Skip to content

The Problem

November 10, 2008

From Tom Delay:

“Only under conservative government will groups like the National Rifle Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and National Right to Life Committee receive a fair hearing of their views; it’s time they started working together. “

On the contrary, Tom, it is exactly alliances like this that are killing the pro-life movement. How is it justifiable that a movement based on life, on the consistent ethic of life, throw in its lot with big business and unregulated firearms? Unless it starts forsaking these cheap and tawdry alliances, the pro-life movement will continue to shortchange the unborn. After all, the man who wrote this is the very same man who opened the doors of power to Jack Abramoff, who wilfully pushed the agenda of a group involved in forced abortion and forced prostitution. This tells you everything you need to know, really.

About these ads
49 Comments
  1. S.B. permalink
    November 10, 2008 5:48 pm

    Will you ever expend 1/100th the energy on critiquing Obama’s own tawdry alliances as you do critiquing the Chamber of Commerce?

  2. November 10, 2008 5:57 pm

    This is not a criticism of the Chamer of Commerce per se. It is a criticism of attaching the pro-life cause it the same agenda (guns are even worse).

  3. November 10, 2008 5:58 pm

    So, on your reading, National Right to Life can expect a fair hearing from the new administration? If that’s your point, I admit I’m skeptical.

  4. jonathanjones02 permalink
    November 10, 2008 6:26 pm

    Groups join political alliances so as to advance their causes. This is common and understandable, assuming they actually want their causes advanced. Your point, insofar as there is one, is shallow and partisan. How open are the Democrats to those, like myself, who consider protecting the unborn to be a very top priority? How open are the various interest groups of the left? Not only is the answer something like “hardly,” but there is intense, intense, intense pressure the other way, to the point of little if any resistence to Obama’s extremism within his coalition.

    I’m not bothered in the slighest by being in the same coalition with a business or anti-gun control lobby. In this coalition, there are direct successes, and a significant amount of effort to extend protections to the unborn. The other “side” actively opposes even these modest gains, and now it appears that Obama will overturn as much as he can by the summer.

    starts forsaking these cheap and tawdry alliances, the pro-life movement will continue to shortchange the unborn.

    How idealistic! You label alliances cheap and tawdry (a judgement you cheaply make without even the effort of explanation) and then assume that the unborn are hurt by the gun lobby, or some tax group. Go ahead and tell us how they impact FOCA, partial birth, parental notification, federal funding, Mexico City, military bases, ect ect. Honestly, I’m curious.

  5. Pastaroni permalink
    November 10, 2008 6:33 pm

    “…throw in its lot with big business and unregulated firearms?…”

    Where exactly in the U.S. are guns unregulated?

  6. Amused permalink
    November 10, 2008 6:44 pm

    The Seamless Garment of Republicatholicism:

    Pro-Gun
    Pro-War
    Pro-Execution
    and . . .
    Pro-Life

    Unfortunately few see (or will acknowledge) the sheer irony. I once pointed this out to a RuCa friend and he just said “So—-?” as he gave me the “you-must-be-a-proabort” look.
    That’s some strong Kool-Aid!

  7. November 10, 2008 6:58 pm

    I suppose the real tactical question is whether de-coupling the pro-life movement from other elements will get the pro-life movement a better hearing. I’m basically agnostic on the question, as many know I’m no fan of the Republican party, and I think MM has made some reasonable arguments about the gun supply problem of a place like D.C. immediately adjacent to a place like Virginia — though I think real data needs to tell the tale there.

    But since anti-gunners tend by and large to be pro-choice I’m skeptical on the particular point here. I just don’t see a vocal repudiation of the NRA doing NRLC much good, and there is a good chance it would do a lot of harm. Given that the two issues are basically orthogonal, at least in the minds of most people who are likely to put pro-life above partisan politics, this seems like bad tactical advice. I just don’t see a repudiation of the NRA by pro-lifers as the potential cause of a bunch of pro-life electoral gains, at all.

  8. Liam permalink
    November 10, 2008 7:11 pm

    First and foremost, this is a business pitch by DeLay in his new line of business.

    Second, did The Onion write it for him?

    Third, why any Republican who wants to repair the party would listen to any of the Nine Muses* of the GOP’s current state of disrepair and despair is a puzzlement. Insanity is doing the same thing over again and thinking the result will change.

    * Bush, Cheney-Addington, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rove, Hastert, Frist and DeLay

  9. S.B. permalink
    November 10, 2008 8:36 pm

    MM — given that you’re officially allied with the Democratic base, e.g., the types of people who carry “Keep Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries” signs, you’re not exactly in a position to be criticizing the alliances of people who are actually doing something about abortion.

  10. Mark DeFrancisis permalink
    November 10, 2008 9:49 pm

    …And such legislative and public-perception-success they have had these past three decades…

  11. Winston D permalink
    November 10, 2008 10:00 pm

    “On the contrary, Tom, it is exactly alliances like this that are killing the pro-life movement.”

    Well then. My understanding was that it was the election of adamantly pro-choice politicians like Senator Obama that was most harmful to the pro-life movement, but I could be wrong about that.

    “How is it justifiable that a movement based on life, on the consistent ethic of life, throw in its lot with big business and unregulated firearms?”

    Well, if you consider your own ardent support for Presdient-elect Obama, NARAL’s golden boy, the matter may become clearer to you. American politics is practiced in coalitions.

    “Unless it starts forsaking these cheap and tawdry alliances, the pro-life movement will continue to shortchange the unborn.”

    Really, so Republicans should forsake their alliances? Should the Democrats do the same with Planned Parenthood? Isn’t that a bit more of a clear conflict than a position about the Second Amendment?

    “After all, the man who wrote this is the very same man who opened the doors of power to Jack Abramoff, who wilfully pushed the agenda of a group involved in forced abortion and forced prostitution. This tells you everything you need to know, really.”

    Really, so now we know everything we need to know? Guilt by association. In that case, you must be appalled by President-elect Obama’s record on abortion…and yet, you supported him passionately. And now, your proposal for the pro-life movement going forward is that they should head into the political wilderness, destroying the Republican coalition and ensuring that pro-lifers are impotent in national politics. You couldn’t give better advice for permanent pro-choice dominance.

    The easiest way to reconcile these tensions for me, I confess, is that you are more interested in the future of the Democratic party than the pro-life movement. It would explain your gushing support for the extremely pro-choice President-elect. It would explain your bizarre advice above that pro-lifers should split the Republican party, resulting in a pro-choice Democratic majority for the foreseeable future. And it would explain why you advance silly guilt-by-association arguments, then state that they are ‘everything you need to know, really.” I think I may just know what I need to know about Morning’s Minion, reducing abortion, and intellectual honesty.

  12. Paul DuBois permalink
    November 11, 2008 12:01 am

    The point is that first of all pro-life includes far more than abortion, though I agree with the Church that is is the most important issue. Any Catholid who is “Pro Gun, Pro-war, Pro-execution and Pro-life” is not following the teachings of the Church as the church has spoken out quite pointedly and strongly against war, executions and has lended support to gun control efforts.

    The path the Church has tried to follow (and we would be wise to follow as well) is to be consistent in our beliefs, find a canidate we feel will do the least harm and support them. Granted lately many leaders of the Church do not see how this could lead to anything but a Republican vote. Some members of the leadership have pointed out that of the 7 Justices that supported the Roe v Wade decision 5 were appointed by Republican Presidents. Since Roe v Wade there have never been fewer than 6 Republican appointed Justices. And for 6 years Republicans controlled all 3 branches of government and no real solution to the abortion problem was even proposed.

    The job of us Christians is to vote for the people we feel will do the best to support life. Then hold there feet to the fire on all the issues of life. If you voted for a Democrat, you need to push them hard on reducing or eliminating abortion. If you voted for a Republican they need to be reminded of our responsibilties to the poor and least capable to help themselves. And we need to always do what we can to help others ourselves.

  13. November 11, 2008 8:55 am

    If you voted for a Democrat, you need to push them hard on reducing or eliminating abortion. If you voted for a Republican they need to be reminded of our responsibilties to the poor and least capable to help themselves. And we need to always do what we can to help others ourselves.

    Amen to that, and it needs to be said more.

    What I don’t understand is the recommendation for the pro-life movement to come out and explicitly repudiate the NRA, second amendment rights, etc. What is to be gained by doing that? Nothing: second amendment rights are just completely independent of the pro-life cause, and anti-gun people are overwhelmingly pro-choice or will (like MM) support rabidly pro-choice politicians despite pro-forma opposition to abortion. What is to be lost? The question answers itself: the alienation of a bunch of political allies for no good reason at all.

    It is like saying that the pro-life movement should repudiate NASCAR. I understand why certain cultural snobs who as a material matter oppose pro-life politics anyway might find that appealing. But it makes no sense.

  14. David Nickol permalink
    November 11, 2008 9:14 am

    Zippy,

    I don’t know how the love of guns and gun violence in this country isn’t a life issue. As has been discussed in another thread, 14,000 murders and 18,000 suicides are committed with guns every year in the United States. We all know from television and movies how cool guns are.

    By the way, I love gun violence myself. What action movie would be exciting without gunfights, explosions, and car chases? On the other hand, I want nothing to do with violent video games. Does all this violence have an effect? I don’t know. I tend to discount cases where the defense is “the video game made me do it,” but certainly the level of violence presented in the media must have some effect.

  15. November 11, 2008 9:22 am

    Nothing: second amendment rights are just completely independent of the pro-life cause…It is like saying that the pro-life movement should repudiate NASCAR.

    This seems to be an american view, pure and simple, not a Catholic view.

  16. November 11, 2008 9:30 am

    This seems to be an american view, pure and simple, not a Catholic view.

    Well, and I think you are confusing liberal modernism with Catholicism, or trying to equate the two. I’ll take the Knights Hospitaller understanding of Catholicism over the views of people who vote for rabid pro-aborts any day.

    But in any case the point stands: people who are anti-gun are going to, by and large, vote for pro-choice politicians. You guys have proven that here by your own actions, and your own testimony about your own actions. So what is the point in pro-lifers who actually treat their pro-life views as the highest priority making common cause with people who are anti-gun? There is no point.

  17. November 11, 2008 9:39 am

    IOW, if you want to make common cause with pro-lifers who take their pro-life position seriously as the highest priority, you need to change yourself first. If there was a significant body of voters who were anti-gun but refused to vote for pro-choice politicians, and you guys were part of that body of voters, I would be prepared to take you seriously. But I see no reason to take you seriously. You are going to vote for rabid pro-aborts anyway, so what is the point in making common cause with you on something which is far down the priority list?

  18. jonathanjones02 permalink
    November 11, 2008 9:41 am

    This seems to be an american view, pure and simple, not a Catholic view.

    You are aware of the large differences between arguments over the Second Amendment and abortion. One may make a legitimate argument that an anti-gun control measure does or does not partake of “the efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good.”

    It is cheap cover and a false dichotomy to suggest “you don’t care about life in a consistent fashion if you don’t agree with policy x or y” concerning a policy or object that is not inherently evil.

    Catholics are obligated to extend legal protections to the unborn. I hope the Democrats come to be open to this position, but since 1973 they have consistently and agressively pushed people out of their coalitions who advocate for this, and in 2008 they are as hostile as ever.

  19. November 11, 2008 9:53 am

    Zippy – And I cannot take Catholics seriously who “value life above all else” but prove time and time again that they only think babies are sacred.

    It is cheap cover and a false dichotomy to suggest “you don’t care about life in a consistent fashion if you don’t agree with policy x or y” concerning a policy or object that is not inherently evil.

    Perhaps. But I didn’t say anything remotely resembling your made-up x or y quote. I was critiquing Zippy’s (very american) statement that gun ownership laws have nothing to do with the Church’s teaching on human life.

  20. S.B. permalink
    November 11, 2008 11:09 am

    Zippy is exactly right. You can’t seriously think that pro-lifers would be better off ditching the few allies they have and trying to ally themselves with their enemies. And given that you guys are associated (like it or not) with the “Keep Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries” crowd, and with the anti-black reaction to Prop. 8 in California, you’re not in any position to be criticizing the Republican coalition.

    If you guys had led the way by 1) refusing to vote for Obama because of his anti-Catholic positions and supporters, and 2) forming a third party that (according to the beliefs you supposedly hold) was consistent with Catholic social teaching across the board, then and only then would you have the standing to complain that pro-lifers were sullying themselves by being part of one of the existing political coalitions in America.

    But you guys didn’t do that. Instead, you happily joined the Obama coalition despite your claim to be pro-life. So clearly you don’t have any honest objection to pro-lifers allying themselves with a broader coalition that includes unpleasant people and positions.

  21. November 11, 2008 11:09 am

    I was critiquing Zippy’s (very american) statement that gun ownership laws have nothing to do with the Church’s teaching on human life.

    That isn’t quite what I am trying to say though. What I am saying is that gun regulation is objectively far, far down the list of priorities compared to abortion, and you have demonstrated by your own actions and testimony that you will vote for the most radically pro-abortion candidate in history. So there isn’t any point in committed pro-lifers forging alliances with people like you and MM until you change. You are going to support rabid pro-choicers anyway, and throwing you a bone on gun regulation isn’t going to change that. It isn’t the fault of other people that you are the sort of person you are. If you want an alliance, change yourself: fix your own screwed up priorities. I’ve said that I’m pretty ambivalent on gun regulation, and I am definitely opposed to libertarianism in general and gun libertarianism in particular.

    But you won’t make an ally of me by throwing your support behind the most radically pro-abortion presidential candidate ever. Change yourself first, prove that you have changed over time, and then we’ll talk.

  22. S.B. permalink
    November 11, 2008 11:13 am

    Why am I in moderation? I’m not using any suspect words or links.

    [“Lying” is a moderation word and your use of “sullying” was triggering moderation. My apologies – ed.]

  23. David Nickol permalink
    November 11, 2008 11:20 am

    It is amazing how right the American Bishops can be about abortion and how wrong they can be about guns!

    Handgun Violence: A Threat to Life

    Committee on Social Development and World Peace
    United States Catholic Conference

    September 11, 1975

    The Problem

    There are currently 40 million handguns in the United States., More than 21/2 million new handguns will be manufactured and sold this year. In most of our cities and rural areas, purchasing a weapon is as easy as buying a camera.

    In 1973, the last year for which complete figures were available, there were 28,000 firearms deaths.2 In 1975, it is estimated that nearly 30,000 will die from gunshot wounds. Added to this are over 100,000 people wounded by guns each year, the victims of 160,000 armed robberies and 100,000 assaults with guns.3

    Complete text

  24. c matt permalink
    November 11, 2008 11:20 am

    MM’s advice goes 100 times more for the anti-gun lobby: divest yourself of your alliances with Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and then you would get a much broader hearing.

  25. November 11, 2008 11:28 am

    Zippy, the election has made you into a crazed and arrogant a**.

  26. blackadderiv permalink
    November 11, 2008 11:38 am

    David,

    My guess is that if you wanted, you could find a statement by the Bishops on abortion that post-dates 1975.

  27. S.B. permalink
    November 11, 2008 11:41 am

    As well as statements that pre-date 1975 by quite a few centuries.

  28. S.B. permalink
    November 11, 2008 11:42 am

    More name-calling from Michael Iafrate. Are the other bloggers ever going to crack down on his foul-mouthed belligerence? He’s not helping you guys.

  29. November 11, 2008 11:44 am

    Exactly, c. matt. This kind of post from supporters of radically pro-abortion politicians is deeply into the territory of self-parody. I’m all in favor of the pro-life movement divesting itself of alliances with politicians who actively support malevolent programs of murdering the innocent on a mass scale. Yet these guys are trying to argue, while at the same time supporting such politicians, that pro-lifers ought to divest themselves of alliances with … the NRA and business.

    You can’t make this stuff up. It isn’t that there aren’t negative consequences of alliances with the NRA and business, of course. But MM and Michael I don’t seem to even realize just how ludicrously deep into self-parody this descends.

  30. November 11, 2008 12:05 pm

    As usual, I see lots of variants of the “but the Democrats are worse” argument. That is not the issue. If the pro-life movement became an institutional arm of the Democratic party, on the grounds that the social, economic, and health care policies were better placed to reduce abortions than any viable alternative– I would still complain, even if I believed the argument. Why? Because the underlying anthropology of the movement is still flawed, in that it does not promote a consistent ethic of life based on the innate dignity of the human being.

    I heard an interview with Grover Norquist recently, who is basically doing his heroic best to tie all the parts of the Republican pseudo-conservative coalition together under the banner of “leave us alone”. Sorry, but that is offensive, It is exactly this laissez-faire individualism that brought us the so-called right to privacy that put abortion above the coercive law. Is it too hard to understand that pitching one’s tent with a group of this will ultimately undermine the cause?

  31. November 11, 2008 12:11 pm

    Oh, I agree that there are many alliances that the pro-life movement ultimately has to shed hopefully before the Parousia. Lets start with politicians who actively support malevolent programs of mass-murdering the innocent, and work our way inward from there, shall we?

  32. jonathanjones02 permalink
    November 11, 2008 12:20 pm

    As usual, I see lots of variants of the “but the Democrats are worse” argument. That is not the issue.

    Yes, it is the issue in the non-idealized, non-completely Catholic, republic with democratic processes we live in. If the cause of protecting the unborn is to be advanced, it needs a hearing with whomever 1) has the influence to shape and change law 2) is willing to give it a hearing.

    This is not to say we shouldn’t work personally in crisis centers, work to change behavior, ect ect. Of course we should. It is to say that one of the two political power centers is not just unwilling to listen but very actively seeking to roll back protections to the unborn. Thus, heavy criticism and work needs to be directed in this direction, and until change occurs there it is perfectably understandable why the Republican coalition has these folks as a part of it.

  33. S.B. permalink
    November 11, 2008 2:00 pm

    It absolutely is the issue. You’ve chosen the tactic of 1) claiming to be pro-life (as regards abortion), but 2) voting for pro-choice politicians and campaigning on the same side as the “Keep Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries” crowd. You do this not because you agree with everyone in the Democratic coalition (at least so you would claim), but because you made the prudential judgment that ending abortion would supposedly be better accomplished by teaming up with these pro-abortion folks.

    You hardly have any right to complain that other pro-lifers, after being almost completely ostracized from the Democratic party, have made a similar judgment . . . that ending abortion involves the election of politicians at some point, and that to do so means teaming up with other interest groups.

    Again, if you want to lead the way into the political wilderness by establishing a “seamless garment” party composed of about 5% or 10% of Americans, fine. Then you’ll have the moral authority to condemn other pro-lifers for engaging with Republicans. But don’t complain that Republican pro-lifers should do that while you content yourself with voting for Democrats. That’s called unilateral disarmament.

  34. kurt permalink
    November 11, 2008 2:02 pm

    The result of this alliance (which already exists. These three groups meet regularly to coordinate PAC contributions, endorsements, etc) that if you are a congressional candidate who is against abortion but not endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce and the NRA, you get no support from the Right-to-Life Movement.

    In the 2007-2008 election cycle, I’ve raised more money myself for anti-abortion candidates who lack the Chamber of Commerce endorsement than the total financial support they have received from the NRTL Committee (and let me tell you, it was not a heavy lift).

  35. Christopher Gant permalink
    November 11, 2008 6:21 pm

    The pro-life movement desperately needs more liberals. The stereotypical pro-lifer is a conservative. That’s not good. The alliance between the pro-life movement and conservatism is hampering the ability of the pro-life movement to change the minds of people on the center and left about abortion.

    A lot of pro-choicers simply refuse to take pro-life arguments about the moral status of the unborn seriously when they come from conservatives. They are convinced that conservative pro-lifers are hypocrites who aren’t really opposed to violence against the unborn but are really just opposed to equality for women. Almost all the arguments one hears from pro-choicers in popular debate have nothing to do with the moral status of the unborn but amount to ad hominem attacks on pro-lifers. If these pro-choicers were to confront a pro-life liberal, however, many of these ad hominem attacks would be inapplicable. The pro-choicer wouldn’t be able to point to the pro-life liberal’s support for capital punishment or war or opposition to paid family leave or whatever in order to dismiss the pro-life liberal’s professed concern for the unborn. The pro-life liberal would be able to put forth alternatives to abortion that would secure ensure equality for women – alternatives that the conservative pro-lifer would not be able to support based on general conservative principles about the limited functions of government.

    Without the ad hominem attacks they usually rely on, the pro-choicer would be forced for the first time to really confront pro-life arguments about the moral status of the unborn. A pro-life movement whose public face is almost completely conservative is severely hampered in its ability to change minds about the abortion issue.

  36. November 11, 2008 10:52 pm

    In the past election cycle, pro-life liberals were politically indistinguishable from pro-abortion liberals. The pro-abortion liberals got everything they wanted, in exchange for nothing.

  37. Kurt permalink
    November 12, 2008 12:05 pm

    Tom — You speak to that element of pro-life liberals who supported the President Elect with the hopes of making long term change in the liberal outlook on abortion policy. We can leave for another day a discussion of their wisdom.

    You quite dismissively ignore the other element of pro-life liberals — those who were inclined to support Senator McCain based on abortion policy alone and were quickly shown the door by the McCain campaign unless they make themselves politically indistinguishable from anti-abortion conservatives.

    For a long time, conservative Catholics danced between two propositions: 1) Catholics are morally obligated to support the Pro-Life Movement, and 2) the Pro-Life movement is a secular, political operation that has every right to use its judgment to make political and strategic decisions.

    Each of these propositions by itself are perfectly sound. But conservative Catholics have now publicly ended the dance and now insist that both are to be currently held — we are morally obligation under pain of sin to support the conservative movement which is an amalgamation of business interests, anti-abortion activists, foreign policy hawks and gun proponents. And Catholics who do not accept this should be prepared to have their faith, their morality and their eligibility to receive the sacraments questioned.

  38. November 12, 2008 2:14 pm

    Kurt:

    Why can we leave for another day a discussion of the wisdom of one decision when it impacts directly on the discussion of the wisdom of the decision you want to discuss?

  39. Kurt permalink
    November 12, 2008 3:42 pm

    Tom —

    Then speak to both matters, impotency of pro-life liberals in the Obama campaign, where they were welcomed, and in the McCain campaign, where they were shunned.

  40. November 13, 2008 6:38 am

    Kurt:

    How about if I speak about what I want to speak about, and you speak about what you want to speak about?

  41. Kurt permalink
    November 13, 2008 11:37 am

    Go ahead. Dialogue or even a committment to action for a common purpose between pro-life conservatives and pro-life liberals has long ceased to be anything useful.

  42. November 13, 2008 2:07 pm

    That is because “pro life liberals” doesn’t mean anything substantive, if it ever did. It just means people who are pro-forma pro-life but are going to support politicians who are deeply committed enemies of the pro-life cause, and rationalize that support to themselves to make themselves feel OK about it.

  43. Kurt permalink
    November 13, 2008 2:16 pm

    And we know what pro-life conservative means — we have lived it the last eight years.

  44. November 13, 2008 2:33 pm

    Kurt:

    Probably the worst thing about the conservative coalition, which by the way I’ve spent the last eight years opposing and urging pro-lifers not to support so uncritically, is that it paved the way for rabid pro-abort liberals. That doesn’t magically confer legitimacy on the notion that “pro-life” liberals have anything to offer but more and more rabid pro-abortion politicians. They don’t. That’s all you’ve got, and as long as that is all you’ve got there is no point in taking you seriously.

  45. kurt permalink
    November 13, 2008 7:05 pm

    Zippy,
    Your work of the last eight years seems as marvelously ineffective as anything ‘pro-life’ liberals have tried to achieve.

    And you are right; there is no point for an attempt at serious discussion between those serving the whole conservative enchilada and those who cannot accept the package. The liberals take us in on ungenerous terms. The conservative slam the door on us and leave us outdoors in the elements. In warm weather we live in homelessness. When winter comes, we often find ourselves accepting the only shelter being offered to us.

  46. November 13, 2008 8:34 pm

    Your work of the last eight years seems as marvelously ineffective as anything ‘pro-life’ liberals have tried to achieve.

    We’ll see. Time marches on, and I’m just one raving lunatic on the Internet, not 54% of the Catholic vote.

    In the meantime, “pro-life liberal” is just a synonym for “functionally pro-choice liberal”.

  47. Kurt permalink
    November 14, 2008 11:05 am

    Zippy,

    >75% of the Catholic vote by my estimation.

    K.

Trackbacks

  1. The Problem | Pelican Project Pro-Life
  2. A Coalition For Me, But Not For Thee « The American Catholic: Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 891 other followers

%d bloggers like this: