QUICK LINKS
The following is a statement on behalf of Faith & Freedom regarding the Tim Eyman - Ref. 65 matter
Faith & Freedom is hopeful that this will speak to the issues of the matter and will provide clarity to those who care.
Faith & Freedom is committed to moving forward with what we feel God has called us to do. It is not our intent to discredit anyone, but rather to be sure the truth is known to those who are concerned.
FFN has received many responses and questions from our supporters and the public at large.
Two questions are reoccurring:
WHY DID YOU WORK WITH TIM EYMAN IN THE FIRST PLACE?
We were deeply involved in trying to defeat HB 2661. All of our energies and human resources were directed toward that process. Following the passage of HB 2661 we began to prepare for our next step. It was only then that we learned that Tim Eyman had almost immediately filed what became Referendum 65.
FFN was urged to cooperate with that effort by a number of Christian ministries in the state.
In a spirit of seeking unity and cooperation, FFN reluctantly agreed to support Eyman’s Referendum rather than filing a new and separate one.
That was not a good decision. This is addressed below in “A Review of the Facts.”
WHAT IS YOUR NEXT STEP?
We intend to put this behind us and move forward in voter registration, specific elections, including judicial races, prepare our response for the Supreme Courts’ ruling on marriage and continue to build our state-wide network of concerned citizens.
We are also reviewing what the real options are for re-visiting HB 2661.
Your continued support and prayer is greatly needed. Thank you for continuing to stand with us. Clearly this is spiritual warfare and the battle is the Lord’s, however, most often He uses people who are willing and available to accomplish His eternal purposes. We are willing and available and will continue to follow His leading.
A Review of The Facts
Tim Eyman has a demonstrated penchant for not telling the whole truth. His email of late June 13th regarding why he is not releasing the Referendum 65 petitions to Faith and Freedom Network, as he had previously agreed, is a further illustration of that inclination.
Here are the facts of the now broken agreement between Tim Eyman and Faith and Freedom Network: On the first day that petitions were available for Referendum 65, Faith and Freedom published petitions. The FFN Referendum petitions had the FFN name on them as a return address and avoided the controversial titles of the Eyman version. Eyman's version said "no quotas" even though there was nothing about quotas in the bill and the phrase alienated African American leaders. Eyman's version was also titled "no gay marriage" even though the bill was only very obliquely related to gay marriage. FFN was concerned that the misleading titles might be used by opponents in a legal challenge to overturn the Referendum as they have done to other Eyman initiatives. FFN printed thousands of their version of the Referendum petition but without the questionable titles and without Eyman's name attached. Eyman was upset and wanted all the petitions to come through his office and to bear only his name. In conversations that first weekend, Tim Eyman and FFN agreed that if FFN would withdraw its petitions, Tim Eyman would give copies of all petitions that came in to FFN. It was a simple agreement. That was the full agreement. There were no other conditions to it.
FFN asked Tim Eyman on numerous occasions to fulfill the agreement. He stalled without explanation and finally repudiated the agreement in a general email, but without talking directly to FFN. Tim has not been truthful in his telling of the story. He has charged that FFN only asked for the petitions in the last few days prior to the deadline, too late to make a difference. In actual fact, FFN has a copy of an email on May 2nd where FFN asked Eyman for copies of the petitions a month and a half ago, not "a few days". A month before the deadline only a handful of petitions were turned in. Everyone was desperate to get more signatures. Eyman's explanation that he couldn't honor the agreement because it was too late to make a difference cannot be true given the number of petitions in hand by May 2nd. There were other verbal requests with his office staff over a period of time.
Tim charges that FFN wanted to use the names for fundraising which was the other reason why he reneged on his agreement with FFN. In fact, FFN told him all along that the signers were people who would likely want to be involved in the gay marriage issue and FFN was in the battle for the long haul, not just for the moment. FFN never had any discussion with Tim Eyman about using the names for fundraising. He is just making up that completely fabricated charge, hoping to find sympathy for himself and justify his not honoring the agreement he made with FFN.
Joe Fuiten, as chairman of Faith and Freedom Network, has tried to get Tim Eyman to honor the agreement he made with FFN. Eyman has not been willing to do so suggesting that FFN's attorney should contact his attorney, virtually saying "Sue me." Even so, Joe Fuiten made gestures to Tim Eyman to resolve the problem. For example, in an email on May 30th Joe Fuiten said to Tim Eyman "You and I made the agreement which I expect you to honor. If you do not wish to honor the agreement, it would at least be gracious on your part, or an act of respect, to write and ask to be released from the agreement. Until you are released from the agreement the agreement stands." Had Eyman asked to be released from his agreement, Joe Fuiten says he would have released him. The email was essentially an offer by FFN to allow Eyman to abandon his agreement.
The recent phone call to Tim Eyman from Joe Fuiten, which Eyman has cited, was a further effort to get Eyman to honor his agreement. Fuiten said, "We agreed you'd turn those names over to us in our agreement and I would like for you to follow through on that even at this stage of the game." Eyman has tried to characterize that request for compliance with an agreement as "intimidation" and "blackmail". Fuiten has stated that "an offer to cease making public comments in exchange for Eyman fulfilling his agreement hardly constitutes intimidation but an offer of goodwill to let the matter be settled."
________
Dr. Joseph B. Fuiten, Chairman
Gary Randall, President
Faith & Freedom
Faith & Freedom is committed to moving forward with what we feel God has called us to do. It is not our intent to discredit anyone, but rather to be sure the truth is known to those who are concerned.
FFN has received many responses and questions from our supporters and the public at large.
Two questions are reoccurring:
WHY DID YOU WORK WITH TIM EYMAN IN THE FIRST PLACE?
We were deeply involved in trying to defeat HB 2661. All of our energies and human resources were directed toward that process. Following the passage of HB 2661 we began to prepare for our next step. It was only then that we learned that Tim Eyman had almost immediately filed what became Referendum 65.
FFN was urged to cooperate with that effort by a number of Christian ministries in the state.
In a spirit of seeking unity and cooperation, FFN reluctantly agreed to support Eyman’s Referendum rather than filing a new and separate one.
That was not a good decision. This is addressed below in “A Review of the Facts.”
WHAT IS YOUR NEXT STEP?
We intend to put this behind us and move forward in voter registration, specific elections, including judicial races, prepare our response for the Supreme Courts’ ruling on marriage and continue to build our state-wide network of concerned citizens.
We are also reviewing what the real options are for re-visiting HB 2661.
Your continued support and prayer is greatly needed. Thank you for continuing to stand with us. Clearly this is spiritual warfare and the battle is the Lord’s, however, most often He uses people who are willing and available to accomplish His eternal purposes. We are willing and available and will continue to follow His leading.
A Review of The Facts
Tim Eyman has a demonstrated penchant for not telling the whole truth. His email of late June 13th regarding why he is not releasing the Referendum 65 petitions to Faith and Freedom Network, as he had previously agreed, is a further illustration of that inclination.
Here are the facts of the now broken agreement between Tim Eyman and Faith and Freedom Network: On the first day that petitions were available for Referendum 65, Faith and Freedom published petitions. The FFN Referendum petitions had the FFN name on them as a return address and avoided the controversial titles of the Eyman version. Eyman's version said "no quotas" even though there was nothing about quotas in the bill and the phrase alienated African American leaders. Eyman's version was also titled "no gay marriage" even though the bill was only very obliquely related to gay marriage. FFN was concerned that the misleading titles might be used by opponents in a legal challenge to overturn the Referendum as they have done to other Eyman initiatives. FFN printed thousands of their version of the Referendum petition but without the questionable titles and without Eyman's name attached. Eyman was upset and wanted all the petitions to come through his office and to bear only his name. In conversations that first weekend, Tim Eyman and FFN agreed that if FFN would withdraw its petitions, Tim Eyman would give copies of all petitions that came in to FFN. It was a simple agreement. That was the full agreement. There were no other conditions to it.
FFN asked Tim Eyman on numerous occasions to fulfill the agreement. He stalled without explanation and finally repudiated the agreement in a general email, but without talking directly to FFN. Tim has not been truthful in his telling of the story. He has charged that FFN only asked for the petitions in the last few days prior to the deadline, too late to make a difference. In actual fact, FFN has a copy of an email on May 2nd where FFN asked Eyman for copies of the petitions a month and a half ago, not "a few days". A month before the deadline only a handful of petitions were turned in. Everyone was desperate to get more signatures. Eyman's explanation that he couldn't honor the agreement because it was too late to make a difference cannot be true given the number of petitions in hand by May 2nd. There were other verbal requests with his office staff over a period of time.
Tim charges that FFN wanted to use the names for fundraising which was the other reason why he reneged on his agreement with FFN. In fact, FFN told him all along that the signers were people who would likely want to be involved in the gay marriage issue and FFN was in the battle for the long haul, not just for the moment. FFN never had any discussion with Tim Eyman about using the names for fundraising. He is just making up that completely fabricated charge, hoping to find sympathy for himself and justify his not honoring the agreement he made with FFN.
Joe Fuiten, as chairman of Faith and Freedom Network, has tried to get Tim Eyman to honor the agreement he made with FFN. Eyman has not been willing to do so suggesting that FFN's attorney should contact his attorney, virtually saying "Sue me." Even so, Joe Fuiten made gestures to Tim Eyman to resolve the problem. For example, in an email on May 30th Joe Fuiten said to Tim Eyman "You and I made the agreement which I expect you to honor. If you do not wish to honor the agreement, it would at least be gracious on your part, or an act of respect, to write and ask to be released from the agreement. Until you are released from the agreement the agreement stands." Had Eyman asked to be released from his agreement, Joe Fuiten says he would have released him. The email was essentially an offer by FFN to allow Eyman to abandon his agreement.
The recent phone call to Tim Eyman from Joe Fuiten, which Eyman has cited, was a further effort to get Eyman to honor his agreement. Fuiten said, "We agreed you'd turn those names over to us in our agreement and I would like for you to follow through on that even at this stage of the game." Eyman has tried to characterize that request for compliance with an agreement as "intimidation" and "blackmail". Fuiten has stated that "an offer to cease making public comments in exchange for Eyman fulfilling his agreement hardly constitutes intimidation but an offer of goodwill to let the matter be settled."
________
Dr. Joseph B. Fuiten, Chairman
Gary Randall, President
Faith & Freedom
19 Comments:
Our original email, sent on Tuesday evening, clearly explains our position:
To: All individuals and groups that helped the Referendum 65 campaign (cc'd to the media)
From: Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, Referendum 65 co-sponsors, ph: 425-493-9127, email: insignia@greekwatch.com
RE: Our decision on the names & addresses on the R-65 petitions
Several groups have asked us about the R-65 petitions.
As our email on May 30th stated: They are official government documents whose sole purpose is to serve as a notice to the state that these particular citizens want a public vote on Ref 65. However, once they are turned in to the Secretary of State's office on Tuesday, June 6th -- 7 days from now -- they become public documents that are subject to public request by any person or organization.
Since we did not receive sufficient signatures, the R-65 petitions were not turned in to the Secretary of State. We have them in 5 boxes. In the past few days, several people and groups have asked for them or copies of them.
The people who signed these petitions did so for the sole purpose of seeking a public vote on HB 2661. To us, their names and addresses can not, should not, and will not be used for any other purpose. If the faith community can come together and put together an initiative effort that will seek again to put HB 2661 on the ballot, then the petitions will go to that effort. But under no circumstances are we going to give the petitions or copies of the petitions to groups for that organization's fundraising, get out the vote efforts, or promotion of candidates for office or any other issues. To do so would be a violation of the trust of the people who signed these petitions. We simply won't do it. And this policy applies to us as well -- we won't use the names and addresses for our $30 tabs initiative or any other effort. The people who signed R-65 petitions want a public vote on HB 2661 and they need to have their privacy protected from anything other than a subsequent campaign seeking a public vote on HB 2661.
This is clearly the only appropriate way to handle the situation. I've already talked with various people and groups about this decision and they agree with it.
However, there is one other aspect of this issue that's important for us to explain.
Shortly after the R-65 signature drive started, we promised Joe Fuiten and Gary Randall at Faith & Freedom that they could get copies of the petitions from Spokane, BUT THEY ASSURED US THAT IT WOULD BE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HELPING GET R-65 ON THE BALLOT. But they only contacted us a few days before the signature gathering deadline asking for the petitions, too late for their use to be of any help to the R-65 signature drive. Again, the use of the names and addresses is totally appropriate to help ensure a public vote on HB 2661, but these voters did not sign R-65 petitions to be solicited by faith based groups like Faith & Freedom.
Earlier today (Tuesday), I received a voicemail message on my cell phone (which I still have) from Joe Fuiten. Here's a complete transcript of it:
"Tim, Joe Fuiten calling. I'm in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Hey, I would still like to get those names on the petitions. And I have a proposal for you: if you turn over to me the petitions, I will make sure that nothing more is said in public by Faith & Freedom, or in private for that matter by any of us or me or my employees or whoever, that would be negative of you. That's my suggestion to you. We agreed you'd turn those names over to us in our agreement and I would like for you to follow through on that even at this stage of the game. You've got my cell phone number 425-###-#### or an email, either one. Thank you, sir. Bye."
We're not going to be intimidated or blackmailed into allowing these citizens who signed these petitions to have their names and addresses used by Faith & Freedom and anyone else to do anything other than seeking a public vote on HB 2661. Lots of negative things were said by Joe & Gary about us after R-65's signature drive fell short. I have yet to find any other leader in the faith community who agrees with what they said. I think we now know why -- that it was punishment for not turning over the R-65 petitions and they used it as leverage today to try again to obtain the petitions.
Again, we won't be blackmailed -- we will not allow these citizens to be exploited by Faith & Freedom, even if it means continued vilification of us by them.
But they are clearly the exception. Throughout the R-65 campaign, we met and worked with some of nicest, friendliest, hardworking, caring people you can ever imagine. We're proud of all of you and admire your passion and willingness to get involved. We encourage you to stay involved and stay active. We won't be leading the next effort to seek a public vote on HB 2661 but we'll help in any way we can to ensure the voters decide this important issue.
Regards, Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, Referendum 65 co-sponsors, ph: 425-493-9127, email: insignia@greekwatch.com
Interesting comment by Mr. Eyman; especially considering that shortly after I signed the R-65 petition (and left my e-mail address), that I received a solicitation from Eyman regarding his tab intiative.
Being a devil's advocate, I see this as an effort more for Tim to make himself 'the underdog' again since he has realized what a horrible decision he made by attacking basic rights that according to Gallup over 80% of the population supports.
Lets face it, I have given money to Tim in the past but he could have a signature drive that would net me a gold brick and I wouldn't associate with him or any future cause and from his reported collection totals lots of people feel the same.
Dr. Fulten's call seems more to me just trying to recoup something he thought F&FN was due - it did put out its own forms, it did do its own push drive, and if it had filed the referendum there would b4 access to the signature data.
I read the phone message as more a 'hey just give us what you promised and we will have a parting of the ways both private and public." A bit naive of a request especially to Tim, but I don't think it intended at all as a 'give us the signatures or we'll make trouble' kind of thing.
I have differences with F&FN on many (many!) issues but this kind of grandstanding by Tim is odious regardless of who it involves.
(cc to the media indeed.)
How were you deeply involved in trying to defeat HB 2661? I never heard about it.
Like the infamous Rodney King of Los Angeles said(after being beaten by police officers & inciting a riot) ... "Couldn't we all just get along?"
Perhaps in the future we should abide by God's rule regarding being "equally yoked".
Come on Brothers ... let it die and lets move on to beat the homosexual agenda!
(Whew! I feel beat down by the gays already...)
It's so sad that we can't keep a united front. This is all so Godless.
Doesn't do any good to point fingers or cry over spilled milk. The bottom line is the petition drive was too little too late. We can try again in 2008 and we should! We came very close to succeeding as it was and with more lead time and better organziation and publicity, I'm certain we can get it done next time. The body of Christ in WA state is a huge force if it can pulled together. Thanks to everyone who gave time and energy and prayers to this effort. It was not wasted.
I had the same experience as the first anonymous. I also was solicited for Eyman's tab initiative the same day I left my signature on the Referendum 65 petition.
I really feel sad about this failure on the part of reasonable, family values, Christian people to be able to come together in a united front. Tim Eyman was a poor choice to carry the ball on this issue, a highly controversial figure, to say the least. All of the major conservative Christian organizations of this state need to put aside petty politics, come together and organize an efficient and powerful team of experts. Ref. 65 could have been on the ballot several times over if we'd done our homework first, at least matching the creative and effective organization of gay activists. We do not enjoy the luxury of all this duplication of effort, poor communication, and lack of fundamental strategy. We are at war with an extremely clever and brilliantly orchestrated enemy of the moral foundation of this country. Our future is at stake and we've demonstrated that we are not yet up to the challenge. We are being bombed out of our freedom and constitutional rights and we're fighting back without strategy or delivery systems that work. Same-sex marriage activists have no more respect for the moral values of Christianity than Al-Qaida has for our throats. We are at war with gay tyranny and we need to put our God-given intelligence to work and win this war.
While petitioning for R65, I talked to several other people who were petitioning for money! They had all petitions, but OURS!?
Why? Especially since people asked them about R65, as they wanted to sign it! Just think, we may have hit our quota EASILY, had these paid workers had our petitions!? Why didn't they???
We are at war with an extremely clever and brilliantly orchestrated enemy of the moral foundation of this country.
Huh? Did I miss something? Who is trying to get rid of all of the morals of America? Is two boys kissing going to end the whole fabric of society? How come it hasn't in the last 2000 years?
We are being bombed out of our freedom and constitutional rights and we're fighting back without strategy or delivery systems that work.
What freedoms and constitutional rights have you been bombed out of? The right to fire someone from their job because of who they sleep in their bed at home with isn't called out as a constitutional right. So what right have you lost?
Same-sex marriage activists have no more respect for the moral values of Christianity than Al-Qaida has for our throats.
That's a pretty bash statement to make. Do you have any support for it? I haven't heard any same-sex marrage activists saying that the ten commandments should be allowed.
We are at war with gay tyranny and we need to put our God-given intelligence to work and win this war.
Tyranny would imply that they are in power and could make whatever changes they wanted to. If activists are fighting to get something changed, they certainly don't have tyrannical powers.
How about for a change, you use your God-given intelligence and tolerance and read information about homosexuality or same-sex marriage from something other than just the Bible such as neutral positions by the American Medical Association, American Psychologists Association or other researchers. Or talk to a couple of people who are gay and want to get married.
Then if you still find that they are fighting to destroy the moral foundations of society, you will have something to back up your statements with. Without anything to back up your statements, your points don't hold any water.
I still don't feel H2661 is justified! There has been NO reports of 'gay bashing, discriminations, etc'. It's as if this law is 'just in case there would be incidents of gay bashing, discriminaton, etc'! If anyone could 'share' when/how they were discriminated because they chose a gay life style, PLEASE SHARE! Other wise, I just don't believe this 'discrimination' exits--especially in our ultra liberal state, (which is centered in King County, where this diviant behaviours are accepted!) It's a life style of 'choice', but above all else, all are God's children, thus we are all Loved by Him!
Some guy by devinci code or something was asked how he was discriminated against , and all he says is the guy asking him is a bigot , something about his bedroom and brings up newspaper articles . I think its more in their minds myself . Must be weird living in a world when you are driving on the left side of the street and everything else just takes it for granted your on the right . If victimhood was not such a big aspect of their politics , I deel sorry for them myself.
In response to H2661 isn't justified, please share...
A little background first:
When the first civil rights bill to follow the US civil war was debated in Congress, it was criticized for granting "special rights" to African-Americans. When the Civil Rights Act was debated in 1964, it was criticized because it would destroy the economic viability of companies and attack individual freedom of choice in hiring.
Example 1:
Seattle resident Tom Butts contacted Starfish Creative Invitations to hire them to print invitations for his upcoming wedding ceremony with Scott Carter in Vancouver, British Columbia. Butts liked samples of the company's work he had seen and liked the fact that it was a local business. But Starfish, a Seattle company, refused to provide their services because, in the proprietor's words, she believes "homosexuality is wrong" and same-sex weddings are "against her belief system."
"Her belief system" is an effort to use a loophole for all sorts of discrimination. If "her belief system" was against interacial marriages, no one would think twice about it being discrimination because racial non-discrimination is now accepted and expected.
Example 2:
PULLMAN, WA - A local hospital and a doctor who worked there have agreed to pay a former employee $75,000 for harassing and illegally firing her solely because she is a lesbian.
One other comment:
Homosexuality isn't a choice. Nobody chooses their sexual orientation or who they are attracted to. If you disagree, can you answer these questions?
A. When did you decide to be heterosexual?
B. What factors most influenced your decision to be heterosexual?
C. What factors made you consider being homosexual?
D. What factors made you choose to be attracted to your spouse?
E. Can you name anyone who claims that they chose to be homosexual?
Thanks for reading this with an open, inquiring mind.
Well thanks their anonymous . Too bad more debate like that was not available beofre and int he media , before all the pros for the new status was your a bigot , and all the antis were you pervert.
First her belief system stated by you as a loophole for discrimination, no is just that a belief system as far as you know , so I will not return the logic by saying your belief system promotes special rights . Obviously there more to it because in the first case the person is loosing money by refusing service . Also I know what it is like to be cauhgt in a similiar scenerio , a close relative ot married to her same sex partner . I am an Evangelical Christian who believes one man one woman . I love my relative , and certainly did not want to rain on her day , cause any hurt , and at the same time be true to my beliefs . I chose to give a nice present , but I could have treated it differently , if it was a stranger on my wife's side I might have treated the situation differently .. Don't know .
The second where the person was fired for being a lesbian only and got 75 thousand . Glad she got the money if that was the case . And thanks for giving some examples , you given more to this deabte then all the lefties combined in my opinion .
And I agree with you , I don't think anyone willfully chooses to be a homosexual , One out of three folks in academia state they fear people of my faith , your gaining ,just remember us little people when you arrive ..
Take care ,
Mick
One out of three folks in academia state they fear people of my faith
Mick, that's because Evangelical Christians try and make other people follow their religious tenets and want to reserve the right to discriminate against their neighbors in housing, employment, public accommodation and financial services if they won't toe the evangelical line. Its every American's right to be a sinner as long as they aren't breaking the law, it's their right to not be an evangelical Christian, it's their right to not have to act like an evangelical Christian might and still have equal access to civic life and government.
Religious discrimination is a scary prospect, that people can see what's happening and are afraid shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
Vishanti,
You will be here in after known as the "white witch". That is what you name means. Don't you have something better to do than typing on this blog? Dont you have some earth god you need to go worship?
You will be here in after known as the "white witch". That is what you name means. Don't you have something better to do than typing on this blog? Dont you have some earth god you need to go worship?
Excellent example of how you and yours just make up whatever facts you want to suit your need. Go to google and type 'vishanti' and see what pops up.
And trying to wake people up to the evil that they are doing in the name of their God? No, I don't think there is any greater calling than helping people overcome ignorance and hypocrisy, particularly when they needlessly hurt others being that way.
No same-gender couple was ever chastised in the Bible. All Old and New Testament references relate to hedonistic sex engaged in as idolatry. Jesus stated clearly there were many rooms in His Father's mansion, that you seem to be appointing yourself His major-domo is probably a pretty good way to forfeit your post-event banquet ticket. Get ready to gnash those teeth.
Vishanti,
What do you mean "wake people up to the evil that they are doing in the name of their God?"
Are you refering to Christian opposition to homosexuality?
A Christian should love the homosexual no matter what. But love doesn't mean blindly going along and telling you what you want to hear. That is cowardice.
The bible is very clear on homosexuality. Some homosexual activists say "Jesus never said one word about homosexuality" to assert that it is a non-issue. Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuaity and he didn't say anything about a lot of other things too. For example, He never addressed incest yet we all know it is wrong. Even many liberal states passed anti-gay marriage amendments to their constitutions because they know same sex marriage is wrong and they probably wouldn't go near a bible.
To turn a blind eye and say that homosexuality is ok when it isn't is wrong. Don't you think it would be a lot easier to stay silent and avoid the hatred of the homosexual activists and their namecalling and ridicule(i.e. bigot etc)? State endorsement of homosexuality harms the homosexual, you and me.
Please know, that I recognize that the unfaithful married man/woman is just as culpable as was I when I engaged in pre-marital sex before I was a Christian. So I, nor anyone else is in a position to judge anyone. But I will not endorse, encourage and support wrongdoing. And I never demanded that anyone endorse, encourage or support my prior wrong doings.
In the event that I have angered you, please know that if we met face to face, I would show you kindness and compassion. Jesus loves you to a degree you that you probably can't even begin to comprehend because no human is capable of loving with the purity of his heart. I hope one day you can experience the real him for yourself. It is so wonderful and powerful. Now I have joy and peace and am doing things I never dreamed was possible.
Post a Comment
<< Home