Saturday, August 4, 2007

Jon Rowe Betrays our Founders and Hindus...Again:

Jon Rowe, the secular progressive, attacks Judge Roy Moore for his correct statement about the Christian foundation of the United States, then posts this:

Hindus, like Christians claim to worship one God."
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html

Yes folks, the man, with his fellow secular progressives, continue to distort the Christian heritage of the United States as well as the Law of Nature, Separation of Church and State, the First Amendment, and now, if you can believe it, Hinduism.

The contradiction of Hinduism starts in their scriptures known as the Vedas. These Vedas are a mass of contradictions worthy of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. The last part of the Vedas teach pantheism, karmic retribution, and reincarnation-the Bhapavad-Gita seems monotheistic, contradicting the earlier vedas. The earlier vedas are:

"definitely pantheistic (all of existence is, in some way, divine) and perhaps even monistic (all of existence is one, whether any divinity exists at all).
Walter Martin, The Kindgom of the Cults. Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 55438. 1997, p. 388.

The Hare Chrishnas have promoted the monotheism of Hinduism, while others believe everything is god, and still others believe in a multitude of gods. Reincarnation, common to all Hindus-Rowe's comment that Hindus worship one god, is as accurate as the pagan catholics claiming the earth is flat! Hinduism is the epitome of contradiction, Hindus believing in a creator god, and others believing everything is god-this false religion is a disgrace to the Christian foundation of the United States Judge Roy Moore spoke about. Judge Moore's issue is with a pagan religion(prayer) in a nation founded on the precepts of the Bible.

Yes, the Law of Nature in the Declaration of Independence is the God of the Bible as the Christian Philosophers, and our Founding Fathers claimed.

[The] "Law of nature" is a role of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator and existing prior to any postive precept [human law]....These...have been established by the Creator and are, with a peculiar felicity of expression, denominated in Scripture, "ordinances of heaven."
Noah Webster(1758-1843) was among the first to call for the Constitutional Convention (1785)and was responsible for the copyright and patent protection clause found in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.

Oh, I forgot, only Rowe and secular progressives' "key founders" Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, are the only ones that matter, or who can speak for the other two hundred fifty Founding Fathers.

Rowe's quotes is most likely from the ISKCON sect of Hinduism, where Krishna is supreme in the Godhead. To ISKCON, Jesus Christ is Krishna's son, but not the unique Son of God. The Hare Krishnas pick and choose parts of the bible just like Jefferson and Adams did.

I had to throw this quote in here showing how deceived Rowe and the secular progressives are about our Founding Fathers:

Completely wrong. If anything, the political theology of the Founding suggests the Founders granted religious freedom to all precisely because they believed all religions -- Muslims, Hindus, Native Americans, etc. -- worshipped the same God they did."
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html

When Rowe says this, he means only Jefferson and Adams can speak for the Framers, not the other two hundred framers, like Rufus King, who drafted the First Amendment, Drafted and Ratified the Constitution :

[In o]ur laws...by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system."
Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amending The Constitution of the State of New York (Albany: E. and E. Hosford, 1821), p. 575, Rufus King, October 30, 1821.

King, only Drafted and Ratified the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, but he isn't Jefferson, or Adams, so he shouldn't be quoted, and doesn't know what he's talking about! James Madison believed the "key founders" were those who ratified these documents like Rufus King:

He believed, as he repeatedly affirmed, that the meaning of a statute must be sought in the intentions of those who ratified it, not of those who drafted it--in the case of the First Amendment in the minds of the members of the state legislatures, not of the members of the First Federal Congress.
James Hutson-Library of Congress
http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.htm

Madison seems to destroy the "key founders" of Rowe and the secular progressives, as well as their dogma of the First Amendment referring to any religion becoming the National Church. Rowe and the secular progressives can push their schemes all they want, but it's deceit. Rowe asks:

Why would the Biblical God grant men an unalienable right to break his commandments? Arguably, He wouldn't. Hence arguably, the rights granting "Nature's God" of the key Founders is not the Biblical God.>>

This is a perfect example of one who needs to study a lot more. Rowe is confusing the Old and New Testaments, the First Commandment ONLY applied to the theocracy of Israel, not the freedom of conscience embodied in the Christian Philosophers' Law of Nature. The Biblical God grants an unalienable right to break his commandments because this isn't Israel, and the United States is not a Theocracy. Religion is left to the States, and the key Founders' God is the Biblical God.

Rowe's final statement claims:

challenge Roy Moore or anyone sympathetic to his view to find one quotation from Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, or Franklin clearly expressing the belief that Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, or any non-Christians worship false Gods. (I'll give you a hint: They can't because they don't exist.)>>

Why should I try to find any quotes from anyone else, they aren't "key founders", so they do not matter.

15 comments:

Jonathan said...

Liberal democracy or "constitutional republicanism," is an Enlightenment concept that has little to do with "biblical principles."

On politics, Jesus was an anti-ideolog. He believed people should seek first the Kingdom of God and didn't overturn ONE social institution. Not slavery, not any of the illiberal or undemocratic forms of government. Not one. As to whether Kings should rule over men or leaders should be elected by "the people," the Bible and Jesus have nothing to say on the matter. And both the concept of Divine Rule of Kings AND America's Declaration of Independence pervert the Christian religion if they suggest the Biblical God is one their side.

That's why Christians should really proceed with caution before they try to claim the God in America's Declaration of Independence as their own when the traits that it ascribes to God are wholly alien to the Bible.

The Bible never says "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

It sounds nice. It's just not Biblical. Paul actually told believers to obey an unelected, undemocratic tyrant -- the pagan psychopath Nero -- who never sought "consent" to rule over Jesus followers. See Romans 13.

Our Founding Truth said...

Jonathon Rowe writes:

Liberal democracy or "constitutional republicanism,"
is an Enlightenment concept that has little to do with
"biblical principles."

Born Again Christian and Founding Father Noah Webster
would disagree with you as well as the other Framer's:

[O]ur citizens should early understand that the
genuine source of correct republican principles is the
Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the
Christian religion.
History of the United States (New Haven:Durrie & Peck,
1832), p.6.

A Republican form of Government(ruled by law) is straight from the Bible, for it is God's Law that rules from elected representatives, rather than the perverted form of democracy, where Biblical law can be changed by the will of the majority. Under a Republic, murder will always be murder because the Bible says so. The United States is founded on the Religion and morality of the Bible, rather than the perverted liberal enlightenment principles, which attack, and pervert the Bible. A Republican form of Government is based on Deut 1:15-17,
"...made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes..."
This government can only last if the people are moral and virtuous, as the framer's claimed. and the majority rules doctrine, beyond the rule of law is consistent with the Law of Nature. Locke did not form any theories that were not already laid down in the Bible, the jury system of Common Law, and separation of powers(Is 33:22-For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.)
is also in the Bible.

The framer's despised democracy:
A simple democracy...is one of the greatest of evils.
Benjamin Rush-Signer of the Declaration.

The transcendent values of Biblical natural law were
the foundation of the American republic. Consider the
stability this provides: in our republic, murder will
always be a crime, for it is always a crime according
to the Word of God.
www.wallbuilders.com

In a democracy, the people decide if murder is a
crime.
Rowe incorrectly believes Republicanism is based on
the enlightenment, but our republic is based on what
Montesquieu identified as "principles that do not
change."

The framer's understood Biblical values formed the
basis of our Republic as Born Again Christian
Alexander Hamilton explains:

[T]he law...dictated by God Himself is, of course,
superior in obligation to any other. It is binding
over all the globe, in all countries, and at all
times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary
to this.

Hamilton affiming the Bible, he was not a rationalist:

Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1794: Opinions, for a
long time, have been gradually gaining ground, which
threatens the foundations of religion, morality and
society. An attack was first made upon the
Christian revelation; for which natural religion was
offered as
the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a
gross imposture; but the being and attributes of a
GOD, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a
future state of rewards and punishments were to be
retained and cherished.

I have carefully examined the evidences of the
Christian religion and if I was sitting as a juror
upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my
verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly
as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.

the Bible and Jesus have nothing to say on the matter.>>

Read it, give it a shot.

The Bible never says "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.">>

This is what the entire New Testament says. The New Testament is freedom of conscience, not a theocracy. Unalienable rights, life, liberty, happiness, more specifically in I Cor, James 2:9, Judges 13:5,7, Deut 30:19, Rom 8, etc.

Please Jon, read the Bible, give Jesus a shot.

Jonathan said...

Even if Webster said it he's still wrong, as were many in the Founding Era who claimed republicanism was somehow "biblical" or that the Ancient Jews had a "republic." They whored their religion for the sake of republicanism and this is exactly what you and David Barton do when you try to argue the US was a "Christian Nation," or that our Founding philosophy derives from the Bible.

The irony of your last line is that the scholars whose work I have found most valuable in this debate are themselves devout Christians of impeccable orthodoxy. They've read the Bible, accepted Jesus and take His words far more seriously than you apparently do, because they don't "read in" things to the Bible (like Whig Enlightenment philosophy) to try to fit their political agenda. Unlike you, they've sought first the Kingdom of God.

Regarding the Bible and America's form of government, as Drs. Robert Kraynak and Gregg Frazer put it (Kraynak a doctrine conservative Catholic and Frazer a Protestant fundamentalist):

First, as Kraynak pointed out, “the biblical covenant is undemocratic: God is not bound by the covenant and keeps His promises solely out of His own divine self-limitation.” Second, “(t)he element of voluntary consent is missing from the covenant with Israel….There is nothing voluntary or consensual about the biblical covenant; and the most severe punishments are threatened by God for disobedience.” Third, “insofar as the covenant with Israel sanctions specific forms of government, the main ones are illiberal and undemocratic;” including patriarchy, theocracy, and kingships established by divine right. Fourth, “the Bible shows that God delivers the people from slavery in Egypt and supports national liberation, not for the purpose of enjoying their political and economic rights, but for the purpose of putting on the yoke of the law in the polity of Moses.” Fifth, “the content of the divine law revealed to Moses consists, in the first place, of the Ten Commandments rather than the Ten Bill of Rights, commanding duties to God, family, and neighbors rather than establishing protections for personal freedom.” Finally, the combination of judicial, civil, ceremonial, and dietary laws imposed on the people “regulate all aspects of religious, personal, and social life.” The history of Israel, therefore, had to be radically rewritten to provide support for the demands of political liberty and for republican self-government.

– Kraynak, 46-49 quoted in Frazer, “The Political Theology of the American Founding,” Ph.D. dissertation, 18-19.

See more here.

Our Founding Truth said...

Jonathon Rowe writes:

Even if Webster said it he's still wrong, as were many in the Founding Era who claimed republicanism was somehow "biblical">>

So Noah Webster and ALL THE FRAMERS are wrong? Let's see your quotes from the framer's to the contrary. I only have countless of their writings, (John Adams) declaring religion and morality FROM THE BIBLE is the foundation of our political existence. I'll wait for yours.

or that the Ancient Jews had a "republic.">>

I or the Framers said that. Israel was a theocracy ruled by God's law, founded on correct Republican, Representative principles, Ex 18:21, written 1500 B.C.

The author of the main textbook of law taught in our law schools was wrong too, his lawbook was the lawbook of the founding fathers:

To instance in the case of murder: this is EXPRESSLY forbidden by the Divine....If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law....But, with regard to matters that are...not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws suck, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the...legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose.
Sir William Blackstone.

THAT IS A REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLE, NOT A DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE, WHICH THE FRAMERS DESPISED, AS YOU KNOW!

Jefferson said, "American lawyers used Blackstone's with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran."
Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol XII, p.392, to Governor John Tyler on May 26th, 1810

The framers' view on Blasphemy is taken from Blackstone, "Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying His being or Providence or uttering contumelious [insulting] reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land.

the US was a "Christian Nation," or that our Founding philosophy derives from the Bible.>>

Do you want me to post all the court decision and the framers' writings?

“the biblical covenant is undemocratic:>>

Because the democratic principle is unbiblical. The framers despised democracy and rejected it.

Kraynak and Frazer don't have a clue what their talking about. They are imature in the faith, if they're Christians. God help us.

There is nothing voluntary or consensual about the biblical covenant; and the most severe punishments are threatened by God for disobedience.”>>

Another ridiculous statement from a man who needs to study more:

Of course Israel's theocracy was a covenant, only a child would write something like that. Israel didn't have to do anything. They choose to abide by Yahweh:
Joshua 24:22 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

22And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.

insofar as the covenant with Israel sanctions specific forms of government, the main ones are illiberal and undemocratic;” including patriarchy, theocracy, and kingships established by divine right.>>

This is the United States not Israel.

but for the purpose of putting on the yoke of the law in the polity of Moses.”>>

This guy is like a child.
"There is no liberty apart from the Law."
Moses

It's Republican because no one could change the Law and take that liberty from them, see?

rather than establishing protections for personal freedom.”>>

You won't find personal freedom apart from the Law and the Gospel.

Jonathan said...

James,

What you don't understand (and what Kraynak and Frazer do) is that the whenever the Bible talks about "liberty," it talks about spiritual liberty, not political liberty. There were a few Founding era preachers who did say the Israelites had a republic (Samuel Langdon, for instance). All of the Framers didn't say that the Bible was republican. Though, men like John Adams made clear when they stated the bible was republican, it was their enlightenment cafeteria understanding of the Bible where reason superseded revelation in determing what parts of the Bible were true. Finally, I have quotations, which you've probably seen, where Adams claims pagan-greco roman worship also qualifies as "religion" and "morality," upon which sound republics can be built.

Jonathan said...

Let me also note that you have some nerve describing Drs. Kraynak and Frazer as "immature" in their faith. I'll have you know that Dr. Frazer lectures his church on these very issues. Frazer's college and church are led by John MacArthur, whose fire-breathing fundamentalism certainly ain't my cup of tea, but who is nonetheless a theologian at a level that you will never be. And he apparently doesn't see Dr. Frazer as "immature" in his faith or mistaken on the Founders & Religion.

Our Founding Truth said...

Jonathon wrote:

What you don't understand (and what Kraynak and Frazer do) is that the whenever the Bible talks about "liberty," it talks about spiritual liberty, not political liberty.>>

I understand perfectly what they mean. Their concept is wrong because EVERY framer believed this Spiritual liberty should translate into daily liberty. That's what the Gospel is.

All of the Framers didn't say that the Bible was republican.>>

Please provide any references supporting this. Republican, is representative govt. based on law, exactly what Israel was.

Though, men like John Adams made clear when they stated the bible was republican, it was their enlightenment cafeteria understanding of the Bible where reason superseded revelation in determing what parts of the Bible were true.>>

You won't find Adams, or any other framer, besides Jefferson, or Franklin say that, while they served in government. So it can't be used. I'm doing research on Adams. He became a unitarian AFTER he left govt, no doubt because of his infidel friend. Adams was orthodox while President, you should post his unitarian, theistic, beliefs while in service, or abandon Adams as a rationalist.

Adams claims pagan-greco roman worship also qualifies as "religion" and "morality," upon which sound republics can be built.>>

Of course, this was after his service. By the way, Madison rails on this.

Our Founding Truth said...

Let me also note that you have some nerve describing Drs. Kraynak and Frazer as "immature" in their faith.>>

I would never have said that if I couldn't back it up. From Gen 12 on, covenant is mentioned countless times. Of course Abram agreed to God's covenant. Read Gen 17, and tell me what sign did Abram do to agree to it.

Frazer's college and church are led by John MacArthur, whose fire-breathing fundamentalism certainly ain't my cup of tea>>

There are fundamentalists who blow up abortion clinics, are they Christians? I don't know MacArthur, but the other guys are for sure wrong on this. Read it for yourself. Hey Jon, at least I want to know the truth, and I think I can do a fairly good job at backing up my position.

I haven't seen you refute my views, we both know now that you were wrong about Hamilton, and Madison being rationalists. And what about this one on Wilson:

In compassion to the imperfection of our internal powers, our all-gracious Creator, Preserver, and Ruler has been pleased to discover and enforce his laws by a revelation given to us immediately and directly from Himself. This revelation is contained in the HOLY SCRIPTURES. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles from a part of the law of nature, are of the same origin and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually....
Wilson, Vol. I,pp.120, 137-138, "Of the Law of Nature."

Do you see Jon, the internal law of nature(conscience) in inferior and imperfect just as Hooker said it was. That's why God gave us His revelation(bible) to teach us.

Scratch Wilson off your theist list too. While in service, that gives you Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin. Read my earlier posts on Hamilton and Madison, both believed in miracles and the biblical revelation of Christianity.

Jonathan said...

I'm doing research on Adams. He became a unitarian AFTER he left govt, no doubt because of his infidel friend.

LOL. Read the dates and do the math. You are wrong on this as you are on practically every assertion you make.

I thank you for your favour of the 10th and the pamphlet enclosed, “American Unitarianism.” I have turned over its leaves and have found nothing that was not familiarly known to me.

In the preface Unitarianism is represented as only thirty years old in New England. I can testify as a Witness to its old age. Sixty five years ago my own minister the Reverend Samuel Bryant, Dr. Johnathan Mayhew of the west Church in Boston, the Reverend Mr. Shute of Hingham, the Reverend John Brown of Cohasset & perhaps equal to all if not above all the Reverend Mr. Gay of Hingham were Unitarians. Among the Laity how many could I name, Lawyers, Physicians, Tradesman, farmers!


-- John Adams to Jedidiah Morse, May 15, 1815. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 122, Library of Congress.

We Unitarians, one of whom I have had the Honour to be, for more than sixty Years, do not indulge our Malignity in profane Cursing and Swearing, against you Calvinists; one of whom I know not how long you have been. You and I, once saw Calvin and Arius, on the Plafond of the Cathedral of St. John the Second in Spain roasting in the Flames of Hell. We Unitarians do not delight in thinking that Plato and Cicero, Tacitus Quintilian Plyny and even Diderot, are sweltering under the scalding drops of divine Vengeance, for all Eternity.

-- John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816, Ibid, reel 430.

Jonathan said...

Actually we both know that I'm right on Madison. Bishop Meade relying on Rev. Balmaine's testimony reported that though Madison might have flirted with Christianity in college years his political association with those of infidel principles lead him to theistic rationalism.

William and Mary's David Holmes uses the term "moderate deist." And James H. Hutson uses the term one of the many mansions of deism to describe Madison's creed after being imbibed in "infidel principles." That's the way I, Hutson, and Holmes (unlike you two real scholars) read Bishop Meade's and Rev. Balmaine's testimony. Given your proven poor command of the written word, it's probably the case that we are better at deciphering words than you.

Jonathan said...

"This revelation is contained in the HOLY SCRIPTURES."

He didn't say this revelation is the holy scriptures, but that it is contained in the holy scriptures. In other words, parts of scripture contain God's revelation, but the whole thing is not inspired. Which parts?

You have to look to other passages in Works to know he means only the rational parts. My interpretation has to be right because Wilson denies the possibility of miracles (stating God won't break His laws of nature) and states that revelation confirms but doesn't supersede the reason. You've seen these quotations (which term by the is the proper noun, not "quotes" which is a verb), so I don't need to reproduce them here.

I can direct you to them again if you've forgotten.

Our Founding Truth said...

I'm doing research on Adams. He became a unitarian AFTER he left govt, no doubt because of his infidel friend.>>

Actually, I made a mistake with one word in this post, and that was unitarian. I meant to say theistic rationalist. While in service, Adams believed the God of the Bible, it wasn't until after his Presidency that he became a rationalist. So you still should not use him anymore.

Our Founding Truth said...

Jon Rowe wrote:

Actually we both know that I'm right on Madison. Bishop Meade relying on Rev. Balmaine's testimony reported that though Madison might have flirted with Christianity in college years his political association with those of infidel principles lead him to theistic rationalism.

That's not what it says. You shouldn't say that.

Madison's words while in service have authority over anything else. Madison was a Christian:

Madison in his Memorial claims Christianity is the religion he believes is divine:"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace,to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us."

the quote is harmonious with his Memorial claim that all non Christian religions are false.

The Memorial is the death [k]nell? for your rationalist claim for Madison:

"To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: itis a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of MIRACULOUS AID, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence."

This miraculous aid is the aid God provided to the early church, as recorded in the Book of Acts. Paul and Peter raising people from the dead, Peter and John healing a lame man,Peter striking dead Ananias and Sapphira with his words,sudden earthquakes, and many other supernatural events like prison locks automatically opening to free the Apostle Paul.

The "best and purest" quote would be right if he didn't say the other religions were false, but he didn't say that.

You should abandon Madison as a well, while he helped form the govt. he was orthodox. He changed his views as we all know, thereby contradicting himself, and then may have changed back to othodoxy.

Our Founding Truth said...

"This revelation is contained in the HOLY SCRIPTURES."

He didn't say this revelation is the holy scriptures, but that it is contained in the holy scriptures. In other words, parts of scripture contain God's revelation, but the whole thing is not inspired.>>

That won't work and you know it.

The people who wrote about the Law of Nature didn't believe that and you can't provide any quotes Wilson affirming it.

I have the quotations Wilson says Scripture is superior, where are yours?

"Thus it is with regard to reason, conscience, and the holy scriptures. Where the latter give instructions, those instructions are supereminently authentick." THE WORKS OF James Wilson. http://www.constitution.org/jwilson/jwilson1.doc

I explained your misinterpretation. The conscience is only superior on matters that the scripture does not specifically mention. He got that from Hooker (Lawes). Take it to a Professor and they will affirm what I'm saying.

James Wilson was not a theistic rationalist is verified.

Anonymous said...

One never lose anything by politeness.

7fKpf http://www.cheapuggbootsan.com/
yXej http://www.michaelkorsoutletez.com/
lLwl http://www.cheapfashionshoesam.com/
1aZav http://www.burberryoutletxi.com/
6zGrf http://www.nflnikejerseysshopxs.com/
1pYgk http://www.coachfactoryoutlesa.com/
1sKnh 0lGsk 9gQqp 0dZem 4cXwq 3uOyn 3pWzw 7dVds 3tEwm