No Peace in the Pantheon
The sign reads "Beware of Religious Fundamentalists." I first saw this warning sign on my walk from there to nowhere a few years back. It seemed then that most people fearing the fundamentalists were pot-smoking libertarians living in the free-trade district; that once-prestigious part of downtown that gave way to the sprawling fever once Americans exchanged their nationalist coffee for a free trade brew. But now these front door warning labels have become quite the trend. Books, billboards, and bumper stickers! I think I even saw a young lady with something like "Fundamentalists are Fascists" tattooed on her ankle... or was it her big toe? I am not sure anymore. What I am sure of, though, is that this new "peace in the pantheon" craze has spread like pinkeye in a culture hell-bent on giving everyone eye-to-eye butterfly kisses.I needed to get to the bottom of this. Truth be told, I was freaking out! Most everyone in town knew I worked with Local 10:34, a Roman Catholic union named after the now-famous sword-text in St. Matthew's gospel. If fundamentalists were scary, then we were every child's nightmare!
We said some pretty crazy stuff, I guess. We were pretty bold, saying things like "outside the Church there is no salvation" and that the modern ecumenical movement is tantamount to institutionalized religious whoredom. Many fundies had backpedaled over the years, but not us. Benedict XVI apologized to his "Muslim brothers and sisters" after quoting Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos during his now-famous Regensburg lecture. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell both apologized for connecting the obvious dots between national immorality and national disaster. Billy Graham and Mel Gibson wept before the bright lights after being busted bad-mouthing Jewry and its Lobby. These fellas were diminished to bootlicker status. We weren't like them. We said what we meant, sure. But we went further and meant what we said. The audacity of conviction!
But yesterday's boon is today's bust, or so it appears. And if Dr. "Scary" Gary North was in hot water, then members of Local 10:34 were in hellfire!
A few days later I found myself talking to someone who appeared to be part of the opposition. I don't recall what it was that gave her away. Was it the fact that she had "COEXIST" detailed across the hood of her car? Maybe it was her "I Luv thePrayer Summit of Assisi" T-shirt. No, it was probably the "Got Questions? Ask me!" button. I guess it really doesn't matter. What did matter was that I spoke to someone in "the know" about this.
"These fascists are so intolerant," she said. "They are so full of hatred."
"Who are they?" I asked.
"Them!" she shouted. "All the fundamentalists. Not just Muslims."
Not just the Muslims? What??? This terrifying group of foaming-at-the-mouth "Islamofascists" who tear their beards out every time someone mentioned voting machines in their presence?
The entire conversation was quite confusing. It all appeared to be so hypocritical. We needed to hate hatred. We had to be intolerant of all intolerance. Freedom of religion for everyone but not for everyone. Freedom of speech protects blasphemy and porn, but "fundie talk" must be forbidden. Confusing to say the least.
But the Tolerance Tyrants are a pretty complex herd.
The more radical libertines advocated playing arm-chair eisegesis, finding in every religion and sacred text some super-secret hidden proof of hyper-inclusivism. Reading between the lines would result in discrediting the plain-as-day exegesis of yesteryear. These folks have mastered the arts of reading between the lines and the invisible writing on walls.
The "Agree with us or die" handbook from the First Church of Americanism is quite helpful for those exclusivists trying to understand the ecclesiastical structure for this unpleasant tribe of New Worlders. A woman at the gas station up the road from my home gave it to me along with a pack of American Gold cigarettes and handful of peanut gallery cashews. It appears that America's founding fathers are high priests who had magical insight into the way things ought to be. Thomas Jefferson, who penned "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth," a gospel gutted of supernaturalism, is the chief guru. Jefferson is accompanied by George Washington, the Grand Master of the Freemason's Alexandria Lodge 22, whose own pastor at Christ's Church questioned the legitimacy of his confession after years of Washington's refusal to take part in communion services. The works of Mr. "The bloody Christian faith" Thomas Paine are prominent, with Common Sense and Rights of Man being treated like Chick tracts. Apologists for this "second Israel" see in the Bill of Rights what Paul VI saw in the United Nations: the last hope for mankind and for world peace. It's even ready-made with its own Magisterium, the Supreme Court of the United States. The devil couldn't have penned a better catechism!
A few hours ago, right before penning this, I noticed a number of city folk parking in front of the house. I wasn't exactly sure what it was all about, so I went to the door. Bad idea! Turns out that one of their more vocal apologists, a certain Jay Batman, wrote a piece entitled "The Problem of Violent Fundamentalism: Religious Freedom and Responsibilities Thereof." A harmless little blog, really... or at least it was until it got into the hands of radical inclusivists. Now they are chanting outside my home! Some even have signs reading, "Peer pressure him into submission!" They went so far as to hire a negotiator. "Mr. Bannister," he said, "fundamentalists can't hug their children with nuclear arms." I tried convincing him that I wasn't down with nukes and that I'm not a fan of the war hawks, but there was no convincing him. Mass hysteria set in strong, and it couldn't even wait until I was done with my evening walk.
I'm not sure how all of this will turn out. There is no saying, really. We are dealing with a strange breed; the type of person that will demand you hug your neighbor while aiming a gun at your head. There seems to be no exits, so I'm stuck having to fight my way out of this nonsense. I'll leave you, then, with my favorite line from my favorite propaganda film, Flight 93: "Let's roll..."
Labels: catholic ecumenism, gonzo journalism, jay batman, Jeremiah Bannister, libertarianism sucks, new world order conspiracy, new world religion, Paleocrat
posted by Paleocrat @ 5/03/2010 03:08:00 PM
18 Comments
18 Comments:
Well, I'm glad to see the radical inclusivists have taken up my clarion call and are now encamped outside of your domicile of intolerance and fundamentalist hatred. Harharhar. In a stentorian chorus, they have denounced you!
Well, the fact is, they miss my point. My point is not with fundamentalist belief per se, it is with violent fundamentalist belief. You can say that you believe homosexuality is immoral; you just can't advocate for the lynching of homosexuals. It's a clear yardstick for behavior that most rational people could comprehend, but unfortunately, most rational people have long since decamped from either side of the din.
I'm sorry for my part in your current predicament. I couldn't have foreseen how the radical inclusivists would have misinterpreted my writing. However, with that said, they'd probably protest outside of my home. I am not of the mind that there are many paths to the same God.
Thine in civil sedition,
Jay Batman
Not with fundamentalist belief, per se? Tell us how you really feel. Ah, you already did! "I do condemn fundamentalism, period." Such is the way of the day for hyper-fundamentalist anti-fundamentalists. Your saying as much is tantamount to saying "hate hatred." Absurdity 101.
Jesus be Praised!
Mary be Loved!
Jay Batman,
Why can we not say that an action is immoral and therefore deserves punishment? If homosexual actions are so perverse as to be punishable by death then why can I not then say that anyone who engages in such behavior deserves to die and that the state should execute justice?
Can I only say that drinking and driving is wrong or can I also say that those who do so should go to jail?
Can I only say that murder is wrong and assign no punishment which sufficently restores justice?
Your system makes morality purely speculative and therefore useless.
Mary's Apostle...
if you wish to advocate for capital punishment in all of the eventualities where the Old Testament commands it, I suggest that the next time your child takes up a defiant attitude, you drag him or her outside the gates of your city, and cast him or her down, while you and neighbors pick up stones and proceed to fulfill the Levitical requirements.
If your younger sibling dies, and his wife is left widowed, I would also recommend that you take her as your own wife, regardless of what your current wife or girlfriend may think.
You can logically say that the state, being invested with the sword to execute justice by God, can and should punish various offenses, real or perceived. What you cannot do is what so many fundamentalist individuals do: justify vigilantism when the state fails to be as harsh as you'd like towards a particular group of people. And that, you Mariolatrizing fiend, is what I condemn.
What is more, I find that the example of Christ, in setting a standard for taking such punishment into your own hands, was quite adequate to dispel any notion that any of us have the right or the purity to cast the first stone.
As for Jeremiah the Bullfrog, throaty as ever, I have this to say: I do despise fundamentalists on any number of levels. While I am dogmatic in my belief in the essentials of the Christian faith, including the Virgin Birth, the Triune God, Jesus as the Messiah, and the Cross as the only way to salvation, I don't buy for a minute biblical literalism. I am of the mind to agree with Karl Barth, who I believe said it best: "The Bible contains the word of God, but it is not the Word of God."
Tell me, Jeremiah, was the Apostle Paul speaking with divine inspiration when he asked Timothy to bring him his cloak and the parchments? Are we to believe in a six literal 24 day creation when the way we measure time on such manner was not even possible the first three days of creation because the Greater Light to rule the day was not fixed in the firmament until Day Four? Hmmm?
When secularist throw down such ideas, they do so with the gusto of individuals who believe they have genuinely disproven the Bible's veracity. In truth, all they have accomplished is the debunking of some podunk fundamentalist ideology, and nothing else. But we've all got to keep on paying homage to those arrogant enough to presume they have the One Way and the One Interpretation, no matter how obvious it is that they do not. The blind lead the blind into a ditch, as evidenced by the various schisms, divisions, and carnages between the various denominations over the years. One Body becomes a diversity that is wholly unbiblical.
Both of you rely a great deal on misrepresentation and outright slander. When you construct a straw man, and then beat him to rubbish, you've only destroyed your own creation. A great deal of what you attribute to me is pure poppycock. Next time I write something, I'll put it in cartoon form so the two of you and your other troglodyte friends can follow along. Afterwards, we'll have a monosyllabic spelling contest, limited to six or fewer letters, you simps.
Thine in righteous anger and laughter,
Jay Batman
Mary's Apostle...
if you wish to advocate for capital punishment in all of the eventualities where the Old Testament commands it, I suggest that the next time your child takes up a defiant attitude, you drag him or her outside the gates of your city, and cast him or her down, while you and neighbors pick up stones and proceed to fulfill the Levitical requirements.
If your younger sibling dies, and his wife is left widowed, I would also recommend that you take her as your own wife, regardless of what your current wife or girlfriend may think.
You can logically say that the state, being invested with the sword to execute justice by God, can and should punish various offenses, real or perceived. What you cannot do is what so many fundamentalist individuals do: justify vigilantism when the state fails to be as harsh as you'd like towards a particular group of people. And that, you Mariolatrizing fiend, is what I condemn.
What is more, I find that the example of Christ, in setting a standard for taking such punishment into your own hands, was quite adequate to dispel any notion that any of us have the right or the purity to cast the first stone.
As for Jeremiah the Bullfrog, throaty as ever, I have this to say: I do despise fundamentalists on any number of levels. While I am dogmatic in my belief in the essentials of the Christian faith, including the Virgin Birth, the Triune God, Jesus as the Messiah, and the Cross as the only way to salvation, I don't buy for a minute biblical literalism. I am of the mind to agree with Karl Barth, who I believe said it best: "The Bible contains the word of God, but it is not the Word of God."
Tell me, Jeremiah, was the Apostle Paul speaking with divine inspiration when he asked Timothy to bring him his cloak and the parchments? Are we to believe in a six literal 24 day creation when the way we measure time on such manner was not even possible the first three days of creation because the Greater Light to rule the day was not fixed in the firmament until Day Four? Hmmm?
When secularist throw down such ideas, they do so with the gusto of individuals who believe they have genuinely disproven the Bible's veracity. In truth, all they have accomplished is the debunking of some podunk fundamentalist ideology, and nothing else. But we've all got to keep on paying homage to those arrogant enough to presume they have the One Way and the One Interpretation, no matter how obvious it is that they do not. The blind lead the blind into a ditch, as evidenced by the various schisms, divisions, and carnages between the various denominations over the years. One Body becomes a diversity that is wholly unbiblical.
Both of you rely a great deal on misrepresentation and outright slander. When you construct a straw man, and then beat him to rubbish, you've only destroyed your own creation. A great deal of what you attribute to me is pure poppycock. Next time I write something, I'll put it in cartoon form so the two of you and your other troglodyte friends can follow along. Afterwards, we'll have a monosyllabic spelling contest, limited to six or fewer letters, you simps.
Thine in righteous anger and laughter,
Jay Batman
You oppose vigilantism? That is soooo interesting! So do most Christian fundamentalists! Were we to consider the vast number of fundamentalists, both past and present, who "went rogue," the number would be, relatively speaking, infinitesimal.
And why bring up belief in Six-Day Creationism? I am unsure as to the relevance it has to this discussion. It isn't a dogma, much less a reason used by rogue fundies for "taking matters in their own hands."
Do you not see your own absurdity here? For all this talk of non-violence, you have a way with fighting words. This inconsistency is only rivaled by nonsensically resorting to accusations of our constructing straw men. We have no need of creating mythical creatures when monsters are ever-present and made-for-the-ready. I understand your position quite well. I've been refuting it for years.
Jesus be Praised!
Mary be Loved!
Mr. Batman,
You really need to settle down and realize that not one of us is actually important at all. This quote is my personal favorite:
'Both of you rely a great deal on misrepresentation and outright slander. When you construct a straw man, and then beat him to rubbish, you've only destroyed your own creation. A great deal of what you attribute to me is pure poppycock. Next time I write something, I'll put it in cartoon form so the two of you and your other troglodyte friends can follow along. Afterwards, we'll have a monosyllabic spelling contest, limited to six or fewer letters, you simps.'
We have only talked once and you are willing to accuse me of slander? When did I ever refer to you at all? I was simply stating that your particular brand of morality taken to its logical end would lead to inaction and therefore make morality, a practical science, impractical and therefore purposeless. The most amusing part, however, is that I have only addressed you in writing so for all polysyllabic words you have failed to make the proper distinction between libel (which is written) and slander (which is spoken).
Additionally you failed to see that I was referring to the state and not to vigilante justice, for I say, "the state should execute justice" and "so should go to jail".
Take a deep breath. Laugh. And realize your own insignificance.
You Mariolatrizing fiend:
I am not insignificant. If you slander someone, you make false or maligning statements about their actions which speak negatively about their character. In no way did I ever propose limiting legitimate free speech of the sort you've outlined in my original post. The thrust of the entire post was to condemn violent fundamentalism, and even to highlight textual inconsistencies between what fundamentalists do and the textual basis they appeal to in order to justify their actions. While you perhaps have the letter of thing correct, I have the spirit of what you are doing down.
Jeremiah, you simp, I do not for a moment underestimate your ability to follow after why I brought up biblical literalism as an explanation of why I disdain fundamentalism. Again, I don't say that fundamentalism per se ought to be cast out of churches and denominations, but that unrepentant violent fundamentalism ought to be confronted and excised. In my mind, it is utter heresy in most cases.
My particular brand of morality has led me to a monogamous relationship with my wife, a stable existence where obligations are met, courtesies are paid, and a respectable living is maintained. My morality, you Mariolatrizing simp, is in my actions and not my words. And that's kind of the point, really...morality is only efficacious insofar as individuals live it. Individuals. Not groups seeking to appease a theocratic state or democratic tyranny.
Morality is a choice. I argue that individuals should reap the rewards or the punishments on their own as the net result of their choices. I do not see where the government should promote morality, or where it realistically can. What the government can do is identify torts and crimes and develop processes for their eventuality. This does not in and of itself entail a promotion of morality. It is merely a statement of order relating to universally held concerns of life, liberty, and property.
Salvation comes from the call and intercessory grace of God, and morality apart from salvation is utterly impossible. I do not see the state as a catalyst for either salvation or its fruit morality.
You are accusing me of advocating for the constraint of your moral beliefs, when in fact, I do no such thing. I advocate for reasonable limits on that belief, where only the state has the power to prosecute and punish. Of course, anything that might be construed as a method of limiting your ability to go after gays and abortionists is something that puts your kind in a tizzy. Don't worry, Jeremiah and the Mariolatrist: I leave you full liberty to resort to fighting words, even as I resort to the same.
Thine in significance,
Jay Batman
P.S. Religious Toads.
Paleocrat,
I was once a "traditional" Catholic, having been a sedevacantist for a period of time before a shorter, subsequent stint in the Society of St. Pius X. I am now, however, a Catholic in full communion with the Successor of Peter and all of the pastoral directives mandated by Vatican Council II. Deo Gratias.
In all charity I would suggest you read Fr. Brian Harrison's article "Is Ecumenism a Heresy?" which can be found at:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0901fea4.asp
Keep in mind that pastoral strategy is not dogma and that the Church is well within its right to alter or change such strategies. You might also try to procure a used copy of Jean Guitton's "The Pope Speaks: Dialogues of Pope Paul VI" in which you will find, the late, great, and unfairly maligned Pontiff explaining what his vision of ecumenism was -- and it certainly wasn't accomodating error, nor could it ever be confused with deformations of ecumenism that lead to indifferentism.
You must tie all of this together with Pope Benedict XVI's comment that Gaudium et Spes is a "counter-syllabus" to Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors. In no way is Benedict XVI reversing his predecessor. Positive teaching (G&S) vs. negative teaching (QC) can be summed up as follows:
Negative teaching: I eat vanilla ice cream. People who eat chocolate ice cream are all going to hell.
Postive teaching: All ice cream starts out the same -- milk, cream, sugar. Indeed, chocolate ice cream is mostly vanilla before the addition of cocoa. I know you like chocolate ice cream, but don't be taken aback if I really enjoy my vanilla ice cream.
The Church has acknowleged the pluralistic nature of most societies and under the guidance of the Holy Ghost it is proceeding accordingly. It is heretical to suggest that the Holy Ghost was present at all the other ecumenical councils (Nicea, Trent, Vatican I, etc.) but not at Vatican II. To resist the decrees of an ecumenical council (whether they be pastoral or dogmatic) is to resist the Holy Ghost itself.
As far as the Pauline (a.k.a. Novus Ordo) Rite is concerned, please keep in mind that it is a basic and fundamental teaching of sacramental theology that the Church has the right to determine the form of any sacrament in which Christ did not already specify the form. There is only one Mass, namely: "This is My Body. This is My Blood" (as specified by Christ at the Last Supper) expressed in a multiplicity of rites in both the Western and Eastern Churches (irrespective of organic or synthetic development). Anything beyond what Christ specified the Church has the right to promulgate. It is also heresy to suggest that one rite of Mass ('62 Missal vs. Novus Ordo) gives more grace than another rite of Mass.
Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong about many things. Don't let emotions about the state of the world affect your Catholic judgment.
Dominus vobiscum, Paleocrat.
1. While I have plenty of YouTube videos dealing with sedevacantism, that was not really at issue here.
2. I am quite familiar with the arguments used to justify the Second Vatican Council's Decree on Religious Liberty, Unitatis Redintegratio.
3. Yes, the Second Vatican Council is following the lead of political polytheists, Pan-Christians, and religious ecumenists. But recognizing a trend within the world is hardly grounds for slapping a "Holy Ghost Approved" sticker on it.
4. The Church most definitely specified the form prior to Vatican II and the so-called reforms. Consider the matter of Holy Orders, changed dramatically by Paul VI. Pius XII had penned Sacramentum Ordinis in 1947, going so far as to write, "We teach, declare, and determine this, all persons notwithstanding, no matter what special dignity they may have, and consequently we wish and order such in the Roman Pontifical... No one therefore is allowed to infringe upon this Constitution given by us, nor should anyone dare to have the audacity to contradict it." Paul VI not only infringed upon it, but he had the audacity to contradict it with his so-called reforms. What can be said of the radical change in Holy Orders may also be said of the other sacraments, none of which were left unscathed by Paul VI.
5. The Pauline Rite is not the Roman Mass, nor even a reform of the Roman Mass. Period. It amounts to little more than a Protestant liturgy with doubtful sacraments. This is horribly unfortunate, to say the very least.
6. The New Rite is a modern concoction, a liturgical novelty. Unlike the Roman Mass, or any historical apostolic liturgy, it is the result of piecemeal patchwork, not of organic liturgical development. It was created and imposed arbitrarily from above rather than developed and promulgated from within. The results of this have been horrifying, setting precedent for a never-ending string of reforms reforming reforms that were reforms of the reforms. Liturgical gobbledygook.
7. Concerning grace in various rites, we need only consider the fact that the Novus Ordo lacks a grace-giving element contained within the Roman Rite: the traditional absolution formula, the Indulgentiam. This was meant to forgive venial sins. Was it not more gracious to have it? If it was grace-giving, and if it is no longer present, then the grace that was afforded the people with it is now absent. This, in and of itself, demonstrates that there is at least one grace-giving element within the Roman Rite that is non-existent in the Pauline Rite.
8. I am unsure as to what makes Paul VI all that great. Even were I to maintain a position other than the one I do, referring to Paul VI as great would be a tough pill to swallow. A pope, sure. Great? Not so much.
9. This isn't about emotions, and certainly not about the condition of the world. It is about form, matter, intent, the sacraments, the Roman Mass, canon law, theology, and Tradition. The world is enduring tough times, no doubt. Sin is rampant, perversion is pervasive. But that is almost to be expected, at least to some degree. This has to do with the faith, the claims made by the Church of herself, her beliefs, and her traditions.
10. Let me make something clear here. While I am well aware of the controversy, and while I am plenty competent to discuss these matters, I have little interest in doing so any longer. My blogs and videos have not dealt with this matter for some time, and I would prefer to keep it that way. There are far brighter minds than you or I who have discussed these issues at great length and with great exactitude. This controversy will not be resolved by you or I, and it is safe to assume that it will not end through the comment section on this blog.
Feel free to comment as you wish. The comment policy here is very loose, allowing people to comment as they please and see fit. But know that I have very little interest in discussing this matter at great length, especially on the Internet. I say this without any frustration, and not wishing to insult.
Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your charity, all of which are quite evident in what you wrote.
I apologize for such a lengthy reply, but I felt it was in order. Please forgive me for being so wordy, and be assured that I will attempt to be more concise in the event that I choose to reply in the future. Once again, thank you.
Making concession representing cosmopolitan predilection to consolidation in justifiable the unimpaired shooting be like, gibberish
included, there is a overblown necessity as a overhaul pro studying English lingo in those parts of the in the seventh elysium, where English is not a strength language. This conclusion leads us that there is brobdingnagian demur pro the treatment of English-speaking tutors, who are specializing in teaching English. South Korea is abstemious of most facilitative countries in terms of popular move flippant, which means teaching English in Korea would be incomparably profitable.
click here
http://louisvuittonoutlet.citationguide.net 40505 873159louis vuitton bucket bag made in france replica louis vuitton purses wholesale vintage hermes bracelet for sale hermes lindy 30cm
christian louboutin outlet, louboutin pas cher, uggs on sale, sac longchamp pas cher, prada outlet, oakley sunglasses wholesale, replica watches, oakley sunglasses, polo ralph lauren outlet online, tiffany jewelry, jordan pas cher, nike free, prada handbags, longchamp outlet, kate spade outlet, louis vuitton outlet, louis vuitton outlet, longchamp outlet, cheap oakley sunglasses, nike air max, longchamp pas cher, ugg boots, christian louboutin shoes, christian louboutin uk, nike roshe, replica watches, chanel handbags, ray ban sunglasses, nike free run, tiffany and co, air max, tory burch outlet, louis vuitton outlet, christian louboutin, polo outlet, ray ban sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, michael kors pas cher, ray ban sunglasses, longchamp outlet, louis vuitton, nike outlet, polo ralph lauren, ugg boots, nike air max, burberry pas cher, gucci handbags
true religion outlet, coach purses, hollister uk, michael kors outlet online, replica handbags, abercrombie and fitch uk, hollister pas cher, coach outlet, ray ban uk, oakley pas cher, michael kors outlet, new balance, north face uk, true religion outlet, kate spade, hogan outlet, lululemon canada, nike free uk, michael kors outlet online, nike tn, nike air max uk, michael kors, ralph lauren uk, nike air force, converse pas cher, coach outlet store online, nike blazer pas cher, nike air max uk, nike roshe run uk, sac vanessa bruno, north face, uggs outlet, michael kors outlet, guess pas cher, michael kors outlet, nike air max, sac hermes, burberry handbags, mulberry uk, uggs outlet, timberland pas cher, michael kors, vans pas cher, polo lacoste, true religion jeans, michael kors outlet online, michael kors outlet online, burberry outlet, ray ban pas cher
ray ban, reebok outlet, oakley, gucci, new balance shoes, hollister, mcm handbags, chi flat iron, valentino shoes, nike roshe run, mont blanc pens, converse outlet, nike trainers uk, abercrombie and fitch, p90x workout, insanity workout, asics running shoes, wedding dresses, nike huaraches, longchamp uk, nfl jerseys, instyler, hermes belt, north face outlet, baseball bats, celine handbags, beats by dre, jimmy choo outlet, converse, soccer jerseys, herve leger, ghd hair, lululemon, soccer shoes, timberland boots, bottega veneta, babyliss, nike air max, iphone cases, hollister clothing, ralph lauren, vans outlet, mac cosmetics, north face outlet, vans, hollister, ferragamo shoes, giuseppe zanotti outlet, nike air max, louboutin
links of london, juicy couture outlet, louis vuitton, canada goose outlet, pandora charms, louis vuitton, ugg uk, lancel, moncler outlet, supra shoes, pandora uk, marc jacobs, moncler, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, canada goose outlet, toms shoes, hollister, coach outlet, swarovski crystal, moncler uk, juicy couture outlet, canada goose, canada goose outlet, canada goose jackets, moncler, moncler outlet, ugg, karen millen uk, pandora jewelry, barbour uk, pandora jewelry, louis vuitton, replica watches, doudoune moncler, canada goose uk, moncler, louis vuitton, wedding dresses, canada goose, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia, thomas sabo, swarovski, canada goose, montre pas cher, ugg pas cher, barbour, moncler, louis vuitton
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home