Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our guidance forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,108
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,108
Today, many consider JFK a modern day conservative. shocked

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/455027/was_john_f_kennedy_a_conservative.html?cat=9

JFK would have blown the crap out of the Middle East if he were president today.



BW - me
exWH - serial cheater
2 awesome kids
Divorced 12/2011




Many a good man has failed because he had a wishbone where his backbone should have been.

We gain strength, and courage, and confidence by each experience in which we really stop to look fear in the face... we must do that which we think we cannot.
--------Eleanor Roosevelt
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans...rats%20Racist%20Past&tp_preview=true

some notes on JFK from the National Black Republicans.


NBRA Newsletter - Obama vs McCain Candidate Comparison NBRA's Denver MLK Billboard Campaign Was A Huge Success Martin Luther King Was A Republican Billboards - Photos An Open Letter To Obama From Black Republicans NBRA At The NAACP Convention 2008 Whitewash - The racist history the Democratic Party wants you to forget by Bruce Bartlett The Democrats' own history with race By Bruce Bartlett In their Own Words: North Carolina Democrats Issue A Resolution of Apology for 1898 Race Riot Democrats Smeared MLK in the 1960s For Those With Black RepubIican PAC Questions - Click Here In her article, "A Covenant With Life: Reclaiming MLK’s Legacy", MLK's niece, Dr. Alveda C. King, affirms that her uncle Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican Unveiled: Democrats’ Racist Past by Frances Rice See The NBRA Grassroots Activities - click here Order Black Republican Forum Videos Unveiled: Democrats’ Racist Past
By Frances Rice


Democrats who say they don’t care about civil rights history do so because they want to hide the Democratic Party’s racist past. Hypocritically, these same Democrats are quick to falsely accuse Republicans of being racist, while pontificating about why black Americans vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party—a party whose failed socialist policies have turned black communities into economic and social wastelands.


Surveys show that black Americans think conservative, but vote liberal because they have been barraged for over 40 years with falsehoods about the Republican Party by the Democrats who have hijacked the civil rights record of the Republican Party and taken blacks down the path of Socialism.


The time is long overdue for the curtain of deceit to be lifted and the ugly truth told about the Democratic Party’s horrendous history of racism and anti-black socialist policies that have caused so much harm to black Americans.


The Democratic Party’s Failed Socialism


The deplorable condition in black neighborhoods that have been run by Democrats for the past 40 years is well documented by black Democrat Juan Williams in his book entitled Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America. Democrats have the audacity to blame Republicans for the crisis in black neighborhoods created by the Democrats and the temerity to claim that it is Republicans who have done nothing for blacks.


In fact, Republicans have done a great deal to help black Americans, including appointing more blacks to high-level positions than at any time in our nation’s history. Record money has been spent on education, job training and health care, as well as assistance with becoming home and small business owners. Since the 1960’s, over $7 trillion has been spent on poverty programs. The Washington Post reported that as of 2006, the federal government had in place over 80 poverty-related programs costing $500 billion annually.


Here in Florida, Governor Charlie Crist has been a leader in the civil rights movement. He achieved passage of the Dr. Marvin Davies Florida Civil Rights Act to stop discrimination. He accomplished the restoration of civil rights for ex-offenders. He also signed a budget that provides $24.4 billion for education that prepares graduates for the high-tech, high-wage jobs of the future.


Money is not the issue. The socialist policies of the Democratic Party are at the root of the pathos in black communities. To their eternal shame, Democrats fight every effort of Republicans to help blacks get out of poverty. Democrats oppose school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black parents get their children out of failing schools. Democrats oppose the faith-based initiative that would help black ministers provide social services to the poor. Democrats oppose reform of Social Security even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the system because blacks on average have a five-year shorter life expectancy.


Despite these policies that run counter to the best interest of black people, black Americans keep voting for Democrats because every election cycle Democrats preach hatred against Republicans and get blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans and not a vote for Democrats. Deliberately, Democrats keep black poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Any black person who becomes self-reliant and prosperous is denigrated as a “sellout.” With this reprehensible strategy, Democrats have built their power base on the backs of poor blacks. Democrat Demagogues get away with this tactic because Democrats have hidden their racist past and sold Socialism to blacks, a system that sounds good but has proven to be devastating to black communities.


Knowledge is power. In addition to exposing the failed Socialism of the Democrats, a key step to helping to free blacks from the Democratic Party’s economic plantation is to shed the light of truth on the racist past of the Democratic Party.


The Democratic Party’s Racist Past


As author Michael Scheurer succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.


Facts about racism in the Democratic Party can be found in books such as A Short History of Reconstruction by Dr. Eric Foner and Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past by Bruce Bartlett. Two other books are Unfounded Loyalty and Unveiling the Whole Truth by Rev. Wayne Perryman. Rev. Perryman wrote his books after conducting five years of research. He then sued the Democratic Party for that party’s 200-year history of racism. Under oath in court, the Democrats admitted their racist past, but refused to apologize because they know that they can take the black vote for granted.


History shows that Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it. From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. Republicans fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans also passed the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks.


It was Democrats who started the Ku Klux Klan that became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party to lynch and terrorize Republicans-black and white. Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws and fought every piece of civil rights legislation from the 1860’s to the 1960’s. Shamefully, Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws, and when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 1892, they passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans. Republicans founded the HCBU’s and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats. It took Republicans six decades to finally enact civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s, over the objection of Democrats.


It defies logic for Democrats today to claim that the racist Democrats suddenly joined the Republican Party after Republicans—including Republican Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—finally won the civil rights battle against the racist Democrats. In fact, the racist Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.


The Modern Civil Rights Era


Undeniably, during the civil rights era of the 1960's, it was the Democrats who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protestors were fighting. Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor in Birmingham let loose vicious dogs and turned skin-burning fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators. Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963 and thundered, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school.



Historical records show that it was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, enforced the desegregation of the military, sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Eisenhower also supported the civil rights laws of 1957 and 1960.


Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s. In fact, Dirksen was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.



Omitted from discussions today are significant facts about the struggle to pass the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. The law guaranteed equal access to public facilities and banned racial discrimination by any entity receiving federal government financing. The law was an update of Republican Charles Sumner's 1875 Civil Rights Act which had been stuck down by the Democrat-controlled US Supreme Court in 1883.

The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, filibustered against the bill for 14 straight hours before the final vote. Former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for the passage of the bill. When the bill finally came up for a vote, the House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 124. 80% of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted yes, and only 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats in the Senate voting no, and only 6 Republicans voting no.

Equally important was the 1965 Voting Rights Act that authorized the federal government to abolish literacy tests and other means used to prevent blacks from exercising their constitutional right to vote that was granted by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution. With images of violence against civil rights protestors led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shaping the national debate, Democrats in Congress finally decided not to filibuster the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When the bill came up for a vote, both houses of Congress passed the bill. In the House of Representatives, 85% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats voted for the bill. In the Senate, 17 Democrats voted no, and only one Republican voted no.

Notably, in his 4,500-word State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, Johnson mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Information about Johnson’s anemic civil rights policy positions can be found in the “Public Papers of the President, Lyndon B. Johnson,” 1965, vol. 1, p.1-9.


The statement by President Johnson about losing the South after passage of the 1964 civil rights law was not made out of a concern that racist Democrats would suddenly join the Republican Party that was fighting for the civil rights of blacks. Instead, it was an expression of fear that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Atlanta Mayor (later Governor of Georgia) Lester Maddox.


Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a civil rights advocate. In reality, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. After he became president, John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.


The relentless disparagement of Dr. King by Democrats led to his being physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.


Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 498
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 498
Name one good president since FDR. I was just stating that after the bay of pigs, diplomacy (albeit strong words) were successfully used to end a stand-off. JFK had a vision and worked toward it. I never said whether it was good or bad, i was just saying there was more to JFK than his brains spilled on the back of the cadillac. Name one war that America has not been drug into that has turned out to not be a disaster. I have family in Iraq and many of those people are thankful. But there are many who hate our guts and try to kill them every day. We were sold that Saddam had ties to 9/11, which turned out to be BS. We basically pulled a successful bay of pigs in Iraq. Now we are left trying to rebuild an unstable country that many of the people despise us. Plus, we have given another generation of Muslims reason to hate the US. I just don't see how this helps stop terrorism.

My personal opinion is war should be used as a last resort. Going after bin laden was justified but Saddam was not. JMO


Me: 32 BS DDay: 9/14/08
Slowly coming to the realization that I
am one of those who can't get past it.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 614
D
DIG Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 614
Just looking at this article the more I see things like this the more I believe that the zeitgeist article is true. It basically says that the federal reserve came about due to the first major economic crisis and that involved the Bush family as well. It doesn't seem so far fetched that with Bush in the office and this major economic downturn is not part of a bigger plan.

Did anybody else see the zeitgeist?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27727826

Hurt and Shocked the whole Saddam Hussain thing had to do with GWBjr. getting revenge for his dad.


Me (32)
H (33)
3 DD's 9,8,2
1 DS 4
Married 4/19/99


According to Mrs. W I am now Delightful in GA. LOL \:\)
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Quote
Hurt and Shocked the whole Saddam Hussain thing had to do with GWBjr. getting revenge for his dad.

yeah..it must be that.

:RollieEyes:

All the democrats were in on it too. Heck, for that matter, Iraq didn't have WMD's in the first Iraq war...and they NEVER thumbed their noses at the UN resolutions either...thereby forcing the hand of the US to act....nah, none of that happened.

While the war was a mistake..Hussein left us little recourse since he continued to thumb his nose at the world. I don't blame our government for acting...I would rather act and make a mistake when dealing with a brutal tyrant, than to sit back and wait until he makes good on his threats.

Honestly, it is childish to think we went to war so GWB could get revenge for his dad. (and btw, GWB is not a "junior". His father's middle name is Herbert)

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 614
D
DIG Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 614
My son is a Jr and he and his father have different middle names. I asked if it was ok at the hospital and they said yes. Also I don't think that was the only reason that GWB went to war was to for revenge you are totally forgetting about the fact that Chaney still owns a great deal of stock Haliburton. Also the fact that Bush owned a professional team in Texas he destroyed and they still saw fit to make him the President. I will never how that happened. The man is not very smart. He is a prime example that having experience does not make you a better candidate. It just means you become more complacent. I was talking about anyone other than Bush at the moment but if you want to discuss anyone else I am up for it.

Hussein May have left little recourse, however what about Osama and the fact that Bush still has dealings with his family? How come he keeps sending out these bulletins and no one even with all the tracking techno knowledge we have no one can find him?


Me (32)
H (33)
3 DD's 9,8,2
1 DS 4
Married 4/19/99


According to Mrs. W I am now Delightful in GA. LOL \:\)
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Originally Posted by DIG
My son is a Jr and he and his father have different middle names. I asked if it was ok at the hospital and they said yes. Also I don't think that was the only reason that GWB went to war was to for revenge you are totally forgetting about the fact that Chaney still owns a great deal of stock Haliburton. Also the fact that Bush owned a professional team in Texas he destroyed and they still saw fit to make him the President. I will never how that happened. The man is not very smart. He is a prime example that having experience does not make you a better candidate. It just means you become more complacent. I was talking about anyone other than Bush at the moment but if you want to discuss anyone else I am up for it.

Hussein May have left little recourse, however what about Osama and the fact that Bush still has dealings with his family? How come he keeps sending out these bulletins and no one even with all the tracking techno knowledge we have no one can find him?


:crosseyedcrazy:

Time to line our hats with tin foil.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
GWB is not a junior.

Halliburton stock is down 75% so that theory is off. The name is Cheney.

What does a baseball team have to do with anything? Nothing.

He was smart enough to become president, twice. That puts him in the company of only 43 other men.


Should Osama Bin Laden's entire family, which is huge, pay for his sins?

Perhaps you have no idea how finding ONE man in the mountainous region of Pakistan/Afghanistan would be.

Maybe GWB meets him for tea every other weekend.



Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614
Originally Posted by medc
Perhaps you have no idea how finding ONE man in the mountainous region of Pakistan/Afghanistan would be.

Although I don't believe it was some conspiracy to let Bin Laden off the hook, I still think that it is strange that we managed to find Sadam hiding in a foxhole yet we still haven't captured or killed Bin Laden.

It's a matter of priorities.

Want2Stay


Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Hussein does not enjoy the loyalty that Bin Laden does.

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by medc
Quote
Hurt and Shocked the whole Saddam Hussain thing had to do with GWBjr. getting revenge for his dad.

yeah..it must be that.

That is correct. It is well documented that Bush wanted Hussein gone, well before 9/11 or before he even took office. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who reads the papers .

Quote
By the time the younger Bush ran for president, he appeared determined not to repeat the mistake he believed his father made with Hussein. "No one envisioned him still standing," the candidate told BBC in November 1999. "It's time to finish the task."
At a debate a couple of weeks later, Bush was more explicit. "If I found that in any way, shape, or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take him out," he said.

At Bush's first National Security Council meeting after taking office, he seemed to some aides to be ready to go. "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," Paul O'Neill, Bush's first treasury secretary, later told CBS News. In Ron Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty," O'Neill was quoted as saying that Bush told aides to prepare to remove Hussein: "That was the tone of it, the president saying . . . 'Go find me a way to do this.' "



Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 614
D
DIG Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 614
All I am saying is how could they find Saddam and not Bin Laden? Maybe it is just me and the fact that I like to watch movies. However the whole 9/11 thing strange to me. How come none of those black boxes were found? How come they said a plane hit the pentagon yet when they show the point of impact as well as the pictures of when the so called plane hit that it looks much to small to be a 747? They get inspiration from somewhere to write all these movies on government cover ups. Say for instance in The Long Kiss Goodnight. The government wasn't willing to give the senator funding so they planned to have a bomb blow up in Niagara Falls and kill thousands of people to scare congress into giving them money and they planned to blame it on the Arabs.

As far as GWB not being smart in becoming President I am certain the fact with all the miscounts of the ballots and the fact that his dad preceded him as President went a long way. When I mentioned the team if he ran that into the ground and it was in no way as major as being the President. How did they think he could handle being president which is way more complicated. Where are those weapons of Mass Destruction? It is amazing to me that so many people would rather a man that graduated with with a C average to be more fit to run the country than someone who graduated at the top of his class. That is JMO

BTW what loyalty are you referring to?


Me (32)
H (33)
3 DD's 9,8,2
1 DS 4
Married 4/19/99


According to Mrs. W I am now Delightful in GA. LOL \:\)
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 15,150
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 15,150
I heard Bill Clinton speaking once and he said that he tried to tell W about Iraq and the Taliban but he would not discuss it. W just didn't seem willing to be informed about something which Clinton thought was sufficiently dangerous enough for him to inform and educate his successor

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 614
D
DIG Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 614
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27738018

This is what I was afraid would happen. I wonder what will be done to correct this. It is a shame in this day and age that we are all still so unaccepting of difference. We are all unique why not celebrate that uniqueness as long as it doesn't involve hurting one another. SMH we had a lot of misguided people. This needs to change.


Me (32)
H (33)
3 DD's 9,8,2
1 DS 4
Married 4/19/99


According to Mrs. W I am now Delightful in GA. LOL \:\)
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by medc
The only thing, IMHO, that he did right was the missile crisis....well, that and Marilyn Monroe! :RollieEyes:

Well I'm stunned you would consider his adultery with Monroe as something he did right.


Me: 56 (FBS) Wife: 55 (FWW)
D-Day August 2005
Married 11/1982 3 Sons 27,25,23
Empty Nesters.
Fully Recovered.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
I'm quite sure that JackieO wouldn't have agreed that Marilyn was something that her husband "did" right


Me: 56 (FBS) Wife: 55 (FWW)
D-Day August 2005
Married 11/1982 3 Sons 27,25,23
Empty Nesters.
Fully Recovered.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
Not to mention that saying that the way you did it is really sexist pig sounding...implying that you "do" a woman


Me: 56 (FBS) Wife: 55 (FWW)
D-Day August 2005
Married 11/1982 3 Sons 27,25,23
Empty Nesters.
Fully Recovered.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
If someone here made such a dismissive post about abortion you'd go ballistic. I think you owe the BS's here and the women you're thinking of "doing" an apology.


Me: 56 (FBS) Wife: 55 (FWW)
D-Day August 2005
Married 11/1982 3 Sons 27,25,23
Empty Nesters.
Fully Recovered.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
BigK,

I took MEDC's remark to be entirely sarcastic since he ended it w/ this guy---> :RollieEyes:

It would be totally out of character for MEDC to have been serious about that.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by Marshmallow
BigK,

I took MEDC's remark to be entirely sarcastic since he ended it w/ this guy---> :RollieEyes:

It would be totally out of character for MEDC to have been serious about that.

Thanks for your opinion Marsh.

I don't find adultery so amusing.


Me: 56 (FBS) Wife: 55 (FWW)
D-Day August 2005
Married 11/1982 3 Sons 27,25,23
Empty Nesters.
Fully Recovered.
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
2 members (doseedo, 1 invisible), 533 guests, and 40 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Bibbyryan860, Ian T, SadNewYorker, Jay Handlooms, GrenHeil
71,838 Registered Users
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2019, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5