Posts
title="Wordle: Morris Chapman - This One Thing I Do">
alt="Wordle: Morris Chapman - This One Thing I Do"
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Wordle of Morris Chapman's "This One Thing I Do"
http://www.wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/972768/Morris_Chapman_-_This_One_Thing_I_Do
title="Wordle: Morris Chapman - This One Thing I Do">
alt="Wordle: Morris Chapman - This One Thing I Do"
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">
title="Wordle: Morris Chapman - This One Thing I Do">
alt="Wordle: Morris Chapman - This One Thing I Do"
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">
The Gospel in Isaiah 50:10-11
v. 10
Who among you fears the Lord?
Who obeys the voice of His Servant?
Who walks in darkness and has no light?
Let him trust in the name of the Lord and rely upon his God.
v. 11
Look, all you who kindle a fire
Who encircle yourselves with sparks;
Walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks you have kindled -
This you shall have from My hand:
You shall lie down in torment.
Could Isaiah be any clearer about the Lord's offer of salvation and the consequences of rejecting it? Salvation is like a light for those walking in utter darkness. It comes by trusting the Lord and His Servant - the promised Son of God (Gen 3:16).
Rejecting the Servant of God results in a different sort of light - the light of fire. Notice where responsibility for the firey torment lies. The sinner kindles the fire! Rejecting the God's Servant results in the kindling of an eternally raging fire. All who reject God's Son will have eternal punnishment, torment, from the hand of the Lord.
Those are the options. The Gospel is clear in the Old Testament. Seek the Son. Trust the Son. Obey the Son. Live forever in the light of God's salvation . . . or else.
Who among you fears the Lord?
Who obeys the voice of His Servant?
Who walks in darkness and has no light?
Let him trust in the name of the Lord and rely upon his God.
v. 11
Look, all you who kindle a fire
Who encircle yourselves with sparks;
Walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks you have kindled -
This you shall have from My hand:
You shall lie down in torment.
Could Isaiah be any clearer about the Lord's offer of salvation and the consequences of rejecting it? Salvation is like a light for those walking in utter darkness. It comes by trusting the Lord and His Servant - the promised Son of God (Gen 3:16).
Rejecting the Servant of God results in a different sort of light - the light of fire. Notice where responsibility for the firey torment lies. The sinner kindles the fire! Rejecting the God's Servant results in the kindling of an eternally raging fire. All who reject God's Son will have eternal punnishment, torment, from the hand of the Lord.
Those are the options. The Gospel is clear in the Old Testament. Seek the Son. Trust the Son. Obey the Son. Live forever in the light of God's salvation . . . or else.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Frustrations of a Youngish Southern Baptist
I am about as Southern Baptist as one can be. I was born in Fort Worth while my father attended Southwestern. My father was partially supported by the Home Mission Board during his first pastorate.
I was saved and immersed in an SBC church. I was called to preach out of an SBC church. I recently graduated from Southeastern. When I join a church, I make sure a minimum of 10 percent of the budget goes to the Cooperative Program.
I remember well the posters my father displayed in the halls of my home church announcing that 95 percent of CP receipts go to support missions and theological education. I was proud of that.
However, along the way, I earned a Master’s of Public Administration and Policy. During the program, I could not deny that the SBC was laden with inefficiencies – built more like a government than a conduit for the gospel.
Nine years later, inefficiencies remain. Some have recognized challenges within the SBC structure(s) and have included this concern in a Great Commission Resurgence Declaration.
The Declaration includes ten articles. Among these articles is the attention-grabbing Article IX.
Article IX reads: We call upon all Southern Baptists, through our valued partnerships of SBC agencies, state conventions/institutions, and Baptist associations to evaluate our Convention structures and priorities so that we can maximize our energy and resources for the health of our local churches and the fulfillment of the Great Commission. This commitment recognizes the great strength of our partnership, which has been enabled by the Cooperative Program and enhanced by a belief that we can do more together than we can separately.
Because Article IX challenges us to examine SBC "structures and priorities," some have claimed Article IX is unnecessary because it is non-spiritual. Morris Chapman, for example in his article at sbc.net claims, "Article IX and its commentary stood starkly apart from the other nine articles. It suddenly departed from biblical affirmations . . . " (emphasis added).
Throughout his article, Chapman fails to acknowledge that reorganization, structure, and methodology are inextricably linked to stewardship. Is there an SBC pastor willing to proclaim “stewardship is not a biblical issue?” That is the essence of the claim that Article IX “depart[s] from biblical affirmations.”
Much of Chapman’s rebuttal is based upon this phantom dichotomy of revival versus reorganization or spiritual versus organizational. The statements mount.
"Revival and spiritual growth are the greatest needs in our Convention and our nation. . . . Reorganization is not."
Revival versus reorganization.
"Effective and efficient organization is critical to any corporate endeavor . . . . But revival in our churches and appointing a task force to study Convention structures are not two parts of one whole. They are two separate objectives . . . . to put the two objectives together is like trying to mix oil and water."
Revival versus convention structures.
Two separate objectives.
Oil versus water.
When Chapman asks, "What are our choices?," he offers only two.
“On one hand, calling for a study of the Convention is very likely to create highly-charged polarization. On the other hand, if our people come together under the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit, Southern Baptists have the potential to mount such a powerful witness to the saving grace of our Lord that God will pour out His blessings upon our efforts.”
On the one hand versus the other hand.
Convention study versus Holy Spirit.
He continues, “Perhaps some have the mistaken notion that if we get our stuff organized first, then God will pour out His blessings. . . . Are there biblical examples . . . that would lead us to expect this? . . .” (emphasis mine).
The Bible provides ample examples. Jethro's advice to Moses in Exodus 18, or the selection of the first deacons in Acts 6 should suffice. Sometimes God does not pour out His Spirit until we are prepared for the change He wants to effect.
But, a deeper problem exists.
If we are poor stewards, we are failing in spiritual matters. If the SBC avoids issues of stewardship when they are raised, we may hinder a fresh anointing of the Spirit.
Article IX is no less spiritual than any other. Christ's rule and reign extend to every corner of life - even Convention life.
Relegating administration and stewardship of dollars given for missions and theological education to the realm of the non-spiritual or less spiritual is to knowingly accept a false dichotomy to protect broken and, yes, “bloated bureaucracies.”
Every ounce of life is to be lived for God’s glory. The SBC cannot accept a false dichotomy (revival v. reorganization) and claim they endeavor to worship God in everything (Col. 3.17).
Chapman urges that we wait “until the time is right.” The time, however, is now.
The more than 3,800 Southern Baptists who have signed a declaration including Article IX, cannot be callously dismissed as those with a “mistaken notion.”
In the not-too-distant past, the SBC faced a real dichotomy. Affirm the veracity and sufficiency of God's Word, or become a denomination doomed to forever doddle in a morass of lifeless liberalism. Today, a phony dichotomy threatens to deter us from continuing the steady advance for the gospel.
It is time to return to the issue of the 95 percent of all CP giving going to the priorities of missions and theological education.
Under the current CP paradigm, funds counted as a church’s CP giving are those which local churches send to their state convention. State conventions meet and determine what portion of receipts to send to the SBC. Ninety-five percent of the dollars sent from the states to the SBC are used for the missions and theological education.
So, how much money are states sending along to the SBC?
The average amount of a local church’s CP giving that makes it to the SBC is around 35 percent (this varies, of course, from state-to-state). Thirty-five cents of every CP dollar reaches the SBC!
Of that 35 percent, 95 percent is spent on missions and theological education.
What are the states doing with all that cash? Many things, some good and some not so good, but I wonder if we need to step back and remember why state conventions primarily exist.
God's missions strategy is the establishment of thriving local churches. Conventions exist because local churches do not.
Hence, the longer a state convention exists, the less money it should need to keep at home. As more and more healthy churches assume the charge of missions in their communities, more funds can be sent to the SBC to partner with other churches in getting the gospel to the nations (in our country and in others).
Good state conventions will become increasingly unnecessary; the more successful they are, the less important they become. The needs in the state diminish as conventions accomplish their work, but needs across the nation and around globe remain. When states succeed, more and more funding should go global through the SBC; more money must go to the ends of the earth.
The crisis at the IMB is a crisis in priorities - a crisis fostered, in part, by structures not well-aligned with our Great Commission convictions.
Our collective and biblical concern for the advance of the gospel must inform our structure(s). We should routinely adapt and amend spending and structures in ways that comport with the availability of the gospel around the globe.
Structure and stewardship are essential components of any Great Commission Resurgence.
In states where many solid churches are in place, a 35/65 split in the allocation of CP dollars is inexcusable. Even a 50/50 split would be a weak effort for many conventions in the south.
A 75/25 split in the other direction would make more gospel sense for conventions in which local churches are thriving.
Chapman notes Article IX is devoid of specifics. Perhaps, but someone had to have the courage to get the conversation started. As for specifics, we could begin with the following.
1) We do not need regional missionaries in state conventions in the south (they remain vital in some states with more of a frontier status with regard to the proliferation and health of their churches). Don't fire them; just don't rehire when they retire.
2) We do not need church plants right next to healthy churches while we have missionaries waiting to hear if they can be deployed.
3) There is significant overlap in the work of state conventions and NAMB; this needs to be remedied.
4) We do not need oversized, centrally-located state convention headquarters to accomodate a redundant personnel structure.
5) We do not need a national meeting every year. In the early days, it was once every three years and then once every two.
Chapman notes matter-of-factly that CP funding is down because local church giving is down. He’s right. But he fails to consider why.
Many pastors are frustrated with the myopic largess in their state. This directly impacts CP giving. Churches are finding other ways to be on mission apart from the CP.
Revival and reorganization are not at odds.
God may use a real, radical reorganization undertaken for the sake of the gospel to revive us - to give revival that gets us back to first things - back to Christ and His Great Commission.
Article IX only threatens to divide us if we hide behind false dichotomies.
Our missionary God can use reorganization around gospel priorities to spark revival in the hearts of men and women throughout the SBC.
On June 23, Baptist21, a group of Southern Baptists committed to getting behind the Great Commission Resurgence will host a panel discussion entitled, "Honor the Past, Forge the Future." I suggest we do exactly that.
If we don’t, we will recall this Convention as one in which we were content to "Honor the Past, and Forget the Future."
That’s the real dichotomy at this year's Convention.
I was saved and immersed in an SBC church. I was called to preach out of an SBC church. I recently graduated from Southeastern. When I join a church, I make sure a minimum of 10 percent of the budget goes to the Cooperative Program.
I remember well the posters my father displayed in the halls of my home church announcing that 95 percent of CP receipts go to support missions and theological education. I was proud of that.
However, along the way, I earned a Master’s of Public Administration and Policy. During the program, I could not deny that the SBC was laden with inefficiencies – built more like a government than a conduit for the gospel.
Nine years later, inefficiencies remain. Some have recognized challenges within the SBC structure(s) and have included this concern in a Great Commission Resurgence Declaration.
The Declaration includes ten articles. Among these articles is the attention-grabbing Article IX.
Article IX reads: We call upon all Southern Baptists, through our valued partnerships of SBC agencies, state conventions/institutions, and Baptist associations to evaluate our Convention structures and priorities so that we can maximize our energy and resources for the health of our local churches and the fulfillment of the Great Commission. This commitment recognizes the great strength of our partnership, which has been enabled by the Cooperative Program and enhanced by a belief that we can do more together than we can separately.
Because Article IX challenges us to examine SBC "structures and priorities," some have claimed Article IX is unnecessary because it is non-spiritual. Morris Chapman, for example in his article at sbc.net claims, "Article IX and its commentary stood starkly apart from the other nine articles. It suddenly departed from biblical affirmations . . . " (emphasis added).
Throughout his article, Chapman fails to acknowledge that reorganization, structure, and methodology are inextricably linked to stewardship. Is there an SBC pastor willing to proclaim “stewardship is not a biblical issue?” That is the essence of the claim that Article IX “depart[s] from biblical affirmations.”
Much of Chapman’s rebuttal is based upon this phantom dichotomy of revival versus reorganization or spiritual versus organizational. The statements mount.
"Revival and spiritual growth are the greatest needs in our Convention and our nation. . . . Reorganization is not."
Revival versus reorganization.
"Effective and efficient organization is critical to any corporate endeavor . . . . But revival in our churches and appointing a task force to study Convention structures are not two parts of one whole. They are two separate objectives . . . . to put the two objectives together is like trying to mix oil and water."
Revival versus convention structures.
Two separate objectives.
Oil versus water.
When Chapman asks, "What are our choices?," he offers only two.
“On one hand, calling for a study of the Convention is very likely to create highly-charged polarization. On the other hand, if our people come together under the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit, Southern Baptists have the potential to mount such a powerful witness to the saving grace of our Lord that God will pour out His blessings upon our efforts.”
On the one hand versus the other hand.
Convention study versus Holy Spirit.
He continues, “Perhaps some have the mistaken notion that if we get our stuff organized first, then God will pour out His blessings. . . . Are there biblical examples . . . that would lead us to expect this? . . .” (emphasis mine).
The Bible provides ample examples. Jethro's advice to Moses in Exodus 18, or the selection of the first deacons in Acts 6 should suffice. Sometimes God does not pour out His Spirit until we are prepared for the change He wants to effect.
But, a deeper problem exists.
If we are poor stewards, we are failing in spiritual matters. If the SBC avoids issues of stewardship when they are raised, we may hinder a fresh anointing of the Spirit.
Article IX is no less spiritual than any other. Christ's rule and reign extend to every corner of life - even Convention life.
Relegating administration and stewardship of dollars given for missions and theological education to the realm of the non-spiritual or less spiritual is to knowingly accept a false dichotomy to protect broken and, yes, “bloated bureaucracies.”
Every ounce of life is to be lived for God’s glory. The SBC cannot accept a false dichotomy (revival v. reorganization) and claim they endeavor to worship God in everything (Col. 3.17).
Chapman urges that we wait “until the time is right.” The time, however, is now.
The more than 3,800 Southern Baptists who have signed a declaration including Article IX, cannot be callously dismissed as those with a “mistaken notion.”
In the not-too-distant past, the SBC faced a real dichotomy. Affirm the veracity and sufficiency of God's Word, or become a denomination doomed to forever doddle in a morass of lifeless liberalism. Today, a phony dichotomy threatens to deter us from continuing the steady advance for the gospel.
It is time to return to the issue of the 95 percent of all CP giving going to the priorities of missions and theological education.
Under the current CP paradigm, funds counted as a church’s CP giving are those which local churches send to their state convention. State conventions meet and determine what portion of receipts to send to the SBC. Ninety-five percent of the dollars sent from the states to the SBC are used for the missions and theological education.
So, how much money are states sending along to the SBC?
The average amount of a local church’s CP giving that makes it to the SBC is around 35 percent (this varies, of course, from state-to-state). Thirty-five cents of every CP dollar reaches the SBC!
Of that 35 percent, 95 percent is spent on missions and theological education.
What are the states doing with all that cash? Many things, some good and some not so good, but I wonder if we need to step back and remember why state conventions primarily exist.
God's missions strategy is the establishment of thriving local churches. Conventions exist because local churches do not.
Hence, the longer a state convention exists, the less money it should need to keep at home. As more and more healthy churches assume the charge of missions in their communities, more funds can be sent to the SBC to partner with other churches in getting the gospel to the nations (in our country and in others).
Good state conventions will become increasingly unnecessary; the more successful they are, the less important they become. The needs in the state diminish as conventions accomplish their work, but needs across the nation and around globe remain. When states succeed, more and more funding should go global through the SBC; more money must go to the ends of the earth.
The crisis at the IMB is a crisis in priorities - a crisis fostered, in part, by structures not well-aligned with our Great Commission convictions.
Our collective and biblical concern for the advance of the gospel must inform our structure(s). We should routinely adapt and amend spending and structures in ways that comport with the availability of the gospel around the globe.
Structure and stewardship are essential components of any Great Commission Resurgence.
In states where many solid churches are in place, a 35/65 split in the allocation of CP dollars is inexcusable. Even a 50/50 split would be a weak effort for many conventions in the south.
A 75/25 split in the other direction would make more gospel sense for conventions in which local churches are thriving.
Chapman notes Article IX is devoid of specifics. Perhaps, but someone had to have the courage to get the conversation started. As for specifics, we could begin with the following.
1) We do not need regional missionaries in state conventions in the south (they remain vital in some states with more of a frontier status with regard to the proliferation and health of their churches). Don't fire them; just don't rehire when they retire.
2) We do not need church plants right next to healthy churches while we have missionaries waiting to hear if they can be deployed.
3) There is significant overlap in the work of state conventions and NAMB; this needs to be remedied.
4) We do not need oversized, centrally-located state convention headquarters to accomodate a redundant personnel structure.
5) We do not need a national meeting every year. In the early days, it was once every three years and then once every two.
Chapman notes matter-of-factly that CP funding is down because local church giving is down. He’s right. But he fails to consider why.
Many pastors are frustrated with the myopic largess in their state. This directly impacts CP giving. Churches are finding other ways to be on mission apart from the CP.
Revival and reorganization are not at odds.
God may use a real, radical reorganization undertaken for the sake of the gospel to revive us - to give revival that gets us back to first things - back to Christ and His Great Commission.
Article IX only threatens to divide us if we hide behind false dichotomies.
Our missionary God can use reorganization around gospel priorities to spark revival in the hearts of men and women throughout the SBC.
On June 23, Baptist21, a group of Southern Baptists committed to getting behind the Great Commission Resurgence will host a panel discussion entitled, "Honor the Past, Forge the Future." I suggest we do exactly that.
If we don’t, we will recall this Convention as one in which we were content to "Honor the Past, and Forget the Future."
That’s the real dichotomy at this year's Convention.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
1 Timothy as a "Wordle"
Take the top 100 words in 1 Timothy and represent their frequency by the size of the word, and you get something like this. Thanks to www.wordle.net for making this groovy software availalble for free. See below.
title="Wordle: 1 Timothy">
alt="Wordle: 1 Timothy"
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">
title="Wordle: 1 Timothy">
alt="Wordle: 1 Timothy"
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">
Monday, May 18, 2009
Fuel-efficiency & Your Family
The Obama administration is forcing the automakers to agree to some drastic changes to the efficiency of the cars they produce. There are several side effects of which you should be aware.
1. The cars of the future will be less safe (relatively speaking). Fuel-efficiency means less weight; less weight means less protection. Less protection means more death. Don't believe me? Look up the stats on any Hybrid.
2. The cars of the future will cost more. Obama's own projections say it will cost $600 more per vehicle. The government never projects costs accurately. If you triple that figure, you might be approaching an accurate number. Let's say $2,000 more per vehicle.
3. You won't be able to purchase certain types of vehicles anymore. So, you are a Christian family who takes your faith seriously? You really want 8 kids . . . oh, you believe Genesis applies to you. Wow. Well, SUVs are not available anymore. I guess you can purchase a hybrid 15-passenger van at the corporate rate. . . maybe. Or your family can buy three hybrid cars and link them together with the groovy new Obama band - keeps you all together for the whole trip. (No, there is not really an Obama band).
4. The news will keep reporting on how fast the world is warming in spite of some compelling evidence to the contrary. (Oh, you didn't know that polar ice cap was melting because of volcanic activity under the ice and ocean water? And, you didn't know the cap was freezing at a faster rate on the other side?) Well, that doesn't support the communist agenda of herding everyone into cities and making them walk or take government-run buses wherever they go.
5. Your current SUV or 15-passenger van is going to be valuable. People with families are going to envy you. You'll have a car with power, comfort, and the ability to haul your family. Pamper that SUV . . . you'll never get one like it again. Welcome to the "change" for which America voted.
1. The cars of the future will be less safe (relatively speaking). Fuel-efficiency means less weight; less weight means less protection. Less protection means more death. Don't believe me? Look up the stats on any Hybrid.
2. The cars of the future will cost more. Obama's own projections say it will cost $600 more per vehicle. The government never projects costs accurately. If you triple that figure, you might be approaching an accurate number. Let's say $2,000 more per vehicle.
3. You won't be able to purchase certain types of vehicles anymore. So, you are a Christian family who takes your faith seriously? You really want 8 kids . . . oh, you believe Genesis applies to you. Wow. Well, SUVs are not available anymore. I guess you can purchase a hybrid 15-passenger van at the corporate rate. . . maybe. Or your family can buy three hybrid cars and link them together with the groovy new Obama band - keeps you all together for the whole trip. (No, there is not really an Obama band).
4. The news will keep reporting on how fast the world is warming in spite of some compelling evidence to the contrary. (Oh, you didn't know that polar ice cap was melting because of volcanic activity under the ice and ocean water? And, you didn't know the cap was freezing at a faster rate on the other side?) Well, that doesn't support the communist agenda of herding everyone into cities and making them walk or take government-run buses wherever they go.
5. Your current SUV or 15-passenger van is going to be valuable. People with families are going to envy you. You'll have a car with power, comfort, and the ability to haul your family. Pamper that SUV . . . you'll never get one like it again. Welcome to the "change" for which America voted.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
"Fair-minded debate"
Apparently Obama wants a "fair-minded debate" on abortion (see various news articles on his speech today at Notre Dame).
Bear in mind that everyone who thinks abortion is murder is who he's really talking about. "Go ahead and think it is murder; just don't think of me as a cold-blooded killer." That's what he's asking. Continue to believe what you do about life, but don't let that be communicated in your words, passions, or emotions . . . . Those 40+ million aborted babies that your government has killed with your tax money - don't sweat it.
This is exactly what Satan wants. He wants us to shut up and back down when we have every reason to scream at the top of our lungs, "Stop killing babies - it is murder!"
If Obama wants a "fair-minded debate," let's stick to the facts.
An embryo has its own human DNA. It is marked off as a separate being, separate from mother and father, at the very beginning of its existence. It is either male or female from the beginning. The difference between you and a fetus is time, nutrition, and love. The difference between you and and an aborted fetus is that you were not killed. Science does not undermine faith when it comes to life - it confirms it!
Killing of an innocent is still murder in America. Does Mr. Obama want a "fair-minded debate" about how we regard murderers? Is that what he's proposing? No. He wants deflection of the moral imperatives that he is ignoring to be a President of Death. He has no ethical standard for his position other than the position that there can be no absolute truth.
If he's right . . . can anything be wrong? Why?
This is America folks - the nation where the only sin around is the sin of being a Christian who actually takes his faith seriously.
Bear in mind that everyone who thinks abortion is murder is who he's really talking about. "Go ahead and think it is murder; just don't think of me as a cold-blooded killer." That's what he's asking. Continue to believe what you do about life, but don't let that be communicated in your words, passions, or emotions . . . . Those 40+ million aborted babies that your government has killed with your tax money - don't sweat it.
This is exactly what Satan wants. He wants us to shut up and back down when we have every reason to scream at the top of our lungs, "Stop killing babies - it is murder!"
If Obama wants a "fair-minded debate," let's stick to the facts.
An embryo has its own human DNA. It is marked off as a separate being, separate from mother and father, at the very beginning of its existence. It is either male or female from the beginning. The difference between you and a fetus is time, nutrition, and love. The difference between you and and an aborted fetus is that you were not killed. Science does not undermine faith when it comes to life - it confirms it!
Killing of an innocent is still murder in America. Does Mr. Obama want a "fair-minded debate" about how we regard murderers? Is that what he's proposing? No. He wants deflection of the moral imperatives that he is ignoring to be a President of Death. He has no ethical standard for his position other than the position that there can be no absolute truth.
If he's right . . . can anything be wrong? Why?
This is America folks - the nation where the only sin around is the sin of being a Christian who actually takes his faith seriously.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Interesting Political Facts
"Polls show that the American public is deeply conflicted over abortion and that support has declined steadily over the years. In 1995, roughly 60 percent of Americans believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Last month, in a survey by the Pew Research Center, that number stood at 46 percent. A Gallup survey that examined seven decisions early in Mr. Obama’s presidency found that the least popular was the one to overturn the ban on sending tax dollars to organizations that provide abortions overseas." NYT, 5.14.09,On Abortion, Obama Is Drawn Into Debate He Had Hoped to Avoid
Obama wants to avoid the debate not because he's not involved but because he's the most pro-abortion president in our history. If there's no debate he doesn't have to defend his indefensible actions. We've got to get on this people. We cannot let Obama dupe us.
Obama wants to avoid the debate not because he's not involved but because he's the most pro-abortion president in our history. If there's no debate he doesn't have to defend his indefensible actions. We've got to get on this people. We cannot let Obama dupe us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)