Cheney's Gay Daughter Pregnant
"Mom's" to be? Cheney and "Partner" *****************************************
I want to start by saying that anyone who thinks they can trust the Republican Party to protect "Traditional Family Values" is either ignorant or willfully delusional. An examination of the facts simply will not support that contention. The two parties currently in ascendency differ only in the rate at which they are willing to oversee the redefinition of "family". The facts may be painful to come to grips with, but there comes a point when it is simply immoral to continue to pretend that a given political party is still representing your interests. For the sake of our nation, the best of us must face reality.
The facts of the case are these, Mary Cheney, daughter of the Vice-President, is openly homosexual and paraded her "partner" at Republican events- while she was a paid employee of the Re-election campaign of Bush/Cheney. That is correct. Those donations that conservative family people gave to the campaign went in part to pay her salary. But don't worry, even if you did not give to the campaign, as a taxpayer, you still did your part to add to the Cheney family fortune, the vice president's other daughter, Elizabeth Cheney, is on leave as deputy assistant secretary of state after having her fifth child with her husband in July.
Mary Cheney is pregnant. We don't know the particulars- like who the father is. Nor does that seem to matter to all these staunch defenders of family values. They all seem content to let "Heather have two mommies" if one of them is the Vice-President's daughter. I wretch thinking about the stench of hypocrisy coming from the paragons of family values who do worse than stay silent on this, but who actually attempt to dupe values voters into supporting Bush-Cheney.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Wednesday, December 06, 2006
43 Comments:
The two parties currently in ascendency differ only in the rate at which they are willing to oversee the redefinition of "family".
I don't even think it's a question of rate. Just openness. No wonder the country club Republican RINO's think Christians are a bunch of dupes.
O come on. She is not elected to any office and neither is her partner. Vice President Cheney has said he did not support her decision, but still loved her because she was his daughter. You are just trying to get support for your little third party by taking cheep shots at a grown daughter of an elected official. Your demand for perfect Cheney children demands the question be asked if all your children have been perfect? It is like demanded the preacher's kids act totally perfect in and out of church. The decisions of Vice President Cheney's daughter have no drag on him or his character. After all Samuel's children were wicked, yet Samuel is called a great leader. And lets not get into all of King David's problems, yet he was called a man after God's own heart. I think your attack of the GOP because of actions of a grown daughter who is not elected is cheep, men spirited, and below the belt. If you support all these "Christian" policies then you need to up-hold them your self. It is written love your neighbor as your self. And another point, do you think Dugger error when he stabbed Sen. Hutchinson in the back after Hutchinson supported the conservative GOPers.
Yep, poor dad was forced to give her a choice position on Bush's 06 campaign staff. Suffering soul.
Jim Bob Duggar is one of the kindest gentlemen to ever draw a breath. He did not "backstab" Tim Hutchinson, Hutchinson "back stabbed" his own wife. And men of character, as a part of loving they neighbor, sometimes feel a duty to hold people of power accountable when they do wrong- as oppossed to hacks who defend whoever the big guy at the moment is.
I don't have a party at the moment, and I don't understand how you could see into my heart and know what my motives are for writing this even if I did.
I am not upset that he loves his daughters, I am upset that he hired his daughter with donations from conservative family people. I am upset that he lets her flaunt her homosexuality even at party functions. I am upset that there are people too stiff-necked or blind to see that a party like that WILL NOT defend marriage. They will dust the issue off and make some noise in a transparent effort to get votes, then put the issue back in the closet once the election is over- just as they have done.
How did "dugger" stab Tim in the back? By challenging him in the primary? I know you think your ilk is entitled to unchallenged primaries, but you must earn the support of voters. It's how our system works.
Tim stabbed himself in the back by running on family values then running off with his office help.
I'm interested to know this -- Mark you obviously think that Mary Cheney living with another woman and giving birth to a daughter is wrong. What should the government do about it? And you can't just say "no gay marriage" -- Cheney and her friend aren't trying to get married, only trying to raise a child. Should we pass laws preventing them from living together? Should we pass laws preventing them from raising a child together? Should we send in a government agency to take the child away from them?
I understand you don't like what you see when you look at what Mary Cheney's doing. But apparently, somehow, you think political parties are implicated in this. What should Cheney do that would make you happy -- publicly condemn his daughter? So what does politics have to do with this -- how should the government be involved in a Mary Cheney-type situation?
"Should we pass laws preventing them from living together?"
Not living together, but open sodomy, yes. We HAD laws that criminalized sodomy until the courts threw them out in 2003 (Lawrence vs. Texas). The court over-ruled themselves from just 17 years earlier, when they said they did not have the authority to make this decision and it was a state matter. It is, and I would vote to keep our current laws which criminalize sodomy, at least for situations where one person entices another to commit sodomy for the first time.
I don't buy the argument that sex is somehow off-limits for the law, except within the sanctity of marriage. Communities should be able to proscribe penalties for sexual behavior it views as destructive.
" Should we pass laws preventing them from raising a child together?"
Yes, for the sake of the children. I like most conservatives, oppose homosexual adoption and foster parenting. Here the situation is more difficult because one of the "partners" is a biological parent. Seems to me if we had kept sodomy illegal we would not have to worry about what to do in situations like this- they would lose access to the child when they were sent to jail anyway.
" Should we send in a government agency to take the child away from them?"
Yes. Immediately so that the child will never bond into that destructive situation. Children have been removed from homes for a lot less. I am convinced that the child can be adopted into a home that will be much more favorable to her development.
The fact that I am solidly behind parental rights when families are according to the Bibical pattern does not mean I am obligated to stand idly by while a child is born into this kind of mess.
But apparently, somehow, you think political parties are implicated in this. What should Cheney do that would make you happy -- publicly condemn his daughter?
For some reason you seem to have difficulty getting the message. That pic of her and her partner was from the GOP convention. They flaunt it. He hired her with donor money. They aren't just "loving her cause she is our daughter", they are in our face with it, with the full help of the Cheney's and acquiensence of the GOP. He shouldn't have hired her and her "partner" should not have been seated at the convention, not if they expect me to give them any credibility on family issues.
I will give you the hiring of her in the campaign was not prudent. But your proposal appears to be a big intrusion of the government. And America needs less not more government. Now the Cheney’s daughter did flaunt it at the convention, but again what would you have Cheney do, disown her? His daughter is well over the age of 18 so he really has no say in the matter. Cheney is not running, ever again, for office so this discussion is really detrimental to the political discourse because it incites the conservatives against something they can’t fix. And what would you have us do here in Arkansas, stop giving money to any GOP function/cause? This article while true has no relevance to today and the future of the party; it just seeks to destroy the GOP/conservative movement.
Mark is solidly behind parental rights when the family is "according to biblical pattern." So I guess, using that logic, he doesn't mind if I marry a couple dozen 14 year old girls since there is a clear pattern in the bible of marrying very young girls and having multiple wives. There is also a pattern of incest in the bible, but I won't even touch that one.
What evidence do you have that a gay couple raising a child harms the child?
Here are some more questions. Should sodomy between unmarried heterosexual couples be outlawed? (It was illegal under the Arkansas statute that has been ruled unconstitutional by the Ark. Supreme Court.) Oral sex, anal sex, outside of marriage between men and women -- legal or not?
What about adultery and premarital heterosexual sex -- should we arrest people and imprison them for that as well? What about unmarried heterosexual people, living together and raising children? Should we remove the child from that circumstance, and imprison the adults involved?
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in the Gospels, but He did say that a man who divorces his wife and re-marries commits adultery -- should we prevent divorce and arrest those who attempt to re-marry after a divorce?
Finally, this -- most legislative action on homosexual adoption has been in the context of the state having custody of the child -- DHHS removes a child from an abusive home, and a couple adopts a child. But what about PRIVATE adoptions (which account for most adoptions in the state). Let me give you an example. Couple has a child, couple leaves the picture either because they are killed or go to prison or are judged to be unfit, and the courts must place the child somewhere. Grandma, or aunt, or sister, or cousin, is available and willing to adopt the child. Grandma (or aunt or cousin or sister) is middle-aged, owns her own home, has no criminal record, has a good job, has a stable life. She has interacted with the child previously and loves the child. But she's a lesbian and lives with her partner. (I have seen this exact scenario before.) What would you do with the child -- let the stable lesbian family member take the child, or give the child over to strangers? What, in your opinion, is the "pro-family" position?
Gross!
What evidence do you have that a gay couple raising a child harms the child?
Hey Drew, we're not even going to waste time debating the obvious. If we can't agree on the destruction of homosexuality and their corrupting of children, we simply aren't going to agree on anything significant.
I also don't want to waste time debating if being raised by homosexuals is good for little children. Heterosexual marriage is the only institution that can create new life and connects it to its creators. And I would criminalize adultery. The UCMJ still does. Five years in the slammer.
Rob,
Good to hear from you again. The Bible records lots of things that people did, that does not mean that the Bible endorses all of that behavior. Incest for example, is specifically prohibited. Multiple wives was tolerated, but not God's original intent. I am not sure where you are getting the business about the 14 years olds from. Sure people married young before life got so complicated that you were in school until 25.
I am not saying only Christians should have the protection of the law, everyone should, but the law should not be used to prop up insane "family" structures that are unproven or destructive. The role of the family in socializing the next generation is too important, the stakes are too high, and too many are already faring too poorly at it to risk eroding standards even further.
Mark, I'm 8:01 a.m., and while I frequently disagree with you, you usually attempt to justify your positions with facts and frequently engage in thoughtful debate. Your refusal to answer the question of whether a child raised by a gay parent is harmful does not speak well of you or your positions. Your refusal to answer the question of whether an adopted child is better off with a gay family member or a straight stranger is telling. I have never seen evidence that a child raised by a stable gay parent is affected adversely by it. Have you?
I'm a straight man, happily married with two young children. I think a traditional family unit is the best option for children. But it is not an option that is available in many situations today. Recently, we learned for the first time in U.S. history, more adults are unmarried than married. Children don't have a choice what family they enter into. What most important to me is that the family is (1) stable; and (2) loving.
Also, the Uniform Code of Military Justice outlaws adultery for reasons unrelated to the non-military experience. The military outlaws it because it hurts the unit-- compromises the ability of the group to mobilize and fight. Comparing the UCMJ to civil justice is apples-to-oranges. It is remarkable to me that you would outlaw adultery. Would you outlaw heterosexual sodomy outside of marriage? You never answered that one.
Look I am not trying to dodge, but it is so obvious to me that being raised by lesbians would so frequently be a disaster for a child I just 1) can't even see a need to defend it, and assume that people that demand proof of the obvious are just trying to be irritating and 2) in order to get the "evidence" you seek we would have to do studies on live human beings, like separating identical twins and putting one in a house of homosexuals.
I realize that some homo activists have hijacked science to advance their agenda and are willing to skew all sorts of "studies" to advance their goals, but I have seen too many of them fall apart under peer review (from the few scientists left willing to bear the wrath of PC and the homo lobby to defend the integrity of the scientific method). I would cast a dubious eye toward a "study" that asserted something that common sense tells me is untrue.
As for your other question, I really only committed to outlawing homosexual sodomy when one is being drawn in for the first time. Since it is concievable that Hetero-sodomy could be part of a relationship that leads to legitimate marriage, I see no need to criminalize it.
And the UCMJ does not only outlaw adultery within the unit- not only can you not sleep with your shipmates wife, you can't sleep with your dry cleaner's wife.
Sure it interfers with good order and discipline. That is just one thing that makes it wrong. It also undermines the social fabric, not just unit cohesiveness.
I am astounded that you don't think adultery should be criminalized. Do I hurt a man worse if I steal his car or his wife? Where are our values, on things or people?
If you're a Christian, Democrats don't care about you. The Republicans care about your vote, but that's it.
WARNING TO GOP:
The discontent that so-called "values voters" or "soco's" share is being expressed in many other places besides this blog. It is real and MY party, the GOP, needs to wake up.
The "Religious Right" voting block is, and always will be up for grab.
If my party refuses to learn the lesson of '06 (and it looks like they are)this will continue and as a party, we will be set back decades.
Mark,
Good response to that idiot Rob. People that think they know everything and know absolutely nothing, outside of what the MSM tells them to think that is, annoy me. Liberals never use their brain and they have no spine. They just say the first thing that comes into their little pea brain.
Nowhere in the Bible does God condone sin. It is also very clear what God's idea of a family is....a REAL family consisting of a mother, father, and children. Yet liberals seek to define a family in whatever way they choose just so they can live however they want (with taxpayer funds of course) without having to accept responsibility for their actions.
ot99 How can a daughter of a politician who is never running again influence the social conservative vote? Really we should be looking at who is running in 2008 and trying to keep out the liberals who would like to force us all to except Ms Cheney. We should be working hard to help elect men who will fight for the unborn and defend the family with every thing they have got. We have some in the party running who don't share that view, and they are the ones we should be after who will be seen. Not the daughter who is never going to be seen again.
Have you ever heard of hate the sin but love the sinner? I know for a fact that this what many people in the Bush/Cheney team have done with Mary. While it is sad she has made a bad choice in life she is still to be loved as a person. You can sit in judgement but in God's eyes the sin of judging people is as great a sin as homosexuality. I am in no way in favor of homosexualtiy. I am against gay marriage/adoption/foster parents but feel as christians we have to stand for our beliefs and let people know we disagree with their choice but we love them and will be there to help them with whatever they need. A lot of christians need to wake up and learn that homosexuals are people and God loves them and you should to. I have many friends that are gay and they know my feelings about it but they know i still love them as a person.
So Mark are we equating a woman with a car? Is that how you view your wife (assuming you have one)? As a piece of property to keep locked away? Wow. Seems like you don't put much value in people.
In Mark's defense, I disagree with almost everything he believes and stands for, but I don't think he was equating his car with his wife, as if she were property. I think the proper analogy would have been: Do you hurt a man more if you SMASH his car, or his heart(by stealing his wife, for all of the cerebrally challenged?)
That being said, this is supposed to be a politcal blog. We should not be at each other's throats over a lesbian having a kid. Even most Republicans are Libertarian enough to admit that we should stay out of the private lives of others, no matter their party affiliation or sexual preference.
Good try at consensus, Rob. But lesbians "having" kids is nothing but political (after all, it certainly isn't natural).
The fact that Republicans utter a few carefully selected words to conservatives during election season while using their hard earned money to give people like Cheney & gal pal choice jobs shows just how little they think of their faithful supporters.
Rob,
Thanks, the guy twisted the meaning of my words on their head so much, I figure they are just being difficult rather than trying to find truth.
And the truth is deviants should not have a "right" to screw up kids. THEIR private lives does not include screwing up a kid that is not the result of their union.
"How can a daughter of a politician who is never running again influence the social conservative vote?"
I never said Mary Cheney would, I'm speaking more generally than that.
Many things can affect the "value's voters" vote--collectively. It's not Mary Cheney, but her flaunting it. It's Harriet Myers as Bush's first choice instead of known social conservatives who were even more qualified. It's Mark Foley. It's several gay members in high positions in my party such as Ken Mehlman. It's Tim Hutchinson's infidelity...Newt Gingrich's...Rush Limbaugh's and so many other's. It's a war--Christians in general will support war if they feel they have a good reason(as they did originally.) But "stay the course" is not a good reason anymore. It's people like Dobson being ridiculed by Dick Armey. Clergymen being disrespected. I could make a list a mile long. Collectively, those things amongst many others can have an affect.
The issue is much deeper though. My party has failed to deliver many of the promises given the values voters. For instance, Bush has yet to attempt to pass a gay-marriage ammendment after making it a cornerstone in his '04 campaign. Once again, this is one of many undelivered promises.
Then, name one social conservative in the Tier 1 bracket for President in '08. There's not any. You have to look all the way down to people like Huckabee. Name Soco's in lofty positions within the RNC or even the RPA...I can name a few that I think are soco's, but not many. They're certainly not very public about it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a proud Republican. I understand this party is a coalition of other interests as well-as do most Christians. Contrary to what the leftists say, we aren't trying to form a theocracy either. Christians just want to be heard, and the Republican party has been courting their vote in the past. But, most do NOT have party loyalty and they never will. They vote on the individual candidate-based on values. In general, they feel Democrats hate them, and Republicans are care about them...but it's changing. It used to be when Republicans didn't inspire them they stayed home on election day, instead of voting for a Dem.
9 million new "values voters" came out to vote in '94 and we know what happened. 4 million of them did in '00 and Bush nearly lost. Rove noticed. Issues in '04 geared more towards family values, and the indentification of soco's was of utmost importance for the 72-Hour program. It worked. Democrats learned and started talking about values. We now saw what happened in '06 when soco's didn't vote.
In summary, the Republican party, yes MY party, has got to start doing more than just hosting "Prayer Breakfasts" during election year. My party has to do more than run commercials with gay men kissing.
Name one social conservative in the Tier 1 bracket for President in '08.
Gov. Mitt Romney
He is one of the best candidates out there. He is the opposite of Rudy, He does not support campaign finance reform, and he has been a constant defender of the military. I also like how he fought so hard against gay marriage in Mass. If he fights half that hard he will be a great candidate.
Mitt? The socialist who introduced statewide taxpayer funded medical insurance? The traitor who threatened his county clerks with the full force of the law had they followed their conscience and refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual "couples"? Taxachusetts' governor? That Mitt?
Mitt is no where near a socialist. Gov. Romney did not threaten the county clerks with force to allow gay marriage. He used the current laws to limit the amount of marriages he was forced to give out. He has also championed an amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage. Mitt has continued the tradition of fighting against the democratic attempts to raise taxes. Which is why up until now the state has voted for GOP governors since Dukakis? He is a far better candidate than Rudy or McCain. Gov. Mitt Romney has the executive experience needed; he has the record of fighting the democrats on key principles but yet working with them on common ground, and believing in conservative values. Romney is a great mix of the social and fiscal conservative this country needs. Mitt Romney would be a great president.
I think you better look into what the mormons really believe, and how they have operated in the constitution party before you go supporting one for president.
Don't be afraid, 11:53. Mitt says all the things conservatives are supposed to say during election year: abortion bad, marriage good, tax cuts needed. Don't pay attention to what he really believes or what he's actually done. The whole reason many held their noses and voted Bush was for the sake of good judicial appointments. With Romney's pathetic performance in handling his state's supreme court, he won't enjoy the same overlooking of faults by the voters.
So mr. toast, you would advocate total disobedience toward the Supreme court? I agree they have over reached their constructional bounds, but disobedience would be a step towards anarchy. Romney fought to the utmost. He brought up a law from 1901 that stated that there would be no licenses to people from out of state. The court confirmed that he had a right to limit the licenses. Would you of ignored this decision? You can't pick and choose your court decisions to support. If you stop obeying them then the other side can do the same thing. This leads to anarchy. I don't think the electorate has become desensitized. You have become ideologically driven to the point where you will not accept someone less than perfect. My goodness even Reagan supported the largest tax increase in Californian history. With your stuck in the mud attitude Reagan would not of even got your vote. Romney was sworn to up hold the constitution of Mass. and the law of the commonwealth and that is what he has done. Romney has fought hard against gay marriage he knows first hand what they will go through to get “marriage” unlike a Gov from Texas who had no experience of fighting the democrats. Romney is a conservative. Maybe not the theocratic fascist you want but who is besides you little constitutional party (which is only a way to throw away a vote while still claiming you did you civic duty.)
ot99,
You made a lot of claims about people in your rant a few posts earlier I know Tim Hutchinson got a divorce but do you have the proof besides the Democrats said it in a whisper campaign. Also attacking Bush for Harriett Myers is nuts. She is a long time friend of the President, she is a great christain woman, and she is a solid conservative. Ohh sorry I forget that you know all and if you do not think someone is a good enough conservative they can't serve their country even if you know nothing about them you are the standard bearer.
Mr. Toast and 11:53 are both disillusioned. They had not evidence for any of their claims. And 9:49 has a point, what would toast do if he were Gov Romney. I have not decided who I will support but it appears as if Romney is the one every one in the media hates, so I am giving him a look over.
Pleeeez.
I'll admit that I forgot about Mitt Romney as a Tier 1 candidate. But he is alone up there, and it will be interesting to see if Christians will vote for a Morman.
Now, let's see:
First of all, when it comes to Tim or frankly anything in the party you don't know what my level of involvement has or has not been. That's all I'll say about that.
Secondly, we could debate Harriet Myers all day but my opinion is the one that was in the mainstream of the so called "values voters" in our party - against Bush. We see how that ended up.
Thirdly, you missed my point entirely. It wasn't necessarily trying to attack individuals or to be the "standard bearer" for conservatives. Its simple:
After being challenged, I was trying to illustrate examples of why "Social Conservatives" are upset about many things coming out of the Republican party. Do you want more examples? How about the mailpiece sent out by the RPA in 2004 that said the Bible would be banned if Bush was not re-elected. Sheer Mockery of the intelligence of every "values voter" in this state. Or, how about Huckabee's unethical use of the state airplane. How can any "values voter" defend that?
I find myself agreeing with Mark Moore more and more. He is absolutely 100% correct when he states "our fear button has been pushed." He is absolutely 100% correct when he says that the Republican party continually fails to deliver its promises to the values voters.
When Socos don't vote, Republicans lose. That's a fact Jack. The question our party should be asking is NOT "how do we become more moderate?" It should be "how do we re-engage our base."
Bush tried to sneak a pro-abort past us with Harriet Myers. He did not fold his hand until Dobson et al caught him at it. They had statements from her AFTER her "conversion" that made it clear she supported Roe.
We don't KNOW about the last two, so I there is still no proof that Bush has not betrayed us even on that.
The Housing Corporation said all the homes in question it funded were allocated to people meeting the government's eligibility criteria for affordable housing, in this scheme encompassing those on low incomes, first time buyers and key workers.
"No misallocation or mis-use of public housing subsidy has taken place," the organisation said in a statement.
Simon Cox's report can be heard on Radio Five Live on Sunday 15 October at 1930
--------------
Ballpoint Book Guest Pen
Heating And Air Conditioning System
Bad Credit Georgia Loan Mortgage
Avondale Disease Lawyer Parkinsons
Real Estate Agent Ontario
Electric Toothbrush
Retirement Advice
Affiliate Program Salrs
Agent Boston Estate Real
Us Air Force Plane
Affiliate Program Sales
Cattle Estate Ranch Real
Job Advertisement
Car Company Insurance Quote
Canada Car In Insurance Quote
Air Canada Baggage
Free Gay Teen Porn
Download Free Gay Porn Gay Black Man Porn Gay Porn Story
Free Gay Latino Porn Gay Links Sex Porn Gay Porn Video Vinatge
Download Free Gay Porn Gay Black Man Porn Gay Porn Story
Good Luck!
Shumbrat
We are happy girls!
Abalengez qanday?
Canopy Tarp
In Bed
Amish Back Donkey Door Spade
Belly Button Fun
Cars
Car Free Insurance Online Quote
Car Insurance PittsburghCargo Insurance
Air Central Conditioning Unit
Baby Monitor
Use Car Prices
Car Oregon Portland Repair
Tepre kurichen
Common Side Effects Of Lexapro
Common Side Effects Lexapro
Antidepressant Side Lexapro Effects
Lexapro And Side Effects In Children
Drug Interaction Questions Crystal Meth Lexapro Percocet
Adderall Taken With Lexapro Side Effects
Lexapro Weight
Gamardjobat
We are happy girls!
Hwo fy diezh vy?
Landscaping Backyard Pic
Agent California Estate Real Southern
Admixture Concrete Mix Reducing Water
Agent California Estate Lake Real Tahoe
Air Conditioning System
Canine Health
Online Payday Advance
Larkspur
Marketing Career
Cardio Exercise Equipment
Minnesota Motorcycle Accident Attorney
Bedford Driving Drunk Lawyer
Valete
She shinks...
***
Wie geht es Ihnen?
Bad Credit Loan Mortgage Second
Bad Credit Re Mortgage Uk Wrought Iron Bar Stool Sciatic Back Pain
Airline Travel Bank Chase Mortgage Rate
Belly Button Non Piercing Ring
====
Avondale Home Loan Mortgage Second
Air Mattress Adjustable Bed
Air Cleaner Furnace
Worker Compensation Attorney California
Bank Company Home Mortgage Us
Used Car Dealer Mcallen
French Door
Concrete Discoloration
Estate Mt Real Whitefish
Mcallen Texas Real Estate
Affiliate Program Saples
Hoist Exercise Equipment
--------------
M'a ssalama
Gamardjobat
It's bad girl!
Kuidas laheb?
Real Estate Mount Prospect
Pre Finished Wood Flooring New York Motorcycle Accident Lawyer Most Bare Escentuals Kit Set Exposed Aggregate Concrete Pregnancy Symptom Lower Back Pain Agent Alamo California Estate In Real
Agreement Contractor Independent Mortgage
Ïðîùàé
Post a Comment
<< Home