Our Lady: An Introduction To Coredemption

Powerful Santorum Ad Features Miracle Daughter

Sexy and Halloween are a Great Mix

Bishop Lori Defends Religious Liberty In Front Of House Judiciary Committee

    Here is Bishop Lori's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. 

     Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, allow me to 
    thank you for the invitation and opportunity to be with you today to offer testimony 
    on religious liberty.  Let me also express my appreciation to you for calling this 
    hearing on a topic of fundamental importance to our Church and to our Nation.
    I am here today representing the United States Conference of Catholic 
    Bishops (USCCB).  I serve as Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport, and as the 
    newly appointed Chair of the USCCB’s Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. 
    I will summarize my remarks and ask that my full written testimony be entered into 
    the record.

    I hope to address three topics today.  First, I would like to offer a few brief 
    reflections on the Catholic vision of religious freedom for all, as rooted in the 
    inherent dignity of every human person, and this vision’s deep resonance with the 
    American experiment.  Second, I would like to identify certain threats to religious 
    liberty that have emerged with particular urgency in America today.  And third, I 
    would urge you to action in support of particular legislative measures that would 
    secure religious liberty against these threats.

    Religious liberty is not merely one right among others, but enjoys a certain 
    primacy.  As the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI recently explained: “It is indeed 
    the first of human rights, not only because it was historically the first to be recognized 
    but also because it touches the constitutive dimension of man, his relation with his 
    Creator.”   (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Diplomatic Corps, 10 Jan. 2011.)   The 
    late Pope John Paul II taught that “the most fundamental human freedom [is] that 
    of practicing one’s faith openly, which for human beings is their reason for living.”  
    (Pope John Paul II, Address to Diplomatic Corps, 13 Jan. 1996, No. 9.)   Not 
    coincidentally, religious liberty is first on the list in the Bill of Rights, the charter of 
    our Nation’s most cherished and fundamental freedoms.   The First Amendment 
    begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
    prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”   It is commonly, and with justice, called our 
    “First Freedom.”

    Religious liberty is also prior to the state itself.  It is not merely a privilege 
    that the government grants us and so may take away at will.  Instead, religious 
    liberty is inherent in our very humanity, hard-wired into each and every one of us by 
    our Creator.  Thus government has a perennial obligation to acknowledge and 
    protect religious liberty as fundamental, no matter the moral and political trends of 
    the moment.   This insight as well is reflected in the laws and traditions of our
    country from its very inception.  The Declaration of Independence boldly 
    proclaimed as a self-evident truth that our inalienable rights are “endowed by our 
    Creator”—not by the State.

    Religious freedom is most commonly understood as an individual right, and it 
    certainly is that.  Religious freedom proceeds from the dignity of each person, and 
    so protects each person individually.   “[T]he exercise of religion, of its very nature, 
    consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the 
    course of his life directly toward God” (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis 
    Humanae, No. 3).   Therefore individuals are “not to be forced to act in manner 
    contrary to [their] conscience,” nor “restrained from acting in accordance with [their] 
    conscience.”   (Ibid.)   Congress has shown special vigilance in protecting these 
    individual rights of conscience, for example, in the form of the Religious Freedom 
    Restoration Act (RFRA), which forbids the federal government from imposing any 
    “substantial burdens” on religious exercise absent the most compelling reasons.

    But religious freedom also belongs to churches and other religious 
    institutions, comprised of citizens who are believers and who seek, not to create a 
    theocracy, but rather to influence their culture from within.  The distinction 
    between Church and State, between God and Caesar, remains “fundamental to 
    Christianity” (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est, No. 28).  We look to the State 
    not to impose religion but to guarantee religious freedom, and to promote harmony 
    among followers of different religions.  The Church has “a proper independence 
    and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community the State must recognize”
    (Ibid.).   An indispensable element of this independence is the right of churches
    “not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part 
    of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own 
    ministers” (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, No. 4).  We are grateful 
    that federal courts in the United States—at least to date—have uniformly 
    recognized this core protection under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

    Finally, the Church teaches that these rights of religious freedom—prior to all 
    other rights and even to the State, and protecting both individuals and 
    institutions—are held not just by Catholics, but by all people, by virtue of their 
    common humanity.   Government has the duty “to assume the safeguard of the 
    religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other 
    appropriate means” (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, No. 6 (emphasis 
    added)).  Even in societies where one particular religion predominates, it is 
    “imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious 
    freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice” (Ibid.).   The United
    States stands strongly for the principle that these rights of freedom are also rights of 
    equality—that government should not impose any special civil disadvantages or 
    otherwise discriminate against its citizens based on religion.  And although it may 
    not have always lived up to this or other religious freedom principles in practice, our 
    country’s unique capacity for self-correction has always provided avenues to repair 
    to these principles that have made it a great nation.

    Regrettably, now is the time for such self-correction and repair.  In the 
    recent past, the Bishops of the United States have watched with increasing alarm as 
    this great national legacy of religious liberty, so profoundly in harmony with our 
    own teachings, has been subject to ever more frequent assault and ever more rapid 

    As I mentioned previously, I am the Chair of the USCCB’s new Ad Hoc 
    Committee for Religious Liberty, which was instituted precisely to help resist these 
    assaults and reverse this erosion.  The Bishops of the United States decided in 
    principle to institute a committee like this in June of this year, based on 
    developments over the months and years preceding that date.   That I am already 
    appointed as Chair represents action at near light-speed in Church time, and attests 
    to the urgency of the matter from the Bishops’ perspective.

    Although the Bishops’ decision was based on facts arising before June, I am 
    here today to call to your attention grave threats to religious liberty that have 
    emerged even since June—grim validations of the Bishops’ recognition of the need 
    for urgent and concerted action in this area.   I focus on these because most of them 
    arise under federal law, and so may well be the subject of corrective action by 

    · In August, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued 
    regulations to mandate the coverage of contraception (including 
    abortifacients) and sterilization as “preventive services” in almost all private 
    health insurance plans.  There is an exception for certain religious 
    employers; but to borrow from Sr. Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health 
    Association, it is so incredibly narrow that it would cover only the “parish 
    housekeeper.”  And the exception does nothing to protect insurers or 
    individuals with religious or moral objections to the mandate.   The 
    “preventive services” mandate is but the first instance of conscience 
    problems arising from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
    enacted in March 2010 – an act whose goal of greater access to health care the 
    Bishops have long supported, but that we had persistently warned during the 
    legislative process did not include sufficient protections for rights of 

    · In May, HHS added a new requirement to its cooperative agreements and 
    government contracts for services to victims of human trafficking and to 
    refugees who are unaccompanied minors, so that otherwise highly qualified 
    service providers, such as USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services (MRS), 
    will be barred from participation in the program because they cannot in 
    conscience provide the “full range” of reproductive services—namely, 
    abortion and contraception.   This requirement is exactly what the American 
    Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has urged HHS to adopt in a lawsuit 
    challenging the constitutionality of MRS’s longstanding contract with HHS
    to serve victims of human trafficking.  Ironically, ACLU has attacked the 
    Church’s exemplary service to these victims as a violation of religious 
    liberty.   Already, HHS has taken its major program for serving trafficking 
    victims away from MRS and transferred it to several smaller organizations 
    that frankly may not be equipped to assume this burden.

    · The State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development 
    (USAID) is increasingly requiring contractors, such as Catholic Relief 
    Services (CRS), to provide comprehensive HIV prevention activities 
    (including condom distribution), as well as full integration of its programs 
    with reproductive health activities (including provision of artificial 
    contraception) in a range of international relief and development programs.  
    Under this new requirement, of course, some of the most effective providers 
    helping to prevent and treat AIDS in Africa and other developing nations will 
    be excluded.

    · The federal Department of Justice (DoJ) has ratcheted up its attack on the 
    Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by mischaracterizing it as an act of 
    bigotry.  As you may know, in March, DoJ stopped defending DOMA 
    against constitutional challenges, and the Conference spoke out against that 
    decision.  But in July, the Department started filing briefs actively attacking 
    DOMA’s constitutionality, claiming that supporters of the law could only 
    have been motivated by bias and prejudice.  If the label of “bigot” sticks to 
    our Church and many other churches—especially in court, under the 
    Constitution—because of their teaching on marriage, the result will be 
    church-state conflicts for many years to come.

    · DoJ has also undermined religious liberty in the critically important 
    “ministerial exception” case now pending before the Supreme Court, 
    Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC.   DoJ could have taken the position that the 
    “ministerial exception,” though generally providing strong protection for the 
    right of religious groups to choose their ministers without government 
    interference, didn’t apply in the case before the court.   This would be 
    consistent with the uniform judgment of the federal Courts of Appeals for 
    decades, as well the DoJ itself until now.   Instead, DoJ needlessly attacked 
    the very existence of the exception, in opposition to a vast coalition of 
    religious groups urging its preservation through their amicus curiae briefs.

    · At the state level, religious liberty protections associated with the redefinition 
    of marriage have fallen far short of what is necessary.  In New York, county 
    clerks face legal action for refusing to participate in same-sex unions, and gay 
    rights advocates boast how little religious freedom protection individuals and 
    groups will enjoy under the new law.   In Illinois, Catholic Charities has been 
    driven out of the adoption and foster care business, because it recognizes the 
    unique value of man-woman marriage for the well-being of children.

    These are serious threats to religious liberty, and as I noted previously they 
    represent only the most recent instances in a broader trend of erosion of religious 
    liberty in the United States.   The ultimate root causes of these threats are profound, 
    and lie beyond the scope of this hearing or even this august body to fix—they are 
    fundamentally philosophical and cultural problems that the bishops, and other 
    participants in civil society, must address apart from government action.  But we 
    can—and must—also treat the symptoms immediately, lest the disease spread so 
    quickly that the patient is overcome before the ultimate cure can be formulated and 

    As to the “preventive services” mandate, and related problems under the 
    health care reform law, there are three important bipartisan bills currently in the 
    Congress:  the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act 
    (H.R. 361), and the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179).  All three go 
    a long way toward guaranteeing religious liberty and freedom of conscience for 
    religious employers, health insurers, and health care providers.   United with my 
    brother bishops, and in the name of religious liberty, I urge these three bills be 
    swiftly passed by Congress so they may be signed into law.   We welcome the fact 
    that H.R. 358 was recently approved by the House in a bipartisan vote, and that the 6
    text of H.R. 361 has been included in the House subcommittee draft of the 
    Labor/HHS appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2012.

    As to the illegal conditions that HHS and USAID are placing on religious 
    providers of human services, this may call for a Congressional hearing or other form 
    of investigation to ensure compliance with the applicable conscience laws, as well as 
    to identify how these new requirements came to be imposed.  Additional statutes 
    may be appropriate, possibly to create new conscience protections, but more likely 
    to create private rights of action for those whose rights under the existing protections 
    have been violated.  Unfortunately, the authority to enforce the applicable 
    conscience protections now lies principally with the very federal agencies that may 
    be violating the protections.
    As to the attack on DOMA, this body should resist legislative efforts to repeal 
    the law, including the Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 1116).  We also applaud the 
    decision of the House to take up the defense of DOMA in court after DoJ abandoned 
    it, and we urge you to sustain that effort for as long as necessary to obtain definitive 
    confirmation of its constitutionality.  Moreover, DoJ’s decisions to abandon both 
    DOMA and the “ministerial exception” seem to warrant congressional inquiry.

    The religious freedom threats to marriage at the state level may fall beyond 
    the scope of authority of Congress to control—except to the extent that state 
    adoption and foster care services are federally funded.  We believe this avenue for
    protecting the religious liberty of faith-based service providers should be explored 
    more fully.

    Thank you for your attention, and again, for your willingness to give religious 
    freedom the priority it is due.  
    Source URL: http://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/10/
    Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

On Foreign Policy, Ron Paul, and Missionaries

    Before starting this post I want to let everyone know that my entire family will be getting together to celebrate my parents 50th wedding anniversary so from tomorrow through Sunday I will be taking a break from blogging.  Hopefully next week my blogging will return back to normal, including Eagle Freedom Links and a rule 5 post returning next Saturday and Sunday.

    Our foreign policy is so muddled right now that its mission needs to be much better defined and more limited in nature.  While I do think that Ron Paul's foreign policy is isolationalist to a degree (not trade policy) he makes some very good points about the U.S. needing to be less comingled/intertwined in other country's affairs.  While I still believe that it was right for us to enter both Iraq and Afghanistan to stop both perceived and imminent threats, I also think that in the case of Libya, Egypt, Africa, and other Middle Eastern countries' uprisings that we should stay out of those countries' affairs and Ron Paul is correct in saying that we should stop policing the world unless a country would be subjected to a Rwanda-style massacre.  In the case of Afghanistan we were responding to an act of war - 9/11 - just like we did after Pearl Harbor was attacked during WWII.

    I do think that it is good if the United States influences other nations but should that necessarily include our military involvement?  Missionaries take care of the needy all over the world.  Their mission is to evangelize, help educate, assist with medical care, and bring the message of Christ around the world.  Maybe missionaries would have more success at converting individuals in foreign lands into a more civilized lifestyle where people are tolerant of all religions, so that those of different faiths could coexist as equals in civil society rather than U.S. militarily try to change the countries and its people?  Maybe we should leave the changing of minds, hearts, and souls to missionaries instead of having the military try to influence these peoples?

    Now, if there is an imminent threat to our nation's national security I do think it would be necessary for us to respond militarily.

    Source URL: http://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/10/
    Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

Is Anti-American Anti-War Film Propaganda Supporting and Reinforcing the Jihad Way?

    In the article called U.S. Soldier Who Faced Jihadist Assassin in Germany: "When I looked up, the pistol was in my face. I heard the words 'Allahu Akbar' and the pistol went 'click'"  the U.S. airman recalled seeing the "hate in his eyes" when Arid Uka shot and killed 2 servicemen in Germany.  He claims that he was "radicalized" when he saw a video of U.S. soldiers raping a Muslim girl.

    From Jihad Watch:  He gave a teary confession at the trial’s opening in August, saying that the night before he had seen a video on Facebook that purported to show American soldiers raping a teenage Muslim girl. It turned out to be a scene from the 2007 Brian De Palma anti-war film “Redacted,” taken out of context.
    Uka has told the court that the video prompted him to do anything possible to prevent American soldiers from going to Afghanistan. Before opening fire, he asked if the group of airmen were heading for Afghanistan, and was told they were.

    I got to thinking as I was reading this and came up with some thoughts and specifically one question on this matter:  Is Anti-American anti-war film propaganda  supporting and reinforcing the jihad way?

    I know these films are supposed to be fictional or based on fiction but many of the war films in recent years are life-like and look real.  Should these life-like war films have some plausibility of reality or truth to them in the real world?   I am almost positive that Arid Uka was predisposed to a pro-jihad mentality prior to seeing the film "Redacted".  I believe that this was the key factor in his killing the servicemen and that the film supported his view of "evil" servicemen overseas.  It is my contention that Hollywood is doing America at the least a great disservice and possibly even harming the United States by promoting and putting out this and  other anti-American antiwar propaganda films which distort reality and shows a dark, false image of our servicemen serving overseas.

    I don't have a problem with freedom of speech but I am concerned for our nation and don't want the movies in Hollywood to work toward the detriment of the United States.  

    Maybe boycotting these types of films and the businesses which support this Anti-American propaganda is the answer? 
    Source URL: http://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/10/
    Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

Some Worship Music: Shine Jesus Shine and Worthy Is The Lamb

Ginni Thomas Interview with Rev. C.L. Bryant Part 1: His Conversion to Conservatism, Liberals Hijacking of Martin Luther King Jr.'s Dream

    He's right when he states that race hustlers such as the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have turned Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream into a scheme.  They have made it their political and personal careers to benefit off of race, race baiting, and causing divisiveness between the different races.  Their financial and personal success has been primarily based on using the plight of the blacks and poor for their personal gain.  How any black person could actually think they care about them is beyond me when they and their policies have enslaved a good many people over the past 40 or more years.  They don't empower people to better themselves but rally them to be feeders off of other peoples' successes.  We need to stop this culture of dependency which is being perpetuated by the Left.  Martin Luther King did not advocate for the spreading of the wealth. He did not advocate for equal outcomes.  HE DID ADVOCATE FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES.  He wanted each person to have the opportunity to succeed in life.  The thing that intrudes and inhibits a person's ability to succeed the progressives promote - BIG GOVERNMENT and big government intrusion into our lives.  

    As a black pastor and former leader with the NAACP, did you pay any personal price for leaving the stronghold of the Democratic Party and joining the tea party?
    “It is very difficult. Why? Because the people who are your peers are, let’s say, still on the plantation. They are very much embracing the idea that you have just been liberated from.”

    Do you believe Rev. Martin Luther King’s dream and movement have been hijacked?
    “King would not recognize what has happened to the civil rights movement if he were to come today. King had a dream, and there are those who came after him who had a scheme — to extort money from large corporations, and that is exactly what has happened.”

    Why did you move from the left to the right, politically?
    “I was a true believer in the liberal cause … I was flipping through the AM dials, and I came across a fellow by the name of Rush, and I’m here with you today. The rest of it’s basically history.”

    H/T   The Daily Caller 
    Source URL: http://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/10/
    Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

53% vs "99%" - Personal and Financial responsibility versus entitlement mentality and dependency

    The "99%" has made a claim that they represent the rest of the Americans who aren't rich in this country.  Is this true?  No. Absolutely not!  These people represent a fringe of this country who believe capitalism or free-markets are bad.  For the record the United States economy is not purely capitalistic.  If anything we live in a quasi socialist capitalist state.  If we didn't have medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, and welfare then we would be living in a purely capitalistic state.  And, that is what the Church objects to.  I do believe that everyone should pay their fair share.  But I am not talking about the rich or wealthy.  The rich, wealthy and those in the middle class already pay ALL of the federal taxes in this country and that in and of itself isn't fair.  My proposal includes that anyone who is able to pay for internet access or cable/satellite/Fios should also be able to make the plunge into accepting personal responsibility for their households and pay $250 worth of income taxes for the year.  These two things are amenities - extras which are not a necessity but contributing to our society is a duty each individual or family has a responsibility to do. In addition those that have cell phones, internet, cable which is being paid by our government - the taxpayers of America - should accept personal responsibility and pay for all of those non-essentials and if they can't afford those items then find a job or an additional job.

    The liberal Democrat vision has expanded the government dependent rolls over the past 50 years.  Now this is mostly because the Democrats love big government and they need more people to be dependent on the government for them to be re-elected.  These Democrats are self-indulgent users who are in actuality against the common good and welfare of those poor individuals.  If they really cared about the poor they would help them become financially independent and not keep them on the government dole.

    We should fix the loopholes that allow big corporations to pay zero taxes.  Corporations that pay no federal taxes should at least pay 4 X as much as those who would be required to pay $250 per year in federal income taxes. Herman Cain's plan would eliminate these loopholes. This is one reason I like Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan or 9-0-9 plan, whichever it may be now.  I am against crony capitalism.  Some of the "OWS" protesters may be only against crony capitalism too.  I'm sure many are confusing crony capitalism with true capitalism.  I believe in order to be on welfare the person should be required to get a job and/or further their education so that they can achieve financial independence by going off of welfare and avoiding becoming permanently dependent on the government.  There needs to be a time limit for those receiving benefits from the government, with the exception of social security since the person paid into this program. Although this may change if the social security program changes.

    I believe that welfare and other social safety nets should be run similar to that of unemployment.  The unskilled poor should be able to go to school and earn a living (minimum wage?) while receiving welfare checks.  As the person moves up the ladder his/her welfare payments should be decreased by 25%, then 50%, and then eliminated.  I don't think that staying on or getting off of welfare should be an all-or-nothing deal.  Keeping welfare as an all-or-nothing program only acts as a disincentive for the person to get off of welfare.

    Morning's Minion is in a huff over at Vox Nova complaining that the 53% is waging a "war on the poor".  Some of the poor who survive solely on welfare, food stamps and other social safety nets and are not employed may in fact be "freeloaders".  Now there are people who pay those medicare taxes et al on their paychecks but the fact remains that these people do not pay any federal income taxes.  Is it really fair for these people to pay zilch and demand others to pay even more than they already do?  I believe in charity but not forced charity.   Plus in the past when Congress has passed legislation which forced the rich to pay more but the tax revenues from solely the rich or wealthy wound up not being enough to meet the tax burden so taxes ended up being raised on everyone.  This is because increased taxes do not create more revenues.

    Conservatives want to help the financially poor to help themselves.  Standing on your own two feet gives a person a sense of pride and accomplishment.  There is a clear difference between helping those who are needy and keeping them dependent on the government.  Conservatives believe in the former and progressives believe in the latter.  Conservatives believe in empowering the individual to be the best they can possibly be while liberals believe in keeping the chains on the individual and classifying them on groups so they receive preferential treatment.

    Morning's Minion says "The richest one percent gets about 20 percent of the income and pays about 20 percent of the taxes."  But this isn't true. The National Taxpayers Union has broken down how much each person or family pays toward federal taxes according to their gross income and they show that the top 1% pays 38% of the total federal tax income and the top 10% pays 70% of the total tax burden.

    Here are some examples of those 53%ers who believe in hard work, personal responsibility, and financial responsibility instead of the Occupy Wall Street protesters who believe that they are entitled to whatever simply because they want it.  The class warfare and war against the innovators, inventors and producers needs to stop.

    H/T The Blaze for pics 

    Cross-posted @ Catholibertarian 

    Source URL: http://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/10/
    Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

Back from hospital and will be taking it easy

    I had surgery on Monday and then on Thursday I started to have bleeding problems so I was admitted into the hospital on Thursday evening.  All the doctors, nurses and staff were so nice and treated me very well.  Thank goodness they didn't find anything that was seriously medically wrong with me so they let me go home yesterday evening.  Now I know that my endometriosis was only part of the problem and that gastro intestinal issues is the other part of the problem too.  At least I only have about a quarter the amount of pain that I did before my surgery.  If I didn't have surgery I don't think that my other medical issue would have flared up as it did and it may have gone undetected for who knows how long so I really do think that how this all happened is a blessing in disguise. I definitely think that this was a God thing.  I am going to be relaxing and taking it easy for at least today.

    Here are a few songs. Enjoy!

    Have a wonderful and blessed weekend my friends.Source URL: http://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/10/
    Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

An Example of Civil Discourse by the Left: A Marxist Spews Racist, Hateful Remarks & Assaults Tea Party Member

Constitutional Rights: Occupy Protesters vs. the Media

Lions, Tigers, and Bears Oh My!

    The Owner of a wild animal reserve was found shot to death and several wild animals escaped and are/were on the loose in Zanesville, OH.  About 31 of them have been accounted for and put down, sadly and the authorities aren't sure how many more are on the loose.  Jack Hanna has been brought into help with the rescue efforts.  But as Jack Hanna points out human safety is the top priority.  The residents of Zanesville have been urged to stay inside their houses and schools have been closed.

    I hope they catch all the animals soon and all the people stay safe.Source URL: http://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/10/
    Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

Breathtaking Photos of Europe

    Breathtaking Photos of Europe
    Anyone who lives in Europe, has ever been there, or even dreamed of visiting knows the incredible variety, striking characteristics and history driven culture that exists on this continent. We bring you collection of 44 best photos from all over the Europe.



    Czech Republic














    Source URL: http://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/10/
    Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

Blog Archive