SG Political roundup

So we all know that Scott Fowler took a ride on the plane of the now defunct Huckabee campaign and schmoozed with the Huck himself back during the Iowa swoon for the other man from Hope. No shocker there. Fowler’s a long time conservative political junkie (and, one assumes, a generous enough contributor to get a seat on the candidate’s jet).

But have you seen southern gospel connections to the presidential race pop up in some of the last places one might expect to see southern gospel related names in the news?

First there’s the endorsement of John McCain by John Hagee, whose fringy rants about Israel and infidels dogged McCain for a few good news cycles recently. Hagee … hooo boy. Talk about your crazy old uncles. Anyway, on the up side, as long as Hagee is busy creating apocalyptic problems for McCain, this will ideally only increase the likelihood that he will stay away from the NQC stage, which has been mercifully free of him and his musically mediocre family the past few years.

And then today I saw that a program director at Salem Radio, a division of the same Salem that owns the Singing News, has owned up to producing a so-called “mashup” video attacking Barack Obama over the Jeremiah Wright flap by linking the candidate to black radicals and separatists.

Just another proud day for conservative political discourse, I guess.

Update: Thanks to commenter SG Fan for reminding me of the Rod Parsley/McCain fracas (fueled by Parsley’s calls for a destruction of “Islam” and McCain’s description of Parsley as his “spiritual adviser”). Parsley, you’ll recall, was a big booster of the Crabb Family back in the day.

And that reminded me of the Obama/Donnie McClurkin issue a while back. McClurkin, the gospel soloist who collaborated with … wait for it … The Crabb Family back when the Crabbs were busy “blurring the lines,” got Obama into something of a tight spot when people started wondering why Obama, with his message of inclusion, was hanging out at a campaign event with McClurkin, given the “ex-gay” McClurkin’s history of homophobic (and/or anti-gay) remarks since his “deliverance.”

Email this Post

Comments

  1. SG Fan wrote:

    OK, lets shed a little light on the subject. I usually steer clear of political discussions, but here is what I see. Hagee endorsing McCain should have never been a big deal. The same is true with Parsley. The fact is, McCain attends neither church and has never been a “member” of either church. Just a side note on Hagee. While I find myself in disagreement with him in many areas, he has probably done more to advance the kingdom of God on earth than this web site ever will. Now, the issue of Obama’s relationship with “Reverend Wright”. Obama has been a member and financial supporter of Wright’s church for nearly 20 years. Wright has made many statements that are more than just controversial. They are outright racist and anti-American. If you believe that Obama had no idea that this was going on, then you have to ask serious questions about his ability to make judgements. He obviously does not read people very well if in fact he never heard this kind of rhetoric. I would almost be willing to bet that he has heard it though. In the interview for his reaction before his speech, in which he decided to lecture us on racism, he stuttered more than Bill Clinton trying to explain to Hillary the Monica scandal. Looks like the liberals are having even prouder moments doesn’t it. To equate the McCain endorsments to the Obama relationship with Wright is absurd. Hagee will not be a problem for McCain. The way I see it, McCain did not link himself with Hagee. Obama, however, by choosing to be a member of Wright’s church and supporting it did a pretty good job of linking himself to “black radicals and separatists.” Yes, there have been a few news cycles, mainly liberal commentators looking to distract people’s attention off of the Wright-Obama connection, that have talked about the Hagee endorsement of McCain. But notice how no one cares and McCain has not had to give a “landmark” speech to settle the issue.

  2. Philo wrote:

    Nice pic of Scott with his ole uncle Huck.

  3. Glenn wrote:

    Man, are you going to get coments now.

  4. Staunch wrote:

    Another tidbit . . . back during the Iowa frenzy, the Huckabee tv commercial which played there day after day, was filmed on the multi-thousand acre farm of Mixed Group nominees, The Browns.

  5. Tom wrote:

    Feet up, diet pepsi in hand, gonna enjoy this postings comments!

  6. jgurnett wrote:

    How in the heck can Donnie McClurkin be considered “homophobic?” Please.

  7. David Bruce Murray wrote:

    It’s ironic that Obama’s position of inclusion is being questioned here due to a person he has included.

  8. Linda Jamison wrote:

    Some know this and some dont, but here goes. Darrell Freeman is related to Hillary Clinton and was a big supporter as she ran for office in NY. Jonathan Bond is first cousin to none other than Cindy. McCain that is! Karen Peck’s husband has endorsed McCain and had new river do a concert in Atlanta supporting the pres nom. There is a lot of ongoings in the political / southern gospel world

  9. SG Fan wrote:

    A message for our dear administrator. Your update: can we say Weak? Again, John McCain may have referred to Parsley as a spiritual advisor, but I don’t see a 20 year history of support from McCain. Tell me why it is that when a pastor or any christian points out lifestyle or a false religion that destructive, people like you decide to make it an issue of intolerance. Parsley and McClurkin have not made judgements based on race and these particular judgments are made on Biblical priniciples. The Bible clearly views homosexuality as an abomination and Jesus said, “No man comes to the father except through me.” That would be an argument against Islam. I see that Parsley and McClurkin are not judging and “damning” the people, rather the sin. I would appreciate if you can explain how either of those would be intolerance. I would also like to see you try to prove that they are not following Biblical principles in either of the two situations you so carelessly brought up. I would caution you that you are beginning to lose credibilty through your weak and non-researched opinions.

  10. thom wrote:

    mr moderator - you may want to read some of John Hagee’s books before you go bashing him or classifying him as a “crazy old uncle.” He is “spot on” when it comes to Biblical prophecy and the nation of Israel. I proudly join him in supporting and Blessing Israel. You may not agree with the man, but he knows what he is talking about.

    I agree with SG Fan. To try and draw a parallel between Obama and Wright / McCain and Hagee is ludicrous.

    Anyone who would try to put Rev. Hagee in the same classification as Obama’s pastor Wright is just plain stupid and obviously trying to deflect attention away from the radical extremism and racism that Obama’s church teaches.

  11. SG Fan wrote:

    Another quick point. In the article linked by the words “spiritual advisor”, I never found that phrase used. Seems you may have misquoted. I also never saw a statement where McCain says, “my spiritual advisor” or anything remotely similar. He called Parsley a “spiritual guide”. He did not say to whom he was the guide. If, by the way, McCain considered him a spiritual advisor, Parsley would be a much better choice than that of Wright to Obama. Both Hagee and Parsley have multi-racial churches. If you were to take a cross-section of people from the areas where those churches are, you would not see much difference in the racial make up than in those congregations. It seems that they are doing more to unite and bring racial reconcilliation than the extremist view represented in people like Rev. Wright. Obama has a real issue here. He has major explaining to do. This may be a situation where your own links help discredit your assertation.

  12. Jim E. Davis wrote:

    Actually, I would call it a proud day for Liberal politics. You will be judged with the same judgement that you mete out according to scripture. The liberals are squirming now. Never underestimate the power of u-tube. Sorry, no excuses this time.

    Will someone please stand up and agree with Avery before he comes to the realization that his political views are to the extreme left fringe of SG fans? Come on, you don’t have to endorse Doug or claim him as your spiritual advisor, just agree. Anybody?

  13. Practical Fellow wrote:

    So what’s with the quotes around the word “deliverance”? If you’re such a bold (albeit never plain) writer, why not communicate clearly what you seem to be implying about Donnie McClurkin’s lifestyle and message? I don’t know much about McClurkin or his history and I’m not particularly a fan. But simply because he communicates a message that there is freedom from a homosexual lifestyle/orientation does not define him as homophobic. I wouldn’t even go so far to term that as “anti-gay”.

    Why not go ahead and say what you’re hinting about? I’m honestly curious.

  14. Trent wrote:

    I find it interesting that anytime anyone is opposed to the gay/lesbian lifestyle he is deemed “homophobic” or “anti-gay” or a “gay basher”. Call those who disagree with you whatever you want, but the gay lifestyle is vile, wicked and wrong. Period.

    It seems to me that the exchange of thoughts, opinions and ideas are welcomed on this site until the subject of homosexuality is brought up, then anyone who opposes the sin of homosexuality is portrayed as being “intolerant”.

  15. Glenn wrote:

    Trent, It is intolerance, pure and simple.

  16. RF wrote:

    I find it strange that the conversation always comes to this. Though most of us encounter more lying, cheating, stealing, and adultrous behavior in our daily lives, nothing brings more venom than the subject of homosexuality. Why is this? On a daily basis, people lie to me, cheat me, and steal from me. All breaking the Ten Commandments. When it’s mentioned, people shrug and go on, but mention homosexuality and/or the gay lifestyle and all hades breaks loose among Christians.

    I’m willing to bet the percentage of folks around you who cheat, steal, etc., far outnumber the homosexuals. And yet, it gets most of the attention. Strange.

  17. Jim2 wrote:

    Am I the only one who finds it ironic that back when Barack Obama was concerned with the internet accusations of going to Islamic school, he trots out this long-time membership in Wright’s church to “prove” he is not a Muslim, and now he can’t find enough distance and basically claims to not have ever heard the fiery rhetoric.
    Way back then, I had “googled” the church website and after listening for just a minute or two, realized that there was a huge problem coming down the road for him.
    Unfortunately, it’s just turned into another “political” topic that the spinmeisters are trying to somehow show in a positive light - I’m disgusted with all of it and very discouraged about the choices out there.

  18. thom wrote:

    To Jim 2 #17 — it is ironic isnt’ it? Barack Hussein Obama once used his “church” to prove he is not a muslim and now he tries to distance himself from the putrid spew of the man he calls his “pastor.” Proving that he is merely a politician who plays the side that benefits him most at the moment.

  19. art wrote:

    I’ve posted this sentiment before, and I’ll throw it out there again. I’m a moderately liberal guy, and I hate it when I go to an SG concert and a performer uses the platform to advertise his political views (usually in an offhand side comment). It distracts me from my spiritual purpose in attending the concert and puts me in an argumentative frame of mind. I read political commentary from a wide variety of viewpoints, and I don’t want it or need it at an SG concert.

    By the way, nice job, Avery. I love your site even when you’re getting pummeled.

  20. Derek wrote:

    If believeing that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, then label me homophobic! I’ll wear that label proudly if it means calling sin what it is…sin. Not that homosexuality is any worse a sin than lying, it isn’t. They’re both sins…and my bible says no sin will enter into the Kingdom of God. ’nuff said!

  21. Philo wrote:

    Re:Jim E Davis. Ha ha…this is getting good, i love the quote’(avery)on extreme left fringe of sg fans’. Quite true except in the big bad world outside of sq he’d be accepted as having a free-thinking and inquiring mind. Sg music is fantastic,pity it appeals to so many intellectually stunted followers.

  22. Glenn wrote:

    Art, #19. I’m not sure I have agreed any more with a comment on this website. I go for the music and what it does for me.

  23. Jim E. Davis wrote:

    Who gives a flip what the big bad world thinks? If I remember correctly, scripture instructs us to beware when men (the world) speak well of us. Paul compared his learning to cow poop. But nevertheless, it can be used for good (the New Testament) and in Avery’s case, this wonderful blog.

    Amazing how I can come to this blog every day where I occasionally encounter liberal views which are diametrically opposed to my conservative belief system but yet I don’t get upset and threaten to never return. Poor Art#19. It must be frustrating to be intolorant.

  24. Tim wrote:

    Re: Glenn (#15)

    Could you please point me to the scripture that tells us we should “tolerate” sin. Forgive me, but I just can’t find it. This one thing I am SURE of…that God hates ANY sin - and thus, HE doesn’t “tolerate” it.

    The word “tolerance” (when it refers to not speaking out and condemning any sin) is totally un-Biblical! When it comes to sin, should we show compassion? By all means! Tolerance? Never!

    Let’s say that you wintnessed someone torturing (or worse) your best friend? Would you stand passively, idly by…lest you show “intolerance” to the wrongdoer? I think you get my point!

    Christians need to stand up and be Christ-like, and not continue to drag our souls deep into the quagmire of apathetic passiveness and liberal soul-damning political correctness. When it comes down to WWJD vs. PC, WWJD should always win. The “world” around us lately tries to tell us we must be “tolerant” of everyone’s actions and lifestyles; I’ll be honest with you…it really troubles me to see that this Godless soul-damning philosophy has crept it’s way into some churches. It saddens me to see this “anything goes” “we must show tolerance” philosophy being adopted by some Christians. May “God have mercy” on those pastors, etc., who are leading their flock in that direction. They WILL be held accountable on the Judgement Day for those that they “led astray.”

    Oh, and Derek (#20), “Amen”!

  25. quartet-man wrote:

    Why do we talk about homosexuality? Because it was brought up. There are many other sins, but you generally don’t see movements of those trying to tell you they are okay and you should accept them or you are intolerant and hateful.

  26. JB wrote:

    I wish Jonathan Bond would stop coming on here and posting about himself. No one else cares anything about young harmony enough to talk about who he is or is not related to. Ive heard he is a press freak and he starts the trouble on his own group just to get talk going about them. Not any of these people are related to any of the candidates.

  27. Glenn wrote:

    Derek and Tim, I’m sure at least in your mind that you are a much better Christian than I, but I could never condone hating anyone, let alone wear the lable proudly.

  28. Faith wrote:

    Once again, someone remarks that homosexuality is a sin, and other people freak out, screaming “INTOLERANCE!!!”, trying to make it appear like the person said something else…

    #27, no one said anything about hating anybody. READ THE COMMENTS CAREFULLY. Don’t read what isn’t there. Sin is sin, wheather it’s stealing a pen from work, taking a sick day when you are not really sick, or living a homosexual lifestyle…and in the interest of fairness, I will also mention that a promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle is sinful too. Oh, does that make me a heterophobic? NO! I am not being intolerant, I am trying to live how Jesus wants me to live.

  29. Trent wrote:

    #28 (Faith), great post.

    As time changes, people try to make God change, too. Was homosexuality wrong 50 years ago? Yes, by all accounts. Now fast forward to today….television has lulled people into believing that homosexuality is not abnormal and twisted, so we have tried to make God out to be approving of it also to fit our line of thinking.

    God doesn’t change, so his opinion on sins like homosexuality haven’t changed, either. It’s still wrong.

  30. Tim wrote:

    Faith, You’re a blessing! I wish more or the Body of Christ were truly after God’s own heart. Great clarity in your post - thank you. You said it so well.

    Glenn, Nobody posting here has said they “are better Christians than you” or that we “condone hating anyone”. Where on earth did you come up with those ideas? Furthermore, I just want you to know that I sincerely believe that there IS forgiveness at the foot of the cross for WHATEVER sin one has committed. On a related note, I truly respect a certain very popular soloist/songwriter that’s been in SG for a number of years who, not that long ago, came to grips with his need for Christ to help him battle the temptation of homosexuality. Did I EVER “hate” him? No. Did I ever think that I was “better than he”? No. Did I pray that God would forgive him and would daily be his strength against the temptations? Yes.

    True peace is only found in trying to live, like Faith said, how Jesus wants one to live. One cannot truly be happy if we give to Him less than our all. I pray that you know that peace.

  31. Glenn wrote:

    AS doug said in one of his prior posts “Almost every comments thread here gets hijacked at some point by people quoting scripture or preaching mini-sermons in ways clearly meant to function as conversation-stoppers.”

  32. RDB wrote:

    I’m not quite a leftie but I agree with Doug.

    #1, Hagee may very well have “done more to advance the kingdom of God than this website” - but he’s also crazy. Crazy crazy crazy. I’ll say it again - crazy crazy crazy. I don’t think his recent remarks on Jesus Messiahship really fit in with orthodox Christian belief any more than those liberals who don’t think Jesus was divine.

    I think the George Bush experiment has been a disaster for evangelicals. This is what we get when the religious right chooses a president? Time for a loonie leftwinger methinks.

    So shoot me

  33. quartet-man wrote:

    #31 Glenn, of course scripture gets qouted. Are we all not supposed to strive to live His way? Is not scripture the inspired word of God? Is it not supposed to be the source of instruction and tell us right and wrong? If anything, it is the ones who make accusations such as intolerant, homophobic, hateful, holier than thou and the like who attempt to stifle discussion. Since they cannot really argue against the word of God they have to make it personal and attempt to shoot and discredit the messenger. One of the biggest problems we have in the U.S. now is people thinking they are smarter than God.

  34. Ted wrote:

    While I am a conservative, I do not like mixing partisan politics with the pulpit. You see very little of it in Canada.

  35. apathetic wrote:

    As some others have stated in this thread, sin is sin. Whether it is lying, stealing, or poking the Oscar Meijer into the fudge factory. Sin is sin and it will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. So, I guess God is “intolerant” too. Who said that being “intolerant” was a bad thing? There is no “Fair Housing Act” in Heaven.

    Sometimes I think people, equate being open minded to being intelligent. There is no relationship there. Some also relate having a strict conservative or “narrow minded” view to lack of intelligence. Again, no relationship there either. Remember, narrow is the path.

    Don’t be so open minded your brains fall out.

  36. SG Fan wrote:

    #32
    Since you addressed my post, I will respond. I said in my post that I do not always agree with Hagee, however, I would not go and call him crazy. The point that was being argued was not whether or not I agree with him, but whether his endorsment was equal to the support of Obama to a radical, anti-American, and might I add racist pastor that he has supported for nearly 20 years. Another observation, you would have to be a little left leaning to agree with Doug’s comments in this particular blog. Finally, I’m sure if you were to site examples of how Bush has been a “disaster” for evangelicals, I could site examples of how he has been good. Again, I have not agreed with everything, but here are the facts:
    1. He has kept us safe. No attacks have happened on our soil since 9-11-01. There have been many attempts. For those who point to the Clinton years, even if you reject the idea that 9-11-01 fell into his watch, there were the first World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing that serve as quick examples and reminders.
    2. His approval rating may be low, but the Democratic led congress has an even lower approval rating.
    3. The fact remains that if you want an objective and non-biased view on where things actually stand, you can not get it from main stream media. The main stream media will almost always be very much to the left, liberal point of view.
    Here is an outline of what you can expect with either Obama or Clinton getting into the White House.
    1. Tax increases- to pay for the mammoth programs that they are proposing, it is a certainty that taxes will go up significantly.
    2. Decline in healthcare- if there is a universal healthcare system, the quality of the care will go down. Take a look at the UK for an example. Secondly, why would anyone trust the goverment to run health care if they can’t get these other issues right. The health care system would become a complete mess.
    3. Higher taxes will lead to more bankruptcy and foreclosure cases than we have even at this point. The cost of living has went up pretty dramatically due to the rapid rise in oil prices. Many families that are stable today would meet financial ruin if taxes take a higher percentage of their income.

    When I look at these issues, I think the picture becomes pretty clear. It is time Washington goes on a budget and quits spending like they just won the lottery. If Clinton or Obama get in, spending will only increase. In general, the larger the goverment, the more they spend. The smaller the goverment, the less they spend.

  37. quartet-man wrote:

    I think those who are intolerant of our Christian beliefs are Christianaphobic. ;-)

  38. LW wrote:

    Well said #28. It seems that today people want the “Blessings” of being a Christian but live like a sinner. Now as far as the Presidential Race is concerned, we Christians and Christian Leaders need to take a stand for our country and back the person we want to win.
    As far as this web site goes and what is put here to debate I often wonder if it is being written by someone who even believes in Christ and His Word. It seems those of us who do are simply made fun of. But thats okay. They made fun of Jesus too.

  39. wackythinker wrote:

    As for Hagee, I don’t see much LOVE being preached from his pulpit. Yes, we need to hate sin, but I don’t see a lot of love for people being shown. And 2 sins you won’t hear him preach on: Gluttonny and adultery. Why? Guilty on both counts.

    As for SG Fan’s remarks about the presidency and the country’s political future: Although the 9/11 attacks had it’s roots during the Clinton administration, they happened W’s watch. I believe that makes him just as responsible as any of his predecessors.

    Fair and balanced news CAN be found on most of the major tv and radio news outlet, if you listen consistently. CNN and NPR are not as liberally biased as many think. I’ve heard several reporters lately giving reports that support Bush’s talking points, and being critical of some of the liberal perspectives. Listen more closely. And watch Glenn Beck on Headline News.

    Raise taxes? ANY new administration is going to have to raise taxes to pay for this war our current president lied our way into. And the next president, whatever affiliation, will have trouble pulling our troops out, without causing major upheaval.

    I wish my statements were not true, but I’m afraid they are.

  40. SG Fan wrote:

    # 39
    Bush had been in office for a little over 7 months. An attack of that magnitude had to have been in the planning for several years, probably since the first World Trade Center attack which failed to do as much destruction as the terrorist had hoped. That was years earlier. I also look at the actions following each attack. When the attacks happened in Clinton’s presidency, they were just strongly condemed, kind of like telling a two year old he’s been bad. When the attacks happened on 9-11-01, Bush set out to not only punish, but keep it from happening ever again. As far as raising taxes, the war can continue to be fought without raising taxes. Congress will just have to quit spending so much on useless entitlement programs that are doing more to harm than help. These programs cost us far more than the war has and if you subscribe to the idea of “Universal Healthcare” presented by your Democrat friends, it will make the budget for the war look rather small. It is my opinion that the govenments main role is to protect us from those that would want to harm us, not basically run our lives and redistibute our wealth so everyone lives the same. As far as your accusation to the President “lied our way into” the war, show me some proof. He saw the same intelligence that Congress saw, and they voted to authorize the war. Only when public opinion start changing did many in congress (mostly Demorcrats)start changing their minds, all for political gain. CNN and NPR are far from fair and balanced. I have watched, but I also do research. I would suggest you do the same instead of believing everything you hear on either of these “balanced” channels. I’m sorry, but I don’t see much truth in your statements, merely a filtered opinion.

  41. Faith wrote:

    I know most of the liberals on this site will become rabid when they read this, but Glenn Beck really knows what he is talking about. And he doesn’t just criticize Democrats; he states his issues with Conservatives too. And he ALWAYS has experts in whatever field backing him up; he doesn’t just say something crazy and expect you to believe it.

    Hagee? I don’t know, I think he has a lot of good points and he means well…but everytime I hear him, I feel like he is yelling at me. He always sounds angry.

  42. Rick wrote:

    Re:#14: Trent, the word “lifestyle” suggests that homosexuality is a fad or fashion that one chooses to put on or off.
    No gay person I have ever personally known chose to be gay, including myself.
    It is as much a part of who I am as my eye color or my height. It is a part of my life, not a “lifestyle.” Your calling it vile and wicked and wrong is, at the least, not very helpful. Actually, it is hateful and reeks of self-righteousness.

  43. SG Fan wrote:

    # 42 Rick:
    I really hate to open this can of worms, but I guess I will anyway. Is homosexuality a choice in the sense of oneday waking up and deciding to be gay? No! But no one wakes up and decides to be an acoholic either. It happens usually gradually over time as a result of decisions made. I do believe that we as human beings have predispositions that effect who we are. There are some people who become alcoholics very easily, while others do not. That does not make what they are doing right or acceptable. I hear this from gay people very ofter, “Why can’t you accept me for who I am?” My question is, Why can’t you accept youself for who God made you? If you are man, your companion is woman. If you are woman, your companion is man. Calling homosexuality wrong is Biblical. There is nothing self-righteous about pointing to sin as long as we are willing to accept the fact that we too have the predisposition to sin. That is a trait that we are born with, the predisposition to sin. But that does not mean that we should live in it. Do I believe you woke up one morning and said, I think I’ll be gay? No. Do I think that at some point you let that predisposition to that particular sin start controlling your life? Yes. There are many that have come out of that lifestyle. Donnie McClurkin is an example. I actually know a few myself that God has delivered and they are happier than they ever were. I think part of the reason you and others are so defensive is you are just trying to justify your sin instead of allowing God to deliver you from it. It is a form of trying to cover up the shame that sin brings along with it. You feel that if you can make it something not of your choosing, then it will be alright. I hate to tell you, that will not happen. That sense of “not complete” and “shame” is an emptyness that can only be filled by God. I am sorry if you don’t like what I have to say, I just speak the truth. You did post on a website that is read by a mostly Christian readership. If you don’t appreciate people speaking out against homosexuality, then don’t visit places that have Christian perspectives. After all, as long as you are vocal, you make it an issue of civil rights or rights to free speech. As soon as a Christian becomes vocal, it is labeled intollerance. As long as you try to justify your behavior, you will feel the way you do. However, if you seek God first, you will be delivered from even the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality.

  44. Eddie Estes wrote:

    My first time posting here.
    Sex is primarily the way that humans reproduce.
    The fact that it is pleasurable was God’s way of making sure that mankind reprouced themselves.
    Two men cannot have a child with each other neither can two women. It is not possible.
    I am not talking about medical meddling into this. I am talking naturally. So if God designed men for women and women for men it seems that logically he would not have a high opinion of being homosexual.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked * Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

*

*