Congratulations to this week’s Comment Contest winner — Elizabeth Martin.
Those who lament the ongoing destruction of rights and freedom in America often point to politicians and judges who apparently are incapable of understanding the plain, simple English in the United States Constitution. We all saw one horrendous example of that last Thursday, when the Chief Justice tortured all logic, reason and language to twist his way into supporting Obamacare. But today, I’m pleased to report that in New York, there is at least one judge who may actually have a copy of the Constitution and who appears to have read it.
Fed. Judge Rules Churches Can Stay in Schools for Now
A federal district judge says the city can’t evict churches that have been renting space for Sunday worship services. It’s the latest in a case that has gone back and forth between different courts, with a different result each time — but ultimately little change.
District judge Loretta Preska issued an injunction that allows religious groups to continue to worship in public schools.
Lawyers for the church groups argued that since schools allow student groups to hold prayer meetings and other religious activities on site, it should not be denied to church group when school is not in session.
Judge Preska on Friday again agreed with them and upheld their right to worship.
I don’t dare predict what some judge in a higher court will rule one day, but Judge Preska got it exactly correct.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The New York and other states’ laws or rules that prohibit religious organizations from using or worshiping on public property are all based on the big lie that the words above don’t guarantee freedom of religion but freedom from religion. It’s a lie that’s been pushed on America for far too long and I’ve never understood how anyone who got through the sixth grade could not see that it’s a lie.
Laws like those in New York violate not one, not two, but three separate parts of the First Amendment, quoted above.
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Congress, and by extension all government, may not favor one religion over another or prohibit the practice of any religion. Even Scientology.
Can government force everyone pray in school? No. Can they stop everyone from praying in school? No. Want to put the Ten Commandments on the wall of your courthouse? Fine, provided you don’t try to stop someone else from putting their commandments, or whatever, on the wall, too. It’s simple. Equal access, equal freedom to all.
2. or abridging the freedom of speech
Clearly prayer is speech. Do I really need to explain any further?
3. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
Again, pretty simple. If your group wants to peaceably assembly in a school classroom once a week to worship L. Rom Hubbard, green aliens, Norse Gods, or anything else, and you can pay the rental fee, why is it the business of anyone else? You can even gather and discuss the non-existence of a deity to your heart’s content in the classroom next door if that’s your thing. Equal access, equal freedom.
The beauty of the Constitution the Founders gave us is that it provides the greatest amount of freedom to the citizens of the nation.
I understand the selfish and greedy and evil reasons why some people want to limit or take away that freedom.
I don’t understand why so many of us have let them do it for so long.
The Founders would long ago have taken up arms and shot the bastards.
We sit around watching Jersey Shore and Dancing with the Stars.
The assault on religion, particularly Catholicism, is spreading north of the boarder into Ontario, Canada where government officials are preparing legislation to force Catholic schools to recognize and accept gay-straight alliance, transgender, and other such clubs regardless of Catholic dogma that considers homosexual sex a grave sin.
Legislation could force Ontario Catholic schools to recognize gay student clubs
Ontario government officials have committed to a proposal that would expand the Canadian province’s anti-bullying and child protection laws to force schools — including Catholic schools — to recognize “Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs if their students want to start one.
Angry about the potential impact on Catholic educators’ independence, dozens of protesters filled a downtown public square in Toronto on Thursday, calling the move “totalitarian” and “liberty-destroying.”
Should the Catholic Church, or any religion, be forced to act in opposition to its beliefs?
“This is a reminder to the legislators in the pink palace down the street that we will not allow the rights of responsible, traditional, principled Ontarians to be taken away,” Family Coalition Party leader Phil Lees told CityNews Toronto.
An amendment to the Accepting School Act, known in Ontario as “Bill 13,” would prohibit Catholic schools from vetoing the gay clubs. It would also force them to accept the law’s “particular emphasis” on what it calls “LGBTTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual, two-spirited, intersexed, queer and questioning) people.”
Many Catholic schools in Canada already endorse “respecting difference” clubs. Canada’s Catholic School Trustees Association endorsed this solution in January, relying on a loophole that permitted them to give gay students an after-school social option called Gay-Straight Alliances “or another name.”
The new legislative push from Liberal Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty would close that loophole. ”We’re saying we’re going to … send a strong signal to all our kids we’re going to respect you for who you are,” McGuinty said Tuesday.
Complicating the issue is the fact that Catholic schools in Canada receive public funds under a subsidy system that the Canadian Constitution guarantees in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
But opponents of religious education are now openly questioning that mandate.
“The real question now is whether Ontario should be required to continue to support Catholic schools. The elephant in the room — public funding of Catholic schools — has become so destructive to fundamental rights and equality it’s impossible to ignore,” Justin Trottier, a spokesman for the Toronto-based Centre for Inquiry, an atheist group, told the National Post in Toronto.
Ontario Education Minister Laurel Broten insisted on Wednesday that public funding of Catholic schools is not an issue the provincial government wants to open up for debate. “We are not willing to embark on a conversation with respect to seeing an end to Catholic education, which is constitutionally protected, or French-language education,” she said.
“Our budget anticipates the Catholic system continuing on,” agreed Ontario Finance Minster Dwight Duncan, the Toronto Sun reported. “There are constitutional imperatives that are unique to Ontario. We’re not looking at that right now.”
Catholic leaders in Ontario argued that government intrusion into their beliefs could spread to other faiths.
“If it happens to us, it can happen to you, on this and other issues,” Toronto Archbishop Thomas Cardinal Collins said in a statement. “When religious freedom becomes a second-class right, you also will eventually be affected.”
Here in the United States, we consider the free exercise of religion to be a natural or God-given right, which is what makes the Obama Administration’s birth-control command to Catholic organizations blatantly unconstitutional. In Canada, the government grants rights, so government can take them away, as they are trying to do here.
Cardinal Collins is quite correct that permitting freedom of religion to become a second-class right there will surely result in assaults on the beliefs and practices of other religions. The same is true here in the United States.
There was a time when such intrusions into religion would be unthinkable because politicians knew the people would rise up against them and they’d quickly be out of a job, or worse. But in the 21st century, relatively few pay attention to what politicians do and fewer still appear to care as long as their favorite TV shows air each night and the government benefits appear each month in their bank accounts.
Freedom of religion is as basic a right as is breathing, which is probably why America’s Founders mentioned it first in the Bill of Rights. For most Americans and Canadians, it is their religious beliefs that advise their thoughts and actions in everyday life, that cause them to support or oppose various schemes by the secular government. Once those beliefs are finally suppressed, government will have the freedom to do anything and everything, and the Founders’ vision will have finally been turned completely on its head.
Regardless of whether or not you believe in God, or how you worship if you do, I believe you should loudly and persistently oppose any attempt to abridge religious freedom.
Why are so many religious folks so scared by science?
It’s a question I’ve pondered many a sleepless night, like tonight.
Are they afraid science might stumble upon something that would provide incontrovertible proof that there is no God? If so, they can rest easy. Science does not work that way. Science deals with the real world, not the spiritual world.
I guess the biggest bone of contention between science and religion is how humans came to populate the planet – evolution vs. creation, observation vs. words, evidence vs. faith.
At first glance, it might appear creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, but nothing could be further from the truth.
God may well have created the universe. He may even have taken six days to do it. Six of his days, which could be a billion years long for all we know. And he may well have created us, and everything else, not by crafting each individual species of plant and animal, but by crafting an environment where bits and pieces of what he created could come together and evolve into us and the myriad life forms around us.
Think about it. A being who can do anything can certainly create us whole. But where’s the fun in that? All life on Earth shares a common core – DNA. And what an elegant commonality it is. Four molecules repeated over and over in varying arrangements. One arrangement makes a rose and another makes the pretty young girl who’s admiring it. And it has the ability to change over time. How freaking amazing is that?
If you believe in God, then you must believe God created DNA. And he must have created evolution since the process so clearly exists. And just as God gave us food to eat, language to communicate, and brains with self-awareness and the ability to observe, think, and reason, so too, God gave us Science – a method of learning about the universe He created.
Indeed, to deny our abilities and dismiss out of hand that which God put before us to discover would seem to deny his very existence.
The bottom line is this – it’s okay to believe in creation and evolution. God created the universe and the laws that govern it. Those laws led inevitably to the creation of solar systems and planets and life as we know it.
What better tribute to His omnipotence than a creation capable of taking itself from random bits of energy to random bits of matter to what we see before us, today.
Whether you believe in God or not, you have to admit, it’s a darn impressive universe we live in, and a darn good method He, or we, developed to learn about it.
Ted Kennedy’s widow, Victoria, was invited to be the commencement speaker at a central Massachusetts Catholic College. The local bishop nixed the invitation, citing her views on subjects like abortion, birth control, and gay marriage as incompatible with church doctrine. Predictably, a hue and cry was raised protesting the bishop’s decision.
This morning, the local paper, The Boston Globe (Democrat), once known not-so-fondly as The Kennedy Family Newsletter, ran some letters to the editor on the subject. The first claimed the decision showed the irrelevance of local bishops “as serious leaders” of modern Catholics. (Read that as Catholics who were born that way but don’t like the dogma and want a more responsive, touchy-feely kind of religion.)
The second letter took the bishop to task for refusing to even meet with Kennedy to discuss the matter. The third letter supported the bishop and the fourth is reproduced, here:
Controversy reminds him of . . . April 05, 2012
THE REPORT that the bishop of Worcester pressed Anna Maria College to rescind the invitation to Victoria Reggie Kennedy, and refused to meet with her to hear her out, reminded me of two things (Page A1, March 31).
Bishop Robert J. McManus, a real Catholic
One is a line we used to use in our house when our kids were young, though we said it in jest: “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts.’’
The other is a line in the US Supreme Court decision that overturned a Massachusetts banned-book ruling. Justice William Douglas said that the state attorney general had banned the book “so that the citizens of Massachusetts might be spared the necessity of determining for themselves whether or not to read it.’’
Eli Bortman Winchester
Note how cleverly the two quotes are used. “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts’’ implies the bishop is rigid and uncaring, a dictator who is not open to discussion about his “opinions.”
Victoria Reggie Kennedy, a pretend Catholic
The second quote reinforces that error in thinking by implying the bishop is trying to impose his personal, subjective opinions on an unwilling congregation who all want to decide for themselves which bits of Catholic doctrine to follow and which to ignore.
If the letter-writers want facts, here are some they probably won’t like:
1. The Catholic Church is not a social club where members get to debate and vote on the rules. It is a religion, and like all religions, it is founded on a core set of beliefs. In this case, those beliefs are drawn from the Catholic Bible and from the decisions of a long line of Popes, who, dogma says, speak for God on Earth when they do so ex cathedra.
3. Discussion about dogma, which is by definition inflexible, is fruitless and a waste of time. There is nothing Kennedy could say to the bishop to alter his decision because his decision was not based on his feelings or opinions but on a clearly defined set of rules he has no choice but to follow.
Catholics who cannot or will not abide by the rules of their faith do themselves and their Church a grave disservice. They should be honest with themselves, renounce Catholicism, and go find a church more suitable to what they want to believe. Certainly, there is no shortage of choices. There are many churches where the rules are different. And if they can’t find one with a set of rules they can live with, they can start their own church based on what they’ve decided God wants folks to believe and do. I expect they’ll find many who would join with them.
And lest anyone get the wrong idea, that I’m some cheerleader for the Catholic Church, I am not. I have been what’s known as a “lapsed” Catholic since I was fifteen. Some members of my family refer to me as “the heathen.” But my personal beliefs do not change any of the facts that the letter writers and all the rest protesting the bishop’s decision conveniently choose to ignore.
I have to wonder if the level of outrage would be the same or there would even have been a peep about it from the media, if Kennedy had been invited to a Mosque to speak and the local Imam rescinded the invitation because she eats pork and drinks alcohol and does not follow Islamic teaching.
Actually, I’m not wondering. We all know the answer.
Would you go to jail to protect your freedom? Republican Representative Joe Walsh hopes the answer is yes.
Rep. Walsh on Obamacare: ‘We have to be prepared to go to jail’
Republican Rep. Joe Walsh told supporters that they have to be prepared to go to prison in order to protect the freedoms and liberties they now enjoy.
Walsh’s five-minute speech, delivered at a rally for religious liberty at Federal Plaza in Chicago, evoked a Braveheart-like response as the crowd chanted, “Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!” upon its completion.
“We have to be prepared to go to jail. Are we prepared?” Walsh asked rhetorically.
The crowd responded with a boisterous, “Yes!”
The ever-provocative Walsh raised the stakes again with his next comment: “If you’re not prepared to go to jail to stand up for your freedoms, you don’t understand what this election is about.”
If Americans truly want a new revolution, unless they are willing to take up arms and begin shooting government officials — something I don’t think anyone but, perhaps, some fringe radicals wants to see happen — the willingness to say no and to keep saying no even as they lock the cell door may be what it takes. But it will take more than the occasional martyr to do it. It will take thousands, perhaps tens of thousands in each state. It will take businesses saying no to continued regulation. It will take churches saying no to edicts that direct them to act in direct opposition to their conscience.
It will take millions of Americans standing with one voice to just say no.
Which brings us back to the question — would you go to jail to protect your freedom?
I’m one of those whacky folks who think my “right to work” if I can find work is does not obligate any employer to keep employing me until I decide to leave. I believe any employer can fire anyone at any time for any, or no reason. But that is not the state of American law these days, when employers have to document a series of transgressions in order to fire anyone. And a person’s religious beliefs are not on the list of items that may be considers as transgressions.
What got me thinking about this was this story from yesterday’s news:
Former NASA specialist claims in lawsuit that he was fired over his belief in intelligent design
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A computer specialist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory is going to court over allegations that he was wrongfully terminated because of his belief in intelligent design.
David Coppedge (left) with his attorney, William Becker.
Opening statements in the lawsuit by David Coppedge were expected to start Tuesday morning in Los Angeles Superior Court after lawyers spent Monday arguing several pretrial motions.
Coppedge, who worked as a team lead on the Cassini mission exploring Saturn and its many moons, claims he was discriminated against because he engaged his co-workers in conversations about intelligent design and handed out DVDs on the idea while at work.
Intelligent design is the belief that a higher power must have had a hand in creation because life is too complex to have developed through evolution alone. Coppedge lost his team lead title in 2009 and was let go last year after 15 years on the mission.
In an emailed statement, JPL dismissed Coppedge’s claims. In court papers, lawyers for the California Institute of Technology, which manages JPL for NASA, said Coppedge received a written warning because his co-workers complained of harassment. They also said Coppedge lost his team lead status because of ongoing conflicts with others.
I suspected the true reason Coppedge was fired as soon as I read the headline. I was pretty sure by the end of the third paragraph and found I was correct by the end of the fifth.
Coppedge was not fired because of his religious beliefs, he was fired because he could not keep his religious beliefs to himself.
I am not an employer. I’m self-employed and the only one in my office all day unless my wife comes in to tell me something. But if I did have employees and one of them spent any part of the workday proselytizing, or even just “engaging his co-workers in conversations” about intelligent-design or anything else not related to work, I’d fire him, too. And probably a lot faster than the folks at JPL canned Coppedge.
Had Coppedge invited co-workers to join him after work to discuss intelligent design or any other subject, he might still be employed at JPL, but he did not.
It seems to be a presumption peculiar to some devout Christians that their faith confers on them a right to engage anyone and everyone at any time in discussions intended to convert them to the truth as they see it. Perhaps their faith blinds them to the reality that most folks simply want to be left alone with their own beliefs, whatever they may be.
I daresay Coppedge might find it annoying if a Muslim or Jew or Rastafarian constantly pestered him at work trying to show him the error of his religious beliefs. Yet he apparently believes his own such actions justified to the point that he apparently continued even after receiving a written warning.
I can only hope the judge who hears the preliminary arguments in this case has the good sense to dismiss it. Nobody has the right to waste his employer’s time and money to advance personal religious, political, or any other kind of beliefs.
Do you agree? Disagree?
Am I missing something important?
And do you think people should have a right to stay in their jobs no matter what?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
So reads the beginning of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It seems pretty clear, doesn’t it?
Congress — those folks in Washington who dedicate their lives to pimping and pandering — is not to make any laws that favor any religion over any other.
It’s a good rule to live by in nation populated by folks of many and varied beliefs. You do your thing, I’ll do mine, and we can all live together.
Somehow, though, those sixteen straightforward words have been perverted into “There shall be no public recognition of the existence of any religion anywhere, anytime, ever” resulting in the Happy Holidaying of Christmas and Chanukkah, refusals to let religious organizations rent public spaces, prohibitions on public entities using a religious venue for a public event, a valedictorian cannot thank her God for her blessings during a graduation speech, and on and on.
How did we come to this?
It was clearly the intent of the folks who wrote the First Amendment that the new Federal Government never establish an official religion for the the new nation and that they also never outlaw any religion. They did not intend that religion be banished, just that government not pick religious winners and losers.
It was a bold idea at the time, especially since the nation was overwhelmingly Christian. It still is, of course, and that the majority peacefully coexists with many other faiths is a testament to the Founders’ vision.
Why then, do we feel it necessary to pretend religion doesn’t exist when it come to matters public?
Take the Christmas displays that for generations used to occupy space on the front lawns of city and town halls across the nation. Instead of banning them, why don’t we simply let anyone celebrating any holiday erect a display?
If seeing this on the lawn in front of your town hall would offend you, be a grownup and don't look at it.
Is there some reason I cannot see why a Menorah and Kwanzaa display cannot sit next to a creche?
Will someone be harmed be harmed by Buddhists renting a school classroom for a meeting?
Why do we expend so much time and energy pretending religion doesn’t exist when simply accepting it and providing equal access to all would be so much easier and more beneficial?
Can anyone explain the rationale behind our perversion of the First Amendment?
Is there some benefit I can’t see?
Whether there is or there isn’t, Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukkah, Joyous Kwanzaa, and have a great whatever else you may be celebrating at this time of year.
Islamic governments push for speech curbs in the US
The State Department began a three-day, closed-door meeting Monday to talk about U.S. free speech rules with representatives from numerous Islamic governments that have lobbied for 12 years to end U.S. citizens’ ability to speak freely about Islam’s history and obligations.
Click to Enlarge
Free speech advocates slammed the event as an effort to gradually curb public criticism of Islam, but it was defended by Hannah Rosenthal, who heads the agency’s office to curb anti-Semitism.
The meeting is a great success, she said, because governments in the multinational Organisation for Islamic Cooperation have dropped their demand that criticism of Islamic ideas be treated as illegal defamation. Member countries include Pakistan, Iran, Saudia Arabia and Qatar.
Click to Enlarge
In exchange for dropping the demand, she said, they’re getting “technical assistance [to] build institutions to ensure there will be religious freedom” in their countries, she told The Daily Caller.
“That’s a joke,” said Andrea Lafferty, a conservative activist who was repeatedly denied information about the meeting.
Rosenthal’s claim that the OIC is accepting freedom of speech and religion implies revolutionary changes in Islamic countries, she said. That’s because Islamic texts set myriad laws for behavior, and sharply restrict non-Muslim religions, free speech and women’s rights, said Lafferty, who is president of the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative advocacy group.
If the OIC countries are giving up on their religious obligation to ban criticism of Islam, she said, “does this mean that Pakistan is no longer going to kill Christians and kill religious minorities? … Are women in Saudi Arabia going to vote, to drive, to live free lives?”
“We hope so,” said Rosenthal, who added that such progress will not occur rapidly.
Click to Enlarge
The more realistic explanation for the three-day event, Lafferty said, is that administration officials, progressives and OIC officials are tacitly cooperating to gradually stigmatize speech that is critical of Islam.
Lafferty pointed to a July statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in which she said that free speech will be protected, but the U.S. government will “use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”
Clinton’s statement was issued at Istanbul, where the United States and the OIC launched the joint project to combat “religious intolerance.”
I actually laughed out loud at the idea of the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) or any Islamic organization being involved in a project to combat religious intolerance. (Oops, did that sound a little intolerant?)
Islam is a political system that masquerades as a religion. It claims to be the religion of peace and tolerance even as its adherents kill those of other religions in Islamic nations like Egypt and Pakistan.
Peace and tolerance? I have to wonder how many Baptist or Anglican or Catholic churches there are in Saudi Arabia. How many synagogues?
Peace and tolerance? Do they mean the way women are tolerated as second-class citizens men feel free to abuse in public and to kill if they shame the family by getting violently raped or are merely too disobedient?
Click to Enlarge
I don’t believe I will live to see it, but for many years I’ve opined privately that Islam will, eventually, achieve its goal of a worldwide caliphate. It will succeed because Muslims are permitted, even encouraged, to do anything necessary, up to and including murder, to advance the cause; because their plans run across generations; because the world is chock full of appeasers like Hillary Clinton and US State Department officials and their current Dear Leader in the White House. Muslim leaders have been at it for fourteen hundred years and while they have ably adapted to modern technologies, their religious mindset remains mired in the early middle ages.
What do you folks think?
Am I part of the problem with my “intolerance” for lies and deception; claims belied by facts?
Is it just a few Islamic crazies who cause all the problems?
Am I missing something folks like Clinton and Obama see?
Please, help me understand why we want to tolerate this political system and even invite it to establish itself here.
Congratulations to this week’s Comment Contest winner – Beth.
What is it about firearms that causes otherwise rational people to lose all common sense? That’s the question I asked myself this morning when I read the following article.
Court considers Georgia ban on guns in churches
ATLANTA — There’s a legal battle brewing in Georgia over whether licensed gun owners should be allowed to carry firearms to churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship after state lawmakers banned them from doing so last year.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta heard arguments Thursday on a lawsuit brought by the central Georgia church and gun rights group GeorgiaCarry.org claiming that the law violates their constitutionally protected religious freedoms. State lawyers said it was a small price to pay to allow other worshippers [sic] to pray without fearing for the safety. The panel of judges roundly criticized the suit after hearing oral arguments but didn’t immediately make a ruling.
Georgia is one of a handful of states with the restrictions — court papers say Arkansas, Mississippi and North Dakota have also adopted similar laws — and court observers, religious leaders and Second Amendment groups are closely watching the outcome of this case.
If Thursday’s arguments are any indication, the challengers are facing a tough fight. All three judges on the panel raised technical legal concerns about the lawsuit targeting the 2010 law that banned people from carrying weapons into houses of worship.
First of all, why in the world are those challenging the law claiming some religious right to carry a firearm in church? No such right exists nor is one needed. We each have a natural or God-given right to protect ourselves by any means necessary and that includes carrying firearms. It’s a right the Founders thought so important they enshrined it in the Second Amendment and the right does not end when we step through the doors of a church or anywhere else.
State lawyers claim the statewide restriction is designed to allow folks to worship “without fearing for their safety.” Do these lawyers imagine some wacko with a grudge and a gun and a thirst for blood is going to care that bringing his firearm into a church is illegal? Do they really think the perp will worry about being charged with bringing a gun into a church after committing multiple murders? Exactly how stupid are these lawyers? The fact is that ONLY if there are worshipers with firearms does the congregation stand any chance of stopping the lunatic before he or she runs out of ammunition.
If a congregation wants to leave themselves unprotected and votes to ban firearms in their church, that is their right. Those who disagree are free to leave that church and find another. Frankly, I would pray much more comfortably knowing many fellow worshipers have my back, so to speak.
It’s clear the Court of Appeals is not inclined to lift the ban. They will, no doubt, find some way to dance around the issue. But the fact is that the law is unconstitutional on it’s face. It is a clear violation of the right of Georgia citizens to protect themselves. I can only hope that at some point before the next maniac decides to shoot up a church or synagog that enough folks come to their senses in Georgia and other other states and repeal these crazy laws.
And if they won’t do it for themselves, they should do it for the children, because if it saves just one young life, it’s worth it.
Comment Contest Winners # = Repeat winner
For the week ending
1/29 Leonard Barnes2 2/5 Pat
2/12 Brogan1 2/19 Stephanie
2/26 Scott Schluter
3/5 Storm4 3/12 Donna C.
3/26 Becky Holm
4/30 Brogan1 5/7 Blue_Sky
5/14 Drill Sgt K.
6/25 Woody3 7/2 Christie
7/9 Candace Delaney
7/16 No responses!
7/23 Rob Andrews
7/30 George Deas
8/6 Vinny V
9/17 Leonard Barnes2 9/24 Kathy
11/5 Kentucky Kid
11/26 Woody3 12/3 Leanne
12/10 Gina Jackson
12/31 charles scamman
1/7/12 Gloria Meyer
1/14 Liz Gavaza
2/4 Phillip Dukes
2/11 Storm4 2/18 Leslie
3/3 Debby Rich
3/17 Carolyn McBride
3/24 Keith Hodges
3/31 Jeffrey C. Anthony
4/7 Sue Reynolds
4/14 No responses!
5/5 No responses!
5/19 Estes Mills
6/16 Chip Johnson
6/30 Elizabeth Martin
7/21 K Howe
8/4 Will you be this week's winner?