Bear with me: I’ll get to Don Lemon eventually.
In a mature, rational, respectful democracy with an objective and competent news media, difficult and contentious issues would be thoughtfully debated with open minds and fearless honesty, without the toxic influence of rigid ideologies, partisan loyalties, group identification, or biases. The objectives: reach the truth, identify problems, begin solving them.
This process is difficult under the best of circumstances, and in the United States, circa 2013, it is nearly impossible on any issue, and dangerous on the issue of race, with both the media and elected officials actively seeking to exacerbate racial divisions and misconceptions. A recent poll suggests that the perception of racial divisions in America has worsened by 25% since Barack Obama was elected President, following decades of steady improvement. Why is this? There are many reasons, but the cynical pandering to misconceptions in the black community is one major suspect.
President Obama, had he been fair and responsible, might have used his remarks about the George Zimmerman trial to point out that neither the incident itself nor the verdict of the jury were relevant to race issues, or created by a “stand your ground” law that has been a lightning rod for accusations of racism in the justice system. Instead, he talked about how he “understood,” and apparently agreed with, an interpretation of the events based on past African-American experiences with racism. This was irresponsible and wrong. It was as much an endorsement of irrationality, ignorance and bias as it would be to explain that current day racists see blacks through the prism, “those sets of experiences” in Obama’s words, of their region’s history of culturally acceptable slavery, and we have to respect their views as a result. The President has not, as would be a far more justifiable statement, explained that opponents of same-sex marriage are not bigots, but see the issue through the ” sets of experiences” of their religious upbringing. Serial rapists may also see women through the prism of their childhood abuse—those are rather damaging “sets of experiences”— at the hands of their mothers.
There are always powerful reasons why people have hatreds and biases, and reasons why hatreds and biases cripple their ability to interpret reality and act responsibly. We can all understand that, but it doesn’t justify distorting the facts. Blacks are not inferior to any other race, no matter what the “prism” says. Gay marriage poses no harm to society, and gays deserve the same rights as anyone else, and the Bible doesn’t change those facts. Rape victims are not responsible for the misogyny of rapists, no matter how their distorted thinking came to be.
And the acquittal of George Zimmerman was not evidence of rampant white racism, regardless of the African-American experience. The President had a duty to say that. He had a duty to say, “I understand, but you are wrong on the facts.” He did not. Instead, he encouraged and supported a distorted and biased narrative that is harming race relations and respect for the justice system, and far too many in the news media—which is to say, anyone in the media who is stooping to this—are trying to continue the process. For example, Abbe Smith, in the Washington Post this weekend, had an article on a topic I have discussed here more than once: the challenge of a defense attorney representing a guilty and heinous client. It was an excellent piece, but the Post headline writers and editors unconscionably and unethically decided to pander to the city’s predominantly black population’s bias by publishing it under this:
“What motivates a lawyer to defend
a Tsarnaev, a Castro or a Zimmerman?”
Tsarnaev: a terrorist killer who targeted innocents with hidden bombs. Castro: a monstrous kidnapper, rapist and abuser. By no measure does George Zimmerman, who broke no laws, belong in their company, which is properly the Stygian domain of Jeffrey Daumer, James Earl Ray and Ted Bundy. Yet a major U.S. newspaper, the Washington Post, aware of the black community’s misconception, decided to cater to it rather than do its part to correct it.
The results of this are obvious every day. In Philadelphia, Trayvon Martin’s mother provoked cheers from an all-black audience when she said…
“No prom for Trayvon. No high school graduation for Trayvon. No college for Trayvon. No grandkids coming from Trayvon, all because of a law, a law that has prevented the person who shot and killed my son to be held accountable and to pay for his awful crime.”
The President can talk about why African Americans see the death of Martin this way, but there is no question at all that her statement is just flat out wrong on the facts and the law. As Ann Althouse wrote,
“That’s terribly sad, but what law? George Zimmerman was acquitted because of the due process law that requires the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and I don’t think Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton means to attack that law. There’s something sickening about seeing this poor woman wheeled about in her tragedy to mouth words of attack on the Stand Your Ground law that had nothing to do with Zimmerman’s acquittal. Subjectively, perhaps Ms. Fulton gets satisfaction, but those who are using her should be identified, shamed, and denounced.”
They should be “identified, shamed, and denounced” no less aggressively than leaders who ally themselves with them. This is officially sanctioned bias and ignorance, creating officially approved hate.
Not everyone is driven by group identification, ideological agendas and political cynicism; there are some heroes on this devastating and disheartening ethics train wreck. In the wake of President Obama’s divisive remarks, Fox’s Bill O’Reilly spit into the wind with a bold “talking point” on his Fox News show, saying in part, after quoting the President’s passage about “sets of experiences”:
“…young black men commit homicides at a rate 10 times greater than whites and Hispanics combined. When presented with damning evidence like that, and like the mini-holocaust in Chicago where hundreds of African-Americans are murdered each year the civil rights industry looks the other way or makes excuses. They blame guns, poor education, lack of jobs, rarely do they define the problem accurately. So here it is. The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the African-American family. Right now about 73 percent of all black babies are born out of wedlock. That drives poverty. And the lack of involved fathers leads to young boys growing up resentful and unsupervised. When was the last time you saw a public service ad telling young black girls to avoid becoming pregnant? Has President Obama done such an ad? How about Jackson or Sharpton? Has the Congressional Black Caucus demanded an ad like that? …White people don’t force black people to have babies out of wedlock. That’s a personal decision; a decision that has devastated millions of children and led to disaster both socially and economically. So raised without much structure, young black men often reject education and gravitate towards the street culture, drugs, hustling, gangs. Nobody forces them to do that; again, it is a personal decision…And then there is the drug situation. Go to Detroit and ask anyone living on the south side of the eight-mile road what destroyed their city? They will tell you narcotics. They know addiction leads to crime and debasement. But what do the race hustlers and limousine liberals yell about? The number of black men in prison for selling drugs. Oh, it’s so unfair. It’s a nonviolent crime and blacks are targeted…The solution to the epidemic of violent crime in poor black neighborhoods is to actively discourage pregnancies out of marriage, to impose strict discipline in the public schools, including mandatory student uniforms, and to create a zero tolerance policy for gun and drug crimes imposing harsh mandatory prison time on the offenders. And finally, challenging the entertainment industry to stop peddling garbage. Hey listen up you greed heads, if a kid can’t speak proper English, uses the “f” word in every sentence…that child will never, never be able to compete in the marketplace of America… never. And it has nothing to do with slavery. It has everything to do with you Hollywood people and you derelict parents. You’re the ones hurting these vulnerable children….You want a conversation, you got it. You want a better situation for blacks, give them a chance to revive their neighborhoods and culture…It is now time for the African-American leadership, including President Obama to stop the nonsense. Walk away from the world of victimization and grievance and lead the way out of this mess.”
You do not have to admire O’Reilly to appreciate that this is a far more honest and productive statement to spark a discussion about the problems of race than anything Barack Obama said. But O’Reilly worked for Fox, and he is perceived as far Right conservative (incorrectly) and an unrepentant blow-hard (correctly), so his substantive commentary was immediately attacked by MSNBC’s Al Sharpton and others as racist. That’s the way to encourage honest debate, Al. Then incredibly, CNN’s Don Lemon—young, black, progressive and even gay—endorsed O’Reilly’s observations on the air:
“He’s got a point. In fact, he’s got more than a point. But in my estimation, he doesn’t go far enough. Because black people, if you really want to fix the problem, here’s just five things that you should think about doing. Here’s number five, and if this doesn’t apply to you, if you’re not doing this, then it doesn’t apply to you, I’m not talking to you. Here’s number five. Pull up your pants….if you’re sagging, I mean — I think it’s your self-esteem that is sagging and who you are as a person it’s sagging. Young people need to be taught respect and there are rules. Number four now is the n-word…. I understand poetic license, but consider this: I hosted a special on the n-word, suggesting that black people stop using it and that entertainers stop deluding yourselves or themselves and others that you’re somehow taking the word back. By promoting the use of that word when it’s not germane to the conversation, have you ever considered that you may be just perpetuating the stereotype the master intended acting like a nigger?…
“Now number three. Respect where you live. Start small by not dropping trash, littering in your own communities. I’ve lived in several predominantly white neighborhoods in my life, I rarely, if ever, witnessed people littering. I live in Harlem now, it’s an historically black neighborhood, every single day I see adults and children dropping their trash on the ground when a garbage can is just feet away. Just being honest here.
“Number two, finish school. You want to break the cycle of poverty? Stop telling kids they’re acting white because they go to school or they speak proper English. A high school dropout makes on average $19,000 a year, a high school graduate makes $28,000 a year, a college graduate makes $51,000 a year. Over the course of a career, a college grad will make nearly $1 million more than a high school graduate. That’s a lot of money.
“And number one, and probably the most important, just because you can have a baby, it doesn’t mean you should. Especially without planning for one or getting married first. More than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock. That means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison and the cycle continues. So, please, black folks, as I said if this doesn’t apply to you, I’m not talking to you. Pay attention to and think about what has been presented in recent history as acceptable behavior. Pay close attention to the hip-hop and rap culture that many of you embrace. A culture that glorifies everything I just mentioned, thug and reprehensible behavior, a culture that is making a lot of people rich, just not you. And it’s not going to…”
This is how serious public policy and social issues should be engaged in the media, in the Congress, in the public square, and across the dinner table: fearlessly, honestly, without hesitation to agree in part or in whole with a political or ideological adversary when he has made valid points. This is what a President intent upon solving problems rather than using them to appeal to narrow political constituencies would do. In an interview with the New York Times, Obama flatly announced that “racial tensions won’t get better.” Not the way he is approaching them, they won’t. Don Lemon, however is on the right track, or would be if he wasn’t just a humble CNN talking head, now being vilified by the Left and the race-hustlers.
In a 1960 address to the national Urban League, Martin Luther King wisely called on the black community to “rise to the point of self criticism.” Few of his followers in the civil rights movement have shown the courage and integrity to follow Dr. King’s advice; even the President of the United States, who should have nothing to fear but not doing what is best for his country, won’t follow it. Don Lemon, however, has the courage, and does.
Don Lemon for President.
Pointers: Legal Ethics Forum, Althouse
Sources: RealClearPolitics, Fox, Althouse, Mediaite, Washington Post, New York Times
42 thoughts on “Don Lemon For President”
Perfect. Thanks Jack.
I do wish Lemmon hadn’t ended his segment with a sound bite of somebody saying that when conservatives want to denegrate the black community they say black people need to address their own problems.
Other than that, it was great.
The little swipe at the end just left a bad taste. It was most likely put in by the producers so as to placate the faithful. But it was still disappointing and gratuitous.
If only Obama ever had something to say on the subject of black families:
Barack Obama celebrated Father’s Day by calling on black fathers, who he said are “missing from too many lives and too many homes,” to become active in raising their children.
“They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it,” the Democratic presidential candidate said Sunday at a largely black church in his hometown. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25176204/ns/politics-decision_08/t/obama-tells-black-fathers-engage-their-kids/
And in February of this year:
“For a lot of young boys and young men in particular, they don’t see an example of fathers or grandfathers, uncles, who are in a position to support families and be held up in respect,” Obama said. “And so that means that this is not just a gun issue; it’s also an issue of the kinds of communities that we’re building.”
And in May of this year:
On Sunday, President Obama gave the all-male graduating class of Morehouse College very important advice for their futures during his commencement speech. “Be the best father you can be,” he said.
The president then got personal, explaining how he wishes his father was there for him growing up. “I have tried to be for Michelle and my girls what my father was not for my mother and me. I want to break that cycle.”
Obama has spoken about the importance of dads being present frequently during his time in office, often citing his own father’s bad example. Just two days before speaking at Morehouse, he visited Baltimore’s Center for Urban Families to speak with “troubled” fathers about mending their relationships with their kids.
Just because you don’t hear about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. The problem with the O’Reilly’s and their ilk is that they want to point all the responsibility upon the individual, and ignore the very real systematic issues, such as the disappearance of manufacturing jobs, the so-called war on drugs and differences in sentencing, and the shrinking middle-class. A good policy maker would take a look at both individual choices, and the broader society in which those choices are made in. If you are interested in the subject, the book, Promises I can Keep is a good place to start.
If it doesn’t happen in a prominent setting and isn’t widely publicized, it didn’t happen. Saying the right things to small groups and pandering in the major media opportunities is cowardly and manipulative.
Indeed. Saying different (inconsistent) things to separate groups is not the mark of a leader with a unifying vision. It is cheap to get support and cheers. It is the mark of a rabble rouser.
It is covered by the major networks. Deery saved me from drafting the same response. Obama has been very vocal on this issue.
Arrrgh! Passive-aggressive liberal BS.
“the very real systematic issues,” The system works for lots of people if they get an education and work.
“such as the disappearance of manufacturing jobs,” Economies change all the time. Get an education so you don’t have to work in a factory.
“the so-called war on drugs” More drugs are the answer?
“and differences in sentencing,” If you don’t commit a crime, sentencing is never an issue.
“and the shrinking middle-class” Do you want to be part of a statistic or a real, live human being? Go to work and see how things turn out in thirty or forty years.
The Morehouse speech was widely publicized (and debated and critiqued). The Washington Post published the transcript of the speech. Huffington Post, The Atlantic, and Slate all did pieces on it.
But importantly, if the criticism is that Obama does not engage the black community in self-criticism, and one provides examples where he talks directly with the black community in a very critical way, can one honestly then turn around and criticize him for not doing so in a wider (read whiter) context? If a criticism happens, but white people aren’t around to hear it, has it really happened? I guess for you, the answer would be no.
“If a criticism happens, but white people aren’t around to hear it, has it really happened?”
If a criticism happens, but the people criticized never respond to it and never change, does the critic deserve credit as hero and “leader” of all? I think that is the fair question.
It hardly seems like a an especially fair, or even useful question. The original premise was that this Lemon fellow said something which the president has not. It turns out the president has said the same thing, on numerous occasions. It seems to be one of his pet topics in fact. But it is idealistic, at best to hope for some sort of extreme turnaround in behavior that was 60+ odd years in the making, with numerous institutional factors contributing, in as little as four years. Especially when some of the effects won’t be able to measured until decades from now. But I guess that is goal post shifting at its finest. If you can’t get Obama for one thing, hang him for another.
Your bringing up of goalpost-shifting is ironic, if nothing else. You didn’t notice how Lemon was crucified for what he said? What did Lemon do wrong – talk out of turn in violation of some secret and secretly applicable corporate policy? Steal a presidential speech? If the President has said so much that Lemon was only re-iterating, why the bashing of Lemon, and the free pass to Obama? Certain criticism is only valid and allowable when this particular President makes it? If so, that is even a weirder double standard than that of that angry, ignorant crowd, for whom the courts are right and relevant but only when they deliver the verdict the crowd demands. Obama sympathizers’ obvious treatment of Obama like a reichsfeuhrer is especially telling.
Bingo. If Obama had made the points deery, Bob et alia claim he had, then why was Lemon attacked by the MSNBC crowd? It was because Obama’s comments were vague and aspirational rather than critical, and flew under the radar. It’s pretty funny using a Father’s Day speech to encourage black men to take responsibility for their sperm’s adventures—the people he’s talking about are the last people to pay attention to Father’s Day, wouldn’t you think?
Well, what both Lemon and Obama have stated is considered something of conventional wisdom in the black community. It isn’t particularly novel, or innovative. One of the main problems, as others have astutely pointed out, is that those who need the message the most are the least likely to heed it. But Obama, for his part, has gone to places where many do not go to engage directly with that slice of the population, rather than trying to scold them from afar. Which is not to say that Obama himself has not received blowback on this issue: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/how-the-obama-administration-talks-to-black-america/276015/
Taking the full measure of the Obama presidency thus far, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this White House has one way of addressing the social ills that afflict black people — and particularly black youth — and another way of addressing everyone else. I would have a hard time imagining the president telling the women of Barnard that “there’s no longer room for any excuses” — as though they were in the business of making them. Barack Obama is, indeed, the president of “all America,” but he also is singularly the scold of “black America.”
So, amazing as it might be to you, some think that the president has actually taken the black community to task way too often.
Doesn’t amaze me at all, since some believe that any criticism of the black leadership and culture in the US is excessive, and if a white dares to make the observation, racist as well.
The fact remains that the Zimmerman case was a teachable moment about labeling people (Zimmerman) and using manufactured facts to score political points, but because Obama benefited from those points, he decided to jump on the train rather than flag it to a stop.
“[The President’s explanation of his understanding of the events that led to Trayvon Martin’s death and George Zimmerman’s trial] was as much an endorsement of irrationality, ignorance and bias as it would be to explain that current day racists see blacks through the prism, “those sets of experiences” in Obama’s words, of their region’s history of culturally acceptable slavery, and we have to respect their views as a result.”
Excellent point. People better themselves when they “rise to the point of self criticism.”
I’m with deery and Beth. They remind me that Obama has been telling black people these things since–at least–his days as a community organizer. I’m at a loss to understand how you could have missed all of it.
At the same time EVERY black person has had the experience of being treated as a suspect. The more people who carry guns and look for miscreants–like Zimmerman–the more black boys will be killed by whites. The fact that so many are killed by blacks doesn’t excuse our society from trying to slow down vigilantism. And stand-your-ground encourages and enables this..
1. He doesn’t say these things when it counts, from “the bully pulpit.”
2. From the bully pulpit, he says, “I understand why you are demonizing a part-black Hispanic man with an unusually strong record of racial fairness as the face of white racism…
3…acting as if law that does not apply to the shooting of this black youth was in fact the reason he was shot, and
4…that an acquittal which every objective observor agrees was demanded by the evidence is proof of a biased justice system.
5. “And though your doing this exacerbates racial divisions, is blatantly unfair to George Zimmerman, and completely contrary to the facts, hey..
6. “…I’m with you, Bro.”
Defend that, Bob.
I think your mind is made up about things that my mind is also made up about. We see this thing very differently. I think Obama’s address was fair and useful. The President uses the bully pulpit every time he speaks, by the way.
Yeah, these days, racketeers have to do an awful lot of talking to keep their rackets going for them.
Except, of course, when they can take the Fifth.
I think stand-your-ground encourages law-abiding and decent people to fight crime and criminals where they ought to be fought first, and where they are fought best: in their (and their intended victims’) natural habitats, in real time. I reject the contention (which is the essence of opposition to stand-your-ground law) that use of deadly force in justifiable self-defense is “vigilantism.” Police, lawyers, judges are agents of convenience, not of necessity, for a self-governing people. But policing is a necessity.
Of course we’ve let the Leftists successfully divert the conversation yet again from the painfully broken social constructs in the African American community to the blame-game of ‘unfair laws’, ‘evil guns’ and ‘vigilante whites’ as the source of problems for African Americans.
They are smooth in their transitions.
If only the problem was with “letting leftists divert conversation.”
You can count me in with Beth, Deery and Bob. I think the Father’s Day radio address does count as using the bully pulpit, and the other speeches were well publicized.
One can keep repeating that Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with the trial or the verdict, but that doesn’t make it so. Juror b37 referred to it in her interview with Anderson Cooper as being a factor in finding him innocent of both manslaughter and murder. You can’t unring that bell.
I’m glad Don Lemon said what he did. I agree with most of what he said. But what Obama said is important, too, and acknowledges that there are institutional and societal biases that are beyond the control of individuals to change by pulling up their pants or listening to a different kind of music.
One can keep repeating that SYG was an issue, but in fact, the situation didn’t involve it, it was not litigated in the trial, the judge mentioned the phrase but not the law, and the result would have been the same in any state without that law. Why are people being willfully dense? Give it up. SYG was not why Martin was killed, nor why Zimmerman was acquitted. Write it 50 times. His mother statement is wrong. Changing or repealing the law would not change the result in any case with this fact pattern. Virtually every lawyer, judge, professor agrees with that. Obama is a Constitutional law specialist (cough) and he intentionally left a different impression.
A yes, the media frenzy of the annual Father’s Day speech. I bet you pulled that one right out of your gray matter without a Google too, right? Desperate, desperate…
There is no denying the situation involved SYG. George Zimmerman may have never pursued Trayvon without it to back him up. The situation may have never occurred without it. The juror stated that it was a factor in her decision.
I got the Father’s Day speech from Deery’s post, not from gray matter or Google. You should read it again.
I think desperation goes both ways. Those who see nothing wrong with what George Zimmerman did are desperate to forget that he initiated the interaction, therefore the confrontation, therefore the killing.
Stop saying that. Nobody is saying there was nothing wrong with what Zimmerman did that night. He triggered a deadly confrontation that ended with a kid’s death. He was reckless; he was overly-suspicious. He was stupid.
That is not, however, stalking, racism and murder. The argument that a law that was not implicated by the fact pattern was a factor in the incident is pure speculation…what do you mean “there’s no denying”? Who does something calculating “if I have to kill this guy, I have a defense?” You are embarrassing yourself. This isn’t fair, factual or based on the law, this just furious excuse-making because the race-baiters, Al and others picked the wrong case and the wrong guy to cry racial profiling. Drop the script..it’s a lie, it stinks, and its getting people hurt.
What Bob said.
Get a room.
Good post and good response. Bottom line is, more than one thing can be true at a time and regardless of what scenario one subscribes to, it is definitely possible, even plausible that BOTH parties aggravated the situation.
Right. He might never have pursued TM without a law telling him that if he was attacked with lethal force, in a place he was allowed to be, while commiting no crime, he could defend himself. Because that’s what SYG does. It doesn’t make it any more legal to shoot someone. It makes it legal to do so, under the SAME self-defense conditions, without being required to flee first. It only applies if you are somewhere you’re supposed to be.
Stupid Stand Your Ground laws, telling me that it’s legal to defend myself where I legally am, rather than having to retreat if attacked. Stupid Zimmerman, taking advantage of that horrible vigilante-inducing racist law to stand his ground on his back on the sidewalk rather than… retreating…
Of course we’ve let the Leftists successfully divert the conversation yet again from the painfully broken social constructs in the African American community to the blame-game of ‘unfair laws’, ‘evil guns’ and ‘vigilante whites’ as the source of problems for African Americans.
You got that right.
And only a deluded, blind Liberal Sheep would have the cheek to call a freaking radio address using the bully pulpit.
A radio address?
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
. Why are people being willfully dense?
Because, Jack, if they stop being dense they have to admit that there’s nothing here to beat Conservatives over the head with.
“The real story” isn’t their story at all.
They also would have to admit that Trayvon Martin is partially responsible for his own death and that just isn’t any fun, it doesn’t suit their agenda.
So instead of doing anything worthwhile or making any changes that would actually help black kids, they persist in ignoring the truth.
It’s not about TM and it’s not about racial equality.
It’s about control.
One way or another, they are going to get control, no matter how stupid they have to act in order to do so.
They don’t give a lick about black kids or how many of them get killed.
They really don’t.
Mark my words, ten years from now they will have done NOTHING to change the situation in the black community.
“They don’t give a lick about black kids or how many of them get killed.”
Actually, they do…or maybe, “should”. As things stand right now, every black kid killed is a lost vote for them (liberals).
I don’t have problems in stores. I don’t have problems with law enforcement. I don’t live my life with suspicion. I also don’t self-sabotage. Most importantly, I am self-critical when need be. Bill O’Reilly speaks the truth. Don Lemon speaks the truth. Unfortunately, it will take hitting rock bottom for many people to change. I made a decision to live my life with integrity. Others be damned. You can draw a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. I often wonder where the historically African-American church is in the midst of the chaos. It seems to be completely ineffective at addressing behavior that clearly violates the tenet of Christian ethics.
Atta girl, Coretta. Good for you. Congratulations.
The historically African-American church seems to be organizing all these rallies all over the country and using their buses to get people to the rallies so their ministers can stand behind the various professional advocates and smile in front of the TV cameras.
Did Trayvon Martin have the opportunity to seek shelter and safety in his home? Can someone answer this question? The media reports never mention if he was able to return home.
Of course he did. He could have walked right to the place he was staying, and no evidence suggests anything would have happened.
Based on what we do know there was something like a 4 minute window between Zimmerman losing sight of Martin and the confrontation. At the start of that ‘no contact’ window, Martin was something like a little less than 200 yards from his home (heading that direction).
Easily could have made it home.
” Gay marriage poses no harm to society, and gays deserve the same rights as anyone else, and the Bible doesn’t change those facts. ”
The Bible doesn’t address gay marriage or civil rights. All are free to live as they choose. Only the Christian is instructed on how to live in the NT.
My opinion of Zimmerman has officially changed.
Yup, he got pulled over for speeding.
Totally shows what a scumbag he is….
What’s that you say?!….
He saved a family from an overturned truck?
Well the national media didn’t tell me that! They only told me about how that racist child killer just got busted for speeding…
Well I don’t know what to think now….