Politics

Liberal Media Attacks GOP Hopeful Over ‘Church and State’ Stance

The liberal media just can’t seem to understand why some would question the phrase “separation of church and state.” In separate articles Tuesday, both the Huffington Post and ThinkProgress.org attacked Colorado GOP Senate hopeful Ken Buck for statements he made last year that question the constitutionality of the phrase.

But while critiquing Buck both outlets reveal the full context of his statements, and in doing so shoot themselves in the metaphorical foot.

First, Buck’s words:

Those comments just won’t do for ThinkProgress.org. On its website Tuesday the liberal blog said that “legal scholars and the courts agree” that Buck’s thinking is “dangerous.”

Yet in the same paragraph it admits that Buck’s statement is, well, correct:

“[W]hile the Constitution doesn’t contain the exact words “separation of church and state,” legal scholars and the courts agree it does prohibit the establishment or endorsement of religion…” [Emphasis added]

Oddly enough, Buck would agree, as he says in the video:

I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state. It was not written into the Constitution. While we have a Constitution that is very strong in the sense that we are not gonna have a religion that’s sanctioned by the government, it doesn’t mean that we need to have a separation between government and religion. [Emphasis added]

To recap:

ThinkProgress: “Separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution; government shouldn’t establish or endorse a single religion.

Buck: “Separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution; government shouldn’t establish or endorse a single religion.

ThinkProgress: Buck is dangerous for the way he thinks.

But ThinkProgress isn’t the only outlet going after Buck. The Huffington Post also took a shot at the candidate today by setting him up as just another Tea Partier who opposes fundamental American principles.

“Colorado Republican Senate candidate and Tea Party favorite Ken Buck last year said he ‘strongly’ disagrees with one of the bedrock principles of American society: the separation of church and state,” HuffPo begins its story.

It even uses its front page headline to portray Buck as a crazy:

Liberal Media Attacks GOP Hopeful Over Church and State Stance

In what seems to be an attempt at a “gotcha” moment, HuffPo attaches an update to its story (in the form of a Buck quote) that is supposed to show just how scary Buck’s thoughts are:

Yes, we have separation of church and state. We don’t want a state-sponsored religion, but no it doesn’t mean that churches and government should never interact, and that wall that people are trying to form between the two and punish religion is something that I think has gone in the wrong direction, and I think what President Bush did with faith-based programs that worked with the government is exactly the right idea. [Emphasis added]

Again to recap:

Buck: Right now in this country there is separation of church and state, but it‘s gotten out of hand and it doesn’t mean that religion and government should never interact.

HuffPo: Ha! Get a load of this crazy guy!

I could be wrong, but the “gotcha” seems to belong to Buck.

Comments (124)

1 2 3
  • Richard
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 3:58am

    Understand where The Idea came from in the first place and how the Founders all settled this…
    Separation of church and state
    JOHN Calvin believed that the church should not be subject to the state, or vice versa. While both church and state are subject to God’s law, they both have their own God-ordained spheres of influence. For example, the church does not have the authority to impose penalties for civil offenses, although it can call on the civil authorities to punish them. Conversely, the state is not to intrude on the operations of the church. However, it has a duty to protect the church and its ability to function as the church.
    As a magisterial reformer, Calvin thought of the State as a Christian nation rather than a secular government. He did not advocate religious freedom in the same sense as the Baptists later would, for example. However, his ecclesiology sowed the seeds of the modern secular democracy.

    Report Post » LION4JESUS  
  • Endstatism
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 3:55am

    Okpulot, I am a child of government sponsored genocide. If you do your research, government has killed far more people in history than religions. Many of the Christian settlers that came to this nation were very welcoming to the Native Americans. It was politicians and agents of kings who committed atrocities and breaking of treaties

    Report Post » Endstatism  
    • Okpulot Taha
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 4:32am

      END STATISM comments, “Okpulot, I am a child of government sponsored genocide.”

      I am highly skeptical. Explain your statement.

      END STATISM adds, “If you do your research, government has killed far more people in history than religions.”

      I will painfully bite my tongue and be gracious. I have read this line of thinking seemingly a zillion times. What you write is untrue. Religion is the base cause of almost all major misery we suffer throughout history. A student of history quickly learns virtually all major wars and genocide dating back for thousands of years, are driven by religious differences, from the Crusades to the Inquisitions to the Six Day War to Ireland to modern day Islamic terrorism.

      Government does not kill people, those under control of government kill people, such as a military force. Government may set a policy of killing people, but this is the “soldiers” of government who do the actual killing, by freewill choice.

      Religious differences is the primary cause of so much misery, hatred, racism, tyranny, genocide, war and much more. There in the mix, religion will be found; September 11, 2001.

      END STATISM closes, “Many of the Christian settlers that came to this nation were very welcoming to the Native Americans.”

      You are unconsciously displaying stereotypical Christian thinking. Christians did NOT welcome American Indians, quite the opposite, my ancestors welcomed Christians to America. You are, I believe inadvertently, displaying this ingrained arrogance of too many Christians.

      American Indians, in almost all cases, welcomed Christians to America. You have this backwards and this backwardness of yours is a result of many Christians white washing history; you have been brainwashed into believing this notion of Christians being superior to all others.

      Returning to history, early pilgrims to America were generally a good peoples who displayed friendship and respect for American Indians, and those pilgrims would have died if not so welcomed by my ancestors. Subsequently, Christians came in droves seeking land and riches. Then the genocide. I would be remiss to not mention there were many good Christians throughout history who did what they could to help American Indians and other minorities such as blacks. However, those good Christians represent a very small minority, and are still a small minority today.

      I am interested to learn how you are a “child of genocide”. Do explain.

      Okpulot Taha
      Choctaw Nation

      Report Post »  
    • OBAMAWORSHIOER
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 4:35pm

      Taha, yes Christians are a bunch of Bible thumpers and hypocrites. We will accept you as a full sister. Come over and join the Prince of Darkness. We need good writers like you on our side. We pay very well.

      Report Post »  
  • Okpulot Taha
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 3:49am

    Previously I write, “In this sense, zealous Christians are enemies of the state not much different than zealous Muslims.”

    I will share a painful truth Christians will not like and often deny. Without intent of racism this truth well applies to white Christians who do not understand racism as well as they should. This is a truth about religion, specifically Christianity, meddling in government.

    During my childhood, after my being born “persona non grata” because of Christians, during my early years, a handful of Choctaw elders, very old elders back then, told me stories of Indian boarding schools. These were schools operated by our federal government and operated by Christian missionaries. This is what happens when religion rules our government.

    My elders, during their childhoods, were taken away from their Choctaw parents as happened with almost all tribes, Cheyenne in the north, Apache in the south, tribes all over America, Indian children were removed from their homes, then taken away to boarding schools.

    Upon arrival at a boarding school, federal or church, an Indian child was stripped naked, her clothes burned, she is deloused with insecticide, hair cut off then made to wear “Christian” clothes. School lessons focused on Christianity, not upon the three R’s. She is caught speaking in her native tongue, Choctaw for this example, a Christian teacher stands her in a corner, shoves a bar of soap in her mouth then she is left there isolated in a corner for hours, frothing at the mouth from a bar of soap.

    Tongue lashings were common. Beatings were common. Racism was common. Teachers treated Indian children like filthy animals, less than animals actually. Many of those children died, many were killed, none were returned to their parents nor homes for a decade or more.

    This ripping of Indian families apart by Christians is not this long back. There are still some, a few American Indians alive today who suffered Indian boarding schools. They are very old and their memories are long; their memories are our memories and their memories will become memories of our children. We have let go but we will never forget.

    White Christians, zealous Christians, do not share this history of my peoples. Those memories of ours are not in your minds, are not your memories. White Christians typically have little knowledge of this danger Christianity presents, white Christians almost never think of past horrors. Traditional Indians like me, we think of the past on a daily basis. This is our obligation to our ancestors to never forget and to teach our children of our history and of our ways.

    More succinct, Christians, regardless of skin color, are clueless.

    Each of you who demand Christianity become mainstream within our government, you serve to remind me of my Choctaw elders teaching me valuable lessons and teaching me moral lessons. Some of those lessons include, “Always fight against religion being forced upon us.”

    I am fighting now. I am telling you forcing Christianity upon America will have me, my family and a million American Indians up in arms. You do not want us traditional American Indians warring against you; my peoples have learned a lot from the genocide. This time, we will win through peaceful means.

    You Christians have learned little from your genocide effected against my peoples. You still demand we all submit to Christianity. This is not in keeping with God’s word. You are not Christians, you are petty tyrants looking to impose theocratic tyranny upon our America.

    What I write here is a harsh truth. This is up to you to accept truth, or deny truth. This is up to you to be patriotic Americans, or to be petty tyrants using God’s name in vain.

    Okpulot Taha
    Choctaw Nation

    Report Post »  
    • Richard
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 4:18am

      I am sorry sister, You outrageous opinion is not based on truth but a heresay, Your Tribalism ideas are just that ideology looking for someone to blame when you are just as wicked and sinful as every other human, and being Choctaw you should know better as I have many a friend who are Choctaw who believe of their own free grace in the Creator Yahweh, not by tactics you proclaim which is utter nonsense, Christians were not the reason of forcing their religion on you or my tribe Chippawa, Not whites, or blacks, or latins, or whatever just nominal tyrants of the same human race who did not live for the Gospel or for any morality for that matter…if you truly did your history instead of clinging to Tribalism fables or your racial hatred, you will see that even your own tribe did this to other tribes forcing your will on others WE ALL DID, Just like my ancestry did to other tribes…..

      But you can continue as an enemy of GOD and will not win because you are fighting HIM alone, either way you will answer to HIM…

      America was truly found on Moral Godly principals and if you ever read the Bible let say the New Testament the book of John you truly will see a different story which is 100% truth…..So quit playing the tribal game and get along with the rest of the HUMAN race….you are a HUMAN first who is of the ONE and only TRIBE of HUMANS…we all have the same SINFUL father, who is the original REDMAN even HIS name means REDMAN, ADAM….look it up angry soul and see the truth…..

      Romans 1:20
      For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

      Report Post » LION4JESUS  
    • Okpulot Taha
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 4:39am

      RICHARD looks to stir up trouble, “I am sorry sister”

      No, you are not. You are a simple minded boy looking to initiate acrimonious argument. This is rather silly of you to believe you can fool a person who is clearly your intellectual superior.

      Okpulot Taha
      Choctaw Nation

      Report Post »  
    • snowleopard3200
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 6:08am

      @Okpulot Taha

      I too have heard stories of such schools attempting to destory the native cultures by force, and my grandfather told me extensive examples backed with written letters by family friends of those times. Other friends I have, by far older and more knowable about these events explain about the ‘schools’ in the Americas and other lands about the world.

      I am not going to deny the history of abuses by christianity, nor will I deny the good that has also occured in the same history.

      All I will is state this – I attempt to fight these abuses where and when discovered, and encourage the body of christianity to remember that it is by the works and deeds we do, along with HOW we do them that shows the true spirit of Christ and God in us individually.

      Thanks again Okpulot Taha for the reminde of history so we may remember and strive to not make the same mistakes and damage again.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Okpulot Taha
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 3:26pm

      SNOW LEOPARD 3200 comments, “remember and strive to not make the same mistakes and damage again.”

      Yes, we Americans must keep government, municipal to federal, faith sterile. Our system of government is based upon laws, impartial faith free laws which are to be applied equally.

      We would never allow our nation to be ruled by the Koran. We are never to allow our nation to be ruled by the Bible. Should we allow a religion to rule our nation, we are no longer a free peoples. Keeping religion out of government is not an affront to religion. Maintaining separation of church and state does not prevent faith, does not attack the church nor forbid practice of faith. Our American government is not a threat to any religion. However, religion is a threat to our government and is a dire threat to our freedoms.

      We only need to look at Islamic nations to painfully know what will happen when a religion rules.

      Again, I will write this was stupid of Ken Buck to bring up separation of church and state. He has a right to free speech, a right to faith, and he has a right to not be stupid. Christine O’Donnell made the same mistake, sometimes Sarah Palin makes this mistake. Many people do, including here at the Blaze; zealous faithful abound.

      Returning to strict politics, a savvy politician knows to sidestep certain issues. One of those issues is religion. During a campaign this is critically important to not stir up controversy, to not provide fodder for opposition to use as ammunition. Ken Buck behaved “stupidly” as Obama would say.

      This is clear left liberals are lying about Ken Buck. Equally clear, right conservatives do the same. This lying is not exclusive to left liberals. Virtually all politicians are liars, to a measured degree.

      Whether a politician is godless left liberal or a faithful right conservative, my expectation is either will be truthful with us, and I expect politicians to display good common sense. My expectations are rarely met.

      Opening this religious can of worms is not good common sense, nor is left liberals and right conservatives constantly lying to us a display of good common sense.

      Seems today we elect a politician who proves to be the best liar. This is senseless.

      We must keep religion out of government, we must keep government out of religion and, above all, we must return truth as a foundation of our nation.

      Your truthful common sense words, Snow Leopard, are sincerely appreciated.

      Okpulot Taha
      Choctaw Nation

      Report Post »  
    • OBAMAWORSHIOER
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 4:31pm

      Thank youy for helping my attempts at misdirection. Did you accept our odfer? We need more Native Americans to help scalp these Christian “patriots” when the time comes.

      Report Post »  
    • OBAMAWORSHIOER
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 4:37pm

      Taha, I LOVE your violenet revolutionary spirt. We need you to join us serving the Prince of Darkness. We are winning. The door won’t remaqin open very much longer.

      Report Post »  
  • mzmaj7
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 3:40am

    Lest we forget, Thomas Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention.

    Nor was he a fan of the idea of the Constitution.

    Report Post »  
  • phil1765
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 3:31am

    why is it that progressives could care less about the constitution unless they think that it will further their cause? They don’t even know what is and isnt in it because they think that you can just make it up as you go along. Sorry progressives but that is no way to run a railroad.

    Report Post »  
  • Zombee
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:28am

    The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a “wall of separation” between the church and the state (James Madison said it “drew a line,” but it is Jefferson’s term that sticks with us today). The phrase is commonly thought to mean that the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion. Liberal progressives have incorrectly used this statement to misrepresent Amendment 1 of The U.S. Constitution.

    When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes.
    There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no “Church of the United States.” The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion. Thomas Jefferson’s famous “wall of separation” between church and state comment was made in a letter to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802 in Danbury, Connecticut, who feared the Congregationalists Church would become the state-sponsored religion. Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. It was never intended for our governing bodies to be “separated” from Christianity and its principles.

    The anti-Christian Socialist liberals want to achieve a new, Godless America where our children will be protected from outmoded Christian ideas and will enjoy freedom “from” religion – not freedom “of” religion.

    Socialists throughout our government have made it clear that the foundations, the roots that have undergirded this nation are no longer considered valid.
    “We are redefining in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning.” – President Bill Clinton, Nov. 8, 1997

    Report Post » Zombee  
    • Okpulot Taha
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:57am

      ZOMBEE comments, “enjoy freedom ‘from’ religion”

      I am a child of genocide. Last time Christians seriously meddled in government, tens of millions of my ancestors were horrifically slaughtered over four-hundred years. For a full four-hundred years Christians slaughtered a peoples in the name of God, in the name of America.

      Our American Indian genocide is not an isolated case, is not the only example of Christians slaughtering cultures. Nonetheless, this American Indian genocide is more than enough reason to always keep religion out of government, and to keep government out of religion.

      This demand of zealous Christians to replace our constitution with the Bible borders on treason. This type of religious extremism has only one intent; to undermine and collapse our government.

      In this sense, zealous Christians are enemies of the state not much different than zealous Muslims.

      Okpulot Taha
      Choctaw Nation

      Report Post »  
    • kontrarian
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 3:15am

      The Constitution uses language that is forthright and clear, and is unambiguous to all except those wishing to destroy it.

      Report Post »  
    • AzDebi
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 3:17am

      Very good!

      Report Post » AzDebi  
  • Okpulot Taha
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:25am

    Some thoughts on this issue. While this is annoyingly clear left liberals are spinning this incident to have Ken Buck look bad, I must comment this was not smart of Ken Buck to address this issue of separation of church and state. This issue is a political kiss of death much is this issue of abortion. Savvy politicians know to stay clear of these types of issues.

    Separation of church and state, a “wall” between religion and government, is a well established legal precedent spanning centuries by courts from state to appeal to our Supreme Court. This separation of church and state is a law of our land and is to be respected.

    This wall must be maintained or America will fall to theocratic tyranny much like Islamic nations. Government is to never be allowed to meddle in religion and we are to never allow religion to meddle in government; either will destroy our nation.

    Only issue here is Ken Buck opening a can of worms, and he should know better.

    Okpulot Taha
    Choctaw Nation

    Report Post »  
  • aeronut44
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:16am

    I had a teacher that would always say, “The 1st amendment is there to protect religion from the govt, not protect govt from religion…” He was a wise man and I am surprised that he is still teaching after all these years standing up for morality and his love for God. Good ol’ mister Wilson.

    Report Post » aeronut44  
  • Hub City Progressive
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:14am

    As the first Amendment states in our Constitution in regards to religion that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” it is based on the premise that the separation of church and state is, and always has been, a founding cornerstone for which we established this Republic. As outlined in the original proposed amendment by the Virginia Ratification Convention on June 27, 1788, primarily authored by James Madison, this is based on the principle “that religion, or the duty that we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others.”

    We the people wish to reinforce this existing principle, as worded in the Treaty of Tripoli, approved by unanimous consent of the United States Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed into law by President John Adams, stating that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;” and expressed in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802, calling the 1st Amendment a “wall of separation between church and state.”

    Those of you who question the separation of church and state would disagree with the founding fathers themselves. But, that seems to be the MO of the Republican Party of late. They want to “get back to the Constitution” but “change it” all at the same time by repealing amendments. Must be difficult trying to get your story straight. Oh, but you don’t even have to do that. Just let Fox spin it for ya! They are good at it.

    Arch.

    Report Post » Hub City Progressive  
    • OBAMAWORSHIOER
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 4:43pm

      I really love this debate. It’s taking baway from your calling, emailing and walking your precinct to get out the vote. can I join in speaking for my big boss? The Prince of Darkness. he does pay well.

      Report Post »  
  • AzDebi
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:10am

    Wonder if anyone here can tell me why it hasn’t been suggested that we form a 21st century HUAC, (House on Un-American Activities Committee)?

    I know that HUAC was renamed the Internal Security Committee and some time later it was abolished and its functions transferred to the House Judiciary Committee. This committee investigated FDR’s NEW DEAL and other Progressive Movements…

    The Majority Chairman is currently John Conyers (Michigan…need I say more) and the Minority Chairman is Lamar Smith (Texas…I don’t know anything about him)…There are 23 Democrats and 16 Republicans currently on the committee (on the Majority side are people like Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters, Luis Gutierrez, Anthony Weiner…need I say more?)…

    If we know that the committee is full of COMMUNISTS…then HOW ON EARTH CAN WE EXPECT THEM TO ROOT OUT SUBVERSIVE ELEMENTS ATTACKING AND DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION…(makes my head want to explode)…..

    What does this have to do with the separation of Church and State? Well, correct me if I’m wrong here, but since God has been banned from Washington DC, and the fact that we know that Communists refuse to acknowledge God in their government, AND SINCE WE NOW HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO REFUSES TO SAY THE NAME “GOD”…why on earth have we accepted COMMUNISTS in our government at all? I KNOW…THEY WERE ELECTED BY “WE THE PEOPLE”…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Z5aYU6×0o&feature=player_embedded

    (around 2 minutes into the video you will hear the speaker saying the Pledge of Allegiance and deliberately leaving out “under God”…)

    SO WHY CAN’T WE GET OUR REPRESENTATIVES TO FORM A NEW HUAC BECAUSE THE CURRENT COMMITTEE IS OBVIOUSLY CORRUPT?!?

    Report Post » AzDebi  
  • Jimmers46
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:09am

    We do have a Muslim in the white house, The Democrat Party has always been the party of Treason,since Jackson. People who don’t believe in God will say and do anything to deny Him!!

    Report Post »  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 3:34am

      He smokes, he drinks, he married a Christian and he takes his children to services in Christian chuches – If he’s a Muslim, he’s the worst, most backsliding Muslim ever!

      Report Post »  
    • snowleopard3200
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 5:59am

      I will disagree with you on the point of Mr Obama being a muslum, he is not one totally. What he is about is a person whos convictions have perverted his religious outlook with a extremist movement in order to bring about the perversion of the very society that has guaranteed the right to hold these beliefs and convictions he has.

      He is a radical, extremist, and his deeds are darkness incarnate. To him, his purpose is to make a nation based upon Collective Salvation, where either all are ‘saved’ as a group, or ‘lost’ as a group, and therefore the ‘group’ must be properly directed by him.

      He fails to comprehend that Americans DO NOT want it; salvation is of the individual; and that his course is turning our freedoms into a communist-marxist-socialist state.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • abc
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:07am

    Scalia is regarded as perhaps the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court, and his fidelity to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution is well known. However, in Heller, Scalia explained that the use of founding father’s writings can and should be used to illuminate the intended meaning of phrases in the Constitution. Because Jefferson was an author of the document, his opinion on what was intended by the juxtaposition of the religious free expression and establishment clauses is actually quite important. According to Scalia’s way of thinking, which is what conservatives claim to be stubbornly committed to (i.e., originalist interpretation), Buck’s opinion should carry no weight, while Jefferson’s should carry controlling authority. It is beyond hypocritical for conservatives to defend Buck’s critique of the IDEA (not the text) of a separation between church and state, since that idea is clearly articulated by Jefferson–not to mention by other framers, such as Adams–in exactly this way. It goes to show that conservatives are only in favor of originalist interpretation when it results in rulings that they want. Otherwise, they are at least as supportive of more creative interpretations to get what they want in whatever way they can get it.

    Report Post »  
    • bullcrapbuster
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:17am

      yada yada yada yada, sober up and try again.lol

      Report Post » bullcrapbuster  
    • aeronut44
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:19am

      Can u explain why Jefferson attended chapel INSIDE the Capital along with all the other founding fathers?

      Report Post » aeronut44  
    • Miami
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:40am

      Now you are funny

      So you don’t follow the Constitution but love letters a other writings.

      Well by that logic we can take the writings of Charles Dickens, say the being of Great Expectations, the body Tale of Two Cities and the end of Oliver Twist.

      Needless to say you’re pointless

      Report Post » Miami  
    • joseph Fawcett
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 3:35am

      It is my understanding, (I am not an educated man in these matters) that if you read the letter by Jefferson and not just the phrase, then you will understand clearly that he never meant to have the church seperated out of the public life of the people by the Goverment or even the people in the Goverment. He meant that the Goverment should not get involve in religion. The Goverment is not allowed to tell us where, when, and how to pray. However, goverment has breached that wall of seperation it self by telling us that we can not pray in schools, public events, and on goverment property. The goverment wants to take our religion out of our public lives and sanitize them of God. This is not what Jefferson meant at all nor did any of the founding fathers either.

      http://www.josephfawcettart.com western artist

      Report Post » joseph Fawcett  
    • svan71
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 8:16am

      Jefferson’s opinions are not the law of the land just like liberal judges you agree with do not make law.The constitution is what it is and it is not breathing .

      Report Post » svan71  
    • GradeAAmerican
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 8:21am

      That explains why Jefferson attended Church that was held in the Capital on Sundays.

      Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 12:45pm

      Svan, actually, if you go read Scalia’s Heller opinion, you will find his most specific explanation of what it means to do an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. And you will find Scalia arguing that the explanations of the founding fathers for their phraseology and original intent are amongst the most important pieces of evidence that a legal scholar–in Scalia’s camp–would use. To disregard Jefferson’s letter, as many conservatives have done, is clearly a mistake. Now I‘m sure Scalia will come up with a clever excuse or theory to explain why it doesn’t really mean what the words “separation of church and state” would imply, but either way, the fact that Jefferson went to church or put it in a letter as opposed to the Congressional record are, according to Scalia’s own explanation of conservative Constitutional analysis, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. If Scalia is after procedural integrity, then he (and all the conservatives out there) ought to follow it even when it produces outcomes they do not like. That is the difference between principle and politics.

      Report Post »  
    • Decade of Greed
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 4:23pm

      Dearest ABC
      Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists is where the term “wall of separation between…” originated.
      It was in the context of reassuring them that they could practice their religion free of interference from our federal government. The “separation” that Jefferson refers to doesn’t exsist as a way to protect public places from religious practices, but rather to protect religious practices from an intrusive government. It was never to be interpreted as a way to keep prayer out of schools, crosses from being displayed on war memorials or manger scenes out of public parks. Don’t quote Scalia like you have the slightest incling or what you are talking about.

      Report Post »  
    • OBAMAWORSHIOER
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 4:40pm

      ABC, glad to see you back to help me. I was taking a lot of personal attack. It’s good you will get some of that. BTW, since joining us, have you yet be introduced to Soros? I told my bosses how articulate you are and sent them some of your posts. They were very impressed. They indicated they were willing to pay you over $100K to join our team. Looks like you took up the offer?

      Report Post »  
  • AChristian
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:56am

    It could be that the idea was to keep the state( Government) out of schools & out of Churches. There is more evidence for keeping the state out of schools & churches than there is for seperating the church out of the state.

    In Fact all evidence points to seperating the STATE (GOVERNMENT) out of the Church. The SCOTUS has been bass-akwards in their interperetation ( spin) from the beginning.

    Buck & O’donnell are right.

    Report Post »  
  • Mizpah55
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:39am

    Ken Buck is correct! The problem is that too many of these people on the left were educated in government run schools where they were dumbed down like our children are being dumbed down and our grandchildren will be dumbed down. Fits right into the Progressive movement doesn’t it? Dumb! Dumb! Dummy liberal media!!!

    Report Post » Mizpah55  
  • ...............R..U..Kidding...Me
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:37am

    Groups should “ peaceably assemble” on their front yards Christmas morning and “exercise their Freedom of Religon”. To celebrate Christmas or any other relegious holiday should be considered Free Speech.

    Report Post »  
    • Diamondback
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:16pm

      “… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”

      So, if I’m in office, I can STILL PRACTICE MY RELIGION!

      There is NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE period. The federal government only is enjoined from establishing a government sanctioned religion (e.g. Church of England/America) and requiring the citizens to belong.

      There’s no grounds whatsoever for prohibiting students their right to exercise their religion on school grounds or anywhere else. The federal government cannot even “make a law” “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

      Initially, the restrictions were only on the Federal Government but, through the “Incorporation Doctrine” (which is nothing less than legal quackery) the Supreme Court extended the restrictions of the First Amendment against the states and local governments too. So, neither states nor local governments can legitimately “make law” “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

      I realize some courts have ruled differently than what I have said and THAT IS ONLY ONE OF THE PROBLEMS!

      America desperately needs SIGNIFICANT reform of the Judiciary and the so-called Justice Department.

      Report Post »  
  • capitalismrocks
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:36am

    “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Establishment of religion
    Main article: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

    The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) incorporated certain select provisions. However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.”[2]
    Free exercise of religion

    This main article even clearly states:
    non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion

    Nowhere does it state clearly that “There must be no religion in any Federally owned or controlled schools, buildings, judiciary, property, etc…”

    In fact:
    no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    So the govt in fact CANNOT prohibit religion or the free exercise thereof, right there in black & white, in our very Constitutional Laws…. This means schools can’t deny a minute of silence or the right for an after school club to be a religious one, or the 10 Commandments on state property, or a cross (so long as if a Star of David if requested, is also posted) in a cemetary of fallen soldiers and so forth…

    It is time, once and for all to crush this fake, not in law Separation crap, it doesn’t exist, except at the ACLU and the MSM crowds, for the rest of us living in the real world, the truth is, we have a God given right to NOT have religion kept from our day to day lives, so long as we don’t allow religion to run the country, nor our govt, we are NOT a theology.

    Report Post » capitalismrocks  
    • Miami
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:28am

      Very true

      Report Post » Miami  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 3:29am

      I’m with you except for displaying the ten commandments in public buildings. That strikes me as showing a preference for religion over irreligion. Some have argued that it is a historical basis for our legal system, but I don’t buy this since the only ones that actually are or should be laws are the prohibitions against stealing and murder, which have always been part of pretty much every religion and every legal system.

      Report Post »  
    • faires
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 6:09pm

      Hear, Hear!!!

      Report Post » faires  
  • NOTWGal
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:35am

    Sorry HuffPo, I’m from Colorado and voting for Buck.

    Report Post » NOTWGal  
    • kapcolo
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 9:58am

      ME TOO! I sent Bennett multiple emails and phone calls and even a letter before all the big boondoggle votes of the last two years and told him I would make it my personal mission in life to see him lose re-election if he voted for any of those big money disasters. I have written letters to all the major papers in Colorado and have been canvassing for Buck since. He deserves to lose and lose big for burying us in debt to placate his progressive puppet masters.

      Report Post »  
    • kontrarian
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 11:30am

      I hope you Coloradans are keeping a sharp eye out for voter fraud.

      Report Post »  
  • Midwest Belle
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:32am

    The separation between Church & State is often misused and misquoted.

    This is the entire first amendment: (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    It quite literally means that Congress shall not establish a [state] religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion. This does not say a religious article can not be displayed on State property (such as a Nativity at Christmas), because the “state” is not establishing a religion by allowing it’s display. This includes ANY religious article, Christian, Jewish or otherwise.
    In a letter in response to a religious group, Thomas Jefferson wrote this: (and THIS is where the concept of “separation between Church & State” originated)

    “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

    The full text of Thomas Jefferson’s letter is at this URL (bottom of the page)
    http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

    The letter to which he as replying is found here:
    http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/baptist.htm

    Report Post » Midwest Blonde  
  • libertarian8586
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:28am

    This is rediculous! They love a letter sent by jefferson but they dont respect almost any of the rest of the actual constitution. They dont read the Federalist papers or any of the words of these GREAT men. They pick and choose a few and spin them like crazy to fit their agenda. They know almost nothing about our founders, freedom, liberty or the way this FEDERAL government was intended to work and be restrained.

    Report Post »  
  • PatriotComeLately
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:14am

    Perfectly put Mr. Seidl, time to stop this nonsense about the separation of church and state. It is not in the Constitution, nor in the Bill of Rights, and Jefferson’s comment has been twisted way out of context by progressive activist judges. Time to reset the bar.

    Report Post » PatriotComeLately  
  • TwoMinuteMan
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:12am

    “Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

    Nope. No mention of the SEPARATION of the church and state. Just that Congress cant make a law that establishes a religion or prohibit the FREE EXERCISE thereof.

    The white house CAN have a CHRISTMAS tree and celebrate kwanza (sp) or any of the jewish holidays they see fit.

    They also CANT tell YOU what NOT to say or put in a LAW or where you can pray.

    Report Post » TwoMinuteMan  
    • CatB
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:18am

      VERY well stated …thank you.

      Report Post »  
    • NoName22
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:45am

      The White House just finished celebrating Ramahdan.

      Report Post »  
    • joseph Fawcett
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 3:18am

      I agree very well stated, I agree 100%, Thanks!

      http://www.josephfawcettart.com western artist

      Report Post » joseph Fawcett  
    • snowleopard3200
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 5:49am

      Agree.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • TwoMinuteMan
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 9:28am

      This Idea that we have to pussyfoot around the use of “God” in legislature or national songs is insane. The founding fathers were a lot of things but godless heathens, or Athiests is not one of them.

      America can not stand without the blessings of God and the Progressive Left knows this. They constantly seek to separate America from religion because they know it is a major step in destroying us.

      Report Post » TwoMinuteMan  
    • OBAMAWORSHIOER
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 4:46pm

      Sure is nice having somewhat pat you on the back and say I AGREE. That’s fine with me as long as you spend time talking to each other while our Progressive memebrs are making telephone calls, sending in BIG dobations and walking their precincts. I will encoruage you to continue. Then on Nov 3rd, you will liekly hear from me no more.

      Report Post »  
  • svan71
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:10am

    why are we surprised? God was kicked out of schools 40 years ago,using the same argument.

    Report Post » svan71  
  • FreedomOfSpeech
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:07am

    It may be Christianity that saves us from the threat of communism.

    Obama is now burning books like the Nazis did.

    Report Post » FreedomOfSpeech  
    • Exrepublisheep
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:58am

      Freedom of speech. Correct! But remember the Bible, Revelations especially, the world goes insane, crazier and crazier all the time, until Armageddon. Also in reference to the seperation of church and state, what would happen if there really WAS a Muslim as the president? Then you’d be yelling that the founders only believed in a Christian state. We are Christians now and I hope it stays that way, but out, the chief bad-guy is on the move!

      Report Post » Exrepublisheep  
    • snowleopard3200
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 4:28am

      Christianity is built upon a freedom of choice, of conviction and of ideals/beliefs; centered upon it is the moral code of the commandments of God, and shown in the life of Lord Jesus. So, yes, to me christianity does provide a roadmap to a Republic.

      What will save this country from the tyrany of Socialist-Marxist-Communist governments or becoming one, is the power and freedom of the choices an INDIVIDUAL may make. Instead of the needs of the collective being considered over the individual (as in ‘you will speak this way, or else comrad’) it is the freedom to express oneself and pursue the individual dreams that provides freedom over tyrany.

      Yes there has to be order to a society, even the bible shows that is true, yet the true balance between the forces of anarchy and tyrany can only come via the choices of the individual free to do so, and balanced with the guidance, love, mercy, and grace of the Almighty.

      http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm (mix art)

      Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • StonyBurk
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 9:32am

      I’ve read some of Jeffersons writings. I’ve read Joseph Story, and some Thomas M. Cooley, and the US
      Constitution . And Eidsmoe, and Dreisbeck ,and Bork, I’ve read the debates in Congress,1789, and
      Philip Hamburger, and more– and for the life of me I cannot agree that there is any Constitutional
      prohibition against the government encouraging or endorsing Christianity.As the Congressional Records
      1853-1854 when the Judiciary Committee Reports investigated Chaplains they rightly declared the intent of the framers. And they were not hostile,nor neutral to Christianity but set aside Sunday, and allowed for Congressional/ Presidential set asides of national days for fasting ,prayer, and humiliation.
      But we were the United State of America, then a Christian nation.The enemy of Religion and Morality and this nation have attacked the pillars of our society.And are not my friend.

      Report Post »  
    • HKS
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 12:43pm

      I think we need to get some language more clear to everyone. Commies try to use other creative words to describe themselves but truth of the matter is their still commies. I am personally not going to play their word game. I won’t use terms like progressive, socialist and the like. THEIR COMMIES………………..

      Report Post » HKS  
  • kontrarian
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:07am

    Is one required to have an IQ roughly equivalent to one’s age or be deranged to be a Regressive?! lol

    Report Post »  
    • SteveSD
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:49am

      No. Your height. In meters ;)

      Report Post »  
    • Miami
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:21am

      Are you funny…?

      No wait I know the answer

      NO

      You’re not

      Report Post » Miami  
    • kontrarian
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 4:51am

      Miami: You’re right, that was a sophomoric and utterly un-funny comment.

      Report Post »  
    • GradeAAmerican
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 8:08am

      Does one even need a brain to be a progressive???? You sure don’t need to understand History!

      Report Post »  
  • FIRED UP FREE MAN !
    Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:07am

    Are you free or are you not? After fighting the communists from Berlin to Vietnam, Korea to Afghanistan, and all around the world spending our blood our youth and our treasure for another people, how is it we have allowed Communism in the ranks of the Democrats. Are the Democrats so desperate for power they would associate with traitors, indeed welcome them with open arms? Forming organizations with tax payer money with the sole purpose of overthrowing the constitution forcing us to pay for our own destruction? We have got to get rid of this lose money! It’s time to turn our government back into the institution it was meant to be, not some weird kind of ATM machine. If you are a communist you are by definition ineligible to take any oath of office because no communist can say the oath with a straight face knowing that ultimately because of your beliefs, you wish the destruction of the constitution and our American way of life

    Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, How many DEAD at their own hands of their own kind? Where ever you find Communism/Democrats a stack of body’s is not far off! Are we next?

    Visit our Facebook page if YOU are also FIRED UP

    http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=16013&id=118250461570054#!/

    http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=16013&id=118250461570054#!/pages/Fired-UP-Free-MAN/118250461570054

    Report Post » FIRED UP FREE MAN !  
    • Miami
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:18am

      LONGLEGGEDMACKDADDY

      Either you can’t spell or you brain is skipping

      Either way up the meds

      Report Post » Miami  
    • snowleopard3200
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:42am

      The Gotcha indeed belongs to Mr Buck, for the Progressives reveal his ENTIRE statement in the same time that they deliberately take one small section and attempt to twist it all about. If I understand the comments Mr Buck has made, he is empahtically clear about there being no state sponsored religion (such as a theocracy or where one religion is tolerated to the demise of all the others – so long as the party line is towed)

      He does seem to indicate there are times and places where the religion and government may be able to WORK togeather to achieve a objective; as I could see being co-ordinated after such a natural disaster as Katrina type hurricanes or large scale quakes and volcanic eruptions.

      So there is at specific times a place for both viewpoints, and also the the government should not be able to tell people HOW to worship, or to interfear with their right to worship or not worship as they see fit – an example are the former “Blue Laws” some states have or had on their books.

      http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm (mix art)

      Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • solaveritas
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 3:10am

      Because the Constitution keeps the Government out of church business, and because the Constitution keeps the Government from forming a national religion, does NOT mean that God is to be kept out of the government.

      Straight up? This is a very serious battle of semantics. The left wants us to accept the phrase “separation of church and state”. When we do (we won’t), THEN they will work hard to make it mean what THEY want it to mean.

      We need to fight this battle hard and not give up. Stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Insist that the left speak using the exact words of the Constitution. We must deny them any opportunity to “redefine by rephrasing”.

      Report Post » solaveritas  
    • Robert W
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 3:33am

      Can anyone translate into english longlegmackdaddy?

      Report Post »  
    • snowleopard3200
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 4:32am

      Consider this for the seperation of church and state. Look to the history of Europe over its long span and you can find examples of where the church controlled almost totally the politics of the land – the papacy had at one time declared to have the authority to depose kings and princes when they wished, and to the other extreme where the papacy was controlled by nobility from France and Italy – there was three seperate popes at one time – each with seperate sponsors vying for power.

      These are the true dangers of a theocracy government enforcing its views upon the people without any check against it; along with the dangers of a government enforced religious system crammed down the throats of the people of the land.

      This is one lesson of history to be thought upon.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • AmericanPatriot01
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 4:59am

      The phrase itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, although the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” EXECT WORDING. keeping government out of religion, not visa versa.

      It has nothing about having religion involved in government. IN FACT, the founders relied on the people being religious in order to govern themselves (giving them morals) There is not and has never been any law saying that religion cannot or should not have anything to do with government. On the contrary it was the religion that was the highest law of the land governing the individual, the government was for national matters of defense and general welfare (not the “welfare checks” for poor folks as we associate that statement today)

      Report Post » AmericanPatriot01  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 5:46am

      Last year the WH holiday tree was a wonderful display of the separation of Church and State. Mao and Obama ornaments graced the tree. No reminders of Christianity, thankfully. This year ornaments of Obama and any other tyrant would be warmly welcomed by We the People of the United States. I look forward to our Dear Leader’s zealous adherence to the separation of Church and State during the upcoming religious celebrations, when temptations to overlook the dictates of the Constitution abound. Let us all equally uphold the tenets upon which our Republic was founded. Long live state atheism! All hail Oba– heck, NO! All hail Jesus!

      Report Post »  
    • DeketheGeek
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 6:56am

      Liberals only complain about the separation of church and state when it comes to Christianity. Does anyone think Obama would have been as vocal about someone building a church if it hadn’t been a mosque? I‘m not saying he’s Muslim, I’m simply saying Christianity is what they want to eliminate. Juan Williams was fired because he dared to speak his mind about Islam.

      Read more…

      http://dekesdailyvent.blogspot.com/

      Report Post »  
    • Marcobob69
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 8:17am

      It’s like Beck said last night, the Democratic Party has been absorbed by the Progressives. The Progressives need to be eliminated, but the problem is there are Progressives infiltrating the GOP also. I believe if you “cut-off the head, the body will die”, so eliminate their funding and that should take care of the problem. And we all know the source of most of their funding(think SPOOKY DOOD)!!!

      Report Post »  
    • grandmaof5
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 8:18am

      Robert W, no but he is probably closely related to the 23 year old dimwit in Kentucky, if not genetically then by paycheck.

      Report Post »  
    • Hugh Williams
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 10:26am

      LONGLEGGEDMACKDADDY
      I could understand your post better if you used English. I am sorry but I did not recognize the language you are using.

      Report Post » Hugh Williams  
    • ReaganerThanThou
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 11:05am

      This debate is truly getting SO OLD. Liberals are completely disingenuous when they say the constitution declares a wall of separation between government and state. They know perfectly well that Jefferson was saying that it was not the government’s responsibility to enact policies that favor one religious denomination over the other.

      Hey, Progressives, STOP FIGHTING THAT GOD YOU SAY YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • HKS
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 12:36pm

      As soon as we get the commies out of government, we can move on to putting things back into order the it’s suppose to be. Commies beware.

      Report Post » HKS  
    • Beckofile
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 1:49pm

      Beck had it on his chalk board a year or so ago. The order of how rulers legitamate their power.
      Pre 1776= God-King-People
      Post 1776=God-People-Government
      Now =Planet-Government- People

      If the progressives can exclude God and replace with Planet then you will get your rights from the government and not your creator? Separate you from God and replace with new Eco/Green planet religion and whamo, they have reordered back to the rule of man over man. Control and Power.

      Report Post » Beckofile  
    • orkydorky
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:03pm

      The Constitution actually allows for the state to embrace religion, but all religions and does not allow for an endorsement of a particular religion. The taking away of Christmas is quite frankly against the Constitution. How law can be construed by use of the Jefferson letters and not the constitution is beyond me and a far, far reaching government! The progressives can stick their winter holiday where the sun don’t shine, I’ll celebrate and say Merry Christmas and have a Christmas tree whether the government likes it or not! The politically correct can kiss my a-s and I’ll turn the other cheek.

      Report Post » orkydorky  
    • Ken
      Posted on October 27, 2010 at 2:33pm

      I would ask Mrs. Cleaver for a translation of LONGLEGGEDMACKDADDY’s post, but sadly, she’s dead.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love