This incident happened almost 2 months ago, but I only learned of it this morning.
FYIs before reading the resignation letter: Brian Rohrbough was the president of American Right to Life, Steve Curtis was the VP, and Pastor Bob Enyart was the "key person" alluded to. Click to enlarge. Also read via pdf...
Since this morning I have either spoken to or exchanged emails with Brian, Steve, and Pastor Bob....
Brian and Steve's letter states there were "numerous" reasons for their resignations, but they pulled the trigger November 15 due to the impending launch of ProlifeProfiles.com on November 16, which they both opposed.
ProlifeProfiles.com was originally intended to focus on US Supreme Court justices but it morphed into an attack site against pro-life leaders. While it caused a bit of a stir among my pro-life friends (and I'm listed in Tier 2), I never mentioned it because I didn't think it was that big a deal.
But it turns out ProlifeProfiles.com epitomizes the devolvement of ARTL from its primary goal to "advocate enforcement of God's enduring command, Do not murder, and to promote legal protection, reverence and respect for innocent human life..." into a group that revels in criticizing and making trouble for fellow pro-lifers. Even ProlifeProfile.com's logo pits certain pro-life players on one side against others (click to enlarge)...
ARTL's other major deviation was to begin supporting the use of state personhood initiatives as vehicles to overturn Roe v. Wade, when that was not the original intent. The original intent was to simply amend state constitutions to verify ARTL's aforementioned primary goal.
Since resigning, Brian and Steve have asked ARTL to remove all references to them from its website and fundraising literature, but it has not.
Quite frankly, prolifeprofiles is NOT helping the pro-life cause and only causing division. Personhood is a great initiative but we've got to recognize where we are and embrace the small steps. When abortion is on demand, ANYTHING to diminish it, is welcomed. A law stating, only in cases of incest, rape or deformity greatly reduces abortion. Then we can move to the next step.
I'm not sure I like the attitude in the website. God also takes us where we are at and works on us from there. He doesn't accept us because we have achieved prefection but helps us towards it in very baby steps.
Prolife, profiles is expecting perfection from the start and causing division which is NOT a sign of the Holy Spirit.
I don't know if I'm making any sense!Posted by: Chantal at January 6, 2010 4:22 PM
That's extremely interesting. Any idea what the new scandal is regarding Pastor Bob?Posted by: Josh Brahm at January 6, 2010 4:23 PM
Josh, I don't think there's any scandal. I think (not sure) the "incident" may have been a meeting.Posted by: Jill Stanek at January 6, 2010 4:45 PM
You make perfect sense to me Chantal.Posted by: Ed at January 6, 2010 4:59 PM
As the Director of Personhood Colorado I would like to emphasize that Personhood Colorado is not an affiliate, subsidiary, chapter, or related in any way to Colorado Right to Life or American Right to Life.
Pastor Bob Enyart and Colorado Right to Life have been and continues to be strong proponents of Personhood, and have shown their strong commitment through consistent action on behalf of the personhood movement.
The link between Colorado Right to Life, Pastor Bob Enyart, and Personhood Colorado is the same link that Pastor Walter Hoye, Father Euteneuer, American Life League and Jill Stanek share, namely the belief that all human beings are persons worthy of our love and protection. No more and no less.
Brian Rohrboough and Steve Curtis did not contribute any signatures to the petition drive nor did they take any action that I am aware of in support of the 2010 Colorado Personhood Amendment. Therefore, they were irrelevant to our efforts.
Personhood Colorado has the single minded purpose of putting the Colorado Personhood Amendment on the ballot, we are not interested in engaging in pro-life quibbles over which we have no say or concern.
Posted by: Gualberto Garcia Jones at January 6, 2010 5:16 PM
Wow!!! What an awful divisive website!!!Posted by: Peg at January 6, 2010 5:29 PM
I wouldn't be so quick to say things like this cause "division" and "scandal." What you really have are a few perpetrators whose only success is alienating themselves to the cause.Posted by: Cranky Catholic at January 6, 2010 5:36 PM
When some "pro-life" leaders advocate keeping abortion legal and otherwise compromise by funding abortions with taxpayer money, etc., while others refuse to do so and the others point out what the first ones are doing.... who is being divisive?
The compromisers are the divisive ones. If you advocate keeping abortion legal, like Sarah Palin does for example, then it should be pointed out, for your own benefit as well as for everyone else. If you are trading some lives for others, and making "exceptions" (which are innocent lives, by the way, not just numbers), then you are the one being divisive. Not the person pointing it out.
ProlifeProfiles.com is striving toward unity in the pro-life community by addressing the only standard of right and wrong, and that standard is Jesus Christ. Supporting some baby-killing while opposing other baby-killing is a divisive act. Calling someone to repentance, asking them to stop doing that is not divisive. That is the genuine call to unity.
If, on the other hand, you don't compromise or have exceptions yourself, but you see someone who does (like Palin, Romney, George W. Bush, etc.) and instead of asking them to do the right thing you instead heap praise on them, you are doing them no favor. On the contrary, you are holding their hand all the way to hell. That is not an act of love. It is an act of apathy at best, and of hatred at worst. Do you love someone enough to tell them the truth and to ask them to stop supporting abortion? ProlifeProfiles does. That is agape love. That is tough love. And that is the unity we need in the movement.Posted by: Jamie S. at January 6, 2010 5:52 PM
I would not be so quick to condemn the actions of Prolife Profiles. You would be doing what you accuse them of doing: condemning others.
I don't agree with all of their conclusions, but they sincerely believe that our movement has failed to protect unborn children and that many leaders in this movement have a strategy which is unsound and will not work.
I also recognize that our movement has very much failed the unborn. We should encourage healthy criticism of everything we have done.
I also recognize that we need to find a way to establish common ground so that we can move rapidly to end this terrible evil. The abortionists are the real enemy, not NRTL, AUL, ARTL or ALL.Posted by: Joe at January 6, 2010 6:15 PM
The common ground is the inherent right to life of the unborn, something that is rejected by every supreme court justice sitting today and every president in the last 40 years other than Reagan, and by most Republican politicians today.
In other words, the common ground is personhood. Without it, how can we yoke ourselves with those who believe the unborn do not have a right to live? How can we possibly?Posted by: Jamie S. at January 6, 2010 6:32 PM
Of course we are all on the same page when it comes to personhood. Hell, there are plenty of pro-choices who even accept the obvious, that a living human being is a person. That does not mean, however, that attempts to partially restrict abortion are impure or divisive or whatever.
Do you consider abortion protests divisive? Well, each individual protest only targets a specific abortion provider, and implicitly exonerates every other, at least in the same way you accuse the incrimental anti-abortion measures.Posted by: Oliver at January 6, 2010 6:45 PM
Oliver, we're certainly not all on the same page when purported pro-life leaders defend keeping abortion legal like Palin, Bush, etc., or when Scalia and every other supreme court justice has rejected the right to life of the unborn. (If you know of one that has stated the unborn have a right to life, from the bench, you can earn a $10,000 reward that is still standing for such proof.)
We're definitely not all on the same page. A person cannot say they support personhood, but then add that it should be legal to burn an unborn child to death with chemicals, or that a teen girl can kill her baby as long as she has permission from her parents.
We're not all on the same page. Palin has been asked to support personhood, and she rejects it in favor of keeping abortion legal, and she has publicly stated the latter.Posted by: Jamie S. at January 6, 2010 7:02 PM
Has there been a worse time since 1973 for infighting? Anybody notice the "Health Care" issue isn't dead yet?
Do. Not. Get. Distracted.
I don't care if you want to save every life, or only one - EXPANSION OF ABORTION is what we face if we don't work together! We are not at some status quo that can only be "improved". The enemies of life are pushing for more abortion funding, euthanasia, "bubbles" around clinics, overturning parental notification/consent, etc. What The Heck?!?
Jill, may I suggest that it might have been better not to post this?Posted by: JP Prichard at January 6, 2010 7:16 PM
Please provide proof that "Palin has been asked to support personhood, and she rejects it in favor of keeping abortion legal, and she has publicly stated the latter."
Read the transcript of the candidates' interviews on church and state
Couric Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?
Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.
Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?
Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.
Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.
Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.
How can it be right for states to decide if they can kill babies, gas Jews, or own slaves?Posted by: MBallentine at January 6, 2010 7:53 PM
Any law that undermines the personhood of the unborn is not a restriction on abortion, but an entrenchment of abortion rights. That's why exceptions for rape and incest are counterproductive, (and evil by the way because they allow for the dehumanization and murder of certain classes of people).
As for Rohrbough, Curtis, Enyart, ARTL and ProLife Profiles; the Word of the Lord is sharp as a two edged sword and brings division. And it is invariably those who are compromising (or just immature and petty)who separate themselves. I just hope the immature and petty will not damage the Personhood movement. I'll leave it to the reader to decide who's immature and petty.Posted by: Doug McBurney at January 6, 2010 8:13 PM
You didn't provide any proof for your assertion, so I must conclude you cannot.
Gualberto, you said "Personhood Colorado has the single minded purpose of putting the Colorado Personhood Amendment on the ballot...".
However in an Oct. 31, 2009 Worldnet Daily article you claim a different goal;
"We're trying to end abortion right now," Garcia Jones told WND. "All of our laws that we're promoting are direct challenges to Roe v. Wade. If we can get a challenge up to the Supreme Court, then that's the ideal thing. That's what we're trying to do."
What is the goal of your organization? And aren't you in disagreement with ARTL which claims that the strategy of challenging Roe at the US Supreme Court is evil and wicked?
Ben, good question.
On the first part, I have spoken to veteran pro-life activists who have stated to me personally that they have asked Palin to support personhood and she refused. I can't post a "proof" of that.
However, I shouldn't have to, because I do have proof for the second part, which proves the first part anyway, namely that she advocates keeping various forms of abortion legal. And if she supported personhood, she obviously wouldn't be doing that.
Palin says that personally she would not take the Morning After Pill (an abortifacient chemical that kills the tiniest children) but that it should not be illegal. "I don't think that it should necessarily be illegal." Now, if she had said "I don't think it should necessarly be illegal to kill children up to the age of six," would we call her a great pro-life leader? Of course not. She rejects the personhood of the unborn.
The Morning After Pill kills tens of thousands of unborn children every year. She doesn't want it criminalized. Katie Couric had to badger an answer out of Palin, who avoided the question, and then answered that she wouldn't "personally" kill her own child this way. When pressed still further, she finally admitted that she wouldn't have a problem with other people killing their own children with this chemical weapon.
If a mother pays someone to kill her own child at age 6 months, of course that mother should be convicted and sent to prison. What about a mother who has her own child? Sarah Palin says "absolutely not." She "absolutely" opposes punishing parents who kill their children prior to birth. Proof positive that she does not believe in the personhood of the unborn. Rather, she would "personally" counsel the mom to not do it.
She also co-sponsored an election ad promoting taxpayer dollars for stem cell research. Her name was in the ad, in support of this.
Newsbank.com reported that Sarah Palin explained that she is opposed to certain kinds of abortion: ""I oppose the use of public funds for elective abortions." Thus confirming that she believes some abortions are elective and some are not. Of course, in reality, all abortions are elective. But, whatever abortions she thinks are not elective are the abortions that she would not only keep legal, but she would actually support using taxpayer funds to pay for them.
This is only part of the evidence of how Sarah Palin rejects the personhood of the unborn in multiple areas, in multiple contexts. I am sincere when I say that I like her, she's a great person, I love her personality, and I also love her as a sister in Christ. I don't hate this woman. And if we love her, we should actively want her to know that all abortions are wrong, and that she should stop advocating keeping some abortions legal (and even paid for with taxpayer funds).Posted by: Jamie S. at January 6, 2010 8:45 PM
You didn't provide any proof for your assertion, so I must conclude you cannot."
Ben, are you serious? I'm in the middle of my work shift, which ends at 11 pm. How long did you wait for an answer from me? About 50 minutes. I am a roadside assistance operator for a major provider of that service, and we have a snowstorm in Denver, and we just finished RUSH HOUR here. May I please have a brief amount of time to respond? Honestly? If someone doesn't respond within 50 minutes, then you "must conclude" that they cannot back their assertions? Wow.Posted by: Jamie S. at January 6, 2010 8:50 PM
I don't think a strategy of challenging abortion at the supreme court is evil and wicked. I think that undermining pro-life principles in order to get a "victory" at the supreme court is a proven strategy for failure though. Thus, as a lawyer I am concerned witht the legal realities of our strategy. But, At the same time I can assure you that we wrote the law with Truth, not supreme court odds in mind, how anyone can doubt this is beyond me.
The WND quotes were my opinion on how the supreme court would handle Personhood. Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly enough, but telephone interviews often leave one wishing to clarify some statements. That's the nature of the beast. I read no wrongful intent on the part of WND and I also stand by my statement (and of course am happy to clarify any ambiguity)
Only a person Or persons distorted by some other motive would wish to kill what is clearly a principled and hard fought campaign because of one statement that is not totally in line with their ideology. Especially when neither man asked for clarification.
Please look on our website, www.personhoodcolorado.com to learn what personhood colorado is about. It is about principled activism. If you're willing to stand in the cold and snow for the babies holding a petition, you are our friend, if not we'll try to make you our friend. Criticism of strategies, soundbites, and personalities is not part of this campaign.
Sent from my phone.
Gualberto's comments in the World Net Daily article were partly miscommunication and partly misunderstood. Of course, inevitably, Personhood will end up at the Supreme Court. Our goal is to pass an Amendment, and when that happens, it will likely be fought by the pro-aborts all the way to the Supreme Court.
Ben, the position of Personhood USA (and Personhood Colorado) is that we have no reason to expect the Supreme Court to make a righteous decision - they have never done so in the past, and the court is getting much worse, not better. The Supreme Court never even reversed or apologized for Dred Scott, so of course we can't expect them to do the right thing and end abortion in America. Our hopes do not rest with the Supreme Court.
I think the real battle is not in one quote from a news article, but in trying to save babies. And Personhood is our best bet for that. Even if Personhood doesn't pass a vote, it is still a huge victory - statewide education on the humanity of the preborn child is changing the mindset and creating the social tension needed to outlaw abortion.
Really, personhood is win-win - and nitpicking at one quote isn't really helpful. I've done interviews that I've stammered through and been misquoted in the worst possible way, yet it didn't ruin the pro-life movement. People are human and interviews are tough.
Being Pro-Choice, as I am, my observation on the disagreement amongst Pro Life groups being productive, or not, may raise a new awareness to this topic.
Simply ask yourself, am I willing to compromise on "Do Not Murder" so that some babies die so that many more may live?
When a group's leaders establish their charter, mission statement, and goals is it wrong for the group to demand excellence and conviction and dedication to the cause from all of its members? Is it wrong to evaluate, then eliminate any member that waivers in the cause they signed up for?
Imagine a rose bush. What happens when you prune it?
Imagine "abortion" as a weed. What happens when you prune it?
Imagine self examination, then discovering why I believe what I believe is nothing more than being accepted into the club. What would you do then?
Talk about miscarriages! That whole site is what happens when the developmental trajectory of consensus building is derailed by frustration and desperation.
This is God's Vineyard, not theirs, and not ours. We are all laborers in that Vineyard. As Orson Welles used to say, "We serve no wine before its time.
Who knows when abortion's time will come, but hurling the baskets of grapes at one another seems like a perfect way to forstall that day. These guys need a month in Bermuda. Then we should all kiss and make up.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at January 7, 2010 4:04 AM
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." ~ Matthew 12:25Posted by: Bekah Ferguson at January 7, 2010 8:34 AM
Our Lord rebuked Peter, by calling him, Satan. Paul called Peter a hypocrite. Wielding the sword of division is a Biblical principle.
Does Jesus approve of Sarah Palin's position on abortion - that states have the right to decide? Or, does He call upon the Body of Christ to bring her to repentance? That's what Prolife Profiles is trying to do.Posted by: MBallentine at January 7, 2010 10:19 AM
Does prolifeprofiles teach her the distinction between her position and yours? Of course not. It's simply designed to expose her weakness in understanding without offering any constructive way to right the wrong. What a waste of time,effort, and money from a movement that is short-handed to begin with. As for ARTL, where is the educational outreach to other prolifers who haven't heard or considered their message? Looks to me like they're on the wrong path to make serious inroads into the prolife community. The answers from the personhood folks seem full of self pity and confusion. I might agree with their message if I could figure out what it really is. This whole thing leaves me depressed.Posted by: Jasmin at January 7, 2010 10:46 AM
Jasmine, why are you saying such false things about this website? Can't you criticize it based on truth?
The website explains basic, common-sense pro-life principles on multiple pages, explaining why it is wrong to advocate keeping abortion legal, and how to take a principled pro-life stand. Some of that information is right on the front page of the site! Which leads me to believe that you want to criticize the website without even reading what is there, possibly without even going there at all. The site also has links to other resources that explain the principled personhood view. The website even has a page that shares the gospel of Jesus Christ with visitors to the site! (Something that is prohibited by National Right to Life, by the way. They instruct subsidiaries to never speak of Jesus, the Bible, God, etc.)
One last thing. Many members of Colorado Right to Life, American Right to Life and members of various churches have attended her book signings on multiple occasions (peacefully, calmly, no noise or negative protesting) in order to meet her face to face in a friendly fashion and ask her to visit the site. She has been presented this positive and encouraging information over and over. What is her response? Her response was to remove information from her political PAC website that this site was citing, in order to COVER UP what had been exposed. ProlifeProfiles had linked to her very own organization's website to show what pro-abortion stances she holds (they were publishing it at the time, themselves!), but rather than repent of that, she deleted the information at her site. Is that an example of principled leadership? Sweep your mistakes under the rug?
Fortunately, American Right to Life had already archived that information and it is still available at ProlifeProfiles.com . Palin tried to cover it up, but she failed. She needs to stop covering up the truth, and face it instead.Posted by: Jamie Schofield at January 7, 2010 10:58 AM
If Sarah Palin announced she is in favor of states deciding whether killing Jews or lynching blacks should be legal within their own borders, would you criticize her for that?
Yes or no?
Please post your answers below.Posted by: Jefferson George at January 7, 2010 1:38 PM
The scriptures state that "MANY are called, but FEW are chosen." When are we going to learn that initiatives are a waste of money and precious human resource? Why? Because, it is axiomatic - if you hold The Savior's words to be, in fact, true - that those in, but not of this world, will be in the MINORITY. There never was, nor shall be a truly "Moral Majority," that is, until Christ returns. We, in this country, have a means to place in office those who don't need to be threatened, coerced, or flattered to make thousands of votes for "LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS;" They are policymakers such as Councilmen, Legislators, Governors, and the President. Article I Section I of the U.S. Constitution, clearly places the plenary enumerated powers of the Federal Gov't in Congress -- NOT the Supreme Court nor the President. Congress needs to assert its Constitutional authority over both the President and, more importantly, the Supreme Court. Jefferson understood both the hierarchy and separation of powers. To wit, William Marbury NEVER sat on the bench of the highest court, even though Chief Justice Marshal - speaking on behalf of the majority opinion - ruled FOR Marbury.
In Summary, Congress has the power. We need to achieve a majority in Congress - both houses - that have the courage to protect life and assert their investiture of "ALL legislative power" to reign in the courts and the President.
I have known Bob Enyart since he became involved in the prolife movement.
Bob's main concern is for whatever will bring him publicity and get his name in the headlines. If you take a close look at all he does you will see that is true.
Bob is the man behind the curtain that pulls the strings. Regardless of who is listed as in charge, it is Bob Enyart who controls Colorado Right to Life and American Right to Life. He is also completely influential over the direction of the Personhood movement. By the way, the way Bob gained control of Colorado Right to Life was about as evil as it could have been done. If you doubt, look up some of the old officers who were forced out and see what they think.
Bob's latest effort - prolifeprofiles.com is a great example of what Bob does. He tears down everyone who doesn't walk lockstep with him and of course he comes out looking like the perfect prolifer.
Bob Enyart is a very dangerous person. He calls himself a pastor but he is more like a cult leader. The devotees of Bob are like little puppets as they parrot his words and phrases. They don't seem to be able to think for themselves even when Bob is doing something ridiculous and destructive.
Bob Enyart is making a very good living from the prolife movement -- something he criticizes others for doing. He sure isn't doing anything good for the prolife movement. It seems if Bob had his way, the only people who would be left are him and a few of his minions.
I glad to see that Brian Rohrbough and Steve Curtis have come to their senses. May God give them the strength to take the next step to expose the Bob Enyart machine for what it really is.
I have not identified who I am as I really don't have the time to play Bob's game. I fully expect that what I have written will cause Bob's disciples to have a fit. Hopefully others will be warned. I hope too that maybe some of those under Bob's cloud may see a ray of light - yes that gut feeling you have had about Bob is right - he is not what he makes himself out to be.
TruthPosted by: Truth Teller at January 8, 2010 8:22 PM
TT, you make a lot of baseless accusations without a shred of evidence, publicly libeling a Christian leader without anything to back it up, and you do it while hiding behind a fake name... and you expect to be taken seriously?
That is the act of a coward.
Sure, you're going to say, "See? See? Enyart's 'minions' are coming out and 'having a fit.'" No... because even if your allegations had merit, what you just did is still the act of a coward. And it smells to high heaven.Posted by: Jamie S. at January 8, 2010 8:47 PM
I'm curious Jamie S., what is your connection to Bob Enyart? Do you go to his "church"?
TruthPosted by: Truth Teller at January 8, 2010 9:13 PM
Just posting so I can follow :)Posted by: Friend at January 8, 2010 9:21 PM
As a very outspoken Catholic and someone who has seen Bob Enyart work for Personhood I can attest that what you say is false and malicious, please stop.
You may disagree with Bob Enyart's aggressive and public approach, but then your criticism should be in the form of an argument, not a personal attack on Bob and the members of his church, who are your brothers and mine.
Your post is not backed up by any facts which makes it much more objectionable than any aggressive expose that Bob Enyart, which may or may not advance the cause of life.
Please stop sowing discord.
Is it not true that Bob Enyart is the guiding force behind Personhood Colorado?
TruthPosted by: Truth Teller at January 8, 2010 9:46 PM
I am the director of Personhood Colorado, you know this.
My advice to you is this, dont get caught up in ridiculous quarrels. Therefore, following my own advice I will cease to respond to you. Let's get busy fighting for the babies.
Ironic that you call yourself Truth Teller, when you sling libelous accusations around while refusing to tell the truth about who you are.
That is very telling.
And no, Enyart is not the "guiding force" behind Personhood USA, as Gualberto will attest. Heck, he is not even a spokesman for that esteemed group. Enyart is an occasional spokesman for Colorado Right to Life. He does not head that group either. But, I'm sure your cowardly penchant for conspiracy theories is now going to paint him as the secret "power behind the throne," and that he is running some kind of dangerous organized crime family type of operation.
How many pastors do you know who publicize the various things they have been wrong about, including doctrinally? Enyart not only welcomes correction and rebuke on a regular basis, but his website even has an "errata" page dedicated to the mistakes and false doctrines he confesses he previously taught. Likewise, on his radio show, when various topics come up, he may play a clip of his old TV show from 10 years ago or so, and he will point out this or that thing from the clip is not correct, and he was wrong about that. This is not the behavior of a cult leader.
Does your pastor have that degree of humility?
To disagree with him is one thing. To call his church a "cult" is absolutely laughable. People in his church openly disagree with him on issues, both doctrinal and political, without any scorn or retribution whatsoever. I have seen him speak from the pulpit giving credit to others for correcting him or teaching him doctrinal truth. He does not teach that his church is the only true church, or that it is the only way, etc. People can join or disfellowship freely at any time.
In light of all that, what on earth is your basis in claiming that Enyart's church is a "cult?"
I think you need to put up or shut up, Mr. anonymous coward.Posted by: Jamie S. at January 8, 2010 10:18 PM
So Jamie, it seems you may be anonymous too. How about full disclosure...who you are, your relationship with Bob, church you go to, etc.
There are reasons someone may want to spread the truth but not want to become the focal point of a return attack. I raise issues that anyone can find out as true if they care.
Another interesting thing, neither Personhood Colorado, Personhood USA or American Right to Life will disclose who is on their board. I find that troubling.
Seeking TruthPosted by: Truth Teller at January 15, 2010 4:40 PM