At bloomberg today:
The bond market is saying that it’s safer to lend to Warren Buffett than Barack Obama.
Two-year notes sold by the billionaire’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in February yield 3.5 basis points less than Treasuries of similar maturity, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Procter & Gamble Co., Johnson & Johnson and Lowe’s Cos. debt also traded at lower yields in recent weeks, a situation former Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. chief fixed-income strategist Jack Malvey calls an “exceedingly rare” event in the history of the bond market.
If you know anything about financial mathematics, this really screw things up. Many calculations are based on the underlying premise that the risk free rate is the U.S. Treasury rate. By definition corporate bond rates are higher than Treasuries.
What is actually happening is that people no longer believe that the default risk for U.S. bonds is zero. We are seen by the market increasingly as a credit risk.
If/when the "Obamacare" Health Bill becomes law, tack on another $500B in deficits over the next ten years. The Medicare cuts alleged in the bill are politically unfeasible and will never happen. One more heap of straw on the camel's back.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Status and Esteem, Old Enemies
In this post, I mentioned the link between status and depression. That is, low status leads to depression. After observing my own feelings, watching films, and watching other people, this link seems very strong and very common. I had a brief e-mail exchange with Alvin Plantinga, a noted Christian philosopher at Notre Dame. After his responses I fleshed out some of my thinking on this subject.
There is a dichotomy to status in regards to relationships. One side is power and the other I call esteem. A perfect power relationship would be sociopathic, having no value in the person, only in what the person can do for them. A perfect esteem relationship, would be one of perfect love, where the object is valued without regard to the power the relationship affords. Neither exists for man in a pure form, only in tendencies.
"Real Friends" as they are referred to are those of esteem. A friend, who is still your friend when you've lost your ability to provide status and power to those around you. You lose your fortune, the power relationships end, the esteem relationships remain. You lose your public image, the power relationships end, the esteem relationships remain.
The world of power relationships is unstable. The vicissitudes of style, hipness, and good fortune, put us at the whim of forces outside of our control. There can only be one "it-girl". There can only be one alpha male. There's only one Megan Fox, and only one Robert Pattison. That is, until next week. It is a zero sum game, where every win presupposes that someone else loses.
The world of esteem relationships is unbounded. Choosing to trust, to value, appreciate, to love, is a game of mutual advantage. Every win presupposes that someone else wins. Our esteem, our status, is a function of our ability to create and maintain genuine relationships.
In that old post, I asked this question:
Are Christians susceptible to depression by avoiding status symbols, personal glory and power? Or is there some other route that supplants these losses with something more?
Choosing to eschew power and embrace esteem is the pathway for the Christian away from depression. Love your neighbor as yourself.
There is a dichotomy to status in regards to relationships. One side is power and the other I call esteem. A perfect power relationship would be sociopathic, having no value in the person, only in what the person can do for them. A perfect esteem relationship, would be one of perfect love, where the object is valued without regard to the power the relationship affords. Neither exists for man in a pure form, only in tendencies.
"Real Friends" as they are referred to are those of esteem. A friend, who is still your friend when you've lost your ability to provide status and power to those around you. You lose your fortune, the power relationships end, the esteem relationships remain. You lose your public image, the power relationships end, the esteem relationships remain.
The world of power relationships is unstable. The vicissitudes of style, hipness, and good fortune, put us at the whim of forces outside of our control. There can only be one "it-girl". There can only be one alpha male. There's only one Megan Fox, and only one Robert Pattison. That is, until next week. It is a zero sum game, where every win presupposes that someone else loses.
The world of esteem relationships is unbounded. Choosing to trust, to value, appreciate, to love, is a game of mutual advantage. Every win presupposes that someone else wins. Our esteem, our status, is a function of our ability to create and maintain genuine relationships.
In that old post, I asked this question:
Are Christians susceptible to depression by avoiding status symbols, personal glory and power? Or is there some other route that supplants these losses with something more?
Choosing to eschew power and embrace esteem is the pathway for the Christian away from depression. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Why We Fear Obama and the Left
From Stan Isaacs at the Philadelphia Inquirer today, speaking on Obama:
He should forget bipartisanship and work with congressional Democrats to name three new justices to the court to meet the challenges he faces.
The whole piece is dedicated to justifying Obama naming three new Supreme Court justices, to lift the total to 12. Does this man not smell the brimstone on his own breath? Isaacs even thinks that FDR got a raw deal when public opinion turned against him while trying to pack the court in the 1930's. This is Hugo Chavez style thinking. Checks and balances be damned, we need to pass our agenda.
Why are we afraid of Obama and the Left? Is he a socialist, maybe not. Is he a communist, maybe not. The problem with the Left, though, is that they have no logical barriers between themselves and totalitarianism. Hayek's Road to Serfdom is the logical flow of their beliefs.
He should forget bipartisanship and work with congressional Democrats to name three new justices to the court to meet the challenges he faces.
The whole piece is dedicated to justifying Obama naming three new Supreme Court justices, to lift the total to 12. Does this man not smell the brimstone on his own breath? Isaacs even thinks that FDR got a raw deal when public opinion turned against him while trying to pack the court in the 1930's. This is Hugo Chavez style thinking. Checks and balances be damned, we need to pass our agenda.
Why are we afraid of Obama and the Left? Is he a socialist, maybe not. Is he a communist, maybe not. The problem with the Left, though, is that they have no logical barriers between themselves and totalitarianism. Hayek's Road to Serfdom is the logical flow of their beliefs.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
If God Does Not Exist, We Would Need to Invent Him
This morning I had a good conversation with a friend who reads my blog. He helped me come to this conclusion:
If all reason is a tool for power, and therefore we should be skeptical of all reasoning because its origin can be corrupt and self-serving, then no human philosophy can produce objective truth. However, if a mind, unaffected by the evolutionary process (or any other process leading to status seeking), produced objective truth claims, those claims could be believed.
Who fits this definition? Only a supernatural being.
Could this supernatural being, be one of many gods? Well, if it was, then we might be suspect of its motivations. Greek mythology tells us of the constant warring in the heavens. However, if there is one all-powerful, all-knowing God, status could never come into play because there can be no competition. This God is the only one that can produce objective truth that can be believed.
If all reason is a tool for power, and therefore we should be skeptical of all reasoning because its origin can be corrupt and self-serving, then no human philosophy can produce objective truth. However, if a mind, unaffected by the evolutionary process (or any other process leading to status seeking), produced objective truth claims, those claims could be believed.
Who fits this definition? Only a supernatural being.
Could this supernatural being, be one of many gods? Well, if it was, then we might be suspect of its motivations. Greek mythology tells us of the constant warring in the heavens. However, if there is one all-powerful, all-knowing God, status could never come into play because there can be no competition. This God is the only one that can produce objective truth that can be believed.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Towards Liberty
Over the last year I’ve become more and more persuaded by the likes of Nietzsche, Foucault, and the Post-Modernists that there is no ultimate truth. All presuppositions are fallible and subject to doubt. This affected my zeal for politics, and left me without a strong anchor for my political inclinations. My time adrift, though, is over.
No free society can be achieved because those who desire power will slowly undermine the logical presuppositions that liberty rests upon. Of course, tyranny too must rest on logical presuppositions. It is a battle of ideas and presuppositions between those who want power and those who want liberty. It is a battle that will never end, and I suspect will always ebb and flow.
In this battle, both sides are using the flawed techniques of social science and utilitarianism. Both suffer inescapably from the impossibility of calculation, and the perversion of status seeking agendas. Without spending countless hours of study and analysis, how can we resist the “science” of tyranny and thwart it with the “science” of liberty?
We don’t have to.
Then how can we help our fellow man avoid propaganda and the manipulation of self-serving reason? Without looking at the reasoning, we can merely look at the conclusions. Do the conclusions of their arguments gather more power into the hands of a small set of individuals? If so, then their argument is likely false and motivated by the “will to power”.
Recall, though, how I explained how an academic can be corrupted by secondhand status. That is, those with power reward the academic because his arguments give them power. The academic can maintain the pretense of disinterested research because he appears not to directly benefit from his conclusions. His mind has been bent to reinforce the status he has achieved. He will doggedly defend his “science”.
Am I immune to the desire for status? Not at all. I am, however, humble enough to realize that I will not be one of the select few who get to rule. My best alternative is to undermine the power lust of others. To avoid tyranny, I must pursue liberty, and not just for myself, but for everyone. The accumulation of power anywhere is a threat to me.
We must be skeptics. Our liberty depends on it.
No free society can be achieved because those who desire power will slowly undermine the logical presuppositions that liberty rests upon. Of course, tyranny too must rest on logical presuppositions. It is a battle of ideas and presuppositions between those who want power and those who want liberty. It is a battle that will never end, and I suspect will always ebb and flow.
In this battle, both sides are using the flawed techniques of social science and utilitarianism. Both suffer inescapably from the impossibility of calculation, and the perversion of status seeking agendas. Without spending countless hours of study and analysis, how can we resist the “science” of tyranny and thwart it with the “science” of liberty?
We don’t have to.
Then how can we help our fellow man avoid propaganda and the manipulation of self-serving reason? Without looking at the reasoning, we can merely look at the conclusions. Do the conclusions of their arguments gather more power into the hands of a small set of individuals? If so, then their argument is likely false and motivated by the “will to power”.
Recall, though, how I explained how an academic can be corrupted by secondhand status. That is, those with power reward the academic because his arguments give them power. The academic can maintain the pretense of disinterested research because he appears not to directly benefit from his conclusions. His mind has been bent to reinforce the status he has achieved. He will doggedly defend his “science”.
Am I immune to the desire for status? Not at all. I am, however, humble enough to realize that I will not be one of the select few who get to rule. My best alternative is to undermine the power lust of others. To avoid tyranny, I must pursue liberty, and not just for myself, but for everyone. The accumulation of power anywhere is a threat to me.
We must be skeptics. Our liberty depends on it.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Pragmatism is the Vessel of Propaganda, Thankfully Obama is an Idealogue
Jonah Goldberg writes a nice column mocking Obama's pragmatic above-the-fray arrogance. He also elucidates the virtues of ideology.
The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in 1909 that if everyone becomes a pragmatist, then "ironclads and Maxim guns must be the ultimate arbiters of metaphysical truth." Russell's point was that there's nothing within pragmatism to delineate the proper and just limits of pragmatism. We must look outside pragmatism for that.
Our values, customs, traditions and principles provide the insulation against the corrosive acid of undiluted pragmatism. When you bundle these things together, it's often called an ideology, and there's no reason to apologize for having one.
Also recall from an old post of mine on propaganda:
...the educated, and especially the intellectual, are most susceptible to propaganda. Once you realize that people with little education tend to just follow what their parents and community tell them, you realize that only the educated are truly open to new ideas, many of which are poorly supported.
A President must be a jack-of-all-trades. His biases will lead him to listen to "experts" with those biases. A pragmatic mind is one that is most easily shaped by the limited voices he hears, and thus is the most susceptable to propaganda. However, this President appears to be unwavering in his ideas, agenda set in stone, unshaped by public opinion. Ironically, as Goldberg points out, the President's claims of pragmatism are just the self-delusioned arrogance of a blatant ideologue.
The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in 1909 that if everyone becomes a pragmatist, then "ironclads and Maxim guns must be the ultimate arbiters of metaphysical truth." Russell's point was that there's nothing within pragmatism to delineate the proper and just limits of pragmatism. We must look outside pragmatism for that.
Our values, customs, traditions and principles provide the insulation against the corrosive acid of undiluted pragmatism. When you bundle these things together, it's often called an ideology, and there's no reason to apologize for having one.
Also recall from an old post of mine on propaganda:
...the educated, and especially the intellectual, are most susceptible to propaganda. Once you realize that people with little education tend to just follow what their parents and community tell them, you realize that only the educated are truly open to new ideas, many of which are poorly supported.
A President must be a jack-of-all-trades. His biases will lead him to listen to "experts" with those biases. A pragmatic mind is one that is most easily shaped by the limited voices he hears, and thus is the most susceptable to propaganda. However, this President appears to be unwavering in his ideas, agenda set in stone, unshaped by public opinion. Ironically, as Goldberg points out, the President's claims of pragmatism are just the self-delusioned arrogance of a blatant ideologue.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Debra Medina Rising
A few weeks ago, Debra Medina, my choice for Texas Governor was at 4% of the Republican primary vote. Then, it was 12%, and now it's 16% according to RasmussenReports.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Why Do We Need Meaning?
A few days ago I was listening to a podcast of a theological debate between a Calvinist and a Christian of a different persuasion which I did not catch. In the end it was pointless so I won't harm the world by linking to it. However, there was an interesting exchange that got me thinking about the human desire for meaning.
The two men used a theoretical event where a fictional man rapes and murders a small girl. Both of them were explaining their view of God's nature by suggesting how God might have allowed this to happen for the greater good of the world.
Why? Why do we suppose that God is some sort of utilitarian? Why do we presuppose some sort of cosmic justice or karma surrounds every negative that befalls us? As if good and evil were like double entry accounting where everything zeroes out in the end.
When I say, "we", I need to exclude myself. For whatever reason it is a phenomenon that I do not identify with at all. This is not to brag, but I do not ever recall having gotten angry at God. Never have I struggled with the lack of meaning in events. I don't know if I'm missing a gene or if I simply never began to believe that God needed to justify the world that he created and we altered.
Even the greatly reveered Christian author C.S. Lewis struggles through anger and doubt towards God upon the death of his wife. I've been reading his "A Grief Observed".
This is not a criticism of anyone. Where did this idea come from? Why do we believe this?
Anyone?
The two men used a theoretical event where a fictional man rapes and murders a small girl. Both of them were explaining their view of God's nature by suggesting how God might have allowed this to happen for the greater good of the world.
Why? Why do we suppose that God is some sort of utilitarian? Why do we presuppose some sort of cosmic justice or karma surrounds every negative that befalls us? As if good and evil were like double entry accounting where everything zeroes out in the end.
When I say, "we", I need to exclude myself. For whatever reason it is a phenomenon that I do not identify with at all. This is not to brag, but I do not ever recall having gotten angry at God. Never have I struggled with the lack of meaning in events. I don't know if I'm missing a gene or if I simply never began to believe that God needed to justify the world that he created and we altered.
Even the greatly reveered Christian author C.S. Lewis struggles through anger and doubt towards God upon the death of his wife. I've been reading his "A Grief Observed".
This is not a criticism of anyone. Where did this idea come from? Why do we believe this?
Anyone?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Raw Political Power
Several days ago I endorsed Debra Medina for Governor of Texas. I also exercised my enormous political clout and shot an e-mail over to Robert Wenzel, blogger of EconomicPolicyJournal extolling her virtues. He gets about a thousand times as many hits as I do every day, and he told me he would keep an eye on her campaign. Lo and behold, he links to an article on her today extolling her virtues.
Now that I'm drunk on power, I'll have to start ordering you little people around. Someone get me some coffee!
Now that I'm drunk on power, I'll have to start ordering you little people around. Someone get me some coffee!
Friday, January 22, 2010
Alien in the Gaps Fallacy
Those in the intelligent design camp propose there are proofs that God exists in nature. An example being the irreducible complexity in the anatomy of the eye or bacterial flagella. The common retort to these claims is to cite the God of the Gaps fallacy.
The God of the Gaps fallacy can be defined as - a tendency to postulate acts of God to explain phenomena for which science has yet to give a satisfactory account.
This intelligent design line of thinking is, of course, a rather weak position. As soon as a scientific explanation is able to find an answer, the argument dies an embarrassing death. If one’s faith is built on one of these, it could be shattered in an instant. I’m not a microbiologist, so there may yet be a reason to be confident, but from a spectator’s viewpoint it seems rather tenuous.
The age old claim against God is the lack of evidence. Most people have some sort of mystical experiences, but these aren’t reproducible as required by science.
What shocked me, though, was the end of Ben Stein’s Expelled. When questioned by Mr. Stein, noted atheist scholar, Richard Dawkins, said that he thought it was possible that life had been brought to earth from another planet. This is the same person who believes that a belief in God is completely irrational.
I am agnostic on the subject of aliens, but his line of thinking seems a bit preposterous. We have been to the moon, we have been to Mars. We thought we found life on Mars, but we didn’t. We photographed the planets and their moons, and no visible life has been found. We have sundry instruments listening for rays and waves coming from outer space in hopes that there might be life on other planets. Yet, nothing. Absolutely nothing. The universe is deafeningly silent.
There is no evidence, yet many intelligent people assert that there is a probability. Surely, in all the universe, with billions of stars and planets, life exists somewhere else. Yet we haven’t seen a thing.
Even with this utter lack of evidence, Dawkins believes that it is a possibility that a race of super intelligent aliens, that we have never seen, nor have any evidence, went flying through the universe 5 billion years ago and dropped off some bacteria that evolved into us. Really? This is rational, but a supernatural being is not? We have barely scraped the universe which is why we haven’t found alien life, but by the same limited measure we can with certainty exclude a God. Really?
I dub this the Alien in the Gaps fallacy.
The God of the Gaps fallacy can be defined as - a tendency to postulate acts of God to explain phenomena for which science has yet to give a satisfactory account.
This intelligent design line of thinking is, of course, a rather weak position. As soon as a scientific explanation is able to find an answer, the argument dies an embarrassing death. If one’s faith is built on one of these, it could be shattered in an instant. I’m not a microbiologist, so there may yet be a reason to be confident, but from a spectator’s viewpoint it seems rather tenuous.
The age old claim against God is the lack of evidence. Most people have some sort of mystical experiences, but these aren’t reproducible as required by science.
What shocked me, though, was the end of Ben Stein’s Expelled. When questioned by Mr. Stein, noted atheist scholar, Richard Dawkins, said that he thought it was possible that life had been brought to earth from another planet. This is the same person who believes that a belief in God is completely irrational.
I am agnostic on the subject of aliens, but his line of thinking seems a bit preposterous. We have been to the moon, we have been to Mars. We thought we found life on Mars, but we didn’t. We photographed the planets and their moons, and no visible life has been found. We have sundry instruments listening for rays and waves coming from outer space in hopes that there might be life on other planets. Yet, nothing. Absolutely nothing. The universe is deafeningly silent.
There is no evidence, yet many intelligent people assert that there is a probability. Surely, in all the universe, with billions of stars and planets, life exists somewhere else. Yet we haven’t seen a thing.
Even with this utter lack of evidence, Dawkins believes that it is a possibility that a race of super intelligent aliens, that we have never seen, nor have any evidence, went flying through the universe 5 billion years ago and dropped off some bacteria that evolved into us. Really? This is rational, but a supernatural being is not? We have barely scraped the universe which is why we haven’t found alien life, but by the same limited measure we can with certainty exclude a God. Really?
I dub this the Alien in the Gaps fallacy.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Debra Medina for Governor of Texas
I have been a fan of my Texas Governor Rick Perry for a long time. I have voted for him every time, and do not regret any of those votes. In this coming primary election, I was planning to vote for him again, because Kay Bailey Hutchison has never impressed me beyond having a likeable personality.
However, I looked up Debra Medina, a lesser known candidate, last night after seeing a Rasmussen poll giving her 12%. I looked at the Issues tab on her website and swooned. She quotes Frederick Bastiat! Beyond the self apparent awesomeness of that, it means she reads real books.
In her bio I find that she was a leader in the Ron Paul for President campaign in Texas, and she was also one of those early home school rebels. That means she's got chutzpah (that means "cajones" to you English speakers).
I'm down with Debra Medina.
However, I looked up Debra Medina, a lesser known candidate, last night after seeing a Rasmussen poll giving her 12%. I looked at the Issues tab on her website and swooned. She quotes Frederick Bastiat! Beyond the self apparent awesomeness of that, it means she reads real books.
In her bio I find that she was a leader in the Ron Paul for President campaign in Texas, and she was also one of those early home school rebels. That means she's got chutzpah (that means "cajones" to you English speakers).
I'm down with Debra Medina.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Tonight's Gonna Be a Good Night
"I got a feelin'. That tonight's gonna be a big big night." -- Black Eyed Peas
I predicted on my facebook page Sunday that Scott Brown would win against Martha Coakley by 7 points in the Senate Race in Massachusetts. With more polling data coming out on Monday showing Brown up by 9 or 10 points, I am pretty confident that Brown's margin of victory will be large.
As many of you are well aware this could mean the death of Obamacare. Brown has pledged that he will join a Republican filibuster against that bill when it comes out of the reconciliation committee.
However, libertarian economist Bob Murphy had this to say in the comments at EPJ.
I don't mean to be a party pooper, but I would caution everyone about getting real excited for Republicans to step up to the plate and defend our liberties. I still cringe when I remember staying up late election night 2000 because I was so so worried that that "socialist Al Gore" would wreck the US economy...
I respectfully disagree, but not because I have faith in Republican leaders. The incentives for Congressmen to spend money and expand government are still there, so they won't change that much. However, what can change is the ideological mix of the country.
History is written in simple narratives, and this election tonight will be part of that narrative. President Obama is a symbol. He is big government writ large. He is Keynesianism writ large. He is elitist arrogance. We don't need him to be defeated and humiliated as a person, but we need it as a symbol. We need this brand of soft-socialism to become a punchline; a mythology of errors so engrained in our collective consciousness that economic intervention will be conflated with disaster.
The White House has already decided what their strategy will be after defeat. According to Politico:
President Barack Obama plans a combative response if, as White House aides fear, Democrats lose Tuesday’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, close advisers say.
He's doubling down. Like Pharoah after the plagues he plans to be even more provocative.
Did the Hebrews in Egypt recognize the importance of symbolism and historical narratives?
Exodus 9:13 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, 14 or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.
Not to put word's in God's mouth or assume he has an opinion on this election, but if we value freedom for ourselves and for our fellow Americans, we should be giddy about a likely victory tonight. Never in my lifetime has an opportunity for big government to be so thoroughly disgraced as it is right now.
I predicted on my facebook page Sunday that Scott Brown would win against Martha Coakley by 7 points in the Senate Race in Massachusetts. With more polling data coming out on Monday showing Brown up by 9 or 10 points, I am pretty confident that Brown's margin of victory will be large.
As many of you are well aware this could mean the death of Obamacare. Brown has pledged that he will join a Republican filibuster against that bill when it comes out of the reconciliation committee.
However, libertarian economist Bob Murphy had this to say in the comments at EPJ.
I don't mean to be a party pooper, but I would caution everyone about getting real excited for Republicans to step up to the plate and defend our liberties. I still cringe when I remember staying up late election night 2000 because I was so so worried that that "socialist Al Gore" would wreck the US economy...
I respectfully disagree, but not because I have faith in Republican leaders. The incentives for Congressmen to spend money and expand government are still there, so they won't change that much. However, what can change is the ideological mix of the country.
History is written in simple narratives, and this election tonight will be part of that narrative. President Obama is a symbol. He is big government writ large. He is Keynesianism writ large. He is elitist arrogance. We don't need him to be defeated and humiliated as a person, but we need it as a symbol. We need this brand of soft-socialism to become a punchline; a mythology of errors so engrained in our collective consciousness that economic intervention will be conflated with disaster.
The White House has already decided what their strategy will be after defeat. According to Politico:
President Barack Obama plans a combative response if, as White House aides fear, Democrats lose Tuesday’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, close advisers say.
He's doubling down. Like Pharoah after the plagues he plans to be even more provocative.
Did the Hebrews in Egypt recognize the importance of symbolism and historical narratives?
Exodus 9:13 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, 14 or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.
Not to put word's in God's mouth or assume he has an opinion on this election, but if we value freedom for ourselves and for our fellow Americans, we should be giddy about a likely victory tonight. Never in my lifetime has an opportunity for big government to be so thoroughly disgraced as it is right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)