Thursday, April 2, 2009

Obama and the Fighting Irish

I recently received an e-mail asking me for my help in “taking Notre Dame back for Our Lady from the Forces of Darkness.” The writer was “scandalized by the disobedience by Fr. Jenkins, in the dishonoring of the sanctity of life on Commencement Day, with an honorary Doctor of Laws, of all things, to this pro-abortion leader.” She was referring of course to Notre Dame’s decision to invite President Obama to deliver the commencement address at the University this year.

I had been thinking about blogging the Obama controversy, but hadn't done so yet because I hadn't fully fleshed out my opinion on the matter. The e-mail gave me an excuse to focus on the issue, and this post is actually an expanded version of my thoughts as I expressed them to my passionate e-mailer.

While I strongly disagree with Obama's pro-abortion policies, along with just about every other policy he has, I'm not really able to translate that into being upset that Notre Dame has invited him to speak. The University has something of a tradition of inviting Presidents of both parties to speak at commencement. For example, I was very proud that Ronald Reagan chose to speak at Notre Dame. I'm sure if I looked for it I could find some area of disagreement between Church teaching and Reagan's policies.

I think my biggest reservation about condemning the invitation comes from the way conservatives are treated at liberal colleges and universities. I don't know how many articles I have read decrying the way Justice Scalia, or Justice Thomas, or other conservative thinkers are treated by academia. They get dis-invited, they get boycotted, they get protested, they get shouted down, and in the end they are often denied the opportunity to freely present their views and opinions. I have always found such behavior on the left to be deplorable. To me there would be a significant level of hypocrisy involved if Notre Dame and movement conservatives were to decide that liberal opinions and ideas would not be permitted to be heard at Our Lady's University. Not because the left doesn't deserve to be treated that way. But because if we go down that road we would be no better than those we criticize for being closed minded. We will have become that which we despise.

Maybe I am naive, but it is my hope that Notre Dame can be classier than those other schools by being a shining example of what real free speech, real diversity, and real honest debate and disagreement look like. I understand the passion of my e-mail correspondent and pro-lifers everywhere, and I agree with their views about abortion. So let President Obama come to Notre Dame and face those who disagree strongly with him. This President rarely faces a crowd that isn't hand-picked and filled with fawning supporters and his enablers in the press. I would be very proud of the Notre Dame student body if, as the President steps to the podium, the graduating class rises as one holding aloft large signs expressing their views of the President's pro-death policies. 2,000 students holding "Choose Life" signs under the President's nose as he speaks would be more powerful than dis-inviting him so that he could go speak instead to some adoring crowd at a lesser institution.

It also is not lost on me that, according to the The Observer, the graduating seniors are by a large majority very excited that the President of the United States will be speaking at their graduation. I'm not sure that all the "adults" who are so upset should be dictating to the Notre Dame Class of 2009 who their invited commencement speaker should be. At my graduation from Notre Dame in 1986 we had a Catholic Cardinal speak (I don't remember his name). No doubt his theology was right. But the speech itself was a boring and disappointing end to my four years at Notre Dame.

And finally, I think Notre Dame is being singled out here for some very selective outrage. The University has invited a non-Catholic President with non-Catholic views to visit the University and give a speech, and this is scandalous? Where is all the Catholic outrage over all the so-called Catholics in the Congress, in the state legislatures, and in the Governors' mansions across America who act daily as accomplices of the abortion industry? Where are the bishops’ condemnations of pro-choice “Catholics” Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Biden, John Kerry, Christopher Dodd, and Rudy Giuliani? These people call themselves Catholics, yet they have enthusiastically supported the public financing and easy availability of abortions across America for years. The Catholic Church is in a position to take substantive action to promote the sanctity life. They could deny “pro-choice” politicians the right to receive Holy Communion at mass or even ex-communicate them. But they don’t. When Pope Benedict visited the United States last year, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Christopher Dodd, Edward Kennedy, and Rudy Giuliani all very publicly received the sacrament of Holy Communion at Papal masses. The Pope even received Nancy Pelosi at the Vatican in February, giving her a much grander platform than a speech at Notre Dame could. Every election cycle bishops and other Church leaders have the opportunity speak out against pro-choice “Catholics” on the ballot and encourage the faithful to cast their votes for pro-life candidates. Yet they don’t. They remain silent or even support the pro-death Democrat candidates, usually because it is the Democrats that are more closely aligned with the Church’s views of “social justice.” Rather than taking a meaningful, concrete stance that would have a material impact in protecting the unborn they remain silent, eschewing substantive action that would save lives in favor of symbolic outrage against Notre Dame that accomplishes nothing.

So bring President Obama to Notre Dame. Let him face a fired-up crowd of educated, articulate, politically active young Americans who passionately disagree with him and his policies. Let him feel the heat. Engage him and challenge him. That is how you bring about change.


Anonymous said...

TBoneND said:
I am not Catholic but much of my Irish family is. That said I am very much prolife and was really diappointed tha ND invited the President.
However I do believe that if those in the 'Class of 2009' would would raise those signs if that is trully what they believe. This would be a very good way to practice freedom of speech while allowing the president his.
I too am quite dismayed how members of my own family who happen to be Catholic can support someone in politics with such a belief system. I ask them and they change the subject.

Jack said...

I went to a catholic school 2 years older than ND. Being a catholic I had to attend a class on religon..There was one that would ask our elite circle/click that we called "Pimpy J@$%s " , I guess because he would always ask::::...." Do you /believe there is a God?"? Basically that was the extent of his personality,... It would be like I would be asking everyone if they believed in E=MC2.. which is what Max Plank derived in regards to light. Yeah, that energy is light. You can feel it pushing a big black disk !!! I have..Jack

Paul said...

In all fairness to some of the people (both laymen and members of the hierarchy), there's been considerable anger over Sebelius, Pelosi, and Biden. Archbishop Burke (former archbishop of St. Louis, now more or less the "chief justice" of the Vatican supreme court) indicated in a widely publicized interview that they all ought to be denied Communion under canon law. Sebelius's bishop recently made a similar statement.

I will certainly grant you that a great deal of the fuss has been generated by blowhards who have no connection to the university and think we're apostates already for . . . I dunno, having a football team. That is just a bit annoying.

Double Domer said...

ND -- No Distinction

It has been about 40 years since the University of Notre Dame du Lac reorganized to achieve essentially complete independence from governance by the Church. That autonomy leaves the University quite free to do as it thinks best, even to the extent of disregarding the Church’s moral or religious doctrine if the University so chooses. It has now so chosen.

In the matter of the University’s decision to award honors to Mr. Obama, the facts are straightforward.

1. The Church teaches the sanctity of human life, from conception, as a moral absolute fundamental to Church doctrine. There are people who disagree with the teaching itself or with the teaching as it applies to abortion, taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research, and so forth; but there is no one who does not understand what the teaching is.

2. Mr. Obama has publicly and consistently acted, and has clearly announced his intention to act, in a manner irreconcilable with the Church’s moral position.

3. In 2004 the US Conference of Catholic Bishops ("USCCB") articulated an application of the Church’s teaching. The USCCB stated: "Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

4. The University has stated its intention to do exactly what the USCCB said that Catholic institutions should not do, namely, to confer an award and honors upon Mr. Obama -- in this case by awarding a law degree, honoris causa.

Having announced that it will award honors to Mr. Obama, the University has effectively announced that it does not credit a fundamental and absolute moral position taught by the Church, at least as the same is applied in the USCCB statement. By rejecting the Church on the matter of awards and honors by Catholic institutions, the University has, simply, announced that it is not, and does not consider itself to be, a Catholic institution. A person may applaud or deplore that, depending on his politics or his moral compass or his wishes for the future course of the University; but he cannot deny it with any intellectual honesty.

By acting in derogation of the moral position that that the Church teaches to be both absolute and fundamental, the University has forfeited any claim that it can call itself, or that it can be called, a Catholic university. Call it what you like – call it a fountain of progressive learning with a rich religious tradition, call it a champion of academic freedom with the courage to engage all ideas, or call it the South Bend Mickey Mouse Club if you prefer sarcasm -- but do not call it Catholic.

Much sophistry has been generated purporting to justify the University's action as not comprehended by the USCCB statement -- such as the conceit that the University intends to honor Mr. Obama for his "leadership" and not for his acts contrary to the Church's moral position. But those arguments are contrived, if not entirely dishonest. Notre Dame might as well try to justify an honorary degree for Dr. Tiller on the ground that the honor pertains to the doctor’s medical skill and not to his medical practice. Similarly unavailing is the excuse that the University seeks "engagement" or "dialog" with Mr. Obama on the substantive moral issue, or seeks to exercise some broad notion of academic freedom. The University could invite Mr. Obama, or anyone else, to address, discuss, or debate that or any other issue, on campus or off, all without disrespect to the Church’s teaching.

Worse, the entire matter has been clouded by a fog of dueling political talking points and has been much characterized by personal invective aimed at both the supporters and the critics of the University’s decision. Nothing could be less relevant than much of what has been written in the current debate, which has included such matters as the defense policies of George W. Bush, the inspirational qualities of Mr. Obama’s oratory, the color of Mr. Obama’s skin, the denomination of Mr. Obama’s religion, the nature of the Inquisition, the sponsorship of the Crusades, and the “rights” of a putative majority of current Notre Dame students to have a commencement speaker and honoree with whom they share political ideology. To the extent that the debaters invoking such matters have included Notre Dame students and recent alumni, it would be fair to say that the University has fallen far short of the mark not only in teaching Catholic doctrine, but also in teaching much of anything.

Whether the Church is right, or Mr. Obama is right, on the moral question is a matter whose importance cannot be overstated. But it is not the only question. In choosing to award honors to Mr. Obama, the University raises the quite different question addressed here, namely, whether it can award such honors while professing to be a Catholic institution faithful to, believing, and teaching the Church’s fundamental and absolute moral principles regarding the sanctity of human life. It should be crystal clear to anyone, as it was to the bishops adopting the USCCB statement, that the University cannot do that. It is thus inescapable that in choosing to award honors to Mr. Obama the University has chosen to doff its Catholic mantle.

By abandoning its claim to be a Catholic institution, the University has abandoned its principal distinguishing characteristic – some would say, its soul. Time will tell whether there is much market for another mid-sized, secular, private school more or less like all the rest -- particularly at Notre Dame prices. But given the weather in Northern Indiana, that market, if it exists, may not be large or lasting.

Double Domer said...

Apologies. For clarity, I should have made the distinction made by Paul Kengor here:

In the context of the Notre Dame scandal, however, we're not talking about any matters that would fall into the prudential category. Instead we're talking about abortion and the like, which fall into the absolute category.

Jack said...

My uncle Pat Murphy went to ND and received a Law Degree...He mentioned attending a class in religion...He said, " Back then ND wasn't like it is now...~ (he said this 40+ years ago) ~
Back then ? ~ you had to make the sign of the cross,,, right ''' to pass (i.e. the class in religion). Aye, as to the " Obama ? ", I agree 100% with TBoneND, the one who made the first comment.

with TBoneND

Bobby said...

As we speak, I am drafting a letter to Fr. Lawrence Biondi, S.J., president of Saint Louis University, to ask him what his opinion is on Obama speaking at Notre Dame. The Jesuits are, in general, a little more to the left as far as their ethics go, so I will keep the blog posted on his reaction to the Obamessiah coming to du Lac.

James said...

Good post. Only with dialogue can change occur. Well thought out position.

Anonymous said...

Belonging to a racist church or hobnobbing with terrorists such as William Ayers, are two sufficient reasons to deny an honorary degree as well.

Clearly none of our previous white Presidents would have been so honored.

As a Domer I have tried to live a life that would uphold the "good name" of my Alma Mater.

Honoring such an individual undermines my "good name" as a member of the Notre Dame family.

Like many, perhaps most, I have no objection to the President speaking at ND.

Honoring such a character ? Not in my name.

Anonymous said...

Where was the outrage when W was president. His actions led directly to the killing of American men and women, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who didn't deserve to die.
I am a pro-life Catholic, ND '76. I voted for Obama because he is bringing the change we need to this country and is a breath of fresh air after 8 years of a horrible President. Inviting him is not a black eye to the University. Having graduates protesting on the most important day of their lives to this point would be stupid!
Hank Gilday

Bobby said...

Hank said:
Where was the outrage when W was president. His actions led directly to the killing of American men and women, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who didn't deserve to die.
I am a pro-life Catholic, ND '76. I voted for Obama because he is bringing the change we need to this country and is a breath of fresh air after 8 years of a horrible President. Inviting him is not a black eye to the University. Having graduates protesting on the most important day of their lives to this point would be stupid!
Hank Gilday

Hank, no offense, but do some research. President Bush talked in May of 2001, months before September 11, and almost two full years before ground offensives commenced in Iraq. If you claim to be as "loyal" of a Domer as you are, you should have taken the time to research. You Obama kool-aid drinkers just rush to justify yourselves that you don't take time to calm down and listen to other people. The Bush-Gore-Supreme Court issue was still fresh in people's minds in 2001; that was the source of what you call "outrage."

"Change," Hank, can also be bad. We are witnessing how change is polarizing America. Obama is changing things for the worse. I hope you like giving all your hard-earned dollars away to some guy who just sat around all day and didn't do anything. Socialism has never worked. What makes you think it will work in America?

Bobby said...

Hank, by the way, I a Jesuit product (Saint Louis '05) and my Mother is a Domer ('77), and I in no way meant to offend you. I love the University of Notre Dame -- always have and always will -- but this is a major issue.

To bestow an honorary J.D. on a man who has authored legislation that has led to the deaths of millions of unborn children is a slap in the face. Obama is using this as a platform to absorb more Catholic vote and you know it. Catholics don't walk the talk anymore -- the use of birth control, being pro-Choice Catholics, euthanizing the elderly -- all major issues that we need to resolve in the Church.

These men and women in the Armed Forces weren't drafted to protect our country in the days and weeks after 9-11 -- on the contrary, Frank, these men and women volunteered to protect your right to vote for a man who kills unborn babies and who will attempt to bring a system of socialism into this great land. If it's change you want, sir, I hope and I pray that you follow it so blindly that it fundamentally destroys the fabric of every truth that you hold dear.

Anonymous said...

I hold a lot of things dear.
Do you really think that the day will come when abortion will be outlawed?
The President has never said he agrees with abortion.
The change the President stands for is good change. Help for people who need it, not millionaires. If you call yourself a Catholic you should be in favor of change that will help people. Anyone who votes for a person on one issue is stupid!
Hank Gilday

Bobby said...

Obama is a career politician. He will come to ND and say he loves life, he loves being a father. Then he will go to Rev. Wright's church on the south side of Chicago and preach listen to his black power theologian of a priest talk about how capitalism has failed in this country because of white people. Will it take a black President for blacks to get up, seek employment and work for a living? Or will they continue to use social programs as a crutch and blame government for keeping them down? When a beggar asks me for change, I tell them "it's already here, Obama person." What a joke. Obama isn't doing anything for the "least of his brothers." Every campaign "promise" he made has been broken. And we aren't even at 100 days yet.

It will be a Republican white wash in 2010 for the Midterm elections and we will recapture the White House in 2012, especially if it's Biden who is running the show by then.

Change can also be bad, Hank. Change can also be bad.

Bobby said...

Sorry to keep calling you Frank, Hank.

Anonymous said...

Dream on that you're going to win the WH in 2012!Which campaign promises has he broken?
He is hardly a career "politician". In case you forgot he was a Constitutional law professor and a community organizer. He has been in politics for about 10 years or less.
You sound like a racist and a person who could care less about his brother.
Hank Gilday

Bobby said...

Hank, be that as it may, there's no way Obama wins re-election in 2012. People will see the error of their ways and will vote for fiscally responsible politicians. People vote with their wallet and wallets will be thin in 2012.

Anonymous said...

So, what would you have done to turn around this mess? Don't tell me...let people fend for themselves?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Alumni need to hit ND in the pocketbook. That is my intention.

In addition to the whole Birth certificate controversy, why is there no public disclosure of Obama's

1] Occidental transcripts
2] Columbia Thesis
3] Columbia Transcripts
4] Harvard Law Transcripts
5] Illinois Bar application
6] Health records

I won't hold my breath

Anonymous said...

TBoneND replied:
There are some very thought provoking comments here.
It is interesting to read that Obama's approval poll results are lower than G.W. Bush at the same time after the election fiasco with Al Gore.
Unlike some I don't defend Bush at all costs (I'm a conservative first).
I didn't agree with the amnesty issue Bush wanted to bring into play, nor his foolish bailout last fall, and I certainly don't agree with Obama's plan on illegals either nor the irresponsible behavior underway with the assault on capitolism.
To say Obama isn't a career politian is almost laughable. How do you believe he became a law prof if not for politics. If anyone believes being a community organisor with ACCORN and a legal representative of ACCORN is not political then please educate me.
People need to go to the library and read "Rules For Radicals" by Sol Solinsky (don't buy it), if you care to understand where both Obama's are coming from.
The plan is to continue what 'FDR' started, incremental socialism. I believe Obama and Congress are acting rapidly because they realize they have only two years with the majority they enjoy to push through these radical issues.
America is great because one has an oppurtunity to try and succeed, and also has the oppurtunity to fail. The shameful thing is to not try at all.
With all that said please explain to me how a person can be charged with a double homicide by murdering a women and her unborn child if the child is not viable until he or she is born or in the last trimester?
If a woman wants to have an abortion, God gave her free will. She will have to answer for the decision. To use public money to promote a particular view point to me is unconstitutional.
While morally I find abortion barbaric and against the law of 'God' I can only answer for myself.
Class of 2009 stand up peacefully for the rights of the unborn as those who went before you stood up against discrimination many years ago.
You can make a difference excersizing your 'Freedom of Speech'.

Anonymous said...

I mispelled the author of the road map Obama is following.
It's Sal Alinsky.

I am sorry. If my ego lets me apologize, why can't Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?

Anonymous said...

Since ND is awarding a degree to an abortion advocate,why are students required to have parietals? Indeed they may face sanctions.
What moral authority does the University have in enforcing these rules?
Either the University has no moral authority...or morality has no application to those in power

Anonymous said...

You Repub Neo-Cons are basically all the same.Change is needed in these times. The status quo ain't workin' brothers and sisters! It might interest you to know that the President got more than half of the Catholic vote. Oh, I know what's coming next...not real Catholics! BS. I'm a real Catholic who goes to Church virtually every Sunday. I know a lot of others who voted for him too.
Hank Gilday

Anonymous said...

Yeah and Obama probably got 99 percent of the Muslim doubt they were real Muslims.

.... probably regular mosque goers.

Sir John said...

oC a very well written and thought out position. I'm a Roman Catholic and feel Obama is in his short period of term, outstanding. I am proud he is coming to Notre Dame and hope he is treated well.

Anonymous said...

Change is needed in these times, change from elected officals Democrat or Republican who have their interests and not the interests of our Constitutional Republic in mind.
Change from AIG contributing over $100,000.00 in 2008 to Chris Dodd and Obama and over $25,000,000.00 apiece to McCain and Obama campaigns.
Change from using my money to assist in murdering unborn babies.
Change in allowing people from other countries to ignore our imigration laws and use our social services at no cost to them.
Change penalizing people who work hard and make a good life for themselves and their family.
Change from judges who legislate from the bench completely by passing laws the electroate has voted to establish.
I would like change, that actually follows the constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Anonymous said...

Change you can believe in :Obama to Soetoro back to Obama.

Mary said...

Hi Domers, I am the local mom who wrote our host the first private email on this subject. I have been organizing response nationally ever since, because this "honor" of our nation's Abortionist in Chief is not about academic freedom, or Commencement Day manners, and it is not even just about America's most beloved, prestigious and popular (formerly) Catholic institution -- Notre Dame. With power and reputation as Notre Dame has long widely received from Catholic laity and Protestant admirers, comes national responsibility -- and Notre Dame has fatally punted.

As a few here and elsewhere have noted, the "honoring" of Obama is vulgar, raw political strategy and exploitation brought by Fr. Jenkins and Obama, to ND's everlasting disrepute. The pro-life response to the scandal is mandatory, and cannot be too emphatic from any source that may be marshaled.

John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, said:

"We are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the 'culture of death' and the 'culture of life.' We find ourselves not only 'faced with' but necessarily 'in the midst of' this conflict…"

If you are real Catholics, real Domers, face the truth. We are in a real war –- a life and death 'clash' –- with real victims: 50,000,000 dead babies. We cannot overstate the epic nature of this war, nor its horrific toll in blood. Abortion in America, and among Catholic families and American minorities, is not just one sin or shame among many. It is mortal sin on a national, epic scale that is destroying the integrity of our Faith, and undermining the principle of human equality upon which all justice and liberty rests.

What were you taught of justice at the University of Our Lady, Mother of God? Where are you in this war? I am finding too many of you nationwide are settling for tut-tuttery, or are in fact secular apologists for death, even though you have enjoyed the benefits of a fine Catholic education at the sentimental-favorite Catholic school, arguably, in all the free world -- the famous home of the "Fighting Irish"!!

But where is the "fight" for the most defenseless and least among us, the innocent unborn? And how can anyone from Our Lady's school assert for a moment that Obama's record promoting totally unrestricted and federally funded abortion on demand, now to override rights of conscience by providers (to coerce Catholic hospitals and doctors) is anything but ideologically and aggressively pro-abortion?

You have all kinds of Domer fighters in your history to call up for courage. I will remember the words of a scrappy fighter who was known to survive the criticisms of popular wisdom on occasion, President Teddy Roosevelt:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Pro-life is THE issue of justice and equality of our generation -- snarky nonsense about single issue fanatics reveal how little Catholic education has been imparted at ND for some time, I guess. Double Domer knows exactly what is what, and I hope many in your clan read his wise words. In this clash, if you think death of the innocent is just one more debatable political issue or moral difficulty that a little polite placard waving will assuage, all one can do is pray for you, and in all substantive matters, you are to be devoutly ignored.

We are seeking fighters in South Bend. Let us pray there are some among your ranks willing to risk a bit of discomfort and disquietude in defense of the good.

May you all have a blessed Triduum!

Mary Mom

Anonymous said...

Well said!!

Double Domer said...

Excellent post, Mary Mom, and far better than mine. Yours addressed the substantive issue, while mine addressed only a tiny collateral matter: the fate of the University, to which I will return for the moment.

In making its decision with respect to Mr. Obama, the University has clearly demonstrated by actions, not words, that it has either lost the courage of its Catholic convictions, or it has lost those convictions themselves. Doesn't much matter which. Both poisons are lethal.

Beyond the matter of its Catholic identity, however, the University has now compounded its initial mistake by seeking to justify itself in manner that discredits any claim to intellectual rigor, and, in a few instances, even honesty.

Exhibit one would be Fr. Jenkins's recent commentary published, e.g., here:

It is not necessary to dissect that commentary. It is so patently sophistic and so littered with fallacies and rhetorical deflections that its quality should be apparent without resort to detailed analysis. If it reflects at all the level to which Domers are being schooled these days, then the University is failing badly in its academic mission, to say nothing of its Catholic mission.

Exhibit two is the set of talking points prepared by the University for use by its Trustees, as published here:

The present controversy deals squarely with a fundamental matter of faith and morals, studiously addressed in the past weeks by, among others, at least 30 bishops. Faith and morals. Life and death. Core teachings of the Church and seminal moral principles.

And the University responds with ... talking points. Talking points! And not just talking points, but talking points that could have been as easily prepared by a partisan political operative -- and perhaps were. The University discredits itself. It becomes difficult to take the University seriously, because the University does not take the matter, or its critics, seriously.

Anonymous said...

An idea ....pass it on. During the fundraising drives...those who disapprove of the University's stance....send in 2 cents with your comments. Use their postpaid envelope.
Read Richard Allen's NY Times commentary as well.

Anyway, give ND " your 2 cents worth"

Sarah Jasson said...

This is really great information found here, I really like your blog. Thanks very much for the share. Keep posting.
Stem Cell Therapy

Hanna Hilton said...

While marketing can be tricky, it is the content that makes the site important. If you provide informative content that serves the needs of your visitors, word will spread.
pain management institute

Alica John said...

Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that.
Cancer Pain Management Frankfort