Article VI Blog

Amongst the left there is the notion that those of us of religious conviction are somehow less rational and reasonable than those whose mind is uncluttered by such unsubstantiated nonsense as resurrection and multiplying loaves and fishes.  Two articles appeared in the last 24 hours that attempt to “prove” that presumption.

One, from CNN, is basically a straightforward slap in the face to those of faith:

When was the last time you sat down and questioned your decision to believe in God?

According to a new study, that simple act could decrease your religious conviction – even if you’re a devout believer.

In the study, published Friday in the journal Science, researchers from Canada’s University of British Columbia used subtle stimuli to encourage analytical thinking. Results from the study found that analytical thinking could decrease religious belief.

“Religious belief is intuitive – and analytical thinking can undermine intuitive thinking,” said Ara Norenzayan, co-author of the study. “So when people are encouraged to think analytically, it can block intuitive thinking.”

Now, let me put on my science hat (Let’s remember I have a graduate degree in chemistry – I actually do have a science hat.)  There is an a priori assumption in the statement, “Religious belief is intuitive….” Such assumptions are guaranteed to skew the results one obtains from one’s proposed experiment.  Where is the data that religious belief is intuitive?  There are literally thousands of years of deep rational thought and apologetics lying behind Christian belief.  More mystical religions, and some highly mystical expressions of Christianity may be a bit more intuitive, but to state religious belief is intuitive is to more or less assume the thing you are trying to prove.

When you read the methodology this study uses, one realizes how utterly silly it is:

Some of the more than 650 Canadian and American participants in the study were shown images of artwork that encouraged analytic thinking, while another group was shown images that were not intended to produce such thinking.

Images promote analytical thinking?  Wha?  I know when I am doing analysis it generally involves sentences and equations, not image processing.

Far more interesting what this piece from the Atlantic contends:

Of late, researchers in political science and psychology have been talking a great deal about an idea called “motivated reasoning” — thought and argument that seems rational and dispassionate, but really isn’t anything of the sort. Motivated reasoning is becoming a buzzword, but few have sketched out why it is such a powerful idea: Because it fits so nicely with everything we now know about evolution and the human brain.

[...]

That’s where politics comes in. Our political, ideological, partisan, and religious convictions — because they are deeply held enough to comprise core parts of our personal identities, and because they link us to the groups that bulwark those identities and give us meaning — can be key drivers of motivated reasoning. They can make us virtually impervious to facts, logic, and reason. Anyone in a politically split family who has tried to argue with her mother, or father, about politics or religion — and eventually decided “that’s a subject we just don’t talk about” — knows what this is like, and how painful it can be.

There is a deep fallacy in extrapolating from a deeply personal phenomena like a family fight to the political stage of our nation.  They attempt to deal with it later in the piece, but I do not want to get bogged down in the science and methodology of this piece.  Rather, let us turn to the credit at the end of the piece:

This article is an adapted excerpt from The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality (Wiley).

Interesting is it not?  They make a long and extensive argument that apparently rational thinking is not nearly as rational as we might imagine, but at the end you find out that such is true only on one side of the political spectrum.

So Why Does This Matter?

Folks, what you are seeing here is agenda “science,” no different that the global warming scientists in Britain that cooked the books.  The goal here is not, like the climate change fakery was, wealth transfer, but the elimination of religion from the public square totally.  This could, if allowed, get quite Orwellian.

If “proven” that religion stands on the way of reason and rational thought, would it be that hard to require a demonstration of purging our minds of religion as a qualification to vote?  When the general public believed African-Americans to be of inherently limited intelligence, they had no access to the franchise.  My assertion is not nearly the stretch it might seem.

What is most disconcerting about this is that philosophically science is born of religion.  Science came from an effort to understand the Creator by understanding His creation, as one understands the author by reading his books and the artist by viewing his paintings.  Unshackled from religion, science ceases to be science in any meaningful sense – it becomes no different than any other field of academic endeavor.  Rather than having discovery as its aim, it exists to prove the presumptions of the scientist.  Rather than be objective, science unshackled from religion is as subjective as literature or art.

The answer here is not some form of counter-science.  The answer is instead twofold.  One is to rely on the constitution and the traditional understanding of same.  We must insist on it and we must spend our money in defense of it.  Secondly, we must endeavor to be the kind of people that only people of faith can be.  The winsomeness that faith produces in us is the best possible evidence for the necessity of faith.

Posted in Political Strategy, Prejudice, Understanding Religion | 10 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Mitt Romney had a very good day yesterday, capturing five primaries.  Not a shock really, but important and notable nonetheless.

In the wake, Ross Douthat writes on “Playing The Mormon Card:”

But it will be difficult for the White House to exploit these suspicions directly. If it seems like prominent Democrats are playing the religion card, then the Romney camp will have a chance to re-run the Jeffress controversy and paint its opponents as bigots. There’s also the awkward matter of President Obama’s own religious background: The White House probably would rather not do anything that might revive the 2008 debate over the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

This explains why the White House was so quick to distance itself from Brian Schweitzer, the governor of Montana, when he raised the fact that Romney’s great-grandfather practiced polygamy. And it explains why the dog whistles that some conservatives have detected coming from the White House – an Obama spokesman contrasting Romney’s “faith” with the president’s “Christianity,” the repeated references to Romney’s “weirdness” from unnamed administration officials – have been pitched too faintly to be heard by most voters.

Lowell pointed out the same thing yesterday, once again putting A6 before the MSM – when will they learn?  In his piece, Lowell reminded us of DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’ flat out denial of the religion card in the wake of Lawrence O’Donnell’s ugliness.  But I wonder how much distance they are really developing here.

Last Friday we reported on CNN guy Martin Bashir pronouncing Mitt Romney condemned to hell based on Bashir’s reading of the Book of Mormon.  So who appeared on Bashir’s show over the weekend?  Why the DNC’s own Debbie Wasserman-Schultz!

That’s right! – the woman who swore that neither the party nor the Obama campaign would ever play the religion card lent the credibility of the entire Democrat National Committee to a media outlet that played it in a particularly nasty fashion, and just a day or so after they did it.  Did she challenge Bashir?  Did she take him out behind the woodshed?  Did she call him on his playing of the religion card at all?  Of course not, she had bigger fish to fry like the contention that electing Romney would place women’s rights “in jeopardy” – and of course there is no dog-whistle there.

This entire thing is insulting, but the most insulting aspect of all is that they think they can engage in this kind of forked-tongue double-talk and no one will notice.  The distance between the Democrat party/Obama campaign and the religion card is thinner than the card itself.

Lowell adds . . .

I think The Question is simply baked into the cake of this year’s election.  With every bite, we’ll detect a little religious flavor, faint though it may be.  That’s the reality.  The key to avoiding damage to the Republic will be to avoid allowing Romney’s faith (or Obama’s) to become a divisive distraction from the real issues – the economy, mainly, and national defense.  The Democrats would like nothing more than to see Mormonism become a huge distraction, even if the president’s Jeremiah Wright history comes back into focus.  The goal would be entirely cynical: to make Romney seem “weird” and to exploit the general public’s unfamiliarity with Mormonism.

For example, Bryan Schweitzer is still in the news, explaining his “polygamy commune” comment.  His explanations are laughable, of course, but we are still hearing about the subject.  As Dean Pagani observed, “as a result of Schweitzer’s comments there’s now a link you can be led to if you search for the words ‘Romney and polygamy’ together.”  Rather than be angry about this tactic, those of us who support the principles underlying Article VI need to keep pounding away at it.  The more the electorate realizes what the Democrats are trying to do, the less successful the tactic will be.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

A few weeks ago Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz responded to the idea that in the presidential campaign Democrats will use religion against Mitt Romney:

“That suggestion is utter nonsense. Let’s remember that President Obama has had so many things hurled at him – birth certificate questions, whether he is or is not a Christian,” Wasserman Schultz continued. “For them to suggest that religion will be injected [into the election] by President Obama and the Democratic Party, I mean, I think they need to take a look inward at the accusations that their party and their supporters have hurled before they take that step.”

Well, when it comes to injecting religion into the campaign, there is more than one way to skin a Mormon– I mean, a cat.  In today’s digital world it’s pretty easy to do, without dirtying the Obama campaign’s hands at all.  Here are some examples.

“Whoops, I Did It Again”

At Governors Journal, Dean Pagani offers an interesting analysis and summation of the Brian Schweitzer story, which John wrote about last week here. Readers will recall that Schweitzer, the Democratic Governor of Montana, said Mitt Romney’s family roots were in “a polygamy commune in Mexico.” Pagani:

Politicians subtlety tossing out ideas with or without making a direct charge is nothing new. It happens every day in big and small campaigns across the country. What is slightly new is how it impacts the flow of information on the Internet. If there wasn’t before; as a result of Schweitzer’s comments there’s now a link you can be led to if you search for the words “Romney and polygamy” together. A link that suggests polygamy is just one generation removed from Romney himself.

It has been reliably reported that one of the strategies of the Obama campaign is to create a narrative that Romney is just plain weird. A charge has been made that his wife has “never worked a day in her life” and now a suggestion has been made that his family lived in a “polygamy commune.”

In each case the response from the Obama campaign has been the same; repeat the charge while renouncing it. In the face of a growing pattern, it’s becoming more difficult to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt when they mis-speak about their probable opponent.

(Emphasis added.)  Pagani does seem to be on to something. So far we’ve seen the same pattern at least three times:

• On MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell makes a blistering attack on Romney and his Mormon faith. The digital communications world (blogosphere, Twitterverse, Facebook) explodes over O’Donnell’s remarks; the MSM dutifully reports on the story (except Meet the Press’s David Gregory, who wanted to pretend the story didn’t exist); Debbie Wasserman Schultz tells a national TV audience that such attacks are unacceptable and the Democrats won’t use religion against Romney.
• Hilary Rosen, a Democratic operative with close ties to the White House (visiting there over 30 times during the Obama Administration, including 5 meetings in which the president himself was present), says Ann Romney has “never worked a day in her life.” The same pattern unfolds, except David Axelrod and eventually President Obama himself both come out and says the candidate’s families are out of bounds.
• Brian Schweitzer runs his “polygamy commune” schtick.

Do you see how this works?  Let someone else make the outrageous statement, then distance yourself from it.  No denunciation, mind you; a mere disavowal will do.  Meanwhile, the meme develops.  How many people who heard about the above three statements actually took the time to investigate whether O’Donnell’s anti-Mormon screed was accurate (it wasn’t); or that Hilary Rosen’s attack on Mrs. Romney was not a fair representation of Ann’s life or of Mormon family life generally; or that one has to go back to Mitt  Romney’s great-great grandfather to find a polygamist?

Meanwhile, some Democrats are worried about their own Anti-Mormon Problem

So far only Peter Beinart has raised that daring (for a left-liberal) idea, but that’s a good start.  Beinart, who has shown a willingness to engage with conservatives, thinks that “Democrats Have Bigger Anti-Mormon Problem in Election Than GOP Has.”  The whole thing is well worth reading;  Key excerpts:

Despite the media’s obsession with the alleged anti-Mormonism of evangelical Christians, the party with the larger anti-Mormon problem is the Democrats. According to Gallup, while only 18 percent of Republicans said they would oppose a Mormon candidate, among Democrats the figure was 27 percent. As if on cue, Montana’s Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, last week volunteered that women would not back Romney because his father was “born on a polygamy commune in Mexico.”

To its credit, the Obama campaign repudiated Schweitzer’s statement. But between now and Election Day, anti-Mormonism is going to be the Democratic Party’s constant temptation for one simple reason: there are votes in it….

Joanna Brooks, a left-of-center Mormon writer, disagrees in Why Peter Beinart is Wrong on Democrats and Anti-Mormonism.  We’ll leave it to you to decide who’s right.  I think Brooks is too willing to give liberals a pass for insisting that Romney’s religion be explored for hints as to how his church’s teachings might influence his policy positions.  I’ll go along with that analysis as soon as someone can show me any historical precedent for a U.S. presidential candidate being required to address the connection between his religious faith and his policy positions.

The Dog-Whistle Problem

Jonah Goldberg notes yet another way in which the drip-drip-drip of the “Mormon meme” development can be accomplished.  On Special Report last night (video and story here), a “Democrat strategist” named Ryan Clayton said:

I don’t think people should be attacking Mitt Romney for his faith, just like they shouldn’t be attacking President Obama for his Christianity. You know, faith and politics, if you mix it together, becomes kind of a tinder box and can explode in your face.

Jonah notes:

I’m not saying that was Clayton’s intent [to comment on whether or not Mormonism is Christian] or that he doesn’t have the right to say it if it was, but you can see in the outlines of this formulation a way for Democrats to dogwhistle Romney’s Mormonism relentlessly. “I for one will not attack anyone’s religion, be they devout Christian or whatever the Hell Mitt Romney is.” I expect to hear more of it, a lot more of it.

So do we.  Everyone needs to watch this.  We must avoid crying “bigotry” where there is none, but people of good will need to speak up when the anti-Mormon game is being played, however subtly.  We want Mitt Romney to win the presidency, but to paraphrase Beinart, when it comes to the spirit of Article VI of the Constitution, it’s even more important that the country not lose.

Posted in News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

I am by academic training a scientist and vocationally I do a lot of engineering.  That means that rhetorically I am inclined to be a blunt instrument.  No, I think that is putting it too softly.  By predilection, I am more like the guy in this wrestling video:

And yet, even I am struck at how naked and aggressive are the attacks now flowing Romney’s way from the left.  Yesterday we dismissed Tim Egan’s NYTimes piece on Romney’s lack of vice as “silly.”  And yet Martin Bashir found it so convincing he doubled down!  Can anything besides naked aggression account for advancing something that the author at least partially had his tongue-in-his-cheek when he wrote and using it as serious attack?

And remember a couple of weeks ago when we dealt with Salon’s Alex Pareene’s defense of Lawrence O’Donnell as making a joke?  Well, Mr. Pareene has  new ebook out and Salon has an exceprt:

Mitt Romney is weird. When the Obama reelection campaign early in the cycle made the mistake of indicating that its strategy would be to imply that Mitt Romney is weird by repeatedly telling Politico that it planned on calling Mitt Romney weird, Romney’s camp countered by causing a brief and not particularly sincere media brouhaha over whether “weird” is code for “Mormon.” Plenty of Americans think Mormons are weird, yes, but in this case, the simple fact is Mitt Romney is weird, entirely apart from his religion.

And now the sledgehammer is a howitzer!  Not to mention that opening by saying, “It’s not about religion,” is tantamount to an admission that it is about religion.  Not because I agree with it, but because it is a lesson in how to message this kind of stuff, a link to this Atlantic piece is in order.  “Romney’s ‘Leave it to Beaver’ in the ‘Gossip Girl’ age,” yada, yada, yada, but at least it manages to level the “weird” charge with some humor and style.

And then, because they are having a hard time getting the “Mormons are racist; therefore Romney is racist” thing to stick (Gee, I wonder why?  Maybe a lack of reality?) some guy at HuffPo decides to “prove” Mormons have an Indian problem.  The quoting of sacred texts of any faith and using it for “gotcha” is old, tired and pointless.  The Bible says God created the Earth in six days and yet I am NOT a young earth creationist.  Go figure.

Concerning the weekend dust-up at Liberty University.  When Liberty took down the Facebook announcement, the griping went away.  What is amazing is that CNN’s follow-up piece on that does not charge censorship.  What do we learn?  Mostly that CNN is lazy trying to turn Facebook comments into a story.  “You’re stupid” – “Nu-uh, you are” does not constitute debate.

One other mis-messaging comes in this interview with Ross Douthat on his new book which is in the pile but I have not gotten to yet.  In a classic “theology first” approach Douthat proclaims both Romney and Obama as “heretics,” but then goes on to talk about how clearly preferable Romney is to people of faith.  Once the label “heretic” is applied I think people might just stop listening.  If one wants Romney to win, which I assume to be the case if he is preferable, then a much softer descriptor might be in order, or maybe bury the thought way down from the lede.

There was a great transcript of a Pew event on Mormons and Civic Life.  It’s long and it’s smart and it is the first really serious thing we have linked to today (save of course the self referential links scattered throughout )  Sadly few will read it through.

And finally. Michael Medved gets it right:

Before Rick Santorum suspended his presidential campaign, exit polls from his landslide victory in the Louisiana primary showed that a stunning 73% of Republican voters insisted that it “matters that a candidate shares my religious beliefs” — expressing the conviction that it’s appropriate to judge a prospective president based on his theological orientation. Only 12% took the position that it matters “not at all” if a candidate’s religious outlook differed from their own.

There’s an obvious irony to this situation: Many of those same social conservatives who claim to revere the plain text of the Constitution seem determined to ignore its prohibition on religious tests for federal office.

Posted in Political Strategy, Reading List | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

In 2008 Evangelicals spoiled Mitt Romney’s primary run.  The results were disastrous for the party, but the spoilage was real.  Evangelicals have been unable to pull off a similar spoil in 2012.  To some extent that indicates a realignment in the party, but more importantly I think it represents a realignment inside Evangelicals.  Some people are going to like this and some are not.

Those who wanted little else than to once again play spoiler have to be among those that don’t care much for the realignment.  Among that bunch I am quite certain we can count the once consequential, yet still media omnipresent Eric Erickson of RedState.  Let’s face it, the MSM is going to keep the unhappy Republican around forever, it helps the Dems and it paints Republicans as a caricature.

Yesterday Erickson took to RedState to “warn” Romney that he better cozy up to Evangelicals.  We’ve heard this song before.  The piece by Erickson begins reasonably enough quoting some interesting statistics from Ben Domenech, but then it descends into presumption, hyperbole, and near fantasy.

Today, Chuck Colson died. Mr. Colson and I have both been involved with the same evangelical groups, including that group that threw its support to Santorum. Due to his health, I don’t think he really participated that much publicly or in meetings, but his spirit was there. He was mentioned several times by his friends who met in Texas. I was in that room. Those who threw their support behind Rick Santorum were his friends, compatriots, and kindred spirits. Chuck Colson was a most consequential figure in evangelical circles and within the Republican Party.

Oh, so Colson, who endorsed no one, was opposed to Romney and pro-Santorum?  I don’t think so.  Lowell tweeted Erickson who responded:

It’s an objectively accurate point though and I’m not going to shy away from making it.

Aside from the last sentence, that paragraph just quoted consists almost entirely of assumption and innuendo.  So where does Erickson go with this fantasy?  Well, he examines the statements of Mike Pence, John Boehner, and Mitt Romney on the death of Chuck Colson (Our prayers are with his family and friends!) and concludes:

As several people noted on twitter, that might be the only statement released today that didn’t mention God, Christ, or Christianity. But that’s the minor issue. The major issue is two sentences. It may seem a trivial thing, but for a group already presuming they’ll be taken for granted and not really valued, it is a real problem.

This evening an email exchange between a number of evangelicals on this very topic left a lot of them more certain than ever that Mitt Romney just expects their vote. He may get it, but not their passion or energy. That is the real problem for him. People used to witnesses won’t be for him.

My goodness, that’s quite the conclusion.

Mitt Romney is the Republican candidate for the President of the United States.  When was the last time a POTUS spoke about “Christ and Christianity” in a formal public statement?  Consider the text to George W. Bush’s National Cathedral address after 9-11.   Evangelical hero Bush mentions only the generic “God” of our shared civil religion.

I’ve already spent more time refuting this thing than it deserves – there is a broader point to be made here.  It is interesting that the MSM is accusing Romney of pandering to Evangelicals by playing the victim card.  Erickson is certainly playing the victim card here, playing on sympathy for  the death of a good man and an important leader.  Whether Romney is or not is a debate for another time.

The important question is, “Do Evangelicals want to be known as victims?”  This Evangelical most certainly does not.  The phrase “victory in Christ” keeps popping into my head.  So how do we not be victims?

Well, sitting on the sidelines and crying “foul” is no way to win.  At this point we join the Romney parade and we do the best job possible to represent ourselves and the things that are important to us.  We know for fact that Obama will harm the things that are important to us.  Voting is not enough, it is certainly not enough to make sure that our voice is heard in a Romney administration.  There are lots of voters, but far fewer that work hard on the campaign.  Money matters as much as activism.

One other thing – if we want to hear our president talk about “Christ and Christianity,” then our nation needs to be a bit less pluralistic – the president is, after all, the president of the entire nation, not just us.  That is an issue that will not be resolved in the political arena, but on the evangelism and mission fields.  So get busy.

Lowell adds . . .

I was a recent high school graduate and paying attention when Watergate unfolded, so for my entire adult life I have had a chance to watch Charles Colson become the disciple of Christ that he was by the time of his death. At first I was skeptical, as many others were. But my doubts soon gave way to true admiration for the man Chuck Colson became. Above all, his generosity of spirit impressed and inspired. When I think of the words “I was in prison, and ye visited me,” Chuck Colson’s face comes to mind. He will be missed, but the deep imprint he left on American life will remain.

Posted in Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | 6 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

OK, not really the subject of this blog, but the humor flowing out of the “Obama ate dog” meme is just too good to ignore.  It’s everywhere and a lot of it is very good.  So, without further comment, please enjoy the cartoons that festoon this post.  I got them from my friend Rick.

Point, Counter-Point 1

Regulars will recall that on Tuesday we linked to a piece by McKay Coppins at Buzzfeed on how Mormon belief can feed the “War on Women” meme.  On Wednesday we linked and quoted Jennifer Rubin  writing in response to Coppins.  This exchance of articles resulted in an extensive Twitter exchange between the two that you can read here.  You’ll see the exchange ends with Lowell chiming in and pointing out that Coppins may have a point with this tweet:

This may be the way Dems will raise Mormon issue: not attack it, but say Mitt’s afraid to talk about it (thus making it sound spooky)

This is why I have felt all doctrinal/belief examination, for any religion is out-of-bounds in a political discussion, and why I objected initially to Coppins piece, accurate though it may have been.

Frankly, the examination of belief in a candidate (or an appointee for that matter – remember James Watt and all the discussion of dispensationalism?) is that at best it is about motive – it has the same problems that hate crime laws do.  Why is it any worse to beat someone up because you hate their ethnicity or sexual orientation than it is to beat them up because you drank too much and got stupid?   Either way you are guilty of assault and battery.

If Romney starts talking about what Mormons believe, or if a lot of Mormons start writing about what they believe (well more than they do in the normal course of being a church) or they start running around correcting every article that gets it wrong (trust me Mormon friends, the press doesn’t get what I believe any more correct than it does your beliefs) then Mormonism becomes the issue, not Romney’s stance on the political issue at hand.

What Coppins does not seem to realize is that HE, not Romney, not the Obama, not the Dems – but his article – made Mormonism the issue in “War on Women” discussion.  Will the Dems try and do what he suggests in his tweet?  Oh sure, but doing anything besides brushing it off with an, “Of course I don’t want to talk about it, what Mormons believe is not the issue here,” gives the Dems precisely what they want.

I know it is deep in the soul of every Mormon to have the world know what they believe and not the rumors, misstatements and misunderstandings that are so common.  That is a reasonable desire.  But a presidential campaign – particularly one with as much at stake as this one – is not the appropriate time nor place to make that necessary corrective.

Point, Counter-Point 2

Yesterday we pointed out the wretched statements of the Governor of Montana.  The wretch doubled down later in the day:

Lowell adds . . .

The Schweitzer attack is just the latest early manifestation of a pattern that I think will develop steadily, and which will continue as long as Democratic public figures can get away with it. It goes like this:

1. Prominent Democrat (officeholder or not) makes a sensational statement about Romney’s Mormonism.

2. News media covers the statement.

3. Blogosphere, Facebook and Twitterverse go crazy.

4. White House/Obama campaign distances itself from the statement (but does not denounce it).

5. We move on, waiting for the next bigotry eruption (“bigruption”).

This way the Obami get what they want: constant reinforcement of the “weirdness” meme, while maintaining a safe and somewhat sanctimonious distance.

Like all the other distraction strategies the Obama reelection campaign has tried, this one, although more annoying than most, is destined to fail. The president’s people are trying desperately to define Romney early, but Romney has shown that he responds firmly and with discipline. No anger, no outrage; he just comes back to the main issues. If the current pattern continues, pretty soon these surrogate bigruptions will look sad and ridiculous. What was it Abraham Lincoln said about fooling some of the people some of the time?

Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Reading List | 7 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post