Christine O'Donnell Opposes Masturbation: So What?

YouTube Preview Image

[Update: thanks to Michael Sean Winters for increasing my hit count today. Apparently this post makes me a "yahoo." I couldn't care less. He complains that it isn't what she said, but where she said it - on MTV. So remember that folks: when the secular media challenges you and asks you about Christian views on sexuality, turn coward and hide behind deference to parents instead of clearly stating what Christ taught. And please forget about Matthew 10:32-33 while you're at it. God understands how important is not to talk about embarrassing topics and to not be a "yahoo."]

Of all the stupid memes the media has tried to feed me about Christine O’Donnell in the last 24 hours, I finally came across one I found blog-worthy: Christine O’Donnell opposes masturbation. Of course in the eyes of the same media, this is bizarre, “kooky” behavior that can be used against the candidate in the general election. The geniuses at Yahoo News, for instance, write,

“O’Donnell, a perennial candidate who once argued against masturbation on a MTV special, is not likely to move toward the middle…”

Because nothing could be more partisan, right?  This video clip was dug up by Rachel Maddow, as part of a 1996 MTV special in which O’Donnell appears with a number of other Christian youth leaders offering some pretty basic Christian arguments against masturbation. The TMP article linked in the quote quips that she “considers looking at pornography akin to adultery.”

Correction, TMP. It is Jesus Christ who considers lust in one’s heart a form of adultery, a teaching to which O’Donnell, myself, and every other Christian ought to simply be faithful.

Of course it doesn’t surprise me that our basic teachings on sexuality are mocked and despised by the MSM, and especially by the likes of Maddow and North Korean TV (h/t Ann Coulter for that apt nickname for MSNBC). The countless stories of families and marriages ruined by sexual addiction are not enough for people who are determined at almost any cost to assure us of the safety and normalcy of wanton, ceaseless, selfish sexual gratification. They seem to believe only some kind of weirdo could possibly be opposed to this behavior; I say only someone who is utterly blind to their own soul could possibly be in favor of it.

And no, morons, she is not calling for the outlawing of masturbation, as if such a thing were even possible. The stupidity of those who cannot imagine arguing that something is wrong without calling for it to be outlawed never ceases to amaze me.

Kudos to O’Donnell for speaking out on this topic, if she still holds these views. It shouldn’t diminish her standing as a candidate one bit, and ought to raise it in the eyes of Christians, though what should or shouldn’t happen, and what will happen are of course two very different things.

48 Responses to Christine O'Donnell Opposes Masturbation: So What?

  • I think this interesting b/c while most people probably don’t care about masturbation, I doubt most people would be ready to proclaim it a good the way they do about homosexuality. Most people are still ashamed of it, which is why the internet rather than the public theater has taken over from distribution of pornography. I imagine that being opposed to gay marriage would push her farther from the mainstream than being against masturbation.

  • Elaine Krewer says:

    Also, what is with the hyperventilating predictions that O’Donnell’s win has wiped out any chance the GOP had of taking control of the Senate? Surely that does not hinge on only one seat? I thought there were at least 2 or 3 Senate seats in play.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Correct Elaine. I see GOP pickups in Arkansas, North Dakota, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania. Then I predict either Washington or West Virginia. Even without Washington or West Virginia, I could imagine independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut caucusing with the Republicans. He has little reason to love the Democrats and after the thumping the Dems are going to get in the Fall, I can imagine Joe thinking that in 2012 his fortunes would be better served running as a Republican rather than being beaten in another Democrat primary again as he was in ’06.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    A female taliban?

    All she did was reiterate the very teachings of Christ. You are an utter and absolute moron to compare her to those murderous thugs for that.

    I agree with her 100%, and I’d rather be labeled “taliban” by an idiot than preach or accept immoral lies.

    Frankly I’m disgusted with anyone, whether they call themselves Catholic, Christian or whatever, who deliberately blinds themselves to this sin, who laugh it off with a wink and a nod, who don’t dare condemn it for fear of appearing foolish in the eyes of their rude and cynical secular friends.

  • Big Tex says:

    And this is a political issue how? Is she proposing to introduce a bill that outlaws masturbation at a federal level? No? Ok, fine, she’s telling us about her personal views which are consonant with Christ’s and His Church. I respect that. But for folks to make this an issue is pure rubbish.

  • eremite says:

    Joe Hargrave:
    I’ll refrain from calling you names, but she wasn’t reiterating Jesus on masturbation since he said nothing about it so far as we know.
    Still, she’s a far right nut job who’s a young earth creationist; even the vatican doesn’t claim the earth to be about 6000 years old!

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Eremite,

    She absolutely was. For all of the “reason” and “logic” secularists say they like to use as opposed to religious superstition, you seem to have a hard time applying them here.

    Masturbation is a sexual act that rarely if ever takes place without having “lust in one’s heart” – either looking at, or fantasizing about a woman or man. There is virtually no way to masturbate without this.

    Your logic is similar to saying that since there’s no specific law against murdering someone while wearing a sombrero on Tuesday afternoon, we should be able to get away with it. If you think you can stand before Jesus and say, “well, you didn’t specifically talk about touching myself, you just talked about lust…” and that’s going to fly, then you’re less reasonable than the young earth creationists you mock.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    As for her YEC, what do I care? Will she protect innocent human life? Will she stand for economic and political liberty? Will she faithfully vote in accordance with the Constitution? If the answer to these is yes, then I don’t care if she thinks the Earth is made of chocolate and the moon of vanilla ice cream.

  • Mike Petrik says:

    eremite,
    Jesus never said anything about child rape either, so what? (And please don’t bore me by quoting Mark 9:42 since a raped child is not a sinner.)
    That said, I do worry that notwithstanding her apparent orthodox Catholicism, CO (i) holds other beliefs that are not those of an informed intelligent person and (ii) has a record suggesting something other than maturity and balance.

  • Mike Petrik says:

    A person who thinks the earth is made of chocolate might well thing the Constitution ordains a pure free market system and other silly beliefs. It is unwise to give a nut important responsiblity.

  • Paul Zummo says:

    I was on the fence about O’Donnell throughout the campaign, and I do think that she is a weak candidate. But kudos to the left, because any lingering doubts I had about her have been wiped out because of their hysterical over-reaction.

  • Tim Shipe says:

    I saw a clip on NBC News last night and they made it seem like she is backtracking on her comments about porn in marriage being adulterous- she said something about her views having “matured”- is she backing away from rejecting masturbation and pornography or is the media spinning it that way to make it look like the Christian views on these subjects is completely ridiculous and no one approaching high-level leadership could hold to these kind of beliefs?

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Mike,

    I’ll take a nut who understands that the Constitution does not actually prohibit a free market system, which I think is demonstrably preferable to statism, over a nut that believes the commerce clause justifies a command economy and central planning.

    We’re never going to get perfect politicians. Once in a generation, someone like Ron Paul comes along – principled, focused, informed. The rest of the time, we are choosing among those who will do the least harm to the things we value.

    Many Democrats subscribe whole hog to the atheistic, fundamentalist version of neo-Darwinism. That might be more sophisticated and urbane, but they also believe in the extermination of unborn children. O’Donnell, as far as I know, does not. That makes her better, and deserving of our support.

    We aren’t electing philosophers or faculty chairs. We’re electing legislators. And what matters the most in politics is what a candidate values, what they consider important and worth protecting. Unless someone can demonstrate how or why her views on this matter will impede her ability to faithfully defend Christian values while in office, I say again: I couldn’t care less.

  • dave says:

    I just read every posting on here and as is often the case not one mentions the real reason that anybody here supports Christine O’Donnel. It simply does not matter how ignorant or incendiary a political candidate is, a large number of Catholics will blindly follow them for their opposition to abortion.

  • Ike says:

    Dave, come now; I’m going to be nice here, and I’m going to say that I simply believe, that your statement, that you know the true motives behind the support of people you haven’t met, would require an uncanny ability to read the minds and hearts of others. “The real reason that anybody here supports” her has to do with the fact that most readers of TAC are- like her- fiscal conservatives, and that, yes, orthodox Catholics do and must believe that the issue of abortion has the most moral weight, as is laid out in Voting for the Faithful Citizenship, and as common sense applied to Evangelium Vitae and Dignitas Personae leads one to believe.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    A candidate who believes that children in the womb should have least the same right to life as a spotted owl or a bald eagle always has at least one excellent reason why he or she is worthy of support. However, in regard to O’Donnell it helps that Castle and now Coons are also wrong on a whole host of addditional issues, especially the issue of whether government should continue to spend money we don’t have and continue to amass a debt that our great grandkids will be continuing to attempt to pay down.

  • dave says:

    So if we pretend for a moment that Ms. O’Donnell had one tenth of the intelligence, education and civic awareness that most of you do (I believe that’s a stretch because you all seem very articulate and informed most of the time), how easy then would it be to stand up for her if she took a more moderate stance on the issue of reproductive rights? Do you really believe that she knows what fiscal conservatism is much less understands the first thing about it? I believe we could affect the perils of unwanted pregnancy and loss of life much more effectively if we educate everyone about those issues outside of the confounds of politics and government legislation. I respectfully thank the Catholic Church for all it has done in the areas of adoption and for creating supporting programs for so many women and girls who had no one to turn to. These candidates are making fools of you and abusing your dedication to doing good deeds! I do not automatically line up against you all or anyone else based on ultimatums surrounding this issue but I believe many of you do. Continue to stand up for your beliefs and start listening to the whole discussion at the same time and you may find that many of us lost souls out here aren’t that much different than you after all.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Dave, abortion is the pre-eminent moral issue of the time. I would never vote for a pro-abort. However, in regard to Ms. O’Donnell it hasn’t been brought up is because the main issue distinguishing her from Castle in the campaign was government spending. Him being a pro-abort certainly would have ensured that I would never have voted for him, but neither should anyone who is concerned about stopping the suicidal spending binge the government is on.

  • dave says:

    I understand your position Donald. In your opinion, does the Church encourage its patrons to support certain political candidates based more on their economic policies or their positions on the abortion issue? Or is there some other cohort that they focus on more often. I would rather have your educated answer than rely on my crystal ball that Ike has rightfully targeted as being possibly cracked. Incidentally, I share in your perception of the status of abortion as a global concern.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Catholics are called upon Dave by the catechism to work for legal protection of the unborn.

    “2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

    “The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”80

    “The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”81″

    In regard to abortion, voting guides have been written by various Catholic groups that emphasize opposition to abortion. Catholics can vote for pro-aborts for grave reasons so long as their support for abortion is not the reason why they are casting the vote for the candidate. This letter from Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004 might help to clarify this:

    “1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).

    2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

    3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

    4. Apart from an individual’s judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

    5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

    6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

    [N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]”

    In regard to economics, the Church has rarely gotten involved in electoral politics. Opposition to Communism tended to be motivated by other concerns.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Dave,

    If you are even semi-serious about the state of your soul, describing it as “lost”, then perhaps you will concede that you are not in the best position to judge the relative merits of candidates.

    You want sophistication and class, intellect and erudition in a candidate.

    I appreciate those things as well. But they are not at the top of my hierarchy of priorities.

    Like I said, a lot of people like to quote Buckley about being ruled by the first 2000 names in the Boston phonebook instead of the Harvard faculty until it happens. This is what it means when the people begin to take power back from the elites. If you don’t like it, don’t blame the people – blame the elites. They “know better” after all, right?

  • dave says:

    Joe, I think everybody gets that I am on a Catholic website picking a fight with Catholics. How that could possibly mean that anyone here, including myself, should not view themselves as being in a “position” to debate the qualities and agendas of political candidates in the country in which that person is a citizen, very simply put, eludes me.
    While not giving myself a religious label and by seeking to understand the relationship between the Catholic Church and political organizations in our country I led off by suggesting that some of you should consider that even though candidates like O’Donnell and many others may be pro-life that that alone is not enough for them to deserve your loyalty.

    You and I most likely are in harmony on many ideas. I know that I’m over generalizing often in this exercise and that I am a guest on this site. I really just can’t get over how ignorant and shallow and unprofessional several of these conservative candidates are this time around! If the expectation that potential members of Congress or Governors or Presidents could undoubtedly pass a freshman U.S. History exam or write a coherent essay about a cultural or scientific topic makes me an elitist, then I plead no contest to that charge.

    I am still processing the very thorough information provided by McClarey in his last post.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Dave,

    I did not cite your presence on a Catholic website “picking fights” as the reason why you may not be in the best position to judge the merits of candidates – I cited your self-description as a lost soul. Perhaps we have different understandings of what that means.

    If there were another pro-life candidate in the race, then yes, we may consider other merits and qualities. But the defense of innocent human life is non-negotiable.

    I don’t believe, moreover, that Christine O’Donnell is “shallow.” Her defense of Christian teaching on sexuality was spot on. As for her views on creationism, they are certainly not sinful. What does any of it have to do with the right ordering of society?

  • dave says:

    Joe, are you ok with “dabbling in witchcraft”, attending a “satanic picnic”, lying for ten years about having a college degree, living with her boyfriend and so forth as long as she claims to share your religious views and know what good for everybody else in the world. She is using the very things that you value most to deceive you.

    Given your apparent inability to detect sarcasm, I apologize for the “lost soul” self reference from before and causing so much confusion for you.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Dave,

    My apologies. I thought you were someone who was outside of, but truly interested in, the Catholic faith – and thought of yourself as a lost soul for it. I thought the suggestion that perhaps your current state might not be the most conducive to making pronouncements on who is best to vote for from a Catholic perspective would be better received than it was. My apologies again.

    As for your questions: it depends. I know people who have “dabbled into witchcraft” and repented of that sin. As for the “satanic picnic”, she says she didn’t know it was a satanic altar. So she’s a bit naive, perhaps. I’ve seen worse.

    If she lived with her boyfriend, it says nothing about whether or not they were chaste. That arrangement is possible. I’ve seen that too.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    It seems that some people would rather chew ground glass than actually discuss Christine O’Donnell’s positions on the issues as opposed to those of her general election adversary. The “Nuts and Sluts” line of attack against her served Castle ill, and I doubt if it will prove more effective in the hands of “Harry Reid’s Pet”.

  • dave says:

    I hadn’t heard “Nuts and Sluts” yet so I guess you guys are keeping up with both sides of this nonsense. Well we all had “Meet The Press” on Sunday night to look forward to where we could hear those positions until she canceled her appearance suddenly yesterday. Also last night Palin weighed in that most journalist are basically liars and idiots but I don’t suppose she had anything to do with Christine’s sudden schedule conflicts, right? And Meet The Press is not Bill Maher or Keith Oberton either. It is a legitimate show where everyone is allowed to express themselves freely with out being ridiculed by comedians.

    For the record, I have nothing against her a person for lying about college to feed your family, participation in satanic rituals (whether you know it or not), having sex or not, masturbating for the right reasons or wrong reasons, etc. It’s the ridiculous insult that that I should be governed according to someone else’s religious beliefs that motivates me. I was pointing those things out to see if you would stand up for yourselves or continue to cow tow to these people.

    McClarey, you have clarified the sources of your agenda and I respect that. I certainly am not going to get into a technical argument about Catholic Doctrine with someone of your stamina.

    Let me offer this olive branch fellas, if so many of us did not feel beaten over the head with religious ideology (to which we do not subscribe ourselves) by these characters, we may be more open to working with their ideas about economics and social issues.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Who is beating you over the head?

    Simply stating the Christian teaching on sexuality is not a beating. When she calls for virtue police to do random checks in teenage bedrooms to look for masturbators to throw in prison, then your complaint will have some merit.

    If this is about abortion, though, the right to life is a fundamental teaching that we cannot abdicate under any circumstances. By your own logic you are governed by religious laws – stealing is prohibited in the Bible, after all, and I don’t see you complaining against laws against that.

    Your problem, and the problem of all secularists, is that your principles and preferences are arbitrary. They are not rooted in truth, but in whims. Our rights come to us from our Creator, otherwise they don’t exist, they are fantasies.

    I’m willing to accept and tolerate people who are so radically incoherent that they reject the very foundation of the rights they claim to cherish and respect, but I’m not willing to remain silent about Christian moral teaching so as not to offend.

  • dave says:

    By beating over the head I meant constantly including the religious content in their political messages. And your right, as of now everybody is free to masturbate (at least legally) how they see fit, alleviation from the psychological damage that her perverse sexual teachings may cause if they were allowed to be taught in public is a separate issue.

    You have now hit on the core issue Joe. In your view all secularist have a problem and adaptation to your belief system is apparently their only hope of becoming people whose intellects can be valid.

    And the “you can’t handle the truth” device is really spent by the way.

    Anybody else want to address the second paragraph of this post? We’re just having a little fun with the rest of this stuff. Thank you Joe for opening the door to something we can all possibly connect through.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Masturbation is what causes the psychological damage, not the lack of it. There is absolutely nothing “perverse” in the teachings of Christ. He who sins, is a slave to sin – and this is doubly true of masturbation addicts.

    I make no apologies for affirming the coherency of the Christian world view and the utter confusion and chaos of secular humanism.

  • dave says:

    Ok, Joe has decided that what Christine O’Donnell says are the beliefs and teaching of Jesus Christ and that by disagreeing with her I am mocking Christianity. He has suggested that I leave your site and is obviously upset by my posts. I apologize to anyone who whom I may have insulted here. That is not my aim and I think that if you go and read the thread you will see that I am forthright and appropriate in how I address this forum.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Dave,

    I didn’t decide it. It simply is. Watch the video. Read the Gospels.

    I would like you to stay. I am not upset by your posts. I am simply responding to them. You say you want to have fun. What is it you want to have fun with?

    Explain it to me.

  • I appreciate this. Christine is being bashed (on this point) because our modern culture has become so ignorant about Christianity and especially the Catholic Church that they don’t know and recognize what Christine repeats as being the teachings of Christ, as further explained by the Church over 2,000 years.

    Agre or disagre, the culture should understand that they are disagreeing with standard Catholic teaching. Yet the fact that people find Christine’s statement odd should disturb us that the society has become so ignorant of Catholic teaching. One need not agree to at least be informed.

    And where is the Church? Why the silence? Christine went on Politically Incorrect and MTV as a ministry. She knowingly used her ability to engage with liberals in the pop culture to raise awareness for the teachings of Christ and Christian ideas.

    When she has succeeded in sparking a discussion on Christian ideas, the Church should use the opportunity. Where is the Church? Why the silence,.

    I don’t mean (necessarily) backign Christine (as I do). I mean simply USE the opportunity afforded to engage the culture in a discussion with the end of sharing the teachings of Christ and of the Church.

  • The Pope has said the same thing that Christine said:

    http://www.afraidtoask.com/masturbate/ReligionView.htm

    Note also that Catholics should not condone the falsehoods told about Christine.

    Go back adn look at the MTV video.

    A youth pastor talks about purity until marriage, and the youth pastor says that even extends to lust and masturbation.

    Christine is seen as part of that group sitting around talking, and responds to the youth pastor’s comment by mentioning standard Christian teaching and the words of Jesus Christ that lust in your heart is adultery.

    President Jimmy Carter famously made the same statement in an interview with Playboy magazine.

    So is it truthful to call this ‘an anti-masturbation CAMPAIGN?” She made one comment in response to the youth pastor’s strong statement. Is that a “campaign?” Is the youth pastor who made the point the campigner, or Christine who commented on it?

    Do we as Christians care about the truth?

    And when we hear about other smears on other topics, remember our Bible: “The first to present his case sounds right until another comes and questions him.”

  • Silvia says:

    Sorry but America is sick!
    Masturbation is something natural and NORMAL, that we start doing without even noticing. I was never ashamed of it. People, learn to love yourselves!! I thought America was a modern country, and I’m really disappointed to see this kind of stuff happen

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Silvia,

    You’re the one with the sickness. Masturbation is self-abuse. But don’t worry – America is certainly a “modern country.” There’s plenty of pornography, prostitution, night clubs and abortion clinics for you. Have your fun, then murder the evidence and throw it in the garbage. It’s what we do here, over a million times a year.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .