Who needs whom more: The GOP or evangelicals?
Evangelical voters are having as hard a time as anyone at figuring out what to do with the Republican candidates in this presidential primary cycle. They could not bring themselves to line up uniformly behind any one of the evangelical candidates. They briefly supported the socially conservative Roman Catholic candidate, Rick Santorum, and then lost interest. Now they are vacillating between the serial adulterer with a rhetorical gift (no, Bill Clinton is not running) and the business whiz they’re not sure they can trust to be conservative. They may be tempted simply to stay home on Election Day, but to them the thought of four more economy-killing, government-growing, court-liberalizing Obama years is even more horrifying to contemplate than anyone on the debate stage as president.
Evangelicals need the GOP. After the cultural decay of the 1960s and ’70s, and the growing government activism that pressed ever more deeply into citizens’ lives, evangelicals threw their support to the Republican Party. They saw the GOP as far more likely than the Democrats to protect the private Christian life in its individual, family, and church forms as government is supposed to do. The Apostle Paul told Timothy to pray that the government of his day would protect people’s freedom to “lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:2).
Part of that government task is maintaining a morally healthy environment. For this reason, evangelical voters have had a strong interest in “values”-related issues. But they have also supported low taxes, not only to restrict government intrusion into every sphere of life, but also to give Christians greater means to direct their own lives and those of their families and churches.
On the other side of this marriage of convenience, the GOP needs evangelicals—which makes up roughly 25 percent of the voting population—if they are going to carry key states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. But who needs whom more: the GOP or evangelicals? The answer is breathtakingly simple.
God gives us government for our good, even for the good of the church. In that sense, evangelicals need government that will provide best for the liberty of the gospel: security in life, property, speech, worship, and a moral environment that facilitates godliness and the godly nurture of our children. But Jesus tells us that the kingdom of God is not of this world. A just political order is helpful and good, but not entirely necessary. In that sense, evangelicals don’t “need” the GOP. But the GOP, because it’s a political party, needs evangelical votes. Period.
The Republican Party has the help of evangelicals, and it will sink without them. But evangelicals have the risen and reigning Christ. The GOP needs evangelicals far more than evangelicals need the GOP. It would be better for the nation as well as for the kingdom of God if they would both remember that.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top148 Comments to “Who needs whom more: The GOP or evangelicals?”
I really can’t see why evangelicals need the GOP. They have what they want and politics does dirty them up quite a bit.
I don’t have a dog in the current fight.
But I do think one of the more thoughtful discussions of the fight (particularly re Gingrich) can be found in one of Ross Douthat’s NYT blog posts from back in early December.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/the-tempting-of-the-christian-right/#
His point is that for a religious group which is losing its youth contingent at an alarming rate, generally over hypocrisy,
Gingrich is the worst possible choice/example.
Report comment to moderator
This article embodies about 6 of the reasons I rarely frequent this site anymore, and why I don’t give a rip about opinions posted by a majority of its columnists. I don’t demand that anyone care about that, but, as they say (whoever they are), for every one (1) who writes in, there are a thousand like-minded who don’t.
Report comment to moderator
Easy. The GOP needs evangelicals far more than evangelicals need the GOP. Evangelicals should first see themselves as citizens of heaven. But if they can stand together for some good gains in the world, why not? But Evangelicals have deeper more eternal loyalties in the end.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, “They have what they want and politics does dirty them up quite a bit.”
Why? Does politics dirty secular leftists up quite a bit too? Does politics dirty up the African-Americans? Does politics dirty up homosexualists? Why should politics dirty up evangelicals any differently than other groups, or is that what you were saying?
Politics need not dirty up any one or any group more than any other unless they bring the dirt themselves to the party. But it’s also true that life gets is a bit dirty and politics is just part of life. We all can get involved in politics just to try to do some good. It’s just that evangelicals know the limits of good that politics can do. Evangelicals know that if we lose in politics, we still have our fiath, our God and much meaning for living and serving. Politics is not the end all for evangelicals but we can still get involved just like everyone else.
Report comment to moderator
My biggest issue as an evangelical is in the fact that in 1960 about 5 (or so) percent of all babies were born out of wedlock and fifty years later, the number is up to 42 percent. I see that as perhaps the biggest sea-change for the worse, in one lifetime, in the history of human civilization. Politicians have played a part in that horrific decline too.
As a minister, I have worked with lots of foster kids and families who are devastated by the social decline behind that statistic. The breakdown of marriage & family is killing America. No other issue compares to seeing families and children torn to pieces by our increasingly polluted culture.
Evangelicals care about this and much much more.
(Good article, D.C. Innes.)
Report comment to moderator
Wait a minute. This article does not seem to mention that there is just one Evangelical Christian left in the race, who younger Evangelicals are supporting in droves. His name, Ron Paul!
Report comment to moderator
It is kind of a symbiotic relationship, but the GOP needs evangelical Christians more than vice versa. It’s part of rendering unto Caesar.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men to do nothing.
Report comment to moderator
DC Innes decries the growing government activism that pressed ever more deeply into citizens’ lives but one paragraph he states and believes that government task is maintaining a morally healthy environment. And you can’t do carry out that task unless you press into citizens’ lives. There lies the problem and contraidiction in the evangelical-Republican/capitalist alliance. They proclaim the need for freedom but wish to regulate morality.
Report comment to moderator
All this effort to regulate morality and to denigrate Islam will backfire against all evangelicals. Thanks in advance D.C. Innes and all other communitarian fear mongers for giving all of us evangelical Christians such a bad name.
Report comment to moderator
Onthemoney, sincere evangelicals do what is constitutional, right and best in the big picture REGARDLESS of threats that decency may backfire on them. Let it backfire, but do what is right! My respect for the evangelicals in politics rises above all other groups who care about America.
Report comment to moderator
8. Actually we are just asking people to do is first, take responsibility for their bad moral choices. For example; you make a baby, you either take care of that baby or find someone else who will. Killing it is not a moral option. and two; don’t force me to tell you your bad moral choices are right, wonderful and natural and don’t force me to pay you to tell my kids that your choices are right wonderful and natural.
Report comment to moderator
All this effort to regulate morality and to denigrate evangelical conservatives will backfire against Democrats.
All this effort to regulate “morality” and to denigrate Christianity will backfire against homosexualists.
All this effort to regulate morality and to denigrate various racial groups will backfire against racists.
All this effort to regulate morality and to denigrate the rich will backfire against class warriors.
All this effort to deregulate decent basic morality and to denigrate America will backfire against Libertarians.
Or maybe not. It’s just politics.
________________
People who accuse evangelical Christians of having a bad name are just telling us more about themselves than about real evangelicals who care about the country their children grow up in.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, all legislation attempts to regulate behavior and.or morality in some way. People disagree on how and what to regulate and how much and how little and the people need to work it out constitutionally and peacefully. But EVERYONE who advocates laws and the rule of law (limited or not) also advocates regulating morality!
Those who want to blame just one group that they don’t like for this is just not being honest with themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Nice picture.
A mere oversight, I’m sure.
Report comment to moderator
(Stalin used to pull the same stunt, BTW …)
Report comment to moderator
The victory that evangelicals gave to Gingrich in South Carolina says otherwise.
Evangelicals voted in droves for a serial philanderer whose personal and public life both are rife with the kind of scandal and hypocrisy that can only result from an utter lack of integrity.
Why? Because he knows how to talk smack and play the victim. The Right loves that.
So does the GOP need evangelicals? Not really. That is, they don’t need them as evangelicals. The GOP need do little to nothing to specifically court an evangelical vote. They don’t have to come to evangelicals; evangelicals have shown themselves perfectly willing to come to the GOP.
Report comment to moderator
Alright. But then don’t claim to be the party of “limited government.”
Don’t complain about “growing government activism that pressed ever more deeply into citizens’ lives” when in the very next paragraph you’re going to argue for the “government task [of] maintaining a morally healthy environment.” How much more “pressed in” can you get than that?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Kbells: we are just asking people to do is first, take responsibility for their bad moral choices. For example; you make a baby, you either take care of that baby or find someone else who will.
1. Not asking, telling people what they can and can’t do. Big, huge difference there. Despite what JM says above. You demanding legislation or constitutional amendments that make abortion illegal (even apparently some accidental ones) and sends people to jail for participating. That is not “asking”.
2. Does “make” include being raped? By one’s kin? And what in heck does that have to do with a “bad moral choice”?
3. Define “baby”.
Report comment to moderator
Corrections: * “Those who want to blame just one group that they don’t like for this [are] just not being honest with themselves.”
Report comment to moderator
#17 – “Alright. But then don’t claim to be the party of ‘limited government’.”
Huh? Why not?. Did you not understand my post? Most conservatives who advocate for limited gov’t are not advocating no gov’t at all. It’s just honest to admit that someone’s notion of morality is at the root of all laws we pass. But you can still be for a limited amount of laws and for a divided gov’t to prevent excessive law-making.
I will certainly complain about excessive spending and “growing government activism” freely and intelligently and there is nothing inconsistent about doing so. I understand that others have different priorities but I still have every right to constituti8onally advocate for the priorities I believe make for a better country.
Report comment to moderator
The danger for evangelicals is putting too much hope in any party or politician. Our nation’s problems cry out for a spiritual awakening. Such an awakening would affect all areas of society.
Report comment to moderator
The problem (well, one of the many problems) with evangelicals is that they have no concern for consistency.
The federal law of the land keeps abortion legal, so they demand that states have the right to set those laws and try to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Meanwhile, states DO have the right to legalize gay marriage, and the evangelicals demand a federal law (such as DOMA) or Constitutional amendment to take that right away from the states.
The theory of governance (more centralized vs. less centralized) is immaterial to them. They want whichever model comes closer to enforcing their morality, and any high-sounding talk about states’ rights or reducing centralized government applies only to the extent that that’s what accomplishes their goals.
Report comment to moderator
“Because he knows how to talk smack and play the victim.”
I think #16 captured my take on Newt.
Report comment to moderator
Mountain Man hit the nail on the head. There is only one evangelical in this race, but evangelicals don’t want him. Why? Because he doesn’t want to use the strong arm of government to impose right wing morals any more than left wing morals.
HRW got it right also. You cannot have liberty and go around imposing your morality at the end of a gun.
And DC Innes continues to misinterpret 1 Tim 2:1,2. It says to pray for everyone, including kings, that we might lead our lives without hindrance. In other words, let us pray that the state leaves us alone. That is completely the opposite of what Innes advocates which is some sort of state imposed godliness.
Report comment to moderator
#1–Good link, and I agree with the writer completely, Arcadia.
“To many younger Americans, religious conservatism as they know it often seems to stand for a kind of institutionalized hypocrisy — a right-wing Tartufferie that’s incensed by the idea of gay wedlock but tolerant of straight divorce, forgiving of Republican sins but judgmental about Democratic indiscretions, and eager to apply moral litmus tests only on issues that benefit the political right.”
Really true! And the limbo-like gyrations of logic given by some as they argue why it is pragmatic to vote for a blackguard like Gingrich, who blatantly panders to them, and thinking it will accomplish their goals–sad to find myself even agreeing with Conan in 23.
Who uses whom more?
Report comment to moderator
There is only one evangelical in this race
—
RS is in the race and he hold the same standard as the evangelical. He will not surrender marriage to the Courts, like RP would.
Report comment to moderator
#6, I agree. And he appeals more than to just to Evangelical youth.
Even the pierced and tatted lefties at my husbands work speak with grudging admiration of Ron Paul. They recognize his integrity,love his Libertarianism, are disgusted with Obama and could stomach a vote for him.
Report comment to moderator
19. 1 and 2 are a very small percentage of the abortions in this country. The vast majority are result of bad moral choices. 3. A very young human.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark is right that all laws have a moral basis.
He is also right that people on the left work to impose their morals on people as much as people on the right do.
I think that it is possible to argue that government should not interfere in our lives–not infringe upon our rights and freedoms–but should still enact laws to create a just society. However, I am not sure that’s all Joel Mark means.
Report comment to moderator
Priceless. So the article debating who needs who more the GOP or Evangelicals leaves out of its picture the one and only candidate left who is both GOP AND Evangelical?
Report comment to moderator
Conan, maybe I’m mistaken, but I’m fairly sure that DOMA does nothing to say that states can’t define “marriage” as including two parties of the same gender; it simply says the federal government won’t do so (for federal benefits) and that states can’t be required to accept people as “married” just because some other state says they are. But it doesn’t forbid, say, Massachusetts from defining its own marriage laws contrary to history and morality and common sense.
Report comment to moderator
Yep, Debra (and Frank), I noticed that too.
The limitations inherent in the shape of the photo, I’m sure. No other possible reason.
Report comment to moderator
OK kBells, since you seem to basing your position on some kind of morality, what exceptions to your proposed ban are you willing to accept?
There was a fascinating interview with Santorum on CNN a couple of nights ago; I thought I heard him say that his opposition to abortion was not based on religious grounds. I did a double-take but it seemed like the interviewer did not hear him say it.
Anyway at least someone else was watching it and here’s a link to a Guardian commentary concerning it. There is link within the commentary to a video of that interview segment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jan/25/rick-santorum-rape-pregnancy
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: Correct, but that’s only because it was the strongest law they could pass. There have been frequent calls for Constitutional Amendment.
Even at that, the provision against reciprocity is enough to seriously undermine it. You can be married in Massachusetts, then get a job transfer to Maine and not be married in any practical way — your marriage (congrats btw) isn’t subject to such dangers, why should anyone else’s?
Report comment to moderator
34. Where you willing to draw the line? first trimester? 2nd? 20 minutes before birth?
Report comment to moderator
And at least evangelicals have not tried to legislate thought and opinion.
Report comment to moderator
#37–Right on!
Report comment to moderator
kbells, joel mark et al
JFF pretty much summed up my argument — you can’t claim to be for limited gov’t and then claim the gov’t’s task is to help maintain a healthy moral environment.
The gov’t is not up to that task any more than it is to pick winners and losers in the economic sphere. Yes, all legislation has moral (and economic) ramifications and its important to examine all the effects a bill will have but lets not make morality the cause or focus of a bill. Instead lets approach gov’t regulation and administration in a more pragmatic manner. Taking care of the global commons, defense, enforcing contracts, maintain law and order, provide infrastructure, and ensure an active citizenry are practical concerns more applicable to governance than marriage,divorce, sexual practices, censorship, religion, and other personal matters.
In an other aspect of this debate is its unique American character — libertarianism is far more popular in the US (even amongst the left) than elsewhere due mostly due its mistrust and fear of gov’t. Elsewhere there’s a more pragmatic use of gov’t.
Report comment to moderator
kBells: I think the Supremes got it as right as it can be with their three trimester system. But I will always put the health and life of the mother ahead of that of the fetus. So should anyone who claims to believe in “family” values.
Your turn. What exceptions?
Report comment to moderator
My exception; The LIFE of the mother
Report comment to moderator
Conan, looking at it from the other side, a state isn’t “bound” by laws of other states in other issues, so why should it be required to recognize another state’s decision in “marriage” that goes contrary to the whole of human history and the moral code of every religion? In Tennesee my dog needed to be vaccinated against rabies annually (even though the rabies shot is considered good for three years, and with the same shot, some states require it every year, some every two years, some every three years), but once I moved, I was no longer under Tennessee law. That’s a trivial example, but states rights (and national rights) should apply to bigger issues as well.
Some country might allow one man to be married to three women; I doubt we would consider them married. Some country may allow siblings to marry, but I have a hunch that the marriage might not be considered valid in America, if the circumstances were known. I’m nearly positive we wouldn’t honor the “marriage” of a 45-year-old man to an 11-year-old girl, even if the nation they came from allowed it.
Never in human history has a relationship between two men been considered marriage. It would truly be absurd if California started “marrying” men to each other and other states and nations were then required to treat them as married.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, I’m comparing this issue with laws between nations because that is how our government was set up, that we were made up of individual states making their own laws, loosely and voluntarily affiliated with one another, not a federal government making laws for the entire nation. This is an area where the federal government simply has no legal or moral authority to command one state to honor another’s laws.
Report comment to moderator
#22 – “The danger for evangelicals is putting too much hope in any party or politician.”
But that’s just as true for any group–Atheists, African-Americans, Democrats, women, socialists, neo-nazis, homosexualists, educators, athletes, you name it.
Report comment to moderator
“You cannot have liberty and go around imposing your morality at the end of a gun.”
You cannot have liberty and fail to impose the rule of law and basic morality at the end of a gun. The 4th verse of “America the Beautiful” goes like this:
America! America!
God mend thine ev’ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.”
Liberty requires law, XION. We can debate the extent but using some law to impose essential boundaries of morality is an absolute prerequisite for liberty.
Report comment to moderator
HRW at #39, wrote – “You can’t claim to be for limited gov’t and then claim the gov’t’s task is to help maintain a healthy moral environment.”
Baloney! I claim exactly both. And the gov’t should be limited in this valid task and it should not be the only (or even the primary) source of what it takes to maintain a healthy moral invironment. But it has a role. It’s called the rule of law.
Report comment to moderator
Part of that government task is maintaining a morally healthy environment.
This is a fascinating sentence. What, exactly, is a “morally healthy environment”, and why is it of any value per se?
The Republican Party has the help of evangelicals, and it will sink without them.
I question this statement. In its current incarnation the GOP does need evangelicals to succeed, but that’s because a number of its positions disqualify it from consideration by such a large percentage of the population. One can imagine a re-designed GOP that makes no effort to accommodate evangelicals but moves far enough to the left on certain issues to dominate independents/moderates and cannibalize some folks who currently vote Democrat.
If it did this then it would likely lose some support among values-voting evangelicals. They would either stay home or vote third party (e.g. Constitution Party). Many, however, would continue to vote for the GOP candidate. Where else are they going to go? The Democrats?
It’s not obvious to me that if the GOP were to reshape itself in order to capture more moderate / independent voters at the cost of losing some values voters that the result would be a net loss. “Flipping” a vote from D to R is a bigger deal than losing an R vote to apathy or a third party.
This is especially true given our electoral system, which grants outsized importance to “purple” states. The GOP could tick off evangelicals and still win deeply red states. If, however, by sacrificing some evangelical support it could achieve disproportionate gains among moderates then it might could transform current “purple” states into “lean red” states. That would be huge.
Of course, the same argument could be made with respect to the Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
We can debate the extent but using some law to impose essential boundaries of morality is an absolute prerequisite for liberty.
How is my liberty damaged by the absence of laws that prohibit:
1. Drunkenness,
2. Blasphemy,
3. Witchcraft,
4. Fornication,
5. Divorce,
6. Idol worship,
7. Greed,
8. Homosexual acts.
Alternately, how would the presence of laws prohibiting these things enhance my liberty?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark @44 The groups that you mentioned trust govt. to change lives. Evangelicals should be looking primarily to the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives.
Report comment to moderator
BUDDYGLASS @48 – The majority of the items in your list carry a tremendous cost to our nation. There is an emotional cost, economic cost, and quantifiable dollar cost to many of these sins.
“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34)
Take drunkenness, the first on your list. Do you think we all pay more in auto insurance due to this sin? Does that affect my liberty, that I have to pay for someone elese’s sinful behavior? I might want to use that money to send you a birthday gift. What about lost time at work due to drunkenness? What about poverty in families where dad spends the money on booze? Do we pay any costs for that? I haven’t even begun to cover the full range freedom robbing concerns related to the abuse of alcohol.
I bet you could help me catalog many freedom stealing concerns from the majority of sins on your list.
Report comment to moderator
I pay more in insurance because some people drive drunk; not because they are drunk per se. Drunkenness is a sin regardless of whether you drive.
Given you feel that curtailing these sins would enhance liberty, should they be illegal? Why or why not? If so, then what should the punishment be?
What about other activities that end up affecting my bottom line. Such as…people who eat an unhealthy diet and become obese. Or those who don’t get enough exercise and elevate their risk of heart disease. Should we criminalize those activities in the name of enhancing liberty of the pocketbook?
Report comment to moderator
There is “only one Evangelical in this race” and, what do you know, he’s the candidate who promoted his political career by inviting wrath.
Although he denies knowing about the crazy filth in his own newsletters, the WaPo shows convincingly that Dr. Paul watchfully devised and assiduously peddled it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html
Dr. Paul’s old newsletters are a key to understanding the racial obsessions of many of his Evangelical supporters today.
The motives of the Evangelicals who vote for Gingrich are no more winsome, as JJF #16 points out:
Why? Because he knows how to talk smack and play the victim. The Right loves that.
Yet, if you listen to Evangelicals, you’d think that liberals own the patent on unbecoming emotions.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: You cannot have liberty and fail to impose the rule of law and basic morality at the end of a gun. The 4th verse of “America the Beautiful” goes like this:
We’re using song lyrics for moral and Constitutional theory now?
Report comment to moderator
Joel — if you claim the primary end of gov’t is a healthy moral environment then would you allow it to manipulate the economy on the basis of moral judgements? That would break the unspoken agreement between evangelicals and laissez faire economists.
Leo appears to do just that — claim legislative intrusion since immorality has monetary effects.
In either arguments, gov’t imposed moral strictures limit liberty and freedom of expression and thus are incompatible with traditional classical liberal democracies (ie free markets, free individuals, free speech).
If either one of you wish to claim the moral prerogative of gov’t that is fine, but don’t tell me then you are in favour of limited gov’t and don’t support laissez faire capitalism.
Report comment to moderator
HRW @54 – You said, “Leo appears to do just that — claim legislative intrusion since immorality has monetary effects.”
You apparently jumped to a conclusion. I don’t see where I claimed legislative intrusion. I think my post was straightforward about the costs of sin to the people of our nation, as well as the effects on our freedom.
Report comment to moderator
#45 Joel, “Liberty requires law, XION. We can debate the extent but using some law to impose essential boundaries of morality is an absolute prerequisite for liberty.”
Of course. Who is arguing against law? No one here. People cannot travel freely in chaotic societies with roving bands of gunman. There needs to be a rule of law to keep the peace and protect property and to regulate commerce and so on.
But why must there be a law which says I have to wear my seat belt or that I cannot grow whatever I want in my own garden or that I cannot eat whatever I want?
Until 1833, every Massachusetts citizen was required to go to church. Mandatory church attendance would certainly create “a moral environment that facilitates godliness and the godly nurture of our children”.
Once you decide to empower fallen man with the authority of government to enforce politically correct codes of moral behavior (beyond life and property), whether it is Christian or Marxist, you are going to see a decrease in liberty and an increase in tyranny.
Report comment to moderator
If you want to legislate moral behavior, the big question is, “Who decides?”
Why do Christians want to empower secular non-Christians with guns to decide what is moral or not and to fine us, jail us (or worse) if we get out of line? I don’t get it.
Report comment to moderator
If you want to legislate moral behavior, the big question is, “Who decides?”
Why do Christians want to empower secular non-Christians with guns to decide what is moral or not and to fine us, jail us (or worse) if we get out of line? I don’t get it.
Report comment to moderator
#58 is utterly confused or careless with language. We empower the police to enforce the law but not to decide what the law says. These gun-toters can take us to jail and book us, but may not “jail” us without a bond hearing or sentence. Nobody “decides” what is moral or not, except in his or her own mind. This should give comfort yet it provokes nothing but aggravation. Collectively all citizens regardless of any religious test get to vote for representatives who decide what is legal or not. If you’re afraid of guns, moreover, be very afraid of right wing Christians. The American poster boy par excellence for using violence to impose moral order is Timothy McVeigh.
If you are worried that police don’t respect the rule of law (they often don’t) then look in the mirror, Evangelical. Your political arm as the monopoly on “law and order.”
Report comment to moderator
#59 You are using language for obfuscation, making superfluous distinctions to divert the discussion. When we say that Obama is killing American citizens without trial we do not mean that he is pulling the trigger. He is authorizing their annihilation.
Speaking of the US Government collectively, as a whole, it is decidedly non-Christian. This secular entity enacts laws and enforces those laws with guns.
For example, a family down the road from me did not pay their taxes. Men with automatic weapons came and took them away and we haven’t seen them since.
My question is why Christians want empower people to treat them this way? Why give the government any more power than is absolutely necessary, since that power will eventually always be abused.
Report comment to moderator
. . we say that Obama is killing American citizens without trial . .
Name two.
Under President Paul, the police would continue to use deadly force in ordinary operations. Libertarian doctrine authorizes it, just as common law. The use of deadly force is a special case which has nothing to do with criminal procedure. When you say that Obama has used deadly force “without trial” you are saying that fish don’t ride bicycles. The justification has nothing to do with trials.
You’re obfuscating.
. . we haven’t seen them since . .
What’s that supposed to mean? I’ve heard you repeat this before. This matter is too important to turn into a cliché from a graphic novel. If that’s all you know, you’re not much of a neighbor.
My question is why Christians want to empower people to treat them this way?
I’d say that Evangelicals just like all civilized people recognize that the modern state has vastly improved human life by suppressing violence and promoting prosperity and liberty, compared with early modern societies, and is doing better all the time. Deaths per 100,000 are lower than ever before. I also believe that Evangelicals have a fascist streak which causes them to turn a blind eye when police run amok. They have the twisted attitude that the state is something separate, ordained of or imposed upon them by God, rather than the order formed by their own participation or lack of participation. The government is us.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: What’s that supposed to mean? I’ve heard you repeat this before. This matter is too important to turn into a cliché from a graphic novel. If that’s all you know, you’re not much of a neighbor.
I don’t believe this story. People don’t get taken away at gunpoint and “disappeared” for non-payment of taxes. Either there’s a lot more to it than that, or it didn’t happen at all.
Report comment to moderator
#62 Conan “I don’t believe this story. People don’t get taken away at gunpoint and “disappeared” for non-payment of taxes. Either there’s a lot more to it than that, or it didn’t happen at all.”
We’ve been through this before. You called me “liar, liar, liar” until I produced the story at which point you said, “Oh, no big deal. They didn’t pay their taxes”, which is exactly what I said from the beginning. If you force me to dig it up again, then this will just be deja vu all over again.
My point is not that jack-booted agents are going into people’s home at night and carrying them away for no reason. I am contrasting government power, which is essentially unlimited, to that of corporations, which you can simply ignore and go elsewhere.
And so, why do lefties and some Christians want to give more power to people who have nearly unlimited power? Each side is fine with giving government more power as long as their side is in power. There is nothing Obama could possibly do that lefties would object to. He has had American citizens assassinated and except for a little wincing, the left has completely let it go. He wants to monitor the whereabouts of every cell phone in America and read every email. This has gone nearly unreported. No one cares.
Report comment to moderator
#61 Scroop “When you say that Obama has used deadly force “without trial” you are saying that fish don’t ride bicycles. The justification has nothing to do with trial.”
Um, the Constitution says no American citizen shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and every citizen has “the right to a speedy and public trial”.
Obama is the first president to have American citizens murdered on sight and no one really cares. But when the Bush administration played certain music, like the Theme song to Sesame Street, at Guantanamo the left had a conniption about the grotesque torture.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, your liberty is enhanced by driving laws, red & green lights, anti-fraud laws (fraud rises from greed), reasonable ‘disturbing the peace’ laws, laws against drunk driving, against murder, heterosexual rape, homosexual rape, theft, perjury (a form of blasphemy, I suppose), and such.
So, I was speaking in principle. The whole point about the extent and the nature of the rule of law (as I already stated) is subject to debate and subject to a constitutional process. The point is, that regulating or legislating morality is part of any and all decent civilizations, and the rule of law (rightly applied and under constitutional limits) is the key to our liberty!
Report comment to moderator
Leo, #50 – Great quote!
“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34)
Report comment to moderator
“We’re using song lyrics for moral and Constitutional theory now?”
Sure! Why not? As long as we stick to the Constitution for the process and the implimentation, we can seek out many resources to refine our theories and thinking.
I think it was Plate who wrote; “Let me write the songs and poems of a nation and I care not who writes the laws.” Thomas Jefferson was even aware of this maxim.
Report comment to moderator
XION, are you a clutcher? If so, then what is the right to bear arms if not the right to use deadly force in self defense? It’s obvious. Since individuals have an “individual right” to annihilate a totem (i.e. a human person) without trial, then how much more so delegated, well-regulated militias such as police forces. Dangerousness and necessity always trump judicial process, because the US Constitution isn’t a suicide pact, as the saying goes. Similarly, do you “believe” in the power of the President to command the military? If so, then it’s obvious the President has the right to annihilate enemy combatants operating against the US in foreign jurisdictions.
Report comment to moderator
Rickyweaver,
A lot of things can change our lives, for good or ill, including gov’t. A repressive gov’t can change your life profoundly. Evangelicals know this and thus care about the process of good government. But to change our lives for good forever from the inside out, that takes the Holy Spirit. I think most thinking Evangelicals know and believe this. But that does not mean (as you may already agree) we cannot engage in the governing and political process as Christians.
Report comment to moderator
XION asked, “Who is arguing against law?”
XION, you also wrote; “You cannot have liberty and go around imposing your morality at the end of a gun.”
I was merely pointing out that all laws do impose some morality, and you cannot have liberty without the rule of law and without morality. The founders knew this and many of them affirmed that even our founding documents are worthless if morality and religion are lost. I think you already understand all this, but the rhetoric I was reading from others also motivated my comment.
The less moral we are, the more gov’t we will get (like it or not).
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, your liberty is enhanced by driving laws, red & green lights…
Right.
The point is, that regulating or legislating morality is part of any and all decent civilizations, and the rule of law (rightly applied and under constitutional limits) is the key to our liberty!
The rule of law is. Enforcing morality for the sake of enforcing morality is not. We treat murder and rape as crimes not because they’re immoral and we want to punish immoral behavior (even though they are); we treat them as crimes because they violate someone’s person or property. That is to say they infringe directly upon someone’s liberty.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark @ 69 I agree. My initial point was that our nation’s primary problems are spiritual, and derivatively, moral. It’s great for Christians to be involved on politics, but it is important to understand the limits of what can be accomplished though politics.
Report comment to moderator
“but to them the thought of four more economy-killing, government-growing, court-liberalizing Obama years is even more horrifying to contemplate than anyone on the debate stage as president.”
Anyone? I would beg to differ that four years with Gingrich would be any less horrifying than the current administration’s. In all those areas, disaster awaits.
The courts would be in a complete upheaval. Activist judges are bad yes, but look at Gingrich’s unsettling alternative, what former Bush Attorneys General call “dangerous”, as they describe an end of an independent judiciary. So we have Liberal Courts or kangaroo courts –one is better than the other?
As for Newt’s grandiose plans to shrink government, there are not words enough.
But in an essay charmingly titled, “”Let’s Get to the Point: Newt Gingrich is a Sinister, Corrupt Blowhard”, Business Insider details how he fed at Freddie Mac’s trough, after pretending to be its foe. That’s only after he resigned from Congress on a cloud of ethics charges and under his leadership, the failed ‘Contract With America” grew government and the National Debt. Ed Crane, head of the Cato Institute reported that “the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.”
So let’s not pretend that Newt Gingrich is not another pork barrel politician. He will grow government.
Be amazed at how he shamelessly courts Florida voters! Why he’s going to fly them to the moon, and go to war with Venezuela to win their hand! And let us not forget his pledges in troth to the other states, like the interstate highway in South Carolina, a Veterans Health Administration hospital in New Hampshire and a power line from Canada — all cash-guzzling ideas that seem to contradict Gingrich’s other vows made to lower taxes throughout his term.
George Will said it well: “Gingrich’s is an amazingly efficient candidacy in that it embodies everything that is disagreeable about modern Washington. He’s the classic rental politician.”
As for his economy killing powers, well there is nothing more economy killing than a corrupt politician. Look at Greece. And as we face the implosion of the European Debt crisis and the evil days ahead for all the economies of the world, we need a steady man at the helm, not another scoundrel who will jump ship.
Would you want your daughter to marry this man? Why in the world would you let him vow to preserve, defend and uphold the precious Constitution of the United States?
No, I wouldn’t want that. I wouldn’t even go to the wedding.
Report comment to moderator
I take it you’re a Paul fan Karen.
Report comment to moderator
Louise, anyone but Gingrich! And yes, if he is the candidate, I would back a third party with Paul.
Can’t you see how we lose our credibility entirely with that scoundrel?
Report comment to moderator
No Karen. I have a different approach to political reality. And it begins with supporting Life. Anyone But Obama and no more of his SCOTUS nominees.
The Democrats’ control of an anti-life WH and Senate may literally kill our individual liberties and doom my great-grandchildren to a life-and-death struggle for which I don’t want any responsibility.
I don’t want Calista in the East Wing, but she would be an improvement over the cultural indoctrination stemming from there now.
That said, I’ll stick to my guns and save what ever energetic arguments I can stir up for the campaign against Barack Obama when we coalesce against him for the Nov. election.
“Our” aggregate votes signify no credibility one way or the other to the rest of the world. No one trusts the media and its polls anymore.
I work on people trusting my sincerity on an individual basis and leave my trusting in the Lord.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Well, you’ll have to remind me. I am quite sure that if the story really were as simple as you say — people didn’t pay taxes and got hauled off at gunpoint by sinister government agents, never to be seen again — I would not have said “no big deal.”
Report comment to moderator
Gingrich killed any movement in the pro-life direction while Speaker,saying “I believe most Americans are pro-choice and anti-abortion.” He goes where the wind blows. Why is he suddenly now waving some litmus test? The magic Catholic word?
For years I closed my eyes and thought of the Supremes in doing my duty as a voter. I cannot do that anymore, not with Gingrich. I only pray that S.C. is a fluke, and he was just their good ol’ boy.
And if he wins, I just see it as an increase of the wrath of God.
Report comment to moderator
#77 Conan “Xion: Well, you’ll have to remind me.”
OK, here it is again. These people are pretty out-there, but my point is that the government has the power to force compliance to any degree. Corporations can rip you off, but government powers are practically unlimited. Fail to comply and men with guns will come for you.
And so, I will repeat the question no one wants to answer. Why should we give men with guns the power to fine, jail or even kill those who fail to comply with whatever politically correct moral platitude is in vogue at the moment.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, as I suspected. They refused to pay taxes for more than 10 years, amassing back taxes of over $600,000. They were duly tried (and had their full civil rights during the trial process) and convicted for that. Then they refused to surrender and engaged in an armed standoff with police. Finally, they were apprehended and are now serving their sentences.
So, the reality bears almost no resemblance to the breathless account of jackbooted thugs taking them off god-knows-where that you gave us.
Whether or not you agree with the federal income tax law, it IS the law. Nothing abusive happened here. People broke the law, had their day in court, were convicted by a jury and sentenced according to the law.
What other laws do you think people should be able to break with impunity? I had no idea you were an anarchist.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, Like I said. After calling me a liar, you come back with “No big deal”. Once again I didn’t hear any apology.
“What other laws do you think people should be able to break with impunity? I had no idea you were an anarchist.”
People should follow the law. The problem is that liberals love to make no end of laws to regulate whatever people eat and wear and say and so on.
What everyone is missing here is that no matter how inane the laws are, ultimately the government can use whatever force is necessary to force compliance. What I am saying is ENOUGH ALREADY!!
Stop putting men with guns in charge of your diet or your speech or your health. THAT IS NOT THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT!!
Report comment to moderator
Leo
I think my post was straightforward about the costs of sin to the people of our nation, as well as the effects on our freedom.
Sin does add cost to society as does inequality.
Lets take drunkness — we put limits on the use of alcohol because it has an ill effect on society hence age limits, open container laws, drunk driving laws, etc yet we allow private drunkness, and even alcoholism because we recognize the limits of gov’t in moral persuasion. And thus on a pragmatic level, a certain measure of restraint is necessary.
Similarly, inequality has been statistically shown to have ill effects on a nation’s human development (infant mortality, life expectancy, teenage pregnancy, education rate, active literacy, etc) hence a social welfare net, free education, progressive taxation, yet we still allow for private accumulation of wealth, entrepreneurship,etc. because we recognize the limits to the gov’ts economic ability. I would argue that the Anglo-Saxon countries don’t do enough to limit inequality and the Scandinavians do a better job but those are technical arguments not ideology.
Some here argue for limited gov’t and then demand moral responsibility yet criticize me for favoring a gov’t role in the economy. I’m being consistent — I don’t argue for or against gov’t involvement just its practical application to solve or prevent certain problems.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Conan, Like I said. After calling me a liar, you come back with “No big deal”. Once again I didn’t hear any apology.
Oh please. You presented as a case of evil government agents swooping down to take away a peaceful family whose only flaw was neglecting to pay taxes. It turns out that it’s really about police having to have a tense armed standoff with people who refused (not just forgot) to pay taxes for 10 years, then refused to obey the court and serve a sentence imposed on them after a fair trial by a jury of their peers.
You tried to make it look like government over-reach when it’s not. If anyone owes an apology here, it’s you.
People should follow the law. The problem is that liberals love to make no end of laws to regulate whatever people eat and wear and say and so on.
You picked a really lousy example if that’s the point you want to make. No fair getting upset with me for calling you on it.
The income tax is not some wacky out-there “liberal” law. It’s been in place for a century or more. People who defy the law for a decade, then refuse to surrender to serve their sentence are not innocent Americans running afoul of a wacky law that those crazy liberals created just to harass us.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, Once again you are completely missing the point. It is not about whether force is justified in any given situation, it is that force is an option at all. Using government to make sure I eat right or wear my seat belt is like using a bazooka to kill a mosquito.
Certain laws, such as protecting life and property are a proper role of government. Telling me what I can grow or eat is not. Mandatory church attendance is not. Are you getting any of this?
I got a ticket a couple years back for not wearing my seat belt in the next state. The man who issued me the ticket drove at a high rate of speed to pull me over. He was wearing a gun. What would have happened if I failed to pull over or resisted in any way?
The point is that government should not be used by Evangelicals or liberals to impose whatever political whim is in vogue, because there is no escape. You must comply.
And so, we should be extremely cautious about ever giving government more power, because government power is EXTREME power. And yet, the opposite is true. Evangelicals and liberals hand over their liberties willingly and happily thinking they are doing good, completely oblivious to the fact that it will come back to bite them. Government power only increases and liberty always decreases. Why be so quick to put men with guns in charge of every last decision in our lives?
A handful of Americans still understand liberty, like our founding fathers did. The rest are completely oblivious. When socialists and communists came to take away liberty by force, at least then it was obvious what was happening. Today people give it away freely and gladly.
Report comment to moderator
“Magic Catholic word?” Karen? Care to explain that? Doesn’t sound good. I live in the 2nd decade of this century and know that Gingrich opposes federal funding of abortions in all cases, wants to stop all funding to Planned Parenthood and reinstate Reagan’s Mexico City policy that prevents out funding of abortions overseas. However, he believes that life begins with implantation, not fertilization.
I am not a Gingrich supporter, but demonizing him is a form of bearing false witness. I certainly would not help reelect Obama with a third-party vote. That’d be just plain silly.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Conan, Once again you are completely missing the point. It is not about whether force is justified in any given situation, it is that force is an option at all. Using government to make sure I eat right or wear my seat belt is like using a bazooka to kill a mosquito.
No, I get that point. I pretty much agree with that point.
But your example is completely irrelevant to that point — those people were not hauled away to a gulag for not wearing seat belts.
As for force not ever being a government option, are you serious? Do you want the police to be unarmed? Do you want criminals to be arrested only if they agree to come along quietly by choice?
You’re being incoherent here. We can agree that the government shouldn’t have the power to arrest you for trivial lifestyle choices. But they you try to illustrate that with a story of people who were arrested for 10 years of deliberate tax evasion AND for refusing to accept the sentence handed down after their conviction in a fair trial. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the point you claim you’re trying to make.
I got a ticket a couple years back for not wearing my seat belt in the next state. The man who issued me the ticket drove at a high rate of speed to pull me over. He was wearing a gun. What would have happened if I failed to pull over or resisted in any way?
If you failed to pull over or resisted, then your penalty would not be for not wearing your seat belt, it would be for resisting arrest. For not wearing your seat belt you got a ticket and a fine.
Whether or not there should be a law mandating seat belt use, your experience does not support a claim that the jackbooted thugs of government are out of control.
It’s ironic that you put me in this position because I think in many cases they ARE out of control, and engage in behavior far beyond anything reasonable. Your examples, so far, are offbase.
Try the UC Davis cop pepper-spraying peaceful student protesters kneeling peacefully on the street. Try the many cases where cops burst into homes and kill dogs that are not posing a threat. Try the many cases where cops arrest citizens for recording their activities. Those are real abuses of power. Your traffic ticket is not.
Report comment to moderator
“As for force not ever being a government option, are you serious? Do you want the police to be unarmed? Do you want criminals to be arrested only if they agree to come along quietly by choice?”
Force is always a government option. The government should use force. The police and military should be armed and should use that force to whatever extent is necessary.
However, because everything government does is backed by essentially unlimited force, we should put government in charge of only what is absolutely necessary. This is MUCH LESS than government is in charge of today.
The ALL POWERFUL government should not be telling people what to eat or wear or say. It should not be in charge of our health. It should not even tell us who can get married. It should tell us practically nothing at all. Yet liberals and evangelicals have decided to use government to impose moral legislation backed by men with guns for the most vain do-good causes.
“If you failed to pull over or resisted, then your penalty would not be for not wearing your seat belt, it would be for resisting arrest. For not wearing your seat belt you got a ticket and a fine.”
You’re mincing words. Resisting whatever inane rules the government imposes causes an escalation of the use of force.
“Try the UC Davis cop pepper-spraying peaceful student protesters kneeling peacefully on the street. Try the many cases where cops burst into homes and kill dogs that are not posing a threat. Try the many cases where cops arrest citizens for recording their activities. Those are real abuses of power. Your traffic ticket is not.”
Yes, but that is a different issue. You are complaining about a misuse of force or an abuse of power. No one disagrees with that. My point is that the government has too much power and liberals give it more and more every day, as long as a liberal is in office, of course.
Why should I be hauled off to jail for using a drug for some ailment that does not have FDA approval? Why should I be jailed for growing certain plants in my garden? Why do I have to wear a seat belt? Why can I not talk on my cell phone when I want? Why can’t I buy a sugary drink in Boston? Why can’t a teacher tell a child that he doesn’t believe we originated as pond scum? Why must I be forced to buy insurance? Why do I have to pay my neighbor’s mortgage? Why do people with certain skin colors get promoted faster or get education benefits? And so on …
All of these issues have to do with social policies which take away our LIBERTIES. The word LIBERTY is losing its meaning in America.
Report comment to moderator
“Who needs whom more: The GOP or evangelicals?”
“But Jesus tells us that the kingdom of God is not of this world. A just political order is helpful and good, but not entirely necessary.”
It is important to point out that DC Innes acknowledges (perhaps reluctantly) Jesus’ teaching on the two kingdoms.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Why should I be hauled off to jail for using a drug for some ailment that does not have FDA approval? Why should I be jailed for growing certain plants in my garden? Why do I have to wear a seat belt? Why can I not talk on my cell phone when I want? Why can’t I buy a sugary drink in Boston? Why can’t a teacher tell a child that he doesn’t believe we originated as pond scum? Why must I be forced to buy insurance? Why do I have to pay my neighbor’s mortgage? Why do people with certain skin colors get promoted faster or get education benefits? And so on
And I agree with all of these points. We can be on the same page here.
But then you give as your case-in-point some people who deliberately refused to pay their taxes and holed up with guns when the police came to get them. I don’t think that’s on the same level.
Report comment to moderator
XION #60 . . Obama is killing American citizens without trial . . For example, a family down the road from me did not pay their taxes. Men with automatic weapons came and took them away and we haven’t seen them since.
WIKIPEDIA . . Elaine Brown was sentenced to 35 years in a Federal prison . . Edward Brown was sentenced to 37 years in prison.
The Browns did not disappear as XION falsely asserted; they were incarcerated upon conviction. By refusing to retract an inflammatory, utterly false accusation, XION once again makes himself a liar.
Report comment to moderator
#90 Scroop It appears that your life’s mission is to call anyone who disagrees with your messiah a liar. We’re still waiting for proof. In the mean time, your Grand Canyon sized ellipsis is an editing job worthy of MSNBC.
I did not say that Obama killed the Brown family, only that men with automatic weapons hauled them away for failure to pay taxes, which would have garnished them prominent positions in the Obama administration if they had only been Democrats.
The American citizens Obama boasted about assassinating with a Hellfire missile was Anwar al-Awlaki and magazine editor Samir Khan. These men had not been charged with any crimes.
Report comment to moderator
There are at least two reasons that some tax evaders end up in jail and other tax evaders end up as Obama’s chief advisers:
a) They are Democrats
b) They chose to stop resisting the government
When government makes laws and you obey them, you generally won’t run into trouble. The only time men with guns come to get you is when you resist. But that is the point!!
Government enforcement involves nearly unlimited power over your person (if you should choose to resist). So shouldn’t we exercise more care over the power we give government? Doesn’t anyone agree? I can’t believe how hard this is for people to grasp.
People who love liberty are like a voice crying in the wilderness.
Report comment to moderator
HRW @82 – I agree with the first part of your post where you are addressing the practical results of sin in society. There certainly are just laws that can be enforced when the results of sin become a danger to others. Excessive drinking resulting in drunk driving is clear.
You then turn the discussion to “inequality.” I find no place or warrant for government dealing with inequality. When the government begins to attempt to determine outcomes, it has exceeded its mandate.
Report comment to moderator
BUDDYGLASS #51 – I know that curtailing sins (sins in the Biblical sense) enhance liberty. The facts of this are obvious. As to what should be illegal, that would be determined by citizens, living in a society, through the legislative process as outlined in their constitutions. I don’t know of any such liberty as a “liberty of the pocketbook.”
Report comment to moderator
Louise,
I regret the Catholic comment. I should not judge anyone’s motives, even someone as coldly calculating as Gingrich has proven to be.
But I am not demonizing Gingrich here. I am telling the truth. Gingrich’s history speaks for itself, and his behavior at Freddie Mac is very recent history, in this very decade of the 21st century, and it shouts loudly: Newt Gingrich still says one thing, and does another:
All the while pocketing $1.5 million from an agency that has completely corrupted the mortgage lending process. These are facts, and the high dudgeon of his response, “Every American should be interested in expanding housing opportunities,” when confronted by his hypocrisy does nothing to erase this pathetic record.
I am pro-life, Louise. I have Walked For Life, even stood in doorways with Operation Rescue, and endured enough disappointments with leaders like Gingrich, those who mouth all the right sentiments but do nothing when elected, and use these issues and our votes to advance their own fiefdoms. I am done, so done, with that.
We survived under Clinton and will survive Obama. The movement in the pro-life cause comes from the states. They are defunding Planned Parenthood, enacting informed consent laws, and waiting periods. Clinics are closing and abortions are harder to get. Ultrasounds are winning hearts and minds, particularly among the youth. The pro-life movement has God as its champion — we don’t need a bloviator like Gingrich.
I cannot in any good conscience grasp at straws and vote for Gingrich. God is in control, but I must do my part. I will do the right thing by my country and vote for a man with integrity who can competently govern, even if it means that we lose to Obama. I believe that is the very definition of putting one’s faith in God, and not in mere men with way too much breath in their nostrils.
Report comment to moderator
XION It appears that your life’s mission is to call anyone who disagrees with your messiah a liar.
No, I only call people liars when they state falsehoods and then refuse obvious correction.
XION . . your Grand Canyon sized ellipsis is an editing job worthy of MSNBC.
I omitted, “we do not mean that he is pulling the trigger. He is authorizing their annihilation.” I also skipped your lament that G-men use guns. Then I quoted your example. So, your full comments don’t cure your false assertion that the government disappeared the Browns. The Browns didn’t disappear, they went to prison.
XION I did not say that Obama killed the Brown family . .
Of course, you made it plain who packs. The problem is, you described the Browns as an “example” of government “annihilation.” You said, “we haven’t seen them since.”
BTW, pretending the Browns disappeared won’t work at the last judgement, when Jesus sends you on your way for not visiting Him in prison. But you have until 2044 to commiserate with the Browns. If Obama is my messiah, perhaps the Browns will be your soulmates.
XION, continued: . . only that men with automatic weapons hauled them away for failure to pay taxes . .
Wrong, the government “hauled them away” to serve 35 years for all manner of crap, after they were convicted on each count. The US Marshals haul you to a known fate, not into the void. Liar.
Report comment to moderator
I’m astounded, Xion. You’re arguing that if you “resist the government” (i.e., break the law willfully and defiantly), then “men with guns” (i.e., the police) will “come to get you” (i.e., arrest you.)
So again I ask: Should we just be able to break laws with impunity? Why have laws at all then?
You keep conflating two very different things — intrusive laws against personal choices, which I can agree with you are wrong — but then the example you keep returning to are people who defied some far more consequential laws, and then refused to report to serve their sentences after having their trial.
That latter is NOT on the same level as the laws that require you to wear a seatbelt or forbid you from buying unpasteurized milk.
Report comment to moderator
#96 Scroop, “The problem is, you described the Browns as an “example” of government “annihilation.”
No I didn’t. They are in jail. Obama has annihilated American citizens with Hellfire missiles and all you want to do is play word games.
#97 Conan, Your logic is that government is fine unless you resist; so don’t resist. Um, yeah. I am not saying people should break the law – I AM SAYING WE SHOULD HAVE FEWER LAWS!!!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
You say we should have fewer laws, but then as an example, you hold up a couple who held an armed standoff with police. Is that a law we shouldn’t have, the ones against threatening to shoot police officers?
Report comment to moderator
#99 Sheesh!
There would have been no standoff if the police hadn’t surrounded their house. Why did the police surround their house? For doing what Tim Geithner did. The difference is that the Browns resisted and Geithner did not. Why resist the IRS when you are being placed in charge of it?
The purpose of bringing up the Browns was to illustrate that all laws no matter how small carry severe penalties for resisting, so let’s stop putting the government in charge of every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave.
As another example, the nearest fire hydrant to my home is down the street in another neighborhood. There is no way a fire truck would ever use it on my home. Yet the town insists on charging me $11 every 6 months. One time I just ignored the ridiculous bill. Next thing I know there was a lien on my house and the town was threatening to toss me into the street.
Now, if they came to take my home away, I could do what the Browns did with the same result. I could be put away for 37 years for non-payment of an $11 bill if I resisted and defended my home from the police. I could potentially even be shot. All because of some ridiculous rule that means nothing.
Liberals and evangelicals who insist on having government “legislate good morals” are playing with fire. Our founding fathers understood this. Modern Americans apparently don’t have a clue about the proper role of government.
Report comment to moderator
JFF #18 – Brilliant.
Report comment to moderator
CONANTHELIBRARIAN #23 – Brilliant, again.
Report comment to moderator
The fire hydrant is a much better example.
I don’t consider tax evasion of more than $600,000 over the course of 10 years to be trivial. I think the government had every right to sentence them to jail time, and they forced the armed standoff. Especially if, as usually happens, they had been given ample opportunity to pay what they owed with the prescribed penalties and interest.
You can claim hypocrisy with Geithner if you want, although in his case it was $35,000 of unpaid payroll taxes which, when an IRS audit discovered them, he paid with interest. Geithner did not defiantly refuse to pay, nor did he hole himself up with a gun.
But in any case, non-payment of income taxes isn’t trivial, especially when it goes on so long that it approaches the $1 million mark. Neglecting to pay an $11 assessment is trivial, and if the consequences really are as you describe, that’s a good example of ridiculous government oversight.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone who goes to another person’s home uninvited should have to tread lightly particularly if they (the visitors) are armed. Police are too heavy-handed when it comes to private homes. We had a dog-catcher try to push his way into our home once, and he would have entered, but my husband blocked the door. A dog-catcher for goodness sakes!!
Absent exigent circumstances (as in when someone is known to be held against their will or other violence in process), I can’t think of why anyone should be allowed to enter someone elses home guns blazing. If you have an arrest warrant, wait for the person to come out–especially of the offense is nonviolent and that person doesn’t live alone. Why should a person who’s not even charged with a crime be endangered by police who are gung-ho to execute a warrant–and often on the wrong house.
In other words, generally speaking, invading someone’s private home over a nonviolent offense should be verboten.
But now, thanks to our Congress and President, we have a Patriot Act and NDAA that will allow the President’s suspicion to be sufficient cause for any American citizen to go missing—perhaps for months or years. No evidence or due process required.
Report comment to moderator
I know that curtailing sins (sins in the Biblical sense) enhance liberty. The facts of this are obvious.
Okay. Explain to me how a law prohibiting me from having sex with another man enhances my liberty. Assuming such a law would actually result in less gay sex, it might mitigate various societal ills. I’ll cede that point. So, it might put a little more money in my bank account at the end of the month which I could then spend. Know what else it would do, though? Prevent me from having sex with other men..
Here’s the thing, though. Any law restricts liberty, and I’m not opposed to all laws. Ergo there are situations in which it is right and proper to restrict liberty. For instance, laws against murder restrict my ability to murder people. Why is that okay and not criminalizing homosexuality? Because murder has a clear and obvious victim. We criminalize murder to create a deterrent to murder because murder involves the violation of person. What about theft? Violation of property.
How does two guys having sex in their own home violate my person or property?
As to what should be illegal, that would be determined by citizens, living in a society, through the legislative process as outlined in their constitutions.
Sure. Given we live in a representative democracy, though, what sins would you advocate be made into crimes from the list I gave? Your argument above (”I know that curtailing sins enhances liberty”) would seem to suggest you want all of them to be crimes. Is that the case? If not, why not?
Report comment to moderator
#99 No I didn’t. They are in jail.
Yes, you did. You said your neighbors disappeared into oblivion. You said nothing about jail, or courts. What were they an example of, if not executive annihilation? You lied by speaking of one element of law enforcement — arrest — as if that was all that may be known.
Obama has annihilated American citizens with Hellfire missiles . .
Name two, or, just one who wasn’t an enemy combatant on a foreign field of battle. Liar.
Report comment to moderator
Sad and cranky talk at #100.
In previous posts, XION has told us he cross-examined a water clerk about political philosophy and spoke out in court in a manner that sounded like it was criminal contempt.
Report comment to moderator
. . and if the consequences really are as you describe . .
For my part, I think the water facilities have increased the value of XION’s property by an amount greater than the assessment, even if he’s not hooked into the system.
Report comment to moderator
@106 Obama has annihilated American citizens with Hellfire missiles . .
Name two, or, just one who wasn’t an enemy combatant on a foreign field of battle. Liar.
You’re crossing the line Scroop, and should be reported for calling ‘liar’. And Xion’s statement is not even inaccurate as far as I can tell. Cut it out.
Report comment to moderator
BUDDYGLASS @105 – You keep pressing me to decide which sins ought to be legislated against. I’m saying that sin creates many serious problems irrespective of its legality.
Making every sin illegal is not the only way to curtail sin. There are such things as positive peer pressure from friends and family, self-control, support groups, spiritual help, education, etc., for those involved in sin. These can aid people who want to conquer the destructive effects of sin in their own lives, as well as its detrimental effects on society.
Additionally, there is a Judge, higher than our U.S. legal system, to whom we will all give an account. He is the One who determines what sin is, not society. Those who choose to obey Him are the ones who enjoy true freedom.
We do ourselves, and those we live in civilized society with, a selfish injustice when we think sin carries no consequences, and the current mores of the day are our standard.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, I appreciate what you’re saying. I do think homosexuality does hurt people, and I think it hurts a society (I can go into that in more detail, if you’re interested), but I think we’re past speaking out against it in this country. When you say, “I’m against homosexuality,” all people hear you say is, “I hate homosexuals.” Expanding the definition of marriage to included same-sex unions is scary to me, because it will/can be enforced on churches. It’s bringing the government right into the church.
Another scary act by Mr. Obama is forcing insurance to cover birth control. He is slowly ghettoizing Christians who believe as I do.
Report comment to moderator
(I probably should have said, “I appreciate what you’re saying, BUT…)
Report comment to moderator
(because I don’t want what I said to misrepresent what you said)
Report comment to moderator
I completely agree with LEO who said, “Making every sin illegal is not the only way to curtail sin.”
But I would add that making every sin legal is also not workable either, not by any stretch.
What we have to go on in the USA is a consitutional process for refining our laws over time and finding the point of social health and genuine justice that knows which sins must be dealt with by law and which ones must be dealt with by persuation and voluntary assent. I can believe in serious limits to the force of law in many specific areas while still recognizing government’s vital limited role in legislating for a better, safer, decent society.
What matters most (much more than laws) for societal health is strong families and traditional marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Clayvessel wrote; “Expanding the definition of marriage to included same-sex unions is scary to me, because it will/can be enforced on churches.”
The greatest danger of distorting and expanding the definition of marriage is not just to churches but to children! More children will grow up without a mother and father as marriage gets further watered down and redefined. More children will never know what a real family is, nor experience the beneficial features of it that God intened for children from the start.
And where does the expansion stop? Polygamists are consenting adults who claim to be in love and want to get married. Why not expand “marriage” for them? (answer: it mainly hurts children, that’s why not). Polyamorists are consenting adults who claim to be in love and desire marriage. On what basis do we stop the expansion of the definition at any particular point??? How about same sex siblings? How does it hurt your marriage if 3, 4, 5, or 6, same-sex siblings get married? How does it hurt your marriage if the LA Lakers get married?
No–marriage unites a man and a women as husband and wife, period. See Matthew 19:4-6.
Report comment to moderator
Clayvessel,
We are encountering a bizarre mind-twisting dehumanizing argument from the homosexualists that too few rational thinkers are bothering to resist, all because they just want to be left alone. We are failing our future and refusing to protect our children and their future. Maybe too many Christians just don’t care about our children. If they did, our opposition to homosexualism would be huge!
No! Fighting the distortion and redefinition of marriage is essential. Never give up that battle. It is primarily for the children of our society, NOT just for churches.
Report comment to moderator
DEBRA #109 . . Xion’s statement is not even inaccurate . .
His statements (pl.) are willfully and persistently inaccurate and artfully misdirecting, and therefore lies.
XION #60 When we say that Obama is killing American citizens without trial we do not mean that he is pulling the trigger. He is authorizing their annihilation.
“Obama is killing” is a lie, camouflaged in misdirection, “we do not mean that he is pulling the trigger.”
At #98 he partly corrects “is killing” by changing the tense from the present progressive to the past perfect, “has killed.” However, he repeats his falsehood of number. Obama killed one enemy combatant who was a US citizen abroad. This evil not being sufficient to him, XION has to make it more than one, even after being called on it. This is lying.
XION #60 “we haven’t seen them since” is also a lie, as I explain at #90.
When I call out a lie, I quote the words, state the truth, and explain the deception. I’ve gone through this tedious drill for each occasion I’ve called XION a liar. He never retracts. If I misread him or was wrong, nobody ever corrected me. I’ve never called anyone a liar (as XION does) without performing this due diligence.
Inaccuracies and falsehoods aren’t lies. The aggravating element is the refusal to acknowledge correction. Lying is a cardinal sin because unlike murder and theft, for example, it can be undone with a simple word. Murderers and thieves often wish they could take back their deeds, but tragically cannot. Liars on the other hand persist when a cure would be so easy. This is why lying is Satanic. XION’s posts are guilty of this ongoing crime against community.
DEBRA, let my error be shown and I’ll retract.
Report comment to moderator
Laughable how Joel Mark claims I am not a “real” Evangelical. Apparently when you disagree with D.C. Innes you no longer qualify as evangelical.
Report comment to moderator
Marrige for a Christian per God’s Word can only be between one man and one woman only.
Same sex marriage goes against the Word of God.
Report comment to moderator
#117 Scroop,
TRUE – Obama authorized the killing of American citizens without due process of law. Apparently you are fine with that.
TRUE – At least two American citizens were killed with Hellfire missiles authorized by Obama, Anwar al-Awlaki and magazine editor Samir Khan, as I pointed out in #91.
“You said your neighbors disappeared into oblivion. You said nothing about jail, or courts.”
FALSE – I did not say they vanished into oblivion. You made that up.
” If I misread him or was wrong, nobody ever corrected me.”
FALSE – We correct you all the time.
“DEBRA, let my error be shown and I’ll retract.”
Essentially everything you have said is in error as we have shown consistently, but you are on a crusade of personal vindictive attacks, for what reason I cannot tell.
Report comment to moderator
TRUE: Obama authorized the killing of American citizens . .
You are correct and I was wrong. I had read about only one American citizen, al-Awlaki, and didn’t know about the second. I apologize for missing your response at #91. This was careless on my part. I’m so sorry.
FALSE: Obama authorized the killing of American citizens without due process of law.
Legal opinions by Executive Branch lawyers and a Presidential order are “due process of law” when it comes to enemy combatants on foreign battlefields and the President’s power as Commander in Chief. This Constitutional power implies the right to use the power, just as the “individual” right to bear arms implies the right to shoot in self-defense. Moreover, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda. Therefore, Obama discharged all that the law required with respect to foreign fighters, knowing that there’s no statute of limitations for murder.
FALSE: I did not say they vanished into oblivion. You made that up.
I didn’t make that up, you did. You said your neighbors vanished: “Men with automatic weapons came and took them away and we haven’t seen them since.” You knew they were in prison following trial, conviction, and sentencing, but you described an abduction and disappearance, not due process of law. That’s lying.
FALSE: Essentially everything you have said is in error . .
I was in error about the number of Americans killed in the attack Obama ordered.
Report comment to moderator
PS Obama complied with all the requirements for use of lethal force against enemy combatants on a foreign battlefield. The killing was effected in the course of an armed conflict authorized by Congress, not a police operation. (BTW, there is no “due process” that authorizes the police to kill someone. )
Report comment to moderator
#121 If your mother says, “I haven’t seen you for a while” will you run up and shout, “LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!! I didn’t disappeared into oblivion!!!”
Report comment to moderator
“serial adulterer”
WOW!
I sadly keep hoping the Newt man will find another newtess and follower her off to wherever.
Report comment to moderator
Because I can’t find anywhere else to put this, here’s Republican ex-Army-Colonel, ex-Westpoint instructor, Ph.D. holding, current NY congressman Chris Gibson talking about how U.S. interests aren’t served by maintaining so many overseas military bases:
http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Military-is-poised-for-reform-2674274.php
Report comment to moderator
The GOP has sadly lost whatever differences in the past it had from Dems.
We SO BADLY NEED another party.
I am totally put off by the whole lot of them, and yet the thought of another 4 years of OBAMA is worse?
The media has done their job. Obama should be proud.
Report comment to moderator
MRS.NEWS2ME @126 – The “mainstream, frontrunner” candidates don’t appear to have the answers.
Newt talks about balancing the budget, “for the first time in your lifetime,” for four straight years. However, during Newt’s time in congress 1979 to 1999 the national debt increased from $998 billion to $5.656 trillion. (See treasurydirect.gov)
While Mitt was governor of Mass., 2002-2006, the state debt rose from $49 million to $64 million. (see census.gov)
Obama believes the government should spend us back to health.
Who has the political backbone to reduce the debt that will exceed $16 billion by the end of this year? The debt is already in excess of 100% of our GDP.
Report comment to moderator
Wait, XION. Saying “I haven’t seen you for awhile” is quite different than saying “We haven’t seen them since.” A performance of the former statement logically excludes an assertion of annihilation. Your performance of the latter invites this notion. I’d call my mother a liar too if she told people I was abducted by men with guns and she had not seen me again, because, if they’d taken me to prison like your neighbors, I’d still be around, and she certainly would have visited me right away. Similarly, your faithful readers knew that, as a militant Evangelical, you certainly must have have visited your neighbors who got carried off to prison, as Jesus commands, and thus you would have seen them, if that’s what happened to them. Things are looking worse for you, XION, shirking religious duty on top of lying.
Report comment to moderator
Your false personal accusations need to stop. I’ve reported you Scroop.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: #121 If your mother says, “I haven’t seen you for a while” will you run up and shout, “LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!! I didn’t disappeared into oblivion!!!”
Oh come on. You didn’t say “for a while,” you suggested that nobody knows where they are, that the government took them god-knows-where. And you also described it as being just for not paying taxes, not for 10 years of deliberate tax evasion followed by resisting arrest with weapons.
Don’t play innocent on this one. You wrote your words deliberately to give a false impression and you know it. Now you respond with wide-eyed innocence and pretend you didn’t mean what it’s obvious you did mean.
Report comment to moderator
Debate with civility and without name calling. If you cannot, then I will be forced to take other action.
Report comment to moderator
Nonviolent crimes do not call for violent means. Not paying taxes is nonviolent. Police can and should wait for the suspects to leave their homes instead of endangering the entire neighborhood by using violence to try to flush them out. People should be able to feel secure in their own homes.
Just today on the Blaze one of the stories tells about a police chase in New Haven, CT where the police were chasing a man through a neighborhood because he had ‘motor vehicle violations’. The SUV he was driving crashed through a house and landed on top of a sleeping man, pinning him underneath and giving him 2nd and 3rd degree burns. The driver fled the scene and got away.
Even law and order conservatives can perceive that too often police are not showing good judgment. And laws that invite them to peek inside your car to see if your seatbelt is fastened encourage this trend. The fact that they are often getting Federal funding to do so is an over reach of the Federal government.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: The greatest danger of distorting and expanding the definition of marriage is not just to churches but to children!
I agree that the dangers of distorting and expanding the definition of marriage does not stop at hobbling/controlling churches. The repercussions of embracing homosexuality in this way are many and deep. And I don’t think it’s just to the children.
I know we disagree on a basic point: at this time, in this culture, I think trying to legislate sexual morality does nothing to help Christianity’s mission. Divorce, promiscuity and the secular American Religion are all decimating the children of this country. I think, to a certain extent, we’re past legislating what is good for the children. I think the only thing we have left is being the church, praying, repenting, letting God work through us to reach the people caught up in this death. IMO, trying to legislate it just gets in the way of that. It casts our mission in a bad light – presents it as judgmental instead of what it is – care for those caught up and dying.
Any law mandating homosexual marriage scares me for just the same reason – it’s an aggressive action aimed at keeping the church from this work. It brings the secular government into the church, telling the churches what they must believe, embrace, promote.
Report comment to moderator
I apologize to XION the man, whom I don’t know and never will. I used a personal pronoun plus a form of the verb to be plus a pejorative.
All my accurate accusations against a post apply only to the narrative voice that blows across cyberspace, tagged by a pseudonym. Only the text is deceitful. The unseen author is as blameless of the misdirection as fetuses are innocent of their future lives.
Whenever I’ve called out a lie, I’ve put the words in quotes, asserted the truth, and explained the deceit.
My well-grounded accusations against false and irresponsible rhetoric will continue. Hate the sin, etc. These accusations will be accurate and not personal. WEB EDITOR can deal with that as he or she will.
I’ve been called many things on this blog — Nazi, servant of Satan, fascist, Stalinist, baby killer — but of course it’s OK if you are an Evangelical.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP MOTH @134 said, “I apologize to XION the man, whom I don’t know and never will.” (Emphasis mine).
Probably been thought of before, but wouldn’t it be cool if there was a reason for us to get together in person?
Report comment to moderator
Debra: Nonviolent crimes do not call for violent means. Not paying taxes is nonviolent. Police can and should wait for the suspects to leave their homes instead of endangering the entire neighborhood by using violence to try to flush them out. People should be able to feel secure in their own homes.
As far as I can tell, the police didn’t do anything in this case until the defendants barricaded themselves in their house, with guns, and defied the court’s sentence.
They were convicted in a court of law after a fair trial and if they had surrendered to serve their sentence that would have been the end of it.
In any case, the case is nothing like it was described.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
This incident has the markings of a Ruby Ridge type scenario –fortunately it ended with no loss of life. But on Wiki, one supporter who was not acting in any way illegally tells of being shot at and tasered while walking the Brown’s dog. Warrants need to be served on people outside their homes, and police should not be putting the entire neighborhood at risk as they did in this case.
Report comment to moderator
But on Wiki, one supporter who was not acting in any way illegally tells of being shot at and tasered while walking the Brown’s dog.
And you believe that?
Tasered, maybe, if the police tried to stop him for questioning and he resisted. But shot at, if he was not himself threatening to shoot?
I’m no fan of the police. In the past few years I’ve read too many stories of brutality and abuse of power to assume their version of events is always the true one. But even so, that account just doesn’t sound credible to me.
However, on the larger point, I agree with you that they shouldn’t be endangering the neighborhood. Do we know that they were? If they’re going to wait for the people to leave their house to arrest them as you recommend, they have to be at the house 24/7 until that happens. Does their simply being there endanger the neighborhood?
And in any case, while the propriety of their actions is certainly up for debate, it seems clear that the case is not the example of a sinister government taking good citizens away to a secret location for no good reason, as Xion tried to claim.
Report comment to moderator
#134 No hard feelings Scroop. I don’t take any of it personally. However, I think there is an important learning moment here that we would be remiss in avoiding.
On another thread, the discussion had to do with truth in the media and how there is no effort any more to get at the actual truth. They just invite both sides onto the show, allow both sides speak and then move on, as if truth is merely a matter of opinion. I think we can do better than that here.
Truth is a uniter. If you have multiple sides who disagree, yet love the truth, then there is a common goal. Going through the effort of bringing more truth to light will bring all sides together.
Here is the sum total of my original statement:
1. A family down the road from me did not pay their taxes. TRUE
2. Men with automatic weapons came and took them away. TRUE
3. And we haven’t seen them since. TRUE
This does not in any way insinuate that their molecules were annihilated and vanished into oblivion. It says nothing whatsoever about where they are now. It doesn’t blow anything out of proportion. It doesn’t imply that a sinister government took good citizens away to a secret location for no good reason. The sum total of my point was that government doesn’t fool around, so let’s be careful what we put it in charge of.
It is important to consider what people say and what we think they said and the bias involved. If we do not like a person, then anything they say is skewed against them. It takes some self-reflection and a willingness to look at how we process information objectively. Truth is objective.
Peace brethren!
Report comment to moderator
132 and 136 – Re: nonviolent crimes and the police. It brought back to memory the O.J. Simpson car chase. But that was even after a violent crime.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: “we haven’t seen them since” is indeed a simple statement of fact. However, it implies mystery. Something unknown. And I believe you chose the words deliberately to imply just that, and then to be able to deny it when called on it.
You use words carefully and meaningfully. If you had wanted us to all know that they were taken to prison and that you know where they are — even if you hadn’t seen them — you would have said so clearly.
Report comment to moderator
Well, the fact is that NOW with the NDAA, the President can get suspicious of any American that draws his attention and ZAP! his molecules disappear into thin air….ok, they don’t disappear into thin air, but they may indeed go missing. Indefinitely. This should be more of a farce, unfortunately it’s not.
Report comment to moderator
Yep, and we agree on NDAA. I’m just suggesting we should not invent problems where they don’t exist. There are enough real ones.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t like to be lied to, so I’ve got hard feelings.
I apologized for predicating XION a liar, not for calling post #60 a lie. I was misled and disturbed by the language therein and agree with CONAN’s #141 about the intention.
The self-validation at #139 is unpersuasive. Most decent people recognize that lying is intentionally holding as the whole truth something which one knows not to be the whole truth. #60 is a contextual lie, a distortion, a lie by omission, and misdirection.
XION previously has accused Obama of daily telling “bold-faced” lies (XION’s term) when at best the discrepancy amounted to nothing more than XION’s dissent from the universally accepted opinion about the severity of the recession. Therefore, XION’s readers need to ask themselves if the speaker holds his own language to the same standard he imposes on Obama.
Nevertheless, I’ve got nothing but praise for the skill of the unknown author who created the speaker we hear at #60. Clearly, the unreliable narrator is a literary device. The voice isn’t mesmerizingly repulsive like the teller of a Nabokov tale, nor subtle, even within the range of a comic book, but the effect is still devastating.
Report comment to moderator
I am thinking we aren’t really taking advantage of this important learning moment regarding personal bias.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, I probably agree with a lot of your stuff, but perhaps “we haven’t seen them since” gives a different impression than you intend, particularly as it’s attached to the ominous sounding “men with automatic weapons” taking people away.
Report comment to moderator
So then, the important thing here is apparently not what we know to be true, i.e. that Obama authorizes the killing of Americans without due process, but what we know to not be true, i.e. that tax evaders, like Obama’s top administrators, are taken to undisclosed locations.
Report comment to moderator
Mac: I think it gives exactly the impression he intends.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!