The Worst Possible Take

This was some "news" organization's angle on the sickening Jeffery Epstein story:
(it's apparently from Forbes.)

From private island to private jet: What is 'billionaire' Jeffrey Epstein's net worth?

 Janna Herron and Kevin McCoy 8 hours ago 

Why? Why is this the question?
Who heard the horrific Jeffery Epstein story and thought "I wonder if he's really a billionaire? I think that's something my readers would want to know. I should really delve into this aspect of the appalling, horrifying sex-crimes story. Jeffery Epstein accused of heinous crimes against underage girls? Time for some investigative reporting! Does anyone have a contact at DeutscheBank? Can we get ahold of his tax returns? God damn it, our readers deserve to know whether this vile, loathsome serial rapist of children is really a billionaire or not!"



Oh, and here is the lede sentence:

Who is Jeffrey Epstein? It turns out that the descriptor most used to identify him over the past decades – billionaire – may not even apply.

Really? Is "billionaire" the descriptor most often used to describe Epstein?
Not "degenerate?"
Not "pervert?"
Not "sexual predator?"
Not "rapist?"
Not "child abuser?'
Not "vile, loathsome swine?"

The most definitive view came late on Friday, when federal prosecutors in New York said records obtained from a financial institution they did not identify showed that Epstein is worth more than $500 million and makes an estimated $10 million a year.Messages to Epstein's lawyers were not immediately returned. 

No! You don't say! It's almost as if Jeffery Epstein's lawyers have a bigger problem on their hands at the moment, what with their client being a serial sexual predator. (allegedly).It's almost as if not even his own fucking lawyers give a shit about how much money the son of a bitch has because WHY WOULD ANYONE CARE ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW?

One of the easier ways to gauge some of Epstein’s net worth is through his real estate holdings and other possessions, which were listed in a July 8 court filing by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

Oh, yes. His real estate holdings. The various properties in which Epstein has (allegedly) RAPED UNDERAGE GIRLS! Yes, let's estimate the combined value of all the properties in which Epstein committed horrific sex crimes. Because that's what's important right now. His net fucking worth. That's what people care about.

Holy fuck, Forbes! I get that you're a financial publication and you instinctively are going to look for a financial angle in every story you cover, but maybe if the only angle you can come up with for a story about sexual predators is the (alleged) sexual predator's wealth? Maybe just leave that story alone.
jesus Christ!

Who's got two thumbs and is the most corrupt state in the Union? This Georgia!

Look out, New Jersey! Step aside, Illinois. The great state of Georgia is staking its claim to the title of Most Corrupt State in the Union.


We had a n election a little while back. You probably heard about it. Potential rising star Stacey Abrams ran for governor against slimy smarmy shady Republican Brian Kemp.






The reason that you might have heard about the governor's race in our humble little state is that Brian Kemp, in addition to being one of the two candidates,was also at the same time, serving as Georgia's Secretary of State. I don't know how things work in your state, but here in Georgia, the Secretary of State is in charge of elections. So one of the two candidates for governor was the person who decided how many voting machines were allocated to each precinct, how much early voting would be allowed and who would be considered an eligible voter. And he smugly refused to hand over any of those duties to someone else. Now, this may come as a shock to you, but as it happened, heavily Democratic districts somehow ended up with fewer voting machines while, coincidentally, many voters with black-sounding names found themselves inexplicably removed from the voting rolls.

Well, as it turns out, Kemp ended up winning by a narrow margin. (about 50% to 49%)

Now we find out that the votes were counted not by election workers, but by one of those shady-as-hell voting machine companies. ES&S. (whose business address is, I just discovered, 11208 JOHN GALT Blvd.)

Yes, ES&S was given a $300k contract BY BRIAN KEMP to count the votes in Brian Kemp's election which was overseen by Brian Kemp. And by a felicitous turn of luck, the winner was Brian Kemp. And no one is going to ever do anything about it.

Can it get worse? hahahaha of course it can! We're talking about Twenty First Century Republicans!

Okay, Georgia is one of those states where you have to show a driver's license to vote. Because otherwise, I would just put on a variety of different wigs and false moustaches and pretend to be all my neighbors and co-workers, casting votes for left-wing candidates in their names. And no one would be the wiser!

Anyway, there are in Georgia some people from Puerto Rico. I don't know how many, probably more since the big hurricane, but there are some. And these people from Puerto Rico are, as you know but your conservative relatives do not, American citizens. Meaning that they can vote once they get Georgia driver's licences. Which should be a pretty simpole thing to do. I moved here from California and went to the DMV or whatever they call it here and basically traded in my California license for a shiny new Georgia one. Simple. Buuutttt, I guess someone figured out that Puerto Rican people might not be all that eager to vote for a party whose standard-bearer they last saw hucking paper towels at them while their island was drowning.

So now there's this:

The 43 questions Georgia asks Puerto Ricans who want a driver’s license

The governor of Puerto Rico today asked Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp to address “disturbing irregularities” cited in a federal lawsuit that claims the state discriminates against Puerto Rico natives who apply for driver’s licenses – by asking questions about local politics, geography, sports and music.

When I came here from California, I was asked ZERO questions about local politics, geography, sports or music. I am a white guy, but that's probably just a coincidence.

We now have a bit more information on this state Department of Driver Services policy. Specifically, we have the 43 potential questions that the DDS has put together in a “Puerto Rican Interview Guide.”

Okay, how is that even legal? How are they even allowed to have an interview guide for a specific ethnicity? I mean,. I know no one cares about the law or the rules any more since the 2016 election, but holy fuck, this seems blatantly illegal. I hope someone is getting lawyers involved.

A copy of the guide was provided by attorneys for Kenneth Caban Gonzalez, who says he’s waited 600 days for his Georgia driver’s license – and still doesn’t have it.

Okay, good. Lawyers. Lawyers for a guy who. . . .SIX HUNDRED DAYS?!?!?!? What the HELL?

The DDS document says the material contained within was “taken from Diplomatic Security Service PR Interview Guide,” but it’s not clear whether that’s a federal source. 

Well, the Diplomatic Security Service is definitely a federal organization, but the Georgia Department of Driver Services has no business coordinating with them or using their materials. I assume that this "interview guide" is intended to trip up Cuban spies who are trying to pass themselves off as Puerto Ricans for nefarious purposes. The state licensing bureau should have no aithority to "interview" anyone on their place of origin.

Now, as we were saying, the “Puerto Rican Interview Guide” has its trick questions:

-- “Where is Caguas Beach? Caguas is the largest inland city and has no beach.”

-- “How long is the San Juan-Fajardo train ride? There is no train.”

-- “How do citizens of Puerto Rico vote for President of the U.S. They cannot vote for the U.S. President.”

So the point of this is, what? To try and get a wrong answer form someone who maybe doesn't speak great English and might misunderstand the question so that you have an excuse to deny that person a driver's license?

Updated at 6 p.m.: Shevondah Leslie, the DDS director of communications, just called to say that the “Puerto Rican Interview Guide” was never authorized by DDS authorities, but was unable to say in whose possession the document was in when it surfaced during the lawsuit discovery process -- last December, before Kemp took office.

So no one even knows how or why they have this thing? I mean,we know why. but they don't even have a rationale?
And Kemp may have had nothing to do with this, but Georgia has been run by slimy crooked Republicans since we moved here. )Our last governor was the unscrupulous Nathan Deal. Before Deal, it was Sonny Purdue who is currently serving as tRump's Secretary of Agriculture).

Kemp spokeswoman Candice Broce also sent us this statement:


“Governor Kemp expects state employees to follow the law and treat every constituent with dignity and respect. Our team has spoken with DDS Commissioner Spencer Moore and asked him to conduct a full investigation into these claims.”

Oh, good! Because if you really want to get to the bottom of soemthing like this, the best way is to have the agency investigate itself!
Problem solved!

We Don't Need You and We Don't Care What You Think.

They're so predictable. You could set your watch by them.
Every election year, all the very serious conservatives come out of the woodwork to sincerely offer their good-faith advice to the Democratic candidates.





Here's Tom Nichols in the pages of USA Today:

OPINION

Never Trumper: I'll vote for almost any Democrat, but lurching left won't beat Trump

This election is a referendum on Trump, and nothing else should come close as the central issue. His name alone should be enough to drive up turnout.

TOM NICHOLS | OPINION COLUMNIST

Oh, a "Never Trumper!" Oh, you're a member of that important demographic? Oh, well, by all means, you just go right ahead and dictate terms to the Democratic Party! You're such a valuable voting block! All half-dozen of you! The electoral importance of "Never Trumpers" ranks just above "Babies" and just below "Cryptozoology Moms" Of course you should be in a position to make demands about what kind of candidate you will accept from the opposing party.

Never Trumpers, of whom I am a charter member, fear that the Democrats and their unruly coalition are going to lurch to the left, lose the Electoral College again, and hand Trump a second term while the Democratic nominee claims another victory as the imperial regent of the Pacific Coast Empire.

Oh. Okay. Well why don't we nominate a bland, inoffensive middling moderate then? Someone with a lot of experience who won't go too far on any issue. Someone who likes Obamacare but assures us that single payer will never happen. Someone who talks about the environment but likes fracking and oil pipelines. Someone who thinks it might be okay to raise the minimum wage, but raising it to a livable level is just unreasonable! Someone like, oh, I don't know, Hillary Clinton?

Look, Tom. We don't need your vote. We don't need any of you "never Trump" Republicans' votes. You are not relevant. Trump got fewer votes in 2016 than Mitt Romney got in 2012. If the Clinton campaign had been able to energize the Democratic base the way Obama had in 2008 and 2012, she would have won. And it ain't like there's going to be any new Trump voters this time around. I don't think he's won over any skeptics with three years of buffoonery, graft and racist sadism. All the Democrats will need to do is generate some excitement among their voters. And you know how you don't do that? By nominating someone who is acceptable to a Never Trump Republican. If you people were at all sincere about your "never Trump" stand, you'd have voted for Hillary Clinton. And if you had any electoral power, you would have put her over the top. You didn't and you don't. We don't need your votes and we don't care what you think.


And of course David Brooks had to weigh in.

Dems, Please Don’t Drive Me Away

By David Brooks

Opinion Columnist

Oh, yeah. We'd sure hate to lose David Brooks and the tens of readers over whom he has influence. Why, there must be at least a score of Times Readers who don't hate-read read David Brooks' column, but honestly look to Brooks for his insight and wisdom!

I could never in a million years vote for Donald Trump. So my question to Democrats is: Will there be a candidate I can vote for?

This is a hell of a premise, and Brooks isn't the first to use it. "I could never vote for Trump, he's a racist, misogynist clown who is dangerously unqualified and too unstable to be trusted with the nuclear codes. I would never vote to put such a monstrous fool back into the most powerful office in the land. Unless the Dems nominate someone I don't like!" If you honestly understand the threat of another Trump term, you would vote for anyone the Dems put up. But by saying that you won't, you show that you really aren't serious.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 35 percent of Americans call themselves conservative, 35 percent call themselves moderate and 26 percent call themselves liberal. The candidates at the debates this week fall mostly within the 26 percent. The party seems to think it can win without any of the 35 percent of us in the moderate camp, the ones who actually delivered the 2018 midterm win.

Oh my God, where to begin?
How about since when are you a "moderate?" Just being a bit to the left of the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer hardly makes you a moderate.
Also, when you say "liberal," I assume you are using that term interchangably with "progressive" or "leftist," since you only allow for three categories. And if you think that candidates like Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gilibrand, John Hickenlooper, Pete Butiegieg, and Beto O'Rourke are on the Left, that just goes to show how far to the right you actually are.
Ans what eveidence do you have that "moderates" delivered the 2018 midterm wins? This would be the electoral wave that brought Ayanna Presley, Lucy McBath, Chuy Garcia, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Debra Haaland and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to DC? Is that the electoral victory for which you think "moderates" deserve credit?

Oh, and one more thing. Does it occur to you that a lot of people don't identify themselves as "liberal" because that word has been poisoned for the last 30-some-odd years by Republicans hurling it as invective and Democrats trying to duck it? Does it occur to you that, no matter how many people identify themselves as "moderate" or "liberal" or whatever, progressive policies like Medicare for All and a $15/hr minimum wage are actually quite popular? That maybe people who support these progressive/liberal policies call themselves "moderates" because these things just seem like common-sense ideas?

The party is moving toward all sorts of positions that drive away moderates and make it more likely the nominee will be unelectable. A

You say "unelectable" but the polling shows that the two leftiest candidates in the Dem primary would both beat Trump in the general election.So there's no need to settle for a dull centrist like Biden, whose polling numbers v Trump aren't much better and he has yet to unleash the gaffe machine.

Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	MoE	Warren (D)	Trump (R)	Spread
RCP Average	3/27 - 6/24	--	--	48.3	44.7	Warren +3.6
Emerson	6/21 - 6/24	1096 RV	2.9	53	47	Warren +6
FOX News	6/9 - 6/12	1001 RV	3.0	43	41	Warren +2
Quinnipiac	6/6 - 6/10	1214 RV	3.5	49	42	Warren +7
Rasmussen Reports	5/12 - 5/23	5000 LV	1.5	46	44	Warren +2
Emerson	5/10 - 5/13	1006 RV	3.0	52	49	Warren +3
CNN	4/25 - 4/29	452 RV	5.6	47	48	Trump +1
PPP (D)	3/27 - 3/28	846 RV	3.4	48	42	Warren +6

Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	MoE	Sanders (D)	Trump (R)	Spread
RCP Average	3/27 - 6/24	--	--	49.7	43.2	Sanders +6.5
Emerson	6/21 - 6/24	1096 RV	2.9	55	45	Sanders +10
FOX News	6/9 - 6/12	1001 RV	3.0	49	40	Sanders +9
Quinnipiac	6/6 - 6/10	1214 RV	3.5	51	42	Sanders +9
CNN	4/25 - 4/29	456 RV	5.6	50	44	Sanders +6
Rasmussen Reports	3/31 - 4/11	5000 LV	1.5	44	47	Trump +3
PPP (D)	3/27 - 3/28	846 RV	3.4	49	41	Sanders +8

All General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Polling Data

There are others, of course. Plenty of other conservatives who just want to be helpful and offer some solid advice to the Democrats. Ross Douthat phoned it in, kind of giving the game away.

I'm off this weekend but this earlier column can serve as my contribution to the great Twitter debate over whether alienating @BretStephensNYT and @nytdavidbrooks is bad news for the Democrats:https://t.co/kllrlQQTJM

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) June 29, 2019

Yes, it is the same bullshit Every. Damn. Time. Thank you for copping to it, Douche Hat.

Look, here's the thing. There are more of us (Dems/Libs/Progs) than there are of you (Republicans/Conservatives/Right-wingers). And there are a HELL of a lot more of us than there are "Never Trumpers." We Don't Need You. We don't care what you think. You people have been on the wrong side of every issue ever.

Also, we already tried it your way. Remember Chuck Schumer's strategy for 2016?

 “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

I think we all remember how that turned out.

So, here's the deal. We will decide on our own nominee. If we want to nominate a centrist like Biden or Beto or Butiegieg, we will nominate a centrist. If we decide to nominate the ghost of Che Guevarra, we will nominate the ghost of Che Guevarra. And if that results in a smattering of  "Never Trump"conservative Republicans voting for Trump as if they weren't already going to do that, it won't matter one bit. WE DON"T NEED YOU> AND WE DON"T CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

Bullshit Headline Of The Day

Politics

Republicans demand Trump face rape investigation

Well that can't be true. They haven't demanded that he face any investigation for the other two dozen credible claims of sexual assault. Even the ones he bragged about on tape. Nor his daily violations of the emoluments clause. Nor his crimes against humanity being carried out on the border. So, let's have a look at this article.

Two Republican senators have split from their colleagues in calling for Donald Trump’s alleged rape of the author E. Jean Carroll to be investigated.

Oh, an entire TWO? Of the entire Republican Party there are actually TWO people that are bothered by their president being a rapist? I mean, it's two more than I would have expected, but still. . .

Republican senator Mitt Romney called for an “evaluation” into the claims, though he failed to make clear who should conduct it.
"Whether it's Congress or whether it's another setting, I'm not sure,” he told CNN on Wednesday. "It's a very serious allegation. I hope that it is fully evaluated. The president said it didn't happen and I certainly hope that's the case."

Ooh, what a forceful condemnation of the sexual predator-in-chief! Dropping a tea bag into Lake Michigan wouldn't produce such weak tea. The accusation should be "evaluated?" What does that even mean? Oh, it doesn't matter what it means, because the president said he didn't do it so ya gotta assume that he didn't!

Joni Ernst, a Republican colleague of Mr Romney's said Carrol was right to come forward with the allegation.
"But obviously, there has to be some additional information. They need to interview her. They need to visit with him” she told CNN.

Yes. There needs to be additional information. And they definitely need to hear the rapist's side of the story. Jesus Christ!
Listen, Mr Headline Writer, neither of these Republicans is demanding anything. You have two Republicans saying that maybe it might be a good idea to sorta half-assed look into the allegation. They certainly aren't demanding that "Trump face rape investigation." For God's sake, have some fucking pride in your work! That headline is just flat dishonest, especially when the story continues with Many other Republicans, however, dismissed the allegation or claimed they were not even aware of it.

“He's denied it, and that's enough for me. Until somebody comes up with something new,” said Lindsey Graham

and

Despite press coverage in print and on the airwaves, senator Marco Rubio told a reporter they were asking him “about a story that I’ve never even read”

Rubio and Graham are about a million times more representative of the Republican attitude towards Trump and the myriad of allegations against him.  I assume you're counting on no one reading past the headline to put out a false impression of a Republican Party with some shred of integrity.

The Weirdest Thing I Saw Today.

So I saw this on Twitter today:

One of the anti #LGBTQ folks gathering in front of the U.S. Supreme Court for a press conference calling for the Court to overturn its marriage equality decision pic.twitter.com/sA8ttWue3U

— Peter Montgomery (@petemont) June 26, 2019

And, holy Hell, where to begin?
First of all, that's not how the Supreme Court works.
Or it isn't how it's supposed to work, anyway.
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to respond to public pressure the way that elected officials are supposed to. They aren't supposed to look at a law and say "Hmm, this law clearly violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, but on the other hand, some people really like it, so. . . "
Also, the Supreme Court can't just decide to reverse a prior decision. Someone has to bring a case before them. Someone would have to have standing. And no one is ever going to have standing to bring a case against Obergfell because how could anyone claim to have been harmed by that decision? (And having your little feelings hurt doesn't count.)


But then I saw the web address on his shirt. WWW -dot-ThirdGender666-dot-com. And my curiosity got the better of me.

So I went there.

Hoo boy!

Welcome to the house of weird!

First of all, there's the "In the News" section which contains precisely Two entries:

1:

In the news! Jan. 2007 - Elementary school kids being taught to embrace gay and lesbian lifestyles as a healthy alternative

2:
1959 - The Third Sex, a lesbian pulp novel from 1959 opened the minds of Americans to this secret society




Ah, yes. I remember how in 1969 everyone was reading this particular potboiler and how it opened up the minds of America to. . .how many people actually read this book? 
Also, what secret society? I've never heard of any secret societ. . . oh, right. Cuz it's a secret. Duh!
Anyway, I did a bit of online research about the genre and there were several more influential lesbian pulp novels published prior to The Third Sex, notably 1952's Spring Fire,





 1950's Women's Barracks

and 1953's The Price of Salt (which was made intro the 2015 movie Carol with Kate Blanchett and Rooney Mara)

So why place so mush import on this one particular pulp novel?

What are they, chopped liver?

Probably because whatever weirdo writes this website seems kind of obsessed with the term "third gender" (hence the site's name.)

To say "I was born the Third Gender" is to curse the name of the Lord, meaning evil speaking or slander attributing some evil to God. But God is holy and can do no evil. The concept of a Third Gender is an attempt to demean the plan, throne, sovereignty, and supreme power of the Creator. To dehumanize yourself and deprive yourself of human qualities, personality or spirit is inhuman and inhumane.

Wow, that's quite a leap! I don't know how one gets from "I was born 3rd gender" to "I curse thee, Jehovah, I curse thy holy name!" Also, I don't think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think most LGBT people refer to themselves as being "Third gender." Am I wrong, LGBT readers? The gay men I know refer to themselves as men. The lesbians I know refer to themselves as women. Also, I don't really get how it demeans the power of the creator to imply that he is capable of creating more than two genders. I mean, I make a pretty good chicken cacciatore and a decent pork lo mein, but if someone said "you also make chicken parm," I don't think I would feel demeaned by that. But, maybe that's why he's God and I'm not.

. . .Yet!

Then there is a section entitled "FACTS."

It begins like this:

Let's keep it simple. God is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 

Okay. I mean there are certainly a lot of people who would dispute that - Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, Scientologists. . . but that is a statement that would be assumed to be a solid fact by most Christians who, I assume, are the intended audience. So nothing too crazy yet.

. . .Yet!

 Consider the Tree of life: oxygen, water, and food. Oxygen is a colorless, tasteless, odorless gas in the atmosphere that comes from plant life. The odorless gas mixes with the clouds to produce rain water. 

Yeahhhhh, that is NOT how rain works.
At all.
I mean, you got the "clouds are involved" part, but other than that. . .

The rain comes down from the sky to insert life into mother earth, from God the Father. This God created process reveals the nature of how God designs and implements extremely complex methods that accomplish His intentions. He performs the impossible, then steps back for creation to enjoy. God's handiwork, his fingerprint, is recognizable and can be seen over and over. The Tree of life is a reproductive process, a spiritual sex, if you will, which yields the fruit of the earth. It's the seed from our spiritual Father.

Oh dear GOD! Are you saying that rain is. . . EWWWWWW!!!!
I mean, that seems like blasphemy to me. And also Ewwwwww!!!!
I will never look at rain the same way again.

Human sex from the womb is called holy by the Lord 

No. That is not where sex happens. It happens a bit South of the "womb." (Or sometimes South and around the corner, but that's none of my business.)

Also, when did God call sex "holy?" I went through 12 years of Lutheran schooling, I've read most of the Bible, and I don't remember anything positive in there about sex. You really need to cite a particular chapter and verse if you're going to make a claim like that!

A man inserts his penis into his wife's vagina, the genital canal, and a baby is born. 

I think there's a few steps in between. That's why the process generally takes several months.
Also, the term is "birth canal." Not "genital canal."

In the cycle of life, the man becomes the father, the wife becomes the mother and the cycle continues. The reproductive system to create a living being's sexual genitalia is clearly produced in the fruit of the womb. The baby is a boy or a girl.

A: that's gibberish.
B: you do know about hermaphroditism, right? (Is that a real word?) Somethimes babies are born with both male and female parts or sometimes with what is referred to as "ambiguous genitalia." Which is sort of a what you might call a "thied gender" sort of situation.

What is sexism or what is a sexist? Sex is only between the male and female. To convert good (God's design) to evil (your own perversion of sex) is satanistic. To speak or act as oral or anal intercourse is sex is blasphemous and profane.

Mp. That's not what sexism is. That's not what a sexist is. Also, sign me up for a little profane blasphemy this weekend, eh?

Why did God give them brimstone and fire in Sodom and Gomorrah? Because he knew that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender sinners would degenerate God's original intent for sex.

Okay, now that is just patently false. There is no ambiguity on this point. It is stated quite clearly what the "sin of Sodom" was:

Ezekiel 16:49-50 New International Version (NIV)49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Eh, I bet it was probably the gays!

Defend the planet or destroy the planet. Let's start with protecting defenseless children from satan. 

Honestly, I think we should concentrate on protecting defenseless children from I.C.E.

Let's start with protecting defenseless children from satan. Adam Adam, Eve and Eve. The power of love is to tell the truth. The power of hate is to stop the truth. Let us get high on love, not getting high on hate. 

So. . . is it Adam and Adam, then? I thought it was supposed to be Adam and Steve?  Or is it Eve and Eve? So many possibilities!

 

In conclusion, this question is posed, which you can answer by clicking on the provided link:

Do homosexuals strengthen the planet, or weaken the planet?

Write me so we can talk about it.

- Minister Leroy

Go ahead. I'm sure he'd love to know your thoughts on the subject.