Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Discussions’ Category

I have moved

Dear Readers,

How are you? I am doing so-so. Moving is not all it’s cracked-up to be, or is it? I feel as if I’m cracked! lol.

I wanted to let you know that I have moved. I decided it was time that I brought all of my sites together so that people could get a better feel or idea of who and what I believe and why.

The new URL is Rosemary’s Thoughts. I bought my own site, but I am now using WordPress from a seperate server. (Is that how it is said?)

Please come and join me. I need your input to help me stay the course and have fellowship. Thank you so much for all the encouragement you have given me in the past. God bless your families and you.

Update: It did not work out, so I can still be found at Rosemary’s Thoughts (blogger). I hope to see ya over there. God bless you.

Read Full Post »

Cross-posted at Rosemary’s Thoughts.

I have been banning all Iranian products into my house since 1979. Here is a group now that is asking you to do the same. Actually, they are asking for a little more.

Ask President Bush, today, to impose strict economic sanctions against Iran’s import of refined petroleum products. Iran, one of the world’s largest producers of crude oil, lacks the facilities to produce a refined product. As a result, Iran is one of the largest importers of gasoline – nearly half of all gasoline used by Iranians. Now, the Iranians are feeling the pinch of raised prices and gasoline rationing imposed by the government.

A bipartisan group in the U.S. House is seeking economic sanctions against Iran in an attempt to reduce the amount of gasoline imported by Tehran.

The legislation calls for companies that provide Iran with gasoline or assists with the import of gasoline would not be allowed to sell gasoline to U.S. customers. Iran imports most of its gasoline from Persian Gulf states and India.

According to Rep. Mark S. Kirk, R-IL: “This is becoming the critical weakness of the Iranian government, meaning its dependence on gasoline. Riots [in Iran] show the gasoline shortage is a growing danger to the Iranian regime and a diplomatic opportunity for Western countries to force Iran to adhere to international nuclear rules.”

The legislation would provide President Bush with several options, as well as several penalties. Included among these are: denial of loans and credits from the Export-Import bank and loans or licenses for exports to the U.S. [Um…I thought we already had this?] The House Foreign Affairs Committee has already approved “legislation designed to strike at investments in Iran.” State Department spokesman Tom Casey said, “We need to do everything that we can to continue to raise the stakes in Iran in terms of its nuclear program.”

Another supporter of the bill, Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., said, “Our goal must be zero foreign investment.” To reach that end, the U.S. is also working with European allies to try to increase penalties against Tehran. Of course, the countries that do a lucrative business with Iran don’t want to do anything to upset the powers that be.

Vote Your Opinion NOW!

Just as we have defeated big business here in America (NO illegal aliens!), we must bring to the light our European ‘friends’. We must explain to them, in a calm way, that there are higher ideals in this life than how much money you can grab. This is one of them.

Unless you want all of your women living under the Caliphate, which means clothed from head to toe with no skin showing, you must be with us on this. There truly is a war against us. It is to elimate everyone who does not believe as they do, Sharia Law, their idea of what a Muslim should be, and many more horrific things.

If you want to understand more, you may be interested in this book:

The Final Move Beyond Iraq.

Thank you.

Read Full Post »

Cross-posted at Rosemary’s Thoughts.

I just got through with a conference with Miri Eisin, Foreign Press Spokeswoman for Israeli PM Ehud Olmert’ office, and I have more question than answers, I’m sorry to say. I could not hear the questions being asked of her after her initial press conference, so it may just be a misunderstanding.

There was a meeting yesterday with President Mubarak, PM Abbas, King (or President) Abdullah from Jordan and PM Olmert in the efforts of taking an opportunity out of this madness (the civil war in the Gaza Strip) and turning it into a chance to move forward with the 2 state solution. She kept repeating that PM Olmert, she and the others were not going to allow the terrorists to define them, but that the moderates were going to take control and define themselves and their destiny.

They were going to move forward-cautiously of course-with diplomacy. It is going to be a process with a vision of peace at the end of the rainbow. What happened in Gaza was horrific, but this opens the door to opportunity and they are going to walk through it.

There are three main articles that came up. They are:

1. Abbas fired Hamas’ elected officials from the government, and now Abbas is working with an emergency government.2. There will be 250 Arab prisoners, some will be Fatah, released from Israels prisons. The criteria for their release will be that they must not have blood on their hands and they must admit that Israel is NOT the cause of the suffering for the Arabs in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. They had brought it on by themselves by their own actions, their own choices, their own doing (or lack thereof).

3. Abbas has said to the Arabic world, in Arabic (very important because they sometimes say one thing in English and another in Arabic) that he renounced the violence of Hamas, he believed in a 2 state solution living side by side with Israel in peace, and he recognizes Israel. (I’m not sure of the last one. I can hardly read my notes!)

She also talked about the atmosphere produced so the talks could move forward. She stated that it would be a good idea to widen the scope of the dialogue. They are going to meet again next month, since the new emergency government is only around 10 days old.

Then the questions started. I could not hear the questions, but I could hear the answers. Maybe that is where the confusion comes. The first answer was indeed unique. For the first time, there were no, “Yes, BUT’s” in their conversation.

Then she said they would give access to the West Bank! This way they could have freedom of movement. (Do you know who else could have freedom of movement, dear?) They also recognize the emergency government as the ruling government. (How long have we been called occupiers, although the government is in Iraq is elected?) However, access and free movement are very important to human beings. (I just pray it is not a mistake.)

There shall never be a compromise with terrorists such as Hamas and others. As to the money that has been held back due to the Hamas government, that shall be released just as soon as they can both agree on a way that is best for the people’s humanitarian needs. There are dozens of truckloads per day being delivered everyday, but the Left press will not write about this. (It bothers me that facts are not disclosed, no matter what the situation.) Also, they both want to make sure the money goes to the moderates and not to the terrorists.

Later in the questioning period, they declared there would not be any benchmarks, ultimatums, or the such. This is what people looking in from the outside do not understand. You cannot do such a thing, especially with a government that is only 10 days old!

At the meeting yesterday, Mubarrak said that what Hamas did was create ‘a coup’. Abbas agreed, basically, because he said the same thing at a later date. Abbas also declared it was totally unacceptable. However, it is too soon to expect any elections in the West Bank.

There were questions about trust (many questions). The answer was rather usual. Trust must be built, even if it is with your enemies of old. What alternative is there? (Fight back?)

Iran was mentioned, Syria was mentioned, Russia was mentioned, and I have no answers for you. My fault. I was writing as fast as I could! I did happen to catch one comment. Israel has an economy that surpasses that of the EU! I wish I knew those numbers. Now that’s something new I could really sink my teeth into.

Let us pray for Israel and her neighbors countrymen and women. (Notice I did not say governments?) Pray for peace, understanding, forgiveness and readiness.Let us also pray that Israel realizes that the more the give, the more the Arabs will consider this weakness. I know most of the Israelis have hearts of peace, and they want the war to stop. Sometimes you have to have take other paths, sometimes you don’t. Let us pray this is one of those times you don’t, but if it is? Let us pray they have the chutzpah! (Yes, I am an Israel supporter. You can’t even sue me! Hahaha.)

H/t: Israel Project.

Read Full Post »

foxnews rescheduled (subject to last minute changes) the airing of “Muslims against Jihad” to tonight- 9pm EST/6pm pst. [note – please read full press release below from abg films, inc. discussing the details of the release of this film — the second of two 52 min. documentaries by abg films originally made for the pbs crossroads series]

C.P.B. CLEARS WAY FOR PUBLIC TO VIEW FILM
P.B.S. DOESN’T WANT THEM TO SEE

Fox News Channel to Air Special on Sunday, 24 June 2007

(always subject to emergency programming changes)

 

ABG Films is pleased to announce that it has reached an agreement with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) that will bring to an end the suppression of “Islam vs. Islamists: Voicesfrom the Muslim Center” by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

 

In mid-August, the five stations of Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) will air the film, together with a panel discussion featuring, among others, one of the anti-Islamist Muslim moderates featured in “Islam vs. Islamists,” Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.  OPB will also make the film and the panel discussion available to other public broadcasting affiliates.  While it remains to be seen which, if any, of these affiliates will broadcast “Islam vs. Islamists,” ABG Films is gratified by the affirmation OPB’s distribution represents of the filmmakers’ unwavering position:  This documentary fully meets the technical and other standards required for broadcast on the public airwaves. 

 

            The agreement between CPB and ABG Films also cleared the way for the second of the two 52-minute-long programs produced as part of the latter’s submission to the “ America at a Crossroads” series – now entitled “Muslims Against Jihad” – to be broadcast elsewhere.  The Fox News Channel will be airing this documentary nationally, together with interviews with its Director-Producer, Martyn Burke, and Co-Executive Producer Frank Gaffney, during prime time from 9:00-10:30 p.m. (Eastern Time) on Sunday, 24 June 2007.

 

      Speaking on behalf of his fellow partners in ABG Films and Co-Executive Producers, Alex Alex iev and Mr. Burke, Mr. Gaffney said:

 

            “We are extremely gratified that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting – whose vision for and support of the ‘America at a Crossroads’ series enabled the making of ‘Islam vs. Islamists’ and ‘Muslims Against Jihad’ – has now made it possible for both films to be seen by the American people.  It is deeply regrettable that PBS and its Washington station, WETA, precluded the former from airing as CPB had intended during the April roll-out of the ‘Crossroads’ series and refused even to view, let alone air, the latter. 

 

“We are confident, however, that in the weeks ahead – as millions of Americans are afforded an opportunity to judge both of these films for themselves – it will become clear how groundless are the charges PBS and WETA leveled against “Islam vs. Islamists” and the team that produced it and its companion documentary.  Indeed, those unfounded and, in some cases, defamatory charges will be seen for what they always were:  Scurrilous efforts by some of those entrusted with control of the public airwaves to suppress the voices of courageous, anti-Islamist Muslims at the very moment they need most to be encouraged and amplified.”

 

ABG Films expresses its appreciation to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting  for bringing such suppression to an end.  It is deeply grateful to the Fox News Channel and others around the country who will help rectify that travesty by affording outlets nationwide to these Muslims and their support for religious tolerance and democratic, secular governments – and their stalwart opposition to the Islamists and their jihad.

 

            For more information about the “Islam vs. Islamists” and “Muslims Against Jihad” story, please visit www.FreetheFilm.net.  To request interviews with the filmmakers and the anti-Islamists featured in their documentaries, contact Keith Appell or Karen Northon at 703-683-5004.

Read Full Post »

I received this email a few days ago, and I want to share it with you. Mr. Jasser was involved with the infamous documentary, “Islam vs. Islamists.” Have a nice day.

Exclusive:  CAIR’s Islamism Revealed
M. Zuhdi Jasser.
Author: M. Zuhdi Jasser
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: June 15, 2007

CAIR’s Islamism Revealed

By M. Zuhdi Jasser

The Washington Times printed a report by Audrey Hudson this week, “CAIR Membership falls 90% since 9/11”, discussing CAIR’s (Council on American Islamic Relations) membership numbers as disclosed on CAIR’s own 990Tax returns. Within hours, CAIR described the report as a ‘hit-piece’ in a hate-filled rant of a press release and action alert. A review of the Times piece reveals simple reporting of data from CAIR tax forms on their dwindling membership numbers, donor numbers, and yet increasing funds.

 

The piece quotes Parvez Ahmed, CAIR Chairman, on the countervailing increase in the number of CAIR chapters around the country during the same period post 9/11. It also cites the recent Department of Justice (DOJ) listing of CAIR as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) HAMAS fundraising case. The DOJ refers therein to CAIR’s leadership and origins as, “members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organization.”  For all CAIR’s objections, there was no refutation of any of this.

 

With the elaboration of these facts and more, CAIR still ran wild describing the Times reporter as “having a vendetta against our organization and the American Muslim community since she was barred from a recent CAIR news conference because of her sloppy and agenda-driven reporting.” With a report revealing that its national membership figures reported to the IRS are less than 1700 members in 2006, they still have the audacity to say that criticism of CAIR is equivalent to criticism of over 3 million Muslims in the “American Muslim community”.

 

This is, clear and simple, the modus operands of “political Islam” and its Islamist operatives. This is also more than likely one of the reasons for their dwindling membership numbers. While they may occasionally be doing good work for the civil rights of certain Muslims in America on selected cases, their Islamist political agenda and their persistence in the claim that criticism of CAIR is akin to criticism of all American Muslims is dishonest, deceptive, and a hijacking of our faith community.

 

Rather than respond with a semblance of a valid intellectual discourse or refutation of the ideas and facts contained in the June 12 report, CAIR preferred to respond with further empty screeds of hyperbole, victimization, and false claims of religious intolerance and hate-mongering. They claim to be working toward eliminating hate. Yet, they have a wild imagination of hate and rush to claim victimization as they deflect any substantive debate. This actually makes a compelling case for the fact that their attention to perceived incidents of intolerance for Islam and Muslims is a means to an ends of the empowerment of political Islam. In fact Nihad Awad told a gathering of Muslims just that in April in a discussion on their ‘flying imam’ lawsuit in Virginia at ADAMS (All Dulles Area Muslim Society).

Reporting to an organization like CAIR is important, because it is empowering. It is empowering to the Muslims themselves who report, it is empowering to the organization, and it is important to the status of Muslims within the United States. Also it is a powerful tool and message to the government and the legislators, to those who make the laws in the country, to know that this phenomenon has to be dealt with, it has to be dealt with effectively, and results have to be seen...

CAIR scavenges for claims of civil rights abuses not necessarily just to try and humbly build bridges to the greater American community. Is their agenda, in fact, more about empowering Islamists and intimidating non-Islamists?

The rule of law and the protections of our Constitution are certainly the cornerstone of the protection of our rights of religious freedom in America. But there is a fine line between the legitimate representation of individual Muslims whose rights of religious freedom have been infringed and the blatant manipulation of a system for the advancement of a variant political ideology at the expense of some victims.

True to form in the usual Islamist fallback to public criticism, CAIR claimed that the Washington Times was ‘anti-Muslim’ and ‘anti-Islam’. They use the protection of religion when the facts are not on their side. They use the discourse of politics when they want to push forth their Islamist agenda with the presumption of speaking for all Muslims. They will delve into the political only on their own terms in both foreign and domestic policy but when they are on the receiving end of political criticism they run for cover under the guise of victimization.

 

Why all of the venom directed at the Washington Times or at their reporter, Audrey Hudson– one of the few national reporters willing to peel the Islamist onion and look deeper into Islamist organizations like CAIR and their ideologies? There is absolutely nothing in the Times report anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim. It is simply critical of CAIR. To say that CAIR is synonymous with Islam or Muslims is Islamism and gives all Muslim non-members of CAIR (the vast majority of American Muslims) short shrift.

 

It is long overdue for America and especially for Muslims to discuss why such political discourse and reporting could ever be described by an organization like CAIR as being anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic. In fact, a more cogent argument could be made that such reports are pro-Muslim and pro-Islam since they ultimately rescue most Muslims from the grip of Islamists and Wahhabists. Such discussion of realities and ideologies will go a long way toward preserving a positive image of Islam and the inclusiveness of all Muslims under a purely spiritual Islam devoid of a political agenda.

Nothing is more clarifying than, CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper’s own quotation in their Action Alert.

 

“It is CAIR’s principled and effective defense of the American Muslim community and our criticism of failed foreign and domestic policies that have made us the target of these scurrilous attacks. We will not be intimidated or silenced by hate-mongers.”

 

Herein, CAIR claims to be defenders of the entire Muslim community. Where did I sign up for that? Herein, CAIR admits to its primary active critique of American domestic and foreign policy on behalf of the entire American Muslim community. Thus, CAIR and so many of the other American Islamist organizations are about much more than simply “defending the civil rights of Muslims”. If only they stuck to civil rights, less Muslims would have problems with them. They are about the penetration of political Islam into our foreign and domestic policy under the guise of civil rights. In fact, their constant refrain about intimidation and hate-mongering is in fact a cultivation of their own industry. The lawsuit they are sponsoring on behalf of the ‘flying imams’ in Shqeirat v. U.S. Airways, et al, is much more about intimidation than about bridge-building or religious freedom as AIFD has noted.

 

The next step in this assessment of constituency is to understand their ideology. So much of the substantive criticism of CAIR arises from their unwillingness to be specific in condemnations of radical Muslims, radical organizations, and despotic regimes. Perhaps their dwindling numbers are in fact an ideological problem which does not speak to the majority of American Muslims. Honest debate will have to include a discussion of CAIR’s and other American Islamist organization responses to the following questions which I have been querying for a long time.

 

1-Will CAIR work to dismantle and lead an organized effort against terrorist organizations and individuals by name beginning with Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Jamaat al-Islamiya, and HAMAS to name just a few of the radical Islamist enemies of America? Will they name and ideologically engage the extremism of the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia, the theocrats of Iran or the despots of Syria, Egypt or Sudan, and the litany of other dictatorships in the Muslim world? Empty generic condemnations of terrorism are of no impact.

2-Will CAIR acknowledge that political Islam (Islamism) whether militant or not, is the toxin which feeds the terrorism committed by radicalized Muslims?

3-Will CAIR acknowledge the need out of honesty for a faith-based civil rights organization to equally focus upon the civil rights abuses of Muslims by other Muslims as well as by non-Muslims whether it occurs in mosques, Muslim organizations, or so-called Muslim nations? A dismissal of Muslim abuses is hypocrisy.

4-Will CAIR acknowledge that counter-terrorism is a greater public responsibility to the organized American Muslim community than the obsession with the protection of our civil rights? Is it not the primary role of Muslim American organizations to lead the ideological war against radical Islamists? Isn’t this the number one issue on the mind of most Americans in 2007? Non-Muslims can do nothing to deconstruct this poisonous ideology. Our fellow Americans living in fear for their security are looking for us to lead this fight. The credibility of Muslims is suffering deeply as a result of the complete denial of this responsibility by groups like CAIR. In fact, there may be no better way to preserve our rights than by leading an ideological movement against political Islam and militant Islamism.

5-Will CAIR join anti-Islamist Muslims in declaring that the “Islamic state” regardless of its democratic processes is in principle significantly inferior to a “pluralistic Constitutional democracy under God” like the United States? Will CAIR declare the concept of a global Caliphate as archaic and no longer relevant to Muslims in the 21st century? Is the concept of the Muslim “ummah” or “nation” archaic?

6-Will CAIR join what was described in the Pew poll as the 49% of Muslims who felt that the mosque was not the place for the discussion of politics? Will they then help AIFD expose political sermons and their agenda around the United States? Will they moreover call upon our fellow co-religionists to fully and unequivocally separate the spiritual from the political? If they will not, will they recognize that they only represent Islamists and those who believe in political Islam—the remaining 51% according to Pew?

7-How can they honestly claim to speak for anyone beyond their membership and donors?

The Washington Times piece about CAIR was not a hit-piece nor was it anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic. It begins the long overdue debate about the agenda of organizations like CAIR and where they stand with regard to political Islam and these questions. Soon, mainstream media and government leaders are going to need finally to begin to ignore the intimidation tactics of organizations like CAIR and to engage political Islam on the questions above.

They need to do so without fear of violating political correctness or offending pious Muslims. Spiritual Islam and non-Islamist Muslims in fact still are often at the mercy of Islamists, not just in America but across the globe. This is often not only due to the passivity of the majority of non-activist Muslims but to the propping up by government and the MSM of Islamists. We saw this in the recent refusal of PBS to air ABG Films, Inc. documentary, Islam v Islamists. Many anti-Islamist Muslims yearn for the day when the personal domain of the faith of Islam is not poisoned by any national domestic and foreign policy agendas of Islamist organizations like CAIR. American political discourse by activist Muslims should be all about our common national interests and universal humanitarian principles and not about being Muslim, Islamic, or being victims. The Muslims who cannot make this distinction may as well form overt Islamic political parties and make it more obvious as to their intentions and platforms when it comes to American domestic and foreign policy.

# #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and Chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix Arizona. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, a physician in private practice, and a community activist.

He can be reached at Zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org.
Read full author bio here.

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved.

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to pr@familysecuritymatters.org.

Read Full Post »

I have sinned against You, Lord. I have not read my Bible, I do not go to Church, I lay down to sleep rarely ever remembering to pray and give thanks for another day of life, and I have allowed the flame in my heart almost go out.

Oh my Lord, I repent of these sins. Please Lord, take me by the hand and lead me back to You. I heard myself thinking about how ‘I will’ fix this, and I heard and knew that I was the one who ‘willed’ me into this shameful place. I do not believe I can do this by my will. I need You, oh Lord. Please hear my plea.

I have become so busy there is no room or time for You. I always believed You would never leave me. If I were to read in Revelations about the Church of Ephasus, You told them to remember their first love. This is in the beginning of the second chapter. I know this because it is a chapter I keep having to come to everytime. Why?!?

What is wrong with me, Lord? I know that I am human, but why is it always the same sin? It is as if I do not love You, but I do. I want to. What is wrong with me?

Whatever the problem may be, I turn my life over to You once more. I should do this everyday, but I have been forgetting to do this too.

Remember one of my favorite songs, Lord? Did you think to pray! I will write it so I can see it everytime I look here.

Refrain:Oh, how praying rests the weary! Prayer will change the night to day; So, when life seems dark and dreary, Don’t forget to pray.

1. Ere you left your room this morning, Did you think to pray? In the name of Christ, our Saviour, Did you sue for loving favor, as a shield today?

2. When you met with great temptation, Did you think to pray? By His dying love and merit Did you claim the Holy Spirit As your Guide and Stay?

3. When your heart was filled with anger, Did you think to pray? Did you plead for grace, my brother, That you might forgive another Who had crossed your way?

4. When soar trials came upon you, Did you think to pray? When your soul was bowed in sorrow, Balm of Gilead did you borrow At the gates today?

I feel better already. I am very sorry, Lord. I don’t write here everyday as I should. I feel so all alone. I have no one to pray with, I can’t get out of this apartment, and I have asked for Bible study partners. People have their own lives to live, and I don’t hold that against them. I guess it will be You and me for a while, eh? I just don’t want to get it wrong. That is what scares me the most.

When I left that cult, it threw me for a bigger loop than I realized. I want to know what was originally said, not what man says it said. I never want to be brainwashed again. Yes, that is my fear. I don’t even trust myself…Have a nice day.

In Jesus’ precious name I pray, Amen.

Read Full Post »

Below is an email I received from Greg Koukl. He is a very wise and gentle man who shares his spirit-filled messages with us on the radio every Sunday from 3-5 pm on channel KBRT 740. I would like to share his message with you. I hope you enjoy it. God bless you.

Rosemary

Dear Rosemary,

I like arguments.

Arguments-points of view buttressed with reasons-on the other hand, are one of the principal means we use to separate fact from fiction.  Jesus used them.  Paul used them.  Peter used them.  We should use them, too.

Rational reasons can be a barrier to belief.  The Christian message simply doesn’t make sense to everyone, or it raises questions or counter-examples that make it difficult to even countenance Christianity until those issues are addressed.

But often rational appeals fail to persuade for other reasons.  If your thoughtful response fails to have an impact, is not acknowledged or, worse, doesn’t even seem to have been noticed, maybe one of these reasons is lurking in the shadows:

1. An emotional reason to resist
2. A prejudice to reject
3. Too stubborn to concede.

As you can see, we have very limited control over how other people respond to us.  That’s largely in God’s hands. We can remove some of the negatives or dispel some of the fog-and we ought to try to do both.  But at the end of the day, a person’s deep-seated rebellion against God is a problem only a supernatural solution can fix.

That’s why at STR we always emphasize faithfulness and obedience first, and results second.  We need to be ready with an answer, and a good argument to help remove the intellectual barriers.  But arguments always need to be presented in conjunction with trust and dependence on the Holy Spirit to work in the person’s heart.

Trusting in Him,

Greg Signature

Greg Koukl

A related resource to go deeper...

Listen to a related broadcast...

Adapted from Greg’s June Mentoring Letter.

Log in to read the entire letter here....

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »