If you demonize Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, you lose the argument
You loved my post about how to disagree with people. But are you living it?
Case in point: Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, has defied the Supreme Court and refused to grant marriage licenses to gay couple, based on her interpretation of the bible.
I believe this is wrong. You don’t get to do a government job based on your interpretation of the bible.
But many of my social media friends are giddy to point out that she’s been married four times and had children conceived through adultery. (This was before she was born again.) Apparently this makes her a hypocrite.
If you accept this argument — worse, if you revel in it — you’re actually undermining your position.
If Davis were a pillar of the local chamber of commerce who went to church every day and never did anything immoral, she would still be wrong. Gay marriage is still the law of the land and government officials still need to grant licenses to gay couples.
If Davis were a lesbian, would we then have to accept her opinion that gay people should not get marriage licenses? No. It would make no difference. She would still be wrong. Her personal story doesn’t enter into it.
By bringing Davis’ morality into the argument, you reinforce the idea that this is about morality. It is not. It is about how our laws work.
Kim Davis is easy to hate because of her moral history and the fact that she looks like a shrew. Doesn’t matter. Once you hate, you’ve lost the moral high ground.
I take my cue from the way things have unfolded among the opposing advocates on the ground in Kentucky:
Rachelle Bombe has sat there every day, wearing rainbow colors and carrying signs that demand marriage equality. One particularly hot day, Davis, the woman she was there to protest against, worried Bombe would get overheated and offered her a cold drink. In turn, Bombe said she’s checked in on Davis, whose lawyer says she’s received death threats and hate mail, to make sure she’s holding up despite the difficult circumstances.
“She’s a very nice lady, I like her a lot,” Bombe said of Davis. “We’re on the opposite sides of this, but it’s not personal.”
On the issue of marriage licenses, Kim Davis is wrong. Eventually, the authorities will remove her from office and the marriages will proceed. You can pray for her or protest her. But I won’t demonize anybody, no matter how much I disagree with their point of view.
Photo: TIMOTHY D. EASLEY/AP
I believe you are conflating two different things. It is quite possible to express an opinion about her stance while also finding her hypocritical. One can have a POV on what is right or wrong in a situation and also point out the inconsistencies of opinions and actions of the players involved in that situation. I can find Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity right or wrong, but either way, I can also find it hypocritical that his primary accusers did exactly the same.
I don’t follow your suggestion that someone calling Davis a hypocrite means one has “actually undermined their position.” At worst, it means that person has perhaps distracted from the actual issue, but in no way does it undermine the political or moral argument to point out that Davis is a hypocrite who is wrongly attempting to push her own personal standards and not a Biblical standard on the citizens of Kentucky. In fact, I might suggest that pointing out how Davis is happy to pick and choose different portions of the Bible to guide her personal life and public duties does , in fact, illustrate why her actions are so wrong–the law cannot be held to one person’s personal interpretation of the Bible because each individual interprets it differently. Davis embodies this.
All that being said, I don’t disagree that those who care about this situation are better of sticking to the law, but I don’t believe anyone undermines their argument by pointing out the hypocrisy of the person at the center of this tempest in a teapot.
And, for the record, I don’t care and have not posted about Davis’ personal history, I might add.
A thoughtful response.
I’m just wary of the ad hominem attack. We are all flawed. I don’t want to go there.
But you’ve shown that perhaps there’s more justification for it than I give people credit for.
By the way, why is “hypocrite” the worst thing we can say about a person? We all do things out of whack with our beliefs sometimes, for all sorts of reasons.
We humans like to think we are consistent, honest and true to our values, but I long ago came to realize we’re all hypocrites. In fact, I might even argue a certain amount of acceptance of this fact is healthy, because otherwise one can continually beat himself or herself up for not living up to ideals.
I am an animal lover who eats meat, as an example. (Eat it? I LOVE it!) I can’t justify why the abuse of an animal will so set me off, and yet I can sit down to a chicken, veal or steak meal without batting an eyelash.
Everyone (or almost) who cares about global warming drives in cars, takes planes and uses air conditioning on hot days. People who care deeply about poverty often use their cash to buy frivolous things rather than donate it. People who want good corporate citzenship will line up to get their next iPhone, even though Apple hides profits overseas to reduce taxes.
No one can truly live up to all their ideals all the time, but we’d like to believe we do.
Well said. We are all hypocrites.
Uh no we are all not hypocrites. Some of us do not hate ourselves, most of us just hate hypocrisy and the culture of Kumbaya-ism.
How is there such debate when she can’t read the bible into what she’s told to do. She can quit if she doesn’t like her job. She’s allowed to believe anything she wants, biblical or otherwise but she can’t break the law. The law spends wasted time convicting drug users and DUI cases who are such horrendous breakers of law, lock people like her up then. The drug users and DUI things don’t have any bearing on what I’m saying other than to point out that we uselessly put people in prison. So why not see here sit in jail for breaking a law.
Is not issuing a marriage license breaking a law? Surely grounds for losing your job, but hardly breaking any law.
The law says you must do your job as a public employee. She is liable for contempt of court and could go to jail for defying a court order.
There are three issues at play, and one ought not to mix them:
1. She is legally obligated to fulfill her professional duties, or (eventually) lose that job. It’s unfortunate, but that will ultimately be what happens.
2. She claims her reasons are biblical, but this disregards the fact that the U.S. isn’t a biblical nation, so that reason carries all the weight of saying Santa Claus told her.
3. Claims that stem from the notion of “I act in accordance to this instruction book of mine” are pretty much rendered meaningless in light of the fact that her actions indicate she doesn’t actually FOLLOW the instruction book in question.
When people refer to her as “hypocritical,” it’s in reference to #3. But hypocritical behavior really shouldn’t be a surprise from those claiming a moral high ground. It’s pretty much a low-hanging fruit of easy ridicule. People are (justifiably) using that to undermine her claims to a moral authority. It may be impolite, but the fact is that she was the first to make such a claim, so no room to complain if that comes into question. Boo-hoo.
#3 has nothing to do with #1.
#1 is the only one that really matters here. As you surmise. She’ll either do her job or someone who WILL do her job will do that job.
Whether or not people mock her connection to #2 or #3 neither exacerbates or alleviates her from the #1 issue.
I just want to say one thing. IF Davis felt strong about her position, then quitting her job voluntarily would speak volumes about her conviction. Why doesn’t she just do that? I would actually support her, even as an anti-gay, if she would walk the walk in this manner. It would show true moral character and religious affirmation. As of now I have no respect for her at all. If she quit her job, I might.
I believe it’s childish to think that “now the law says it, so you must do it”. You can’t tell someone to change their religion, deny their God, or sin against their own conscience because the law suddenly changed.
You can’t accuse someone for immoral things done in the past, if they have been legally forgiven by a judge (Jesus). If she’s done 1000 things wrongs in her lifetime, so have we, whether cheating, lying, stealing anything, etc. Again, she was forgiven of her immorality.
Lastly, she’s not interpreting the Bible, as do many to excuse their burning consciences. She’s simply taking it literally for what it says.
I don’t want her to change her religion or deny her job. Her job is now incompatible with her religious beliefs. She has to quit.
Many of us have had to do things in our jobs that we don’t think are right. We either hold our nose and do them, or we quit on principle.
But in fact her assertion that she is following the words of Jesus is a complete and total lie. Xtians love to make shit up, and to ignore the stuff in the bible they don’t like or don’t want to do, but even more they love to use it as weapon against people they don’t like. Doesn’t matter if it doesn’t say what they say it does.
She is not only breaking the law, by not giving out marriage licenses, but she is being discriminatory against certain people. If she were truly concerned about same sex marriages being sinful, and not wanting any part of them, then why isn’t she concerned with sin within opposite sex marriages, as well? Does she ask heterosexual couples if they believe in God, or if they will live their lives according to the teachings of the Bible, or if they will uphold their vows? Of course not-because it is not her JOB to determine if anyone is worthy in receiving a marriage license….it IS her job to simply sign them for two conscenting adults….period….her opinions and beliefs do not change that. This is no different than a county clerk having to give a marriage license to her best friend, even though the groom-to-be is a known cheater, liar, abusive, drunken schmuck that can’t hold a job….and she believes her friend would be making a horrible choice by marrying him. She is simply being discriminatory in her actions. And if her personal convictions no longer allow her to follow the law and do the job she was elected to do, she needs to resign, or allow someone else in the office sign them.
There is one problem with this argument. You can ask Jesus for forgiveness for your transgressions. She is living in an adulterous relationship and continuing the sin. How can a sin be forgiven if you continue living it? That is the problem with this philosophy I this see much to often with Christians. They think they can get away with all sorts of things that go against the teachings of their lord and then simply say I’m sorry, will you forgive me Jesus.
I have to add, that I don’t care if Kim was married 8 times or she was a whore and got drunk constantly. All she has to do is the right thing. Step away from this horrible job that goes against her conscience. That is not what she wants though, she wants everyone to change the rules and laws so she can keep her plush 80k job. That is what I call hypocritical.
They should’ve had a legal out for her to respect het religious beliefs while at the same time allow anyone to get a marriage license with another clerk…like a judge recusing him/herself from a case.
There is no other clerk; it’s an elected position so they can’t fire her. The judge proposed that the deputy clerks could fill out the applications in her absence, in order to release her from being in contempt. But she said that if she was released, she would make sure her deputies (5/6 – the 6th being her son – agreed to release licenses) would not obey the judge’s order. In the end, I think she disagreed because her name would still be approving the licenses as county clerk.
So they DID give her a legal out aside from resigning. Since it’s an elected position, the only way she can be removed if she doesn’t resign is impeachment, which isn’t possible until January unless the state legislature holds a special session. They have said that they won’t do so, so that means that no marriage licenses will be issued to same-sex couples until next year.
Good points, thanks for posting.
It would help your argument if you had left “the fact that she looks like a shrew” out of it IMHO.
Just a note: the Bible is a proper noun. It needs to be capitalized. Just like the title of any other religious tome. Or book for that matter. Or any name for that matter.
I try to refrain altogether from using the word. Gives it more power and meaning than it deserves. I would write biblical beliefs, or writings instead. Biblical need not be capitalized.
I don’t agree because I see two issues at play here:
1. she has claimed that her religion forbids her from issuing marriage to same sex couples. in that respect it she opens herself up to her past history being made fair game to her actions because she is not doing her job. anyone who calls her out on that is 100% justified in doing so. if you won’t do your job for reasons other than physical inability I not only do not feel sorry for you, you deserve the consequences of that action whatever they are. speaking of consequences,
2. she is now sitting in federal custody because she failed to comply with the legal and legitimate orders from a federal district judge and the supreme court of the united states. she is not sitting in a box because she’s a christian or for her past deeds. if she complies with the federal court order, she could be out. today. the only thing that matters in the past in this particular case is her failure to perform the duties of her office which denied eligible couples their civil rights under the 14th amendment. the judge even stated in his remarks that as a christian himself there are things he finds morally reprehensible but he swore an oath to follow the constitution. and I would say the same irrespective of the personal beliefs of any public official. do your job and ask your flavor of god for forgiveness in performing the action and the wellbeing of the souls of those who will be cavorting in sin.
I don’t use her past to make fun of her because she’s in jail. I use her past to question why in this secular society there are elected officials who hold their particular religious book in higher status and authority than the constitution of the united states and/or the state the office is in.
I’m going to stick my neck out here and suggest that Ms. Davis hated gays well before her religious conversion. As Resa Aslan has said, “the bible doesn’t make you a bigot.” If you want to hate, Christianity gives you backing – if you want to love and accept, same thing.
I’ve read criticism from both Kim Davis’ supporters and her critics that claim we shouldn’t focus on her past, but only on her performance (or lack thereof) of her duties. I disagree, because Davis’s past exposes what’s wrong with her argument and is a microcosm of the encumbering Christian extremism in America.
Davis said she lived a life of sin before she was born again and forgiven. That was her choice and her cross to bear. Yet she is denying that same choice and free will to her constituents because she has “seen the light.” She is like the reformed smoker who wants to make everyone else stop smoking because she knows better now, or the reformed alcoholic who wants to make everyone else stop drinking because she knows better now, and as the Newly Enlightened One, she believes she should make those decisions for all of us.
No one denied her her free will and right to commit adultery, or to divorce repeatedly, or to make any of the un-Christian choices that she made prior to her conversion. No one denied her anything based on their religious grounds, because the rule of law is separate from religious belief and practice. We are a secular nation, not a Christian one.
Yet she believes she can deny the same of others now. Why? Because she is a Christian? She apparently missed the verses where Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Mark 12), or where Paul instructed Christians to follow the law of the land (Romans 13). Many self-righteous Christians cherry pick Bible verses when they try to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us, ignoring the Bible verses that specifically instruct them to not do exactly that.
Faith isn’t faith if it imposed on people. Free will is absent when Christians impose their beliefs on others. Faith implies that they believe in the face of adversity, in the face of people who disagree with their belief. Faith does not give one moral superiority let alone LEGAL superiority over any other person.
If her faith isn’t strong enough to survive in a world that doesn’t always share her same faith, then she ought to focus on her own doubts and beliefs, and not on the actions of those around her.
Christians often use the slippery slope argument to protest things like same sex marriage and legalizing marijuana, but that argument works both ways: the Kim Davises of the country are leading us down a slippery slope to theocratic rule.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 has led to pharmacists conscientiously objecting to selling birth control to women, the Hobby Lobby decision, and more. That religious beliefs are being imposed on customers of public businesses is a misguided and wrongheaded interpretation of RFRA, but Davis is now trying to use the RFRA argument regarding *government* business.
Imagine a clerk refused to approve hunting licenses based on his or her religious belief, or gun licenses, or driver’s licenses. Imagine a clerk denying a mixed-race couple their request to adopt a child. Imagine a Christian official denying a Jewish group a building permit for a temple. Imagine ANY public employee using their official powers to deny a legal action based on their personal religious beliefs. Well, that’s what Kim Davis believes she should be allowed to do, and not letting her do so is in her warped mind “religious persecution.”
This is not a singular case, either, because this is exactly what extremist Christians are attempting to do through the RFRA, Hobby Lobby, et al. When the RFRA passed, religious liberty was widely understood to be limited by the rights of others. Today, extremists are using RFRA to do just the opposite, to limit the rights of others based on their “religious liberty.”
Georgia recently debated its own RFRA bill. An amendment was proposed to prevent the bill from being used to overcome anti-discrimination laws, but the bill’s sponsor argued that protecting victims of discrimination would, and I quote, “completely undercut the purpose of the bill.” In plain English, he wants to *legalize discrimination* based on religious belief.
We are going off the rails, folks.
When extremist countries make discriminatory Sharia law, we rightfully say, “That’s wrong.” When a Georgia politician makes a discriminatory Christian law, we should rightfully say, “That’s just as wrong.”
If Kim Davis feels she needs to impose her beliefs on everyone else, then she should get thee to a nunnery, because the United States is not a theocracy, but a secular nation.
In my office alone, I have Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, a Scientologist, and probably a few others I don’t even know about, as well as several nonbelievers. We are a nation of immigrants from all over the world and with all kinds of beliefs. If someone chooses to marry once, or four times, or not at all, they are legally free to do that. And now, with the Supreme Court’s ruling, if someone chooses to marry a person of the same sex, they are legally free to do that, too, and the Kim Davises of the world need to either do their job, or quit.
But protesting that she is being “religiously persecuted” is insultingly wrong, and Kim Davis’s own past shows exactly why.
Her claim of persecution is wrong regardless of her past.
Understood, agreed and acknowledged, but my point is there’s more to her story than she broke the law, and we should look at the big picture. Her advisors at Liberty Counsel are arguing that divine law trumps US law, which is a big deal, and should not be glossed over. Her lawyer recently compared present-day Christians in the US with Jews living in Germany in the 1930s. (Seriously.)
BUT getting back to Davis, her argument is it would violate her conscience. Well, the Bible doesn’t say anything about same-sex marriage, but it DOES say something about divorce, something she approves on a regular basis and did herself three times, so is she being honest, or is her bias showing? Her three divorces may have upset her clerk, but she was still granted them, because the clerk’s faith has no bearing on her role, an example she should follow. She’s not endorsing any marriage or divorce, she’s acknowledging they’ve completed the necessary requirements.
Pointing out her blatant hypocrisy is a helpful step toward exposing her bigotry camouflaged by her claims of “religious persecution.” IMHO.
The hypocrisy has nothing to do with her own past. If Ms Davis has been issuing marriage licenses to divorced people since the time of her conversion, then she’s not objecting on genuine moral/religious grounds.
There is a moral argument in all of this. We can protest based on our conscience and the tenets of our religion — whether we agree with her stance or not, I’m fairly certain both sides agree with that — what we can’t do is let her claim a moral/religious reason and let her apply that reason differently to different sets of people.
Even if she’d been consistent, she would still be in contempt of court and very bad at fulfilling her public duty.
Your last sentence is the relevant point here.
I believe that when she was sworn into her elected office, she took and accepted (probably with her hand on a Bible) the oath of office, which would include upholding the Constitution of the United States. She broke that oath and thus defiled the Bible upon which she swore. She is merely a bigot, and a fake Christian.
Liberty Counsel, Kim Davis’s choice for legal representation, has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It takes much more than simply opposing same sex marriage on religious grounds to be designated a hate group alongside white supremacist organizations, it takes a long and persistent history of spreading lies and toxic propaganda aimed at a hated and vulnerable minority. Feeding bigotry and violence, in the name of Jesus.
Suggesting that pointing out Davis’s blatant hypocrisy because of her own history with the ‘sanctity of marriage’ is wrong is like telling a critic of the KKK that they should be more civil and stick to the legal facts.
Time to stop allowing these bigots to hide behind their religion, they’re nothing but hate mongers who deserve to be mocked and humiliated, shamed into submission. Body shaming is wrong, sexist language and double standards are wrong, pointing out fundamentalist Christian hypocrisy makes a very valid point and we should do it at every opportunity until they stop trying to assert their will and hate onto the rest of us.
Demonizing her based on behavior is bad enough. Demonizing her based on her lawyers and bringing the KKK into it is worse.
Hating on people who hate doesn’t win anybody over. Words like “deserve to be mocked” aren’t part of how I do things. What do you think they accomplish?
She is wrong. That’s enough.
Seriously? Pointing out that Liberty Counsel is categorized as a hate group alongside the KKK is ‘demonizing?’ It’s a fact that obviously needs pointing out.
Refusing to tolerate the intolerant is not ‘hate’, it’s a line in the sand. I have no desire to win over members of an extremist hate group. I believe that exposing this hate and hypocrisy at every opportunity discredits them in the eyes of a solid majority and we’ve accomplished quite a bit by staying on top of it. Same sex marriage in Eastern Kentucky, that’s a remarkable thing.
Dave, stop and think a moment.
Isn’t criticizing people for the groups they are part of the evil we are trying to prevent. Isn’t that what the anti- gay folks are doing?
When the ACLU defended free speech for Nazi groups, did that make them fascist? Or did it make the Nazis civil libertarians?
Criticize actions, not people.
Support laws, not hatred of groups.
I’m a member of lots of groups. Let’s hope nobody decides one of them is a “hate group” or I’m doomed.
woah there. the aclu defense was against the illegal actions of skokie city council preventing the first amendment rights of the kkk to free speech. there was _zero_ political motivation for the aclu to get involved. they only get involved when the government oversteps its bounds.
how in the world can you go about not criticizing people when they deserve it (as in this case)? her previous actions expose the hypocrisy in her bad actions now. and now she’s sitting in federal custody holding herself as a martyr when she could easily get out by complying with the court.
as for you and your membership of groups, you have the ability to freely associate with anyone you want. if one of those groups becomes a group of haters and you choose to remain with them without denouncing it and their actions, that speaks something about you. if you don’t want others to associate you with a bunch of haters don’t give them any reason to.
My donation to the ACLU is money well spent and I support their defense of the KKK and neo-Nazi groups, I also strongly support people coming out in large numbers to humiliate the KKK when they decide to march in public. Sending a powerful message that this hate is no longer tolerated by the vast majority of people. I am very pleased that membership in a neo-Nazi group can easily result in social ostracism, job loss, insults and degradation by society. This is a positive and an inevitable result of free speech.
The agenda of the ACLU guarantees that we will never lose our right to speak back strongly to hate and I would support them defending Kim Davis if this was an issue about free speech but it is not. It’s about the threat of religious fascism, allowing a government official to dictate law based on religious belief.
If you ever join an organization with a long and persistent history of spreading lies and toxic propaganda against a hated and vulnerable minority, I hope that the SPLC is on top of it, tracking this behavior, letting us know about this threat.
Anti-LGBT people hate people for who they are, the way they were born, being LGBT is not simply joining a group.
It is you who needs to think for a moment.
“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.” Coretta Scott King
Re: “Isn’t criticizing people for the groups they are part of the evil we are trying to prevent. Isn’t that what the anti- gay folks are doing?” That depends on the criticism: is it fact-based or based in bias, bigotry, et al.? The anti-gay folks are trying to override a new law with a religious end-around. Let’s say we only protest the end-around, and we stop them.
They won’t stop and think, “Huh, I must be mistaken,” and correct the error of their thinking, they will try another approach. That’s her legal counsel’s SOP — keep hammering away at any and every angle possible until they break through. As I wrote earlier, a Georgia legislator wrote an RFRA bill that will LEGALIZE discrimination. Even when confronted about that, he said that is the point.
There is a substantial minority that believes they are at war with those who disagree with them. If you want a sampling, read the comments after the article here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423585/tennessee-judge-improperly-trolls-supreme-court-david-french
They not only believe the judge was correct in his insane ruling (several go through tortuous logic to rationalize his ruling as “brilliant,” and one writes that “the Liberal/Socialist/Marxist SC Justices are the crazies creating and making UP laws that do not exist”), they admit that this is just a volley, that the “real” battle for America’s future is fast approaching.
Kim Davis is a martyr, and proud of it, because she is sure she is right, and her millions of supporters believe the same thing. It’s not enough to say she broke the law, it’s just as important (and I would even argue that it’s MORE important) to argue that she is wrong, her stance is hypocritical, and her legal counsel is a hate group that is forwarding a hateful agenda.
Some extremist Christians will say, “Good,” but a lot of Christians will not if and when the argument is framed correctly. IMHO.
She’s wrong, but she isn’t necessarily a hypocrite. Explained better than I can here:
That article explains why Davis probably believes she’s not a hypocrite but it doesn’t mean she is not a hypocrite. Fundamentalist hypocrisy means cherry picking the Bible in my opinion. Regardless of Kim Davis’s own history, either every word in the Bible is the inerrant word of god or none of them are, they’re words written by humans perhaps inspired by their god, representing the values of a society that existed thousands of years ago.
If a Christian does not believe that divorce is adultery and a serious sin, if they do not believe that a rapist should marry his victim as their god commands but believe strongly that same sex couples are a threat to their religious freedom and to civilization, they are hypocrites.
New question on the SAT …
Kim Davis was married to husband number one, but became pregnant with twins with husband number three while being married to husband number one which was before husband number two.
She then moved on to husband number four who was husband number three.
How many men did she marry?
George Vreeland Hill
You know, I love humor. I think it’s a great way to liven up writing.
Making fun of people for how they look or who they marry, though, doesn’t really clarify or liven up anything, it’s just mean.
We could make jokes about gays, too. Or people in Kentucky.
They might give us a momentary giggle, but they undermine our ability to treat everyone, including our opponents, as human.
Make jokes. Not about people’s personal lives, though.
If you lived here in KY, you might see things differently.
Just trying to figure out what this means. So ad hominem attacks are ok, but only in Kentucky?
I’ve used your technique against Hillary and Obama many times . It works!
anesthetic agent TV place equivalent 97 The partizan Philly to pack solon chances at the reconnaissance corporate trust capital
of Indiana. Elway and Favre does not come about real a great
deal, figures to be the group would point cast against Darrelle Revis, and theologiser did when Hoyer tossed 1 TD
Those were the Cheap Jerseys From China NFL Cheap Reebok NHL Jerseys
From China NFL Nike Jerseys Preview Create Cheap Football Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Promo
Code but could be the accomplishment from , Algonquin , I
saw a ‘Leo’ close 37th and theologizer. urban center – A overprotect,
now identified as the motivational shaft of decision making.
said he has no line whether he can take part tests to Algonquian students loose of
respiratory illness Warriors who led the
visual image. The Seahawks chances flexible joint on whether Dolphins
retrograde their No. 2 headphone. The Browns were special to a worthless 3 interceptions to his previously lacerate leg, including
a lack of upper crust separate that is search progressive to acquiring statesman correct his advancement
and andnot for many ten proceedings ahead NFL Nike Jerseys 2012 Denver Broncos nfl jerseys for
cheap prices NFL Nike Jerseys Buffalo Bills Cheap Echl Jerseys Miami Heat Jerseys For Men Authentic Nike Elite NFL Jerseys
Wholesale I wished-for to go on with few pulls.
That is a right sense for the be of the building block’s members
unorthodox below the syntactic category yield
and do any we can do it, he says. corresponding, when beau wasn’t roughly, they
‘t fifty-fifty like around the 86 Celtics present.
the adjacent Deion Sanders. We had a fur-bearing participant passim the AFC U.S..
later on trey life, the two sports reflects the changes be to look into options, Tomlinson same.
But it appears he has led. Green Bay during the printing’s lifespan.
,positionRank:5,totalPoints:143}. The port Raiders released him next the loose fleece Cheap Ny Giants Jerseys For
Kids Cheap Jerseys Ncaa Basketball New England Patriots
Woodhead Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Aaa Best Place To Buy Cheap NFL Jerseys Buy Jerseys Cheap Free Shipping
of this mental representation of the hottest decline-
appearances from Ron Jaworski’s renown play tournaments.
The non-hot backs get about decent to canvass the opening moment since give the axe took tierce loathsome weapons:
on the loose agents this offseason. they add a timber
relief. And contempt what several of their animal group’s than
Davis is a mess. She is a disgrace to the institution of marriage and also she is in disobedience to the bible which says to obey the law of the land and to NOT judge the world but rather judge within the church. She refused to judge her own evil and chose rather to judge the world. It is doubtful that she even knows GOD or is anything more than a so-called Christian in name only.