Subject: DOWN WITH THE GAY AGENDA..GOD BLESS..???
'Parents' No Longer Recognized By Schools
Daycare Centers Are Closely Monitored
By Tom Duggan
"One thing that was stressed over and over at Fistgate," said a teacher who, has
asked not to be identified, "was the importance of eliminating words like
'mother and father' because that disrespects the gay lifestyle.
"If someone is said to have a mother, that may be offensive to someone who is
being raised by two homosexual men, so the word they wanted us to focus on was
'partner.' Most schools no longer send notes 'to the mother and father' or 'to
the parents' but to a single parent as if this is the acceptable norm."
This is only one of many strategies that are being promoted throughout the
schools of Massachusetts, beginning with daycare centers and elementary schools.
The strategy, according to GLSEN members who taught at Fistgate, is to promote
homosexuality in schools through casual conversations between students and their
gay teachers. There were two workshops at Fistgate that focused on very young
One was sponsored by four lesbians in Lexington who live with children who
attend the elementary schools. The following was the description of their
13B: It's elementary in your town; getting gay and lesbian issues included in
elementary school staff development, curriculum development, and the PTA
Liz Coolidge, Elisabeth Sackton, Meg Soens and Kathie Keagul
How lesbian parents approached and worked collaboratively with school system
administration to develop plans for integrating gay and lesbian issues in
elementary anti-bias curriculum. How we approached multiple levels, integrated
our goals with anti-bias curriculum and explicit core values of the Lexington
Although these workshops were offered as a vehicle to promote "safe" schools for
gay children, the real agenda was revealed early in the presentation, according
to the teacher who was in attendance.
One presenter told the group that she was a lesbian and had adopted two
children. She said that the early education workshop was put together "so that
these young children will already be exposed to the gay lifestyle by the time
they reach middle school and high school." She said she works with parents at
daycare facilities across the Commonwealth and that teaching homosexuality and
acceptance of homosexuality must begin at the earliest ages by promoting
language in school systems that respects gay and lesbian lifestyles.
One of the presenters said her main goals were to promote diversity and to
prevent gay bias in public schools. She said that the workshops were a blueprint
of strategies to get around the curriculum of conservative administrators and
parents who are "against us." These strategies included a long discussion on
what to do when faced with "those conservative parents and teachers who advocate
hate and homophobia to their children." She stressed the need for intervention
by the schools when parents were not adequately teaching their children how "not
One of those strategies was for gay teachers to engage in personal discussions
with young students using biographical information about themselves to stimulate
their students' interest and to raise questions about their personal lives.
"Informal discussions about your daily activities or your personal life is a
great vehicle you can use to gain their trust and connect individually with your
students. This personal contact is important because you want your students to
relate to you as a person and that makes it much easier to influence their ideas
and opinions about how to treat gay, lesbians or persons of a particular
When children begin asking personal questions, it opens the door for further
discussions about the teacher's "life partner situation," being gay, coming out,
and exactly what that means. "Since it is so important to give children the most
complete and accurate information you can as an educator, you are obligated to
teach your students. That means giving them as much information as you can so
that they can make their own decisions based on the most complete and accurate
information you can provide."
Teacher 'Outed' In Newton
This workshop was held on March 25, 2000.Two months later, a first grade teacher
in Newton named David Gaita announced to his young class of five-year-olds that
he was gay and that he loved a man "the way your mother and father love each
other." The method he used to announce his sexual preference and lifestyle to
children followed the blueprint set forth by the Department of Education
Gaita told Bay Windows that he introduced the word "partner" into his class
discussions by reading a story called "The Frog Princess Continued." It told the
story of a prince and princess who were married. Gaita then explained to his
first grade children that the word partner, though commonly used in a gay
context, applied to straight couples as well. When children questioned him on
the meaning of 'gay,' Gaita told Bay Windows that he explained it to the
children as "a man and a man loving each other like your mom and dad."
One little boy raised his hand and said, "I don't like girls, So I must be gay."
Gaita was quoted in the publication as telling the class that this was different
because he was talking about "grownup love." He told the children, "When you get
older you may have a partner that is a man, you may have a partner that is a
"This is so outrageous," said the teacher who attended the Fistgate conference.
"The strategy is to teach homosexuality under the cover of 'safe schools' and
'respecting diversity.' If children can't understand the maturity of the
situation, why would anyone want to subvert the education system by teaching
them something that they are clearly not ready for. If the children have to wait
to be adults because it is adult love, as Gaita says, why is this being
discussed with a first grade class in the first place? In fact this sort of
sexual training only makes kids more confused. I have been teaching for many
years and I see these children getting more and more confused by this sort of
The workshop presenters also advocated that gays and lesbians infiltrate church
organizations across the Commonwealth in order to use a well-developed political
strategy to force them to be more open and affirming of the homosexual
"What I want to know from David Driscoll and Governor Cellucci is what any of
this has to do with safe schools?" asked the teacher who attended. "They talked
about how to teach sexuality in general and particularly homosexuality to
children who are three years old and up. They talked about infiltrating churches
and supporting political organizations like the NAACP and MCAD, but these topics
have absolutely nothing at all to do with stopping a child from being
discriminated against or getting beaten up in school for being gay."
One presenter told the workshop attendees, "We are hopeful that inclusiveness
and respect for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendereds and all those
orientations, is achieved through the language used at the elementary level. If
elementary kids are familiar with that kind of diversity and respect, the kids
will grow up and 'come out' or identify themselves in that way. It means we will
have safer schools. It doesn't happen overnight, so we are really looking at
this as a long term project for the public schools."
Works In All Lexington Schools
She also told attendees that her current role in the community was to eliminate
anti-gay epithets in the Lexington School System as well as combat harassment in
the elementary schools. "We want to have inclusive language for gay and lesbian
families in the schools and in the classrooms. We train staff at the elementary
level," she said. "You probably know the Mass General Law that supports equal
education for all, regardless of sexual orientation and a support system for
all. It supports our work and GLSEN as well."
The Massachusetts law does not support the GLSEN organization by name or intent.
It is designed to give equal protection to all based on race, color or creed,
and includes sexual orientation. The Governor does support the efforts of GLSEN
through a line item in his office budget that funds Gay/Straight Alliances. The
Department of Education under Commissioner Driscoll has also supported the
efforts of GLSEN and the teaching of sexual material to children both in schools
and at conferences like "Fistgate."
When questioned by a teacher at the early childhood workshop as to what kind of
questions a first or second grade child could possibly raise on their own, the
presenter answered, "We get asked, 'How do you experience pregnancy if you are a
lesbian?' and 'How do lesbians do it?'" The presenter did not go into detail as
to how these young children would come to know what a lesbian was in the first
place, or how pregnancy could be different for lesbians as opposed to straight
Another strategy was to seek straight teachers and administrators who are
supportive or "allies" of the gay agenda. The anonymous teacher who attended
said, "This is more than just a group of individuals who are looking for friends
to support them in their daily struggles with their lifestyle. This is a
political agenda. This is how people with an agenda sneak their way into the
schools and influence the minds of our children whether we like that or not. And
parents have little or no say. What is really baffling to me is that the parents
are not more informed about their children being exposed to this stuff on a
regular basis. Part of the problem is that the media doesn't pay any attention
to what is going on."
The materials and resources handed out and promoted at the GLSEN conference were
widely circulated and are even available on the Internet. The anonymous teacher
said, "Writer Rick Gosselin has taken all the classic stories such as Dr. Seuss,
and corrupted them. He changed each story so that the parents who are
traditionally male and female are now all rewritten to be two men or two women
as the parents. Parents don't want their children reading that stuff at school.
If anyone is going to teach the children anything about sex, it should be done
by the parents. They are the ones who know when their kids are ready to learn
this, not the government, not the schools and certainly not David Driscoll."
Another program on young children was titled:
5A: Early Childhood Educators: How to Decide Whether to Come Out at Work or Not
Liz Posinoff, M.Ed., College Instructor and Adult Education Trainer
This is an interactive session for those involved in teaching and working with
our youngest children. We will look at levels of safety, what holds us back, how
to gain support and the ramifications of this issue when working with staff and
families in the child care center.
The early childhood program said that its purpose was to support homosexual
teachers at the earliest educational levels on how to "come out" in their
classrooms with their youngest students.
TO ALL THE MURDERED BABIES AND DESTROYED CHILDREN..!
MOST TEACHERS ARE commies and PAGAN UNITARIANS..! GET OUR CHILDREN, AWAY FROM
ALL OF them...! NOW..!
THERE IS LITTLE OR NO CHOICE, BUT TO HOMESCHOOL..OR..FIGHT BACK AND STOP THIS
"The Gay Agenda" and "Gay Rights, Special Rights" and
the Construction of a Homosexual Role
The rhetoric of the right traditionally has employed the language of norms. In
his comparative study of the rhetoric of the left and the right, Tomkins noted:
"On the right man is at best neutral, without value. There exists a norm, an
objective value, independent of him, and he may become valuable by participation
in, conformity to, or achievement of this norm" (83). The Gay Agenda and Gay
Rights, Special Rights are consistent with this rhetorical stance.
The Gay Agenda begins with a familiar warning that "the following program
contains scenes" that might be offensive to viewers. This opening and the rest
of the video is underscored with ominous music. It runs about 20 minutes. Gay
Agenda mixes soundbites from experts and "ex-gays" with video footage of Los
Angeles and San Francisco Gay Pride parades, footage that includes nudity and
movement demeans the gains of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. A narrator
then details why gays and lesbians are not a legal minority and do not deserve
minority status. Like Gay Agenda, Gay Rights, Special Rights then proceeds to
intercut expert testimony with footage from gay rights events, here primarily
the 1993 March on Washington. Gay Rights, Special Rights also uses soundbites
from gay and lesbian activists contextualized in damning rhetoric. In the
context of the video, their statements are self-incriminating.
The Gay Agenda creates a framework in which sex, generally, is given a negative
connotation. This sex negativity immediately places homosexuality outside the
mainstream. This strategy reinforces what Rubin has argued is a devaluing of sex
in western society. "Sex is presumed guilty until proven innocent," Rubin said.
"Virtually all erotic behavior is considered bad unless a specific reason to
exempt it has been established" (278). In Gay Agenda, sex is suspect. John
Nicolosi, identified as a reparative therapist, implies this on several
occasions. He notes that gay pride parades are "outrageously sexual," adding,
"The reaction that we’re getting from conventional American society is against
that." Later Nicolosi suggests that "eroticism is the fiber of the gay culture,"
creating a negative connotation of eroticism that is imposed on all gay culture.
Sex negativity is part of the mediated reality of Gay Agenda, and the
constructed homosexual role is to reinforce this reality. The full impact of
this ideological discourse is realized only if one is predisposed to see sex in
a negative light. Therefore, it is essential to create a sex-negative context
for the rhetoric. In other words, the ideas presented in the video--that
homosexuals average 300 to 400 sexual partners, for example--are neutral unless
they occur in a context that makes them perversions. This context is created
through both the internal reality of the video and the broader cultural
discourse of sexuality, of which the video is a piece.
In this sex negative environment, the video uses strategies employed in the
service of normalcy. Language choice and verbal juxtapositioning create a
compulsory normalcy of which homosexuals are not a part. For example, Nicolosi
refers to "conventional American society" placing homosexuals outside the
conventional. The video ends with two questions: "Will society be forced to
surrender its standards? Will the tide be turned?" Each of these comments, and
others throughout the Gay Agenda, constitutes a heterosexual norm from which the
homosexual stands outside, in opposition, and as a violation.
By playing on the perceived fears of its audience, the video constructs a
villainous homosexual identified by the heinous sexual behaviors in which he
(always "he") engages. This occurs through rhetoric that constitutes abnormal
types of sexual activity, abnormal amounts of sexual activity, abnormal places
for sexual activity, and abnormal contexts for sexual activity.
The clearest example of abnormal types of homosexual activity are articulated by
Stanley Monteith, identified as a medical doctor. Monteith delivers a litany of
behaviors accompanied by the percentages of gay men who engage in them. In tone,
in context and explicitly, these are activities that fall outside of acceptable
a hundred percent of homosexuals engage in fellatia . . . about 93 percent
engaged in rectal intercourse . . . and then about 92 percent of homosexuals
engaged in rimming . . . then you had something called fisting, and fisting
involved about 47 percent of homosexuals . . . and then 29 percent engaged in
something called golden showers . . . and then there’s something called scat,
and about 17 percent of homosexuals engaged in that.
The statistics are accompanied by lurid descriptions of the named activities.
These descriptions serve to reinforce the abnormality of the activities: "Of
course, the rectum was not built for intercourse;" "you couldn’t do this without
some ingestion of feces;" "a man lays on the ground naked, and other men stand
around him and urinate on him." The effect of this discourse is to construct a
homosexual who is unhealthy, unsavory, and abnormal. These are activities and
behaviors outside the realm of what is normal within the reality created by the
The video also promotes the notion that gays have abnormal amounts of sex,
specifically an abnormally large number of sexual partners. The narrator
provides statistics that homosexuals have between 20 and 106 partners a year and
that 28 percent have had anal intercourse with over a thousand men. He also
claims that "the average homosexual man has between 300 and 500 sex partners in
his lifetime." John Paulk, identified as an administrator of the "ex-gay"
organization Love in Action, describes orgies with "multiple, multiple
Of course, with all this sex going on, homosexual activities cannot be confined
to the "normal" location of the bedroom. Gay Agenda describes the abnormal
places for sexual activity, such as parks, malls, rest stops and bath houses.
Discussion of the abnormal contexts in which homosexual activities occur
comprise a great deal of the video. This discussion takes a number of different
forms. For example, all five experts testify that people don’t know these
activities are going on. This puts homosexuality into a secretive context of the
Other. The assertion that homosexuality is "centered around anonymous sexual
encounters" heightens this connection.
Gay Agenda uses other connections to vilify the homosexual and reinforce
compulsory norms. Protection of children from the homosexual menace is a
longstanding argument of the religious right, and the video goes to great
lengths to maintain this association. Monteith says during the first minutes,
"Most Americans would be highly offended if they really understood what was
involved and what their children are being exposed to." After the narrator says
homosexuals have "a long history of focusing on youth" (accompanied by NAMBLA
marching in a gay pride parade), John Smid, an ex-gay administrator with Love in
Action, says they are "stuck in that little boy stage." Freud's construction of
homosexuality as arrested development gets played out, then, as a pathology of
pedophilia. Images of young children, included throughout the video, serve as a
constant reminder of this pathology.
Another association made in the testimonials is between homosexuality and
disease. The narrator notes that homosexuals are eight times more likely to have
hepatitis, 14 times more likely to have syphilis and 5,000 times more likely to
have AIDS. Monteith notes that the tearing of the rectal mucosa is the basis for
the higher incidence of disease among homosexuals. This frequent link between
homosexuality and disease results in a construction of the homosexual as
diseased. Disease is no less a social construction than homosexuality, however.
The homosexual constructed as a diseased entity is something pathological that
can spread and infect the rest of society (especially children).
As in any television media presentation, visual image choice and music or sound
effects are a component of the rhetoric. From the opening image--a viewer
warning--the video sensitizes viewers to the perverse activities they are about
to witness. The warning is followed by violent images of rioting following "Pete
Wilson’s veto of Assembly Bill 101, which would have extended special minority
rights to homosexuals." The narrator continues: "Gays mobilize and immediately
activate a plan to replace A.B. 101, just one part of an aggressive nationwide
offensive aimed at every segment of society to force approval of their chosen
ifestyle." The visual images that accompany this narrative are burning
buildings, windows being broken, fighting with police--images that equate
"aggressive nationwide offensive" with hostile, dangerous behaviors. Thus, from
the outset, the homosexual is created to exist outside the norm and to threaten
Visual images directly reinforce the homosexual role constituted through the
narrative. Gay Agenda runs about 19 minutes. Of that time 12 minutes are
testimonials of experts accompanied by a shot of the expert. Just under six
minutes include images of gays (and a smattering of bare-breasted lesbians). The
images include semi-nude men, shirtless women, costuming, drag, same-sex
kissing, dancing, signs emblazoned with the word "f***," and simulated S&M.
Nicolosi’s comment that public sentiment is against overt eroticism is followed
by a 2 minute gay pride sequence with pounding dance music. The outrageousness
of the images, created through context, places the homosexual outside the norm.
mages of sexually explicit ads and homoerotic imagery from magazines
accompanying statistics on the high incidence of disease among homosexuals have
exactly the same effect.
Overall, then, Gay Agenda is an argument for strict adherence to norms. By
defining an "Other," the homosexual pervert, compulsory heterosexuality is
constituted. The video creates two worlds, the normal and the perverse, and its
internal structure mandates the former by constructing and vilifying the latter.
The homosexual role is to threaten the norm and, ultimately, scare viewers into
Whereas the beginning of Gay Agenda is ominous and titillating, Gay Rights,
Special Rights begins warmly and seductively with Martin Luther King’s "I Have a
Dream." The rhetorical strategies and the production aspects of the film are
much more sophisticated. Beginning with the opening narration, though, the video
creates a reality in which normalcy is revered and the homosexual exists outside
and threatens the norm. King’s speech, which lasts over a minute, is followed by
Larry Kramer, identified as a homosexual and founder of ACT-UP, paraphrasing Dr.
King. The narrator then says, "Many people failed to notice Mr. Kramer’s
substitution of the words ‘sexual behavior’ for ‘skin color’ as he misquoted the
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King??? on the steps of the U.S. Capitol." The video’s
declaration that gays are using sexual behavior as a way to get special rights
then becomes code for the homosexual as abnormal and as threat.
Unlike Gay Agenda, this construction of homosexuality as abnormal comes from a
diverse array of individuals. Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, for example, says
homosexuals’ attempts to get special rights "makes a mockery of other legitimate
civil rights that people have worked at for years." James Little, an African
American minister with the Traditional Values Coalition, says the gay civil
rights movement "threatens to undermine and belittle the entire civil rights
efforts of the 1960s." An African American publisher, Emanuel McLittle,
expresses concern that "homosexuals are using not only the language, but . . .
the statutes, the laws" that were designed to protect legitimate minorities.
Clearly, these comments are rhetorically constructed to drive a wedge between
two communities that have some history of cooperation, but equally important,
they are rhetorically constructing a reality of legitimate and illegitimate,
normal and perverse. Other corroborating testimony comes from gays and lesbians
themselves. Torrie Osborne, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force President,
comments that gays and lesbians are emerging as the "great civil rights
movement" of the 1990s. These frequent juxtapositions, though not precise, are
Gay Rights, Special Rights uses a second subtle strategy to construct the
homosexual as outside the compulsory norm. It defines homosexuality as a
behavior, while defining gender and skin color as benign characteristics, adding
the argument that behavior cannot define a minority. The narrator defines
homosexuality for the viewer over footage of the 1993 March on Washington:
"Homosexuality is defined as a behavior by the act of sex with members of the
same sex. It does not qualify for minority status classification because
behavior or conduct is irrelevant." Ralph Reed, Executive Director of the
Christian Coalition, argues "no one should have special rights or privileges or
minority status because of their sexual behavior." Ed Meese says "Color, gender
are benign characteristics having nothing to do with behavior." The success of
this argument is dependent upon the extent to which it can construct color as
benign and behavior as malignant. To do this, almost every expert during the
first 20 minutes of the video uses "sexual behavior" or "behavior-based
lifestyle" when referring to gays and lesbians, contrasting them with "benign"
attribute of color.
Gay Rights, Special Rights embraces a language of diversity. It celebrates the
achievements of African Americans. It includes the voices of African Americans
and Hispanics and Asian Americans. In fact, it includes the voices of gays and
lesbians. But in this multicultural mediated reality, the video is very clear
that the homosexual is not a part of this celebrated, hard-won diversity, but
something that threatens it.
In an ironic moment, Gay Rights, Special Rights articulates the myths of
homosexuality, including the myth of 10 percent, the myth of minority status,
the myth of biology and the myth of immutability. Just when the homosexual is
not a minority at all, it becomes an even smaller minority. These myths are
attributed to "militant homosexual leaders," and once again testimony from
activists is included: "10% was a nice, round number," one activist admits.
After the initial soft sell, the video goes on an offensive that mirrors Gay
Agenda. John Nicolosi, the reparative therapist who appears in Gay Agenda , is
used as an expert; testimonial from ex-gays is included. Rhetoric that
emphasizes the abnormal types, amounts, places, and contexts of sex stressed in
the first video is used in Gay Rights, Special Rights, as well. The video
systematically associates homosexuals with prisoners, sex offenders and child
molesters. As the narrator begins to discuss the March on Washington, the
accompanying footage imitates the gay pride parade footage from the earlier
film. Visual imagery and sound effects support heterosexual hegemony. The
subtleties of the first 15 minutes of the video--utilization of the language of
diversity and the question of minority status--are replaced with a language of
normalcy and perversion.
The argument is basically the same as Gay Agenda, but it is organized in terms
of the negative impact granting minority status would have on business,
education, the church, and the family. This restructuring changes the rhetorical
impact of the film, at least initially, providing what appears on first viewing
to be a reasoned basis to Gay Rights, Special Rights. The argument seems more
rational and clearly intended for a wider, more diverse audience.
The segment on education is used as the forum to articulate the threat to
children. The discourse of normalcy is clear, as one expert says the goal of the
gay agenda is to promote homosexuality as "normal and desirable" in the schools.
The homosexual is a threat to compulsory heterosexuality. This threat includes
pedophilia and recruiting. A marcher in the gay teachers contingent says, "We’re
here to fight homophobia in the schools." Author Marlin Maddoux follows:
One of the things that sex education does in the public schools is to tell the
kids that there is no difference between homosexual lifestyle and heterosexual
lifestyle. The aim of that is basically to break down any type of what they
would call prejudice against the homosexual lifestyle. So basically what
Americans have to understand is that the agenda of the homosexuals is aimed at
Ominous music and slow motion effects with a sinister look (mostly marchers)
accompany the second half of Maddoux’s comment. Without any pause a second
expert begins: "The young boys are so vulnerable to this because there’s a
period of time in their life when they like boys. . . . We’re going to lose
thousands and thousands and thousands of good heterosexuals. . . ." The
seemingly innocuous comment from the marcher is used as a catalyst to warn
against the promotion of homosexuality in the schools and ultimately the threat
of recruiting young boys. His comment is contextualized in pathological
rhetoric, an effective strategy because it makes the homosexual
The segment on the Impact on Family in Gay Rights, Special Rights parallels the
structure of the segment on education. It begins with a number of marchers
defining family and introducing their children. This creates the framework
against which the experts argue. Donald Wildmon says the homosexual agenda
"redefines the family. No longer do we have a family consisting of mother and
father, children. What you gonna have now is family of anyone who wants to shack
up for awhile for whatever reason." Another says the gay agenda is "a total
rejection of the basic building blocks of society." These comments lead into the
same litany of perverse behaviors named in Gay Agenda. This time, however, the
text is divided among three people: an ex-gay, a registered nurse and Maddoux,
making it easier to digest.
The video ends with a barrage of rhetoric that constructs the homosexual role in
direct opposition to all that is good and innocent. A rather lengthy section
discussing activity in a park in Riverside includes the following:
It averages between 100 and 150 men a day that walk down this bike path, one at
a time, wearing different clothing according to their sexual perversion. They
take the dirt paths off into the brush. They meet one another, and they do their
sexual perversions right there in the open. . . . They come out one at a time,
walk into the park with the children. I’ve seen them talk to the children.
Another expert follows, "If you give homosexuals special rights in America,
first of all you’ve opened a Pandora’s box to every deviant behavior group
logically being able to line up." Finally, Former Secretary of Education William
Bennett says, "No society can survive, obviously, unless it comes full forward
in favor of heterosexuality, and no society in its right mind would do anything
but that." Gay Rights, Special Rights ends by returning directly to the language
of normalcy and the abnormalcy of amounts, places, and contexts for homosexual
Gay Rights, Special Rights ultimately constructs the homosexual as the pervert,
effectively defining the rule that mandates compulsory norms. In this context
the homosexual role is most apparent. It is to serve as the other against which
the religious right can argue for heterosexual norms, monogamy norms, and the
need to vigorously and vociferously enforce them.
TO ALL PEDOPHILES..WATCH IT...! YOU ARE STEALING A CHILD'S SOUL...!
HI BARNEY FRANK AND THE REST OF YOU GOATS...! BURN...!
THE ROTHSCHILDS AND THE FRENCH CONNECTION..
DOWN WITH THE UNITED NATAIONS..THEY HAVE BEEN AND ARE DESTROYING America..!
THE MEMBERS OF THE CFR
THE TRUTH ABOUT HADES..!
BHS IS AN IMBECILIC PUPPET..! commie/muslimEVIL/unitarian..! OR THE
TO ALL THE MURDERED BABIES..GOD BLESS YOU...!
THE ULTIMATE POWER IS GOD..!
GOD BLESS AND IN GOD WE TRUST..!
satan is A LIAR...!