Archbishop Chaput on Politics, and a few reflections from me

This is an interesting video, and well worth watching.

I think Archbishop Chaput is correct when he says that the reason the Democratic Party has become the party of abortion is that Catholics within that party didn’t hold it accountable. However, I don’t agree with his prescription that they should have left the party.

Many people have left the Democratic Party over abortion, and the result has been that the party has become more, not less, pro abortion. This is the effect of distillation of viewpoints.

This distillation of viewpoints and the extremism it nurtures are what created a climate inside the upper echelons of the Democratic power structure that allowed something as monstrous as the HHS Mandate to come about. When you only talk to a few people who agree with you, you inevitably move toward hubris and its corresponding bad judgement.

What could have changed things is if, back in the day, the pro life people within the Democratic Party had stood up and refused to give on the issue. Instead, they compromised their pro-life views out of existence, or they left the party outright. What is interesting is how completely people become what they do. The longer those pro life people who stayed in the party compromised themselves, the more they believed that what they were doing is right.

They changed alliances — from Christ to the Democratic Party.

The Archbishop is correct when he says that we can’t reply on the Republican Party to be pro-life in twenty years. What he doesn’t seem to understand is that we can’t rely on them to be effectively pro-life now. I’ve seen the Republican Party kill pro-life bills using the same arguments and tactics as the Democrats have for decades. This wasn’t rogue Republicans. It was the Republican elected leadership.

Everything I’ve said about the Democrats is also true of the Republicans. The Christians within the Republican Party have compromised the Sermon on the Mount to the point that they’ve begun to treat the actual words of Christ the Lord as if they were a heresy.

Anytime you remind these outspokenly political Christians of the words of Christ concerning justice and compassion, their eyes film over and they tune you out. This is the indifference and hardness of heart Jesus condemned so absolutely, and it is being practiced in order to fit the Gospels to the Republican Party Platform.

They do this because this compromise of their faith is the only way they can avoid standing up against the in-the-bag for the corporations corporatism of their party. Along they way, they’ve started making excuses for Republicans when they kill pro life bills.

I can’t emphasize enough that we need to stand and fight within our parties to change things. You can not build a culture of life with half the people. It can not be done.

YouTube Preview Image

  • http://ackans.com Mr. V.

    Rebecca, powerful post. Thanks for writing it.

    I think one of the problems with politics today, and I’ve mentioned this before, is just how polarized things can be. I do believe in absolutes, when it comes to morals and the teachings of the Church, but too many people treat way too many political issues as absolutes. Some political issues do indeed involve things of an absolute moral nature, such as abortion, but many other issues are open to much debate.

    I used to read several political websites and blogs, but got sick of it and quit giving them any of my attention, as ultimately it was nothing more than a bunch of extreme liberals and conservatives spending most of their time explaining why the other side was evil. Touching on what you say in this post of yours, I have seen many people, both democrats and republicans, who equate membership in their particular party as proof of their Christianity and view members of the other side as inherently sinful because they belong to the ‘wrong party.’

    I think it would be great to get more people like you as politicians in the Democratic Party. We also need more strong Christians into the Republican party. It would be great if both parties could be transformed from the inside in that manner. However, I also tend to think that both parties are harmful to the state of politics in our nation. Look at the current campaign (not just the presidential, but all of it) and observe just how much of it has devolved to little more than smear campaigns against the other side. We need good honest debates of the political issues, with each side of the house able to thoughtfully and clearly state their ideas and proposed plans, without all the invective and personal attacks and demonizing of the other side. The fact that one is a registered Democrat does not make that person a commie America hater, and the fact that one is a registered Rebublican does not make that person a nazi war-monger.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Very good comment Steve. I’ve seen this too. A lot. I’m no theologian but I think it’s a form of idolatry.

      “I have seen many people, both democrats and republicans, who equate membership in their particular party as proof of their Christianity and view members of the other side as inherently sinful because they belong to the ‘wrong party.’”

  • JennE

    Dear Ms. Hamilton,
    Thank you! I couldn’t help but thinking we also faction our church like this. I also did this while trying to find my footing. When you feel alone it is hard to do what is right. But that’s the thing, we aren’t alone. I learned that just following where you are given to follow and really paying attention you will find there are more that are similar or at least understanding and willing to be with you. Then the hard part of standing your ground happens easier. The problem is when you are not even so sure of your position. Then you can’t stand your ground either. Pro-lifer’s need to be sure why they are prolife. And not just for the ideological position of being right, but the fact that your own life depends on the dependence of being given life. I think here is the springboard of strength. So perhaps even though Republicans appear more prolife, they still aren’t that good at being strong for the reason that we haven’t fully matured in our marrows what this really means.
    Thanks for giving us such a strong food to chew on.
    I recommend you often as I didn’t know how one can follow Christ fully (as fully as one can) with a vocation to politics and you are a face that helps understand. Which is important as my daughter is showing strong political signs!

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Jenn, this is so true. Thank you for this very important comment.

      “The problem is when you are not even so sure of your position. Then you can’t stand your ground either. Pro-lifer’s need to be sure why they are prolife. And not just for the ideological position of being right, but the fact that your own life depends on the dependence of being given life. I think here is the springboard of strength. So perhaps even though Republicans appear more prolife, they still aren’t that good at being strong for the reason that we haven’t fully matured in our marrows what this really means.”

  • Virginia

    Rebecca, the truth is even more horrible than the Democrat party being even more pro-abortion because so many pro-life people have left it. Based on the percentage of Catholics who supported Mr. Obama in 2008, I have to wonder how many really left. The awful truth is that many of the current LEADERS of the Democrat Party are “pro-choice Catholics” (surely an oxymoron if ever there was one). Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, the late Ted Kennedy and the other Kennedys who have followed him to Washington, Patrick Leahy, Patty Murray, Mario and Andrew Cuomo, and I could go on and on. The Bishops are clear that public figures give scandal by boldly proclaiming their Catholicism in one breath and then professing a position so profoundly contrary to Church teaching in the next. Most people (including poorly-catechized Catholics) must truly think it is fine for Catholics to believe whatever they want on this issue.

    I agree, the Republicans are no better, inviting us to the dance every four years and then for the most part ignoring us the rest of the time. Time for a new party–how about the Pro-Life, Social Justice, Fiscally Responsible Party?

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Sounds good to me. We could call it the Common-Sense Coalition.

      As for the pro abortion Catholics who are Democratic Party leaders, I agree it is a scandal that probably misleads many people.

  • Ted Seeber

    Biden’s words in this video still bother me, and here’s why:

    I don’t think that pro-choicers are equally devout. They just aren’t. Those who have banned God from the bedroom, who no longer understand his omnipresence even in the most private of places- are NOT devout.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Ted, that is the sort of distinction I leave to God. It is not my place to judge another person’s soul. I also know that people can change.

      • Ted Seeber

        Oh, I agree conversion can happen. But I’m talking philosophically. The word devout has a meaning, and like many of Biden’s gaffes, he’s got the meaning drastically wrong in this case. A truly devout individual would understand that God has a role to play in conception- even under the worst of circumstances- and that interfering in that role is wrong.

  • vickie

    “…, they compromised their pro-life views out of existence, or they left the party outright. What is interesting is how completely people become what they do. ”

    That is a good warning for Republicans as well, or anyone involved in political action. In my own subgroup, I can feel the tension from those who don’t want prolifers, who just want them to compromise.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Vickie, there is always this kind of tension in politics. That’s why it’s important to be grounded in other things and people outside politics while you are politically active. Politicians and politically active people who let the political world become their whole life — the source of their friendships, ideals and self-esteem — lose the psychological independence necessary to think and act independently of their political group.

      • vickie

        Good point Rebecca. It would be easy to do politics 24/7 but politics cannot save us. Fulton Sheen warned about substituting activism for a relationship with Our Blessed Lord.

  • http://barryhudock.wordpress.com/ Barry

    I agree with every word that Archbishop Chaput said here. He is completely correct. What unfortunately went unsaid is that this sad reality should stand as a stark warning to the millions of American Catholics today who have chosen to follow the Republican party unquestioningly, wherever its leadership cares to take them, in exchange for their half-hearted words about being pro-life — even when that support means turning their backs on some fundamental Catholic ideas about what it means to be a person, about dignity of all people, about the role of both government and economy in society, and about our duty to confront both poverty itself and the unjust structures in our society that support it.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Barry, it is hard to follow Jesus. You always end up at war with the world, and there are people in that world who matter to you. It can be terribly painful when you have to choose Christ over them and lose them, but that is what we are called to do. We should all remember that there is a life after this one and that we are part of that Kingdom, even now.

      Thank you for this very thoughtful comment.

  • http://mywordwall.wordpress.com Imelda

    You are brave to publish posts like this. I do not have much to say, except for the fact that I agree with you and your first commenter, Mr. V.

    I will vote but years of voting have made me a little cynical – whoever is elected gets infected with politics and its realities. I have observed back home – the Philippines – how even the ‘good’ man succumbed to the dictates of party and other interests. It was not – and is still not – unusual for candidates to proclaim their faith in their slogans and banners. They claim “Pro-God, pro-people, etc.” and yet my home country has one of the worst level of corruption in the region.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      You’re right Imelda. Power corrupts. The best antidotes I’ve found are to spend some time contemplating the cross and my own sins, along with regular confession, prayer and mass. Good friends and family who will tell you you’re being a jerk are also wonderful.

  • Dr. Peter John Resweber

    Yep. Now you’ve done it. ;)

    You’ve finally made it absolutely necessary to reveal and confront what I have called:
    THE “SOCIAL JUSTICE” SHUCK AND JIVE

    See the next post for further elaboration; however, I wanted to post this explanation/disclaimer first before posting my “boilerplate essay”. The boilerplate essay comes from having had this discussion sooooooooo many times. It isn’t personal and it isn’t AT ALL meant to accuse you, Rebecca, of compromising on life. I acknowledge and respect your sincerity on that.

    Nevertheless, some of your words above suggest that you misunderstand where many conservatives come from (words such as these “Anytime you remind these outspokenly political Christians of the words of Christ concerning justice and compassion, their eyes film over and they tune you out. This is the indifference and hardness of heart Jesus condemned so absolutely, and it is being practiced in order to fit the Gospels to the Republican Party Platform. They do this because this compromise of their faith is the only way they can avoid standing up against the in-the-bag for the corporations corporatism of their party. “)

    The conventional wisdom embraces a false dichotomy suggesting that the left cares for the poor but not the unborn and the right cares for the unborn but not the poor.

    I say malarkey and I ask you to carefully consider the “boilerplate essay” in the next post.

    I’m hope we’ll end up discussing it further…

  • Dr. Peter John Resweber

    The “Social Justice” Shuck and Jive

    (aka: Beginning An Argument for the Conservative Approach to the Demands of the Corporal Works of Mercy and Against the Idea that the Liberal Approach is Demonstrably Morally Superior)

    “You greedy conservatives! You scream and yell about abortion but then won’t lift a finger to help the child after birth!” “If you don’t believe in universal free health care then you are not really pro-life.”

    How often have you heard such arguments? How often have you maybe even made them? It is my purpose in starting this dialogue to try to demonstrate that such arguments are utterly nonsensical.

    Let’s start with some basics that ALL Catholics should be able to agree upon. First and foremost, we need to recognize that it is long held Catholic tradition that we MUST engage in the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. These are the way we ‘love our neighbor as ourselves’ and come to the aid of their bodily and spiritual necessities. Most reading this will already be familiar with these; but, to refresh your memory I list them again. The Corporal Works of Mercy include: feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, sheltering the homeless, visiting the sick, and burying the dead. The Spiritual Works of Mercy include: admonishing the sinner, instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful, comforting the sorrowful, bearing wrongs patiently, forgiving all injuries, and praying for the living and the dead.

    It is unquestionable that we should work to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, etcetera. Then, how do social/political conservatives justify their usual opposition to so many seemingly charitable government policies?

    ON THE BASIS OF RESPONSIBILITY:
    The Lord commands ME (and you and you and you) to feed the hungry, hydrate the thirsty, etcetera. He commands ME to engage in charity. Nowhere in scripture or tradition can you find evidence that this responsibility was to be farmed off to others and/or to the government. Charity is a voluntary transaction. Forcing someone else to engage in so-called “charity” is tyranny and thievery (neither of which are approved by the church).

    ON THE BASIS OF RESULTS:
    Liberals will often argue that charity is insufficient. They will assert that we MUST force each other to care for the least among us. However, that raises several problems. First, as already noted that act of force transforms an otherwise good action into tyranny and thievery. Second, that act of force starts us down the road to socialist policies which have been repeatedly condemned by official church teaching. Third, that act of force takes the love out of the equation such that both those receiving and donating the “charity” begin to resent each other. Fourth, history has demonstrated that such efforts are not nearly as efficient as free markets and enlightened self-interest. More people have starved and frozen to death in the various experiments in socialist utopias than in any combination of free market economies.

    Still, many on the Catholic left seem to equate government actions with mercy and call it “social justice”. By the tenor of their arguments, they assert that if you do not support various social programs then you are not acting in a Christian manner. Sadly, this argument is often pushed hard enough to rationalize support for pro-abortion politicians “because they care for the poor”.

    I say: HOGWASH! Keeping the poor dependent upon the government for their subsistence is almost the very worst thing you can do to them.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Peter, I agree that living on the government dole can ruin people’s lives. I also agree that there is more than one legitimate approach to this question. Where I fall off the trolley with your analysis is that it’s just the Republican argument. I hear this every single day. I know you aren’t doing this yourself, but this is exactly how people who want to re-frame the gospels to fit their greed do it.

      When you talk about free markets and enlightened self interest in the extreme laissez-faire way that the authors of these arguments seek to apply them, you are really talking about a survival of the fittest, Darwinian economics which crushes most of the human race under the wheel of commerce. If you have read the papal encyclicals about work, you know that this is not Catholic teaching. It can not be Catholic teaching, because it flies straight in the face of what Jesus Himself flatly commanded us to do. Laissez-faire capitalism can be just as evil as any other economic system. It can reduce whole populations to economic slavery just as surely and perhaps even more effectively as any other abuse of power can do.

      Also, by pushing charity and care for other people out of the public sector and into the private, you are unintentionally advocating for a mirror image of what secularists are trying to do when they want to push the Church out of public activity concerning issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Both sides of the argument want to be free of the demands that following Christ in every aspect of our lives, both public and private, demands of us. They want to be free of Christ, while claiming that they are following Him.

      As I said, I agree that a welfare state is not the answer. But pushing charity and efforts to help the poor out of our public lives and into the realm of private responsibility is just another attempt to divorce government from the demands of the Gospels by the other side of the culture war.

      We should never take the demands of the Gospels and adapt them to our politics. We should always adapt our politics to the demands of the Gospels.

      • Dr. Peter John Resweber

        Let’s take this a bit at a time:

        Re: “I hear this every single day. I know you aren’t doing this yourself, but this is exactly how people who want to re-frame the gospels to fit their greed do it.”

        POINT 1: Rebuttal By Motives Is Not Actually A Rebuttal

        Let’s imagine that we could stipulate agreement. Let imagine that some people support these ideas for bad reasons. That does not prove the ideas wrong – only their motives.

        To illustrate, let’s take the opposite side of the coin. Let’s temporarily assume that government programs are truly and unambiguously the best, most moral way to proceed. If that were so, would it suddenly stop being so because of some bad intentions? Would it discredit your support of these programs to know that others support them simply so they don’t ever have to think about caring for the poor?

        Of course not. And in like manner, if government programs are NOT the best way to go they don’t suddenly become good because some “eeeeeeevil greeeeeedy corporatist capitalists” would be happy to see them disbanded.

        POINT 2: The Assumed Motives Are Self-Serving And Inconsistent With The Data

        I suspect you are misinterpreting quite a bit. It is a common charge leveled against conservatives that they support conservative ideas and/or oppose various government programs due to greed.

        But let’s examine the logic. Greed is generally considered a semi-stable trait (rather than a transient “state”). As such, greed would tend to be consistent across situations. As such, you could expect that those who support principles of “greed” in their public lives would act greedily in their private lives as well. As such, you would expect that conservatives would be much stingier in their support of charity than liberals.

        Oops!

        Data clearly proves otherwise (and has been widely available for quite a while).

        Note here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

        Note here: http://philanthropy.com/article/The-Politics-of-Giving/133609/

        Note here: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/romneys-history-of-charitable-giving-3k70b3a-171251871.html

        Alternately, do web searches of your own. Once you get past the polemics and the screeds, the data consistently tends to show conservatives being more prone to actually and directly “care for the least of these” than liberals.

      • Dr. Peter John Resweber

        Next let’s tackle: “When you talk about free markets and enlightened self interest in the extreme laissez-faire way that the authors of these arguments seek to apply them, you are really talking about a survival of the fittest, Darwinian economics which crushes most of the human race under the wheel of commerce.”

        Uhm, no.

        I’ll grant that extremes exist on both the right and the left. I’ll further grant (without ever having read “Atlas Shrugged”) that from what I’ve read of Ayn Rand’s Objectivist theory, I would not want her as our ruler. The idea that charity itself is immoral is NOT a feature of my belief system. Nor is it a necessary feature of “extreme laissez-faire” capitalism.

        The essence of “extreme laissez-faire” capitalism is freedom. History has also shown that free peoples tend to be more charitable than those who are enslaved.

        But let’s get back to the heart of the matter and look at things from what you would probably view as essentially the worst case scenario. Let’s imagine Ebenezer Scrooge or Mr. Burns operating in a system of TRULY “extreme laissez-faire” capitalism. What happens?

        Well first let’s clarify what DOESN’T happen. In a system of TRULY “extreme laissez-faire” capitalism (unlike a system of mercantilism), they can’t use government to “game the system”. They can’t FORCE people to buy their goods. They must convince them to do so.

        How can they convince them? Simple. They must provide value at a price consumers can afford. If they don’t they go broke. If they do they prosper.

        And that, my dear, is the GENIUS of “extreme laissez-faire” capitalism. It forces even the “eeeeeeevil greeeeeedy corporatist capitalists” to find a way to provide for their fellow man at a fair price (lest, they themselves starve).

        Do I hear echoes of the gospel? “If you would be first, you must serve others”?

        Now don’t get me wrong, I am not positing that some magical effect of capitalism necessarily makes evil men change their hearts. But it does push their BEHAVIOR in an altruistic direction. Ultimately, it does so far more effectively than leftist ideas (because they are simultaneously acting consistent with their own perceived self-interests rather than contrary to them).

      • Dr. Peter John Resweber

        Now let’s discuss “Also, by pushing charity and care for other people out of the public sector and into the private, you are unintentionally advocating for a mirror image of what secularists are trying to do when they want to push the Church out of public activity concerning issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Both sides of the argument want to be free of the demands that following Christ in every aspect of our lives, both public and private, demands of us. They want to be free of Christ, while claiming that they are following Him.”

        Honestly, I think I must be missing something. Because otherwise this strikes me as such hopelessly garbled thinking that I hardly know where to begin. But let me try to address it nonetheless. In the process, I hope for one of two outcomes. Either (a) I will illustrate your illogic or (b) it will become clear how I have misunderstood your points (so that you can clarify them for me).

        POINT 1: I Also Support “Following Christ In Every Aspect Of Our Lives”

        Whatever else may be misunderstood in our discussions, this is the most critical point. So let me try to revisit it. As I noted in my first post, I mostly oppose the policies we are discussing on the basis of results. But, by that I don’t exclusively mean the amount of poverty, hunger, thirst, produced. I also mean the effects on the hearts and souls of the individuals involved.

        Government “charity” hardens our hearts! Go back to the story of Ebenezer Scrooge. What do you find? He complains that he shouldn’t have to personally look out for the poor because his taxes already support the poor houses. Yes, Scrooge is fiction, a caricature and an extreme. But like all great fiction, it reflects truth.

        It also works both ways. Think of the very word “entitlement”. What does it mean? It means you have a RIGHT to the fruits of another person’s labors. It means that you needn’t have any gratitude. It means that you are robbed if you don’t get it.

        Beyond inefficiencies…
        Beyond corruption…
        Beyond cheating and class warfare…
        This is what I find most damaging, most cruel, most inhumane and yes most demonic about such a system:
        THE ELIMINATION OF LOVE AND HUMAN CONTACT.

        Any system that turns us on each other as we scramble for the spoils stolen from others is just morally putrid in my eyes. They say the road that leads to heaven is narrow and difficult while the one to hell is wide and easy. I think that’s true. While I wish no ill on my fellow man and this next idea is subject to significant misunderstanding and caricature, I hope you will read it in the sentiment in which it is meant and consider it carefully:

        I would rather a culture with more starving people entering heaven than one with more fat, dumb and happy people entering hell.

        I don’t think we are forced to make that choice and I’d hate to be reduced to that choice. But if I must…

        POINT 2: The Government Approach Is NOT The Only Way We Can Organize

        I will grant that there are often benefits to collective action. But I will not allow the assumption that any and all “public” works must be “government” works. Whatever happened to the idea of churches, of mutual aid societies, etcetera? Who is usually first on the scene at a natural disaster? Who usually arrives later and gets in the way?

        POINT 3: The Old Saw About “Legislating Morality” Is Flawed But Partially Accurate

        Consider this famous quote:

        “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

        Government’s innate and guiding principle is not love. Government cannot love, does not love, will not love and shall never be able to instill love.

        Government is about the shared application of coercion backed by deadly force. As such, its actions should primarily be limited to those where this is appropriate. Using deadly force to prevent positive evils (such as murder, rape, abortion and other criminal activities) is viable. Using government to express community standards (such as against pornography or coerced sexualization and secularization of the culture) may be viable in certain cases (but is less sure). Using government to try to force us to “love one another as I have loved you” will only lead to hypocrisy and hardness of hearts. Teaching us to love is the province of churches and families and God.

        Government shall never be a proper substitute for God.

        POINT 4: Re: “They want to be free of Christ, while claiming that they are following Him”

        It sounds to me like you are engaging in mindreading. Be very wary of any easy interpretation that invariably puts you on the side of angels and your opponents on the side of demons.

      • Dr. Peter John Resweber

        Finally let me address: “We should never take the demands of the Gospels and adapt them to our politics. We should always adapt our politics to the demands of the Gospels.”

        Fair enough. I think I will end for now on this point of agreement. While we obviously deeply disagree on how this principle might be implemented, I think we can agree on the underlying principle.

        Therefore, I will take my leave for now and await your responses before continuing further…

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          No real response Peter. We agree on the only thing that matters. All the rest can and should be worked out through civil and good-hearted negotiation. That’s Democracy.

          • Dr. Peter John Resweber

            LOL! :)

            Four pages dismissed with four sentences? What a cop out! :(

            Seriously, we DO agree on the most important points.

            But, we disagree on a lot and the things we disagree upon ALSO matter very much.

            The things we disagree upon help determine how this country is governed.

            The things we disagree upon have led to many Catholics/Christians supporting policies which I believe are destroying this country.

            Those disagreements can’t be swept under the rug and most of them can’t even really be negotiated.

            Bad ideas must be exposed and corrected (or simply defeated).

  • Dr. Peter John Resweber

    Post Script:
    For the record, I ALSO agree with Archbishop Chaput that we can’t blithely rely on the Republican party to remain pro-life in twenty years. I agree with you as well, that they are not even close to being as pro-life as I’d like them to be.

    But, in the current climate they are opposed by a party that is usually aggressively and assertive pro-abortion (with laudable exceptions such as yourself). They are opposed by a party that trends towards collectivism. They are opposed by a party that substitutes tyranny and thievery for our individual duty to care for the poor. To my way of thinking, there is no current general rationalization for continuing to support the Democratic party.

    Yes, that may change. Yes, there may come a time when I have to support your party because it more closely aligns with Catholic/Christian principles. But that time is not now. I suspect that time will not come soon.

    But, if/when the Donkeys have a wholesale embrace of the unborn and the Elephants abandon them, then I’ll cross to your side of the aisle. I will still and always vote pro-life first (while trying to straighten out your heads about the misapplication of “social justice”).

  • Dr. Peter John Resweber

    OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE NON SEQUITUR:
    Typos. Editing errors. Grammatical errors.

    Must… Not… Obsess…

    :(

    Yeeeaarrgh!!!

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      :-)

  • Pingback: Yes, America, There Are Pro-life Democrats | Gregory C. Cochran


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X