I have been invited to groups on facebook, drawn into conversations with seemingly less-mature “conservative” thinkers, and generally annoyed by sycophantic apparatchiks on talk radio like Sean Hannity concerning this seemingly-pressing “controversy.” You all know to that which I refer, the “Ground Zero” mosque.
On a recent drive home from the firm I heard the “friend” of every caller, that “Great American,” railing on how, because the Imam who heads said mosque “refuses to condemn Hezbollah” and advocates “Sharia law compatibility” within the U.S., of course the mosque should be blocked by governmental force from being constructed and the Imam and his ilk should be investigated by “the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security.” He went on to state that when a person’s intellectual positions pose a direct threat to, or fundamentally oppose, the Constitution or “the American way of life,” a similar fate should befall any such “enemy of the state.
Pardon my French, but WHAT THE HELL?
It is not that I am surprised by the GOP stooge’s response in this matter. However, I am utterly disappointed by the numerous callers who poured onto the lines to rally behind Hannity.
Ironically enough, the next segment Hannity went on to resume his critique of “Big Government” and its myriad ills. How can one mind be so contradictory and not explode?
However, back to Hannity’s argument. He honestly stated that, because Homeland Security had a standing investigation directed at the Imam, and because Hezbolllah is a “known terrorist entity,” and, ostensibly, the Imam supported that entity, the Imam was now subject to “common sense” curtailing of fundamental constitutional rights.
In short, because Hannity does not agree with the Imam, Hannity is in favor of governmental persecution of the man simply because of his objectionable stance.
The following are two arguments which need to, and have not been, posed to pinhead non-thinkers like Hannity and his Neo-Con friends.
1.
Thought, and almost always words, are not crimes. Thinking and speaking is all that has been asserted to be the extent of the Imam’s “crimes.” Despite Hannity’s contention to the contrary, the Imam’s words are not tantamount to “yelling fire in a crowded theater.”
It is well-established legal concept that for one to have committed an inchoate crime, i.e. conspiracy toward or attempted sedition/treason in this case, one must make a substantial step or actually agree to commit such an act with others, in order for a crime to have been committed.
Said commission of crime is the only auspices upon which one can have his liberty to think and speak as he chooses curtailed. Simply put, the concept advanced by Hannity, et al. is the quintessential “slippery slope.”
Ironically, Hannity often rails against the much-feared “fairness doctrine,” and goes on and on about how such legislation would only stand as a thinly-veiled attempt by his detractors to “shut him up.” More often than not, he then wraps himself in the American Flag and speaks with a cracking voice about how political disagreement and debate stand at the bedrock of American society.
It seems as if, on this one issue and many others (can you say Patriot Act?), Neo-Cons and Progressives are on the same page. The only constant thread remaining amongst the two groups being BIG GOVERNMENT TRAMPLING UPON THE CONSTITUTION FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER!
2.
Has it been that long that Hannity and his ilk have forgotten their “outrage” at the same Department of Homeland Security lionized in this instance? Remember M.I.A.C.? It seems as if Mr. Hannity must, to remain consistent, approve of the censorship and labeling as “terrorists” Tea Party goers, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and even returning veterans.
Should the Tea Parties be investigated for their links to right-wing “extremist” terrorist entities? Should their right to disagree and perhaps even to own property be curtailed, because some find them dangerous?
I am sure the much-maligned Progressives find the bulk of Hannity's political stances to pose just as substantial a threat to the American way of life.
That is precisely the reason one does not advocate the intervention of Big Brother into any disagreement. Unless of course, you are statist authoritarian piece of human refuse, as I wholly suspect you are.
So, what lesson are we to take from this whole distraction? If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas; and, if our Republic is to stand we need to watch with whom and for what reasons we advocate that which we do. If you got a problem, pick up a marker and poster board and tell someone, but don’t sell your eternal rights for the momentary thrill of frustrating your enemies
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Easter Thoughts. Christ is Risen!
I thought this would be appropriate for the Paschal Season. I pray you all have a glorious and blessed Bright Week.
Messianic prophetical passages of the Old Testament are key to legitimacy of not only God’s inspired word; but in them also lies the power derived from the literal nature of the one foreshadowed within them. Over three hundred passages contained within the Old Testament are described by scholars as, at the very least, analogous, if not blatantly saturated with, messianic intimation. The overwhelming consensus among Christian theology scholars is that these, almost all, to the letter, point to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah promises by God in these ancient messages. Proponents of Christ’s divinity have calculated that the chances of another fulfilling anything close to the amount of prophecy fulfilled within the thirty three years of Christ’s life are virtually one in the hundreds of billions. Christ’s fulfillment of the law and the prophecy of the Old Testament are the rock upon which most analytically-minded Christians build their belief on Christ as their redeemer, and are the basis of their refuge within Him; in that He is “The Truth,” the one and only Son of God ,the Messiah. Christ’s, and others’ within Christ’s life, literal and sometimes verbatim fulfillment of theses prophecies sits in the crux of the Christian movement, and are integral to the understanding that Christ is indeed the singular avenue of communion with, and absolution by, God the Father. This literal mind set is the vein in which a good bulk of these passages were written, and is central to a theme of true faith. Perhaps this theme is better explained by Dr. A.A. van Ruler.
“It is not good enough to point only to the prophetic, ethical knowledge of God that shines out in the form of the New Testament Christ in which the brightest rays of the Old Testament find a common focus… From the Old Testament standpoint Jesus Christ is either of theological significance only as a historical fact - as an act of God in the history with His people Israel - or He is of no significance at all”1
In this paper I will enumerate eight specific aspects of the twenty second Psalm, cited most liberally by scholars as one of, if not the most strictly adhered too, and literally fulfilled, Messianic scripture within the Old Testament. Which both not only defines it as accurate, but through it’s fulfillment, ensconces Christ as the “Truth” as well.
“My God, my God why have you forsaken me?”2 The Psalm opens with a plea of an abandoned man, embodied, at the time it was written, by King David in the face of an uprising by his half son, Absalom. However, nearly a thousand years later, on Calvary, Christ, dying on the cross, reiterates this phrase in the face of his own persecution, betrayal, and feeling of God’s distance in His time of most need.
“But I am a worm, and no man; I am the scorn of men and despised by the people. All they see me laugh me to scorn: They shake the head saying, He trusted and rolled himself on the Lord that he would deliver him. Let Him deliver him seeing that He delights in him.”3 The sixth verse is a testament to the betrayal and hate felt by Christ, from the very people he had healed, raised from the dead, and been welcomed as a king by only a week before. The seventh and eight verse of the Psalm are with slight variation a direct quote of the mocking crowd and Pharisees witnessing Christ’s crucifixion. The verbiage of the Psalm runs almost totally parallel to that described and related in the gospels of the New Testament especially that found in the twenty-seventh chapter of Matthew. The origin of some of the most scathing mockery, i.e. that of the Pharisees, is a testament to the inexorable power of the Lord to fulfill His word through/in spite of whatever earth-bound conflict may oppose its fulfillment.
“I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart is like wax; it is softened and melted down within me. My strength is dried up like a fragment of clay pottery my tongue cleaves to my jaws;”4
Authorities agree that the out of joint bones and perhaps the heart of wax, due to the immense blood loss suffered in crucifixion, can be directly correlated to Christ’s experience on the cross. Other nuances, however, of this passage are more spiritual in nature, and yet, even so, no less palpable in its relation of both the agony and overall spiritual victory won for us all on Calvary, as Christ conquered death by death.
“I was poured out like water and all my bones were scattered” (ver 14). “I was poured out like water”, when my persecutors fell: and through fear, the stays of My body, that is, the church, My disciples were scattered from Me. “My heart becomes of melting wax, in the midst of my belly.” My wisdom which was written of Me in sacred books, was, as if hard and shut up, not understood: but after that fire of My passion was applied, it was, as if melted, manifested, and entertained in the memory of My church.”5
The latter part of this passage, many believe, is yet another literal and quantifiable example of utter fulfillment. Fulfilled, in this case, in the book of John chapter nineteen; when knowing that His mission had been accomplished, Christ speaks of thirst.
Verse sixteen of the Psalm is, at one time, one of the most concrete and blatant examples of literal fulfillment, and also one of the most ardently contested aspects of the entire text. “[A] company of evildoers has encircled me, they pierce my hands and feet,”6 this excerpt from the verse can most undoubtedly be applied to the crucifixion, in that Christ’s hands and feet were nailed to the cross. However, opponents to Christ’s divinity claim that the original Hebrew used in the Psalm differs in the intimation of the word commonly translated as “pierced.” The focus of the controversy lie in the two similar Hebrew words of KeAri, meaning to pierce like a lion, and Kari, meaning in actuality to puncture, later modified to pierce. The Christian literalist retort to this dilemma is embodied in the following quote.
“The two may be easily confused. Since the Hebrew had no written vowels – only vowel sounds - some think the confusion may have resulted from a misunderstanding in pronunciation. Craigie offers this view and says that the “like a lion” rendition “presents numerous problems and can scarcely be correct”. Even the very liberal Interpreter’s Bible which repudiates the passage as being prophetic of the crucifixion of Christ, says that “like a lion” does not make sense in the context.”7
“I can count all my bones: they gaze at me,”8 verse seventeen; in most opinions, is a direct commentary and description of a two-fold fulfillment on Calvary. One, the visibility of bones was not an uncommon occurrence in reference to scourged prisoners, in that the use of the “cat of nine tails” was in common implementation in this time period. This mode of whipping was renowned for its ability to separate flesh from bone, and leaving gaping holes in the skin and musculature enough for bone to show through. Two, in Luke chapter twenty-three the crowd of mockers and mourners that followed Christ to his crucifixion is described, this is a most probable source of the gazes embodied in the passage.
The casting of lots to divide the clothes of the Messiah, by centurions at the scene of the crucifixion, described in John chapter nineteen, are yet another example of strict contextual adherence to verse eighteen of the Psalm. This verse describes the exact behavior expounded upon in John’s gospel. Use of the word raiment is significant in the Psalm, in that a raiment is most commonly defined as a seamless tunic of sorts; one close in nature to that reportedly worn by Christ during His ministry.
Verse twenty-two of the Psalm is one that, while having little to do with the passion on Calvary, has much to do with the identity of the persecuted man, Himself. “I will declare Your name: in the midst of the congregation will I praise you.”9 The significance of this passage is that, over and over again in all four gospels, a large portion of Christ’s ministry does, in fact, take place on the temple grounds. His ministry focused at these times on a convergence of faith in the true and living God, and a direct affront to the God presented and enthroned in hypocrisy by the Pharisaical leadership of the day.
Verse thirty-one of the Psalm personifies and expounds upon the victory over the tyranny of sin afforded us by Christ, in the fulfillment of His purpose and mission on Earth. This final victory is foreshadowed in the verse, “They shall declare His righteousness to a people yet to be born – That He has done it.”10. This final phrase in all but direct syntax and verbiage is mirrored by Christ in Chapter nineteen, verse thirty, of John’s gospel, when Christ proclaims victoriously that “[i]t is finished.” The culmination of victory and the relief of ultimate sacrifice in the face of hatred, and a saving of a people in spite of themselves, I feel, are most appropriately expressed by St. Augustine.
“‘The generation to come shall be declared to the Lord.’ The generations of the New Testament shall be declared to the honour of the Lord. ‘And the heavens shall declare His righteousness.’ And the evangelists shall declare His righteousness. ‘To a people that shall be born, whom the Lord hath made.’ To a people that shall be born to the Lord through faith.”11
In conclusion, one is left with an overriding awe at the purity and accuracy of the fulfillment of the events described in the Psalm, and the almost mirror image of said events depicted in the gospels. Awe for God and the faithful nature of both He and His word. In this vein, one is confronted with no choice but to focus on the prophecies yet to be fulfilled within the Bible as not merely a representation of possible events, but more of a diagram for the end of the age ushered in by the universality of redemption embodied within Christ risen. For one to choose to accept Christ as a literal fulfillment of prophecy, and, at the same time, deny or rationalize the validity of fulfillment yet to come, would be to undermine the analytical basis upon which one’s salvation lies. In essence, as Paul said, a form of godliness which denies the power within it. The power of God’s words and His promises lie, in part, in the fulfillment of divine prophecy. So, to deny the inevitability of the total fulfillment of all prophecy is the definition of the absence of faith. As a Christian, I feel the compulsion, if not the duty, to expect the resurrection of the dead and a life in the world to come; in short, if God inspired it all for His ends, then those ends will never be left loose. Perhaps Paul Boyer puts it best.
“Most Christians throughout history have believed in God’s providential oversight of history. Most still do today, to judge by the formal creedal statements of all major Christian groups… who teach that God at the beginning of time determined a specific, detailed plan for history.”12
I believe that this statement is essential to true faith in God as our Master, and as evidenced by Psalm twenty-two, as Christ as our savior.
Messianic prophetical passages of the Old Testament are key to legitimacy of not only God’s inspired word; but in them also lies the power derived from the literal nature of the one foreshadowed within them. Over three hundred passages contained within the Old Testament are described by scholars as, at the very least, analogous, if not blatantly saturated with, messianic intimation. The overwhelming consensus among Christian theology scholars is that these, almost all, to the letter, point to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah promises by God in these ancient messages. Proponents of Christ’s divinity have calculated that the chances of another fulfilling anything close to the amount of prophecy fulfilled within the thirty three years of Christ’s life are virtually one in the hundreds of billions. Christ’s fulfillment of the law and the prophecy of the Old Testament are the rock upon which most analytically-minded Christians build their belief on Christ as their redeemer, and are the basis of their refuge within Him; in that He is “The Truth,” the one and only Son of God ,the Messiah. Christ’s, and others’ within Christ’s life, literal and sometimes verbatim fulfillment of theses prophecies sits in the crux of the Christian movement, and are integral to the understanding that Christ is indeed the singular avenue of communion with, and absolution by, God the Father. This literal mind set is the vein in which a good bulk of these passages were written, and is central to a theme of true faith. Perhaps this theme is better explained by Dr. A.A. van Ruler.
“It is not good enough to point only to the prophetic, ethical knowledge of God that shines out in the form of the New Testament Christ in which the brightest rays of the Old Testament find a common focus… From the Old Testament standpoint Jesus Christ is either of theological significance only as a historical fact - as an act of God in the history with His people Israel - or He is of no significance at all”1
In this paper I will enumerate eight specific aspects of the twenty second Psalm, cited most liberally by scholars as one of, if not the most strictly adhered too, and literally fulfilled, Messianic scripture within the Old Testament. Which both not only defines it as accurate, but through it’s fulfillment, ensconces Christ as the “Truth” as well.
“My God, my God why have you forsaken me?”2 The Psalm opens with a plea of an abandoned man, embodied, at the time it was written, by King David in the face of an uprising by his half son, Absalom. However, nearly a thousand years later, on Calvary, Christ, dying on the cross, reiterates this phrase in the face of his own persecution, betrayal, and feeling of God’s distance in His time of most need.
“But I am a worm, and no man; I am the scorn of men and despised by the people. All they see me laugh me to scorn: They shake the head saying, He trusted and rolled himself on the Lord that he would deliver him. Let Him deliver him seeing that He delights in him.”3 The sixth verse is a testament to the betrayal and hate felt by Christ, from the very people he had healed, raised from the dead, and been welcomed as a king by only a week before. The seventh and eight verse of the Psalm are with slight variation a direct quote of the mocking crowd and Pharisees witnessing Christ’s crucifixion. The verbiage of the Psalm runs almost totally parallel to that described and related in the gospels of the New Testament especially that found in the twenty-seventh chapter of Matthew. The origin of some of the most scathing mockery, i.e. that of the Pharisees, is a testament to the inexorable power of the Lord to fulfill His word through/in spite of whatever earth-bound conflict may oppose its fulfillment.
“I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart is like wax; it is softened and melted down within me. My strength is dried up like a fragment of clay pottery my tongue cleaves to my jaws;”4
Authorities agree that the out of joint bones and perhaps the heart of wax, due to the immense blood loss suffered in crucifixion, can be directly correlated to Christ’s experience on the cross. Other nuances, however, of this passage are more spiritual in nature, and yet, even so, no less palpable in its relation of both the agony and overall spiritual victory won for us all on Calvary, as Christ conquered death by death.
“I was poured out like water and all my bones were scattered” (ver 14). “I was poured out like water”, when my persecutors fell: and through fear, the stays of My body, that is, the church, My disciples were scattered from Me. “My heart becomes of melting wax, in the midst of my belly.” My wisdom which was written of Me in sacred books, was, as if hard and shut up, not understood: but after that fire of My passion was applied, it was, as if melted, manifested, and entertained in the memory of My church.”5
The latter part of this passage, many believe, is yet another literal and quantifiable example of utter fulfillment. Fulfilled, in this case, in the book of John chapter nineteen; when knowing that His mission had been accomplished, Christ speaks of thirst.
Verse sixteen of the Psalm is, at one time, one of the most concrete and blatant examples of literal fulfillment, and also one of the most ardently contested aspects of the entire text. “[A] company of evildoers has encircled me, they pierce my hands and feet,”6 this excerpt from the verse can most undoubtedly be applied to the crucifixion, in that Christ’s hands and feet were nailed to the cross. However, opponents to Christ’s divinity claim that the original Hebrew used in the Psalm differs in the intimation of the word commonly translated as “pierced.” The focus of the controversy lie in the two similar Hebrew words of KeAri, meaning to pierce like a lion, and Kari, meaning in actuality to puncture, later modified to pierce. The Christian literalist retort to this dilemma is embodied in the following quote.
“The two may be easily confused. Since the Hebrew had no written vowels – only vowel sounds - some think the confusion may have resulted from a misunderstanding in pronunciation. Craigie offers this view and says that the “like a lion” rendition “presents numerous problems and can scarcely be correct”. Even the very liberal Interpreter’s Bible which repudiates the passage as being prophetic of the crucifixion of Christ, says that “like a lion” does not make sense in the context.”7
“I can count all my bones: they gaze at me,”8 verse seventeen; in most opinions, is a direct commentary and description of a two-fold fulfillment on Calvary. One, the visibility of bones was not an uncommon occurrence in reference to scourged prisoners, in that the use of the “cat of nine tails” was in common implementation in this time period. This mode of whipping was renowned for its ability to separate flesh from bone, and leaving gaping holes in the skin and musculature enough for bone to show through. Two, in Luke chapter twenty-three the crowd of mockers and mourners that followed Christ to his crucifixion is described, this is a most probable source of the gazes embodied in the passage.
The casting of lots to divide the clothes of the Messiah, by centurions at the scene of the crucifixion, described in John chapter nineteen, are yet another example of strict contextual adherence to verse eighteen of the Psalm. This verse describes the exact behavior expounded upon in John’s gospel. Use of the word raiment is significant in the Psalm, in that a raiment is most commonly defined as a seamless tunic of sorts; one close in nature to that reportedly worn by Christ during His ministry.
Verse twenty-two of the Psalm is one that, while having little to do with the passion on Calvary, has much to do with the identity of the persecuted man, Himself. “I will declare Your name: in the midst of the congregation will I praise you.”9 The significance of this passage is that, over and over again in all four gospels, a large portion of Christ’s ministry does, in fact, take place on the temple grounds. His ministry focused at these times on a convergence of faith in the true and living God, and a direct affront to the God presented and enthroned in hypocrisy by the Pharisaical leadership of the day.
Verse thirty-one of the Psalm personifies and expounds upon the victory over the tyranny of sin afforded us by Christ, in the fulfillment of His purpose and mission on Earth. This final victory is foreshadowed in the verse, “They shall declare His righteousness to a people yet to be born – That He has done it.”10. This final phrase in all but direct syntax and verbiage is mirrored by Christ in Chapter nineteen, verse thirty, of John’s gospel, when Christ proclaims victoriously that “[i]t is finished.” The culmination of victory and the relief of ultimate sacrifice in the face of hatred, and a saving of a people in spite of themselves, I feel, are most appropriately expressed by St. Augustine.
“‘The generation to come shall be declared to the Lord.’ The generations of the New Testament shall be declared to the honour of the Lord. ‘And the heavens shall declare His righteousness.’ And the evangelists shall declare His righteousness. ‘To a people that shall be born, whom the Lord hath made.’ To a people that shall be born to the Lord through faith.”11
In conclusion, one is left with an overriding awe at the purity and accuracy of the fulfillment of the events described in the Psalm, and the almost mirror image of said events depicted in the gospels. Awe for God and the faithful nature of both He and His word. In this vein, one is confronted with no choice but to focus on the prophecies yet to be fulfilled within the Bible as not merely a representation of possible events, but more of a diagram for the end of the age ushered in by the universality of redemption embodied within Christ risen. For one to choose to accept Christ as a literal fulfillment of prophecy, and, at the same time, deny or rationalize the validity of fulfillment yet to come, would be to undermine the analytical basis upon which one’s salvation lies. In essence, as Paul said, a form of godliness which denies the power within it. The power of God’s words and His promises lie, in part, in the fulfillment of divine prophecy. So, to deny the inevitability of the total fulfillment of all prophecy is the definition of the absence of faith. As a Christian, I feel the compulsion, if not the duty, to expect the resurrection of the dead and a life in the world to come; in short, if God inspired it all for His ends, then those ends will never be left loose. Perhaps Paul Boyer puts it best.
“Most Christians throughout history have believed in God’s providential oversight of history. Most still do today, to judge by the formal creedal statements of all major Christian groups… who teach that God at the beginning of time determined a specific, detailed plan for history.”12
I believe that this statement is essential to true faith in God as our Master, and as evidenced by Psalm twenty-two, as Christ as our savior.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Ryan Sorba versus Students for Liberty - "Gays at CPAC controversy"
Said controvesy can be seen here.
I think the real argument is over the application of not rights in general to homosexuals, but rather the authority being vested in them, as a protected class, to claim a violation of said rights because they are homosexual. Other groups are assigned such a power based upon their being classes of people who cannot choose whether to be a member of said class, i.e. women, racial groups, etc.. Even the most vehement of homosexual activists describe their sexual orientation as a "lifestyle choice," as most assertions that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon have been dismissed scientifically. (For example here) The argument turns on whether a special and particular power to redress "discrimination" should be vested in a group that simply makes a volitional choice? Further, should true lovers of liberty criticize those who choose to exercise their liberty by refraining from associating with people who make such choices?
There may be made a certain argument that discrimination against those without a choice as to their situation in life should be curbed, but that argument, however suspect constitutionally, is not, by any means, analogous to the one made by homosexuals. Should homosexuals be restrained in exercising their constitutional right, absolutely not, as such an infraction upon their rights represents a slippery slope to everyone's rights being infringed. However, to infringe upon the rights of all to associate with whom they wish, simply because such freedom is seen as a deleterious consequence of another's choices, is truly and unabashedly unconstitutional and averse to liberty as a concept.
Homosexuality is admitted and proven to be a choice, all choices have consequences. Even JS Mill would agree. Being free from the consequences of one's choices is by no means a constitutional right. I feel that those asserting themselves as lovers of liberty should not support anyone who would make such assertions, as it stands as totally antithetical to their espoused beliefs.
However, must Ryan Sorba be such a douche in making such a point? See, I just did it quite nicely without being a flaming idiot pandering to biases of a biased audience.
I think the real argument is over the application of not rights in general to homosexuals, but rather the authority being vested in them, as a protected class, to claim a violation of said rights because they are homosexual. Other groups are assigned such a power based upon their being classes of people who cannot choose whether to be a member of said class, i.e. women, racial groups, etc.. Even the most vehement of homosexual activists describe their sexual orientation as a "lifestyle choice," as most assertions that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon have been dismissed scientifically. (For example here) The argument turns on whether a special and particular power to redress "discrimination" should be vested in a group that simply makes a volitional choice? Further, should true lovers of liberty criticize those who choose to exercise their liberty by refraining from associating with people who make such choices?
There may be made a certain argument that discrimination against those without a choice as to their situation in life should be curbed, but that argument, however suspect constitutionally, is not, by any means, analogous to the one made by homosexuals. Should homosexuals be restrained in exercising their constitutional right, absolutely not, as such an infraction upon their rights represents a slippery slope to everyone's rights being infringed. However, to infringe upon the rights of all to associate with whom they wish, simply because such freedom is seen as a deleterious consequence of another's choices, is truly and unabashedly unconstitutional and averse to liberty as a concept.
Homosexuality is admitted and proven to be a choice, all choices have consequences. Even JS Mill would agree. Being free from the consequences of one's choices is by no means a constitutional right. I feel that those asserting themselves as lovers of liberty should not support anyone who would make such assertions, as it stands as totally antithetical to their espoused beliefs.
However, must Ryan Sorba be such a douche in making such a point? See, I just did it quite nicely without being a flaming idiot pandering to biases of a biased audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
