The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > General > General Posts

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-06-2018, 01:37 PM
HARDCORE HARDCORE is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 10,872
Distinctions
Contributor 
Question Premeditated confusion

10-6-2018

(More Personal Opinions)

Could it possibly be that at least a portion of that flood of media and political information is, in reality, naught but a purposeful misdirection that is being generated merely to confuse, befuddle or even to control?

So tell me once again, what ever happened to our ancestors of iron will and firm beliefs that were willing to fight, and even die if needs must, for that which they themselves truly believed in? Those people who analyzed input and then drew their own conclusions, and who did not merely and unquestionably follow in the oft-time misdirected footsteps of any group that has, (on occasions), behaved like a pre-programmed automaton or fool?

And as for education alone - by itself, it is still a desirable and essential asset of any well informed race of thinking beings! But never should one’s education, or even their monetary and social prowess alone, ever be confused with just good hard work, love of country, and of course - “Good Old American Common Sense!”

Hardcore Personified
__________________
"MOST PEOPLE DO NOT LACK THE STRENGTH, THEY MERELY LACK THE WILL!" (Victor Hugo)
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 10-06-2018, 03:24 PM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sauk Village, IL
Posts: 21,783
Arrow "... To Form a More Perfect Union"

The Principles of Government

Although the Constitution has changed in many aspects since it was first adopted, its basic principles remain the same now as in 1789:

— The three main branches of government — executive, legislative, judicial — are separate and distinct from one another. The powers given to each are delicately balanced by the powers of the other two. Each branch serves as a check on potential excesses of the others.

— The Constitution, together with laws passed according to its provisions and treaties entered into by the president and approved by the Senate, stands above all other laws, executive acts, and regulations.

— All persons are equal before the law and are equally entitled to its protection. All states are equal, and none can receive special treatment from the federal government. Within the limits of the Constitution, each state must recognize and respect the laws of the others. State governments, like the federal government, must be democratic in form, with final authority resting with the people.

— The people have the right to change their form of national government by legal means defined in the Constitution itself.


"... To Form a More Perfect Union"

All the states were covetous of the sovereign power they had exercised since the break with England 11 years earlier. Balancing states' rights with the needs of a central government was no easy task. The makers of the Constitution accomplished this by letting the states keep all the powers necessary to regulate the daily lives of their citizens, provided that these powers did not conflict with the needs and welfare of the nation as a whole. This division of authority, which is termed federalism, is essentially the same today. The power of each state over local affairs — in matters such as education, public health, business organization, work conditions, marriage and divorce, local taxation, and ordinary police powers — is so fully recognized and accepted that two neighboring states frequently have widely differing laws on the same subject.

Ingenious though the constitutional arrangement was, the controversy over states' rights continued to fester until, three-quarters of a century later, in 1861, a four-year war broke out between the states of the North and those of the South. The war was known as the Civil War, or the War Between the States, and the underlying issue was the right of the federal government to regulate slavery in the newer states of the Union. Northerners insisted that the federal government had such a right, while southerners held that slavery was a matter for each state to decide on its own. When a group of southern states attempted to secede from the Union, war broke out and was fought on the principle of the preservation of the republic. With the defeat of the southern states and their reentry into the Union, federal supremacy was reaffirmed and slavery abolished.

"... To Establish Justice"

The essence of American democracy is contained in the Declaration of Independence, with its ringing phrase, "All men are created equal," and the follow-up statements "that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Constitution makes no distinction as to the wealth or status of persons; all are equal before the law, and all are equally subject to judgment and punishment when they violate the law. The same holds true for civil disputes involving property, legal agreements, and business arrangements. Open access to the courts is one of the vital guarantees written into the Bill of Rights.

"... To Insure Domestic Tranquility"

The stormy birth of the United States and the unsettled conditions along the American western frontier convinced Americans of the need for internal stability to permit the new nation to grow and prosper. The federal government created by the Constitution had to be strong enough to protect the states against invasion from the outside and from strife and violence at home. No part of the continental United States has been invaded by a foreign nation since 1815. The state governments have generally been strong enough to maintain order within their own borders. But behind them stands the awesome power of the federal government, which is constitutionally empowered to take the necessary steps to preserve the peace.

"... To Provide for the Common Defense"

Even with its independence secured, the new nation faced very real dangers on many sides in the late 18th century. On the western frontier, settlers faced a constant threat from hostile Indian tribes. To the north, the British still owned Canada, whose eastern provinces were jammed with vengeful American Tories, who had remained loyal to the British Crown during the Revolutionary War. The French owned the vast Louisiana Territory in the continental midwest. To the south, the Spanish held Florida, Texas, and Mexico. All three European powers had colonies in the Caribbean Sea, within striking distance of the American coast. Moreover, the nations of Europe were embroiled in a series of wars that spilled over into the New World.

In the early years, the constitutional objective of providing a "common defense" focused on opening up the territory immediately beyond the Appalachian Mountains and negotiating a peace with the Native American tribes who inhabited the area. Within a short time, however, the outbreak of war with England in 1812, skirmishes with the Spanish in Florida, and war with Mexico in 1846 underscored the importance of military strength.

As America's economic and political power increased, its defensive strength grew. The Constitution divides the defense responsibility between the legislative and executive branches: Congress alone has the power to declare war and to appropriate funds for defense, while the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and bears primary responsibility for the defense of the country.

"... To Promote the General Welfare"

At the end of the Revolution, the United States was in a difficult economic position. Its resources were drained, its credit shaky, and its paper money was all but worthless. Commerce and industry had come to a virtual halt, and the states and the government of the confederation were deeply in debt. While the people were not in imminent danger of starving, the prospects for economic development were slim indeed.

One of the first tasks the new national government faced was to put the economy on a sound footing. The first article of the Constitution provided that: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes ... to pay the debts and provide for the ... general welfare of the United States."

The tax power enabled the government to finance its war debts and to put the currency on a firmer basis. A secretary of the treasury was appointed to look after the fiscal affairs of the nation, and a secretary of state to handle relations with other nations. Also appointed were a secretary of war to be responsible for the nation's military security, and an attorney general to act as the chief law officer of the federal government. Later, as the country expanded and the economy became more complex, the well-being of the people necessitated the creation of additional executive departments.

"... To Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity"

The emphasis on personal liberty was one of the salient features of the new American republic. Coming, as many of them had, from a background of political or religious suppression, Americans were determined to preserve freedom in the New World. The framers of the Constitution, in giving authority to the federal government, were careful to protect the rights of all persons by limiting the powers of both the national and state governments. As a result, Americans are free to move from place to place; make their own decisions about jobs, religion, and political beliefs; and go to the courts for justice and protection when they feel these rights are being infringed upon.

THE CONSTITUTION AS SUPREME LAW

The U.S. Constitution calls itself the "supreme law of the land." Courts have interpreted this clause to mean that when state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures or by the national Congress are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, these laws have no force. Decisions handed down by the Supreme Court over the course of two centuries have confirmed and strengthened this doctrine of constitutional supremacy.

Final authority is vested in the American people, who can change the fundamental law, if they wish, by amending the Constitution or — in theory, at least — drafting a new one. The people do not exercise their authority directly, however. They delegate the day-to-day business of government to public officials, both elected and appointed.

The power of public officials is limited under the Constitution. Their public actions must conform to the Constitution and to the laws made in accordance with the Constitution. Elected officials must stand for re-election at periodic intervals, when their records are subject to intensive public scrutiny. Appointed officials serve at the pleasure of the person or authority who appointed them and may be removed at any time. The exception to this practice is the lifetime appointment by the president of justices of the Supreme Court and other federal judges, so that they may be free of political obligations or influence.

Most commonly, the American people express their will through the ballot box. The Constitution, however, does make provision for the removal of a public official from office, in cases of extreme misconduct or malfeasance, by the process of impeachment. Article II, Section 4 reads: "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Impeachment is a charge of misconduct brought against a government official by a legislative body; it does not, as is commonly thought, refer to conviction on such charges. As set forth in the Constitution, the House of Representatives must bring charges of misconduct by voting a bill of impeachment. The accused official is then tried in the Senate, with the chief justice of the Supreme Court presiding at the trial.

Impeachment is considered a drastic measure, one that has been used on only rare occasions in the United States. Since 1797 the House of Representatives has voted articles of impeachment against 16 federal officials — two presidents, one cabinet member, one senator, one justice of the Supreme Court, and 11 federal judges. Of those impeached, the Senate has convicted seven, all of them judges.

In 1868 President Andrew Johnson was impeached over issues relating to the proper treatment of the defeated Confederate states following the American Civil War. The Senate, however, fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority necessary for conviction, and Johnson completed his full term in office. In 1974, as a result of the Watergate affair, President Richard Nixon resigned from office after the Judiciary Committee of the House recommended impeachment, but before the full House of Representatives could vote on a bill of impeachment.

As recently as 1998, President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. After a trial, the Senate acquitted the president on both charges, voting not guilty on perjury by a margin of 55-45 and dividing evenly at 50-50 on obstruction of justice. To remove the president from office would have required a guilty verdict by a majority of 67 votes on either charge.
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-06-2018, 03:36 PM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sauk Village, IL
Posts: 21,783
Default

By: Tom Wetzel, PhD Philosophy, University of California, Los Angeles (1978)
RE: https://www.quora.com/What-is-bad-ab...-Constitution#

The US Constitution was intended by its Framers to cement in place a wall in defense of elite interests. It does that. But it does so in ways that make it dysfunctional in many ways…increasingly so over time.

1. Presidency makes the constitution “monarchical” as John Adams said. The president is like an emperor, generalissimo of the military forces, presides over vast police forces and the federal bureaucracy. There is very little real control possible here by the population. A parliamentary system would have been better, creating a form of collective leadership. The right to veto Congress is an echo of the “royal prerogative” that Britain no longer allows. It’s inherently undemocratic. The powers of the presidency have been convenient for the USA functioning as an Imperial State.

2. The amendment process is absurd. This was a reflection of the Framers’ hatred of democracy. There is a little known part of this that says the feature of 2 Senators per state cannot be removed (without permission of all the states which they would never grant). The people have no direct voice over any amendments. There is nothing like a popular referendum in the constitution.

3. The Senate is an inherently anti-democratic body. Senator from Wyoming has 55 times the voting power of a Senator from California. That is, a Senator from California represents 55 times as many people.

4. The right of the Supreme Court to overrule laws passed by Congress is not actually in the Constitution but the Supreme Court says it’s there. (There is a clause that allows Congress to overrule the Supreme Court but it’s been used only once.) Again, inherently anti-democratic.

5. There is no right of the people to make laws themselves through direct vote or to recall federal politicians. Again, the Framers were committed anti-democrats.

The Bill of Rights was passed as a sop to opponents of the Constitution. But words on paper have no coercive force and the rights enshrined there have often been violated in practice. To avoid that requires the people to have actual power which they do not have under this Constitution.
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-06-2018, 03:51 PM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sauk Village, IL
Posts: 21,783
Arrow

By: Colin Broughton, Several from Several Colleges - Updated Oct 9, 2017

The power of the unelected Justices of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution according to their personal prejudices.

Quora don’t like what I wrote above. So in support of my remark :

Some may remember Robert H Bork. Bork was a Yale Law professor, former Solicitor General of the USA, acting USA Attorney General and Judge of the USA Court of Appeals who was a Reagan Supreme Court nominee.

Bork’s candidature was turned down by Congress in a process so vicious that a term was coined; ‘’to Bork’’. He was disliked because he thought that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the intentions of those who wrote it.

Bork wrote a book, ’Slouching towards Gomorrah’’, in which he excoriated the political activism of Judges.

In the chapter headed ‘The Supreme Court as an Agent of Modern Liberalism’’, he said,

‘’In its cultural-political role, the Court almost invariably advances the agenda of modern liberalism. That is to say, the Justices or a majority of them are responsible in no small measure for the spread of both radical individualism and radical egalitarianism….

‘’The Court in modern times has regularly maximised individual rights against the corporate rights of all intermediate institutions. The Court in matters of morality and social discipline has sided with (John Stuart) Mill far more often than the actual Constitution warrants. But when government imposes egalitarianism, the Court has ratified that choice. When liberty and equality come into conflict, the Court almost always prefers equality, even in its modern, corrupt, egalitarian form.

‘’This is a philosophy or mood, that cannot be derived from the Constitution. It is approved by ..the intellectual class. That class has distinctive attitudes, well to the left of the American center, and their command of the avenues of dissemination of facts, (whether true or false) and attitudes, their capacity to make and unmake reputations, makes them a powerful cultural force, a force to which some judge respond and others cater. [J]udges belong to that class and so absorb its viewpoints and predilections naturally.

‘’It is instructive that in the United Kingdom, the primary proponents of adopting a written constitution and the power of judicial review of legislation are the Labour Party and the intellectuals. The reasons are obvious. That development would shift a great deal of power from the British electorate to judges who would better reflect the leftish agenda of Labour and intellectuals. Cultural and political victories would than be achieved in the courts that could not be achieved by Parliament. The British proponents of judicial supremacy have learned from the American experience.’’

Bork goes on to make such remarks as:

‘’Radical individualism is the only explanation for the Supreme Court’s creation, out of thin air, of a general and undefined right of privacy.’’ which ’’[L]ed on to Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion. Whatever one’s feelings about abortion, the decision has no constitutional foundation, and the Court offered no constitutional reasoning.’’

And

‘’The Court’s commitment to radical egalitarianism has been equally strong’’

Etc. etc. etc.

Apart From ‘’Slouching’’, Bork wrote a series of other books on pretty much the same theme of activist, which is to say biased judges, such as ‘Coercing Virtue. The Worldwide rule of Judges ’’, ‘’The Tempting of America. The Political Seduction of the Law’’, ‘’A Country I do Not Recognize. The Legal Assault on American Values’’
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation will delegitimize the Supreme Court — and that’s good
By Matthew Yglesias@mattyglesiasmatt@vox.com Oct 5, 2018, 5:00pm EDT
RE: https://www.vox.com/2018/10/5/179413...urt-legitimacy

It’s time America woke up to the radical right that’s run the Court for years.

Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as an associate justice of the Supreme Court has prompted not only exuberance and anger but also a kind of hazy worry in some corners that the circumstances of his ascension will call the Court’s legitimacy into doubt.

The truth is it’s about time. The one upside to putting a person on the bench whose dishonesty and (literal and metaphorical) intemperance has been on such flagrant display is that it could prompt a sorely needed reckoning with the larger issue of the Court’s mostly pernicious role in American public affairs.

For the past 25 years, the judiciary has moved increasingly further right and the Supreme Court has tossed out duly enacted legislation, opened the floodgates to public corruption, and undermined substantive democracy. The public has largely missed this bigger picture because the American progressive movement has focused attention on the role of Court in protecting abortion rights.

Reasonable people can disagree about the appropriate remedy to this problem, but the first step is to recognize it exists. And there’s no better face for an increasingly radical and anti-democratic Supreme Court than the ruddy, yelling visage of Brett Kavanaugh.

The true turning point for the Court came in the 1995 case of United States v. Lopez, which featured a defendant challenging the Gun-Free School Zones Act. This was, interestingly, not a Second Amendment case that attempted to argue that prohibiting guns near schools violated an individual’s rights to keep and bear arms. Rather, a 5-4 Supreme Court majority invalidated the law on federalism grounds — saying that Congress simply lacked the authority to regulate the matter.

This turned out not to be a huge deal in practice because Congress was able to come back later and rewrite the law with a specific stipulation that it only related to guns that were shipped across states.

It was, however, a shot across the bow that the Supreme Court was no longer going to allow the people’s elected representatives to decide for themselves what steps were and were not useful exercises of congressional authority to regulate the national economy.

The decision left a serious question as to how far the Court planned to take that new doctrine, and as long as Sandra Day O’Connor was around, the answer turned out to be “not particularly far.”

But in an influential concurrence that proved to offer important hints of the shape of things to come, Clarence Thomas argued that the majority decision was written far too narrowly. The liberal dissenters from the Lopez case, he argued, were basically correct that the fundamental question at issue here was not so different from the one posed by lots of other federal issues. The difference is that he thought the Court should toss out the entire set of New Deal judicial decisions that held that Congress has broad authority to regulate the national economy and return to the Gilded Era doctrine that the Constitution essentially prohibits economic regulation.

Deconstructing the administrative state
In an important 2005 article, Jeffrey Toobin characterized Thomas’s school of thought as promoting a “Constitution in exile,” citing the work of legal scholars Richard Epstein and Randy Barnett as offering the most fulsome picture of what it might mean in practice to bring the exiled Constitution back into effect.

The Court has not, in practice, gone this far.

Instead of suddenly and dramatically altering the American legal landscape, conservative judges — certainly joined by Kavanaugh — have mostly hacked away at bits and pieces of economic regulation, seeking to bring us asymptotically closer to the undemocratic liberal economic order Thomas and Epstein advocate without creating any single dramatic moment.

They held in 1999, for example, that certain aspects of the Violence Against Women Act were void on federalism grounds. In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, they narrowed the scope of federal clean water regulation. In the first case, judicial conservatives wanted to second-guess Congress regarding the impact of its legislating on interstate commerce. In the second, they aimed to second-guess the executive branch.

This second-guessing habit has taken the form, in the 21st century, of increasing attacks on the regulatory state. In 2015, however, the Supreme Court put America on notice by striking down a duly promulgated Environmental Protection Agency regulation of mercury.

Kavanaugh, as a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, was the author of an earlier 2012 opinion striking down EPA rulemaking. As Steve Pearlstein of the Washington Post memorably wrote at the time, Kavanaugh’s opinion was a remarkable exercise in judicial hubris:

But in reading the 60-page opinion by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, you’d have no clue of this historical, political, economic or health context.

You’d have no idea that hundreds of dedicated, highly trained scientists, analysts and statisticians at the EPA might have spent more than a decade devoted to the extremely complex task of figuring out how much of the ozone or sulfur dioxide in the air in Rhode Island originated in Indiana. You’d have no idea that legions of government lawyers and economists might have spent a decade listening to, and negotiating with, state officials, industry groups and environmental advocates on an equitable formula for reducing pollution in the least costly way.

Neil Gorsuch, installed on the Supreme Court by the GOP last year, is an enthusiastic and vocal proponent of this sort of non-deferential judging.

Indeed, for all that the popular discussion of judicial matters focuses on abortion rights in a practical sense, what Republicans are looking for in judges these days are enthusiastic second-guessers of federal administrative agencies. Existing federal legal doctrine already gives states enormous scope to restrict abortion rights, and the practical impediment to making abortion unavailable is that severe restrictions are popular in some states but not others. Gutting the federal government’s ability to promulgate environmental, labor, or financial (Kavanaugh thinks the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional) regulations isn’t popular anywhere — so conservatives are getting it done through the courts.

The Supreme Court versus democracy

Oftentimes, the result of the new conservative jurisprudence has been a straightforward attack on the outcomes of democratic governance.

Even while upholding portions of the Affordable Care Act, for example, John Roberts’s Court arbitrarily decided that the incentives the ACA created to expand Medicaid were excessively powerful and states should be allowed to opt out of expansion without losing access to existing federal funding streams. There is absolutely no basis for this idea anywhere in the text of the Constitution — though it does follow from some earlier, equally ungrounded Rehnquist-era decisions — and millions of Americans have been deprived of their health insurance as a result.

But not surprisingly, a judicial viewpoint that’s uninterested in democratic governance is also fundamentally uninterested in the practice of democracy.

From the infamous case of Bush v. Gore to its refusal to look at the problem of partisan gerrymandering to a series of judicial decisions striking down efforts to regulate the campaign finance system (Citizens United is the best known of these, but McConnell v. FEC is probably more important) to the absurd Shelby County v. Holder decision in (which five conservative justices arbitrarily decided that racially motivated voter suppression was no longer a problem), the Supreme Court has spent the better part of 20 years chipping away at American democracy.

The basic worldview is that Congress lacks the power to decide for itself what subjects impact interstate commerce or how to set up regulatory agencies, the agencies themselves lack the power to decide how to enforce the rules, and American citizens lack enforceable rights to have their votes counted. Elected officials are, however, now having a much easier time getting away with accepting bribes.

Putting Kavanaugh on the bench will likely exacerbate these problems. But critically, in most respects, the justice he’s replacing was already very much part of the problem, and anyone Trump might have appointed instead of Kavanaugh would be just as bad. His ascension is not so much an alarming new point of departure as a useful opportunity for people to open their eyes to what’s been happening for a while.

Rediscovering popular constitutionalism
Donald Trump lost the popular vote, and the senators who are voting with him to install Kavanaugh on the bench represent a minority of the American population. Gorsuch also secured his lifetime appointment under similarly minoritarian circumstances.

But the country is now seriously facing the prospect that even if Republican hegemony is broken in the 2018 and 2020 elections, the entrenched five-vote Republican majority will sharply circumscribe their ability to govern.

Optimistically, it won’t come to that and Chief Justice Roberts will rediscover the concern about the Court’s popular legitimacy that led him to uphold most of the Affordable Care Act. Pessimistically, the ethic of “lol nothing matters” that led him to toss out popular campaign finance rules and deny Medicaid coverage to millions of poor households will instead reign supreme. In the latter case, Democrats will face some difficult questions about whether to try court-packing or other forms of exotic procedural extremism in order to secure the authority to govern.

Either way, however, the political path forward starts with a clear articulation of the dilemma. Starting with the substantive doctrine of Lopez and the procedural weirdness of Bush v. Gore, judicial conservatives have been undermining electoral democracy to entrench their power on the bench and then wielded that power to undermine democratic governance.

If that argument begins to gain purchase with the mass public, sensible Republican judges will hopefully turn back from the brink. If they don’t, the argument will need to be propelled forward to offer a more specific remedy. But either way, the cloud of illegitimacy hanging over Kavanaugh’s head will be helpful in waking the public from its slumber.

“Nothing unifies Republicans like the courts”: Republicans celebrate Kavanaugh confirmation

Susan Collins’s 2020 challenger already has a $3 million campaign fund, thanks to her vote on Kavanaugh

The Supreme Court’s legitimacy crisis is here

8 takeaways from the knock-down, drag-out fight over Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation
Republicans don’t care what you think

It’s official: Brett Kavanaugh just became the least popular Supreme Court justice in modern history
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.