Wednesday, August 3, 2016


Mrs. Clinton, do you agree that Americans who are HIV positive should feel a very strong moral obligation to lead a fully and permanently celibate and illicit-drug-free and alcohol-free lifestyle, in order to themselves avoid any risk of their infecting any members of the HIV-negative community with the often-fatal AIDS virus?

Mrs. Clinton, have you been disappointed and outraged by the apparent failure of many law-enforcement agencies and prosecuting attorneys in the United States to arrest and obtain criminal convictions in a court of law on each of the self-identified "gay" persons (or any other persons, for that matter) who infected another human being with the AIDS virus?

Mrs. Clinton, do you support the imposition of a new federal sales tax on any and all gay-nightclub owners, any and all gay-bar owners, and any and all gay-"bathhouse" or sex parlor owners, and any and all gay-"resort" owners, among other business owners, in which they would each be required to pay the federal government 1 percent of their total annual profits, with that particular payment of money to be earmarked specifically for federal funding toward local and federal investigations and prosecutions of sex-crime cases in which an HIV-positive defendant had allegedly infected an HIV-negative victim with the AIDS virus?

Mrs. Clinton, do you believe that self-identified "gay persons" who tell you that they infected another person with the AIDS virus should somehow be excused or exempted from full criminal prosecution of themselves in a court of law if they declare to a prosecuting attorney that "I was not aware I was HIV positive when I infected that mutual-consent sex partner of mine, since I never got tested for AIDS during that particular one-year period in which I pursued a sexually promiscuous lifestyle"?

Mrs. Clinton, if you yourself were currently a sexually promiscuous homosexual man, and I realize of course that you aren't someone fitting any oF those descriptions, would you feel honorbound to get tested every six months or every three months, even, for the AIDS virus, and would you also feel honorbound to insist on having your full legal name printed on the copy of the results you are provided by the medical clinic where you obtained that testing----results that, if negative, you might then present to a prospective new sex partner or dating partner for yourself, and that, if positive, you might cite to yourself and others as yet another good reason for your pursuing a completely celibate lifestyle on a permanent basis?

Mrs. Clinton, when a self-identified "gay activist" declares to you that his lifestyle is very centered on sex and sexually explicit vocabulary words, that he owns a gleaming white statue of a massive male phallus as his favorite interior decor item inside his home, and that he views life as an endless quest for orgasmic moments, do you ever feel like slapping that gay activist in the face and demanding to know why he has no sense of platonic purpose in his own life, when it should be very apparent to him that 99 percent or more of all human relationships in life are non-sexual or observably platonic in nature, and that any given orgasmic moment for any given gay male adult person inside a hotel room or apartment will not, in fact, do one thing to help solve the problem of ozone layer depletion in the earth's outer atmosphere?

Mrs. Clinton, do you yourself disagree with those self-identified "gay community members" who either indicate or directly state to you that human identity is primarily sexual in nature, and that human beings' leading goals in life are or should be primarily sexual in nature?

Mrs. Clinton, do you have any reason to believe or suspect that heterosexual female paid sexual prostitutes are being investigated and arrested and prosecuted in a court off law at a higher rate than are self-identified gay or bisexual paid sexual prostitutes in this nation? If so, do you believe that type of alleged possible double standard on enforcement of the law by such municipal law-enforcement agencies as the Austin Police Department in Austin, Texas, violates the civil rights of the heterosexual female paid sexual prostitutes, and also exacerbates a public health hazard from the unconscionable spread of the AIDS virus that is being spawned by the gay or bisexual male sexual prostitution underworld in this country?

Mrs. Clinton, would it disappoint you or alarm you to learn that a cited "gay Christian church" in Texas in the early 1990s or 1980s displayed dozens of "free condoms" on display inside that church with the expectation that anyone of any age who was visiting that church might then grab a condom and feel authorized to make use of it? Do you find that gay Christian church's apparent message to all of its members or visitors that "pursuit of 'safe' or condom-protected sex makes you honorable and religiously righteous", to be somehow lacking in philosophical and moral and religious depth?

Mrs. Clinton, do you really and truly believe that your publicly stated support for gay rights, as you call it, somehow grants your own personal permission for self-identified gay male adult persons to conduct themselves as they wish inside public men's restrooms in this country? I pose this question because I was myself shocked in 1985 or 1986, during a one-to-one conversation I had with a balding Jewish gentleman with a PhD in Economics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, when he suddenly confessed to me over lunch inside a Pizzeria Uno restaurant in central Boston that he had a habit during his leisuretime of pursuing "anonymous sex inside public restrooms in the Boston area," and that he derived a lot of cited enjoyment from that lifestyle practice of his, he volunteered.

Mrs. Clinton, do you personally believe that the so-called "gay rights movement" misleads Americans into adopting he outlook or mindset that unless they are leading a sexually active lifestyle in which they talk incessantly with coworkers and new acquaintances and everyone else about their own cited "sexual identity" or "sexual practices", that they are somehow "repressed" and living "in a closet" that is presumably stifling to them as human beings?

Mrs. Clinton, do you agree with those who say that any subculture which exhibits a contempt for platonic relationships----and a contempt for the nuclear family and for children---is, in fact, a very repressive subculture?

Mrs. Clinton, do you agree with those who say that even if a particular lifestyle practice is somehow "endorsed" by many or the majority of self-identified gay male adult persons in this country, a fair-minded medical doctor might still have a reasonable basis for deploring that particular lifestyle practice? I am referring, for instance, to a confession that an Austin, Texas-based gay male adult activist verbalized to me on the telephone in 1999. He stated that he himself had knowingly permitted another gay male adult person in Austin, Texas, to ram the latter's fist into the former's anus and then shove the fist in and out repeatedly as a form of "fist fornication," and that the cited gay male activist in Austin, Texas, recommended that practice as "enjoyable," he said.

Mrs. Clinton, are you concerned that the mutual-consent beatings and mutual-consent whippings of sex partners in a significant percentage of the self-identified gay male adult sexual relationships and one-night stands, might undermine the overall ability of the criminal justice system in the United States to protect all victims of domestic violence inside their own household, since so-called "mutual-consent S&M" has been endorsed and advocated in an outrageously perverse manner by many thousands or millions of gay male adult Americans through their own lifestyle practices and choices of bars or nightclubs they patronize as paying customers, and through the much-publicized gay subculture's undeniable role in influencing the values and conduct of heterosexual and bisexual men and women as well?

Mrs. Clinton, are you aware that an estimated 80 percent or more of all of the male adult persons in the United States who identify themselves as being "gay," are, in fact, illicit-drug addicts?

Mrs. Clinton, are you aware that self-identified gay illicit-drug addicts allegedly violate the state penal code in the U.S. state where they reside, and can justifiably also be labeled as CRIMINAL PERSONS, through their frequent and year-round and unconscionable consumption or trafficking of one or more illicit drugs such as cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, marijuana, marijuana brownies, and the so-called "medical marijuana" for which they themselves either did not receive legal authorization to consume that foreign substance, or no such legal authorization is ever offered as an option to anyone residing in that particular U.S. state or U.S. city or county?

Mrs. Clinton, do you believe that any employer which learns that an employee of theirs is addicted to cocaine, heroin, marijuana, or some other illicit drug---or addicted to alcohol, for that matter---should have the legal right to require that employee to enroll in a drug-treatment or alcohol-addiction-treatment program and successfully graduate from that program if that employee seeks to continue working for the cited employer?

Mrs. Clinton, have you attempted to obtain any statistical estimates, both by state and nationwide, on the percentage of all of the illicit-drug-dealers in the United States who are, in fact, self-identified "gay" persons, homosexual persons, bisexual persons, lesbian persons, or transsexual persons? This question was prompted by my recalling an incident in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 1982 in which one male neighbor of mine volunteered to me that a gay male person residing at the time at that Franklin Heights Apartment complex in south Minneapolis was himself serving as the "drug dealer for this entire apartment complex" --- and I must immediately add, and I hope you don't find me too self-righteous for mentioning this point, that I myself was NOT among that drug dealer's customers and in fact, I myself did not directly consume any quantity of any illicit drug anywhere in the entire Twin Cities metro area throughout the entire three-year period of my residing in Minneapolis during my 20s, with the possible exception of a 1982 "Arab Sheik Party" in south Minneapolis that I had been urged to attend by coworkers of mine with Minnesota COACT, also known as the "Citizens Organizations Acting Together", non-profit group in which I worked as a paid political canvasser. I myself had NOT been informed in advance that marijuana would be offered to guests and would be smoked at that "Arab Sheik Party", as Minnesota COACT coworkers referred to that early 1980s event, and I do not currently recall whether I merely passed the reefer, as had been my habitual practice at "Daily Texan" parties I attended during my college days as a student newspaper reporter at the University of Texas at Austin, or whether I somehow puffed for a second or two on the cited reefer being passed around to guests at the cited "Arab Sheik Party" in Minneapolis in the year 1982.

Mrs. Clinton, does it ever occur to you that when you champion the cause of "gay rights", as you put it, the vast majority of the time you are in fact referring to the cited legal rights of persons whose lifestyle is in fact criminal in nature, since illicit drug consumption, to name one notable example of illegal activity allegedly pursued by the majority of self-identified gay adult male persons in this nation, is of course a crime?

Mrs. Clinton, do you agree with those who maintain that when self-identified "gay" Americans and, for that matter, other Americans as well, consume illicit drugs, they allegedly undermine and jeopardize the national security of the United States in a treasonous or quasi-treasonous manner, through themselves serving as financiers---whether knowingly or otherwise, whether directly or indirectly---of terrorist groups, including Arab and Latin American terrorist groups, and of organized crime groups throughout the United States and in Italy and elsewhere?

Mrs. Clinton, if you were told that the vast majority of American male adult persons calling themselves "gay" adamantly oppose random drug-testing by their employer at their own workplace, would you feel compelled to yourself also oppose random drug-testing at the American workplace in order to keep yourself "in line with the gay community's position on that issue", as you might put it candidly in a confidential memo you might write to one of your Presidential campaign strategists?

Mrs. Clinton, is there any risk that your decision to actively court the so-called "gay vote" in the United States might compromise your own integrity and morality-rating as a Presidential candidate?

Mrs. Clinton, was your decision to "court the gay vote," so to speak, based in part on a statistical analysis one of your staff members did for you in which they determined that "the margin of victory in any given U.S. state is expected to be 10 percent or fewer of all of the persons who had voted in that general election in November," with you being mindful at all times of the widely-quoted statistic that "gay Americans comprise 10 percent of the American adult population of today"?

Mrs. Clinton, do you agree that it is unconscionable conduct for any human being to report to work at a workplace a matter of minutes or hours after he consumed marijuana or a marijuana brownie or so-called "medical marijuana" or heroin or cocaine or methamphetamines or some other illicit drug?

Mrs. Clinton, do you agree that anyone who reports for work while high on one or more illicit drugs is in a very reckless and unconscionable manner jeopardizing the safety and medical health of his customers, coworkers, and work supervisors, as well as others?

Mrs. Clinton, do you support the decision by many employers in this country to fire employees of theirs who fail an employer-sponsored random drug test that those employees from day one had agreed to in advance as a precondition for their being officially employed by that business or government agency or non-profit group or religious group or school or university or college?

Mrs. Clinton, does it alarm you to note, as I'm sure you already have, that a significant percentage of the tenured professors at college campuses and university campuses throughout this nation are, in fact, illicit-drug addicts? If so, do you believe that those colleges and universities should all institute random drug testing on any and all of their faculty members, staff members, and administrators, with a positive test result being a possible automatic grounds for termination of their employment contract?

Mrs. Clinton, have you yourself conducted random-drug-testing on any of the persons whom you have employed during your current bid for the U.S. Presidency? If not, why didn't you? And if so, did you ever at any time fire any staff member of yours during the most recent Presidential Primaries campaign season or since then, because they tested positive on a test of that type you had required them to take?

Mrs. Clinton, do you find it sobering to note that the vast majority of all of the adult male persons in this nation who call themselves "gay" are, in fact, alcoholics?

Mrs. Clinton, if you were an employer would you prefer to hire job applicants who are NOT alcoholics?

Mrs. Clinton, do you believe that the current Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines from the federal government's United States Department of Labor on hiring practices in this nation, in any way discourage or prevent an employer from preferring to hire new employees who are not themselves addicted to illicit drugs or alcohol?

Mrs. Clinton, do you yourself believe that it is somehow illegal or un-Constitutional for an employer in this nation to require a job applicant to undergo drug testing and alcohol testing from his own urine and bloodstream, with any offering of a position of employment to that job applicant being made strictly contingent on their testing negative on both of those medical tests?

Mrs. Clinton, do you believe that individuals who clock in for work at their workplace while experiencing a hangover from having consumed alcohol the night before, should feel honorbound to inform their employer that they would be attempting to pursue their job duties that day while experiencing a hangover that made it painful and very difficult for them to meet their employer's expectations that day? Or should they have instead reported their hangover to the employer on the telephone hours before their workshift had been scheduled to begin, and as soon as they themselves had realized that they were experiencing a hangover inside their own home?

Mrs. Clinton, do you agree with those who observe that employees at a workplace who are alcoholics are more likely to have inter-personal conflicts with their coworkers and work supervisors at the workplace, and are also more likely to offend customers at that workplace, and, in addition, are more likely to steal money or property or food from their coworkers or from their employer?

Mrs. Clinton, do you believe that the primary responsibility for offering affordable treatment programs for drug addiction or alcohol addiction or tobacco addiction should rest with the federal government, the state government, the county government, the municipal government, with the employer, or with the individual who seeks to overcome any such morally compromising and injurious addiction that he himself is suffering from?

Mrs. Clinton, many people would describe you as embodying the very antithesis of the shamelessly hedonistic and crassly materialistic and sexually promiscuous lifestyle so often associated with the "gay subculture" in this nation. You work very hard and are idealistic, you presumably do not drink alcohol much; you apparently don't smoke, which is very admirable on your part; you completely abstain from any and all illicit drugs, presumably; and you are eternally asking the question of how you can help to improve American society as a whole, and how can you help to befriend future generations of all Americans?
In view of all this, Mrs. Clinton, how can you explain your decision to embrace with seemingly unconditional enthusiasm the so-called "gay rights movement" without yourself then emphasizing the crucial importance of a principled approach to any and all human rights issues --- a principled approach in which you might insist on promulgating your own view that specifically cited conduct by one self-identified gay person or another, or by one cited "gay group" or "gay media company" or another, offends you deeply as a human being and political leader with a healthy sense of morality and vision for this entire nation and world?

Mrs. Clinton, do you sympathize with the kindly and idealistic senior citizen Mrs. Janet Mildenberg, a former newspaper reporter in New Ulm, Minnesota, who complained to me inside her condominium unit in south Minneapolis in 1981 that gay male next-door neighbors of hers at that Twin Cities condominium complex were repeatedly and habitually partying very loudly inside their own condo unit, and that the loud noise they generated on a nightly basis frequently inflicted sleep deprivation and emotional duress on Mrs. Mildenberg during her bedtime hours?

Mrs. Clinton, does your own statedly strong support for "gay rights" also imply that if a self-identified gay male adult person or self-identified lesbian adult person chooses to frequently talk at their workplace about their sexual identity and sex life with coworkers and customers of theirs and possibly even work supervisors of theirs, you would somehow regard it as "irrelevant" whether any coworkers or customers or work supervisors feel uncomfortable about or are offended from hearing those frequent confessional accounts from that individual?
Mrs. Clinton, as a heterosexual married woman yourself, are you at all sympathetic to those heterosexual men and heterosexual women who say they feel "sexually harassed" by a coworker who repeatedly and frequently talks with them during working hours about his or her being citedly "gay," "homosexual", "lesbian," "bisexual," or "transsexual"?

Mrs. Clinton, if you were to learn that a self-identified "gay" or "bisexual" male waiter inside a restaurant workplace in Austin, Texas, purchases cigarettes for underage coworkers of his, would you agree with the State Government of Texas, for instance, that the adult waiter had committed a crime victimizing that underage coworker?

Mrs. Clinton, can you understand and sympathize with the politely and lawfully expressed alienation toward many of the self-identified gay men in this nation that occurs when a polite and honorable male coworker at a restaurant workplace, for instance, finds it disgusting and revolting to be subjected against his own wishes to frequent physical contact at the workplace that was inflicted on them by a "gay male" coworker?

Mrs. Clinton, you are famous for using clean, non-vulgar, non-profane language, at least in your publicly quoted speeches and interviews. As a clean-speech advocate, would it offend you to learn that a shockingly high percentage of all of the self-identified "gay male" employees routinely verbalize profane words at their place of employment, such as by referring to a customer or coworker or work supervisor they dislike as an "a-hole"?

Mrs. Clinton, you must surely be aware of how grateful you are that your also-famous husband, former President Bill Clinton, has apparently refrained from growing a mustache or beard or goatee throughout your years of marriage together. The face that Bill Clinton presents to you at the dinner table is an open face that hides nothing and conveys, one would hope, his personal warmth of affinity toward yourself and others on a year-round basis. In view of this recognition that you yourself have, are you dismayed or disappointed to note the high percentage of self-identified "gay male" adult persons in his nation who for whichever reason choose to grow a beard, mustache, or goatee, and whose facial hairiness invites speculation that they might possibly be sly or secretive or have less than admirable motives, to put it politely?

Mrs. Clinton, I'm sure you are aware that a shockingly high percentage of all of the self-identified gay male adult persons in the United States of today admit that they participate in the beating and whipping of a sex partner of theirs, or in permitting or inviting a sex partner of theirs to beat or whip themselves inside their or their sex partner's residence.
I myself shall never forget the very alarming moment I had in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1985, when a self-identified gay male adult native of Buffalo, New York, residing in Boston stated to me on the telephone that he was looking for a roommate. "There is just one thing you need to know about me," he added (exact quote). "I like to be beaten and whipped." That same Bostonian later stated to me that same year, as I spoke with him outdoors near Beacon Hill in Boston, that he was very happy on his most recent birthday because his latest male adult "lover" had purchased a "harness" for him as his cited "birthday present", said.

Mrs. Clinton, are you truly convinced that legalization of gay marriages in this nation will somehow eliminate the shockingly high incidence of mutual-consent beatings and whippings of sex partners that occur in self-identified gay households in this country?

Mrs. Clinton, I am sure you have heard of "irritable smoker's personality syndrome," if I remember correctly the personality disorder that many of our nation's chain smokers exhibit. Are you also aware, Mrs. Clinton, that a significantly higher percentage of all of the self-identified gay male adult persons, as compared with heterosexual male adult persons in this country, are in fact chain smokers? If any given chain-smoking gay male adult person exhibits irritable smoker's personality disorder, can you truthfully and fairly say with certainty that it is "homophobic" or "prejudiced" on the part of those observers of the cited gay male adult chain smokers who deplore their abrasive style as human beings or coworkers?

Mrs. Clinton, do you truly feel comfortable with surgical removal of any male person's phallus, accompanied by what is euphemistically referred to as "sexual reassignment surgery"? This question is being respectfully posed to you because, as you must surely be aware, you have been quoted as saying you support the entire gamut of lesbian and gay and transsexual rights, if I'm not mistaken, and many Americans, myself among them, question the need for any of the sex-change operations currently occurring in the United States.
Are you completely sure, Mrs. Clinton, that you yourself feel comfortable about sex-change operations, and that you do not secretly regard them as being sadistic and medically injurious toward the individual who either asks to undergo an operation of that type or is pressured by a domineering older man into "requesting" that type of surgery for himself?
Mrs. Clinton, do you yourself candidly acknowledge that on many of the occasions when you have been introduced to another American citizen AFTER they underwent a sex-change operation that they had "requested"---and, as you know, in many cases there may have been unfair pressure on that individual from a domineering pr sadistic or ruthless man in the background who insisted on the 'sex change operation' ---your first thought to yourself was, "Why in the world did they ask for that castration of themselves, accompanied by all the medical complexities of their attempted conversion into a 'female'?"

Mrs. Clinton, do you acknowledge the legal and human rights of members of the HIV-negative community in the United States to show pride in their recently certified HIV-negative status by preferring to associate with other HIV-negative Americans in their own leisuretime or off-duty time?

Mrs. Clinton, do you acknowledge that American adult male persons who are law-abiding and honest and non-alcoholic have a legally protected and Constitutionally protected right to associate with other Americans who are also law-abiding and honest and non-alcoholic, with heterosexual adult men accounting for perhaps 98 percent of all of the law-abiding and honest and non-alcoholic adult men in this nation and also accounting for the vast majority of the men most appropriate as prospective friends or coworkers or colleagues for persons having those crucial defining traits in common with them.

Mrs. Clinton, do you acknowledge my own legal right and Freedom of Religion right and Freedom of Association right as a religious American myself to associate in my own personal life and career pursuits and religious life as much as possible with those persons who are the most compatible overall, regardless of whether they themselves ever apply to me for membership in my new religious denomination, a fully independent and non-Judaistic, non-Unitarian, Progressive Prohibitionist Religion, with the membership criteria for my own anti-drinking-alcohol, anti-marijuana, anti-tobacco, anti-facial-hair, anti-tattoos-minded, politely non-Christian and implicitly-deistic and prayer-less and rational-goals-focused, anti-stalking, anti-anonymous communications, pro-privacy-rights-minded, anti-thought-control-projects, pro-death-penalty-minded for first-degree homicide or attempted homicide (this strictly based on court conviction in person for each such defendant and through revision of the law, in the latter case, and possibly in the former case as well), anti-fraudulent-communications-minded, anti-prevarication-minded, anti-compelled-relationships-minded, anti-'arranged marriages'-minded, new religion, defining a group of persons who are 100 times more likely, statistically, to be heterosexual in sexual identity per se than any other cited sexual identity, as you may already be aware.

Mrs. Clinton, do you acknowledge the legal and human right and Freedom of Association right of American citizens such as myself to associate as much as possible in all aspects of their or my own life with persons who are either as honest and conscientious and law-abiding and vigilant and law-enforcement-minded as myself, or almost as honest and conscientious and law-abiding and vigilant and law-enforcement-minded as myself, with heterosexual adult men and heterosexual adult women accounting for an estimated 99 percent or more of all of the adult American citizens fitting that "ultra-conscientious" profile, as I'm sure you yourself must already be very aware from your own observations about which persons are the LEAST likely to prevaricate in any and all of their statements to you, are the MOST likely to have healthy moral values they live by, are the most likely to conscientiously seek to address the broader needs of American society, etc.

Mrs. Clinton, can you understand why Americans who are in fact religious, I myself being among those religious Americans, insist on their own legal and Constitutional right to associate in strictly-mutual-consent contexts with other Americans who also support Freedom of Religion in this country, it being painfully apparent that atheistic Americans---many of whom state that they are "gay", I might add with emphasis--- have no respect whatsoever for Freedom of Religion and seek to have all religions eliminated, and are very repressive in those atheists' flagrant defiance of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Assembly rights for non-atheistic and religious Americans?

Mrs. Clinton, do you acknowledge that the term "homophobic" is grossly over-used in American society today, when in many cases there is a legitimate reason for American citizens to feel uncomfortable with or to lawfully oppose conduct by a cited self-identified "gay male adult person" that is, in fact, dishonest or illegal, or contemptuous of strictly-platonic and non-sexual relationships, or is lacking in any sense of conscience or flagrantly defiant of any sense of morality, or is defiant of the human right of members of the HIV-negative community in this country to continue to enjoy an HIV-negative lifestyle and life?

Mrs. Clinton, are you surprised to be told by me today that I and many other Americans dislike the term 'gay' that you yourself used recently, when you publicly stated that you support 'gay rights,' and that many of the Americans who dislike the term 'gay' believe that it implies that life is primarily a matter of partying loudly and in a gaudy and lewd manner, with reckless partying being also implied by that term, when I'm sure you would yourself be the first to acknowledge that sober disciplines and a solid work ethic and diligent compliance with the law --the very antithesis of a life-as-a-late-night-party lifestyle---are the key to a good and successful life for virtually anyone?

Mrs. Clinton, does it ever alarm you to hear a self-identified "gay American" refer to those who are not homosexual in sexual identity as being "straight", when as you must surely be aware, the term "straight" is often used to describe Americans who abstain from any and all illicit drugs or alcohol, and who are honest and law-abiding, it being painfully apparent that those who refer to themselves as being "gay" appear to suggest to themselves and others that they identify with members of the NON-straight criminal element, such as the Mafia, in the view of many?

Mrs. Clinton, you may recall a public statement that one of your fellow Democrats whom you no doubt admire, Diane Feinstein, made in the 1980s, in an interview with "The Boston Globe" in which then-Mayor Feinstein politely commented that she was a bit dismayed by the tendency of so many of the self-identified "gay" San Franciscans to dress and conduct themselves in a loud and lewd manner that was not conducive to professionalism and platonic politeness at their workplace. Even after your own recent seemingly enthusiastic public statement endorsing "gay rights", as you called it, can you yourself today candidly acknowledge that you identify with then-Mayor Feinstein in her stated frustrations with the manner in which so many of the self-identified "gay" San Franciscans have dressed themselves and have conducted themselves in public?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please Leave Your Comments Here.