Thursday, March 4, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
War, Foreign Policy, and Terrorism...
Interesting video clip from Larry King show...Ron Paul contends that our foreign policy should be one of strict isolationism. When he suggests terrorists might hate us because we are invading their countries, and bombing them in the name of "justice" and "democracy" and all that, Ben Stein can't take it anymore...listen to them duke it out...
Outside of all the emotions that were involved, perhaps we should consider Ron Paul's point. Think about his question, "Wouldn't we hate it if other countries were over here, establishing military bases, and forcing their government on us?" One thing I know Paul is going to get accused of is not supporting the troops--I think his point is well made that maybe the best way to support them is by not putting them in danger unnecessarily, which we are doing by establishing a military presence all across the globe.
Outside of all the emotions that were involved, perhaps we should consider Ron Paul's point. Think about his question, "Wouldn't we hate it if other countries were over here, establishing military bases, and forcing their government on us?" One thing I know Paul is going to get accused of is not supporting the troops--I think his point is well made that maybe the best way to support them is by not putting them in danger unnecessarily, which we are doing by establishing a military presence all across the globe.
Monday, October 19, 2009
What about Sarah Palin?
A lot of controversy has surrounded Sarah Palin, everything from her daughter to her candidacy to her resignation to her new book to her high dollar speeches. Liberals hate her, but conservatives for the most part see her as the new face of the Republican party, the new "uniter" of the party. So what about Sarah Palin. Read on--
"Much of the discussion about Mrs. Palin’s candidacy centers around her opportunity to “break through the class ceiling” and be a “role model for young women.” The same was said of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy in the Democratic primary. But what does this mean?
"Are we really saying that we want to completely erase the distinctions between men and women. Do we really believe that it is good for our country to promote the view that women are merely men who happen to be biologically capable of having children (when it does not interfere with career advancement, of course)? I don’t think so. What do we do with the Bible’s admonition in Titus chapter two? Are Christian conservatives saying that Paul’s instructions concerning women’s duty to be “keepers of their homes” has somehow been overturned in light of recent discoveries? Or are we saying that pro-family means one thing when we’re in church, but something else when we’re trying to beat the Democrats?
"Let me be clear. I am not arguing that it is always wrong for a woman to be engaged in affairs outside the home. I agree with Albert Barnes who wrote:
"This does not mean, of course, that they are never to go abroad, but they are not to neglect their domestic affairs; they are not to be better known abroad than at home; they are not to omit their own duties, and become “busy-bodies” in the concerns of others. (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)
"My point is simple. The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul’s admonition should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking.
"My heart breaks for her. She has been blessed beyond measure with five incredible children, but she is running hard after what the world says is ‘something more.’ I fear she will regret this some day. In fact, I believe she already does. I can’t imagine her going to sleep at night without a nagging doubt in the back of her mind as she thinks about the time with her children that she will never get back.
"My heart breaks for her children. Their mother, by all reports, is an incredible, intelligent, energetic woman with a great deal to offer. Unfortunately, right now she is offering it to the people of Alaska, and the people of the United States of America when her first priority is to offer it to them. God designed them to flourish under the nurturing care of their mother, not some surrogate.
"My heart breaks for her husband. Mrs. Palin is not even supposed to be the head of her own household (Eph. 5:22ff; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-7), let alone the State of Alaska, or the United States Senate (The VP oversees the Senate). He should be shepherding her, but instead she is ruling over him (Rom 13:1-7; 1Pet 2:13-17). How difficult it must be for him to walk the fine line of bowing to the culture that is stealing his bride while still trying to love his wife and lead his family.
My heart breaks for the so-called Christian right. All the usual subjects have been falling all over themselves to praise Mr. McCain and justify their blind allegiance to the Republican Party in an effort to secure more “pro-family” judges. They want to protect marriage from redefinition by the homosexual movement, and they are willing to redefine marriage (and motherhood) to do it.
"Ironically, the Neocons are merely using Mrs. Palin as a political pawn. She is beloved because she gives them the coveted “moral high ground” in the upcoming debates. Read recent articles and the goals become clear. We must win on abortion. She makes it hard to argue for it. We must win on the race/gender issue. She gives us a woman to their ethnic minority. We must win on being young and hip. Obama is 47; Palin is 44. We must win the “change” argument. Obama is new to Washington; Palin has never served there. Checkmate!
"Unfortunately, this political pawn represents a fatal flaw worldview flaw. In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, “It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.” How pro-family is that?"
"Much of the discussion about Mrs. Palin’s candidacy centers around her opportunity to “break through the class ceiling” and be a “role model for young women.” The same was said of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy in the Democratic primary. But what does this mean?
"Are we really saying that we want to completely erase the distinctions between men and women. Do we really believe that it is good for our country to promote the view that women are merely men who happen to be biologically capable of having children (when it does not interfere with career advancement, of course)? I don’t think so. What do we do with the Bible’s admonition in Titus chapter two? Are Christian conservatives saying that Paul’s instructions concerning women’s duty to be “keepers of their homes” has somehow been overturned in light of recent discoveries? Or are we saying that pro-family means one thing when we’re in church, but something else when we’re trying to beat the Democrats?
"Let me be clear. I am not arguing that it is always wrong for a woman to be engaged in affairs outside the home. I agree with Albert Barnes who wrote:
"This does not mean, of course, that they are never to go abroad, but they are not to neglect their domestic affairs; they are not to be better known abroad than at home; they are not to omit their own duties, and become “busy-bodies” in the concerns of others. (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)
"My point is simple. The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul’s admonition should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking.
"My heart breaks for her. She has been blessed beyond measure with five incredible children, but she is running hard after what the world says is ‘something more.’ I fear she will regret this some day. In fact, I believe she already does. I can’t imagine her going to sleep at night without a nagging doubt in the back of her mind as she thinks about the time with her children that she will never get back.
"My heart breaks for her children. Their mother, by all reports, is an incredible, intelligent, energetic woman with a great deal to offer. Unfortunately, right now she is offering it to the people of Alaska, and the people of the United States of America when her first priority is to offer it to them. God designed them to flourish under the nurturing care of their mother, not some surrogate.
"My heart breaks for her husband. Mrs. Palin is not even supposed to be the head of her own household (Eph. 5:22ff; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-7), let alone the State of Alaska, or the United States Senate (The VP oversees the Senate). He should be shepherding her, but instead she is ruling over him (Rom 13:1-7; 1Pet 2:13-17). How difficult it must be for him to walk the fine line of bowing to the culture that is stealing his bride while still trying to love his wife and lead his family.
My heart breaks for the so-called Christian right. All the usual subjects have been falling all over themselves to praise Mr. McCain and justify their blind allegiance to the Republican Party in an effort to secure more “pro-family” judges. They want to protect marriage from redefinition by the homosexual movement, and they are willing to redefine marriage (and motherhood) to do it.
"Ironically, the Neocons are merely using Mrs. Palin as a political pawn. She is beloved because she gives them the coveted “moral high ground” in the upcoming debates. Read recent articles and the goals become clear. We must win on abortion. She makes it hard to argue for it. We must win on the race/gender issue. She gives us a woman to their ethnic minority. We must win on being young and hip. Obama is 47; Palin is 44. We must win the “change” argument. Obama is new to Washington; Palin has never served there. Checkmate!
"Unfortunately, this political pawn represents a fatal flaw worldview flaw. In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, “It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.” How pro-family is that?"
--excerpt from an article by Voddie Baucham
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Column of the Week
Speaking about taxes Thomas Paine commented, “What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue.” Many Americans feel the same way, and are starting to be vocal about it. Last Saturday, thousands of frustrated, angry, and insulted Americans marched on Washington, D.C., protesting a now ridiculously excessive taxation.
On the same day, Freeport had a “tea party” of its own, organized by the local Libertarian club. From their own lips, they were there to exercise their right to peaceably assemble, to say to the government they are sick of the way things are being done. The waste and corruption in government has gone far enough and it’s high time someone mustered up the guts to say so.
For those who are out of the loop, this kind of tea party is not a social event where you drink tea and chat with your friends. “TEA” is an acronym that stands for, “taxed enough already,” a statement I think very few people disagree with. However, “tea parties” usually cover a broader scope than just taxes. Incidentally, it is a movement mostly among conservative, and many of the tea party protestors represent the conservative system in more ways than just taxation. For example, among the Freeport tea partiers, of course there were those who were mainly protesting heavy taxation, but many were there protesting abortion, healthcare, and so on.
Those who said taxes were their main grievance talked about high state and local taxes, but also brought it local citing the recent tax raises in Freeport, i.e., a ¾% sales tax increase and a new tax on candy. However, on the flip side, all who claimed taxes were ridiculously high admitted that they were not opposed to reasonable taxation. They made it clear they were not opposing taxation, as long as the money was used for responsible things; but also making it equally clear that at this point, we are taxed to death and the money goes to what? Bailing out banks and other large corporations, building big government mansions, paying for a failing school system, and funding abortion. Hardly a responsible use of taxpayer dollars. On the whole, they were simply echoing what Calvin Coolidge said years earlier, “Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.” And why should we put up with it?
So, what’s the point of a tea party? What does it accomplish, if anything? Sure, in practicality, it doesn’t really do anything in the sense that it doesn’t change anything. After Saturday, the same laws are still intact and taxes are just as high. The point of a tea party is not to change that. The point of a tea party is to raise awareness both in the citizenry and in the government.
A tea party says to the citizenry that it is perfectly legal and responsible to disagree with and protest the actions of the government. It gives those with less courage the extra encouragement they need to stand up as well, to say as well that they are fed up with big government domination.
However, a tea party is mostly a message to the government, which reads, “This is a government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’, and we as the people don’t like how you are running the government. For the last few years we have put up with it, but now, enough is enough. It is now time to do what should have been done long ago. You as government officials answer to us. And we are saying it’s time for a change, a real change, and not the kind of change a big government can provide.”
On the same day, Freeport had a “tea party” of its own, organized by the local Libertarian club. From their own lips, they were there to exercise their right to peaceably assemble, to say to the government they are sick of the way things are being done. The waste and corruption in government has gone far enough and it’s high time someone mustered up the guts to say so.
For those who are out of the loop, this kind of tea party is not a social event where you drink tea and chat with your friends. “TEA” is an acronym that stands for, “taxed enough already,” a statement I think very few people disagree with. However, “tea parties” usually cover a broader scope than just taxes. Incidentally, it is a movement mostly among conservative, and many of the tea party protestors represent the conservative system in more ways than just taxation. For example, among the Freeport tea partiers, of course there were those who were mainly protesting heavy taxation, but many were there protesting abortion, healthcare, and so on.
Those who said taxes were their main grievance talked about high state and local taxes, but also brought it local citing the recent tax raises in Freeport, i.e., a ¾% sales tax increase and a new tax on candy. However, on the flip side, all who claimed taxes were ridiculously high admitted that they were not opposed to reasonable taxation. They made it clear they were not opposing taxation, as long as the money was used for responsible things; but also making it equally clear that at this point, we are taxed to death and the money goes to what? Bailing out banks and other large corporations, building big government mansions, paying for a failing school system, and funding abortion. Hardly a responsible use of taxpayer dollars. On the whole, they were simply echoing what Calvin Coolidge said years earlier, “Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.” And why should we put up with it?
So, what’s the point of a tea party? What does it accomplish, if anything? Sure, in practicality, it doesn’t really do anything in the sense that it doesn’t change anything. After Saturday, the same laws are still intact and taxes are just as high. The point of a tea party is not to change that. The point of a tea party is to raise awareness both in the citizenry and in the government.
A tea party says to the citizenry that it is perfectly legal and responsible to disagree with and protest the actions of the government. It gives those with less courage the extra encouragement they need to stand up as well, to say as well that they are fed up with big government domination.
However, a tea party is mostly a message to the government, which reads, “This is a government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’, and we as the people don’t like how you are running the government. For the last few years we have put up with it, but now, enough is enough. It is now time to do what should have been done long ago. You as government officials answer to us. And we are saying it’s time for a change, a real change, and not the kind of change a big government can provide.”
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." - James Madison
"Talk is cheap - except when Congress does it." - Cullen Hightower
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
"The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem." - Milton Friedman
"Talk is cheap - except when Congress does it." - Cullen Hightower
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
"The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem." - Milton Friedman
Column of the Week
So the healthcare debate, after several months, is still raging, and by the looks of things will continue to rage for quite awhile. It is the result of a fast worsening situation in healthcare. Everyone currently agrees that our situation is broken, but everyone disagrees on how to fix it. Obama among others has pushed his solution to the healthcare problem as hard as he possibly can. As he has done so, he has gotten a huge amount of kickback. Why? Why is healthcare reform such a big controversy?
Although on the surface, there is a lot of politics involved in the debate, at its very heart it is a conflict between two systems of thought.
The one is capitalism, the idea that a market free of government intervention will work to effectively lower prices through a system of competition. This system is based on the understanding that people are selfish and in business will seek their own good and prosperity. Since cheating, lying and stealing as a general rule is not good for business, capitalists will say that out of self interest, businesses will refrain from cheating, lying and stealing because they want more money. Well known economist Milton Friedman said, “The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm, capitalism is that kind of a system.” However, while in theory the system should work perfectly, although in practicality it unfortunately doesn’t work flawlessly.
The other system is of course the idea that through a system of regulation and manipulation the government can do a better job of ensuring both lower prices and maximum quality. This is a more “humanitarian” philosophy because at its heart it doesn’t want people to be “economically hurt” in the first place. The only way you can do that is to make it impossible for a business to hurt its workers by overbearing government regulation. One example would be minimum wage. This system also sounds very good in theory, but again, in practicality it doesn’t work quite as well because often the regulations while helping one area of the market, are detrimental to another area.
Because a capitalist believes in a free market, he looks at our healthcare crisis with skyrocketing prices of medical care and insurance and says we need the government to back off and let market competition bring down prices. He would say, an insurance company that rips off its customers, or a healthcare clinic that charges ridiculous prices for basic health checkups, and outlandish prices for medicine, would be put out of business by market competition. So his solution is, let the market run itself.
Those in favor of government intervention see the problem and propose a solution that naturally includes government regulation of healthcare prices and a new government program to take care of the uninsured. He would say that big insurance companies that rip off their customers just need to be punished by the government, or more strictly regulated as to what they can charge. Better yet, insurance companies should just be eliminated and the government should take care of the people’s health needs.
As you can see, both ideas are inherently contradictory. Therefore, while the healthcare debate is a political discussion, down deep it is a conflict between ideas and therefore it results in a conflict between those who passionately hold to either of those ideas. So, the next question would obviously be, “Which system is better?”, and that, my friend, is what the healthcare debate is all about. Which system is better. Think about it, and you decide.
Although on the surface, there is a lot of politics involved in the debate, at its very heart it is a conflict between two systems of thought.
The one is capitalism, the idea that a market free of government intervention will work to effectively lower prices through a system of competition. This system is based on the understanding that people are selfish and in business will seek their own good and prosperity. Since cheating, lying and stealing as a general rule is not good for business, capitalists will say that out of self interest, businesses will refrain from cheating, lying and stealing because they want more money. Well known economist Milton Friedman said, “The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm, capitalism is that kind of a system.” However, while in theory the system should work perfectly, although in practicality it unfortunately doesn’t work flawlessly.
The other system is of course the idea that through a system of regulation and manipulation the government can do a better job of ensuring both lower prices and maximum quality. This is a more “humanitarian” philosophy because at its heart it doesn’t want people to be “economically hurt” in the first place. The only way you can do that is to make it impossible for a business to hurt its workers by overbearing government regulation. One example would be minimum wage. This system also sounds very good in theory, but again, in practicality it doesn’t work quite as well because often the regulations while helping one area of the market, are detrimental to another area.
Because a capitalist believes in a free market, he looks at our healthcare crisis with skyrocketing prices of medical care and insurance and says we need the government to back off and let market competition bring down prices. He would say, an insurance company that rips off its customers, or a healthcare clinic that charges ridiculous prices for basic health checkups, and outlandish prices for medicine, would be put out of business by market competition. So his solution is, let the market run itself.
Those in favor of government intervention see the problem and propose a solution that naturally includes government regulation of healthcare prices and a new government program to take care of the uninsured. He would say that big insurance companies that rip off their customers just need to be punished by the government, or more strictly regulated as to what they can charge. Better yet, insurance companies should just be eliminated and the government should take care of the people’s health needs.
As you can see, both ideas are inherently contradictory. Therefore, while the healthcare debate is a political discussion, down deep it is a conflict between ideas and therefore it results in a conflict between those who passionately hold to either of those ideas. So, the next question would obviously be, “Which system is better?”, and that, my friend, is what the healthcare debate is all about. Which system is better. Think about it, and you decide.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Column of the Week
So...I decided to stay on the topic of Kennedy and write my column for the week about it...enjoy...
As the United States, and the world for that matter, mourns the passing of Ted Kennedy, I’m left with mixed feelings. On one hand I'm sad to see death in any case, but on the other hand, quite frankly, I'm glad his political persuasion is gone. Let me explain.
Any honest person must acknowledge both the genius and influence of Senator Ted Kennedy, “The Lion of the Senate”. Therefore out of respect we must salute his passing. Whether or not you agree with all his political views, you have to admit he was a staunch, though perhaps misguided defender of all he believed. He was a fighter, and will be remembered as such.
Furthermore, no matter what you do or say, you will not be able to shake the influence of Kennedy on the political views of our government and this nation. For the last few decades, Kennedy has been one of the biggest communicators of liberalism at its best. Needless to say, when it came to policy making either on the state or federal level, the voice and vote of Kenned had a lot of weight. Wikipedia states, “Kennedy played a major role in passing many laws, including laws addressing immigration, cancer research, health insurance, apartheid, disability discrimination, AIDS care, civil rights, mental health benefits, children's health insurance, education and volunteering.”
However, much as I respect the Senator, I'm glad he is gone, in terms of his political sway. During his lifetime he promoted flawed economic, domestic, and international policy, and he was a proponent of large government. But more importantly he stood as a staunch defender of skewed moral policy. In him the pro abortion movement could find a fierce ally, he stood for many things the Word of God decries as shameful and wicked. So while the Senate lost a man with a leader's character, but they also lost a man who was an influence for the worse.
Looking back over his life and his accomplishments, while I have to say I oppose many of his policies, at the same time, I wish we conservatives had someone like him. The ranks of the conservatives are filled with weak-kneed cowards who either won’t stand for anything in the first place or as soon as opposition hits will turn to jelly.
They are ready to compromise, and yet ironically can never agree on anything and seem to find much pleasure in arguing with each other while countries and cities self destruct.
Not Ted Kennedy. In endorsing Obama, he stood on a limb and stated, “Let us reject the counsels of doubt and calculation.” He wasn’t afraid to take action on his own, nor was he afraid to stand most adamantly for what he believed. When he saw a problem he proposed a solution and worked tirelessly to get it passed. Kennedy declared his own motivation when he said, “The commitment I seek is not to outworn views but to old values that will never wear out. Programs may sometimes become obsolete, but the ideal of fairness always endures. Circumstances may change, but the work of compassion must continue.” It’s a pity the solutions he proposed although well meaning were misguided. Regardless, it’s probably more of a pity that we don’t have more men like him, the key word there being “men”. Kennedy stood as one of the few “men” among our leaders in Washington, most of whom could be better labeled as either crooks or cowards.
Thus the reason I look back over the legacy of Ted Kennedy with mixed feelings—on the one hand I stand in stark opposition to him, but on the other hand I am forced to acknowledge and in some ways admire his courage and eloquence.
As the United States, and the world for that matter, mourns the passing of Ted Kennedy, I’m left with mixed feelings. On one hand I'm sad to see death in any case, but on the other hand, quite frankly, I'm glad his political persuasion is gone. Let me explain.
Any honest person must acknowledge both the genius and influence of Senator Ted Kennedy, “The Lion of the Senate”. Therefore out of respect we must salute his passing. Whether or not you agree with all his political views, you have to admit he was a staunch, though perhaps misguided defender of all he believed. He was a fighter, and will be remembered as such.
Furthermore, no matter what you do or say, you will not be able to shake the influence of Kennedy on the political views of our government and this nation. For the last few decades, Kennedy has been one of the biggest communicators of liberalism at its best. Needless to say, when it came to policy making either on the state or federal level, the voice and vote of Kenned had a lot of weight. Wikipedia states, “Kennedy played a major role in passing many laws, including laws addressing immigration, cancer research, health insurance, apartheid, disability discrimination, AIDS care, civil rights, mental health benefits, children's health insurance, education and volunteering.”
However, much as I respect the Senator, I'm glad he is gone, in terms of his political sway. During his lifetime he promoted flawed economic, domestic, and international policy, and he was a proponent of large government. But more importantly he stood as a staunch defender of skewed moral policy. In him the pro abortion movement could find a fierce ally, he stood for many things the Word of God decries as shameful and wicked. So while the Senate lost a man with a leader's character, but they also lost a man who was an influence for the worse.
Looking back over his life and his accomplishments, while I have to say I oppose many of his policies, at the same time, I wish we conservatives had someone like him. The ranks of the conservatives are filled with weak-kneed cowards who either won’t stand for anything in the first place or as soon as opposition hits will turn to jelly.
They are ready to compromise, and yet ironically can never agree on anything and seem to find much pleasure in arguing with each other while countries and cities self destruct.
Not Ted Kennedy. In endorsing Obama, he stood on a limb and stated, “Let us reject the counsels of doubt and calculation.” He wasn’t afraid to take action on his own, nor was he afraid to stand most adamantly for what he believed. When he saw a problem he proposed a solution and worked tirelessly to get it passed. Kennedy declared his own motivation when he said, “The commitment I seek is not to outworn views but to old values that will never wear out. Programs may sometimes become obsolete, but the ideal of fairness always endures. Circumstances may change, but the work of compassion must continue.” It’s a pity the solutions he proposed although well meaning were misguided. Regardless, it’s probably more of a pity that we don’t have more men like him, the key word there being “men”. Kennedy stood as one of the few “men” among our leaders in Washington, most of whom could be better labeled as either crooks or cowards.
Thus the reason I look back over the legacy of Ted Kennedy with mixed feelings—on the one hand I stand in stark opposition to him, but on the other hand I am forced to acknowledge and in some ways admire his courage and eloquence.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The passing of a legend
The passing of Ted Kennedy leaves me with mixed feelings. On one hand I'm sad to see death, but on the other had, quite frankly, I'm glad his influence is gone. Let me explain.
First and foremost we must acknowledge both the genius and influence of Senator Ted Kennedy. Whether or not you like his political views, you have to admit he was a staunch, though perhaps misguided defender of all he believed. He was a fighter, and it is fitting that we remember his legacy as such. Also, no matter what you do, you will not be able to honestly shake the influence of Kennedy on the political views of our government and this nation.
However, much as I respect the Senator, I'm glad he is gone, in terms of his political sway. During his lifetime he promoted flawed economic, domestic, and international policy, but more importantly he stood as a staunch defender of skewed moral policy. In him the pro abortion movement could find a fierce ally, he stood for many things the Word of God decries as shameful and wicked. Did he expect to be blessed with a long healthy life?
Sure, the Senate lost a man with a leader's character, but they also lost a man who was an influence for the worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
