Reactions to Tebow ad
Posting good ones as I read them…
Gerard Nadal at Coming Home provides excellent analysis, catching a good comment by Christina at this blog, “When you’re reduced to pitching a hissy fit that a mother brags about her baby, you’re screwed.”
Cleveland.com…
The Tim Tebow spot, arguably one of the most controversial and anticipated Super Bowl commercials in recent memory, debuted with more whimper than bang….
But the ad never explicitly delivered its “pro-life” message.
Instead, Pam Tebow spoke vaguely about worrying about her boy and how she almost lost him “so many times,” after which viewers were encouraged to visit focusonthefamily.com to hear their story.
So many heeded the call that the Web site either refused to open or moved slower than Abe Vigoda on the football field in that Snickers ad throughout the first half.
Folks – the Tim Tebow/Pam Tebow ad has finally aired and it is about as vanilla as an Andy Williams Christmas Special….
This has the anti-choice right wing on the blogs mocking the National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood for “making a big deal over nothing.”…
But the concerns of NOW and PP were absolutely spot on when you saw the final shot of the ad: “This message is brought to you by Focus on the Family.” The idea that FOTF – an organization that believes in reparative therapy for LGBT people, that likens abortion rights to the Nazi holocaust, and that has shadowy connections to open hate groups – gets this kind of a mammoth public forum is an absolute disgrace….
[T]he idea that FOTF, an organization which stands unequivocally for the view that other women should be denied Pam Tebow’s choice would get this kind of prime commercial real estate, exposes CBS as a frighteningly fraudulent operation. They should offer free commercial time to PP. And if Roe vs. Wade is ever deemed unconstitutional, I hope the executives at CBS ponder their role in this process. Maybe it’ll cross their minds when they are taking their daughters on a first class trip to France for legal, safe abortions….
Touchdown! The long-awaited, much-hyped ad from Focus on the Family aired shortly after the Colts and Saints kicked off at Super Bowl. And their early hit could have the last laugh on critics.
What could they say to this?…
For a week now, earnest groups have been protesting the anti-abortion, anti-gay rights Focus group getting CBS to change its policy against advocacy advertising and let this issue ad run.
Now, it’s airing and it’s a major score in the “Euphemism Bowl” – no mention of abortion, of choosing to carry a life-threatening pregnancy to term or anything else politically hairy.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
PROUD MOM: I love my son!
ABORTION LOBBY: Hate speech! Hate speech!
That sums it up.
What we’re depending on is that ordinary mom and pop citizens will notice that this is what happened.
Yes, the anti abortion folks got the ad tons of free publicity! Way more attention that it ever would have gotten if it had just played – I wouldn’t have even noticed it! Brilliant!
Meant to say pro abortion folks!!
Sorry – tired!
Did you hear the latest moonbattery? They’re claiming the ad promotes domestic violence because Tim tackles his mom!
I guess it’s the be expected. The same people who think women are too delicate and fragile to look at an ultrasound also think women are too delicate and fragile to roughhouse with their kids.
Christina, what’s funny is that there was apparantly a Snickers ad that had a football player tackling Betty White. Any outrageous outrage there?
“[T]he idea that FOTF, an organization which stands unequivocally for the view that other women should be denied Pam Tebow’s choice”
WTF? We think ALL women should be able to make Pam Tebow’s choice!
Where do they get the idea that the abortion lobby made childbirth possible? What sort of warped universe do they live in?
Where was the outrage when a football player pummelled Sarah Palin in a web ad during the elections?
Freakin’ hypocrites.
Christina…you are so right on!
I am laughing so hard and loud right now I am afraid I will wake up my son…
I would like to thank NOW and the rest of the pro-abortion lobby for making such a BIG FUSS over this ad. Without your help we could not have generated as much interest or been able to get as many people to read Tim’s story and realize abortion is not the answer to “hard” cases. Thankyou NOW. Thankyou.
Why couldn’t they just try to show the latest videos of 6 to 12 week unborn children being, well, children?
A few weeks or months of that and the anti-unborn human rights (abortionist) movement would be whittled down to their bitter, militant hard core base and we would finally win this struggle.
If Pam Tebow was only able to give birth because of the efforts of the abortion lobby, pray tell how did human beings — indeed, mammals of any species — manage to reproduce at all until NARAL and Planned Parenthood and NOW were founded and made it all possible? Did people used to reproduce by dividing like amoebas?
Christina, I KNOW! How did women ever give birth before NARAL, NOW and PP came along and brought the divine mantra of choice! It boggles the mind, doesn’t it?
According to The Canadian Press:
“The Women’s Media Center, which had objected to Focus on the Family advertising in the Super Bowl, said it was expecting a “benign” ad but not the humour. But the group’s president, Jehmu Greene, said the tackle showed an undercurrent of violence against women.”
“I think they’re attempting to use humour as another tactic of hiding their message and fooling the American people,” she said.
Apparently Jehmu Greene doesn’t advocate love, family, and fun.
I thought the ad was good and about as benign as they come. The pro-aborts will be madder than ever. Ha! It may be best for pro-lifers to sit back, savor this one and not engage them in further debate about the ad. They look so silly.
By the way, the Nation response is just idiocy.
Someone please tell the “progressives” at Nation that killing human beings, including the unborn,is a crime.
“Jehmu Greene, said the tackle showed an undercurrent of violence against women.”
I guess he thinks that the same women too fragile to cope with seeing an ultrasound are also too fragile to roughhouse with their kids!
The Google ad traced a man’s journey of
meeting,
dating,
courtship,
engagement,
marriage IN A CHURCH,
pregnancy and
the LIVE BIRTH of the first child,
had to have put the ‘dead babies r us’ lynch mob
through the goal posts and over the moon.
Focus on the Family: Nothin but net.
yor bro ken
Pro-lifers 100 Abortionist nutcases 0! Pigs just snort, and their continuis wining helped our cause! Thanks to Planned pig… I mean planned parent hoods wining, we won the superbowl!
Irony alert, while I’m at it. It’s the so called “feminists” who are crying foul at Tim roughhousing with his mom. What? Is she supposed to only stick to traditional gender roles? Should Tim have brought her some pom-poms so she could be on the sidelines like a proper little lady?
Pam Tebow drives libs crazy for the same reason Sarah Palin does: She’s a strong, determined woman who pursues her goals while nurturing her children. And to the Left, women are fragile creatures who can only pursue their goals if they have their children scraped out and sent to the pathology lab in shreds.
“Violence against women”?
Are you kidding me?
Abortionists have killed 500,000,000 (!) women around the world these last twenty years or so.
Worst destroyers of women in history.
End of discussion.
The Nation’s opinion piece by Dave Zirin is posted on 2/07/2010 at 2:03 PM – that isbefore the game began. Oh, and his description of the ad is INACCURATE:
“As for the ad, Pam Tebow speaks about the choice to ignore her doctor’s advice and risk her own life. She has every right to stand on a soap box with her hunky, Heisman winning son, and tell other women about the benefits of ignoring your doctor. But the idea that CBS would provide the platform for such a message without so much as a medical disclaimer, is simply wrong.”
What’s up with that?
I beleive Google’s SuperBowl ad out ‘focused’ Focus On The Family.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnsSUqgkDwU&feature=player_embedded
yor bro ken
I think PP and NOW have been played! ;)
the ad, if left unsung, would have come across as vague and harmless
instead, PP and NOW and NARAL did all the work we needed to get abortion into the spotlight.
well done, well done.
CHRISTINA!!!! We have to get you on TV to spar a little with Jehmu Greene! You are right on and hysterical too! Lets use their own talking points to back em in a corner!
Pro-abort activists have revealed the way they approach anything and everything beyond themselves:
How can we hate it?
Hi Sydney M.,
Jehmu has memorized her talking points like a robot and she doesn’t sway from them. I think Jill had her video up a few threads back from when O’Reilly interviewed her.
Hi Sydney M.,
Jehmu has memorized her talking points like a robot and she doesn’t sway from them.
Jill had her video up a few threads back from when O’Reilly interviewed her. Here’s the link (see the 3:15 minute mark)
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2010/01/weekend_questio_117.html#comments
Mods,
Sorry for the double post.
Please delete my post @ 9:59 PM.
Thank you.
The Google ad is marvelous! Thanks for the link!
Irony cluster coming together. The “prochoice” and “feminist” message of “women’s groups” —
Pam Tebow should have just done what her doctor told her to do without getting her pretty little head all in a fret.
Pam Tebow should leave the roughhousing to the dad, and sit on the sidelines waving pom-poms, like a proper little lady.
Pam Tebow should have been the kind of doormat, weak-willed woman who is easily manipulated by “women’s groups”.
How dare she take steps to avoid an unwanted (and, it turns out, clearly unnecessary) abortion? Why, other women might get it into their heads that they can change doctors if their own doctors are pushing them into unwanted abortions! Perish the thought!
How dare she not walk in the path laid out for her by her betters at NARAL and NOW and Planned Parenthood? How dare she think for herself?
They should offer free commercial time to PP. And if Roe vs. Wade is ever deemed unconstitutional, I hope the executives at CBS ponder their role in this process. Maybe it’ll cross their minds when they are taking their daughters on a first class trip to France for legal, safe abortions….
Uh…spaz much?? Geeze…
Kel, notice the expectation that CBS executives all have slutty daughters who don’t know how to use contraceptives?
doesn’t God have a great sense of humor? 500,000 people show up in D.C. for the March for Life adn we get little to no coverage. Focus wants to put on a benign ad celebrating a mother’s decision (choice) to have her baby and the pro-abort “femi-nazi” types go ballistic.
and the icing on the cake – the Google ad, the Dove men care advertisement and the Doritos advertisement with the little boy all had pro-life implications.
I’m going to agree that Focus on the Family is a shady organization- I don’t support them, but this complaining over this advertisement is pathetic. Move on, people.
If they had just ignored the advertisement, everyone would have said, “That’s Tebow with his mother. He plays football.” And this most likely would have launched, at least among football fans, a discussion over Tebow’s team and other teams that might have made it to the Superbowl. No one would have even noticed it.
Thank you, CBS, for airing the Tebow ad. It was funny, light-hearted, and gave a nod to families. Certainly better than looking at Janet Jackson’s nakedness!!
And if Roe vs. Wade is ever deemed unconstitutional, I hope the executives at CBS ponder their role in this process. Maybe it’ll cross their minds when they are taking their daughters on a first class trip to France for legal, safe abortions….
This idiot obviously doesn’t know that abortion in Europe is far more restricted than it is in the US. That is why their abortion rate is so much lower, duh.
It would actually be nice if Jill would work up a piece on all of the extensive restrictions on abortion in the European nations so we could have a link to a summary. I am so dang tired of pro aborts acting like Europe has a lower abortion rate due to contraceptives being pushed at kids. The real reason is that abortion is specifically restricted and in some places almost totally illegal. In fact the gov’t requires counseling specifically and intentionally designed to persuade women not to abort.
Check out this summary on abortion in Germany from Wiki:
After World War II, abortion remained broadly illegal in both East The legal requirements in the West were extremely strict, and often led women to seek abortions elsewhere, …
East Germany legalized abortion on demand up to 12 weeks of pregnancy in 1972 in the Volkskammer’s only-ever non-unanimous vote before 1989. After West Germany followed suit in 1974, the new law was struck down by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany as inconsistent with the human rights guarantees of the constitution. It held that the unborn have a right to life, that abortion is an act of killing, and that the fetus deserves legal protection throughout its development. Nevertheless, it strongly hinted that increasing the number of situations in which abortion was legal might be constitutional.
As a result, in 1976, West Germany legalized abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy for reasons of medical necessity, sexual crimes or serious social or emotional distress, if approved by two doctors, and subject to counseling and a three-day waiting period. In 1989, a Bavarian doctor was sentenced to two and a half years in prison and 137 of his patients were fined for failing to meet the certification requirements.
The two laws had to be reconciled after reunification. A new law was passed by the Bundestag in 1992, permitting first-trimester abortions on demand, subject to counselling and a three-day waiting period. The law was quickly challenged in court by a number of individuals – including Chancellor Helmut Kohl – and the State of Bavaria. The Federal Constitutional Court issued a decision a year later maintaining its earlier decision that the constitution protected the fetus from the moment of conception, but stated that it is within the discretion of parliament not to punish abortion in the first trimester, providing that the woman had submitted to state-regulated counselling designed to discourage termination and protect unborn life. Parliament passed such a law in 1995. Abortions are not covered by public health insurance except for women with low income.
Safe, legal, and restricted abortions in France:
(also from wiki)
After the first trimester, two physicians must certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman…
France legalized abortion in 1975, available on demand initially until the tenth week, later extended to the twelfth week of pregnancy on condition that women seeking abortions undergo counselling on alternatives thereto and that a one-week waiting period be observed. After the twelfth week, two physicians must certify that the woman’s health is endangered or the fetus is handicapped; otherwise, abortion is illegal. Since 1994, French law has required that multidisciplinary diagnostic centers decide which birth defects are severe enough to make abortion after the 12 week limit permissible.
France was the first country to legalize the use of RU-486 as an abortifacient in 1988, allowing its use up to seven weeks of pregnancy. By one estimate, a quarter of all French abortions now use RU-486.
My FB status post-ad:
One national advocacy group showed its face of hate, intolerance and disrespect for women’s choices and it wasn’t this one. (link to ad)
I think that about sums it up!
Posted by: kbhvac at February 7, 2010 9:35 PM
I thought the Google ad was one of the best! Really cute and well said. I give them a lot of credit for that one.
Hi Vannah,
Why do you think FOTF is a shady organization? Who are you agreeing with?
I think it’s their anti-gay stance, Carla.
Violence?
Football players wear helmets. Unborn babies have a currette shoved into their skull. No helmet.
Is that violence? Hit a player in the head, 15 yard penalty
Deliver and amputate the baby head in 3rd trimester abortion, no call.
Hmmmm. I think you are right, Xalisae.
I could probably go into all of the ways FOTF has been there for my family personally. Newsletters, books, counseling, help through abortion recovery, solid help with parenting, raising boys and a girl, their unwavering stance on the sanctity of life, their commitment to getting ultrasound machines into CPC’s via Option Ultrasound. The list goes on. They are have been an invaluable resource. I am truly thankful for their voice.
They have also helped thousands of gays and lesbians LEAVE that lifestyle.
Meh. Some of us don’t think people need “help” to not be gay anymore.
The gays that are struggling and need and want help are thankful for it.
That’s about as far as I go on the topic of homosexuality around here. :)
I’m glad that Focus on the Family helped you Carla. Xalisae is right about why I called it that. I won’t dismiss them as entirely bad- no one is entirely bad- but I don’t agree with them on this issue. But I won’t ply you to address it.
Anyways, like I said- they aren’t full of rats who want nothing more than to destroy; they do have videos that contain good messages. There used to be one that the church showed the children with themes like, “Don’t steal,” or “Don’t lie.” That’s good.
I just stay away from the debate on Focus on the Family. :)
Fair enough. I just wanted you to know that FOTF has personally helped me and my family more times than I can count and Dr. Dobson’s books are all over my house. I page through them quite a bit, especially Bringing Up Boys! :)
James and Shirley are stepping down at the end of the month.
Hi Carla,
Does your husband shower with your boys to make sure they don’t turn gay?
Hi Vannah,
I understand that you don’t agree with some of FOTF’s mission, but I wouldn’t call them “shady” because that implies they’re doing something illegal – as far as I know, they’re not.
Hi Carla,
“James and Shirley are stepping down at the end of the month.”
What’s the scoop?
Are you the Hal that I know and love from this blog? If you aren’t I won’t even entertain your comment with one of my own. If you are…….shame on you.
Hi Janet,
They are going to retire and enjoy the golden years!! They have fought for the foundation of family for a very long time!! Dr. Dobson is still working on his book about raising girls!! Will have to get that one too. :)
Hal,
What are you talking about?
Did you enjoy the Tebow ad?
Hi Janet,
I just checked.
That is not the Hal that we know. :)
Carla,
Good catch!
Have a great Monday!
To those of you who watched the Superbowl: what did you think of the half-time show? Do you know that Roger Daltry (lead singer of The Who) is 65 and a great grandfather? That makes me feel YOUNG (he sounded kind off ridiculous singing about a “teenage wasteland . . .)
Sorry, I was in a hurry. It is indeed me. I didn’t intend any offense, just having a little fun with Mr.Dobson’s past writings:
From “Dr.” Dobson’s Newsletter, June 2002, with the title “Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented?”
The boy’s father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son’s maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard.
He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.”
Forgot to add: Why go to France? Abortion is virtually unregulated in Canada, and its much closer.
Yeah fun, Hal. That was fun.
Sorry Janet. I checked and thought I saw two different IP’s.
If any offense was taken, please feel free to delete the whole conversation. [This is how our friend Ken must feel when one of his jokes misses the mark terribly.]
Hal, that’s beyond crude and disgusting. I’m really appalled that you would feel any of that was appropriate or necessary.
Vannah, to say something is “shady” is to imply sinister motives to it. Simply disagreeing with their position on something does not make it shady, it makes it something you disagree with.
FOTF is hardly dragging homosexuals in off of the street for forced brainwashing. They are offering counseling services for those people who choose them. They also, unlike PP, do not take federal tax dollars to subsidize their counseling.
In addition, they, as Carla pointed out, are a great source of parenting and marriage assistance for those who share their beliefs. Again, if you don’t agree, nobody is making you donate your money or purchase their products.
Unlike PP, they have to actually prove their worth to the community they serve instead of being propped up.
In addition, even if you feel that their message is misguided, it is not based upon hatred of any group, it is based upon their sincere belief about their interpretation of the Bible and their desire to spare people from what they believe will be an eternity of suffering as well as what they perceive as needless suffering in the here and now. Go ahead and disagree, but don’t ascribe nefarious motives simply because you disagree.
Otherwise you will sound awfully like the pro-abort crowd searching for any reason to hate… “She’s gonna lie” oh, wait, she didn’t lie, “She’s gonna preach about abortion!” oh, wait, she didn’t do that… “Um, it’s about violence against women!”
Did it occur to you that your viewpoint of FOTF is probably based, at least in part, on the MSM and liberals portrayal of them as a hate-based organization? As we have seen demonstrated here again and again…. those are sources that can’t be trusted.
Elisabeth,
Ok, I apologize.
I never thought FOTF is a hate-based organization. I think of it as a far right, conservative Christian organization. [not that there’s anything wrong with that]
I was glad that CBS went through with it … good job.
Phillymiss,
I couldn’t have told you the singers’ names, but I thought the guys sounded good at half-time.
* * * *
Hal, one good thing you brought up…….. Dobson makes a good point about a father showing his son how to do “traditional male” things, such as teaching his son to catch and throw a ball. A grade school principal that I know says boys could avoid a lot of teasing in grade school if only some one took a little time to teach their son to play catch.
A grade school principal that I know says boys could avoid a lot of teasing in grade school if only some one took a little time to teach their son to play catch.
I think the problem lies with the kids teasing boys who don’t know how to play catch or don’t enjoy it – not with the boys who are being teased. I babysat an elementary school boy for four years, who enjoyed reading and playing his violin and who hated playing sports. He was teased horribly by other boys because he didn’t like “playing catch.” I would rather have that little boy as my son than ANY of the catch-playing kids who teased him. He was sweet and delightful and intelligent and respectful, and he NEVER teased any of HIS classmates.
“I think the problem lies with the kids teasing boys who don’t know how to play catch or don’t enjoy it – not with the boys who are being teased.”
Posted by: Alexandra at February 8, 2010 6:36 PM
Honestly, I fall somewhere in the middle here. I feel like it IS important for fathers to spend time with their children and to encourage physical and motor development (for which catch is quite effective), but I also feel like there is too much emphasis on boys always doing boy things. Don’t get me wrong, I think that by and large, gender generalizations have developed for a reason: boys tend to like running and jumping and hitting things whereas girls tend to like playing house and the like.
That said, it really gets on my nerves when people overreact to a boy who carries around a doll. Folks, the only thing that’s going to “turn that child gay” is the fact that you’re freaking out about the doll. I have an uncle who is notoriously bad about this. My 17 month old son put a fuzzy scarf on his head and my uncle lectured me about letting him do “gay” things like that. This kind of overreaction is exactly what confuses young boys and convinces them that they’re gay.
I think spending time with dad and fostering a healthy male mindset is certainly good, but be careful about why you’re doing it-are you trying to encourage your child to grow into a well-balanced person, or are you just afraid of your child being a homosexual? Parenting from a place of fear just isn’t healthy!
I’m another person who doesn’t like FOTF’s stance on gay people, but I think it’s disingenuous for The Nation to say that they have “shadowy connections to open hate groups” and not be specific about who these groups are and what the connections are. How about you tell us and let us decide for ourselves if we think they have shadowy connections to hate groups?
“I think the problem lies with the kids teasing boys who don’t know how to play catch or don’t enjoy it – not with the boys who are being teased.”
I agree. I think it’s pointless and damaging to act as though boys who get teased for not being traditionally “masculine” are the ones who need to change, or the ones who are lacking in some way. Maybe the kid simply doesn’t care about playing catch. (It gets boring really fast, I think.) Maybe the kid knows how to play catch and just doesn’t want to.
My eldest son is so not physical. Never has been. His younger sister is the athlete, the tree climber, the skateboarder.
I like what you wrote Alexandra.
“I think the problem lies with the kids teasing boys who don’t know how to play catch or don’t enjoy it – not with the boys who are being teased.”
Hi Alexandra and Mary Rose,
Oh, I agree. Definitely, the “teaser” is in the wrong here. Whether he gets away with it (on the playground) is dependent on the person being “teased”. It’s not easy, but possible for a young boy to stand up to the teaser (pretend he’s not scared when he is, etc…) and show he’s not going to be bullied. So I’m saying that there’s a little bit of playing into the male “macho” stereotype ( like learning to play catch) that can help boys avoid these hassles. As far as homosexuality goes…. I’m not specifically referring to that ’cause I’m no expert.
I’m sure one of the guys here could elaborate on the bullying thing. Unfortunately girl bullying is a huge problem too. So sad.
You guys are funny. Who’s to say it would be the father teaching a boy these things? I enjoy all of that stuff far more than my husband, and I think if/when our son learns any of those activities, it’ll probably be with me. I like the outdoors much more than their dad, and I also enjoy using tools. lol
Mary Rose, I had to chuckle. My son wanted a barbie tooth brush so bad when it came time to pick out a new one so I didn’t think it was a big deal so I bought it for him. My husband had a heart attack! I told my husband this boy is as BOY as they come…he loves explosions, and helicopters, and motorcycles and firefighters, and police officers…if he wants a barbie tooth brush, BIG DEAL!
If he wears bras and panties when he is older, then we have a problem…but otherwise, chill! My son was over the barbie toothbrush in no time.
x,
Fair enough. I think it’s important for boys to spend time with their fathers *and* I think it’s important for boys to have parents who encourage healthy motor development.
Sydney,
EXACTLY!
I agree. I think it’s pointless and damaging to act as though boys who get teased for not being traditionally “masculine” are the ones who need to change, or the ones who are lacking in some way. Maybe the kid simply doesn’t care about playing catch. (It gets boring really fast, I think.) Maybe the kid knows how to play catch and just doesn’t want to.
Posted by: Marauder at February 8, 2010 7:29 PM
I’m just quoting what a male school principal told me one day as we were watching boys playing at recess at school. I’m not saying that a parent must force the boy who hates sports to play. I agree with Mary Rose when she says developing motor skills are important. Maybe the principal is totally off the mark on this.
*****
“You guys are funny. Who’s to say it would be the father teaching a boy these things? ”
Xalisae,
It doesn’t have to be. I originally was going to write that it could be a mother or uncle who could teach the child sports but edited it out. I agree that many Moms are better athletes than their Dads. :)
Correction”
“I agree that many Moms are better athletes than Dads.”
The Nation’s piece was laughable.
Mocking FOTF’s reference of the Holocaust.
Free airtime to PP?
Oh how this poster has no idea how Nazi Margaret Sanger was.
Posted by: hal at February 8, 2010 3:51 PM
“I think of it [FOTF] as a far right, conservative Christian organization. [not that there’s anything wrong with that]”
—————————————————
HAL,
I agree with you, if by ‘far right’ you mean
in comparison with
‘People United for Separation of Church and State’ or
‘Catholics for Choice’ or
devout and committed ‘christian’
Barrak ‘dead babies r us’ Obama.
[Not that there is anything good or righteous or holy about any of them.]
yor bro ken