The Myth of the Sensitive, Tolerant Liberal
A popular misconception created by liberals, is that those dastardly conservatives are mean, nasty, and intolerant. The truth is precisely the opposite.
Little surprises me about liberal insensitivity and intolerance anymore even though some things they say, write, and do shock the conscience of anyone with a modicum of decency.
They have exhibited their true colors over the years, among other exhibitions castigating Sarah Palin for bearing in lieu of aborting her youngest child, calling Laura Ingraham a “talk slut,” ceaseless fat jokes about Chris Christie, and on and on and on.
However, nothing has better exposed liberals-leftists-Democrats for what they are than more recent examples of crude, insensitive intolerance toward Rick Santorum.
Following in the footsteps of such libs as Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Bill Maher et al., political commentator Alan Colmes feels free to launch viciously outrageous ad hominem salvos at conservatives and, like his fellow bomb-throwers, gets away with it.
Last Monday, Colmes’ hurled his latest insult at GOP presidential contender Santorum during a Fox News segment when he predicted the former Pennsylvania senator’s Iowa surge wouldn’t last.
That evaluation was reasonable though incorrect, the basis for his view was unreasonable and downright nasty.
Colmes speculated that voters would turn on Santorum as soon as they “get a load of some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after childbirth home and played with it so that his other children would know that the child was real.”
Rich Lowry rightly and promptly jumped all over Colmes for his “cheap shot” in disgracefully impugning both Santorum and his family and misinterpreting Santorum’s actions after the premature birth and sadly-abbreviated two-hour lifespan of baby Gabriel Santorum in 1996.
As John Hayward opined on HumanEvents.com, Colmes’ comment “wasn’t a random slip of the tongue” and was planned to demonstrate how proudly astute he is. Hayward observed that, “For an ostensibly ‘tolerant liberal,’ Colmes is deeply, disturbingly obsessed with cultivating intolerance for this unusual act of devotion.”
“Ostensibly” is the key word. For liberals, sensitivity and tolerance are reserved for people who would have aborted Gabriel instead of attempting to save his life.
That same twisted, restricted sense of “tolerance” extends to how liberals in the mainstream media in America and abroad react to expressions of Muslim faith as opposed to comparable Christian observances.
Basically in the liberal nutshell: Christians bad, Muslims good.
Denver Broncos’ quarterback, Tim Tebow, has been lambasted, ridiculed, and abused for what is termed, Tebowing, i.e. kneeling to thank God for his good fortune. Tebow, a committed Christian, pro-life, decent guy–all of which characteristics rankle liberals–feels it is his right and duty to publicly demonstrate his faith . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12002.)
Showing posts with label Tim Tebow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tim Tebow. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Tim Tebow, Broncos' Quarterback, not God's
Tim Tebow, Broncos' Quarterback, not God's
At the risk of taking issue with the Wall Street Journal’s Patton Dodd, I don’t think Denver Bronco’s Tim Tebow is “God’s Quarterback.” I don’t even know if God follows the NFL or if He cares much about football. I do know, however, that Tebow is a religious lightning rod and that much of the criticism surrounding him reflects more on his critics than on Tebow.
Dodd does provide a litany of the quarterback’s altruistic activities both at the University of Florida where he “re-shaped campus culture” and since he joined the Broncos as well as testimonials to his model behavior. Spending his summers working with the poor in the Phillipines and raising $340,000 for charity while a Gator were prefatory to establishing a charitable family foundation.
Dodd also notes a marked contrast between Tebow and the significant number of star athletes who have recently used their stardom, and wealth, to engage in criminal and anti-social–dare I say immoral?–conduct. Among others, he cites Tiger Woods, Plaxico Buress, and Michael Vick.
Neither his admirable qualities nor contrasts with less admirable athletes qualify Tebow qualify Tebow as a saint or God’s designated quarterback. Neither should they disqualify him from objective recognition of his accomplishments.
Tim Tebow is no Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana, or Peyton Manning–not yet, anyway–but he has caused an unprecedented uproar in the sports world that has surpassed few previous uproars, and little of it relates to his athletic abilities.
True, his wobbly passes and unconventional proclivity to run the ball have drawn valid criticism from NFL opponents and sports writers who ostensibly ridicule only his wobblies and unconventionality. However, it’s really the God thing, Tebow’s public affirmations of his relgiosity, that seems to bug many in the wide world of sports.
This Sunday’s game with Tom Brady’s New England Patriots is being characterized as Tebow’s biggest challenge to date, with both the Broncos and the Patriots desperate for a victory and Tebow, not desparate after leading the Broncos to seven wins in the eight games he’s started, but entitled.
Tim Tebow is entitled to some respect in addition to recognition.
Whether or not Tebow pulls off another amazing comeback victory and takes his team to the playoffs, it’s doubtful he’ll get it. He just has too many liabilities. (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10775.)
At the risk of taking issue with the Wall Street Journal’s Patton Dodd, I don’t think Denver Bronco’s Tim Tebow is “God’s Quarterback.” I don’t even know if God follows the NFL or if He cares much about football. I do know, however, that Tebow is a religious lightning rod and that much of the criticism surrounding him reflects more on his critics than on Tebow.
Dodd does provide a litany of the quarterback’s altruistic activities both at the University of Florida where he “re-shaped campus culture” and since he joined the Broncos as well as testimonials to his model behavior. Spending his summers working with the poor in the Phillipines and raising $340,000 for charity while a Gator were prefatory to establishing a charitable family foundation.
Dodd also notes a marked contrast between Tebow and the significant number of star athletes who have recently used their stardom, and wealth, to engage in criminal and anti-social–dare I say immoral?–conduct. Among others, he cites Tiger Woods, Plaxico Buress, and Michael Vick.
Neither his admirable qualities nor contrasts with less admirable athletes qualify Tebow qualify Tebow as a saint or God’s designated quarterback. Neither should they disqualify him from objective recognition of his accomplishments.
Tim Tebow is no Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana, or Peyton Manning–not yet, anyway–but he has caused an unprecedented uproar in the sports world that has surpassed few previous uproars, and little of it relates to his athletic abilities.
True, his wobbly passes and unconventional proclivity to run the ball have drawn valid criticism from NFL opponents and sports writers who ostensibly ridicule only his wobblies and unconventionality. However, it’s really the God thing, Tebow’s public affirmations of his relgiosity, that seems to bug many in the wide world of sports.
This Sunday’s game with Tom Brady’s New England Patriots is being characterized as Tebow’s biggest challenge to date, with both the Broncos and the Patriots desperate for a victory and Tebow, not desparate after leading the Broncos to seven wins in the eight games he’s started, but entitled.
Tim Tebow is entitled to some respect in addition to recognition.
Whether or not Tebow pulls off another amazing comeback victory and takes his team to the playoffs, it’s doubtful he’ll get it. He just has too many liabilities. (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10775.)
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Accounting for the Tea Party, the OWS, and Tim Tebow
Accounting for the Tea Party, the OWS, and Tim Tebow
In the first part of a series titled, “What Sets the Tea Party Apart,” Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks asks, “What is the difference between OWS and the Tea Party?” a rhetorical question tantamount to asking the reader to distinguish a cesspool from a cathedral.
Kibbe might as well have inquired as to the difference between the Occupy Wall Streeters and Denver Broncos’ much maligned quarterback, Tim Tebow, who hasn’t publicly identified himself as a Tea Party member but who clearly shares their philosophy– and their condemnation.
The chief problem with the Tea Party and Tebow in the eyes of their detractors is that they represent everything their detractors are not. As for the OWS mobs, they should study up on the conservative movement and the conservative quarterback after, as Newt Gingrich suggested, they get a job and take a bath.
Many on the Left like to draw parallels between the anti-taxation Tea Partiers and the anti-everything Occupiers in a futile attempt to give a degree of credibility and civility to the latter. The two groups are as dissimilar as cleanliness and dirt.
Kibbe cites the 18th century English philosopher-economist Adam Smith in presenting his argument that the Tea Party is “set apart,” distinctive from other social movements by virtue of its commitment to what Kibbe describes with a single word, “accountability . . . the moral basis that binds a community, allows for cooperation, and enables human prosperity.”
I would add that the stark absence of a sense of accountability, compounded by an even more gross disinterest in civilized behavior, render the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations irrelevant except, of course, to the lives they have negatively impacted.
Adam Smith expressed that sentiment far more elegantly: “The most sacred laws of justice, therefore, those whose violation seems to call loudest for vengeance and punishment, are the laws which guard the life and person of our neighbour; the next are those which guard his property and possessions.”
Though few are calling for “vengeance and punishment” for OWSers other than the enforcement of existing laws, the accountability factor is key to understanding the phenomenon of relatively small masses of people trampling on the rights of the vast majority.
Matt Kibbe sees the issue as the realization of a concept Tea Partiers genetically inherited from America’s Founders and Occupy Wall Street somehow missed: “Don’t hurt other people and don’t take their stuff.”
The Tea Party respects everyone and hurts no one.
The OWSers respect no one, hurt everyone including themselves and seize whatever “stuff” they can get their socialist, grubby hands on, from public park spaces to the rights of others to property and livelihoods while injuring those parks, those rights, properties, livelihoods, and themselves by their utter contempt for fundamental principles of personal and societal responsibility.
Tim Tebow’s principal responsibility on the football field is to win games for the Denver Broncos and, if he accidentally hurts anyone in the course of executing that duty, he would be contrite and apologetic since, well, that’s Tim Tebow.
He has admitted that he is also accountable to God, religion, and ethical dictates and that antiquated attitude toward morality rankles many in the sports world.
His critics have attacked Tebow’s athletic talents but what evidently bothers them most are other accountabilities. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6358.)
In the first part of a series titled, “What Sets the Tea Party Apart,” Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks asks, “What is the difference between OWS and the Tea Party?” a rhetorical question tantamount to asking the reader to distinguish a cesspool from a cathedral.
Kibbe might as well have inquired as to the difference between the Occupy Wall Streeters and Denver Broncos’ much maligned quarterback, Tim Tebow, who hasn’t publicly identified himself as a Tea Party member but who clearly shares their philosophy– and their condemnation.
The chief problem with the Tea Party and Tebow in the eyes of their detractors is that they represent everything their detractors are not. As for the OWS mobs, they should study up on the conservative movement and the conservative quarterback after, as Newt Gingrich suggested, they get a job and take a bath.
Many on the Left like to draw parallels between the anti-taxation Tea Partiers and the anti-everything Occupiers in a futile attempt to give a degree of credibility and civility to the latter. The two groups are as dissimilar as cleanliness and dirt.
Kibbe cites the 18th century English philosopher-economist Adam Smith in presenting his argument that the Tea Party is “set apart,” distinctive from other social movements by virtue of its commitment to what Kibbe describes with a single word, “accountability . . . the moral basis that binds a community, allows for cooperation, and enables human prosperity.”
I would add that the stark absence of a sense of accountability, compounded by an even more gross disinterest in civilized behavior, render the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations irrelevant except, of course, to the lives they have negatively impacted.
Adam Smith expressed that sentiment far more elegantly: “The most sacred laws of justice, therefore, those whose violation seems to call loudest for vengeance and punishment, are the laws which guard the life and person of our neighbour; the next are those which guard his property and possessions.”
Though few are calling for “vengeance and punishment” for OWSers other than the enforcement of existing laws, the accountability factor is key to understanding the phenomenon of relatively small masses of people trampling on the rights of the vast majority.
Matt Kibbe sees the issue as the realization of a concept Tea Partiers genetically inherited from America’s Founders and Occupy Wall Street somehow missed: “Don’t hurt other people and don’t take their stuff.”
The Tea Party respects everyone and hurts no one.
The OWSers respect no one, hurt everyone including themselves and seize whatever “stuff” they can get their socialist, grubby hands on, from public park spaces to the rights of others to property and livelihoods while injuring those parks, those rights, properties, livelihoods, and themselves by their utter contempt for fundamental principles of personal and societal responsibility.
Tim Tebow’s principal responsibility on the football field is to win games for the Denver Broncos and, if he accidentally hurts anyone in the course of executing that duty, he would be contrite and apologetic since, well, that’s Tim Tebow.
He has admitted that he is also accountable to God, religion, and ethical dictates and that antiquated attitude toward morality rankles many in the sports world.
His critics have attacked Tebow’s athletic talents but what evidently bothers them most are other accountabilities. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6358.)
Monday, October 31, 2011
Tebowing, a PC No-No
Tebowing, a PC No-No
“Tebowing” in the National Football League is unrelated to elbowing, kicking, or tackling. It’s an odd phenomenon inspired by the much-disparaged, much-admired, newly-designated starting Denver Bronco quarterback, Tim Tebow.
It seems Tim has a rare quirk for an NFL player. He feels he should publicly kneel on one knee in prayer to thank God when he accomplishes great things. Other, growing, phenomena are Tebow fans who have taken to emulating his quirk and media criticism by people disturbed by his overt Christian religiosity.
Tim Tebow may be a fan fave but he isn’t exactly a big favorite in the politically-correct community mainstream media which seem very uncomfortable with the facts he’s an unreconstructed evangelical Christian who isn’t embarrassed to admit it and because he doesn’t fit the MSM mold.
From his glory days as a Florida Gator, there was just something about the 2007 Heisman Award winner that many in the PC sports media couldn’t quite articulate. Well, they could but doing so would out them as anti-Christian bigots and they couldn’t very well admit that. Beginning with complaints over his evangelizing habit of posting biblical verses in eye black, they adopted various subterfuges to ridicule him instead.
The Denver Post took an oblique swipe at the wildly popular Tebow in an article not devoted to the quarterback as much as to what it called, “Tebow Inc.,” the successful family enterprise which markets a variety of products from a Christian perspective but which, according to the Post, revolves around “All Tim, all the time.”
The Post strongly implied “Team Tebow” serves to gratify Tim’s ego as well as charitable beneficiaries and suggested Kyle Orton became the Bronco backup to Tebow due mainly to “Tebow Mania” and not to any of his debatable skills on the field.
Before the 2011 NFL season began, CBSSports.com’s Gregg Doyel became especially exercised over Tebow’s innocuous remark that, “I’m relying as always on my faith.” A paraphrase of the comment might be that he simply meant he’s a religious guy who counts on his religion to guide and inspire him.
Not so to Doyel, who contended he really liked Tebow personally and is himself a churchgoer and, without mentioning the kneeling prayer, interpreted that profession of faith as something that “baffles” him and clear evidence that Tebow was guilty of blasphemy, a contemptuous irreverence toward God.
Without evincing any affection or Christian charity, Doyel did show he fails to understand the sin of blasphemy or the quarterback . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5858.)
“Tebowing” in the National Football League is unrelated to elbowing, kicking, or tackling. It’s an odd phenomenon inspired by the much-disparaged, much-admired, newly-designated starting Denver Bronco quarterback, Tim Tebow.
It seems Tim has a rare quirk for an NFL player. He feels he should publicly kneel on one knee in prayer to thank God when he accomplishes great things. Other, growing, phenomena are Tebow fans who have taken to emulating his quirk and media criticism by people disturbed by his overt Christian religiosity.
Tim Tebow may be a fan fave but he isn’t exactly a big favorite in the politically-correct community mainstream media which seem very uncomfortable with the facts he’s an unreconstructed evangelical Christian who isn’t embarrassed to admit it and because he doesn’t fit the MSM mold.
From his glory days as a Florida Gator, there was just something about the 2007 Heisman Award winner that many in the PC sports media couldn’t quite articulate. Well, they could but doing so would out them as anti-Christian bigots and they couldn’t very well admit that. Beginning with complaints over his evangelizing habit of posting biblical verses in eye black, they adopted various subterfuges to ridicule him instead.
The Denver Post took an oblique swipe at the wildly popular Tebow in an article not devoted to the quarterback as much as to what it called, “Tebow Inc.,” the successful family enterprise which markets a variety of products from a Christian perspective but which, according to the Post, revolves around “All Tim, all the time.”
The Post strongly implied “Team Tebow” serves to gratify Tim’s ego as well as charitable beneficiaries and suggested Kyle Orton became the Bronco backup to Tebow due mainly to “Tebow Mania” and not to any of his debatable skills on the field.
Before the 2011 NFL season began, CBSSports.com’s Gregg Doyel became especially exercised over Tebow’s innocuous remark that, “I’m relying as always on my faith.” A paraphrase of the comment might be that he simply meant he’s a religious guy who counts on his religion to guide and inspire him.
Not so to Doyel, who contended he really liked Tebow personally and is himself a churchgoer and, without mentioning the kneeling prayer, interpreted that profession of faith as something that “baffles” him and clear evidence that Tebow was guilty of blasphemy, a contemptuous irreverence toward God.
Without evincing any affection or Christian charity, Doyel did show he fails to understand the sin of blasphemy or the quarterback . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5858.)
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Religious Hypocrisy and the Denver Broncos (Separate Issues)
Religious Hypocrisy and the Denver Broncos (Separate Issues)
Of the 5,100 bishops in the Catholic Church worldwide, nary a one is a woman, unless we count Bishopress Nancy Pelosi of the First Congressional Church of God who occasionally tends to act and speak as if she were an ordained prelate of the Church.
Her chief problem in that role of bishopress is similar to the one Pelosi faces as Speakerette of the House of Representatives: She doesn’t know what she’s talking about and, when she does speak, she rambles incoherently and much of her audience is more preoccupied in identifying where she got her last Botox shot rather than in the words of Catholic religious wisdom she vainly attempts to impart.
Pelosi ”publicly stated earlier this year that she had a duty to pursue policies ‘in keeping with the values’ of Jesus Christ, the ‘Word made Flesh.’ But at a press briefing last week, when reminded of this statement, Pelosi declined to say when Jesus got the right to life.”
Poor Pelosi was in a sorry state, faced with a positively preposterous problem, a querulous quandary.
In that, Pelosi was akin to some Denver Bronco fans but more about them later.
Bishopress Nancy, a nominal Catholic, was confronted with a conundrum: How can a Catholic, nominal or not, legislatress defend the values of Jesus Christ, the Word made Flesh, and at the same time be an ardent supporter not only of abortion but of the most radical type of abortions, infanticide in the form of what doctors call intact dilation and extraction?
She thought and thought and thought about the question of when Jesus earned the right to life and then responded by saying, “Whenever it was, we bow our heads when we talk about it in church, and that’s where I’d like to talk about that.”
Umm, duh and wow!
Pelosi outdid herself on that one, not only by refusing to answer but by lying that “we bow our heads when we talk about it in church. . ."
(read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1827)
Of the 5,100 bishops in the Catholic Church worldwide, nary a one is a woman, unless we count Bishopress Nancy Pelosi of the First Congressional Church of God who occasionally tends to act and speak as if she were an ordained prelate of the Church.
Her chief problem in that role of bishopress is similar to the one Pelosi faces as Speakerette of the House of Representatives: She doesn’t know what she’s talking about and, when she does speak, she rambles incoherently and much of her audience is more preoccupied in identifying where she got her last Botox shot rather than in the words of Catholic religious wisdom she vainly attempts to impart.
Pelosi ”publicly stated earlier this year that she had a duty to pursue policies ‘in keeping with the values’ of Jesus Christ, the ‘Word made Flesh.’ But at a press briefing last week, when reminded of this statement, Pelosi declined to say when Jesus got the right to life.”
Poor Pelosi was in a sorry state, faced with a positively preposterous problem, a querulous quandary.
In that, Pelosi was akin to some Denver Bronco fans but more about them later.
Bishopress Nancy, a nominal Catholic, was confronted with a conundrum: How can a Catholic, nominal or not, legislatress defend the values of Jesus Christ, the Word made Flesh, and at the same time be an ardent supporter not only of abortion but of the most radical type of abortions, infanticide in the form of what doctors call intact dilation and extraction?
She thought and thought and thought about the question of when Jesus earned the right to life and then responded by saying, “Whenever it was, we bow our heads when we talk about it in church, and that’s where I’d like to talk about that.”
Umm, duh and wow!
Pelosi outdid herself on that one, not only by refusing to answer but by lying that “we bow our heads when we talk about it in church. . ."
(read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1827)
Friday, April 23, 2010
Are You Kidding Me?
Are You Kidding Me?
I can appreciate a joke but some news stories feature such outlandish ideas that should be funny and instead fall into the realm of the simply pathetic. A few examples culled from a plethora available:
. Most rational people, a description which excludes virtually all feminists, acknowledge the existence of “post abortion syndrome” which pro-life writer Lori Ziganto refers to in her article, “Women Can Have It All? Only If You Abort, Claim Pro-abortion Feminists:” http://bit.ly/d5CvaO
First of all, “pro-abortion feminists” is a redundancy easily verified by conversations with feministas who regard abortion as a virtual sacrament in their distorted religion. They worship at the perverted altar of dead babies.
Secondly, from a male perspective, if post-abortion syndrome did not exist . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1643)
I can appreciate a joke but some news stories feature such outlandish ideas that should be funny and instead fall into the realm of the simply pathetic. A few examples culled from a plethora available:
. Most rational people, a description which excludes virtually all feminists, acknowledge the existence of “post abortion syndrome” which pro-life writer Lori Ziganto refers to in her article, “Women Can Have It All? Only If You Abort, Claim Pro-abortion Feminists:” http://bit.ly/d5CvaO
First of all, “pro-abortion feminists” is a redundancy easily verified by conversations with feministas who regard abortion as a virtual sacrament in their distorted religion. They worship at the perverted altar of dead babies.
Secondly, from a male perspective, if post-abortion syndrome did not exist . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1643)
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Virginity, Abortion, and Homosexuality
Virginity, Abortion, and Homosexuality
Virginity, abortion, and homosexuality have to come close to topping the list of hot topics in contemporary discourse and all are discussed on http://americansfortruth.com/, the website for a new organization of AFTAH, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality.
Its current lead article, reprinted from http://www.lifesitenews.com/, concerns the first two topics only. It relates to Tim Tebow, Florida Gators’ quarterback, a “rising star” in college football who just made the cover of Sports Illustrated and is a Heisman nominee.
Tim is also a unique star in today’s America.
Home-schooled by his mom, and proud of it, Tim is a committed Christian, and proud of that as well. Those facts, though, do not fully explain his uniqueness.
He dropped a bombshell last week at a news conference when asked a totally irrelevant question by a nitwit reporter as to whether he was “saving himself” for marriage.
Rather than responding with the retort that many of us would use to an oddball query namely, “What the hell stupid question is that?” he simply said, “Yes, I am.”
Therein was the bombshell. The room was rocked and flabbergasted at Tim’s admission that a handsome, 21 year old, star football QB living in 2009 America, probably already plagued by teenage groupies, was a virgin who planned to stay that way until he married.
Today, in our sex-saturated society such a revelation by even a high school athlete would cause a media stir.
Tim is happy with the publicity he’s been getting of late not because it feeds his ego but because it has given him the opportunity to interact with many more people and spread his Christian faith.
One of the strongest tenets of that faith is a reverence for the sanctity of life and he has directly and significantly benefitted from his mother’s strong opposition to abortion: It’s the reason he is alive.
While pregnant with Tim, Mrs. Tebow contracted a life-threatening infection and was pressured by her doctors to have an abortion. She refused and both she and her son are alive and well today.
Tim tossed another bombshell at the press conference when he said, “There has been a lot of people that have been encouraged not to have an abortion because they heard the story of my mom, or they have been encouraged because they have heard me give my faith on TV or in a report.”
As I said, Tim Tebow is unique.
On the other side of the AFTAH coin are less wholesome stories and reports on recent activities in the gay world, which world is intruding more and more on the normal world. Cases in point:
. “Pro-homosexual Websites Slam AFTAH for Call To Investigate Health Risks of ‘Gay’ Sex.” Those risks are patently obvious to all but the most obtuse homosexuals and well known to the most self-destructive gays. Yet, People for the American Way is campaigning to end the ban on gays donating blood. Yet, governments nationwide refuse to regulate a chain of homosexual “bathhouses.” Steamworks even offered student discounts for spring break. . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)