0 |
Subject: Christian conservatives we can be proud of.
Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall
- Sustainer [1629107] Tue, Oct 28, 2003, 09:45
 Hundreds of Long Islanders stood outside Mepham High School yesterday to blast a handful of out-of-town picketers who said teaching tolerance of gays led to the football hazing incident that has rocked the school. The picketers - eight family members from a church in Topeka, Kan., gathered on the sidewalk in front of the Bellmore school at 7 a.m. waving anti-gay signs, including one that read "God Hates Fags."
"When you teach children that it's okay to indulge in any kind of sex act that they like ... that it's okay to be gay, it is inevitable that they will end up being violent and doing things that they shouldn't," said Margie Phelps, who protested with a handful of relatives.
Mepham High School has been in the national spotlight since three members of its varsity football team were accused of sodomizing younger players with objects as part of a hazing ritual in August, while the team was at a preseason camp in Preston Park, Pa.
The eight protesters - four children among them - were drowned out by some 400 counterdemonstrators organized by a gay rights group and an equal number of angry local parents.
"Anyone that has a pulse in their body will realize that there is no link between sexual assault, which is about power, and somebody being gay," said David Kilmnick, executive director of Long Island Gay and Lesbian Youth.
A small army of Nassau cops avoided trouble by keeping the groups apart.
At one point, a Mepham resident yelled to the Christian group, "Go back to your trailer park." Others in the Mepham group carried posters saying, "God loves everybody."
"This is just a radical group that wants to send a message of hate," said Marge Congello, whose son, an eagle scout, is a senior at Mepham. "Bellmore is good community. We are being punished by a very bad incident."
Debbie Saladino, 37, shook her head in disbelief as she surveyed the family of protesters in front of her daughter's school.
"How they can turn hazing into homosexuality is beyond me," she said. Then she spotted a sign held by one of the Phelps sisters reading, "Thank God for Sept. 11th."
"That's a travesty. They have the audacity to come to New York and insult 9/11. A lot of people lost family members," Saladino said. Naturally, I knew better than to simply trust the liberal media on this one, so I headed straight over to WorldNetDaily for a comforting explanation for why these God fearing, respectable, Christian, Right to Life people were thanking God for September 11th.
As you can imagine, among the stories about Joseph Farrah taking a stand against Al Gore and Michael Moore playing an answering machine recording that included some talk show host's home phone number, that People Magazine fudged a cover image of Hollywood stars Courteney Cox and David Arquette and both a story and reader poll regarding a boycott of CBS' made for TV Ronald Reagan movie, there was no mention of the stand against the crimes against nature that are being condoned in Bellmore, NY.
Any conservatives out there interested in offering some insight as to why? |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
703 | Boldwin
ID: 510591420 Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 18:04
|
Yes, and you will deliberately stay uninformed on that issue at least until Obama can no longer be disqualified.
|
704 | Bean
ID: 121011511 Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 18:14
|
Hasn't the natural born definition been a point of contention forever? I think they had a deadline date in its original definiton. Get the right SCOTUS judges in place and you can make it mean whatever you want it to.
ONE OFF THE WALL EXAMPLE: Not Invitro
|
705 | Mith
ID: 231150292 Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 18:17
|
Hasn't the natural born definition been a point of contention forever?
No. It was settled in the Constitutional Convention, as I recall.
|
706 | Boldwin
ID: 510591420 Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 18:33
|
Actually SCOTUS hasn't settled the interpretation but by the understanding of the term when it was introduced as qualifications for presidency, Obama neither qualifies because his father was not a citizen at time of birth [nor did he ever become one] and he holds dual citizenship and thus his loyalty is not naturally assured.
Cruz' father did not become a citizen until 2005, and Cruz was not aware he was a dual citizen until recently and he has thereafter renounced the Canadian half of the 'dual'.
If our best candidate is Cruz and the law has been defacto nullified by the rampant lawlessness of the Dem party I would imagine Cruz' qualification is by now a mute point. It's either that or the Republicans are unilaterally disarmed.
[Of course Frank Marshall Davis was a citizen [[of dubious loyalty]], but you don't get credit for evidence not yet entered]
|
707 | Bean
ID: 121011511 Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 18:42
|
OK, here's a test of your knowledge:
Is a natural born citizen defined as one who is born of two citizens of the United States?
Can a natural born citizen be born outside the United States?
Can a natural born citizen have dual citizenship?
Is a person born in the United States to two non-citizen's a natural born citizen? Are they a citizen? Does illegal immigrant status change that definition? What if you are just visiting from Europe when the child is born?
Is a person, whose parental origin is questionable, eligible to become a natural born citizen? Is DNA evidence admissable? How does adoption by a non-citizen affect the classification?
Can US citizenship be revoked? If so, how does it affect the eligibility of offspring?
If you are confident you know all of the answers and then some, what would you change about the law and why?
|
708 | Bean
ID: 121011511 Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 18:56
|
Two gay women marry and one of them gets sperm from a bank that cannot reveal who the father is. The women are both orphans and nobody knows who their parents are. Before birth the co-mothers die in an accident in Mexico, but miraculously the boy child survives. He receives a Mexican birth certificate and is adopted by Chinese parents who reside in London. Later in life he joins ISIS and renounces all of his heritage but not before he fathers a son.
Is the son a natural born citizen of the United States?
|
709 | Bean
ID: 121011511 Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 19:01
|
Wait, one point of clarification, the son of the two women was born AFTER his pregnant mother was declared dead. Can we make this any more complicated?
|
710 | Mith
ID: 231150292 Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 19:18
|
I might have been mistaken about the convention.
But SCOTUS has settled it.
See 536 and 537 here.
|
711 | Mith
ID: 231150292 Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 19:59
|
Actually it does go back to the Convention. See post 718 in the same link.
|
712 | Bean
ID: 121011511 Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 20:13
|
<710> Nice cut and paste that Mith did there, seems in the early days the definiton was different depending on who you talked to and the intent was apparently to agree with the English definition as it was likely the intent. I am guessing that the real intent was to ensure that the Brits didn't prop up a candidate for their own purposes. Ironically we look to a British definiton to tell us what our laws mean.
Over time we have learned that the framers intent really doesn't matter, its what we think that matters. Thus the sytstem of SCOTUS interpretation and Constitutional Amendments has become the way of "keeping up with the times".
That we have begun to split hairs over what the definition means is really fascinating to me. I really hadn't realized that so many people aspired to become president that it really matters. It's never been an issue with me for my own sake, my family's heritage and loyalty have never been questioned except prior to the American Revolution vs Indians (I am part Indian) and during the civil war (we fought on both sides, though mostly the North).
What most should take comfort in is that our current President was not forced to prove his loyalty just because he was popular. That a Republican SCOTUS did not challenge him is enough for me. The rest is just noise.
The concern on the part of some that a foreign government could get their candidate elected and take over our government, military and natural resources is probably not realistic. Besides, why would they choose someone whose origin could be questioned, they'd much rather get some unscrupulous actor to do their dirty work for them. It's way easier.
|
713 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 20:28
|
SCOTUS has not directly ruled on the question. But the 2008 report by the Congressional Research Service is rather good on the question:
report (pdf)
Because it is a constitutional requirement, it is rather an important question. There is no doubt, in my mind anyway, that Cruz is a natural born citizen.
|
714 | Boldwin
ID: 510591420 Fri, Feb 13, 2015, 23:27
|
Because it is a constitutional requirement, it is rather an important question.
A) Every constitutional requirement Dems flout without penalty is another chink in the foundation.
It is no longer an issue if there is no penalty for flouting it. I notice Obama is still sitting president.
There is no doubt, in my mind anyway, that Cruz is a natural born citizen.
B) Not the first time you've been wrong. By definition, a man who has a parent who was not a citizen when Cruz was born, and who was born a dual citizen is not a NBC. He does not naturally come by his loyalty. He had to decide his loyalty among options natural to his circumstances.
We can trust Cruz' loyalty, but Obama [or his ghostwriter probably, Bill Ayers] gave us a biography that shows us his anti-american biases, and we have his record of Muslim Brotherhood advocacy and his early sponsorship of ISIS to confirm his anti-american bias.
We have his word that it is not a national security issue that ISIS has declared war on us, and clearly means to convert the world at the edge of the sword.
That is what we get from the political party that always blames America first and thinks the real problem with the world is us.
We get a president who sends ISIS arms in Syria, and then wastes our critical stock of cruise missiles blowing them up in Iraq.
We get a president who squanders everything American blood was shed for in freeing Iraq.
|
715 | Boldwin
ID: 510591420 Fri, Feb 13, 2015, 23:35
|
And next time a presidential candidate tells you he is going to abuse his enemies with IRS harrassment when he get's in office...
...believe him.
|
716 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Sat, Feb 14, 2015, 00:32
|
By definition, a man who has a parent who was not a citizen when Cruz was born, and who was born a dual citizen is not a NBC
This is just completely pulled out of your ass. By this "definition" (defined by whom, exactly?), a person born in the United States with a permanent resident parent from, say, Germany, would not therefore be natural born citizen of the United States.
This isn't even up to your usual nonsense standards.
|
717 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Sat, Feb 14, 2015, 10:28
|
714....proof that fiction still exists, though the quality of fiction writing has been in a steady decline for a few years now.
|
718 | Boldwin
ID: 510591420 Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 11:40
|
Yeah, what was I thinking. I man who is a dual citizen, idolizes a father trained and indoctrinated in Russia, a father who despised the Anglo-American world power, a father who was never a US citizen...
Self-evidently he'd have a natural loyalty to the USA. The FF obviously would have no problem with making children of their enemies president.
|
719 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 13:34
|
I've no idea what you were thinking. The question is whether the person is a natural born citizen. Cruz certainly is. As is Obama. Don't blame your lack of election success at the presidential level on some kind of Constitutional misapplication.
|
720 | Boldwin
ID: 510591420 Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 21:12
|
Meet Vattel:How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:
During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:
“… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” (2nd para) [boldface added]
Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents.”
Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.2 Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:
“From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]
In footnote 1 on the same page (xxx), Lapradelle writes:
“… Another copy was presented by Franklin to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Among the records of its Directors is the following minute: “Oct. 10, 1775. Monsieur Dumas having presented the Library with a very late edition of Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations (in French), the Board direct the secretary to return that gentle-man their thanks.” This copy undoubtedly was used by the members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policy of the United Colonies until the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution of the United States, for the library was located in Carpenters’ Hall, where the First Congress deliberated, and within a stone’s throw of the Colonial State House of Pennsylvania, where the Second Congress met, and likewise near where the Constitution was framed …” [emphasis added]
So! Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787. 3
Vattel on “natural born citizens”, “inhabitants”, and “naturalized citizens”:
From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens.1 [READ this footnote!] We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens. Vattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:
§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.
§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.
Do you see? The republican concept of “natural born citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subjectship.” Under feudalism, merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural born subject”. But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of Citizens.
How Our Framers applied Vattel’s Concept of “natural born citizen” in Our Constitution:
The Federal Convention was in session from May 14, through September 17, 1787. John Jay, who had been a member of the Continental Congress [where they “pounced” on Vattel], sent this letter of July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who presided over the Convention:
“…Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”4
According, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 was drafted to read:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” [boldface added]
In § 214, Vattel states that “fundamental law” may withhold from naturalized citizens some of the rights of citizens, such as holding public office. The Constitution is our “fundamental law”; and, following Vattel, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 withholds from naturalized citizens (except for our Founding Generation which was “grandfathered in”) the right to hold the office of President.5
Remember! None of our early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown. They became naturalized citizens with the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide a grandfather clause for them. But after our Founding Generation was gone, their successors were required to be born as citizens of the United States – not merely born here (as were our Founders), but born as citizens. Granted plenty of intelligent lawyers are unaware of Vattel's influence. They just assume the only influence was British law. They only look at a terribly incomplete and imperfect legal precendent in American courts where this stuff really hasn't been settled. They rely on the lack of FF quotes on the specific definitions in their deliberations.
This site is a great lawyer's site [where they catalog the Obama IRS scandal on a daily basis] and if he had dealt with the influence of Vattel in a convincing way I'd even give him the benefit of the doubt. He agrees with PD and yet he acts clueless on the philosophical influences acting on the FF in this area of law.
I've studied both sides of this issue in great detail.
PD has cheap ad hominem attacks with no research or thot behind it.
People can become educated or be swayed by trolling and wishful thinking. I don't care what the crowd thinks. Enjoy clowning for the group-thinkers, PD.
|
721 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 21:22
|
I've studied both sides of this issue in great detail
No you havent. You've scrounged about the internet at length, for every blog that supports YOUR contentions, regardless of their lack of expertise.
|
722 | Boldwin
ID: 510591420 Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 22:19
|
Sarge
You forget that while you were practicing your ad hominems in front of the easy liberal echo chamber crowd here, I've exhaustively covered these legal points in previous birther threads.
|
723 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 22:57
|
PD has cheap ad hominem attacks with no research or thot behind it.
A walking irony. Ignoring the points (and the link, in #713) isn't the same as "no research or thot."
Look, you can ignore the points being made and just own up to that (the "be a man" approach) or admit that you read it and just disagree with it. You cannot say it doesn't exist.
|
724 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 00:50
|
No B. You ignore, that you havent exhaustively done anything, except spew forth hot air and blatant partisan hype.
|
725 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 10:43
|
He's using "exhaustively" as "to the point of being tired about it."
|
726 | Boldwin
ID: 510591420 Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 14:22
|
Honestly it's a sad sad state of affairs when the public let alone board regulars can't even handle basic logic.
Candidate A writes a book idolizing a non-citizen father who hated America and everything about America...except their handouts.
What could possibly go wrong?
What's the point of having any citizenship requirements if it's not to achieve a reasonable assumption of natural loyalties to America?
Why can't we have a president whose Sec-of-State doesn't appoint as chief of staff a relative of the founder of America's worst enemy, the MB?
Because loyalty isn't a concern for liberals. More of a disqualification apparently.
|
727 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 14:41
|
You are welcome to propose a constitutional amendment change. Until then, we are bound by it.
|
728 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 14:42
|
If you believe Obama idolized his father in his book, then you are reading the wrong third-party sources.
My suggestion is, if you want to know what he said in the book, to read the actual, complete, book. Otherwise, at least admit you didn't read that which you are criticizing.
|
729 | Boldwin
ID: 510591420 Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 14:47
|
1) Get the text book the FF were using.
2) Look up the definition of Natural Born Citizen therein.
3) Get an educational system that teaches reading, history and applied logic.
|
730 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 23:37
|
If we did that B, you conservatives would fail and be sent back to Kindergarten, to start all over.
|
731 | Mith
ID: 8018814 Thu, Feb 19, 2015, 06:46
|
729 - Already done. See post 710. You lost this one years ago. You lose again. Vattel didn't say what you think he said.
|
732 | Boldwin
ID: 101311815 Thu, Feb 19, 2015, 14:41
|
Wishes aren't horses but your buddies will pretend you ride off into the sunset.
|
733 | Mith
ID: 8018814 Thu, Feb 19, 2015, 23:55
|
Anyone who cares to read through it will see that B was thoroughly pantsed on this. Not worth rehashing.
|
734 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 23:43
|
Today, Christians stand at the head of this country. I pledge, that I never will tie myself to parties who seek to destroy Christianity. We want to fill our culture again, with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out, all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press. In short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
Who was it delivered that speech? Ted Cruz father, or Mike Huckabee?
|
735 | Boldwin
ID: 49250121 Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 09:47
|
That Duck Dynasty guy?
|
736 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 10:09
|
Nope.My bad, I was confused. It was Adolph Hitler said that.
|
737 | Boldwin
ID: 49250121 Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 10:11
|
Yeah, and he meant those words just as sincerely as a freemason claiming to be christian.
|
738 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 10:30
|
lol when did you become a freemason?
|
739 | Boldwin
ID: 49250121 Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 16:32
|
I don't know what to be more offended at. You implying conservatives are nazis or that I would ever become a freemason.
Abominations both.
|
740 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 22:11
|
*smdh* I should have known, you wouldnt grasp the nuance.
Conservatives Boldwin, have not been correct in over 240 years. If you need to be offended, be offended at your own gullibility, for insisting on following a failed ideology.
|
741 | Boldwin
ID: 49250121 Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 22:35
|
Says the marxist who forgot which ideology crashed and burned everywhere it was tried in the 20th century and who now insists on trying it here.
|
742 | Bean
ID: 14147911 Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 23:12
|
Next he'll be declaring that those who advocate a salary cap for the MLB are communists too.
|
743 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 23:31
|
Boldwin? Progressivism, HASNT crashed and burned. Our FFs, were progressives. Lincoln, was a progressive. T Roosevelt, was a progressive. Eisenhower, was a progressive.
You, are simply wrong, and refuse to admit it.
|
744 | Boldwin
ID: 49250121 Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 10:55
|
Only one of those defined progress the way you do. And he's the only one I don't respect. We ALL would be miles ahead if he had never poisoned the well. Namely Roosevelt.
|
745 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 23:36
|
Wrong again B.
The conservatives of the 1760s and 1770s, were called TORRIES.
The conservatives of the 1860s, fought for states rights (just as you do today) and AGAINST the federal government, which Lincoln fought to preserve.
The conservatives of the late 19th century, oppsed womans suffrage.
The conservatives of the early 20th century, favored forced labor and monopolies. Both opposed, by T Roosevelt.
The conservatives of the 1950s and 1960s, opposed civil rights.
The conservatives of today, oppose marriage equality and fair labor practices.
You're ideology is, and has been wrong, for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS.
|
746 | Boldwin
ID: 49250121 Wed, Mar 04, 2015, 01:29
|
Well the only period there I can personally attest to was the civil rights era and I can tell you that I was pro-MLK and the Dem party was fighting him tooth and nail.
|
747 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Wed, Mar 04, 2015, 10:53
|
Do not conflate Conservative-Progressive, with Dem-Rep. I did not say anything at all, about parties. I refer, to ideologies. CONSERVATIVES, have been on the wrong side of history, for damn near 240 years, when it pertains to the USA. Simple truth.
|
748 | Bean
ID: 14147911 Wed, Mar 04, 2015, 13:51
|
What does wrong side of history mean?
|
749 | Mith
ID: 8018814 Wed, Mar 04, 2015, 22:01
|
746 is the same thing as a concession.
Boldwin knows full well the conservative political right (the conservative wings of both parties) was the ideological opponent of the civil rights movement.
|
751 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 23:20
|
DISCLAIMER: This link, is from a very partisan, far left-wing source. It however, references ABC News, and has the full aired video at the bottom.
ABC Nightline On Jehovah’s Witnesses: Major Child Rape Cover-Up Exposed (VIDEO)
|
752 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Thu, Apr 09, 2015, 23:27
|
Christian pastor claims.... we're gonna have to be willing to kill as well.
|
753 | Boldwin
ID: 112382716 Sat, Apr 11, 2015, 14:54
|
I just got retweeted by the world's greatest blogger, Instapundit!
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: Christian conservatives we can be proud of.
|
|