What an awesome day! I didn't sleep last night. I knew something big was coming. I started tracking video to possibly add to my youtube account, and it sure hadn't come from the Democrat National Convention in Denver. No, it seemed like there was something even bigger that would be coming up. My vibes ended up being right on. A couple of days ago, I put a banner on this blog - regarding John McCain's pick for VP. Right under the banner, I had written, "John McCain: Pick Sarah Palin!"
Okay, okay, enough with patting myself on the back for getting the pick right. I'll just say how I'm so happy about who McCain actually picked the right person, and he'll actually get my vote. I got this video shortly before the news was confirmed by Fox News. Sorry, it may seem like old news now..... the news comes quickly these days. But this was the moment when my hopes were looking really good this morning! This has been fun, despite no sleep!
We need to know, that by picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made it clear, he has the TRUE GRIT we need as a President. She's Pro-Life, and she's tough. She could easily take the job as President if needed, God forbid. John McCain made the right choice!
What we see is what we get. Or, wait, should that be what we THINK we see is NOT what we get?
If I don't feel comfortable with Barack Obama, it is not just because of him. It does have a lot to do with who he associates with. Or is that, who associates (identifies) with him? Well, I think I'm getting so that I can pick them out of a crowd.
I know, this is a short one today, but the video speaks for itself. Besides, I'm in the process of celebrating John McCain's choice of the next Vice President of the United States, Gov. Sarah Palin!
They pledged to "Re-create '68" and cause the kind of tear-gas-infused revolutionary havoc that marked the DNC in Chicago four decades ago.
Here is Michelle's report on Fox News with Neil Cavuto, regarding the "68-man protest":
I think that somewhere in the beginning of that video, Alex Jones may have made a cameo appearance. I could be wrong... But, as to the "protests" around the DNC, it wasn't really just about far-leftists or disaffected Hillary supporters. It was what some may call, the "loons". Maybe DNC should stand for Discombobulated Nut Convention... More about this soon!
I am sorry, but it's all Bill Kristol's fault that this is being brought up one last time. This cut is from FoxNews Sunday with Chris Wallace on Sunday, August 24, 2008:
Unfortunately, we can still say that the Discombobulated Dream of John McCain picking Hillary Clinton as his VP running mate remains to be a viable possibility. While it may still get laughs as it sounds like a joke, there still could be a remote way that it could happen, right? How?
As we all know by now, Barry Obama has picked his running mate. It will be Senator Joe Biden, (D-Delaware). That means, of course, it won't be Hillary Clinton. The fact is, Hillary wasn't even contacted by the Obama campaign. Meanwhile, many of her supporters are furious that not only did Hillary not win the nomination, but now she's snubbed from the being on the ticket. Supposedly, Hillary's people have been told to set up a team of "whips" to make sure that her supporters do not get out of line at the DNC (Democrat National Convention).
Meanwhile, over at the McCain camp, they are still trying to decide who to pick for McCain's Veep. (I'll concede that they may have already chosen somebody, but are just keeping it quiet until just before the RNC. For this column, though, we'll assume the choice hasn't been locked down yet.) McCain has to make a choice. Will it be somebody that is Conservative to draw the Conservative Republican base back, or will it be a more socially liberal person to draw more Independents and disgruntled Hillary-supportering Democrats?
The "Civil Forum on the Presidency" at Rick Warren's Saddleback Churh brought on much discussion about McCain's choice for VP, for the reason that it "appeared" that McCain had made a good effort to win back the Conservative base of the Republican Party. A week ago, on Monday, August 18, Rush Limbaugh discussed how John McCain had performed so well, and Obama didn't, "the Dems and Drive-Bys were reduced to accusing him of cheating." In the email synopsis of the show I received, "Rush In a Hurry - August 18, 2008," there was this great statement by Rush:
Pearl of Wisdom: "If McCain doesn't do something stupid, like name a liberal running mate, he should be able to hold on. Obama's campaign is falling apart."
But the question really remains, which side does John McCain want to sway? Despite his "great performance" at Saddleback, who is the real McCain? Isn't he the one that has crossed the aisle on numerous occassions? Who are some of the Democrat Senators that he's worked with? Well, let me see... Feingold and Kennedy, and even Joe Lieberman, though he isn't technically a Democrat any more.
But tell me this isn't an even larger "coincidence":
Am I just misreading it all? Am I the only one here that is seeing the strong desire to show the McCain presidency as a bi-partisan effort? Even if it isn't literally the Hildebeast that becomes John McCain's VP choice, would he so blatantly disavow the right-wing base of the GOP in order to get those "in the center", those that would have voted for Hillary if she had won the nomination?
But, here is a factor that McCain has to consider: What will happen if he does pick somebody very liberal as his running mate, and that will be the loss of any support he would have from Conservative talk radio. However, in a way, McCain can STILL depend on Conservative talk radio, along with the New Media commentators and blogs, that will disparage Obama to such a degree, that it would still get votes for McCain. Oh, great, count on getting elected just out of the fear of the other candidate? This leads us up to the next point, and that is what this all means from the viewpoint of the Conservative voters.
We have to face it, we're really in a pickle, aren't we (Conservatives)? With a quick glance at the candidates, many of us would probably think of Obama as being the greater of two evils. But wait, would that view change if McCain picks a Veep that is considered as a Liberal, even if Republican? You know, like Tom Ridge or even Rudy Guilliani? Should that be the case, there will be a stampede "to the exits" from the Republican party by the Conservative wing. McCain would be gambling that the loss of that base would be made up by the attraction of the former Hillary supporters.
I don't have a solution for the way out of this pickle. I can't do anything to help on my own. It's time to organize the The Discombobulated Dream Team to rescue us from this nightmare. While the "Showdown at Saddlesore" tried to show McCain as a Conservative, we really will not know exactly where he stands until he announces the other half of the ticket. The Discombobulated Dream Team must now do our best to influence McCain not to abandon us. Hopefully, there will be enough us to write on our blogs to influence the talk radio hosts to influence the New Media to influence the McCain campaign to make the right choice. We need to let the Republican Party know that moving to the left, any more than the RINOs have already done, is not acceptable.
I hope and pray, that while trying to attract female voters, that McCain doesn't go to the dark side. No, John, don't pick Hillary or any other liberal. If you want a good female running mate, which I have no problem with, go with Sarah Palin. McCain, salvage the Conservative base or throw us under the bus. It's your choice!
Remember the good old "Fairness Doctrine"? Are you aware that there are people trying to get it revived? Do you know that it would also apply to blogs, the way "they" want it done?
And who are the "players" involved in this plot to void the First Amendment? Could it be the power brokers in the shadows, that call the shots? That tell Rick Warren what to ask and what not to ask?
Now, think back a few days ago, what was called the Saddleback "Civil Forum on the Presidency". Though it did a great job defining the two candidates, there was a lot lacking at the Lame Saddlesore Discussion show.... What bothers me to this day is the absence of certain topics that never came up. Should I list them? Okay, here it is, the topics that should have been covered by the questions from Pastor Rick Warren:
What are your views about illegal immigration? Should we do more to secure our borders?
How do you feel about keeping America as a sovereign nation? Yes, this is a question that relates to your patriotism or lack thereof.
Are you in favor or against the revival of the Fairness Doctrine?
Please explain what you think the 2nd Amendment means in relation to civilian gun rights.
Do you feel that homeschooling should be encouraged or discouraged?
Where do you draw the line when it comes to balancing national security with our rights to privacy?
Last, but definitely not least, what would your energy policy be? Would you put environment and fighting global warming over America's need for energy? How would you solve the problems with energy that we are now facing?
You see, that was the problem. None of those questions were asked. I'm not saying that the other questions Pastor Rick asked were bad, even though one of the questions was over a certain candidate's paygrade. However, without knowing their views on the topics I've listed, did we honestly learn that much about the candidates last Saturday night?
And, most of all, why weren't any of those seven topics I listed above included? Is it because they would have said the same thing? Would those have been issues that they would have agreed on? Hmmm.....
Also, it's interesting that in the last few days, I didn't hear any of the pundits mention the fact that none of those questions were brought up, and are still unanswered. It seems that those may be the questions that several third-party candidates would have very good answers to. So, that also leads me to the next question about the Lame Saddlesore Discussion show: Why weren't there any of the 3rd Party candidates invited to it? Of course, a quick reply would obviously be because of time constraints. Okay, then couldn't it be spread out over several evenings?
Yeah, it's too bad "THEY" didn't think of that... "THEY" may have had to allow the truth to be exposed, but it would have been a good money-making opportunity for "THEM".
But I DID think of this, and I AM going to capitalize on this opportunity. I challenge Alan Keyes, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin to make their comments on the subjects that I listed above. In fact, I even invite Juan and the Obamassiah to add their spin to these subjects. I will post them here on this blog should any of you want to let America know your views on the TRUE ISSUES that weren't covered last Saturday night.
The story I am about to tell you is true. The names have been changed to protect the innocent.
Lately, for some reason, I've been in a deluge of horrifying dreams involving my greatest fear: heights. The other night, I had the most terrifying dream ever in my life.
I had been sitting on top of a tall building on a park bench. I suddenly looked out, and saw nothing but the curvature of the earth and clouds far below me. At the time this happened, in my dream, I was on a cell phone call. Out of the corner of my eye, in my peripheral vision, I saw a construction worker standing on a beam, which had to be thousands of feet above the ground. He had no harness, no net beneath him. And yet, he was totally confident of where he was standing. He looked at me, smiling. and that is when I caught the view of being far above ground level myself.
At just about that time, I felt the feeling of falling. I remember telling the person that I was talking to on my cell phone call, "I need to go! I have to go! Can't talk any more! I can't!" And just as I began falling, while hanging up on the cell phone call, somebody grabbed me and pulled me back to the "safety" of that park bench in the sky.
It wasn't long after that part of the dream, I woke up. I continued to have the flash-backs of the feeling of that fall long after I woke up. I could feel that insecure feeling of being at a height that I was not comfortable with, all day long.
To the dream interpreters out there, this would have to be a tough one to decipher. Who was the man out on the beam? Who caught me when I began to fall? While I was on a cell phone call, why didn't I notice sooner that I was ascending toward the heavens to where my fear of heights would so totally freak me out, to where I had to hang up on somebody that I was talking to on the phone that I greatly love?
It's true, we sometimes must be eating the wrong things before retiring for the evening, and we have those discombobulated dreams. What is so scary, is that those dreams may be premonitions, where we see things; yet they are foggy, and interpretation is difficult. When it came to John McCain getting Hillary as his running mate, in that discombobulated dream - that was scary. What is really frightening me, along with many other Conservatives, is not Hillary, but a McCain pick of a liberal or Democrat for his VP choice.
John McCain has risen to very new heights in HIS dream of ascending to the White House. Should he completely blow off the momentum from his outstanding performance at the Saddleback "Civil Forum on the Presidency" by picking a person for VP that does not fit his current assertion that he is a Conservative, he will fall, and he won't have anyone to catch him on his way down.
But still, I have that gnawing thought in my mind: Who was that construction worker that was out on the beam that I saw in my dream? What was he symbolic of? I have some thoughts about that. It is something that John McCain needs to keep in mind, while floatiing in the clouds at this time, because his choice for VP will either make him or break him. McCain is the guy that really needs to know, or finally figure out, who that dude out on the beam is.
In the process of job hunting for far too long, various ideas came to mind. Of course, one of the ideas had to do with how to get myself to stand out amongst the throngs of all of the other job searchers! That isn't an easy task. Obviously sending out a resume with bright green text on an orange background probably wouldn't be the ticket to fame and fortune, let alone avoiding the instant delete button on the potential employers' email program.
So, while various ideas swirled around in my head, only to be flushed just like .... never mind, you get the idea without the details... I did have one that kept sticking. (Um, please, try to avoid the former picture I had unintentionally put in your mind...) I digress.
Okay, so back to the point. I tended to keep looking for a job title like, "HELP WANTED; Freedom Fighters", and unfortunately those tended to be ads for military service, or....uh, Black Water.... The kind of "Freedom Fighter" I was actually picturing would be somebody like Ben Franklin, somebody that uses words for their weapon. (Replace "keyboard" for "quill" here.)
To no avail, I didn't find any ads saying that they (the potential employer) wanted to hire somebody to write from a Conservative Evangelic Christian point of view, at least not in the job sites. Too bad. I would have only had to compete with maybe just 100,000 other people for that one!
That's when the idea that popped out seemed to stick. I got thinking about just who other Freedom Fighters are, besides our brave men and women in the Armed Forces. Why, of course! Entrepreneurs! Business owners, whether small- or medium-sized; you know, the ones that employ 80% or more of us. Even the people that work from home in small businesses! They are heroes in the sense that they are the ones that keep the dreams alive, and depend on their own efforts - rather than the government - for their success, or failure. They are the true audacity of hope for freedom, and they are the ones that set the example by depending on their own efforts. They are also, in my view, true Freedom Fighters.
Ding-Ding-Ding! Many ideas started coming to me at about that time. It was a revelation. How about offering sponsorship opportunities to the various Freedom Fighters that agreed with my writings? After contemplating that idea, I realized that there are many options available; from a commission basis to affiliate programs to period-based fees. Total flexibility based on the advertiser's needs.
Sure enough, the idea has begun to catch fire. I have already started the process, and have a sponsor lined up. There is also a fantastic affiliate program that will be a part of my marketing scheme here on the good ol' "johnny2k Is Home" blog.
And sure enough, it's irony at it's best. When it seemed my opportunities were limited, and I didn't find any job ads like, "HELP WANTED: Freedom Fighters", I could be the one that is offering the opportunity, and not the other way around!
PLEASE NOTE (and this is not a Disclaimer Notice): This blog post was completely meant for a commercial intention, with subliminal information that will definitely infect you with the desire to express your freedom, start a business, ask johnny2k for assistance in marketing your business, helping you succeed, and helping to make my life comfortable (above and beyond trying to live off government benefits).
So, who are the real "liberals"? Great question, huh?
The "liberal" label equates with what scholars in the West would label as "the Left", or "progressive". When it comes right down to it, I guess it would matter where in the world you are before you would define the "liberal" label as something evil or something good. For that matter, it could even depend on what time period you lived in, even here in America.
Well, my curiosity lead me to want to find out just how the dictionary defines "liberal" in the political use of the word:
1) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Now, keep it in mind that I'm still giving you the dictionary meanings of the adjective, "liberal", here:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
When you look at some of the various definitions of "liberal" as an adjective, some of the those really don't look like that bad of a thing. As I mentioned above, the use of the word "liberal" is all relative to the perspective of geography and/or time in history. It could be a good thing or a bad thing. In America, a "liberal" political view at one time meant wanting to be a free sovereign nation away from the yoke of Great Britain, being against slavery, or favoring Civil Rights for African-Americans. In the case of the old Soviet Union, "liberal" views meant the end of Communism.
Now, in American politics, the word "liberal" has taken on whole new meaning, and most of that is based more on the word as a noun, as in "Liberal". And even more breathtaking, is the fact that the noun, "liberal", has become a label, generalized to fit a group of like-minded people, that supposedly have the "liberal" (in the adjective sense) values regarding generosity and tolerance ("free from bigotry"). What doesn't make sense is that the people with the "liberal" label don't always seem to fit into any of the actual dictionary definitions. Either that, or those definitions have been distorted and perverted to mean something entirely different.
This column came to me shortly after reading a piece that I saw this last weekend, called "Liberals are meaner, cheaper, more willing to steal than Conservatives". I was further inspired today after looking up the word "liberal" on dictionary.com, and seeing that many of the meanings of the word in the adjective sense don't seem to fit the characteristics of that "Liberal" label we hear about and use to define political viewpoints.
In the column referred to above, by Warner Todd Huston, he is writing about a new book by Peter Schweizer, called "Makers and Takers". It seems to me, after reading about what is included in the book, people with the "Liberal" label do not tend to fit the dictionary definitions of the adjective, "liberal". Obviously, those people, "the liberals", do not follow their own prescription for "product safety", truth in labeling!
I can tell you, in the interest of full disclosure, that when I started this article, it wasn't my initial intention to discuss the meaning of the word "liberal". However, I found it so profound how the dictionary definition didn't equate to the reality of the label "Liberal", that I had to include it in the perspective of what I learned in the quick research I did. Well, maybe, it is just that I wanted to add credibility to this column, that writing on this subject isn't "above my pay-grade" (as a certain candidate used as an excuse for not answering a quesiton....) As it turned out, I found that the discrepancies between the definition of "liberal" (adj.) and the people labeled as "Liberals", just as Peter Schweizer writes in "Makers and Takers", was the evidence that I was looking for. It was those discrepancies that is the case-closer for Schweizer's evidence he has written about. It is the fact that those with the "Liberal" label are in fact true hypocrits.
So, you "Liberals" out there, what went wrong? Well, maybe it is as Warner Todd Huston wrote in the last paragraph in his column:
Schweizer argues that the failure lies in modern liberal ideas, which foster a self-centered, “if it feels good do it” attitude that leads liberals to outsource their responsibilities to the government and focus instead on themselves and their own desires. (Emphasis: Mine)
And now you know who are the real "Liberals". And it will especially be easy to spot "Liberals" when it comes to their responses to this article... They won't be very tolerant of my point of view!
It has become a three-ring circus under the Big Green Tent. In this circus, there are many performers and three rings of performances.
In the first ring, there are many clowns running around, screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling": They claim that man is causing global-warming. There is one big fat clown that gives me the creeps, not to mention nightmares about clowns. His name is Algore. No, these clowns aren't funny at all, they all have their sad painted faces. These are the exact same clowns that work part-time as your Senators and Representatives, and refuse to find ways to keep our energy costs down. These are the exact same clowns that have decided that the solution to keep from toasting the planet is to keep your energy costs very high in order to force you to cut back in energy usage.
Funny, though, these clowns don't peddle around in little clown cars. No, their idea of transportation is their own personal corporate jets or large RVs... It is the rest of us that are supposed to find ways to "cut back" on our use of environmentally-unfriendly fuels, as if that is even possible. Their idea, while serving in their part-time jobs in Congress is to tax energy and energy-producers so that we can't afford to heat our homes or drive to work.
Oh, by the way, did I tell you that those clowns in the first ring all wear GREEN suits with BIG RED poke-a-dots? Did I also forget to tell you that the first ring is way over on the left side of this circus under the BIG GREEN TENT?
And then there is the second ring in this 3-ring circus under the BIG GREEN TENT. Many of the clowns from the first ring tend to spill over into this ring. This is the ring of the wing-nuts of ALTERNATIVE energy. This is the ring right smack in the center of the circus under the BIG GREEN TENT. One of the clowns reminds me of the olympic gymnasts, flip-flopping around until the whole crowd is impressed, and calls him, "The One." And "The One" is the funniest of all, making us all laugh with (or at) him and his great ideas touted by many in the Main Stream Media. He goes to inflate the tires on his clown car until they explode! Hilarious!
And yet, these guys over in the 2nd ring in the center of the circus under the BIG GREEN TENT are not just the jokesters, but they can also be the illusionists, the magicians. They somehow find a way to make a lot of GREEN in the form of money, by finding so-called solutions to our energy hunger. They are like the money-making concession stands in the entertainment business. "That's right, our product will save the planet! Turn your left-over swimming pool water into fuel for your limo!" Well, that pretty much tells you who buys into that hype...
I'll say a little more about the 2nd ring in awhile, but first let me divert your attention over to the fun things going on in the 3rd ring, way over on the dimly lit right side of the circus under the BIG GREEN TENT. It seems there's a few - maybe about 13 - elephants over there dancing in bright yellow tutus singing, "Zippity-Do-Da, Zippity-E-A... drill here, drill now, pay less today!" The ring master for the 3rd Ring over on the dimly-lit right side of the circus under the BIG GREEN TENT is known as Newt. Hey, let's go over there to see what Newt has to say!
This was by the far the best part of the circus under the BIG GREEN TENT, that is until somebody came out, stood in front of the 2nd ring in the center of the circus under the BIG GREEN TENT. This must have been the ring-master for the 2nd Ring. This guy, I think his name was something like "T-Bone-Pickens", (or is that T Boone Pickens?), had some interesting things to say, too:
T-Bone-Pickens must not have been one of the government-provided clowns. He had some outstanding things to say, although, I'm not in a position to change over all of my appliances to all-electric from natural gas-powered. Maybe his purpose was to sell new appliances. Hey, they need to pay for the Circus under the BIG GREEN TENT one way or another!
But now comes the guy that must be ring-master of the circus under the BIG GREEN TENT. What he has to say brought many cheers and applause. He explained what could be done to bring all three rings of the circus into one big ring, one that actually makes sense. No more blowing up tires or driving your car around with a huge fan attached to the top of it (to generate electricity as you're driving....). This guy should be the one that captures everyone's attention:
Yes, that is the ticket! We need to bring all of the rings in the circus under the BIG GREEN TENT all into one ring, where we are using all of the available resources, and at the same time, keep the planet green. No, I haven't bought tickets into seeing the 1st Ring way over on the left side of the circus under the BIG GREEN TENT. No, I'm not supporting that side of the circus. However, the performance brought to us by ... um, let me see, oh yeah - farmers and entrepreneurs taking part in FREE ENTERPRISE - seem to be the ones keeping this circus going, BIG GREEN TENT, or not.
It wasn't that long ago, I started reading about the disturbing rumors that Barack Hussein Obama was the Antichrist. Thankfully, I was never naive enough to take that rumor any further than face value.
Though I may not truly believe the person we have as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President is the Antichrist, I don't think it would be all that far-fetched for BHO to be instrumental in allowing the introduction of the one world government, or New World Order, to dominate the global political and economic systems. Just today, a new book by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., was released, called "The Obama Nation:Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality". And according to WorldNetDaily.com, as of last night, Corsi's book "stood at No. 1 on the Amazon non-fiction list."
From the book description in the WND shop, the book is described as follows:
In this thoroughly researched and documented book, the No. 1 New York Times bestselling co-author of "Unfit for Command" and senior staff reporter for WND explains why the extreme leftism of an Obama presidency would leave the United States weakened, diminished and divided, and why Obama must be defeated -- and how he can be.
By tracing Obama's career and influences from his early years in Hawaii and Indonesia, the beginnings of his political career in Chicago, his voting record in the Illinois Legislature, his religious training, his religious conversion through his recent involvement in Kenyan politics, his political advisers and fund-raising associates and his meteoric campaign for president, Jerome Corsi shows that an Obama presidency would, in his words, be "a repeat of the failed extremist politics that have characterized and plagued Democratic Party politics since the late 1960s."
Corsi examines:
Obama's extensive connections with Islam and radical politics.
His 20-year religious affiliation with the black-liberation theology of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Obama's continuing connections with Kenya.
Obama's involvement in the slum-landlord empire of Chicago political fixer Tony Rezko.
Obama's far-left domestic policy.
Obama's anti-war, anti-nuclear foreign policy.
Soon after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Corsi began investigating Obama's personal and political background. This book, with more than 600 footnotes, is the result.
On Hannity & Colmes last night (July 31, 2008), Dr. Corsi appeared on the show for a long segment, discussing Obama. I was fortunate enough to get the first half of the segment recorded and uploaded to youtube.com. You won't want to miss seeing the following video:
I think you could agree after seeing the above segment, Barack Hussein Obama is dangerous to this country if he is somehow elected. He definitely isn't a Messiah, but just the opposite (though I am not ready to say he's the Antichrist.) He must not win in November. Obama is a radical Socialist and he has associations with people that are quite undesirable. He can't throw them all under the bus. But if he is elected, he'll have no problem throwing America as we know it under the bus.
I am a Conservative blogger - part of the vast right-wing conspiracy - that is not afraid to tell you what I think about both politics and my Christian beliefs.
Posts
