April 03, 2016

Killing Christianity in America

Fay Voshell

The secular extremism characterizing much of the contemporary political scene sometimes makes it hard to realize Christianity was once the primary motivating force behind the great human rights movements of America.

Men and women of faith fought for decades to achieve victory over the great human rights issue of the 19th century -- freeing the slaves. The issue of slavery had festered from the time of its introduction into the colonies in 1619. It would be Pennsylvanian Quakers, who believed in the inner light of conscience, who filed the first formal protest against slavery in 1688.

Abolitionists fought ferociously because of their unyielding and undying belief that all human beings were made in the image of God and were entitled to equal protection under the law. Bolstered by the constitutionally guaranteed rights stated clearly in the first amendment of the American constitution, they fought to end slavery and to guarantee equality of all human beings before the law.

The roots of that great reform movement as well as many of the continuing reform movements of the 19th and 20th centuries -- including the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s -- were profoundly Christian.

How radically things have changed.

Now, at the inception of the twenty-first century, constitutionally guaranteed rights of the exercise of faith and religious freedoms are jeopardized by a sex cult that has borrowed but completely distorted the underlying principles of the abolitionist movement and its heir, the Civil Rights movement.

The radical fringe of the sexual revolution that began in the 1960s coincided and was parallel with the Civil Rights movement, gradually poisoning and then determining to kill outright the Christian religious conscience that was and still is the backbone of reform in America. The radicals behind the sexual revolution substituted in the place of Christian conscience answerable to God a militant view of self-determination that held to no god but the inner god of human will and power.

In an astonishing perversion of the Quaker idea of the inner voice of conscience answerable to God, the inner voice of the individual human being was determined to be infallible in matters of sex and practice -- "If it feels good; do it.” What any individual believed to be his or her inner voice granted unqualified authority to remold the world according to the latest revolutionary fatwa concerning sexual freedom.

Over a period of a few decades, activists for the LGBT movement transitioned steadily from their initial demands for equal protection under the law to demands for gay marriage, to denaturing the very construct of humanity by insisting on a gender free society, to promoting the right to force society at large to accept as infallible an individual’s ability to discern and to declare one’s self to be whatever sex one chooses.

To put it another way, the LGBT agenda will brook no contradiction from the rest of us mere mortals to argue about the inerrant inner light of the gods and goddesses who declare themselves to have divine ability to transform themselves into any sex they wish to be. The "right” to be or not to be man or woman resulted in the fanatical demand that bathrooms must be retrofitted to conform to "gender free” standards, meaning that in practice either sex could use public facilities as they wished, including those who are physically men but believe themselves to be women.

But even victories in the bathroom bill fights have not been enough for radicals. Encouraged by the recent decision of the Supreme Court ratifying a pillar of the LGBT movement; namely, the constitutional "right” of same sex couples to marry, the movement has set its sights on destroying Christianity itself. By insisting that no minister or priest can refuse to marry gay couples, and by asserting no organization or institution, including churches, can refuse to hire people diametrically opposed to Christian beliefs, the LGBT movement reveals itself to be a cult radically and viciously antithetical to Christianity.

And, yes, it is a cult.

A basic definition of a cult is an organization whose beliefs are so far separated from the real world, that if society were to incorporate those beliefs, it too, would go mad. Therefore, insane beliefs completely divorced from the ground of being can only be established by force of law and strategies utilizing persecution aimed at eventual elimination of entities in opposition to those beliefs.

The result is that open war has been declared on Christianity in America.

For proof of that war, we need only to look at the mad consequences we now observe in Georgia, where the governor of that state has vetoed a bill that would have offered absolutely minimal protection to ministers and churches. World Magazine reports:

"Claiming the bill would ‘give rise to state-sanctioned discrimination,’ Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal today vetoed a law that would have provided legal protection for pastors, faith-based organizations, and business owners who, in good conscience, refused to service gay weddings. The veto leaves Georgians with no statewide religious liberty protection and vulnerable to lawsuits over belief in the biblical definition of marriage.”

Apparently completely ignorant of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s clear statement of religious protection, the governor added: "In light of our history, I find it ironic that today some in the religious community feel it necessary to ask government to confer upon them certain rights and protections.”

Let that sink in.

In an era in which our Secretary of State has finally admitted genocide is being committed against unprotected Christians in the Middle East, the governor of Georgia says religious communities don’t need the government to confer rights and protections on people of faith.

Irony of ironies, Nathan Deal is a Southern Baptist -- a Southern Baptist who just gave over his own denomination to corporations for thirty pieces of silver. That his own church holds such retrograde and discriminatory positions as marriage being a covenant between a man and a woman and that the scriptures hold very pronounced views on sexual behavior seem to come as a surprise to Governor Deal.

But they do not surprise Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Seminary, and stalwart defender of orthodox Christian views on the sexes and marriage. One wonders if Deal -- what a perfect name -- is prepared to see Dr. Mohler sued and hauled away to jail for advocacy of orthodox Christian doctrine concerning marriage and sexual mores.

Certainly Deal’s capitulation to corporations and the LGBT radicals helps explain why a plurality of Georgian evangelicals, among them Southern Baptists, voted for shameless secularist Donald Trump. Apparently neither Deal nor the plurality of so-called evangelicals think faith and Christian doctrine have anything to say about the character of candidates who wish to lead a nation or about radical policies antithetical to and aimed directly at Christians.

The leftist rage directed at American Christians should come as no particular surprise.

Historically, the Left has always sought to eviscerate and even to eliminate Christianity. The all-out assault on Christians in America by the Left resembles the wars socialism and communism waged against Christianity, the most obvious example being is the attempt of the communist Soviet Union to bury Russian Orthodoxy.

A less noted example, yet a clear provider of an almost exact pattern of what is happening here in the U.S., is the persecution of Mexican Roman Catholics by radical socialists during the Cristero war of the 1920s. During that war, Mexican socialists sought to eliminate Christianity from Mexico, which at the time was 95% Catholic.

For over 70 years, from about 1917 onwards, the Roman Catholic Church was actually outlawed. It was not allowed to own property, run parochial schools or convents or monasteries. Foreign priests were deported, and many native priests killed outright. The Church was not allowed to defend itself publicly or in the courts.

As Catholic Gene writes:

[The Church] was hardly allowed to exist. According to historian Jim Tuck, "This was not separation of church and state: it was complete subordination of church to state”.

"It was not until 1992 that the Church was restored as a legal entity in Mexico. During the period of the strictest enforcement of these draconian laws beginning with the rule of President Calles in the late 1920s, Mexicans were often imprisoned for wearing religious items, saying "Adios” in public (which literally means "with God”), or even questioning the laws. Public worship was a crime punishable by hanging or firing squad.”

The Mexican Constitution of 1917 included the following restrictions on Catholics:

"According to the religious liberties established under article 24, educational services shall be secular and, therefore, free of any religious orientation. The educational services shall be based on scientific progress and shall fight against ignorance, ignorance's effects, servitudes, fanaticism and prejudice… All religious associations organized according to article 130 and its derived legislation, shall be authorized to acquire, possess or manage just the necessary assets to achieve their objectives... The rules established at this article are guided by the historical principle according to which the State and the churches are separated entities from each other. Churches and religious congregations shall be organized under the law.”

The new constitution obligated the registration of all churches, declared all priests and ministers were ineligible to hold state office; and stated they could not advocate on behalf of any political parties or candidates. The State would regulate the number of priests in designated regions and no priests could wear religious garb in public. Nor could religious ceremonies be conducted outdoors without strict regulation by the State.

One needs only to read the restrictions of the Mexican Constitution of 1917 to recognize a similar pattern of persecution and restrictions against churches and people of faith in the United States, land of the free.

In retrospect Christians, at least partially, have only themselves to blame, as they have yielded time and again to state intrusions and restrictions with only sporadic guerilla warfare. On the whole, Christians have reacted to anti-Christian decrees and restrictions such as the SCOTUS decree on abortion, the elimination of Christianity from public schools, and the muzzling of priests and pastors concerning politics by retreating into a subculture.

As the attacks ratchet up, Christians urgently need to understand continued capitulation to the demands of the radicals who are pushing for the fringe demands of the LGBT movement means the death of religious freedom in America. It also means a cult’s radical doctrines replace Christian mores.

Are Christians in America prepared to see their pastors sued and/or sent to jail, their children continued to be subject to indoctrination in public schools, their state and federal governments continue to kowtow to extremists determined to eradicate the influence of religion; the free exercise of religion in the public square eliminated; Christians consigned to what would essentially be a caste system, with people of faith considered untouchables who are not worthy of public office or even employment?

If they are not prepared to strongly confront a cult’s takeover of America’s governments, churches, and major institutions; if they wish to see Christianity once again regain its status as a major influence for societal reform; if they want to once again see Christianity as salt and light in the society in which they live, they have no choice but to stand and fight.

Otherwise, the Church in America will die.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology. A frequent contributor to American Thinker, her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including RealClearReligion, National Review, CNS, Fox News and Russia Insider. She has discussed matters of church and state and other conservative issues on television and radio talk shows, and is available for speaking engagements. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1971 words, total size 14 kb.

If Bakers Can be Forced to Service Faux Weddings, so Can Churches

Selwyn Duke

As our Great Sexual Heresy continues its march onwards and downwards, state governments have forced bakers, wedding planners, florists and other businesses to service faux weddings. This is unprecedented, as never before were Americans governmentally compelled to participate in events they found morally objectionable. Yet when some project out on our cultural trajectory and say churches one day will be subject to the same coercion, they’re met with laughter; this will never, ever happen, they’re told. Yet this is an illogical and inconsistent position.

Prefacing a statement in opposition to the hapless bakers at a campaign stop a while back, presidential contender John Kasich opined, "I think, frankly, our churches should not be forced to do anything that’s not consistent with them.” That such a statement need be made — and that it was said so lukewarmly — indicates we’ve already taken the first step toward just such coercion. Yet the main point is that the position reflects fuzzy thinking.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion of prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Of course, the wording informs that this constrains only Congress — the federal government’s lawmaking body — not state governments. But since the "Theory of Incorporation” (a judge-spawned rationalization) has applied the above to the states and, more significantly for the principled, since most if not all state constitutions offer the same religious protections, this isn’t relevant to our discussion here.

Now, "exercise” is action, not just belief or expression. Of course, this freedom of action labeled "religious” isn’t absolute; human sacrifice is prohibited, for instance. (Thus do I have a philosophical problem with the First Amendment, but that’s grist for a different day.) Yet the relevant point is this: human sacrifice, or anything else gravely evil and therefore beyond First Amendment protections, is prohibited to all. It’s not as if you can offer up a virgin (even if you could find one today) on an altar because it happens to be in a church. A corollary of this is that anything protected by the First Amendment is allowed to all.

After all, neither the First Amendment nor any state constitution I’m aware of dictates that "government shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion — in church.” There is no such limitation. Conclusion?

Any type of exercise or conscience-driven policy, such as rejection of homosexual events protected within the church sphere is protected outside of it.

In point of fact, note that institutions, churches or otherwise, do not have constitutional rights. People have constitutional rights. So it’s completely irrelevant whether people are exercising their religious rights within a church or a bakery, or as agents of a synagogue or owners of a flower shop. Their freedom from government compulsion in this area follows them wherever they go — and whatever their caste or station — in these United States.

Some may now claim that the difference between the bakers and the churches is the type of exercise, that the latter are performing marriages themselves while the bakers are merely providing a cake for a marriage ceremony. All right, consider: churches often conduct bake sales to raise money. Imagine a church had wedding cakes among its offerings and, these being large and expensive items, said it would print a personalized message on a cake and deliver it to a wedding in its area (this isn’t far-fetched; there are Trappist monks who produce beer, after all). Would the government force them to service a faux wedding?

Of course not. For now, at least, people would say that different rules apply because it’s a church. Again, though, this is an illogical and constitutionally inconsistent position. It’s born of preference, not principle; caprice, not constitutionalism. And that’s the issue: since the Constitution is essentially being ignored here, it’s incorrect to say that churches are allowed to engage in the exercise in question because of respect for constitutional protections. It’s simply allowed, at the moment, because fashions dictate that strong-arming churches would be a bridge too far.

So if nothing disrupts our cultural trajectory, it’s easy to see what lies ahead. Once again, a corollary of the constitutional principle I outlined earlier is that, since constitutional rights are for all Americans, any type of religious exercise considered illegitimate is illegitimate for all, everywhere — including inside churches. If a baker’s "freedom of religion” does not involve the freedom to refuse to service faux weddings when selling cakes, the message is that this position is not seriously considered constitutionally protected. And this doesn’t change upon situating oneself in a pew.

This "compartmentalizing of constitutional rights” reflects two things. The first is the separation-of-church-and-state mentality, which, nurtured in the soil of secularism, has evolved into the Separation of Church and Everything Else. Any serious Christian who receives serious teaching is taught that you’re obligated to be Christian in all things and at all times; you cannot, for instance, lie to make money because "it’s business” and different rules supposedly apply. Yet many may go to church one hour a week but then leave the premises and imbibe the same decadent entertainment, use the same language and indulge many of the same habits as everyone else. And just as their "religion” is confined to that 1/168th of a week, so has our civilization embraced the supposition that "religion” should be compartmentalized and not bleed into other affairs. In fact, informed by a relativistic worldview dictating there is no Truth and everything is merely a flavor of the day, many cannot even grasp how anyone could take faith seriously enough to apply it to everyday life. To these people, a worship service is some kind of bizarre encounter group, which they may be willing to tolerate, just barely, if it’s kept behind closed doors and out of their sight, as if it’s a sort of bathhouse.

So when someone would take one of the tenets of this strange, cryptic place and try to live by it 24/7, what could be the motivation? Since to the devout relativist there isn’t principle but only passion — feelings — it perhaps will seem incredible to him that a believer would take a difficult position out of principle. The relativist will instead exhibit that common failing of man and project, in his case his emotion-governed mindset onto others. And the only emotion he thinks could explain not wanting to service a faux wedding is hate, and, hey, it’s easy to justify persecution of the "hateful.”

The second thing reflected by this situation is that our Constitution has basically become a dead letter. When (mis)interpreting the document, judges, "picked out from the most dexterous lawyers…and having been biassed all their lives against truth and equity,” use "words multiplied for the purpose” to convince us "that white is black, and black is white,” as satirist Jonathan Swift put it. Thus do they find protection in the First Amendment for pornography, but not for bakers who don’t want to service faux weddings. Thus do they find it constitutional for the federal government to compel citizens to purchase health insurance. Thus do they claim having an abortion is a matter of the "right to privacy.” And thus do they aver that faux marriage must be legally recognized in the name of "equal protection.” If the Constitution could take human form and speak, she’d say she feels used, abused and manipulated, betrayed time and again by those sworn to be faithful to her, scorned by an America that increasingly prefers the Siren of Secular Statism. She would want a divorce.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

As our Great Sexual Heresy continues its march onwards and downwards, state governments have forced bakers, wedding planners, florists and other businesses to service faux weddings. This is unprecedented, as never before were Americans governmentally compelled to participate in events they found morally objectionable. Yet when some project out on our cultural trajectory and say churches one day will be subject to the same coercion, they’re met with laughter; this will never, ever happen, they’re told. Yet this is an illogical and inconsistent position.

Prefacing a statement in opposition to the hapless bakers at a campaign stop a while back, presidential contender John Kasich opined, "I think, frankly, our churches should not be forced to do anything that’s not consistent with them.” That such a statement need be made — and that it was said so lukewarmly — indicates we’ve already taken the first step toward just such coercion. Yet the main point is that the position reflects fuzzy thinking.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion of prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Of course, the wording informs that this constrains only Congress — the federal government’s lawmaking body — not state governments. But since the "Theory of Incorporation” (a judge-spawned rationalization) has applied the above to the states and, more significantly for the principled, since most if not all state constitutions offer the same religious protections, this isn’t relevant to our discussion here.

Now, "exercise” is action, not just belief or expression. Of course, this freedom of action labeled "religious” isn’t absolute; human sacrifice is prohibited, for instance. (Thus do I have a philosophical problem with the First Amendment, but that’s grist for a different day.) Yet the relevant point is this: human sacrifice, or anything else gravely evil and therefore beyond First Amendment protections, is prohibited to all. It’s not as if you can offer up a virgin (even if you could find one today) on an altar because it happens to be in a church. A corollary of this is that anything protected by the First Amendment is allowed to all.

After all, neither the First Amendment nor any state constitution I’m aware of dictates that "government shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion — in church.” There is no such limitation. Conclusion?

Any type of exercise or conscience-driven policy, such as rejection of homosexual events protected within the church sphere is protected outside of it.

In point of fact, note that institutions, churches or otherwise, do not have constitutional rights. People have constitutional rights. So it’s completely irrelevant whether people are exercising their religious rights within a church or a bakery, or as agents of a synagogue or owners of a flower shop. Their freedom from government compulsion in this area follows them wherever they go — and whatever their caste or station — in these United States.

Some may now claim that the difference between the bakers and the churches is the type of exercise, that the latter are performing marriages themselves while the bakers are merely providing a cake for a marriage ceremony. All right, consider: churches often conduct bake sales to raise money. Imagine a church had wedding cakes among its offerings and, these being large and expensive items, said it would print a personalized message on a cake and deliver it to a wedding in its area (this isn’t far-fetched; there are Trappist monks who produce beer, after all). Would the government force them to service a faux wedding?

Of course not. For now, at least, people would say that different rules apply because it’s a church. Again, though, this is an illogical and constitutionally inconsistent position. It’s born of preference, not principle; caprice, not constitutionalism. And that’s the issue: since the Constitution is essentially being ignored here, it’s incorrect to say that churches are allowed to engage in the exercise in question because of respect for constitutional protections. It’s simply allowed, at the moment, because fashions dictate that strong-arming churches would be a bridge too far.

So if nothing disrupts our cultural trajectory, it’s easy to see what lies ahead. Once again, a corollary of the constitutional principle I outlined earlier is that, since constitutional rights are for all Americans, any type of religious exercise considered illegitimate is illegitimate for all, everywhere — including inside churches. If a baker’s "freedom of religion” does not involve the freedom to refuse to service faux weddings when selling cakes, the message is that this position is not seriously considered constitutionally protected. And this doesn’t change upon situating oneself in a pew.

This "compartmentalizing of constitutional rights” reflects two things. The first is the separation-of-church-and-state mentality, which, nurtured in the soil of secularism, has evolved into the Separation of Church and Everything Else. Any serious Christian who receives serious teaching is taught that you’re obligated to be Christian in all things and at all times; you cannot, for instance, lie to make money because "it’s business” and different rules supposedly apply. Yet many may go to church one hour a week but then leave the premises and imbibe the same decadent entertainment, use the same language and indulge many of the same habits as everyone else. And just as their "religion” is confined to that 1/168th of a week, so has our civilization embraced the supposition that "religion” should be compartmentalized and not bleed into other affairs. In fact, informed by a relativistic worldview dictating there is no Truth and everything is merely a flavor of the day, many cannot even grasp how anyone could take faith seriously enough to apply it to everyday life. To these people, a worship service is some kind of bizarre encounter group, which they may be willing to tolerate, just barely, if it’s kept behind closed doors and out of their sight, as if it’s a sort of bathhouse.

So when someone would take one of the tenets of this strange, cryptic place and try to live by it 24/7, what could be the motivation? Since to the devout relativist there isn’t principle but only passion — feelings — it perhaps will seem incredible to him that a believer would take a difficult position out of principle. The relativist will instead exhibit that common failing of man and project, in his case his emotion-governed mindset onto others. And the only emotion he thinks could explain not wanting to service a faux wedding is hate, and, hey, it’s easy to justify persecution of the "hateful.”

The second thing reflected by this situation is that our Constitution has basically become a dead letter. When (mis)interpreting the document, judges, "picked out from the most dexterous lawyers…and having been biassed all their lives against truth and equity,” use "words multiplied for the purpose” to convince us "that white is black, and black is white,” as satirist Jonathan Swift put it. Thus do they find protection in the First Amendment for pornography, but not for bakers who don’t want to service faux weddings. Thus do they find it constitutional for the federal government to compel citizens to purchase health insurance. Thus do they claim having an abortion is a matter of the "right to privacy.” And thus do they aver that faux marriage must be legally recognized in the name of "equal protection.” If the Constitution could take human form and speak, she’d say she feels used, abused and manipulated, betrayed time and again by those sworn to be faithful to her, scorned by an America that increasingly prefers the Siren of Secular Statism. She would want a divorce.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2556 words, total size 16 kb.

April 02, 2016

The Genie and the College Democrat

Jack Kemp

One day a Democrat, a college senior, was walking along the beach in his state when he came upon an unusual bottle washed up on the shore.

"Gee, that looks like the one in the tv show I Dream of Jeanie. I wonder if..."

So he picks up the bottle and removes the cork. Sure enough, a male genie like the one in the movie "Aladdin" appears, saying he will grant one wish.

"I want the minimum wage to be $15 an hour. No, wait. You're a genie and I can have anything I want! I wish that the minimum wage be $30 an hour!" 

The genie replies, "Master, I can grant that wish but there is one problem."

"What?," asks the student.

"In thirty years, when you are a grandfather, your grandson will come to you and ask you to buy him a can of Coca-Cola," says the genie. 

"So what's the big deal?," says the student.

The genie replies, "A 12 ounce can of Coca-Cola will cost $30!"

Moral of the Story: Some people, particularly Democrats, will scoff at this tale. But I'm old enough to remember when a bottle of Coca-Cola cost ten cents and an ice cream cone with 25 cents. In the 1950s, gas for your car was twenty-five cents a gallon - and the new 1965 Ford Mustang cost a basic $2,300 - $2,500 if you added fancy wheels, etc. The Democrats in office - and not necessarily on Main Street - are counting on many voters not understanding price rises over the decades. When I saw the 1980s remake of the movie "The Postman Always Rings Twice," Jack Nicholson drives up to a Depression Era gas station and holds up two one dollar bills and said "Fill 'er up" to the attendant (yes, Virginia, there were attandants who pumped gas for you back then). The whole New York audience who heard and saw this with me were abuzz with amazement for a minute or two. The moral is that inflation leads to higher prices for not only wages but also goods bought.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

April 01, 2016

Aussie Government Funds Play Calling for Murder of Climate Change "deniers"

Timothy Birdnow

The government of the Australian Capital Territory has financed a theatrical production that calls for murdering "climate change deniers"

Jo Nova has the scoop:

Well, it does if you don’t have any evidence.

Kill the Deniers, Play, ACT, Advertising, Ecoterrorism

"Kill the Deniers” — All the wit and wisdom of government funded "arts”. Can’t persuade the voters? Shoot their representatives.

The Kill the Deniers e-book is coming:

…writer and theatre-maker whose work sits at the intersection of art and science, [David] Finnigan said Kill Climate Deniers grew out of discussions with Aspen Island Theatre Company’s Julian Hobba.

‘We got really interested in talking about the climate debate, and we were wondering why it was that in Australia the debate had stalled so badly; what is it about this country? And then we moved on to asking what would it take to shift the debate forward again – what would it actually take to generate real political change?’ said Finnigan.

Why did the debate stall? They could have done some research and asked skeptics. Instead…

The answer they came up with (‘though not one that I feel comfortable or very positive about,’ he stressed) was guns.

Subsequently, Finnigan wrote an action movie-style drama in which Parliament House is invaded by gun-toting eco-terrorists. With the Government held hostage, and facing the threat of imminent execution unless she ends global warming immediately, the embattled Environment Minister has no choice but to defend her ideals – one bullet at a time.

Because terrorism is fun, right?

‘It’s a really fun, really action-packed, really over the top hostage drama, and action film genre piece; and hanging from that are some really important questions about the climate debate,’ Finnigan said.



So terrorism is now openly promoted by the intelligentsia and the Aussie government. We all saw this coming.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 3 kb.

<< Page 3 of 3 >>
51kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.436 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.3968 seconds, 117 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Always on Watch
The American Thinker
Bird`s Articles
Old Birdblog
Birdblog`s Literary Corner
Canada Free Press
Christian Daily Reporter
Climatescepticsparty,,a>
_+
Daren Jonescu
Dana and Martha Music On my Mind Conservative Victory
Eco-Imperialism
Gelbspan Files Infidel Bloggers Alliance
The Reform Club
Revolver
FTP Student Action
Veritas PAC
FunMurphys
The Galileo Movement
Intellectual Conservative
br /> Liberty Unboound
One Jerusalem
Powerline
Publius Forum
The Gateway Pundit
The Jeffersonian Ideal
Thinking Democrat
Ultima Thule
Young Craig Music
Contact Tim at bgocciaatoutlook.com

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 56945
  • Files: 18961
  • Bytes: 1345.4M
  • CPU Time: 566:11
  • Queries: 2327028

Content

  • Posts: 20154
  • Comments: 64301

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0