"When the value-bearing institutions of religion and culture are excluded, the value-laden concerns of human life flows back into the square under the politics of politics," wrote Richard John Neuhaus, "It is much like trying to sweep a puddle of water on an even basement floor; the water immediately flows back into the space you had cleaned." Although written twenty years ago, Neuhaus could be describing the 2000election and the prominence that the issue of 'moral values' played in the outcome. Believing that they were being excluded from the political process, American evangelicals flooded the polls, possibly tipping the election to President Bush.
The endorphin rush of once again being taking seriously has energized many evangelicals (though after this mid-term election, it may be short-lived). Having returned to the 'naked public square' we are encouraged by our new power and hopeful that that we can use our influence to make a difference. While we certainly have some reason to be optimistic, I believe we must temper our excitement with the realization that the problems we face are as much as a result of the system as with who we put in office. Whether Democrat or Republican, of the Left or of the Right, we are all under the spell of liberalism.
As David Koyzis notes in his supurb study of idealogies, Political Visions and Illusions, the first and most basic principle of liberalism is that everyone possesses property in their own person and must be free to govern themselves in accordance with their own choices, provided that these choices do not infringe on the equal right of others to do the same. Whether a 'liberal', 'libertarian', or 'conservative', almost every politically involved American subscribes to this foundational belief in the sovereignty of the individual. The differences in political persuasions derive not from a denunciation of this principle but from disagreements over the role the state in relation to the individual.
In his chapter on liberalism, Koyzis states that the ideology progresses through five distinct stages. While it is difficult to adequately summarize his explanation, the stages could roughly be outlined as follows:
First Stage: Hobbesian commonwealth
Example: early modern absolute monarchies
Distinctive aspect: Limits on the state are practical rather than legal or ethical and rooted in the self-interest of the sovereign, who refrains from doing anything that might cause his subjects to prefer the state of nature to his own rule.
Second stage: Night watchman state
Example: America from its founding to the late 1880s
Distinctive aspect: The focus on the individual right to self-preservation is expanded to cover property, in recognition of the connection between preserving one's life and earning a livelihood.
Third stage: Regulatory state
Example: Teddy Roosevelt and the progressive movement of the early twentieth century.
Distinctive aspect: The realization that nonstate actors (i.e., corporations) can be a threat to individual liberty and that the state has a role in limiting and protecting against such infringement.
Fourth stage: Equal opportunity state
Example: The New Deal under FDR
Distinctive aspect: The creation of a more interventionist government which can offset the impact that impersonal factors (such as lack of economic resources) have on individual freedom. This attempt to increase individual liberty for all citizens often leads to the creation and expansion of the "welfare state."
Fifth stage: Choice enhancement state
Example: Modern America (?)
Distinctive aspect: The task of liberalism is to accommodate the common desires of individuals without prejudging the choices being made. Because the individual is sovereign, the state must simply provide a broad procedural framework within which individuals are enabled to pursue their goals; to do otherwise would be a violation of the equality rights of the individuals. Koyzis also refers to this form of liberalism, which takes a neutral stance towards different lifestyle choices, as a "spiritually vacant state." The main problem with this state is that different lifestyle choices have different consequences. Higher rates of illegitimacy in the inner cities, for example, cause the state to expand itself to compensate for those ill effects.
Koyzis makes reference to these categories in a 2004 election postmortem:
I wouldn't wish to overstate the differences between the two parties, both of which represent the larger legacy of liberalism, though drawing on different strands. Using my own categories, the Republicans tend to reflect the influence of the 2nd and 3rd stages of liberalism, viz., the night watchman state and the regulatory state, while the Democrats embody liberalism in its 4th and 5th stages, viz., the equal opportunity state and the choice-enhancement state. Republicans have figured out a way to synthesize traditional Christian belief with this classical liberal ideology. Witness Bush's speeches ascribing near redemptive qualities to the spread of freedom. Yet the Democrats have bought into a more obviously secular mindset for which belief in a transcendent God is increasingly foreign. How long this can last is difficult to say. The self-interested desire to win power, if nothing else, may force an internal reassessment within the Democratic Party.
That the Republicans' synthesis might be an unstable one is something which has not yet occurred to its supporters, especially among evangelicals and Catholics. However, for the near future the "Grand Old Party" has the advantage over its opponent.
While he makes some excellent points, I have to take exception to his last claim. I am, after all, one evangelical who believes that the synthesis between "traditional Christian belief" and "classical liberal ideology" will be short-lived. In fact, since the last election we are seen the GOP leadership downplay the significance of the evangelical vote. Tommorow's election, though, may show that they can't win without us, which will only heighten the tensions between the two camps. This condition is to be expected since the underlying worldviews between evangelicals and secular Republicans are ultimately incompatible.
Although it is not ideal, the one advantage of a GOP-controlled government is that it can slow--albeit only moderately and only in certain areas--the process of disorder, allowing us the room to maneuver so that we can begin to re-strengthen and fortify other institutions within society. The alternative is a complete embrace of individualism. Liberals (particularly those of a libertarian bent) tend to think that authority is a zero-sum game played out between the individual and the state. Although they may recognize other mediating institutions such as the family or church, they tend to view them in completely contractual terms. In their view, these institutions have no inherent authority or claim over the individual. They are merely extraneous parts of the "social contract."
The antithesis of this idea is what Koyzis refers to this as a neo-Calvinist political theory, what I would call a "Kuyperian conservatism." Unlike the ideological form of modern conservatism, the Kuyperian form recognizes that ultimate sovereignty belongs to God alone who delegates authority throughout society to various institutional structures (i.e., the family, church, business, etc.). Naturally, these institutions are not immune to the effects of sin or human depravity but they still retain the legitimate authority given to them by our Creator.
Unlike liberalism and the other forms of political idolatry, though, Kuyperian conservatism doesn't require accepting a false eschatology. It doesn?t have liberalism's naive utopian belief that progress, rationality, liberty, or democracy will lead America to become the "City upon a Hill." Instead it strives to conserve the sovereignty of the various spheres of the polis, maintaining order and striving for justice until Christ returns. Only then, when the Kingdom of God is finally ushered in, will we finally shed this spiritually vacant state.
Related: Dr. Koyzis expands on his five stages and wonders whether the process is circular.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3189
1
Got an opinion on this?
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html
A Republican national advisor told me recently the evangelcial right vote won't sway this election. Watch for the 13 percent moderate Catholic vote to have influence.
posted on 11.06.2006 2:56 AM2
"Unlike liberalism and the other forms of political idolatry, though, Kuyperian conservatism doesn't require accepting a false eschatology. It doesn't have liberalism's naive utopian belief that progress, rationality, liberty, or democracy will lead America to become the "City upon a Hill."
I have to disagree with this. The Republicans and many evangelicals absolutely believe in a false eschatology. They believe in the utopian belief that if they just get certain laws passed, God will be pleased and we will once again be "protected" and we will have done our "Christian duty".
I share the desire for abortion to be illegal as well as laws concerning many other values that I share with my fellow evangelicals. But I do not for one minute believe that accomplishing this will achieve some utopian state and bring our country "back to God". I do not for one minute believe that establishing democracy in the middle east will be the end of dictatorial and fascists powers in the world as has been expressed. Many wars were supposedly the end of all wars. Too many evangelicals do not have enough trust in God, to let God do his work through us serving and loving. Instead we have to take power, this same power that corrupts our belief.
Wake up evangelicals. America is not the last hope! God is!
posted on 11.06.2006 8:13 AM3
Well said, Tim L. On the opposite extreme, I see many evangelicals panicking if they don't get the right people in office or on the bench. Whatever happened to God's sovereignty?
posted on 11.06.2006 10:22 AM4
Joe,
Good history. You're correct, imnsho.
It is amazing how libs and cons, and Xns for that matter, don't recognize themselves as being products of the currents of history and philosophy. And there lies the next issue -- to separate ourselves from both practical and theoretical Enlightenment thinking. We practice it more than we'd like to acknowledge.
Collin
posted on 11.06.2006 11:24 AMhttp://philosophyforchristians.blogspot.com
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
5
"The alternative is a complete embrace of individualism. Liberals (particularly those of a libertarian bent) tend to think that authority is a zero-sum game played out between the individual and the state. Although they may recognize other mediating institutions such as the family or church, they tend to view them in completely contractual terms. In their view, these institutions have no inherent authority or claim over the individual. They are merely extraneous parts of the "social contract.""
C'mon, Joe. This is facile. Are you really saying that the ONLY alternative to religio-cultural conservatism is plain vanilla, Rawlsian liberalism?
I've noticed that religious and political conservatives use this sort of indirect "justification" a lot. Instead of persuading people of your religion or politics on their merits, you bash caricatures of someone else's and then present yours as the only alternatives. Why YOUR politics or religion is viable is never explained.
posted on 11.06.2006 12:32 PM6
Whoa there! Joe, you have been suspciously quiet about two recent MAJOR developments at the nexus of politics & Christianity: 1) evangelical David Kuo's blistering report "Tempting Faith" about his experiences in the Bush White House; 2) the Ted Haggard affair.
Both of these speak to the dangers of mixing religion with politics, and especially the dangers of picking a particular party or administration to cozy up to.
Joe, for you to continue to urge us to vote Republican, without addressing these daily events is strange at best, disingenuous and lacking integrity at worst. Are you going to stand up and talk about these concerns, or just continue to parrot the Republican party line? I have long that you were an independent and intelligent analyst of politics, society, and religion. But you risk looking like a party operative...just like the ones David Kuo criticizes. Are you concerned about our eternal souls, our relationship with Christ, or just about who sits in the White House & Congress for the next election cycle?
posted on 11.06.2006 12:40 PM7
Amy,
I think Joe is saying that, because classic liberalism in endemic in all of politics, something else is needed and, at least with one side, there may well be an avenue for escape. I think the principle is valid. I only wish it were more practical.
What I wish to avoid is some new sort of magisterial reformation that will change little from what we escaped about 200 years ago. That lies at the base of my willingness to part with the theonomists in general.
Collin
posted on 11.06.2006 1:27 PM8
Every two years the GOP yells out "The End Times Are Near!" and Evangelicals come running with burning swords to join in the Crusade against....(fill in the blank). Onward Christians Warriors! Smite the Wicked! Yawn. Get a clue.
posted on 11.06.2006 3:54 PM9
Funny gryph, the only one I hear talking like this is Al Gore....smite those SUVs!! Er, well, all except the five in my entourage anyhow..
posted on 11.06.2006 4:20 PM10
I think some of you posters are intentionally ignorant. How many different ways can Joe say that his choice of Republican over Democrat is basically a choice of the lesser of two evils. How dense are you people? No reasonable evangelical that I know thinks that Republicans will bring Utopia--that's liberal moonbat territory. Don't bring that crap in here.
posted on 11.06.2006 5:12 PM11
Republicans as represented by this administration sure have run away from Teddy R's notion that "that nonstate actors (i.e., corporations) can be a threat to individual liberty and that the state has a role in limiting and protecting against such infringement." Instead they are turning the USA into a corporate-welfare state. Although normally such government welfare payments are targeted at those in need, we see huge benefits being given by GWB and his minions to Big Oil and pharmaceuticals to name just two. When have you seen those industries in need of help?
posted on 11.06.2006 5:41 PM12
BTW, Joe, I like the much cleaner look of the blog. Nicely done.
posted on 11.06.2006 5:50 PM13
AndyS,
When the state and corporate interests become intertwined, there is a term for that. It's a term that is frequently misunderstood and misused, but basically, it's fascism. Maybe a "nicer" word would be "Corporatism".
John
posted on 11.06.2006 7:20 PM14
"No reasonable evangelical that I know thinks that Republicans will bring Utopia--that's liberal moonbat territory. Don't bring that crap in here."
Ok, so who is the one that intentionally ignorant?
posted on 11.06.2006 7:52 PM15
jprime, I don't see what the Haggard affair or the Kuo book affect Joe's argument in the slightest.
Haggard - I don't know much about the man, which is true for most evangelicals. He has much less traction in evangelical circles than did Falwell or Robertson. But for the sake of the argument, suppose that he was a important to evangelicals as say, Billy Graham. What does his disgressions have to do with my choices? Do I, or all other evangelicals, suddenly become enamored with abortion, desire higher taxes, decide to disband the military because he sinned? The fact is, all churches have to deal with these issues, but there is rarely a collapse of faith or moral position because someone sinned.
As far as the Kuo book goes, again, so what? Did he say that Bush was disdainful of evangelicals, or that the administration has members that don't like evangelicals? I haven't read the book, but I don't recall anyone saying that Bush was hypocritical on this issued. I would strongly argue that the people in the administration who don't like evangelicals are not being hypocrits, either. They don't like evangelicals. They like the votes, but not the voters. That does not invalidate the President's position on anything. After all, it's the Republican party, not the Vatican.
The concern that a political message can dilute the gospel is a real one, granted. If I may be so bold, much of the black church is now part and parcel of the Democratic party. Hopefully evangelicals don't make that mistake. All of that being said, there is one party that takes moral concerns seriously, and one that mocks traditional morality. There is a party that supports the military, and one that doesn't, a party that is willing to protect our position in the world and one that doesn't, one that wants to let people keep as much of their earnings as possible, and one that doesn't, and so on. Evangelical concern for these issues is valid and benificial, and we can support the party that champions these issues without affecting the message of Christ.
To have no concern for these issues is to remove the civilizing impact of the Gospel.
posted on 11.06.2006 9:16 PM16
BD Watch for the 13 percent moderate Catholic vote to have influence.
What exactly is a “moderate Catholic?” Either one agrees with the tenets of the Catholic Church’s teaching and is not “moderate” or one disagrees with the RC Church and becomes, well, a small-p “protestant.”
Tom On the opposite extreme, I see many evangelicals panicking if they don't get the right people in office or on the bench.
Who exactly are these “panicking evangelicals” that you refer to?
Collin And there lies the next issue -- to separate ourselves from both practical and theoretical Enlightenment thinking. We practice it more than we'd like to acknowledge.
I agree. In fact, I think we are about to see a rise in another Enlightenment era fad –Deism. (More on that later this week.)
Amy C'mon, Joe. This is facile. Are you really saying that the ONLY alternative to religio-cultural conservatism is plain vanilla, Rawlsian liberalism?
Um, no, not at all. I’m saying failure to stop the erosion of societal institutions (e.g., family, church, civic organizations) leads to radical individualism. Kuyperianism is one religio-cultural conservative movement that can do that work but I wouldn’t say it is the only one (Catholic social theory could be pretty effective too).
Why YOUR politics or religion is viable is never explained.
What need is there to explain the self-evident? ; )
jprime Whoa there! Joe, you have been suspciously quiet about two recent MAJOR developments at the nexus of politics & Christianity: 1) evangelical David Kuo's blistering report "Tempting Faith" about his experiences in the Bush White House; 2) the Ted Haggard affair.
MAJOR developments? You need to get out more. I’ve become quite familiar with Kuo over the past few weeks (I even know people who know him personally) and with his book. First, let me say that if you think it’s a “blistering report” then you don’t know much about it. Kuo’s problem with the Bushies is that he didn’t spend enough money on the program that he champions – faith based initiatives. Now are you saying that you agree that Bush should be spending more on this program? If not then you really don’t agree with Kuo’s criticism at all. You just like the fact that an insider is criticizing the President. (But Kuo doesn’t even do that too harshly. In fact, he still admires Bush.)
Also, why is Kuo’s story so newsworthy? Is there anything that he is saying that hasn’t been said by, oh, every evangelical leader that has ever engaged in the political process? The only difference between Kuo and most other evangelicals in government is that, unlike him, they are not so naïve.
And why is Haggard more than a tragic human interest story? Had you even heard of him before this scandal? If not, you’re not alone. I suspect that the vast majority of people—including evangelicals—had never heard of him or the NAE. He was a mid-level political player at best. He also wasn’t exactly a card-carrying member of the “religious right.” Many of the issues he championed (i.e., global warming) but him at odds with others Christian political leaders.
Joe, for you to continue to urge us to vote Republican, without addressing these daily events is strange at best, disingenuous and lacking integrity at worst.
What do these two items have to do with “voting Republican?” The reason I encourage people to hold their noses and vote for Republicans is because the Democrats are, quite literally, the “party of death.” I’m not being hyperbolic either. They are tethered to pro-death policies like abortion, embryo destruction, assisted suicide, etc.
Are you concerned about our eternal souls, our relationship with Christ, or just about who sits in the White House & Congress for the next election cycle?
To be honest, I don’t have much love for the Republicans. I was a Democrat until the age of 21. I come from a long line of Yellow Dog Democrats. But until the Democrat party stops embracing abortion I will never say that anyone can, in good conscience, cast a vote to put them in power.
AndyS BTW, Joe, I like the much cleaner look of the blog. Nicely done.
Thanks, Andy. Once I get the bugs worked out I’ll bring it back.
posted on 11.06.2006 9:34 PM17
When will you be blogging about Ted Haggard??? I want to know more about what a great man he is.
posted on 11.06.2006 9:42 PM18
Politically moderate Joe, Catholics don't vote en masse for Republicans any more than Protestants do.
The national policy advisors may be wrong about this one, I guess the analysts and voters will find out Tuesday night, eh?
posted on 11.06.2006 11:09 PM19
Joe, just for the sake of argument, what is so self evident about your particular religious or political belief. When politics and religion are joined niether are served well.What one ends up with is politicians paying lip service to religious people just for their vote,(this turns the church,any church, into just another special interest group with their hand out for money,appointments,or other governmental favors) they would thus be PIUOS FRAUDS, this though would matter little to people who only want to legislate the way in which I should believe.
posted on 11.07.2006 1:00 AM20
Hollywood Liberal said:
"When will you be blogging about Ted Haggard??? I want to know more about what a great man he is."
*sigh* Do people read ANY previous comments before posting anymore? Or do they just like to see their words in print or something?
posted on 11.07.2006 9:11 AM21
As a Libertarian I could never agree to relying upon institutional sovereignty over some version of moral justice until Jesus returns. Republicans are not the lesser evil over Democrats. Politics in and of itself corrupts. Saying otherwise is simply ignoring the truth. Who would we ask to legislate morality? There is no one to ask or rely upon but ourselves. We need wisdom not deciders, knowledge not absolutes and when Jesus does return if there is a need for institutions he will create them.
posted on 11.07.2006 8:03 PM22
What exactly is a “moderate Catholic?” Either one agrees with the tenets of the Catholic Church’s teaching and is not “moderate” or one disagrees with the RC Church and becomes, well, a small-p “protestant.”
Believe it or not the Catholic Church has a rich and long history of dissent and argument. It is and was not some type of monolithic Borg enterprise until Martin Luther showed up playing Captain Picard.
MAJOR developments? You need to get out more. I’ve become quite familiar with Kuo over the past few weeks (I even know people who know him personally) and with his book. First, let me say that if you think it’s a “blistering report” then you don’t know much about it. Kuo’s problem with the Bushies is that he didn’t spend enough money on the program that he champions – faith based initiatives.
I doubt I'm the only one who suspected from the beginning that 'faith based initiatives' was little more than pork for the religious right. I haven't read Kou's book but I suspect his problem wasn't so much in simply not spending enough money but instead using the program as a vehicle for buying votes through pork rather than some type of idealistic fusion of gov't policy and religion.
Also, why is Kuo’s story so newsworthy? Is there anything that he is saying that hasn’t been said by, oh, every evangelical leader that has ever engaged in the political process? The only difference between Kuo and most other evangelicals in government is that, unlike him, they are not so naïve.
Or is it more like there are other evangelicals who are cynical enough to enjoy the ride without really caring?
And why is Haggard more than a tragic human interest story? Had you even heard of him before this scandal? If not, you’re not alone. I suspect that the vast majority of people—including evangelicals—had never heard of him or the NAE. He was a mid-level political player at best. He also wasn’t exactly a card-carrying member of the “religious right.” Many of the issues he championed (i.e., global warming) but him at odds with others Christian political leaders.
Why not only was Haggard a nobody but he was a traitor to the cause! Joe's spinning here sounds a bit like old hard-line communists who will spend thousands of words explaining why some member of their group has committed some type of thought crime.
If this had happened to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson would Joe then consider that more than a 'mid-level political player' who was a 'card-carrying member of the 'religious right'? How many times do Falwell or Robertson get attacked by liberals and people like Joe respond that they don't really represent the religious right....they are only creations of the 'biased media'? Welcome to the mystical body of the religious right. They are everyone but when something bad happens they are no one.
What do these two items have to do with “voting Republican?” The reason I encourage people to hold their noses and vote for Republicans is because the Democrats are, quite literally, the “party of death.”
Versus the Party of Torture?
posted on 11.08.2006 9:49 AM23
Using my own categories, the Republicans tend to reflect the influence of the 2nd and 3rd stages of liberalism, viz., the night watchman state and the regulatory state, while the Democrats embody liberalism in its 4th and 5th stages, viz., the equal opportunity state and the choice-enhancement state.
Koyzis demonstrates how political philosophizing can become about as productive as masturbation....but with more mess and less fun.
The 'night watchman state'? From THIS CONGRESS!!!! How about the "compulsive shopper state who is trying to buy everyone's affection by giving them expensive gifts while maxing out the family's credit cards"? The "regulatory state"? This congress and administration's motto might as well have been the "write your own regulations for a nice donation".
As for his history, he seems to understand sterotypes more than what actually happened. The 'night watchman state' through the 1880's? How does that square with the massive land grant programs before designed to spur settlement and opportunity? If anything they would be better categorized as 'equal opportunity' and 'choice enhancement'...but that would make it about 100+ years 'too soon' for his phases. Heck even the shortcoming of 'phase 4' was revealed back then as Mormon's attempted to estabish a polygamous theocratic state as part of their 'choice enhancement'. How about the massive tariffs imposed at the behest of northern industries? One of the south's few legitimate complaints against the North going into the Civil War. The massive land grants given to the railroads to spur the construction of a transcontinantal line. Before that was gov't involvement in the building of canals (often forgotten about today).
As David Koyzis notes in his supurb study of idealogies, Political Visions and Illusions, the first and most basic principle of liberalism is that everyone possesses property in their own person and must be free to govern themselves in accordance with their own choices, provided that these choices do not infringe on the equal right of others to do the same. Whether a 'liberal', 'libertarian', or 'conservative', almost every politically involved American subscribes to this foundational belief in the sovereignty of the individual. The differences in political persuasions derive not from a denunciation of this principle but from disagreements over the role the state in relation to the individual.
On the contrary, conservatives do disagree with this 'foundational belief'. Probably one of the most foundational documents of modern Conservatism is Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution. His argument remains powerful. Humans are very limited in their knowledge and are literally 'new to the scene'. By the time a man has accumulated a lot of wisdom he is old and it is only possible to pass along a fraction of such experience to the next generation. Therefore tradition needs to be given a high degree of respect even in cases where it seems irrational or downright wrong simply because we are ignorant and cannot be so smart as to imagine we can figure out all the consquences of making radical changes to it.
posted on 11.08.2006 10:16 AMMost people are 'moderates' in the sense that they believe (usually not in these clear terms) that there is something to both arguments. They often believe wrongly that the break between liberalism and conservatism has to do with tax rates or gov't spending (if it did then this Congress makes the Clinton administration look like William F Buckley was elected Pres in 92).
24
can you think for yourself?
posted on 11.09.2006 4:18 PM25
"The reason I encourage people to hold their noses and vote for Republicans is because the Democrats are, quite literally, the “party of death.” I’m not being hyperbolic either. They are tethered to pro-death policies like abortion, embryo destruction, assisted suicide, etc."
Of course you are being hyperbolic.
You encourage people to vote republican because you are republican. You should quit being disingenuous and admit it.
posted on 11.10.2006 4:46 PM26
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.04.2007 5:11 PM27
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.06.2007 10:58 AM28
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.06.2007 2:03 PM29
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.06.2007 11:14 PM30
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.07.2007 7:03 AM31
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.07.2007 2:47 PM32
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.07.2007 11:16 PM33
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.09.2007 6:53 AM34
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.10.2007 8:52 AM35
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.10.2007 8:59 AM36
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.10.2007 9:08 PM37
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.11.2007 3:28 PM38
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.12.2007 3:16 AM39
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.12.2007 6:20 AM40
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.15.2007 3:21 AM41
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.15.2007 4:11 AM42
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.15.2007 5:29 PM43
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.15.2007 6:29 PM44
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.16.2007 12:07 PM45
Visit my webpage!!
posted on 01.16.2007 5:26 PM