimes against LGBT people across the land. Why must I be afraid to be open and honest with others about who I love? Did God have any answers for you? And before you qoute verse and chapter to me, please point out the place where JESUS himself said homosexuality is a sin. Please re-read the beattituides, Blessed are they. . . Blessed are we ALL who have been created in the likeness and image of God.

  14. Demand Equality

    So send her a note if she wants to go to war – let the bully bring it on!/prdpatriot?ref

    Oh and the rest of you KKKRistians take your Jews-Killed-Jesus sun revolves around the flat earth slave-owner manual, Final Leviticus Solution to the Homosexual Problem, genocidal bible and shove it down your throat and choke on the goddamn fucking pile of bullshit

    1. DTM

      Just so everyone can understand, not all Christian people are bigots. I am a Christian and I am GAY. Yes, it is possible to be both.

      Anyone who spews hate like this IS NOT A CHRISTIAN!!

      I’m just sayin…

  15. CFS

    The tea party is full of militant rhetoric… these are just some of the choice quotes from the Tea Party Convention held in Missoula back in May this year.

    “We are the army out to free men!”
    “I just want to get back to building an army and preparing for a revolution.”

    They refer to themselves as “foot soldiers” and talk about the “front lines” and “leading the Charge,” to “free America.”

  16. Ed Kemmick

    This is a long thread, but here’s my favorite part: LChad presumes to tell us what public schools should be teaching, then refers to the Old and New “Testimates” and he uses the word “diettribe.” Priceless!

  17. vegas kid

    In the BIBLE, God made Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve, enough said. Homosexual Behavior is a Mental Disorder, just like pedophial or beastiality. There are problem people deal with everyday, some their entire life, others are luckier and figure it out on thier own. As for this PC world we all live in, it’s destroying the very fabric we all hold dear, FREEDOM OF THE PERSUIT OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY. Happiness was the word that replaced PROPERTY when our government created the BLM. (U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT)We are all lied to by our government for greedy purposes.

  18. The Polish Wolf

    Happiness was used by Thomas Jefferson, because he didn’t want to make the Revolution sound too greedy. Also, I don’t think he could have gotten Thomas Paine, probably the most influential propagandist of the bunch, to sign on the ‘property’, given Paine’s socialist leaning.

    Why not bring up any non-majority sexual behavior? As long as its between two consenting adults (animals and children cannot give consent), its not hurting anyone except maybe the participants. Remind your congregation that you believe being gay is against God’s will, but remember – so is banking.

    1. Hakon Montag

      Banking was not against God’s will. Nor even against what Jesus preached. One should separate what God said (supposedly) and what Jesus said (supposedly). Jesus did supposedly state “render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s, speaking of taxes of course. He did supposedly condemn the “money changers”, but they were not bankers or banks. He did supposedly condemn (to a point) usury, which is otherwise known as interest, something banks do. Reasonable usury is okay, but unlimited and unjust usury is not okay. Do some more research.

      As for the gay thing, it was called an abomination. I would also think that if it was gainst God’s will then God would certainly do somehting about it. Since he hasn’t, maybe he was just trying to assert that it isn’t good for humanity in the long run.

      I’m sure you can draw your own conclusions.

  19. Hakon Montag

    (from) The Declaration of Rights.

    Resolved, 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.

    This declaration was adopted by the Continental Congress On October 14, 1774

  20. Hakon Montag

    Paine a socialist? Maybe you should reread his Rights of Man.

    All of Paine’s works reflected his belief in natural reason and natural rights, political equality, tolerance, civil liberties, and the dignity of man.

    One cannot say that the book had no effect. It shook the government; it set thousands of people to thinking. It stirred the currents in what had been placid water, and once stirred, those currents never stilled themselves. And not only in England, but everywhere men longed for freedom, Rights of Man became an inspiration and a hope.

Comments are closed.