Video: Guess who’s coming to the unity dinner?

posted at 3:01 pm on April 15, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The last we heard from Robert Jeffress, the pastor of the influential First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas was telling CNN at the Values Voters Summit in October that Mormonism is a cult and that evangelicals had a duty to vote for Christians. Six months later, Jeffress has had a change of heart — or at least a change of politics. Jeffress has now endorsed Mitt Romney for President against Barack Obama, but Fox News interviewers didn’t exactly let him off the hook for his past statements:


The controversy last October came at a bad time for Governor Rick Perry, who had chosen Jeffress to introduce him at the VVS. Perry had already been knocked off his stride by poor debate performances and had hoped for a significant lift from the heavy evangelical presence at the convention. Instead, his campaign had to play defense over Jeffress’ statements for a few days, especially after primary opponent Jon Huntsman blasted Jeffress as “a moron” and Salem Radio host Bill Bennett exhorted the conference, “Do not give voice to bigotry.”

Maybe Jeffress himself took that to heart. In October, here’s what he said about a Romney-Obama matchup:

ACOSTA: Wolf is asking me to ask you, are you saying that because of Mitt Romney’s faith, that people should not vote for him? That people should not go into the voting booth and flip the switch for Mitt Romney because of his faith? Should that be held against him?

JEFFRESS: Look, I think if it came down to a contest between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, I would hold my nose and hope for Mitt Romney. I would rather have a non-Christian who at least supports biblical principles than a professing-Christian like Barack Obama who embraces unbiblical positions.

But we’re in the primary season right now and because of that, I believe that Christians ought to select Evangelical Christians. That’s my point.

Today, he seems a lot more enthusiastic about Romney than mere nose-holding. That’s good news for Romney, as he needs enthusiasm among evangelicals to help fuel the campaign, and Jeffress is probably right that the recent attacks on religious prerogatives from the Obama administration will become very important in that evolution. But hopefully Jeffress has learned a lesson about having to eat one’s words down the line, if not the dangers of indulging in ecumenical combat in the middle of a political campaign.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Oh, Jews for Jesus? So no Jews then? I get it, it’s in the bible.

Rusty Allen on April 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM

The Catholic Church is The Church, if you go by the Bible; “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church”.
whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 12:32 PM

A. What does this have to do with the Catholic Church? It was said to Peter.

B. The rock Jesus was refering to here was Peter’s revelation that Jesus is Christ. (see: Mat 7:24-27 – Jesus discusses the same rock).

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 12:36 PM

The Catholic Church is The Church, if you go by the Bible; “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church”.
whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Absolutely! Peter the prince of the apostles.

Rusty Allen on April 16, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Oh, Jews for Jesus? So no Jews then? I get it, it’s in the bible.

Rusty Allen on April 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM

What are talking about? All of Jesus’ Apostles (except one) were Christian Jews and there are millions of Christian Jews today. They have acknowledged exclusivity of the way, the truth, and life. Again, just read the bible.

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Absolutely! Peter the prince of the apostles.
Rusty Allen on April 16, 2012 at 12:38 PM

I don’t agree with that but even if so, what does that have to do with the Catholic Church?

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 12:40 PM

A. What does this have to do with the Catholic Church? It was said to Peter.

B. The rock Jesus was refering to here was Peter’s revelation that Jesus is Christ. (see: Mat 7:24-27 – Jesus discusses the same rock).

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Huh? Jesus called a revelation “thou” and gave it this authority?

“That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Brought to you by the same site the declares Catholics are not Christians.

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Like I said, CARM is a JOKE!!!!

Gunlock Bill on April 16, 2012 at 12:51 PM

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Yep, just as Peter means rock (Peter is the object of thou) so will his revelation be the rock upon which Christ will build his Church. Again, what does any of this have to do with the Catholic Church?

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Uhhh, you do realize the book of John and the book we call the Bible are not synonymous right?

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Yup!

1) So this doesn’t apply to the Bible. Rev. 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

2) I notice you are ignoring the other verse I quoted. Why? Because it makes my point?

Gunlock Bill on April 16, 2012 at 12:57 PM

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Yep, just as Peter means rock (Peter is the object of thou) so will his revelation be the rock upon which Christ will build his Church.
tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Read it again, slowly (I bolded what you missed):
“That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Now to whom is Jesus speaking to there? And to whom does he entrust the keys of the kingdom of heaven?
It’s not a trick question.

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 1:02 PM

1

) So this doesn’t apply to the Bible. Rev. 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

It applies to the book of Revelation. The compendium we call the bible didn’t exist when that was written.

2) I notice you are ignoring the other verse I quoted. Why? Because it makes my point?
Gunlock Bill on April 16, 2012 at 12:57 PM

It was irrelevant to the topic being discussed. That all the miracles Jesus performed couldn’t fit in any book has nothing to do with whether the bible contains all Christian theology. Sola Scriptura!

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Now to whom is Jesus speaking to there? And to whom does he entrust the keys of the kingdom of heaven?
It’s not a trick question.
whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 1:02 PM

So? That doesn’t detract from my point at all. And, yet again, what does any of this have to do with the Catholic Church? Even if Peter is personally “the rock” at issue, what does this have to do with the Catholic Church. Peter died 2000 years ago.

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 1:09 PM

It applies to the book of Revelation. The compendium we call the bible didn’t exist when that was written.

So, the anti-Mormons that use that against Mormons are morons.

Got it.

2) I notice you are ignoring the other verse I quoted. Why? Because it makes my point?
Gunlock Bill on April 16, 2012 at 12:57 PM

It was irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

It is very relevant. The Bible is incomplete when it comes to documenting the works of Jesus. So attempting to limit the knowledge of Jesus to just the Bible is moronic.

That all the miracles Jesus performed couldn’t fit in any book has nothing to do with whether the bible contains all Christian theology.

The verse you ignored is talking about the things that Jesus did (not just miracles). So to whine that Mormons believe things that Jesus did that aren’t in the Bible is moronic.

Sola Scriptura!

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Sola Scriptura is a post Biblical doctrine and is therefore self contradictory. So, it is false.

Gunlock Bill on April 16, 2012 at 1:17 PM

It is very relevant. The Bible is incomplete when it comes to documenting the works of Jesus. So attempting to limit the knowledge of Jesus to just the Bible is moronic.

The verse you ignored is talking about the things that Jesus did (not just miracles). So to whine that Mormons believe things that Jesus did that aren’t in the Bible is moronic.

No the verse specifically says “signs” NOT works. A biblical “sign” is a miracle. Thus, again you display your biblical ignorance and prove you don’t have a clue what you are talking abouat.

Sola Scriptura – a very biblical doctrine.

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Yawn…another thread full of “They aren’t real Christians because I interpret the Bible differently than they do!” and “What the Bible really says is how I understand the particular version I use, not what any of the other versions say!”

sockpuppetpolitic on April 16, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Now to whom is Jesus speaking to there? And to whom does he entrust the keys of the kingdom of heaven?
It’s not a trick question.
whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 1:02 PM

So? That doesn’t detract from my point at all. And, yet again, what does any of this have to do with the Catholic Church? Even if Peter is personally “the rock” at issue, what does this have to do with the Catholic Church. Peter died 2000 years ago.
tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 1:09 PM

It illustrates what I’ve been pointing out here. You tried to put the spin on it that was spun into you, it’s the “puppy in the cloud” pareidolia you were predisposed to see.

On the other side is the Catholic spin, which entails papal succession and which, if correct, means you’re not in the right denomination. Obviosly, that would be a very serious matter.Now, your argument is of comparatively recent origin as compared to the views of the early Church Fathers.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m just demonstrating that it is as I said – everyone cites Bible verses as proof of whatever. You’re in a 6 of one/half dozen of the other situation, as are all who are in the “my interpretation is the right one” menagerie.

I could have used any of the theological pie fights I cited upthread as an illustration, e.g. Free Will vs. Calvinism.

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Yawn…another thread full of “They aren’t real Christians because I interpret the Bible differently than they do!” and “What the Bible really says is how I understand the particular version I use, not what any of the other versions say!”
sockpuppetpolitic on April 16, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Okay! That it! Enough with the clear thinking! You’re thrown out of the (place denomination club here)!! Off to Hades with you!!11!!1

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 1:33 PM

No the verse specifically says “signs” NOT works. A biblical “sign” is a miracle. Thus, again you display your biblical ignorance and prove you don’t have a clue what you are talking abouat.

Sola Scriptura – a very biblical doctrine.

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I’m sure the particular biblical translation you use says sign. Others do not. The King James, for example says neither works nor signs, but that “there are also many other things which Jesus did.”

Face it, everyone on this thread (including you) justifies their biblical interpretations based on extra-biblical teachings.

sockpuppetpolitic on April 16, 2012 at 1:34 PM

The verse you ignored is talking about the things that Jesus did (not just miracles). So to whine that Mormons believe things that Jesus did that aren’t in the Bible is moronic.

Since you keep misrepresenting the verse I will quote it again.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

No the verse specifically says “signs” NOT works. A biblical “sign” is a miracle. Thus, again you display your biblical ignorance and prove you don’t have a clue what you are talking abouat.

It is your ignorance on display.

Sola Scriptura – a very biblical doctrine.

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Nope!

It was fabricated by Martin Luther and is not found in the Bible, therefore it is self contradictory and false.

Gunlock Bill on April 16, 2012 at 1:46 PM

You tried to put the spin on it that was spun into you,

No, I came to my conclusion by studying the bible. As noted earlielr Mat. 7:24-27 makes it very clear what Jesus is referring to here by “rock”. You use scripture to interpret scripture.

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 1:54 PM

I’m sure the particular biblical translation you use says sign.

I wasn’t referring to a translation, I was going by the original text. (NA27). The word in question is “sēmeíon” which in the NT always refers to an act of God or miricle and properly translated as “sign” or “miracle”. It specifically excludes the general works of man.

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 2:01 PM

It was fabricated by Martin Luther and is not found in the Bible, therefore it is self contradictory and false.
Gunlock Bill on April 16, 2012 at 1:46 PM

John Huss adovcated for Sola Scriptura 100 years before Luther was born. It is the inescapable lesson of scripture itself. Just as the trinity is even though the term never appears in the bible either.

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 2:03 PM

You tried to put the spin on it that was spun into you,

No, I came to my conclusion by studying the bible. As noted earlielr Mat. 7:24-27 makes it very clear what Jesus is referring to here by “rock”. You use scripture to interpret scripture.
tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 1:54 PM

That’s what they all say. But the fact is, unless you’re a hermit on a deserted island you’ve had some form of “input” to direct you to the spin. In fact, most bibles have cross references linking verses together in a form of “bible verse hopscotch/scavenger hunt”, many with a very hefty amount of notes. e.g. the Scofield Reference Bible

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 2:20 PM

You use scripture to misenterpret scripture.

Rusty Allen on April 16, 2012 at 2:49 PM

You use scripture to misenterpret scripture.
Rusty Allen on April 16, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Heh.

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 2:52 PM

You use scripture to misenterpret scripture.
Rusty Allen on April 16, 2012 at 2:49 PM

LOL. Like I’m going to take advice in hermeneutics from someone who can’t spell misinterpret. Keep working on it there Einstein.

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 3:31 PM

That’s what they all say. But the fact is, unless you’re a hermit on a deserted island you’ve had some form of “input” to direct you to the spin. In fact, most bibles have cross references linking verses together in a form of “bible verse hopscotch/scavenger hunt”, many with a very hefty amount of notes. e.g. the Scofield Reference Bible
whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Again, I usually use the NA27 greek text and Messers Nestle and Alland didn’t include x-refs and study notes with their critical text manuscript.

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 3:37 PM

The Catholic Church is The Church, if you go by the Bible; “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church”.
whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 12:32 PM

And in the VERY NEXT verses Peter challenges Him for saying He’s going to the cross, and Jesus tells Peter, “Away from me Satan!”

So which is he, rock or satan?

If you believe the Catholic Church is the intended structure of the church, study the Nicolatians criticized in Revelation.

Catholics are Christians. I just object to Catholics who say they are THE church.

PastorJon on April 16, 2012 at 3:37 PM

I don’t believe in 2008 “30 million Evangelical Christians sat at home and didn’t vote.” This guy and Bob van der Platts and his ever present “gay marriage petition you need to sign here” need to take a hike.
Marcus on April 15, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Then you need to use Google, Bing, whatever…because sadly it’s true. http://defendchristians.org/news/the-numbers-dont-lie/

And even more frightening, I’m not too sure it’s gonna be much better. Far too many Christians want nothing to do with “politics,” yet they’ll moan and groan as everything falls to pieces. Makes me sick quite frankly-in a multitude of ways.

Dr. Jeffress had a recent sermon “How a Christian Should Vote” in which he addresses this and several other key issues. I suggest many of us check it out, it’s quite good. Start HERE Then go back to broadcast archives->January 14 to get the remaining 3 parts.

dave_ross on April 16, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Six months later, Jeffress has had a change of heart — or at least a change of politics.

What change of heart? He’s basically saying the same thing now that he did then. Unfortunately, a lot of people read way too much into what he said then, and think his remarks now are a contradiction.

tom on April 16, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Yet Joseph Smith died quicker, hanged after a gun battle where he gave as good as he got.

He was shot while he was imprisoned in a jail with his brother Hyrum – they were not hanged and they had no weapons in the jail. By the way, he went willing in response to a summons, no guards, just Hyrum and Joseph and their 2 horses feeling that they were honest men and would see that he had done nothing. BTW, the governor assured their safety and then did nothing to protect them. Take a gander, sometime, at the jail they were in and where they were shot.

Just try getting your facts from sources instead of anti Mormons.

Bambi on April 15, 2012 at 4:00 PM

If you get your history from Mormons, you’ll always get the whitewashed version.

Yes, Joseph Smith was armed and in a gunfight when he died.

tom on April 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM

John Huss adovcated for Sola Scriptura 100 years before Luther was born.

So you are admitting that it was fabricated 1000+ years AFTER the writings of the Bible. So, yes it is post/extra-Biblical.

It is the inescapable lesson of scripture itself.

LOL!! That is just drivel.

Just as the trinity is even though the term never appears in the bible either.

tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Neither is the doctrine of the trinity. Both are post/extra-biblical creations.

In fact, the teaching that Christ is God was only made by the Catholic Church in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea, years after the Lord Jesus Christ had ascended to heaven and after the death of the apostles:

http://student631.tripod.com/id16.html

Gunlock Bill on April 16, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Yes, Joseph Smith was armed and in a gunfight when he died.

tom on April 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Yeah, a single pepperbox pistol that misfired more than once against an armed mob of 200+ “good Christian” men.

Gunlock Bill on April 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Among the many early Jews for Jesus/Yeshua: Saul/Paul, Cephas/Peter, Jacob/James. All of the Apostles and writers of the New Testament, except for Luke. By the way, Jesus’ last name was not Christ/Messiah.

mbabbitt on April 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM

mbabbitt on April 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM
Jesus middle name is H.

Rusty Allen on April 16, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Again, I usually use the NA27 greek text and Messers Nestle and Alland didn’t include x-refs and study notes with their critical text manuscript.
tommyboy on April 16, 2012 at 3:37 PM

That you have a preference underscores the point. No one is a tabula rasa and no one stopping at the newsstand decides to forego his usual morning paper to suddenly randomly pick up Westcott and Hort instead, just for some reading variety during lunch hour. There’s always a flow chart of motivation, experience and thoughts involved.

The thing is that people often don’t like to admit they carry preconceptions & bias (not in the bad sense)with them – even though, after a time, things we’ve absorbed as we go along in life become second nature to us. I don’t mean this as an insult, just as a good example, but it’s somewhat like a person not being aware of his own B.O..

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM

lexhamfox on April 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

We’re talking past each other. You have a nice day.

Cleombrotus on April 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I’m not sure that we are. I understand that people want to employ Biblical principles in their private lives but we employ different principles when establishing our public and civic interactions and institutions.

Look at this thread.. it’s a long argument between various sects and their various positions which are mutually exclusive. I would wager that most of the same people would agree that they favor the secular pillars (Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers, Independent Judiciary, etc)of our Republic. The framers were aware of these sectarian tensions within the nascent United States which is why they employed principles which aren’t embedded in any established faith.

I appreciate that this is an emotive, complicated topic and in a rush to respond earlier I might have been abrupt and I apologise if it came across as rude or disrespectful.

lexhamfox on April 16, 2012 at 6:26 PM

lexhamfox on April 16, 2012 at 6:26 PM

The list you offered up earlier was an example of absurd fantasy strawmen:

Here are just a few American principles are at odds with Biblical principles:
- Independent Judicial system with trial by a jury of your peers.
- The Bill of Rights.
- American principles don’t involve hereditary monarchy or special status for certain bloodlines.
- Free thinking and enquiry.
- The Eagle is a national emblem and not a detested animal.
- Individual accountability rather than collective punishment.
- Disease and bad weather are not the result of sin or celestial displeasure.

You failed to provide where you got such notions. e.g. The bible is “anti-eagle”? Really? As I said, absurd fantasy strawmen.

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Are you seriously telling me that Romney isn’t gaining some (I would say sizable) support from Mormons because he’s a Mormon?

Probably not all that much. Would I vote for an Episcopalian just because I am Episcopal? No. And anyone who needs “to consider” someone’s religion before making a voting choice is a sorry sack of bigoted crap that doesn’t understand what America is about.

crosspatch on April 15, 2012 at 5:43 PM

So if Mormons vote for Romney by margins of 90-95%, they are “sorry sack[s] of bigoted crap that do[es]n’t understand what America is about.?”

Might want to rephrase that.

tom on April 16, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Yes, Joseph Smith was armed and in a gunfight when he died.

tom on April 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Yeah, a single pepperbox pistol that misfired more than once against an armed mob of 200+ “good Christian” men.

Gunlock Bill on April 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Yes, he went down fighting. He was wrongfully killed without due process, but let’s not whitewash the record and pretend that he went peacefully to his death.

Compare to the deaths recorded in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.

tom on April 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM

You failed to provide where you got such notions. e.g. The bible is “anti-eagle”? Really? As I said, absurd fantasy strawmen.

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Straight out of the Bible which calls eagles ‘detestable animals.’

Leviticus 11:13

lexhamfox on April 16, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Straight out of the Bible which calls eagles ‘detestable animals.’
Leviticus 11:13
lexhamfox on April 16, 2012 at 7:54 PM

LOL…that’s a dietary abomination, not prejudice against eagles. They’re just not good eatin’. And I daresay you try hunting one down for your next meal and it will be the wrath of the Federal government you’ll need to fear. So, it looks the biblical taboo and “American principles” are, on the contrary, pretty much in sync.

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM

OK so we will leave that out and replace it with capital punishment (stoning) for disobeying your mother and father and being a drunk.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says: ‘If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to the voice of his father or his mother even when they punish him his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elThey shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard. All the men of the town must then stone him to death. You must banish this evil from among you.

There are loads of things in the Bible which aren’t ‘exactly in line’ with American principles per my original point. Furthermore most Biblical principles have contradicting instructions somewhere else in the Bible.

lexhamfox on April 16, 2012 at 8:27 PM

OK so we will leave that out and replace it with capital punishment (stoning) for disobeying your mother and father and being a drunk.
lexhamfox on April 16, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Meh, we have capital punishment. It’s just a matter of what is considered a capital offense; a person can be executed in the US for drug offenses. But there just isn’t much demand these days for putting the bad seeds into Sparky’s lap.
It’s “whatever seems needed at a given time”. And even then, there are those who are against it even on cases of the most heinous of violent, sick crimes.
So, again, we adopted a biblical principle as an “American principle” but we just changed when it’s applied.

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Compare to the deaths recorded in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.

tom on April 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM

If you actually read that book, some of those martyrs died with weapons in hands.

Having a weapon or not having a weapon isn’t what makes a martyr. What makes a martyr is someone who was wrongfully and unjustly murdered for their religious beliefs.

Joseph Smith was a martyr just as much as the men listed in Foxe’s book.

Conservative Samizdat on April 16, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Having a weapon or not having a weapon isn’t what makes a martyr. What makes a martyr is someone who was wrongfully and unjustly murdered for their religious beliefs.
Conservative Samizdat on April 16, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Even Peter lobbed off an ear with a sword when the guards came to arrest Jesus.

whatcat on April 16, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3