Red State

On the Bill O'Reilly Show tonight, there was a segment on Rep. Robert Wexler (D-[allegedly] 19). Wexler's Republican opponent Edward Lynch did some research and discovered the Democrat is fulfilling his residency requirement by residing at his mother-in-law's home, one in what The Palm Beach Post describes as a "55-and-older-community." His wife and children live in Rockville, MD. where the kids attend a Jewish Day School.

The Fox News reporter did the job right, asking hard questions and catching the congressman off guard as he headed for his car, dressed in shorts and a t-shirt. The congressman was tongue-tied, apparently unable to recover from the unexpected barrage of questions about his residency.

Wexler has been touring with his new book, 'Fire Breathing Liberal.' He's done talk shows and author events, and The Daily Pulp blog says it was actually Wexler's book that raised the residency issue. The blog noted: On P. 52 he states, “While many members don’t bring their families with them to Washington, choosing instead to fly home each weekend, Laurie and I decided it would work best for our family if our three young children attended school in the Washington area.” It was that statement the caused this candidate to look further into Rep. Wexler’s past.

There's another issue in this scoop as well, one with an elitist motif. Like many congressmen, Wexler's children apparently attend private school. Many Democrats criticize the use of school vouchers for children who are stuck in failing public schools, but whose parents cannot afford a private school.

Wexler's dilemma and what promises to be a lively race in District 16 suggest the GOP may have a solid chance at recovering those seats in Congress. Wexler probably didn't expect that fire breathing to affect his seat, both literally and figuratively.

Glad to join the Red State community. I hope that you will find my posts to add value to the site.

Yesterday was finally the end of the days this year when you were working to pay the government its exorbitant fees. That's right, July 16 was Cost of Government Day for the average American. Grover Norquist , author of the recent book "Leave Us Alone," has once again crunched the numbers and determined how long it takes most of us to finally pay off our own personal bloated government debt and begin, at last, to make money for ourselves.

This year Americans have worked until today, July 16, to pay for the total costs of federal, state and local government. This is 197 days of the year consuming 53.9 percent of national income. Over the past 22 years, in only four years (1982, 1983, 1991 and 1992) did Cost of Government Day fall later in the year.

Its simply outrageous that it takes 197 days of a year to finally pay off our government obligations and utterly criminal that more than half our income is consumed by bloated, needless bureaucracy.

Federal spending will consume 83.7 days. State and local spending will consume 50.5 days effort. Federal regulations cost 4l.7 days and State regulations cost 20.9 days. The spending data is precise, the regulatory burdens are understated.

And it is a singular failing of the Bush administration that we have added three more days of slaving to pay the government to this burden since he took office. But it is even worse that six days have been added by our own state and local governments.

And what do we have to show for this increased theft of our income? Not too damned much, that's for sure. Many are quick to blame deficit Federal spending. But Norquist makes a more salient point.

But the deficit is the uninteresting and unimportant number that is the difference between two very interesting and important numbers: total government spending and total taxes raised. A government that costs one hundred dollars of spending where ninety dollars are taken in taxes and ten are borrowed is as expensive and burdensome as one where the government takes and spends all hundred. No money is freed up for the economy by taking an additional ten in taxes. The true cost of government, whether paid for today through taxation or borrowing, is total government spending plus the regulatory burden paid by consumers in higher prices.

And Norquist warns that if the next president doesn't keep the relatively pro-growth tax policy that Bush has continued we will find major trouble. Since we have had "fifteen years without a legislated tax hike" we have lived a "unique" time with tax policy, says Norquist.

The pro-growth tax cut of 2003 created economic growth that by2008 increased the number of American jobs by eight million, real per capita income grew $2,887, the stock market increased by $3.7 trillion in value and federal revenues jumped by $785 billion. Those tax cuts lapse in January 2011 and already the markets are anticipating losing those gains.

The next president and Congress will not only need to maintain the relatively pro-growth lower tax rates on individual income and investments, but -- as Cost of Government Day painfully reminds us - deal with the true costs of government: total government spending and the regulatory burden.

Reagan was right. Lower taxes means pro-growth. Let's hope the next president does not torpedo the relatively good economic times we've had these last 15 years in favor of higher, economy killing taxes. The burden on the taxpayer is far too much and regulation is stifling to us all.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

I believe limiting the amount of money government can legally spend to an amount no greater than that which it takes in would be one of the greatest, most meaningful achievements of this generation. I also believe that the most effective – and most permanent – way to do this is by amending the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced budget.

My name is Alan Parks. I live in Texas, where I’ve been a practicing Obstetrician/Gynecologist for 21 years. I care so deeply about this issue, which has the potential to so greatly affect our future and our children’s future, that I recently left my medical practice to launch Americans for a Balanced Budget Amendment, an organization which will fight to help dig our children’s generation out of the hole that year after year of deficit spending has created.

At present, the United States of America, the most prosperous nation in the history of mankind, is borrowing from its children in order to pay its current bills. Our government annually spends 10, 20, even 30 percent more than it takes in – a massive exercise in deficit spending that has left us with a national debt that is currently over $9,500,000,000,000 and growing.

Further, Congress has given us no reason to believe they will suddenly become paragons of fiscal responsibility and self-control – after all, they have added $2,000,000,000,000 to the debt in the last six years alone. We cannot sit idly by as Congress fritters away our (and our children’s) money to pay for things like a $250,000,000 Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska!

I believe the solution to this problem is the addition of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Only through this most stringent of means can we force our government to be wiser with our tax dollars, to cut out frivolous spending, and to be less wasteful with our, and our children’s, hard-earned money and financial future. Through the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment, we can limit our burdensome debt load and put this country back onto a sustainable course for future growth and prosperity.

A Balanced Budget Amendment will help individual families. It will give us a stronger and more stable economy and will limit the amount we have to pay in taxes to service the national debt. This, in turn, will put more money into the pockets of our families, better enabling them to pay for their own needs, and will allow them more money to donate to charitable causes like cancer research, famine relief, local churches, boy scouts, girl scouts, habitat for humanity, and other worthy endeavors.

Only the strong can help the weak, and this measure will strengthen our nation – putting us in a better position to help others at home and around the world. I hope that you will help me raise awareness about this issue throughout the country. I hope to compel the leadership in Congress to bring this issue up for a vote by showing overwhelming support from the American people.

If you agree with this cause, please visit my Web site, www.BalanceOurBudget.com, and sign the petition indicating your support for this worthy and necessary endeavor. If you feel as strongly as I do, I hope you will also consider making a donation to help the effort.

Together we can send a strong message to Washington that we will no longer tolerate politicians mortgaging America’s future for their own gain.

Thank you,

Alan Parks, M.D.

In the span of over 120 years similar issues continue to vex the peoples representatives elected to office. Witness the the current situation of government attempts/programs to provide/throw money at specific issues and compare this to the past. I think most agree that throwing money at a problem is not conducive to solving the problem itself.

This is not intended to be an unsympathetic view for those going through any terrible situation, but more a discussion on the limits of power those elected to office actually have.

By providing government bail-outs to every emergency does this solve anything, or does this just kick-the-can down the road for others to find a more permanent solution? Or, to get the issue past short-term memory?

More below...

The ability to discern where responsibility lies and the perceived need for the government to support the people. Many similarities exist between today and in 1884.

By Col. Davy Crockett

From: http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/crockett_not_yours_to_give.asp

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker --- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him."

Last night, the North Carolina House of Representatives passed a second reading of a bill entitled: "AN ACT to improve Drought preparedness and response in North Carolina, as recommended by the Environmental review commission."

Like all legislation, the devil is in the details.

The legislation sounds like a good thing until you read what is actually in the thing. Here is just a smattering of what I found before blood started shooting out of my eyes, and what I think the battle to stop it will revolve around:

SECTION 6. The Environmental Review Commission, as part of its ongoing study of the allocation of water resources in the State required by Section 1 of S.L. 2007‑518, shall study whether and to what extent private groundwater wells and the use of water produced by private groundwater wells should be regulated by the State or units of local government. The Environmental Review Commission shall report its findings and recommendations, including any legislative proposals, to the General Assembly as provided by Section 1 of S.L. 2007‑518, as amended.

There has been a series of denials by members of the General Assembly that anything like putting meters on private wells is under consideration, including this video (the meat of the matter is at 4m 15s to 5 minutes).

The vote, at least in the western delegation from the mountains, is mostly along party lines, with Democrats voting for it, and Republicans against. Since the General Assembly in North Carolina has a Democratic majority, the reading of bills is mainly a formality, as there is little discussion allowed on the majority of legislation...most of the work is done in conference committees. The last state budget was approved in less than half an hour with no discussion on the floor allowed by the Democratic Leadership.

For more information, check out the bill for yourself.

I write this on the news that most of you most likely know a portion of. Today our world lost two men who personified class, former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and Yankee Legend Bobby Murcer. From what I’ve seen Tony was a true class act, never one to talk down to a reporter or to make himself the center of the story, he came out day after day with a smile on his face, despite having to deal with his cross. Much like Tony, Bobby Murcer was truly one of the nice guys our world lacks today, never one to turn down a fan, Bobby would spend his time talking to anyone who approached him, whether it be at a mall or a restaurant, Bobby knew what many of today’s athletes didn’t, the fans make you who you are and you should repay them if you can.

In the late 1990s, after having a relative die of cancer, Bobby became an anti-tobacco advocate, he had been a user almost his whole life and now was going to try to protect those who were still young enough to save themselves. Since his diagnosis he has done all he could to help promote the need for everyone to not sit back when they feel something is wrong, if you think your sick he said to go get yourself checked.

For many of us cancer is a problem that has affected us in someway. Whether it’s a family member, a friend, or even a beloved pet, cancer takes away what we hold dear. Yet despite the odds of getting cancer, 1 in every 3 Americans will be diagnosed, our government looks the other way. Is it because it’s not sexy enough? Our government has no problem throwing billions upon billions of dollars at AIDS. Or is it because due to the large scale in which it hits we’ve become too complacent with it.

While I believe we should do what we can to eradicate HIV from this world, the fact still remains that over 95% of the disease is caused by a person’s own habits, while the percentage of American’s who die due to smoking or drinking is even in dispute by the W.H.O., who believe the number is much lower then what the Anti-Tobacco lobby would like us to believe. Despite the disparity between causes the US spends significantly more per person on those with AIDS.

From 1981 to 2004 the US has spent over $150 Billion in AIDS funding, from 2005 on the government has spent over $18.5 billion per year. Now with our cost of war and other problems many people would say that this is not a lot, that we should be spending more, but if you look at the amount we spend per person you may think otherwise. The amount spent within the US for AIDS is roughly 95% of the overall spending, so for 2006 we spent around $17 billion for domestic AIDS, yet it’s estimated at the end of 2006 we had 448,871 people living with AIDS in the US, with around 38,000 people being infected every year. Since its discovery an estimated 566,000 people have died from AIDS, around half of those diagnosed, and since our fight against AIDS the US averages around 14,700 deaths a year.

Now spending wise that means for each person living currently with AIDS we spend around $38,000, which by any means isn’t a large amount of money, but this is spent on a disease that is mostly lifestyle driven. Per death, which shouldn’t be a huge factor since we should be preventing these deaths, we spend over $1.1 million.

Now on the other hand the cancer rate in America is a much bigger problem. In 2007 the number of people diagnosed with cancer was over 1.4 Million while the death toll was around 560,000. That means that in 2007 alone more people were diagnosed with cancer then were diagnosed with AIDS from 1981, the same holds true with deaths, with more people dying from cancer in 2007 then have ever died from AIDS. Despite the huge difference in numbers the US spends $5.6 billion on cancer research. Yes, $5.6 billion on a disease that is deadlier then everything except heart disease, which will be a topic for another day. Why do we limit funding to around $1,000 per death while AIDS gets over $1 Million? As a country we should do our best to protect our people, but why is it we protect those who bring something upon themselves more then we protect people who can’t help what they get?

Granted I have a bias towards the topic, currently having a grandmother who battled colon cancer for over 5 years, a grandfather who died of lung cancer, and many other family members who have battled the illness, but still who hasn’t? We’re the richest country in the world, yet we seem to want to only follow the cool trends. The celebrities wear their little red ribbons, they fight for AIDS help, and like a kid trying to fit in the US government bows down the their wishes, while many people sit at home, dying from cancer, or sometimes worse dying from the only treatment.

I have no problem stating that today, as a young man of 23, I cried multiple times. Once upon waking at 7AM to find out a great man had died. Then again at around 5PM when I heard of another. These two men fought so hard in the eyes of the public, they made me hope that they can overcome this battle and be role models and fighters for those with cancer, but alas they didn’t make it. I feel like many must have when MLK was killed, he had a great shot at being the shinning star for civil rights, and I hope today goes down as a day when two men have a shot at being just like Mr. King, shinning stars for those who battle cancer.

Turns out bad stuff in the media DOES negatively affect children.

Don't mind us social conservatives and religious whack-os who have been railing against the objectification of people, especially women and young girls, for others' perverse enjoyments (or even "innocent" marketing power): we're already working on trying to undo the damage and prevent further similar damage in the future.

There should be no finger pointing or pompous "I told you so" on this -- people have been and continue to be damaged. The only thing to do is move forward with lessons learned and applied and stop the damage.

I commend to your reading the Pastoral Letter "Bought With a Price by Bishop Paul Loverde of the Diocese of Arlington.

Welcome to RedState 3.0. It's been a long time coming. As we get under way on this first Monday after launch, we're going to have a number of guest posters throughout the week, helping us celebrate both the start of our fifth year and our new site. We wanted this to be our first post on the first Monday, a reminder of what we believe we should strive for.

The Republican Party has always embraced a wide range of ideological beliefs – and this diversity of thought has sometimes inspired conflict, as it has also led to great achievement. Yet through all debates, despite all regional or political concerns, the foundation of Republicanism has been the same since its inception: the freedom of the individual, and the value of every human life.

These principles have guided the party from its origin as a political force to destroy slavery, to the long fight against communism, to the ongoing battle for the sanctity of the unborn, to the present war against the forces of Islamism. Those principles will guide the Republican Party through the twenty-first century, and beyond. And we believe the GOP must rededicate itself to the idea of individual freedom – of being the party that believes not in government mandated parity, which wields the power of the bureaucracy to force a false equality of outcome, but in a level playing field for all Americans regardless of race, class, or creed – ensuring an equal opportunity to compete, succeed, and thrive.

The Republican Party must reclaim its rightful mantle as the leading champion of Freedom of Choice.

People must be free to decide how to direct their lives for themselves, and then be responsible for their choices.

On education, Republicans believe you must be free to choose how you want to educate your children. Government should not stand in the way of your choice, whether in the form of home schooling, government schooling, charter schools, vouchers to leave a failing school for a thriving school, or other opportunities.

On healthcare, Republicans should embrace an end to regulatory regimes that prevent citizens from buying healthcare across state lines. Republicans should embrace reforms that allow the free market to play a greater role in health care, not a lesser role. Republicans should embrace total portability of health insurance so workers can be free to choose a new job without fear of losing their insurance.

On taxes, Republicans should embrace the Republican Study Committee plan for an alternate flat tax. If you want to go through the regular 1040 process with itemized deductions, etc., do it. If you want to bypass that route, file a postcard return based on a flat tax — the taxpayer’s choice.

On energy, Republicans, including our Presidential nominee, should embrace every option. You want nuclear power? Republicans should favor that choice. You want to use the resources we have instead of buying it from our enemies? Republicans support legislation to allow us to drill here and now. You want methanol and other biofuels? Republicans should break down trade barriers that prevent the importation of ethanol and Republicans should break down subsidies that raise the price of food stuffs in the name of producing corn based ethanol and other biofuels. Republicans should be in favor of letting consumers choose which type of lightbulb they prefer for their own home.

On Social Security, Republicans should favor greater investment options for individuals’ retirements. If an individual wants to keep the current social security regime, we should let them. If an individual wants greater control investing their social security, we should let them have it. And above all else, because the government has already made certain choices regarding social security and medicare withholdings, Republicans should not use FICA/FUTA revenues for anything but social security and medicare/Medicaid payments respectively, in the current year.

When individuals are allowed to choose for themselves, they take an ownership interest in their choices. One of the greatest failures of the present administration has been not aggressively communicating and supporting the President’s idea of an ownership society, which contains at its core the revolutionary undercurrent that motivated America’s founding: that each individual holds within themselves the capacity and right to self-government.

This is an enormous contrast with the Democrats. In almost every area of their agenda, they are opposed to self-government. They advocate less freedom for the individual to direct their lives – they remove the Freedom of Choice from the American citizen, and give it instead to bureacracies and agencies and the many eddies and tidepools of the federal government, all managed with the efficiency and responsibility of your local Department of Motor Vehicles.

RedState friend Jon Henke reminded us a few days ago about the left’s agenda — or at least, the agenda the left is willing to blog about. You can take a gander here. On the whole, their cause includes:

• crippling a worker’s right to decide whether or not to join a union
• crippling a business’s right to decide what salary an employee should be paid
• crippling an individual’s right to decide on healthcare options outside the government
• crippling the ability of the military to defend the country abroad
• crippling free speech in radio
• crippling rights to own a gun and defend yourself
• crippling the freedom to practice your religion without government interference
• crippling the ability of the United States to grow economically outside of government mandates.

In fact, just days ago, Democrat Rep. Maurice Hinchley announced his favored solution to America’s energy problems: nationalizing the refinery sector. Forget the free market – forget the capitalist economy that made the country the envy of the world – in this area as in all others, the Democrats oppose the Freedom of Choice in directing your life.

Well, all areas but one. The only significant choice the Democrats will defend for an individual is to have the power to determine whether or not to destroy the life of their unborn child.

This is their only claim to the language of choice. It is a false claim. We do not believe this is a valid choice to be made, nor ever has in the course of human history, because it enables the purposeful destruction of innocent life. Where once the pro-abortion left could make their argument based on ignorance of the process of human development, we now know the only choice the Democrats advocate is one that in almost every case kills a feeling, thinking American at its youngest and most vulnerable stage of life, whose only crime is one of inconvenience.

We believe in Individual Freedom of Choice – preserving the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – where the Left’s agenda is to cripple the individual’s freedom to choose, and replace it with dependence on government.

This is not new, but it is what we will have should the Democrats get to sixty seats in the Senate. The Republican Party should not be shy about fighting to give people choices, regardless of whether the Democrats claim to be the “pro-choice” party when they are, in fact, only supporting choices made for death, and state control of everything else of importance.

It is time for the GOP to push forward expanding choices for individuals and families to give them a greater stake in their lives and provide them ownership of their life as a whole. It is time to pose this question to the American people: who should have the power to choose the path for your life, for your family? To choose where you receive health care, where your children learn, and where your tax dollars go? Should it be the self-appointed elite, intent on building a perfect society, because they know what is best for the communal citizenry? Or should it be you, with your own goals in mind, for the simple reason that you are an American?

This nation is at a tipping point. We will either go toward more government control of our lives, which is what the Left wants, or less government control of our lives. When people have the power to direct their own lives, government will shrink – and it will be hard, once an individual has control of his own life, to cede this control back to Washington. We believe that Republicans in government should fight to expand our choices, so we can take greater control of our lives. We believe in Freedom of Choice.

(PDF version)

Update: 9:40am EDT, 14Jul08: Overseas markets reacted well to the Paulson "we have a plan" statement. Asian markets ended lower on regional concerns while Euro markets are somewhat higher. The US stock market has opened up over 100 points, while the US Treasury market is only slightly lower. FNM and FRE stock were both up about 20% in pre-market trading, while their bonds, swaps, and CDS are all considerably tighter but not as tight as earlier this morning. Good initial reaction. We'll see what the follow-through is. [End of update]

A lot of people heaved a big sigh of relief when the financial markets finally closed on Friday afternoon, including myself. It was one of those hair-raising weeks in which major financial institutions, not only systemically important but also widely deemed basically healthy, tottered and wobbled.

Of course I’m talking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the huge government-sponsored entities (GSEs) that together buy or back up nearly half of all the residential mortgages in the US.

It’s déjà vu all over again for Wall Streeters. This feels a lot like the weekend that the Bear Stearns Companies were put to death, back in mid-March.

And all through that wild weekend, officials at the New York Fed, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department worked frantically around the clock to resolve the situation before trading opened in Asian markets. That is, by Sunday evening, New York time.

Everyone expected that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would be burning up the phone lines this weekend too, and he did. A few moments ago, he issued this terse statement. It lays out an expectation for a range of actions by the Treasury Department and the Fed to ensure the continued smooth operation of Fannie and Freddie when the markets re-open for trading a few minutes from now.

Keep reading…

There’s no time right now to give you a full analysis of the GSE situation. That will have to wait until the dust settles. The most crucial thing to watch at this moment is how markets react to Paulson’s statement in Asia, in London about nine hours from now, and in New York tomorrow morning.

If markets react well, you could see an explosive relief rally, perhaps hundreds of points in the stock market. If they dont react well... something else will happen.

The issue with Fannie and Freddie is concerns about their capital adequacy. There is a lot of concern that rising delinquency and foreclosure rates among the prime, highly-safe mortgages that the GSEs underwrite and fund will squeeze their profits. That causes their stock prices to fall. And that in turn raises concerns that they may have trouble borrowing the investor funds that then go into home mortgages.

I have a great deal more to say on this matter, but time is short. For now, please hear and internalize this:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in danger of going out of business.

Some extremely immoderate fears have been flying around, most of them unfounded. But as we saw with Bear Stearns in March, reality isn’t the first thing people look at when everyone is panicking.

The situation is extremely fluid and potentially very dangerous.

There is a lot missing from Secretary Paulson’s statement. He raises the possibility of immediately extending and expanding credit available to Fannie and Freddie directly from Treasury. There’s also talk of having Treasury directly purchase equity in the GSEs, which would immediately end their status as semi-private entities.

But all of this would presumably need to be done in cooperation with Congress, which has recently gotten very sticky about letting the Treasury and the Fed operate with a free hand in this time of crisis. Hopefully we’ll know very soon whether Congress will step up to the plate and move fast. I believe they will.

And what about the operational plan that would be most palatable to free-market conservatives? Namely, stand back and let the market do its worst?

That really is not an option at this point in time. The world of finance is a fully-meshed, continuously integrated global system. It’s not only possible, but entirely credible that a major stress involving Fannie and Freddie would have dire repercussions.

As I said, the problem is not that the debt securities floated by the GSEs are worthless. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. The problem is that the world is looking for an assurance that the securities will continue to be in demand at stable valuations. Without that assurance, they may start readjusting their portfolios in... (ahem) disruptive ways.

As Paulson said, we’re talking about $1.2 trillion worth of debt, and it’s in almost every large portfolio in the world. That’s a lot of people who need to be reassured.

It almost doesn’t matter how you reassure them. If we have to make an explicit guarantee that the taxpayers will back the debt up, so be it.

And we hold our breath. More news as it develops.

-Francis Cianfrocca

This church is probably packed on Saturday nights.

There is a case in Maryland involving a guy who allegedly ran over a police officer and killed him. The guy was arrested and, while in jail awaiting trial, somebody killed him. Not very good jail-keeping there.

Anyway, the preacher at the dead guy's funeral seems to have found some heretofore unknown Biblical guidance on grieving.

The pastor urged those at White's funeral to resist the impulse to lash out.

"This is not the time to threaten or be threatened," Gurley said. God, he said, would ensure that justice is done.

"Pour out a little Hennessy [cognac], drink some 40s, smoke a bag of weed, hit a dipper or two if you want to . . . but that won't bring him back," he said. "Get as drunk or as high as you want and do it in his honor if you want to, but that will not bring him back."

Heard a lot of stuff come out of the mouths of preachers this year. Encouraging criminal behavior from the pulpit is a new one.

Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room