William Saturn Reviews Don Grundmann’s CandleCrusade.org

William Saturn has been an IPR contributor since December 2011. He is also an accredited reporter for Wikinews. Saturn’s personal blog can be found here

Former State Chairman for the California Constitution Party, a 2008 and 2012 Constitution Party presidential candidate, and frequent IPR reader, Don Grundmann operates CandleCrusade.org. It hosts ten pages of documents supporting Grundmann’s controversial thesis that the true agenda of the LGBT movement is the corruption of children, ideally through legalized molestation, to solidify and normalize homosexuality. In IPR discussion, Grundmann often refers to his website as proof for his claims.

As a result of Grundmann’s strongly held beliefs, IPR discussions on LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) issues are often contentious and usually descend into name-calling, the lowest rung on Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement (see chart below). In order to foster a higher level of discussion, I volunteered to make a neutral assessment of the content on CandleCrusade.org.

After reading all of the material on the site, I conclude that Grundmann makes valid points concerning the indoctrination of children in public schools, encouragement of activities hazardous to the health of children, and erosion of religious liberty and free speech in the United States.  I will cover each in detail below. Despite these valid points, I cannot in good faith connect these to an overarching agenda to intentionally corrupt children. However, I believe there are two primary reasons Grundmann draws a different conclusion.

First, according to Grundmann himself, a major motivating factor behind CandleCrusade.org was the creation of a LGBT-S club at Roosevelt Elementary School, Grundmann’s alma mater. It seems quite strange for an elementary school to have a gay-straight alliance. Most such alliances are found in high schools and universities. But Roosevelt’s club is not like these. On the Roosevelt Elementary School website, the LGBT-S club is located under the “Parent Organizations” header. Though I have no information of what goes on at this organization’s meetings, the fact that it is a parent’s organization, makes me doubt it is anything more than a support group for parents. I presume Grundmann misidentified the club as a student organization, which led to his speculation that the organization is part of a coordinated effort to “indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality.”

 Second, Grundmann misuses the above quote often at CandleCrusade.org to reinforce his thesis. It actually comes from the May 12, 2011 Queerty.com post, “Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Actually Do Want To Indoctrinate Kids?” This post presents only the opinion of its author, Daniel Villarreal, who does not necessarily represent the entire LGBT movement. In its full context, Villarreal writes, “I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.” Grundmann believes this reveals the true motives of the LGBT movement, but truth requires deeper examination.

In the first response to the post, a Queerty.com commenter remarked, “you have used the term recruit as if it meant educate. We get it, but what the haters mean by recruit is entirely different. They use it as code for pedophilia.”  Villarreal responded, “When I say recruit, I mean ‘get on our side’ and ‘get to help fight our battles for us.’”  This is not recruitment as a means to turn children into homosexuals or sodomize them. It may be viewed as Villarreal’s personal endorsement of the indoctrination chronicled at CandleCrusade.org, but the consensus among Queerty.com readers is that schools should discuss homosexuality when appropriate to minimize bullying and improve self-esteem.  This is an outlook bereft with idealism, but no matter how misguided, the goal seems genuine.  A commenter named Steve summed up this perspective:

 Rational adults do not talk about sex in front of kids who are too young to learn about such things. But, when the kids reach an age and start asking questions about sex, rational adults give honest answers. And, at some point, the whole truth really should be told. Many school districts have a “health” class in which the curriculum includes some sex education.

 The fact that some people are gay, is one of the facts of life that should be taught at an appropriate age. That bit of knowledge can literally save the life of a kid who knows he is different, and has started contemplating suicide.

 The accusation of recruiting is just an attempt to gin up support in their base, among parents especially. We really should respond by calling the lie. Rational parents should be concerned about suicide, much more than whether their boy knows that gays exist.

Indoctrination of Children

Throughout CandleCrusade.org, Grundmann demonstrates how special interests have used the state to push certain points of view in public schools, particularly in California. As a result, politicians and administrators force schools to indoctrinate children with distorted realities.

 For example, in “Sodomites in Public School,” Grundmann brings up California’s  FAIR Education Act. Following heavy lobbying from the LGBT movement, Governor Jerry Brown signed the act into law in 2011. It mandates schools teach children “the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans,” among others. Rather than striving for an accurate depiction of history, this law skews the lesson to make certain groups or figures more prominent than they otherwise should be.

Since the modern understanding of homosexuality developed only in the latter half of the 19th century, this law effectively forces educators to commit such anachronisms as connecting the LGBT movement to figures, who lived before the LGBT movement even existed. In a more general sense, the law overemphasizes the importance of sexual orientation as a factor in historical accomplishment. For instance, when examining the American Civil War, is it fruitful to discuss the alleged homosexuality of Abraham Lincoln? When debating Keynesian economics, does the bisexuality of John Maynard Keynes somehow bolster his arguments?

This embracement of the superficial, TMZ.com view of history highlights the idiotization of children occurring in public schools today. Not only does it stray education from truth, it wastes time and taxpayer money. Nevertheless, the FAIR Education Act would be just as damaging if it came about from activist groups with other perspectives, wishing to have their points of view taught in a disproportionate manner.

On a much smaller scale, Grundmann chronicles this same waste in his example of a San Francisco charter school’s “field trip” to a teacher’s lesbian wedding in 2008. However, like the FAIR Education Act, it is not the lesbian aspect that is most troubling. It is the waste of school time. A “field trip” would be just as wasteful if taken to a traditional wedding.

Grundmann provides further evidence of activist-sponsored indoctrination in “Combating Sodomite Infiltration At the Earliest Level of Public Education.” In this, he mentions an Oakland public school using the activist group “Gender Spectrum” to teach “gender expression” to first and second grade children. In the lesson (available on video here), children listen as a “gender coach” indoctrinates them with Gender Spectrum’s viewpoint that it is “normal” to have a separate “gender identity” from physical sex.  However, this viewpoint is adverse even to the information on the group’s website:

 Some gender specialists estimate that 1 in 500 children is significantly gender nonconforming or transgender. An older study based on statistics of postoperative transsexual men put the number at 1 in 20,000. (emphasis added)

 The school claims the program is a way to reduce bullying, but even under the liberal estimate, gender nonconforming significantly affects no more than one child in an average elementary school. With so few children experiencing the issue, how is it appropriate to direct taxpayer funds toward an entire position dedicated to the issue?  If anything, such a lesson only leaves children confused.  For example, a boy may enjoy playing with dolls.  Gender Spectrum’s “lesson” plants the idea that because he enjoys a “girl hobby,” he may somewhat be a girl on the gender spectrum.

Surely there are ways to reduce bullying that do not intentionally confuse children in such a manner.  Unfortunately, students are stuck with the lesson since the school does not permit parental opt-out. This raises concern, as should any activist group forcing its agenda on children through the public education system.

Though the above examples reflect the unfortunate results of activism in the education process, there is no evidence that the indoctrination here is being used to “recruit” children or “mentally, emotionally, and morally rape and molest” them. In my opinion, the indoctrination is a misguided attempt of government and certain activist groups to improve the self-esteem of a very few children at the expense of time and reality.  Officials willing to make that exchange do so likely to avoid the appearance of bigotry. The fact that it can be done is a symptom of a government too large for its own good.

A libertarian solution would be the privatization of the public education system, giving parents who do not want their children indoctrinated, the option of going to schools where no indoctrination occurs. However, this solution is not likely in the current political climate. An easier approach would be to empower public schools to answer to the parents directly and decide important issues for themselves without intervention from the state.

 Children’s Health

As Grundmann notes, the same state actions causing indoctrination of children in public education also can negatively impact children’s health. Changes to school bathroom policy, encouragement of dangerous sexual practices, and relaxed attitudes toward pedophilia, are the results of an ideology justified as inclusive and anti-bullying.

Under “Virtuous Sodomy: The Fight to Distigmatize Homosexuality,” Grundmann explains how the Maine Human Rights Commission ruled against a school policy preventing a transgender student, who is biologically male, from using the girl’s bathroom. The school allowed the student to use the staff bathroom instead, but that was not good enough for the student or Commission. The school appealed the Commission’s ruling and the case is currently before the Maine Supreme Court. The Commission argues the school discriminated against the student based on gender. However, as Amnesty International argues, every girl has a right to “sex-segregated toilets and washrooms.” (emphasis added) For a state to mandate that this right be intruded upon, puts girls at an increased risk of violence, particularly sexual violence. It is reasonable that bathroom segregation be done based on the actual sex of the student, rather than their gender mindset. Because so few transgender students actually exist, based on Gender Spectrum’s statistics above, there should be no difficulty in allowing such students to use the staff bathroom. As some LGBT activists say, this may cause emotional distress for transgender children, but shouldn’t the state have a greater interest in preserving the rights of girls and preventing sexual violence? Again, that may be a decision best left to the school.

On a similar note, in “How Sodomites Promote Violence to Children,” Grundmann introduces Fistgate, a 2000 scandal surrounding a Tufts University workshop sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education.  The workshop, titled, “What they didn’t teach you about queer sex and sexuality in health class,” included three openly homosexual state employees fielding questions from a group made up of adolescents aged 14 to 21 years. The employees answered questions about sex in graphic detail.  During one answer, an employee (Margot Abels) gave a positive spin to the practice of fisting, a potentially dangerous sexual activity in which a participant inserts his entire hand into the vagina or rectum of a receiver (this is not strictly a homosexual act). According to MassNews.com:

Margot Abels was quick to point out that although fisting “often gets a really bad rap,” it usually isn’t about the pain, “not that we’re putting that down.” Margot Abels informed him and the class that “fisting” was “an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with.” When a child asked the question, “Why would someone do this?” Margot Abels provided a comfortable response to the children, in order to “put them into an exploratory mode.”

Abels and the other two employees were fired after tape of the session aired on the radio. Anger over the conduct was not limited to heterosexuals. MassNews.com reported, “many homosexuals called [radio host] Graf and agreed that the meeting should not have taken place.” Appropriate sex education is not a heterosexual or homosexual issue. Under common decency, no moral adult would knowingly encourage a child to engage in practices dangerous to his health. Nevertheless, the workshop was completely voluntary and not forced upon any child. All those who attended already identified as LGBT or were at least curious. No recruiting occurred, just bad sex education.

 Grundmann turns to evidence of child molestation advocation in “Virtuous Sodomy: The Fight to Distigmatize Homosexuality,” citing an article about a conference sponsored by the psychiatry group B4U-Act.  B4U-Act activists advocate public destigmatization of pedophilia, believing it best to control rather than suppress as a criminal matter. The group wants the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to declassify pedophilia as a mental disorder, placing it on the same level as heterosexuality and homosexuality. Grundmann believes this alone shows the APA moving toward that goal. However, B4U-Act is extremely small. According to its website, it has a “board of directors …[and] a larger group of about 25 people.” Though it is troubling that these psychiatrists wish to remove the classification of pedophilia as a mental disorder, the APA “stands firmly behind efforts to criminally prosecute those who abuse and exploit children and adolescents.” A group with unpopular views and no influence cannot change this standing.

 Likewise, Grundmann seems to defeat his own conclusion in “Sodomite Child Targets: Sex Before 8 Or It’s Just Too Late.” In this document, he introduces pedophilia activist group NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) as if a prominent member of the LGBT movement. Though some connection existed in the early history of NAMBLA, the group has since been largely ostracized in the LGBT movement.. Like B4U-Act, NAMBLA has unpopular views and very few members. Many LGBT groups rejected NAMBLA from its formation, and nearly all do now. GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) labeled NAMBLA’s goals as “repugnant” and “a form of child abuse.” NGLTF (National Gay & Lesbian Task Force) adopted a resolution condemning NAMBLA and rejecting “all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults.”

Like the APA, GLAAD, NGLTF, and Grundmann, I stand strongly against NAMBLA and any others who promote child abuse under the name of “intergenerational relations.” Society finds these views repulsive. I have no reason to believe the people in this country will support any effort to change these groups’ views into law. I can vow to Grundmann that if such views ever become popular, I will oppose them with every fiber of my being.

Moral people recognize that society maintains the responsibility of protecting the health and well-being of children. In the examples cited, society mostly fails in that responsibility.  Grundmann understands this, but misdirects his criticism toward activist organizations rather than failing government policies. As I stated at the end of the last section, the problems here are not the result of private activism, but of government doing too much. The Maine Human Rights Commission is out of bounds when it instructs a school on bathroom policy. The school should make that decision, and if problems arise, school officials should answer to parents. Then the community, and not the government, can decide whether it places greater value on protecting the human rights of little girls or allowing one student to feel included.  Likewise, the Massachusetts Department of Education has no duty to instruct adolescents on the joys of certain sex practices. Sex education based on parental input is most appropriate and again returns responsibility to the community. When the state holds this responsibility, bad sex education results, as it did in Massachusetts, endangering the health of adolescents.  Lastly, when it comes to protecting children from molestation, despite his conclusion to the contrary, Grundmann actually agrees with the vast majority of LGBT groups in that, the state should never approve of child abuse and molestation.

 Erosion of Religious Liberty & Free Speech

Despite overwhelming disagreement with Grundmann on IPR, Grundmann enjoys just as much First Amendment protection as anyone else. Though nobody actually has any rights on IPR except for the owner, there is no reason it need not replicate a free and fair society. Those calling for Grundmann’s banning from IPR are part of a larger problem plaguing the United States. Rather than argue points with Grundmann on the highest levels of Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement, commenters here prefer to label him a homophobe, believing that wins the argument. It does not. Instead, this tactic causes Grundmann to continue on with his thesis unchallenged. Further, it ignores his valid concerns. The last of which is the erosion of religious liberty and free speech in the United States today.

Political correctness is a major obstacle for free speech and religious expression in this country. In “When Broadcasters Cave In To Sodomy,” Grundmann explains how a Florida public school teacher was suspended and investigated for ethics violations because he made a private Facebook post in opposition to same-sex marriage. The post in question read:

I’m watching the news, eating dinner, when the story about New York okaying same sex unions came on and I almost threw up.

If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool as same-sex whatever! God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable???

When the school first took action, not only did it violate the man’s right to free speech, it violated his right to religious expression.  He clearly based these private views on his religion, and they were no concern of the state. Perhaps, as Grundmann cites at “Sodomite Persecution,” the teacher did not receive the proper “gay sensitivity training.” According to the standard of the officials in the Department of Agriculture, the teacher committed “heterosexism,” the thought crime of not equating same-sex marriage with traditional marriage.  Though the teacher was reinstated after a week with help from the Liberty Counsel and ACLU, he never should have had to go through such an ordeal for privately expressing his personal and religious opinions in America.

Like Grundmann, I fear America is on the wrong track. I believe this not because of the progress of the LGBT movement, but because of the progress of the political correctness movement.  I discussed this issue in a recent IPR article. Grundmann rightfully advocates free speech as a solution to the overall problem he sees. He wants for people to:

  1.   Protect your own children from the LGBT movement in the public school system
  2.  Show true love to your LGBT friends by informing them that they have a sickness, of which they should not be proud
  3. Protest the LGBT agenda by lighting candlelight vigils and passing out the Candle Crusade flyer as part of a “massive Crusade of non-violent public resistance”

I too have three free speech-based solutions to resolve the issue I believe to be most at fault for the situations chronicled above. They are:

  1. Remain on the upper levels of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement and be willing to both stand your ground and admit when you are wrong.
  2. Disregard political correctness and be willing to point out the practical problems with everyday issues using rational argumentation, no matter who you may offend.
  3. Defend the right to free speech, no matter who the speaker may be, be it me, Grundmann, or even NAMBLA.

I thank Don Grundmann for introducing me to issues I never would have examined on my own. I did not enjoy writing this review, but I wanted to remain true to my word. I also thank those who got through the entire reading. Please point out any factual or logical errors on my part.

18 thoughts on “William Saturn Reviews Don Grundmann’s CandleCrusade.org

  1. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Mr. Saturn – Before any commentaries and/or critiques of your reporting I want to thank and acknowledge you for the truest, to this date, journalistic analysis of the Candle Crusade site and message.

    In complete distinction to those who A) refuse to even read anything at the site while criticizing both it and, especially, myself for its production, B) call the information ” fictional;” and/or C) call the information ” delusional;” you have actually done a true work of journalism ( an, in my opinion, extremely rare event in our time ) via your analysis and presentation of both the ideas of the site and contrarian interpretations of such.

    You even touched upon what is referred to as ” Fistgate ” ( in Massachusetts ), an event which my opponents have vehemently denied having occurred for now several years.

    Bottom line I must acknowledge that, while I have numerous points of contention which I will address in following posts, your extensive analysis is certainly an unfortunately all too rare but extremely welcome reoccurance of true journalism. I thank you for your time in producing both such an analysis and your resurrection of the craft of journalism via this effort.

    Of course you will receive a hurricane of criticism for A) your effort at presenting both sides, and B) this acknowledgement of your efforts, but such ( in my view ) is the current Politically Correct/Social Engineering ” lay of the land ” for our time.

    Best to you,

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

  2. Jeremy C. Young

    Good review overall. The one logical error I’d point out is that you’re presenting the teaching of gender identities, non-heterosexualities, etc., as intended only to end bullying in the school where it’s taught. I think those who are pushing this form of education are taking a longer view: students may only encounter one or two gay or transgender students in their current school, but they are likely to encounter many more in college, the work world, or their adult circles of friends. The goal is in part to end school bullying, but more to educate children on alternative sexualities so that they grow up to be caring, compassionate adults.

  3. William Saturn

    Thank you all for the comments and thank you to Krzysztof for posting the review.

    For some reason the word “silence” was added after “remain” in the first item of my suggestion list. I have removed it and tried to make the two lists uniform.

  4. Bill Y.

    Like everyone else, I thank William for taking the time to review Mr Grundman’s website. I was never able to read thru it. The question that I have now is weather Grundman will put his favorite topic in perspective, and stop tying so many of the topics here with his favorite topic. Will he now stop his personal attacks and name calling with anyone who has cricized him present or past? William’s last paragraph makes him seem like Grundman is the victim. That’s not the way it has been.

  5. From Der Sidelines

    All applying critical analysis to horseshit does is make smaller separate piles of horseshit. At the end of it all, it’ still the same horseshit, just expressed differently.

    That sums up this horseshit article about a horseshit web page.

  6. William Saturn

    Thank you CT and BY, and thank you “From Der Sidelines” for showing everyone which level on Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement you chose to use.

  7. Han Shot First

    Don Grundmann has been at the bottom of the hierarchy with most of his comments at IPR. You conveniently left that out of your little review.

  8. William Saturn

    Did you even read the post? Your first comment states that you did not.

    If you did, you must have missed the part where I wrote:

    “IPR discussions on LGBT issues are often contentious and usually descend into name-calling.”

  9. Bill Y.

    Han is right. A more accurate first sentence would have been “IPR discussions on LGBT issues are often contentious and usually descend into name-calling, most often by Grundman.”

    Most comments were only reacting to hostility from Don when anyone questioned his theories.

  10. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Mr. Saturn – As part of a series of comments with which I will address your article I reference your 4th paragraph regarding the LesbianGayBisexualTransgenderQueer club at my elementary school alma mater, Roosevelt Elementary School.

    A friend and neighbor whose daughter was enrolled at the school alerted me to the presence of the club via his daughter receiving a notice that there would be a Friday school assembly regarding ( if I remember the surface cover story properly as it could have been any number of other excuses ) ” bullying ” with the following week to be devoted entirely to this topic inclusive of activities for all students each day. He immediately recognized the real aim of the program – to break the Christian values of his daughter and replace them with the anti-Christian values of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement – and, as any truly loving father would, removed his daughter from the school for her protection and to save her from destruction.

    He informed me of a Thursday night ( 6 to 9 ) ” parents meeting ” which I attended to obtain more information.

    Arriving late ( at 8 ) I found 3 different groups of roughly 10 persons per group in circles with a moderator standing by. Not knowing what was then occurring I was informed of their actions when they reassembled into a singular group.

    I found that the 3 ” troubleshooting ” groups were assigned different grades ( kindergarten/first, second/third, fourth/fifth ) with the same question for each group – what will/can you do if and when you hear any student making any anti-homosexual remark of any kind?

    Bottom Line – the children – STARTING IN KINDERGARTEN – were/are to be monitored by these ” parents ” throughout the day so that any possible comment that in any could be considered as anti-homosexual will be sterilized from their minds. They will immediately be confronted and, via multiple techniques which were discussed, ” reeducated ” ( Orwells 1984 brought to our time ) in the way that they are supposed to think.

    Hence it is indeed a ” parents organization ” but its purpose is the on-the-ground Social Engineering of the students to eradicate ANY possible opposition to homosexuality at the earliest ages possible; at least via the public school system.

    Question – Imagine the outcry if any Christian parents group placed a group of ” volunteers ” within the public school system for the purpose of instantly reeducating any student who, during the course of any school day, expressed any possible opposition in the slightest way to Christianity? Could they meet on school grounds and form ” troubleshooting groups ” to brainstorm solutions to the ” problem?” How far would that go? How quickly would my opponents at IPR wail and gnash these teeth regarding such an action? Will they similarly complain about the actions of this LGBTQ club? Answer – Not a chance in hell because the result – breaking the Christian morality of the nation via such attacks on children – is exactly what they want.

    This attack on children is just ONE action for which I reference that they have not the slightest speck or second of conscience regarding.

    At this same meeting the facilitating psychologist spoke of her KINDERGARTEN AND FIRST GRADE TRANSGENDER PATIENTS; i.e.; they are already starting the mutilation process on these children to make them into imitation males and females. The next step will be to drop these sick children; being used as attack weapons against the normal children by the monsters behind and supporting ( see here my opponents at IPR ) this program; into the elementary school and demand that all of the normal children now treat ” Tommy ” as ” Tammy ” and ” Joan ” as ” John.”

    Ultimate aim? To break the Christian morality of the children at the earliest possible age.

    Just 2 generations ( at most ) of this mass Social Engineering/Pavlovs Dogs programming will destroy the nation via the mass production of totally shattered children who will be internally ripped to shreds via their soul, mental, and physical molestation by this anti-Christian attack upon their humanity. Of course that will be a happy ” 4th of July equivalent ” celebration by the anti-Christians who will revel and rejoice in the annihilation of their child targets.

    Although the motto of NAMBLA is ” sex before 8 or its too late ” that does not mean that the child must be first physically molested. The alternative ( which is expected by the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement to be fantastically more ” successful ” and will be – indeed it already is as seen here at IPR – politically approved ) is to mentally and spiritually molest the children first. It is from this first molestation that they will not recover and they can then be physically molested at any later time which their attacker(s) choose.

    Additionally, I have seen ( but do not currently have ) the ” support materials ” which this group uses. They are produced by the main driving forces behind the program – the Southern Poverty Law Center ( SPLC ) and the Anti-Defamation League ( AFDL ) – and openly ( in their language ) refer to their goal of crushing the parental instilled values of the child and replacing them with their own anti-Christian religion.

    Bottom Line – the LGBTQ Club at Roosevelt is part of a massively funded national attack against the children of the nation to ” indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children ” to homosexuality.

    The singular enemies of humanity found here at IPR and their collective political organizations – Democrats, RINO-Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, and all other rodents – are hence part of a support group for this unprecedented mass Social Engineering attack upon the children of our nation.

    It is Bottom Line a religious war of Christianity vs The Enemy of God and Its Army of Death as the successful soul annihilation of the future generations of our nation will ensure the defeat and collapse of our Republic, via a totally shattered and psychotic populace, with an endless ” Dark Ages ” for all of humanity to follow.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. one of a dwindling number of defenders of children to be found in our dying nation

  11. George Phillies

    Readers should consider that hypothetical public-school political indoctrination techniques used on one occasion in favor of a cause you support may on another occasion be used in favor of a cause you oppose.

  12. From Der Sidelines

    @6: I call ’em like I see ’em. And I see you as an apologist for that fruitcake.

    Speaking of fruitcakes…

    @15: sticking your nose in areas it’s neither needed or wanted, I see. Why don’t you just go to the local gay bar and pick up a guy and get laid to get all your gay frustration out of your system instead of projecting it all over IPR like you’re the second cumming of Ted Haggard? 🙄

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *