Obama says DEATH to the elderly - where is the OUTRAGE?

manchambo

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2006
625
45
46
✟1,131.00
Faith
Presbyterian
UGH, you are both hopeless, manchambo, are fresh non preserved, non chemically altered veggies, fruit, etc not organic????????????????????? yes they do lead to better nutrition, which in turn leads to longer life PERIOD, there is a giant difference between # of alcoholic beverages consumed, and the # of alcoholics per capita, yet somehow you say they r thre same, how many ppl go out friday after work EVERY WEEK and have 1,2 beers, they SURELY are not alcoholics, do they add the the consumption, yes, alcoholics NO, they are just out to socialise with friends, there are studies about alcoholics/drug addicts, I'll find some and post when I have time later

The answer to your first question is no, all fresh vegetables are not organic. I'm not sure what you mean by "chemically altered," but non-organic vegetables generally are not "chemically altered" in any way that I understand those words. I would suggest that you first figure out what organic means before you suggest that other people are "hopeless." I would also suggest that you might be focusing on what essentially is a side issue (your apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of "organic") rather than addressing the true problem with your argument (your inability to establish that there actually is a difference of any type in diets that would explain the differential in life expectancy).

According to my understanding of the physicological effects of alcohol, the more drinks that are consumed, the more likelihood there is of either damage to the liver or heart disease. As far as I know, our bodies only care how much we drink overall, not whether those drinks are "social" or "alcoholic." And the evidence I presented to you shows that many countries drink far more per capita. Maybe you have evidence of some very odd distribution of drinking in America that could explain what you're claiming, but you sure haven't presented it so far.
 
Upvote 0

trialbyfire

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2007
1,448
35
60
✟1,834.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married




"NCPA: White House Has Ideas On How To Ration Health Care

July 22, 2009


Presidential Health Advisor's Writings Support Less Care for the Elderly

DALLAS, TX (July 22, 2009) - On the cusp of President Obama's news conference tonight, the National Center for Policy Analysis points to evidence that the President's health care reform plan may result in denying care to a significant number of Americans, especially the elderly.
"Clearly the Administration does not consider doctors the best judges of the type of health care people need," said NCPA President John C. Goodman. "The obvious end game: Washington will tell doctors how to practice medicine and dictate what kind of health care patients receive." Goodman's full statement appears in an entry he posted today on this subject at his health policy blog.
The NCPA cites two scholarly articles in which the President's health advisor Ezekiel Emanuel outlined how health care rationing could be carried out. Emanuel, special advisor for health policy to the director for the White House Office of Management and Budget, says young adults should be given preference over seniors because younger people have more years of life ahead of them. He also says that young adults should be given preferential care over very young children because society already has made an investment in their education.
In the medical journal The Lancet, Emanuel writes that if health care has to be rationed, he prefers the "complete lives system," which "discriminates against older people....Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years."
In a different article written more than 10 years ago for the Hastings Center Report, Emanuel said health services should not be guaranteed to "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." Emanuel wrote, "An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.""


NCPA: White House Has Ideas On How To Ration Health Care
 
Upvote 0

trialbyfire

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2007
1,448
35
60
✟1,834.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ezekiel Emanuel, architect of ObamaCare, flees stage after Nazi parallels asserted

"[SIZE=+1]Electing God[/SIZE]

Pajamas Media: Belmont Club
July 6th, 2009
Richard Fernandez

Ezekiel Emmanuel MD, Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, who is Barack Obama’s “Special Advisor for Health Policy”, is described by the [1] Huffington Post article as engaged in a very important mission: redesigning the US health care system.
Emanuel and the White House are attempting to reorganize the delivery and reimbursement systems of health care, changing what the types of procedures doctors rely on, making people more aware of disease prevention, encouraging insurance companies to expand coverage, and so on. It is a process rife with sensitivities, trickeries and, of course, the potential for failure. It is not, he insists, impossible.
“It is a complicated process and we have to try and make the choices clear and give people good reasons for making them,” Emanuel explains. “I don’t think that’s an impossible task and thankfully we have one of the great communicators, Barack Obama, at the helm of this ship of state.”
Emmanuel recently authored an article in the Lancet describing the various models of non-market health care rationing. Titled [2] “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions”, its is co-authored with Govind Persad and Alan Wertheimer. In it the authors simply review the pros and cons of the various ways of deciding who gets treated and who doesn’t. The allocation mechanisms they discuss are divided into strategies and substrategies. The pros and cons of each are laid out.

Treating People Equally
  1. Lottery
  2. First-come, first served
Prioritarianism
  1. Sickest first
  2. Youngest first
Utilitarianism
  1. Saving the most lives
  2. Saving the most life-years
  3. Saving the most socially useful
  4. Reciprocity (paying back people who have ‘contributed’, such as organ donors)
The authors are not very satisfied with the current metrics used for making medical decisions based on saving the most life-years. Both the “Quality-adjusted life-years” model and the “Disability-adjusted life-years” have shortcomings which they believe can be addressed by another model of their own: “The complete lives system”, which takes all the factors into account. They write:

Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. … When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated … the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.
Under this system, patients would receive scarce care according to the graph shown below.
rahm.jpg

The paper concludes: “the complete lives system combines four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis, lottery, and saving the most lives. In pandemic situations, it also allocates scarce interventions to people instrumental in realising these four principles. Importantly, it is not an algorithm, but a framework that expresses widely affirmed values: priority to the worst-off, maximising benefits, and treating people equally. To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo.”
What’s not mentioned anywhere in the discussion, except by implication is the identity of the narrator. Who is the “we” in “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions” that decides who gets scarce medical care? The answer is tangentially provided in the paper itself, which writes that “the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption”.The “we” is a system; a system that can possibly be corrupted; hence Dr. Emmanuel’s efforts to design one in which such distortions will be held to a minimum.

Ultimately health care reform is as much about politics as it is about medicine. The discussion in Dr. Emmanuel’s paper is incomplete if limited to pure public health considerations. Politics is central to the whole issue. Whatever “guidelines” are chosen, however rational, however humane, can never implement themselves. Human beings in positions of power are required to do that. And while it is important to note that even under the current system these decisions are being made by someone or by some consensus, it is also vital to realize that in any “health care reform” effort, one of the principal outcomes is to shift the power to make those decisions to someone else. That may not be a fit subject for the Lancet, but it is the elephant in the operating room in the national health care debate."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

trialbyfire

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2007
1,448
35
60
✟1,834.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ezekiel Emanuel, architect of ObamaCare, flees stage after Nazi parallels asserted

"[SIZE=+1]Electing God[/SIZE]

Pajamas Media: Belmont Club
July 6th, 2009
Richard Fernandez

Ezekiel Emmanuel MD, Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, who is Barack Obama’s “Special Advisor for Health Policy”, is described by the [1] Huffington Post article as engaged in a very important mission: redesigning the US health care system.
Emanuel and the White House are attempting to reorganize the delivery and reimbursement systems of health care, changing what the types of procedures doctors rely on, making people more aware of disease prevention, encouraging insurance companies to expand coverage, and so on. It is a process rife with sensitivities, trickeries and, of course, the potential for failure. It is not, he insists, impossible.
“It is a complicated process and we have to try and make the choices clear and give people good reasons for making them,” Emanuel explains. “I don’t think that’s an impossible task and thankfully we have one of the great communicators, Barack Obama, at the helm of this ship of state.”
Emmanuel recently authored an article in the Lancet describing the various models of non-market health care rationing. Titled [2] “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions”, its is co-authored with Govind Persad and Alan Wertheimer. In it the authors simply review the pros and cons of the various ways of deciding who gets treated and who doesn’t. The allocation mechanisms they discuss are divided into strategies and substrategies. The pros and cons of each are laid out.


Treating People Equally
  1. Lottery
  2. First-come, first served
Prioritarianism
  1. Sickest first
  2. Youngest first
Utilitarianism
  1. Saving the most lives
  2. Saving the most life-years
  3. Saving the most socially useful
  4. Reciprocity (paying back people who have ‘contributed’, such as organ donors)
The authors are not very satisfied with the current metrics used for making medical decisions based on saving the most life-years. Both the “Quality-adjusted life-years” model and the “Disability-adjusted life-years” have shortcomings which they believe can be addressed by another model of their own: “The complete lives system”, which takes all the factors into account. They write:
Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. … When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated … the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.
Under this system, patients would receive scarce care according to the graph shown below.
rahm.jpg

The paper concludes: “the complete lives system combines four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis, lottery, and saving the most lives. In pandemic situations, it also allocates scarce interventions to people instrumental in realising these four principles. Importantly, it is not an algorithm, but a framework that expresses widely affirmed values: priority to the worst-off, maximising benefits, and treating people equally. To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo.”
What’s not mentioned anywhere in the discussion, except by implication is the identity of the narrator. Who is the “we” in “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions” that decides who gets scarce medical care? The answer is tangentially provided in the paper itself, which writes that “the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption”.The “we” is a system; a system that can possibly be corrupted; hence Dr. Emmanuel’s efforts to design one in which such distortions will be held to a minimum.

Ultimately health care reform is as much about politics as it is about medicine. The discussion in Dr. Emmanuel’s paper is incomplete if limited to pure public health considerations. Politics is central to the whole issue. Whatever “guidelines” are chosen, however rational, however humane, can never implement themselves. Human beings in positions of power are required to do that. And while it is important to note that even under the current system these decisions are being made by someone or by some consensus, it is also vital to realize that in any “health care reform” effort, one of the principal outcomes is to shift the power to make those decisions to someone else. That may not be a fit subject for the Lancet, but it is the elephant in the operating room in the national health care debate.""

Emphasis added in red and blue is mine. Note the graph!
 
Upvote 0

trialbyfire

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2007
1,448
35
60
✟1,834.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm's brother, tapped for White House health care policy advisor spot. - Lynn Sweet

"
WASHINGTON--While the Obama White House is searching for a replacement for health czar Tom Daschle, policy work on health care reform--a priority for the administration--Is ongoing with one key advisor especially well connected.
The brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, a noted bioethicist, is advising the Obama administration on health care reform.
Dr. Emanuel is the Chair of the Department of Bioethics at The Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health and a breast oncologist.
Dr. Emanuel is a special advisor to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy. He told me he is "working on (the) health care reform effort." He is "detailed" to the OMB spot and is still officially an employee of the NIH.
Until last August, Dr. Emanuel was commuting between his Chicago home in West Rogers Park and Washington. He moved to Washington last August after his youngest daughter graduated from Northside College Prep at Bryn Mawr and Kedzie.
One of three wildly successful Emanuel brothers (Ari is a Hollywood superagent) Dr. Emanuel also advised the Clinton White House on health care issues. He is a graduate of Amherst College, receiving his masters of science from Oxford University in Biochemistry. His M.D. is from Harvard Medical School. He holds a Ph.D. in political philosophy from Harvard University. In addition, in 1987-88, he was a fellow in the Program in Ethics and the Professions at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

According to his NIH bio, Dr. Emanuel is "widely published on the ethics of clinical research, advance care directives, end-of-life issues, euthanasia, the ethics of managed care, and the physician-patient relationship, Dr. Emanuel's articles have appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of American Medical Association, and many other medical and ethics journals. His book, The Ends of Human Life, has been widely praised and received the Rosenhaupt Memorial Book Award by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation.
"Dr. Emanuel served on the ethics section of former President Clinton's Health Task Force, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, and the International Advisory Board on Bioethics of the Pan American Health Organization. He has been a visiting professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, UCLA, and Brin Professor at Johns Hopkins Medical School.""

rahm.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Hearts Alive

Regular Member
Jul 26, 2009
331
8
Pittsburgh
✟8,018.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Now I've read that article through twice and I can't find any reference to McDonald's. I find a couple of things troubling (i) that you apparently think that "non-organic" and "McDonald's" are the same thing, and (ii) that you apparently can't perceive the bias of the corporations who manufacture organic foods and are attempting to dispute the findings of the study referenced in the article. (Which of course is not to say that the other side of the debate might not also have biases.)

wow people love to take me out of context, did you not see FOR EXAMPLE there(it was meant to show the ridiculousness of the claim that organic food is no better for you than the corporation funded farms),corporations care about 1 thing only MONEY, not the nutrients, and will do anything to takeover the markets, ever hear of the codex??, also they are saying in the article that you will just be better off using the corporation farms/foods(shocker, who is funding the site?), which use chemicals to help grow more food and also faster, ever hear of pesticides???(used on all foods in all corporate farms) they also genetically engineer seeds to grow more/faster, in the process killing most nutrients, got it???
truely organic food is THE best for you PERIOD
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hearts Alive

Regular Member
Jul 26, 2009
331
8
Pittsburgh
✟8,018.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The answer to your first question is no, all fresh vegetables are not organic. I'm not sure what you mean by "chemically altered," but non-organic vegetables generally are not "chemically altered" in any way that I understand those words. I would suggest that you first figure out what organic means before you suggest that other people are "hopeless." I would also suggest that you might be focusing on what essentially is a side issue (your apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of "organic") rather than addressing the true problem with your argument (your inability to establish that there actually is a difference of any type in diets that would explain the differential in life expectancy).

According to my understanding of the physicological effects of alcohol, the more drinks that are consumed, the more likelihood there is of either damage to the liver or heart disease. As far as I know, our bodies only care how much we drink overall, not whether those drinks are "social" or "alcoholic." And the evidence I presented to you shows that many countries drink far more per capita. Maybe you have evidence of some very odd distribution of drinking in America that could explain what you're claiming, but you sure haven't presented it so far.


as for your the alcohol/drug addiction we ARE the worst in the world

"There's no escaping the fact that we have the highest drug rates in the world," said Craig Reinarman, a sociologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz."

America Remains A 'Drug Dealer's Dream' - Crimesider - CBS News

"The United States and France top all lists, followed, usually in varied order, by Chile, England-Wales, Ireland, some Sandinavian countries, Canada, and Australia."

Number of Alcoholics : Alcoholism and Other Drug Problems

how can anyone even deny we have the most addicts. in the u.s. just look around indulgence is everywhere sin is a cancer on our country to the fullest
 
Upvote 0

Hearts Alive

Regular Member
Jul 26, 2009
331
8
Pittsburgh
✟8,018.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The answer to your first question is no, all fresh vegetables are not organic. I'm not sure what you mean by "chemically altered," but non-organic vegetables generally are not "chemically altered" in any way that I understand those words. I would suggest that you first figure out what organic means before you suggest that other people are "hopeless." I would also suggest that you might be focusing on what essentially is a side issue (your apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of "organic") rather than addressing the true problem with your argument (your inability to establish that there actually is a difference of any type in diets that would explain the differential in life expectancy).

According to my understanding of the physicological effects of alcohol, the more drinks that are consumed, the more likelihood there is of either damage to the liver or heart disease. As far as I know, our bodies only care how much we drink overall, not whether those drinks are "social" or "alcoholic." And the evidence I presented to you shows that many countries drink far more per capita. Maybe you have evidence of some very odd distribution of drinking in America that could explain what you're claiming, but you sure haven't presented it so far.


I do believe veggies and fruits fit firmly into the organic category, no??
"The word "organic" refers to the way farmers grow and process agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products and meat. Organic farming practices are designed to encourage soil and water conservation and reduce pollution. Farmers who grow organic produce and meat don't use conventional methods to fertilize, control weeds or prevent livestock disease. For example, rather than using chemical weedkillers, organic farmers may conduct sophisticated crop rotations"
Organic food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Organic foods have higher nutritional value than conventional food, according to some research. The reason: In the absence of pesticides and fertilizers, plants boost their production of the phytochemicals (vitamins and antioxidants) that strengthen their resistance to bugs and weeds. Some studies have linked pesticides in our food to everything from headaches to cancer to birth defects"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tenebrae

A follower of The Way
Sep 30, 2005
14,288
1,998
floating in the ether, never been happier
Visit site
✟33,648.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
I do believe veggies and fruits fit firmly into the organic category, no??

Organic refers to vegetables and fruit that have been grown without the use of any pesticides, chemicals or growth agents. The minute you add some liquid plant food to your tomato seedlings or potatos they are no longer considered to be organic.
 
Upvote 0

Hearts Alive

Regular Member
Jul 26, 2009
331
8
Pittsburgh
✟8,018.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Organic refers to vegetables and fruit that have been grown without the use of any pesticides, chemicals or growth agents. The minute you add some liquid plant food to your tomato seedlings or potatos they are no longer considered to be organic.

this would only apply to the usda organic right? that is pretty much just code for same as "conventonal" growth, btw how is it conventional to put chemicals on seeds/plants when they grow, lol isnt truely traditonal growing the water/sunlight/cycle what people have been doing for centuries, how are pesticides "conventional" just crazy talk, but yeah real organic food uses no chemicals or unnatural ingrediants
 
Upvote 0

Hearts Alive

Regular Member
Jul 26, 2009
331
8
Pittsburgh
✟8,018.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Note: Humans have been putting fertilisers, in the form of animal dung, on plants since the beginning of agriculture, are these 'unnatural ingredients'?

no, but dung isn't engineered chemicals either(big difference between fertilizing the soil and spraying chemicals on everything), who really knows what the extent is of the damage those chemicals cause, surely its not good, just look at how fat/unhealthy america is
 
Upvote 0

manchambo

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2006
625
45
46
✟1,131.00
Faith
Presbyterian
I do believe veggies and fruits fit firmly into the organic category, no??
"The word "organic" refers to the way farmers grow and process agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products and meat. Organic farming practices are designed to encourage soil and water conservation and reduce pollution. Farmers who grow organic produce and meat don't use conventional methods to fertilize, control weeds or prevent livestock disease. For example, rather than using chemical weedkillers, organic farmers may conduct sophisticated crop rotations"
Organic food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Organic foods have higher nutritional value than conventional food, according to some research. The reason: In the absence of pesticides and fertilizers, plants boost their production of the phytochemicals (vitamins and antioxidants) that strengthen their resistance to bugs and weeds. Some studies have linked pesticides in our food to everything from headaches to cancer to birth defects"

Some vegetables are organic, some are not. There is solid evidence that eating vegetables, whether or not they are organic, is good for you. There is precious little evidence that organic as opposed to non-organic vegetables confer any measurable health benefit.

In fact that article that upsets you so much (which is reporting a study conducted not by any corporation, but by a British food agency) analyzed much of the available evidence and found no significant benefit.

Finally, organic foods are made by corporations seeking to make money based on the supposed benefits of the foods. Why do you blindly believe their claims?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hearts Alive

Regular Member
Jul 26, 2009
331
8
Pittsburgh
✟8,018.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Some vegetables are organic, some are not. There is solid evidence that eating vegetables, whether or not they are organic, is good for you. There is precious little evidence that organic as opposed to non-organic vegetables confer any measurable health benefit.

In fact that article that upsets you so much (which is reporting a study conducted not by any corporation, but by a British food agency) analyzed much of the available evidence and found no significant benefit.

Finally, organic foods are made by corporations seeking to make money based on the supposed benefits of the foods. Why do you blindly believe their claims?
I DON't believe a single world they say, I only buy veggies, meat etc from a local organic farmer whom I trust and he has told me exactly how he grows his food/feeds his livestock, I would like to learn how to grow myself(just recently got into the organic foods) but I don't think I would have the patience/time to grow anything
 
Upvote 0

gracechick

Senior Veteran
Nov 25, 2005
5,118
229
Looking Up:D
✟6,474.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I believe more of the American obesity problem could be caused by the abundant food, but nutrient poor diet many people consume. There is no way to know with regular dairy and meat what exactly is in the feed of these animals, what hormone growth additives were used or what meds were used to treat any sickness of the animal. So it is quite possible we are consuming food/additives that the body says "what the heck is this?" and that is stored as fat and so the body is really starving for a healthier diet

I am currently reading a new book about treating many ailments by working with whatever enzyme x person seems to be needing to encourage as complete absorption of food eaten as possible. He advocates less meats and as much raw vegatables and fruits as one can feel comfortable eating. Something else I didn't know is that cooking and high heat microwaves kill much of the food's naturaly occuring enzymes so the body must work harder to digest and receive the nutrients.

What I find scary is that much of this healthcare plan seems to be saying "we the government" will decide who is worthy and necessary to the planet and who isn't. I suppose unwanted babies are considered too costly along with grandparents which often have much life experience and knowledge to pass on. And if the body has developed cancer from all that our modern life throws at it then Oh well better luck next time *if you believe in reincarnation that is*

Now not only is the government setting in to motion the very stringent food Codex law in Dec of 09, threating to put the squeeze on any person growing healthy food of almost any amount, greatly limiting our personal choice to take vitamins and supplements, letting big business and drug companies decide the safety of x product instead of diligent unbiased research, but they now will decide which life is worth saving....Umm May God have mercy on America as at this rate we will need all He is willing to grant:crossrc:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums