Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

American Heroes

Peggy Noonan’s article today (about which I blogged below) was so good that I had to re-read it--a couple of times. Doing that reminded me of something or, to be more accurate, of someone. Otis Earl Hawkins is about as manly a man you’ll ever want to meet. Better than that, he is a gentleman--an American gentleman. Several years ago, I helped him edit and publish this fascinating account of his exploits in war and in business. Hawkins won the silver star, the bronze star, and a purple heart for his acts of bravery during his service in the Pacific during WWII. When he recounted the story of how he earned the Silver Star, I (like Peggy Noonan in her experience) was struck by Hawkins’ refusal to consider himself a hero. He was only doing his duty, he said. He could not imagine doing less. He could not imagine that anyone else could do less. If you haven’t already got a copy, order one now. It is delightful, satisfying and instructive.

Discussions - 47 Comments

Mrs. Ponzi - Perfect! I’m happy to say that I have a copy of that book and I’ve had it signed by both Dan Quayle and Otis Hawkins himself - he actually signed it in the dairy aisle of his Wooster store! It’s a simply wonderful book - those who enjoy the section on the Ashbrook site should seek out the book.

This talk about manly heroes has reminded me of one of my favorite songs, one that American girls should keep in mind. Read the lyrics carefully. I think they’re really thoughtful and beautiful! I haven’t heard a popular song this inspiring in many years, I’m afraid.

Holding Out for a Hero


Bonnie Tyler

Where have all the good men gone


And where are all the gods?


Where’s the street-wise Hercules


To fight the rising odds?


Isn’t there a white knight upon a fiery steed?


Late at night I toss and turn and dream
of what I need

[Chorus]

I need a hero!!


I’m holding out for a hero ’til the end of the night


He’s gotta be strong


And he’s gotta be fast


And he’s gotta be fresh from the fight


I need a hero!!


I’m holding out for a hero ’til the morning light


He’s gotta be sure and it’s gotta be soon


And he’s gotta be larger than life

Somewhere after midnight


In my wildest fantasy


Somewhere just beyond my reach


There’s someone reaching back for me


Racing on the thunder and rising with the heat


It’s gonna take a superman to sweep me off my feet!

[Chorus]

Up where the mountains meet the heavens above


Out where the lightning splits the sea


I would swear that there’s someone somewhere watching me

Through the wind and the chill and the rain


And the storm and the flood


I can feel his approach


Like the fire in my blood!

I need a hero!!!

Another great column on this crisis is by Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies. It’s at today’s nationalreview.com

Sample quote:

"What we’re seeing in the streets is a naked assertion of power by outsiders against the American nation. They demand that we comply with their wishes and submit our immigration policies for their approval, and implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met. Far from being a discussion among Americans about the best way to regulate immigration, the illegal-alien marches have been marked by the will to power: ubiquitous Mexican flags, burning and other forms of contempt for the American flag, and widespread displays of blatant racial chauvinism and irredentism.

"This is precisely the same kind of challenge that aggressive outsiders are making against other parts of the West, including Muslim immigrants in Europe and, in the most extreme form, Palestinians in Israel."

I love you America Loving Mom!

I never imagined that someone could possibly work Bonnie Tyler onto NLT. AWESOME!

Do you have any daughters of marriagable age?

Randall Knife, by Guy Clark

My father had a Randall knife
My mother gave it to him
When he went off to WWII
To save us all from ruin
If you’ve ever held a Randall knife
Then you know my father well
If a better blade was ever made
It was probably forged in hell

My father was a good man
A lawyer by his trade
And only once did I ever see
Him misuse the blade
It almost cut his thumb off
When he took it for a tool
The knife was made for darker things
And you could not bend the rules

He let me take it camping once
On a Boy Scout jamboree
And I broke a half an inch off
Trying to stick it in a tree
I hid it from him for a while
But the knife and he were one
He put it in his bottom drawer
Without a hard word one

There it slept and there it stayed
For twenty some odd years
Sort of like Excalibur
Except waiting for a tear

My father died when I was forty
And I couldn’t find a way to cry
Not because I didn’t love him
Not because he didn’t try
I’d cried for every lesser thing
Whiskey, pain and beauty
But he deserved a better tear
And I was not quite ready

So we took his ashed out to sea
And poured `em off the stern
And threw the roses in the wake
Of everything we’d learned
When we got back to the house
They asked me what I wanted
Not the lawbooks not the watch
I need the things he’s haunted

My hand burned for the Randall knife
There in the bottom drawer
And I found a tear for my father’s life
And all that it stood for


Guy Clark knows how to write a song.

For once, I agree with you Fung.

Julie, I’ll mark the date. This could be the beginning of.... who knows?


4:

Fung, you talk the macho talk this time, God knows why. But I still wouldn’t want you on my side if the Islamo-fascists invaded my town.

For someone like you to quote these lyrics rings false.

David- Sorry if I fail to adhere to your caricature of me. Frankly, Guy Clark could write limericks, and I’d listen to them.. He, too, avoids the caricature.

But, I don’t see this as a macho piece, but rather one about connection between a man and his father.

My copy of "Manliness" is on order, and I’ll read it, and maybe I’ll feel differently about the tide of man-celebrating going on here, and its association with war and warriors.

But, so far, I find it a bit silly. I value the manliness of being a good dad, a good husband, and a good human being. The rest, I find unfortunate, but sometimes necessary. Hrdly worth celebrating. At the same time, I recognize that celebrating the warrior is the only way societies can get people to put their lives on the line. Still, recognizing that, it is hard to get behind the collective preening and pilo-erecting.

David - Another point. When Christio-Fascists invade your town, your kids’ school, or your courtroom, you might very well appreciate having me on your side. Keep it in mind. We’ll see who invades your town first.


Actually, y’all are "invading" us. I’m not a religious-right guy, but they’re still "us" to me. I cannot imagine that I would ever appreciate having you on my side, as you so confidently predict.

And please don’t call them fascists. You have no basis for it. Zero. I cannot respect someone who uses such vicious terms so easily. It means you have no respect for their rights and therefore have tyrannical impulses.

So, no thanks, Fung. I’ll take my chances with the poor folks who think abortion is wrong and that the word "Christmas" is part of normal language, not some kind of oppression.

Yowsa!

David -- Apparently, you cannot, or will not distinguish between normal, everyday practitioners of Christianity and those who would turn this country into a theocracy. I have no ill wishes against my FELLOW Christians. But, I will fight, and I DO fight, attempts on the part of theocrats to invade government, school, and home.

If you choose to buy the "War on Christmas" hooey, then too bad for you. Chase after that dangling toy, while your rights to think independently are taken from you.

Apparently, you cannot, or will not distinguish between normal, everyday practitioners of Christianity and those who would turn this country into a theocracy.

I do not know of any prominent individual who falls into the latter category, if "theocracy" is to be defined in any reasonable way. Who is advocating the elimination of our form of government in favor of rule by a priesthood? Please give me their names.

By their definition of what a theocracy is, then, we were most definately a theocracy when we were founded.

A government subject to religious authority: Schools and their curricula subject to this idiotic "intelligent design" initiative, Taxpayers subject to lawmakers and "faith-based initiatives" so that our tax dollars fund religious agendas, and DON"T fund public health activities that offend religious leaders.

12: Fung, no one on the religious right is trying to "deny the right to think indepdendently." This is just as much horse manure as your use of the term "fascist." Why don’t you get the hell off the Ashland site and post your crap on Daily KOS. Have you no respect for our privacy, for our space? Why do you have to invade us?
Get lost.

Fung, what you’re concerned about isn’t theocracy, it’s democracy. The problem for you is that people with religious convictions vote, and it’s not the way you want them to.

Also, remember that the abolitionists and most other 19th century reform movements were driven largely by religious motives. Where they trying to create a "theocracy"?

And David Frisk, with all due respect, who are you to tell Fung to get lost? I can think of a lot of leftists who comment here (actually, not so many--more like a handful of people posting under multiple names) whose contributions are a lot nastier and less constructive than Fung’s. I appreciate what he has to say, even though I disagree with 80 percent of it.

"Why don’t you get the hell off the Ashland site and post your crap on Daily KOS. Have you no respect for our privacy, for our space?"

What’s the deal, Frisk? What "privacy" are you talking about? In case you were unaware, this blog is accessible on the WORLDWIDE WEB (aka "the internet")!! It’s not a membership subscription site. ANYONE with a PC and an internet connection can read this blog. So, whatever you are writing isn’t "private" here. It’s available and accessible to the public. So, until NLT becomes a private club and a password is needed to access it, your claim to privacy is just nonsense.

Also, is your ideal of the blogosphere one in which liberals and lefties only read blogs reflecting their views and conservatives and righties only read blogs reflecting theirs? And ONLY people of the "appropriate" political persuasion are permitted on "their" blogs? Lovely. So, what is the acceptable range of views for any prospective visitor to NLT, in your mind? Additionally, why don’t YOU go to DailyKos and teach all those liberals and lefties a lesson or two? You’re not afraid of them, are you?

"I can think of a lot of leftists who comment here (actually, not so many--more like a handful of people posting under multiple names)" - isn’t that nice of Mr. Moser, taking over from where "Death’s Jester" left off.

John- Your point about abolition is a good one, and I will continue to think about it. My knee-jerk reaction is that religious dogma could be used to both support and challenge slavery, as is the case with most issues. The same might be true of the Terri Schiavo case, whose anniversary is about now. Frist, bush, and bush, could all be seen as elected figures doing the bidding of their religious "influences."

My problem is that a "theocracy" is different from a ’democracy" when individual votes count less than do organizations, like businesses, organized religions, and unions -- especially when (a) those organizations do not represent the best interests of the people, and(b) when those organizations have an ’unnatural" or "supernatural" hold over the people, as is the case with religion.

We have laws separating the church and the government for a good reason. Religious leaders already have a great deal of influence over peoples’ hearts and minds without merging that influence with legal and political ones.

I don’t think a democracy is the same as a theocracy, and I am convinced that there are politicians who would love to have the kind of control over this populace that we have seen in Iran, for instance.

I think that David is a good example of the kind of person who would invite the Christio-fascists in the door. He apparently supports the suppression of dissent, the separation of "us" and ’them," and the right of Christians to rule. So, as long as it is "his" religion in power, he is likely to throw the separation of church and state right out the door.

Then, when Mormons, or Methodists, or Jews put up sufficient money to buy votes via Jack Abramoff’s successors, David will be the one in the camp, wearing the stripes, and making deals with his guards.

I’m a Methodist, so I hope it is Methodists!

When was the last time any kind of religion had Talibanish control over any significant population in America? You are going to have to go back past the founding of the United States, that’s for sure.

There is just no comparison to the religious right and the Taliban type folks. One will ban dancingand public nudity of all sorts, the other will whip you or kill you for such transgressions.

We do not have laws seperating church and state. We do have laws which forbid the state from establishing a religion. They are very two different things.

Even Thomas Jefferson, who wasn’t exactly the most religious person, went to Church that was held in public buildings in Washington D.C.

Seriously, how many times do I have to tell you to stop using my moniker? Aren’t Chris L, Anna York, M.E.S., and your 2,000 other fake names sufficient without bogarting mine?

"There is just no comparison to the religious right and the Taliban type folks. One will ban dancingand public nudity of all sorts, the other will whip you or kill you for such transgressions."

Dare I ask, which is which?

Remember when that foolish kid got caned in Singapore for spray-painting a car? Do you remember how many Americans were suddenly supporting caning in the U.S.? How long do you think it would be, if the Pat Robertsons, or the (God help us!) James Dobsons of the world were able to pass and enforce laws? We’d have a federal sodomy law, parents and teachers whacking their children with boards, and the Salem Witch Trials would look like a trial run. We’d have Intelligent Design in every science class, Bill Frist in every hospital or hospice room. AND, no gambling after midnight!

Fung, what is wrong with you?

Again, show me exactly when America was ever remotely close to being like a Taliban style government.

You can’t.

That comparison is beyond the pale and I resent anyone who attempts it.

It appears you either know nothing of which you are ranting about or you are using such outlandish rhetoric in an attempt to make a point. The problem is that neither one makes you look very good.

Dear Mr. Frisk: Please don’t ask Mr. Fung to leave. I find him very entertaining. And I like his taste in music.

Whatever. Do you seriously maintain the position that you own the utterly generic title "Ohio Voter"? If you wear a green shirt to a bar do you try to pick a fight with any other fellow who dares to wear the same? Get real. And sorry, man, on the rare occasion that I visit this blog and feel like saying anything, Ohio Voter’s the only "name" I’ve ever used.

That’s really nice, "Ohio Voter," given that in the past few days you’ve commented under the names "Tim Kettering," "Craig Scanlon," "All-American American," "Frank McCoy," and "M. Wojciany."

Of course, here’s where you’re going to accuse me of being "Death’s Jester." Fine--believe whatever you want. For what it’s worth, I don’t know who he was, but he was pretty much right on the money (he did get a couple things wrong). The fact is, any of us who have posting privileges on this blog have full access to the IP addresses of everyone who comments here.

My problem is that a "theocracy" is different from a ’democracy" when individual votes count less than do organizations, like businesses, organized religions, and unions -- especially when (a) those organizations do not represent the best interests of the people, and(b) when those organizations have an ’unnatural" or "supernatural" hold over the people, as is the case with religion.

Your problem, again, is not with theocracy, but with democracy. Everything you mention here was foreseen by Madison in Federalist #10. He concluded that these were all inevitable by-products of a free, democratic society, and that the best that could be done was to provide for a limited government that could limit the effects of these things.

But my biggest objection to the "theocracy" bogeyman is that it is a way of marginalizing people of faith. I am by no means an absolutist on abortion, but the fact is that religious people oppose it not because they’re trying to impose their morality on the rest of us, but because they genuinely believe that it is murder. They raise challenging issues about the nature of human life, but rather than engage in a potentially productive conversation about this issue, abortion-rights activists dismiss them as religious zealots who really should just mind their own business. This was very much the response of southern slaveholders to the abolitionists. It was also, I’m sorry to say, the line used by many of my fellow supporters of the Iraq War to try to silence those who opposed it. It was much easier to question their patriotism than it was to deal with their legitimate concerns.

Dale - "What we have here, is a failure to communicate"

You keep referring to the past as precedent, and I keep referring to the direction in which I think certain people are trying to take us in the future. Our forefathers used to use chamber pots, but I don’t want to continue that tradition. First, you say,"

By their definition of what a theocracy is, then, we were most definately a theocracy when we were founded."

then you say,

"Again, show me exactly when America was ever remotely close to being like a Taliban style government."

Now, beyond the problem (yours, not mine) of contradicting yourself, I don’t really care about our past in this discussion. Forget the Scopes trial, for instance, and forget the historic Mormon hold over the citizens of Utah, and forget about how slow this society has been to hold pedophile priests accountable, and forget about how many tax dollars have been spent trying to keep science in public schools scientific. And forget about how many Fridays I’ve had my menu selection restricted because my Catholic friends would go to Hell if they didn’t have fried haddock on a bun.

Can you honestly say that the Bush administration is NOT more friendly than other administrations to the James Dobsons of this world, and can you honestly say that such relationships have NO bearing on the future of a government subject to religious influence?

If allowed, the religious right will make this country a hazardous place to live for gays, children, scientists, women, ethnic and religious minorities, and the people who would treat members of those groups with dignity.

Whatever you say. I guess we’ll have to take your word for it.

John - But, earlier, I said, "Apparently, you cannot, or will not distinguish between normal, everyday practitioners of Christianity and those who would turn this country into a theocracy." in comment 12.

I have every wish to avoid marginalizing people of faith. And those people should vote accoring to their faith. But, that is very different from having James Dobson in the loop about the next Supreme Court Justice, or from having a President kowtowing to the religious right by interfering with the Shiavo debacle.

Fung, I was not contradicting myself. I was using what you seem to define a theocracy as.

Our Founders believed that religion was essential to good government.

Today, it is hard for a public school band to play what may be considered to be religious music because of the threat of a lawsuit, which happened to my high school.

Fung, you are truly delusional. Even at the most restrictive, the religious control over the people in America was never near what the Taliban was like. For you to suggest that it would be so in the future is baseless. There is no one saying we should be like the Taliban or even close.

You are fighting something that is just not there.

Thank you, Julie! That’s twice, now. First, the time change, and now this.

See David? Even those who hate me like me!

I have every wish to avoid marginalizing people of faith. And those people should vote accoring to their faith. But, that is very different from having James Dobson in the loop about the next Supreme Court Justice, or from having a President kowtowing to the religious right by interfering with the Shiavo debacle.

The latter is merely an extension of the former. If large numbers of religious people vote according to their faith, and their faith leads them to believe that Terri Schiavo was a human being who possessed the right to live, then why should we be surprised when politicians--who after all have reason to be concerned about getting said votes--do things to ingratiate themselves to those voters? When liberals in Congress press for an increase in the minimum wage, aren’t they "kowtowing" to their respective interest groups?

"their faith leads them to believe that Terri Schiavo was a human being who possessed the right to live"

Yeah, except that wasn’t the full extent of what many of them were saying. Many, including Bill Frist, were saying absurd things about her chances for recovery and that she could hear, see, smile, laugh, think, etc., when in fact her brain was liquefied. I don’t know if it was their faith, but many of them believed that Terri Schiavo was experiencing the equivalent of some kind of temporary state of unconsciousness, which was simply not true. You can’t re-solidify a brain to a working state.

John, in the age of wi-fi, those IP addresses are pretty meaningless. It’s possible those are the same person, but it’s also possible that they’re different people routed through a single wi-fi source.

Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

Dale, I have not suggested that we have yet experienced a Taliban-like government. I HAVE suggeested that there are forces heading us in that direction, if they are permitted, and if they are not exposed as such. Of course, they are not likely to advertise as the "Next Taliban-like Government," and will probably find a catchier phrase, like "Focus on the Family" or "Family Values," or something like that, but there is little doubt that there is an increasingly close relationship between the leaders of fundamental religious groups (who seem to have co-opted the term "Christian" and right-wing politicians. Ralph Reed comes to mind, for instance.

To the extent that people on this blog support these developments, of course, they are going to distance themselves from characterizations like the Next Taliban," and "Theocracy," but a government that answers to religious, fundamental leaders who support the dominance of men, the separation of "good v evil" as they see it, and the advancement of religious agendas, is a theocracy.

I don’t think that we are there, yet, but we are closer than we should be.

As for the founding fathers, there have been quite a number of changes since the 18th century, and many of them have been good ones. The distancing of church and state is one of them.

John - You are blurring the distinction between the collective will of many people, and the the inordinate influence of a few people with inordinate financial resources. There is a huge difference! Otherwise, elected Republicans would be heeding the voices of the poor, and they are not. Instead, they do the bidding of the very rich, who are quite definitely NOT representative of the majority.

For the most part, the religious leaders who have the ear (or IOU) of the Bush Administration are not neighborhood ministers and priests like the ones that I might know, or like most people might know. Instead, they represent the gaudy media-centered, arena-style Pop-rock evangelistas, who are more politician than they are truly people of God.

All that you’re saying amounts to this: rich people have more influence in politics than do poor people. This is news? And isn’t that the case for any political party, in any state? When rich people like Barbra Streisand or Rob Reiner push causes for which you approve, do you complain?

Ultimately your complaint against the religious right amounts to this--you don’t like them because you disagree with them. That’s fine; truth be told, I disagree with a great deal of their agenda. Where we differ is that I see the religious right as a natural by-product of a free and democratic society. You see them as a malignant growth on the body politic. Of course you would, since you believe that such groups self-evidently "do not represent the best interests of the people." Of course, once you’ve set yourself up as one who knows people’s best interests better than they themselves do, you repeat the mantra of tyrants from time immemorial.

John - You keep blanking out the parts that you cannot answer! It is not rich people that bother me -- I hope to be one, someday. What bothers me is the unprecedented, relatively recent (since the 1980’s) marriage between the growing religious fundamentalists and the radical political right wing. To be very clear: I want religion out of government, and government out of religion. I don’t believe that the bush Administration wants the same thing. I don’t believe that most of America wants the same thing.

There have always been some fundamentalists around, but they have historically inhabited the shadowy corners of society, until, like MTV bringing sex to the homes of America’s teens, the 700 Club, and its ilk brought slimy, money-grubbing faux preachers like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, and Jimmy and Tammy Faye into the living rooms of the teens’ parents and grandparents.

Despite the fact that its authors had about as much moral authority as Jimmy Swaggart, inhabitants of "Red States" swallowed the Contract with America hooker, one-liner and sinker.

It was a profitable marriage. Bubbas who can’t understand how things got so wrong were fooled into believing that turning back the clock was possible, and that a return to Salem or Deerfield Massachussetts is all that’s needed to get right with God and with the country. Values suddenly became the buzzword, and family values became the ethereal domain of the right, despite the fact that they kept getting caught in motel rooms with someone else’s underpants on their heads.

Money, fake religion, easy answers, and political power. What’s not to like?

Fung, your argument keeps getting more and more bizarre. Here’s a link to the Contract with America. Please show me what religion has to do with that.

I would posit that the only way to keep religion out of government, and vice versa, is to prohibit religious people from voting. As I said before, it is people’s religious convictions that led them to demand the abolition of slavery (the Biblical argument for slavery was only developed in response by a defensive Southern slaveholding class), and today it leads them to oppose abortion, etc. Their religious views inform their beliefs about human nature and the nature of human existence--how can that be kept out of government?

Finally, I would argue that fewer people are taken in by people like Swaggart than you think. Where are these preachers today who were caught in compromising positions? Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker have been disgraced, and so has Swaggart. Pat Robertson isn’t far behind them, I predict. But so what? Aren’t we capable of separating what we believe from the personalities who claim to agree with us? Can’t you accept that Al Sharpton is a slimeball while still supporting affirmative action?

Fung, religion has been influential on government ever since we decided to create one.

No where in the Constitution does it state that religion can not influence.

Fung, those on the fringe are those that want all hints of religion out of government.

John- I think I wrote too fast. I only meant to suggest a marriage between the authors of the Contract and the new fundamentalists. Not that the contract itself was a religious document.

Otherwise, I think we are restating ourselves. You think I am bothered by people voting individually and informed by their faith. I am not at all bothered by that. I keep saying that I am botherered by the systematic, organized influence that is the "religious right" having an undue influence on this government; an influence that is being actively courted by bush.

Again, influence itself is perhaps a necessary evil, and I might someday benefit if, say, the ACLU gains the President’s ear. But the difference is the combination of organized religious influence and the resulting disintigration of the separation of church and state.

I’m getting involved late here, but oh well.

Fung, I think you are panicking over nothing here. It is obvious that in a democratic society, like-minded individuals join together to form interest groups, whether highly organized like AARP, unions, or the NRA, or simply in the form of voting blocs. Of course those who hold strong religious beliefs are going to push to have some of their strongest beliefs upheld by law. Law is, itself, the ultimate expression of a society’s morality. Religion is, among other things, the spiritual articulation of a certain moral code. Every nation creates laws that are guided by the morality of its citizenry, whether those laws permit slavery or ban it, permit abortion or outlaw it, advocate affirmative action or not, and those laws are influenced by the religion (or perhaps lack thereof) of the population that is governed by them. You cannot extricate politics and law from religion unless you somehow believe that law and morality have nothing to do with one another.

Furthermore, I think it is rather silly that you apparently believe that everyone who is religious holds approximately the same views on everything. Even a casual look at modern Christianity will not bear that out. Some churches actively marry homosexual couples. Some churches advocate extremely liberal economic policies toward the poor. I believe that a majority of Catholics still tend to vote Democratic. And, outside of Christianity, Jews are a traditionally Democratic group as well.

The "religious right" gets a lot of press and, given President Bush’s political views, they certainly have more influence in his White House than they would in a Kerry White House. But that does not make our current government a theocracy nor does it mean that we are on the path to one. I don’t see why a president should not ask advice from a person simply because they are a pastor or hold a degree from a seminary. The president should have a wide range of advisors and it is clear that President Bush has many, many advisors, both religious like James Dobson and non-religious like Karl Rove and Condi Rice.

You are tilting at windmills here.

The problem is the interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

Not even Thomas Jefferson , who voiced someting about a wall seperating church and state in a letter, would have thought religion should be excised totally out of government and/or the public sphere.

And, yes, looking back to those came before us is a good thing and their notions are still valid for the 21st century.

Those that say otherwise are fools. (Before one goes on a tangent about slavery or other such things, I realize that not everything they held applied, but that does not mean we should eschew everything form them. If that were the case, why even are we still propping up the very country they founded?)

Man how do you think Thomas Jefferson thought about the signing of the Declaration of Indepence ; through all of it??????? Lvu always Erika

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/8343