Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘first amendment’

Ron Paul arguably more homophobic than fellow GOP bigots…if that’s possible.

I for one am glad that the Iowa Caucuses are over. The whole thing kind of reminded me of Halloween in January with all of the lunatics and crazies out. All of the back-slapping and sucking up to Ethanol farmers is over and now we can move on to other states and eventually to President Obama’s inevitable victory.

The results were disheartening but not surprising. It appears the God’s Own Party (the GOP, get it?) is as flagrantly anti-gay as ever. On top, we had Mitt Romney of the magic underwear cult who tried to block gay people’s happy day when he was governor of the Gay State. He’s such a judegmental, judging hatemonger bigot just like all Mormons. For more on that particular church see my anti-Mormon hate site on the right, “Stop the Mormons”. Then there was Michele “Pray Away the Gay” Bachmann who finished dismally, thank goodness. Her husband’s obviously a repressed homosexual; did you know that? Toward the bottom of the heap was Rick “I’m Not Ashamed to be a Christian” Perry. If he’s going to be a Christian, can’t he at least have the decency to be ashamed? Rick “Man-Dog Sex” Santorum was the surprise of the night, proving that you can still be a contender in the Republican Party and hold Roman Catholic beliefs, something that I think our Constitution prohibits.

I was really supporting the Texan Ron Paul until I found out that he doesn’t think that government should be in the marriage business. That really upset me. If I can’t get the government to recognize my marriage, that means I can’t force others to recognize it under penalty of law. I like to tell people that I just want the government out of my life, out of my bedroom, and out of my relationships. But that’s just another one of those lies that keeps dribbling out of my mouth like Michael’s spooge on a Saturday night. If that’s all I wanted,  I already had that before marriage equality came to my state. In fact, homos can have that in every state, even Mississippi. Nope, we want the government more involved in our personal lives, not less.  We want our relationships to be formalized and contractual. So when we say that we just want the government out of our lives, we actually mean exactly the opposite.

With Ron Paul, we wouldn’t be able to do that. No one would be forced to recognize my marriage, which defeats the purpose.

You can imagine how disappointed I was to learn that Ron Paul is in fact no different than the others. He likes to tell people that he’s a “defender of the Constitution” but then he turns around and denies the separation of church and state. Everyone knows that those words in the Constitution–right there in the first amendement. Well, I can’t find them, but I’m sure they’re there. If you don’t believe that, you’re probably a member of the Christian Taliban. Here’s what Paul actually said about the separation of church and state:

“In case after case, the supreme Court has used the infamous ‘separation of church and state’ metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. “

That’s the PURPOSE of the first amendment, you dolt! It isn’t to defend people of faith from the government. It’s to defend me from people of faith. They’re scary and the government needs to restrain them. The Constitution guarantees my right to never see or hear anything that might involve God, and it mandates the religious loons check their values outside the voting booth or else forfeit their right to vote.

Yeah, next thing we know he’s going to want to stone people for adultery. He continues:

“This ‘separation’ doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802.”

Jefferson was a deist. That’s what I heard anyway. And even though he wasn’t involved in the drafting of the Constitution because he was the ambassador to France at the time, I’ll look to his words, taken out of context, for guidance. Only because he said what I want to hear. After all, he’s the expert. Jefferson’s words trump the actual text of the Constitution.

Paul doesn’t have such a great track record with teh gheys. He even opposed Lawrence v. Texas on the grounds that the Constitution doesn’t actually guarantee a right to sodomy! Can you believe that? I did a quick google search and determined that the word “sodomy” appears nowhere in the Constitution, much less a right thereto. But in 2003, a bunch of justices said that it did. And I agree with them because I like sodomy. I’m sure it’s emanating somewhere in the penumbras.

Batty ol’ Ron Paul disagrees. As he wrote in an essay found at Lewrockwell.com :

“Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

I get it. He wants the federal government out of our bedrooms. But the fifty state governments are still okay.

Ron Paul: He's a rock star to the youth voters. To me, he's just another Republican BIGOT.

It’s almost as if he’s saying that there are no sexual rights in the Constitution, and thus the issues are for the states to decide. But I’d like it much better if there were sexual rights in the Constitution. And because I want them there, that means that I support any judge who imagines them to be there and rules accordingly. It’s so much easier to just have a judge strike down all of the laws I don’t like than it would be to do the hard work of changing minds and laws in all fifty states. Less messy, too.

It doesn’t matter at all to me whether there’s a “right to privacy” in the Constitution. Those words aren’t there, but neither are “right to sodomy” or “separation of church and state”. If we were to go down that road of only accepting words contained in the Constitution as legitimately constitutional, we’d be in a world of trouble. I prefer a living, breathing document–it says what I want it to say.

Ron Paul even advocates the bizarre theory that homosexuals get AIDS from their sexual behaviors. That’s not true. We get AIDS from Ronald Reagan and the Catholic Church. Everyone knows that. As he wrote in his January 1990 newsletter:

‘The ACT-UP slogan on stickers plastered all over Manhattan is ‘Silence=Death.’ But shouldn’t it be Sodomy = Death’?

That is just ABSURD! He’s  insinuating that the best way to avoid getting AIDS is to stop taking it up the ass! That’s just irresponsible, especially coming from a medical doctor. He’s blaming the victim. It’s like telling someone that the best way to avoid lung cancer is to quit smoking, or the best way to avoid obesity is to watch their diet. Actions do not have consequences and I loathe people who tell me that they do. Science is very clear on this: there is no known connection between butt sex and AIDS. They are two completely unrelated concepts. He needs to go back to med school.

His newsletters are a treasure trove of homophobic delusions. Oh, here’s another one from September 1994. Watch out for malicious gays!

“those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”

Hey, I do know a few malicious gays who do stuff like that, but only to other willing partners. Fully knowledeable that they are HIV positive, they head on down to the bathhouse and engage in group sex with lots of other guys. Bu those other guys being infected already fall under the first category: those who commit sodomy. Not that sodomy has anything to do with AIDS.

The supposedly libertarian congressman also wants to keeps us queers from eating in restaurants. Well, not queers, but AIDS patients. He bases this on the “fact” that “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”. That’s a lie. AIDS cannot be transmitted by saliva. Or sodomy, for that matter. AIDS is transmitted by lack of federal funding for research and by homophobia.

Oh, what a disappointment he turned out to be. I thought he was the face of a new, sodomy-friendly GOP. And it turns out that he’s the worst of the bunch! If it were between him and Santorum, and I absolutely had to choose one or the other, I think I might have to choose ol’ Man-Dog sex. At least he looks handsome in a sweater vest. (Okay, so I fantasize about him, just like Dan Savage does). Ron Paul just looks like a wrinkled old prune.

I took this picture of Ron Paul two winters ago while he was chopping ice. I was trying to catch a glimpse of his cock, but it was kind of shriveled in the cold water.

Advertisements

Thomas Sowell is one of those fascists who loves free speech

Sorry, I haven’t been updating lately. The Nor’Easter that hit Massachusetts knocked out my internet for a while. I blame global warming for the surprise October snowstorm. Unfortunately, I was completely cut off from my favorite gay porn sites. After a few days, I was in quite the foul mood, as you can imagine.

When I finally got back online, I was incensed to read Thomas Sowell’s latest column,” The Media and ‘Bullying'”.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/10/25/the_media_and_bullying

In short, he argues that homosexuals are “special” victims of bullying. When they are bullied, the media pay attention while ignoring other types of bullying. The result is to create a special kind of victim class.

Thomas Sowell, Stanford economist and known homophobe. Somebody ought to tell him that butt sex is kind of like black skin.

I don’t want any special victim status for gays. I just want the same equal treatment that blacks get. You know–separate gay proms just like blacks have separate black proms. Separate gay dorm floors just the same way blacks get separate black dorm floors.  I want to be treated with kiddy gloves, to be able to break the rules with impunity. I want standards to be lowered so that I can get my dream job without actually possessing the qualifications. I want my sexual escapades to be considered when applying for a job, just so long as they work in my favor. The same way we do for the blacks. Gay is the new black.

And I think we’re owed as much, Dr. Sowell. I’ve spent years toiling in the trenches, fighting for the civil rights of black people not to be held to the same standards as white people. I understand that as a conservative, you don’t want lowered standards for your particular group. But I have fought for those lowered standards nonetheless. The least you could do is return the favor.

Okay, Dr. Sowell, if you are reading this, let me spell it out for you. Two men sodomizing each other is the equivalent of having black skin. Behavior is the same as identity so long as you really, really want to engage in the behavior. Oddly enough though, I don’t usually engage in behavior that I don’t want to engage in. In any case, the desire to engage in behavior (sodomy, in this case) is genetically programmed and therefore comparable to skin color. It’s still my choice whether I will act on the impulse, but that’s not really relevant. When your dick tells you to do something, there’s just no sense in resisting.

Sowell’s column really starts to tick me off here:

The current media and political crusade against “bullying” in schools seems likewise to be based on what groups are in vogue at the moment. For years, there have been local newspaper stories about black kids in schools in New York and Philadelphia beating up Asian classmates, some beaten so badly as to require medical treatment. But the national media hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Asian Americans are not in vogue today, just as blacks were not in vogue in the 1920s.

First off, he puts “bullying” into quote marks, just the same way that I put terms such as “Christian”, “family values” and “traditional marriage”. He’s mocking the term bullying. It’s almost as if he’s saying that “bullying” is a term so vague that it’s become almost meaningless, which it’s certainly not. The meaning of the term bullying is crystal clear. You are guilty of bullying if you hurt the delicate feelings of butt pirates like me.

But then he starts comparing gay kids to…Asians? That’s so ridiculous. A bunch of Asian kids got beat up. Uh, so? The guys who did it were punished, right? Of course they were. Just the same way that any student should be punished for beating up any other student–gay, straight, Asian, black, Latino, white, Christian, Jewish, handicapped, whatever. So beating people up is already against the rules. It kind of makes you wonder why the explosion of special bullying laws have become absolutely necessary in recent years if they only punish things that were already prohibited.

I think the point that he’s trying to make is that the media didn’t jump into action after the Asian kids got beat up. They didn’t work overtime to create a media-driven hysteria about anti-Asian bullying. Despite the fact that the Asians in question were hospitalized, reporters didn’t think that the story was newsworthy. Just another brainy Asian kid being beat up by blacks. Unless the Asian kid liked giving blowjobs on the side, I don’t see how this can be considered news. So let’s not talk about it.

Reporters don’t have time to waste on Asian kids in the hospital. Not when there’s real bullying going on!There’s a kid in Texas named Dakota Ary who said “I think being a homosexual is wrong.” Now that’s bullying!

Sowell’s main point seems to be that the relative importance of an incident of bullying depends more on the identity of the victim and possibly the aggressor, and less on the severity of the incident. Hence, words directed at sodomites are just as bad as barbaric acts of violence directed at Asian kids. Wait a second, did I say “just as bad”? No, it’s infinitely worse to disapprove of homosexuality than it is beat up Asian kids.

Sowell:

Most of the stories about the bullying of gays in schools are about words directed against them, not about their suffering the violence that has long been directed against Asian youngsters or about the failure of the authorities to do anything serious to stop black kids from beating up Asian kids.

Well, duh! That’s because we’re trying to criminalize dissent. Everyone already agrees that physical violence is terrible and shouldn’t be tolerated. In fact, there isn’t a single school in the whole country in which it’s permitted. Our obsession with bullying is really an obsession with gagging our opponents.

If you think it’s wrong for people to sleep with persons of the same sex, you are a monster. You are a bully. And we have a zero tolerance policy for bullying in our school. Ergo, you may not express your opinion in our school. What do you think this is–America?

Unfortunately, most Americans are raised with a healthy respect for freedom. They think that speech is a protected right. They think that people have a right to disagree with each other and with authorities, and to express that disagreement. We had to think of a new way to frame our censorious, thought-stopping, speech-gagging policy in such a way that people would be so filled with shame that they would never stoop to the old “freedom” arguments to oppose us.

And this is what we came up with. We exploit the deaths of gay children. Sometimes we even exploit the deaths of children who aren’t gay.

Sure, we will all still enjoy free speech in America. But you can’t say that! Our constitutional rights must be curtailed or some gay kid might kill himself! When gay people are exposed to shame, they tend to blow their brains out. Interestingly, shame is the primary weapon that we use against those Christofascists.

Sowell continues:

“But there is still a difference between words and deeds — and it is a difference we do not need to let ourselves be stampeded into ignoring. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech — and, like any other freedom, it can be abused. If we are going to take away every Constitutional right that has been abused by somebody, we are going to end up with no Constitutional rights.”

Uh, excuse me? There’s a “difference” between words and deeds? No, there isn’t. Violence is the same as words. Because if you say the wrong words to me, I might commit violence against myself and it would be your fault, not mine. So now that we’ve established that words are equivalent to violence, we can now get to work gang-raping the free speech rights of people I don’t want to hear–Christofascists, for example. And that’s how we will circumvent your silly argument about the First Amendment “protecting” speech. We will just say that your speech is killing poor, abused gay teenagers.

This woman is a genius! See? When you say things I don't want to hear, it's the equivalent of murder. And murder is illegal, so why shouldn't speech be illegal too?

More idiocy from Sowell:

“Already, on too many college campuses, there are vaguely worded speech codes that can punish students for words that may hurt somebody’s feelings — but only the feelings of groups that are in vogue.”

So what? I’m on that list of “in vogue” groups and so the censorship codes are never exercised against me and always against my enemies. And Sowell thinks that makes me a “special class” of victims! Ha! Aren’t all groups of people entitled to live their lives without ever hearing an idea that hurts their feelings? I’m all for campus speech codes, so long as they continue to used as weapons against those I disagree with. Try again, Tom.

“Women can say anything they want to men, or blacks to whites, with impunity. But strong words in the other direction can bring down on students the wrath of the campus thought police — as well as punishments that can extend to suspension or expulsion. Is this what we want in our public schools?”

Yes! With one important addition–homosexuals can say whatever they want to Christofascist H8ers, but not the reverse. That’s a perfectly acceptable policy to me.

The tiresome Sowell blathers on:

Meanwhile, a law has been passed in California that mandates teaching about the achievements of gays in the public schools. Whether this will do anything to stop either verbal or physical abuse of gay kids is very doubtful. But it will advance the agenda of homosexual organizations and can turn homosexuality into yet another of the subjects on which words on only one side are permitted.

There he goes again with that “gay agenda”. When is he going to learn that our only “agenda” is equality? And when I say equality, I mean outlawing the religious beliefs of hateful religions.

But he’s right about one thing. Teaching about the achievements of homosexuals in schools probably won’t have the effect of reducing bullying. We wouldn’t want that because we need our martyrs. It’s about sending the message that homosexuality is good.

And yes, we do want words on only one side to be permitted. OUR SIDE. That’s the American way. If you disagree with me, that’s like saying that slavery should be permitted. Opposition to homosexuality is kind of like slavery. That’s the catch-all excuse I use, anyway. You can borrow that if you’d like. What I mean to say is that this issue is beyond discussion. Opposing viewpoints are not allowed. If you attempt to voice them, we will discipline you.

And to think that Sowell and his band of wailing hysterical conservatives think that we want CENSORSHIP! Isn’t that ridiculous? We don’t want censorship. We just want to make your beliefs unspeakable under penalty of law, that’s all.

Enemy of the state suspended in Fort Worth

Thought crimes abound at Western Hills High School in Fort Worth, Texas. The school recently gave an in-house suspension to fourteen year old Dakota Ary, an honors student, varsity athlete, and Christian, for commenting to another student in class that “being a homosexual is wrong”.

Western Hills High School. Remember to check your rights at the door!

Dakota’s teacher immediately rebuked the young homophobe, losing his temper and yelling, then sent him to the office where he was given a two day in-house suspension. Tell me, has the school been to lenient? I mean, how about we waterboard him until he tells us about the rest of his homophobe network?

Predictably, the right wing has gone ballistic, claiming that the kids’ “first amendment” rights were violated. When are these people going to learn that the first amendment does not protect speech that hurts my feelings?

Now, don’t get me wrong. Whenever statist thugs use the force of law to censor Christians in other countries, I always tell those right-wingers to calm down because that can’t happen here. We have a first amendment. For example, when Ake Green was arrested out of his pulpit in Sweden for preaching against homosexuality, I told conservatives to cut it out with the alarmism because we have a first amendment and that can’t happen here. When an LGBTQXYZ police officer in England arrested street preacher Dale McAlpline for for reading from his Bible that homosexuality is a sin, I told these nutty conservatives to take a chill pill because that can’t happen in America.

But then when it actually does happen in America, I applaud it. I will argue that such comments aren’t really protected by the first amendment because…well, because I say so. That’s why.

The first amendment is very clear on this subject. Let me quote it:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (except when protecting the feelings of homosexuals who need constant affirmation or else they tend to kill themselves), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Come to think of it, this is just like using the N-word. Yes, when Dakota turned around and mentioned to another student that he thinks that homosexuality is wrong, that’s the same as chasing a black kid down the hall and yelling racial epithets at him.

Dakota Ary, public enemy and threat to public safety. His existence makes me want to kill myself. And if I kill myself, it will be Dakota's fault, as well as the fault of his school for not restricting his free speech.

See if you can follow my logic here. It’s a little bit circuitous, I know. I read it in my official gay talking points memo I got from Kevin Jennings. Sodomy is basically equivalent to having black skin. You’re just going to have to take my word for that, okay? I don’t know how a person’s sexual behaviors somehow equate to race and I can’t even prove that the desires to commit such behaviors are inborn–not that it would matter if they were–but skin color and buttfucking are basically the same thing. And then, a mildly phrased opinion about such behavior is the same as inflammatory racial name-calling.

In the end, when I compare the Dakota’s opinion about my sex life to racism, what I’m really saying is that we’ve already surrendered out rights to speak freely on matters of race. And I want the same gag rule extended to negative opinions of homosexuality as well.

Okay, so the truth is that I just don’t think that Christians have any rights. There isn’t a single scenario I can think of in which I would ever side with a Christian who objects to homosexuality. I will always invent new rationalizations for why the Christian must be gagged. Just give me a new scenario and I will give you a new rationalization. I can do this all day; try me.

I agree with Chai R. Feldblum, the lesbian activist recently appointed by President Obama (peace be upon him) to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She’s a great legal mind. Says Feldblum:

“There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty. But in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

That’s true. And the major difference of course is that the Constitution is chock full of sexual rights–the right to take it in the poopchute, the right to anonymous hookups in the bushes in Central Park–but is oddly silent about matters of religious liberty. Ergo, my sexual freedoms must trump some one else’s religious freedoms. In fact, my right to exercise my sexual freedoms without negative judgements trumps religious freedom. That means that you’re not allowed to think bad things about me just because I’m a sodomite.

Chai Feldblum, homosexual activist and all around gay bully. We owe her a debt of gratitude.

When asked under what circumstances she believes religious liberty should take precedence, Feldblum replied:

“I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Unfortunately, the kid went out and got a lawyer from the gay-hating Liberty Counsel. I say that Liberty Counsel hates gays because it refuses to compromise on first amendment freedoms just to spare the delicate feelings of butt pirates like me. Enter Matt Krause, a self-styled “first amendment attorney”. He calls himself that because he takes up cases that involve the defense of first amendment rights, which, as we’ve already established, Christofascist H8ers like Dakota Ary are not entitled to.

Matt Krause on the Ary case:

“Students don’t lose their first amendment rights just because they go in the schoolhouse doors.”

Krause is of course quoting the majority opinion from the landmark Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines. In it, several high school students sued their school because they were suspended for wearing black arm bands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The students won their case.

In the majority opinion, the court found that a school may limit speech, but it must

“be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”

Which clearly this was! I mean, it was offensive! And to drag out my catch-all, speech restricting, thought-stopping weapon of mass destruction…SOME KID MIGHT KILL HIMSELF! Yep, that’s basically what my argument boils down to–our first amendment rights must be curtailed or else some kid might blow his brains out. I will continue to exploit acts of suicide for the purposes of censorship until the cows come home.

If other people are allowed to hold differing opinions, some gay kid might kill himself.

By the way, don’t get cute with me and ask if I think we should suspend our constitutional rights every time a Christian kills himself. This doesn’t work both ways. And besides, the suicide rates for pickle-smoochers is much higher than for Christians, which I think might be because Christians are well-adjusted, mentally balanced people and homosexuals are batshit crazy emotional basketcases.

As I read more into this case, I was thrilled to find that the teacher was himself a member of the LGBTQXYZ community! Can anyone find out if the gentleman is single? His blatant homosexual fascism is such a turn-on! I get hard every time I think about an adult teacher bullying a fourteen year old Christian honor student. It’s so GAY-STAPO of him.

Like most gay teachers, this particular unnamed educator brings his advocacy to work with him. He’s a change agent! He considers it his job to seek out kids like Dakota and reform their wayward thinking. That’s spectacular.

“There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topic. The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”

That’s great. I can see how that ties into German. Sure. I’m sure he put it there because it has some relationship to German, and not because he is himself a homosexual and he has an agenda to push.

“He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now.”

So homosexuality was a frequent topic in this teacher’s German class, which is really a great development. I took German for a semester or two back in high school just because I wanted to learn how to read Mein Kampf in the original German. All the goose-stepping and the gayness in the SA really turned me on. I also admired Hitler’s militant atheism and the LGBTQXYZ members of his staff like Ernst Roehm. And guess what? My German teacher never even touched on the topic of homosexuality. We learned verb conjugation, vocabulary, adjective endings, cases, word order, and tenses. What we should have been talking about was gayness in Germany.

I can completely understand why homosexuality might be a frequent topic in German class. After all, some people in Germany are homosexual. Some people in Germany are also vegetarian, but we don’t spend time in German class talking about that. Some people in Germany are also into Scheisse porn, but we don’t spend time talking about that. Some people in Germany are also Jehovah’s Witnesses, but we don’t spend class time talking about that.

But we do talk about homosexuality, loudly and often. We ALWAYS portray it in a good light, and discussion is only permitted if you agree with the teacher and his opinion. Otherwise, STFU or we’ll suspend you for two days.

Weaving homosexuality into any class is as easy as 1-2-3. Let’s see…French class? Yes, there are gays in France. So let’s talk about gayness in France. Biology? People are just born gay, get over it. History? Abe Lincoln was gay and so was Alexander Hamilton! English Lit? How about we read some of the books from the GLSEN teen reading list that include gay sex between teachers and students?

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/sunday-commentary/20091210-Rod-Dreher-GLSEN-s-toxic-7559.ece

This game is easier than playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Seriously, I can tie gayness to virtually anything. It appears that this particular teacher did just that. Western Hills High School hired him to teach German, but he had other ideas.

Sadly, it appears that the school is backing down. After a lot of whining from his bitchy Christian mother, Dakota was let off with just one day of in-school suspension. Still, she won’t shut up about her son’s “constitutional rights”.

Tag Cloud