Subpoena outs blogger in church row
posted at 9:56 am on April 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
An anonymous blogger has been outed by law enforcement in Jacksonville after angering a local pastor with close ties to the Sheriff Department. A series of false accusations about stalking and mail fraud allowed Detective Robert Hinson, who also works on the security detail for Rev. Mac Brunson to force Google to reveal Thomas Rich’s name. Rich has been expelled by the First Baptist Church and publicly criticized, but Rich wants to know how Hinson got the subpoena in the first place:
A blogger critical of First Baptist Church Pastor Mac Brunson wants to know why his Web site was investigated by a police detective who is also a member of the minister’s security detail.
Thomas A. Rich also wants the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office to explain what suspected crimes led Detective Robert Hinson to open the probe into his once-anonymous Web site.
Rich also wants to know why Hinson revealed his name to the church despite finding no wrongdoing. Hinson obtained a subpoena from the State Attorney’s Office requiring Google Inc. to reveal the author of the blog.
Rich’s unmasking led to an eventual trespass warning banning the longtime member and his wife from First Baptist, despite the fact that Brunson and a top church administrator conceded the blog never threatened violence.
In fact, Rich used his blog to question a number of practices in the church, among them the pastor’s large salary ($300,000), his wife’s sinecure for additional salary, and accepting a land grant as a personal gift from members of the congregation. Rich kept himself anonymous in order to protect himself and his wife from retaliation. While people can debate whether that was a good choice, no one can argue now that he was being paranoid. The church has not only expelled his family, they have a trespass order against Rich and his wife, and they’ve published a letter to the congregation informing them of Rich’s “sins”.
The Jacksonville Sheriff Department insists that Hinson did nothing wrong, despite finding no evidence of any wrongdoing. Rich never threatened anyone on the blog, but Hinson said that the anonymous criticism and certain vague and anonymous allegations — for which the JSO has no evidence or documentation now — warranted an investigation, including a subpoena to force Google to reveal his identity. The investigation found no wrongdoing whatsoever on the part of Rich, but then again, it looks like the point was to out Rich and humiliate him as a punishment for daring to criticize Brunson.
Let’s accept for a moment that Brunson’s and Hinson’s allegations were true. If so, the case should not have been handled by a detective with the very large conflict of interest that Hinson had in this case. He’s moonlighting for Brunson; what’s he doing conducting an investigation into Brunson’s critics? It looks a lot less like a legitimate verification of security than it does a way for Brunson to co-opt law enforcement in order to protect what looks like a very sweet deal at First Baptist Church of Jacksonville.
Brunson called Rich a “sociopath” for criticizing him, but the scary one in this scenario is the minister who can apparently call on the JSO to act as his hatchet men to silence criticism. The people of Jacksonville might want to check out their Sheriff Department and determine exactly whom and what they serve — the people of Jacksonville and justice, or a rich pastor who can’t afford criticism.
Update: Unfortunately in this day and age, churches do have a legitimate concern about security, so I don’t fault First Baptist for having a security detail. Bloggers writing criticisms about church practices aren’t a legitimate security concern, though, and they’re certainly not a legitimate concern for law enforcement.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
There are multiple issues here. I can understand why people would have a problem with the subpoena and the method it was obtained. Very fishy, and should be investigated by the civil authorities.
That said, here’s my take:
(1) Posting in an anonymous fashion information critical of the person called to shepherd a particular congregation could be tantamount to spreading gossip. Scripture is clear on how to handle this:
If Mr. Rich had serious concerns about the amounts and nature of the compensation offered to Pastor Brunson, he first should have made those concerns known to him directly. The matter of setting pastoral salaries is, in a baptist context (if I’m not mistaken) a matter handled by vote of the entire congregation. That means disputes about salary should be handled in the same context in which the salary was approved, not via anonymous blog posts.
(2) That said, Pastor Brunson’s response was not scriptural either. If a member of the church was slandering him, he should have confronted the member directly, and privately, as above. If he is unable to, then the sin should be handled by the wider Christian body, not to a friend of the local law enforcement community.
(3) In a society as hyper-litigious as ours, I can understand calls to sue. A Christian response, however, ought to be different. See the following from 1 Corinthians 6 (the Corinthians were, ah, a mightily conflicted congregation):
whatnext on April 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM
This is so bad on so many levels! This pastor is a scumbag of the first order and if the congregation has any sense he should be run out of town. Does a man with a true relationship with Jesus propel an illegal investigation of his critics? Regardless of how much anyone is being paid, everyone has a right to pose questions and especially in a church situation. This Hinson character is just as bad as the pastor and shouldn’t have any kind of authority over any part of the public. The states attorney’s office should be investigated for giving out a subpoena for this schlock. This pastor needs to repent instead of accusing Mr. Rich of sin for asking tough questions.
cjk on April 19, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Ok, What? How much more passive aggressive can we get? Will we next have wives or husbands anonyously blogging insider crap about their spouses? No one forces anyone to be a member of a local church. Members CAN speak out publically with concerns. There is a chain of command in the Baptist church.
Why did this guy chose to slander his own church online? Anonymously? What’s wrong with people these days?
The JSO far exceeded its authority, but the more disturbing aspect is that a member of the church didn’t have the balls to stand up to the Minister and say, “What you are doing is wrong.” In this country people have a right to face their accuser. The internet is making that nearly impossible.
The blogger got what he deserved
BrideOfRove on April 19, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Did you read the comments on the link that Deanna provided for Rich’s blog? Sounds like most of them were made by members of the church and a lot more was going on than a dispute over salary, particulaly the bit about Collins Construction having a business ad run during a sermon. The owner of Collins was the guy who gave the land to the pastor. No other business ads have apparently ever been run since.
a capella on April 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Please don’t be sad. This doesn’t reflect poorly on Jesus and all his followers, only the sheriff who abused his power, the parson who used his position to gain personal wealth, and his parishioners who were either naive, blind or indifferent.
Loxodonta on April 19, 2009 at 1:43 PM
That is true. Still, events like this give more fodder to those who malign Christianity. Just… disappointing.
Mommypundit on April 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Thanks. You’re right. But blaming the group for the acts of an individual member is bigotry, plain and simple, and it’s wrong whenever it’s done.
Loxodonta on April 19, 2009 at 2:03 PM
This being a Baptist church, it is now beholden to the congregation to allow this Pastor to remain their pastor. A simple vote will fire him. If they don’t, they deserve the Pastor they have.
ladyingray on April 19, 2009 at 2:17 PM
This from the blog’s comments had me wondering. You can’t see the church’s by-laws without signing for them? You’d think they’d be posted on the church webpage.
Wethal on April 19, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Talk about having “issues”…lol
bluelightbrigade on April 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Nobody ever said corruption was limited to politicians.
As scummy as the left can be, the right can come up with some pretty glaring examples as well. Fascism exists on both sides of the isle, the only way to scrub it clean is to expose it to the light of day and publicly humiliate those that take part in it…as well as toss in jail the ones that break laws while they practice it. In this case it looks like the pastor and the security detail need to do some county time as well as pony up in a civil suit.
Spiritk9 on April 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Obama combined Christian and Islamic theology in a recent economy speech. Actually, he totally bastardized a Christian parable by attempting to incorporate Islamic principles, and made a serious mess of the entire affair.
Maybe this is a new tactic for the Islamists. After all, Christian flirting with Islamistism worked so well for Obama’s spiritual mentor, Rev. Wright.
Maquis on April 19, 2009 at 2:44 PM
That is extremely screwed up. I mean, I understand dysfunctional churches, and how internal money issues can get people really pissy. About half of my church left over things like that. But involving police, if I lived in Jacksonville I’d be absolutely livid.
galenrox on April 19, 2009 at 2:54 PM
It’s still funny, though.
I expect liberal politicians to bastardize Christian scriptures. That’s their MO, and BO is no different (there).
But for a Christian priest to convert to a completely different religion and still expect to NOT be defrocked by their denomination…that’s laughable.
So I laugh. Out loud.
bluelightbrigade on April 19, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Those comments are a bit of an eye opener, aren’t they? Perhaps the pastor wasn’t the only one with a control fetish.
a capella on April 19, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Laughable, yes, but worth observing as a possible trend/tactic, in which case I can assure you I won’t be laughing.
Maquis on April 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Some more of my thoughts on this issue are at the Obamateurism of the Week thread.
Loxodonta on April 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Take religion out of it for a moment and look at the dynamics. Rich used an anonymous blog to level accusations at a church and a preacher pulling in members of the congregation to essentially gossip.
Why not just stone the Preacher wearing hoods and robes so he has no idea who’s behind it.
Absolutely everyone involved in this affair is wrong on every possible level.
BrideOfRove on April 19, 2009 at 3:16 PM
That’s a convincing argument. However, seeing as how he is so egotistical that he has made of himself a political sock-puppet, I am and will remain wary of the hand inside the sock.
I am glad that some folks are still trying to draw attention to this incoherent melange des religions that Zero has going. It should be widely known but even some very intrepid bloggers don’t seem to want to touch it.
Maquis on April 19, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Agreed. With human beings, scumminess comes built in. It’s like each of us is a little pond, and the scum rises to the top. It’s difficult not to spread our scum on others, to accept criticism when we do, admit error, then try not to repeat this cycle. My guess is that each of us makes mistakes along these lines. At least I do.
Loxodonta on April 19, 2009 at 3:20 PM
I imagine that the Pharisees would have done the same thing to Jesus if he continued to criticize their stealing from men and turning the temple into a place of merchandise. Whenever Phariseeism is brought to light, somehow the government gets involved!
flytier on April 19, 2009 at 3:20 PM
I have to say that I empathize with Rich on this.
From personal experience, I can tell you what a painful situation it is to have a pastor who is more interested in personal finances than in serving his flock. And the maliciousness that such a minister can spread from the pulpit, to “Bible Study”, to council meetings and Elders meetings, not to mention the difficult personal interactions, can be devastating on a personal level and most difficult to a family.
Personally, I cannot think of a single reason why a person whom God has chosen to serve should be making $300K per year. It seems that too many churches have bought into the “Hollywood” version of church and evangelism where a great speaker makes a great pastor, and begin to treat & pay him like a superstar. I often wonder how many off these people would continue to serve God if the salary was $60K.
And yes, churches do have to worry about security. Unfortunately, too many churches have to lock their doors these days. However, I don’t see the need to have a security team, unless the minister knows he is doing something wrong and needs protection. This too comes from the personal experience of worshipping in a place where Fred Phelps & family regularly picket on Sundays. Even though these Topeka pastors are slandered on signs and have these disgusting people in their faces, they don’t buy security.
My prayers are with Mr Rich and his wife, and also the congregation that their eyes may be opened.
gobblemom on April 19, 2009 at 3:36 PM
It’s too obtuse. It needed a touch of Megan McCain, Governor Palin, tea bagging, global warming, gay sex, atheism, intelligent design, bacon, nudity, chocolate, teeth whitening aides, and no effort weight-loss methods to have gotten high internet traction. We need someone to develop a grand unifying theory for all these issues. But, I’m no Einstein. You want to give it a go?
Loxodonta on April 19, 2009 at 3:36 PM
This minister makes $300,000??? What a stupid, stupid congregation.
Hopefully the blogger will sue, win and bankrupt the church – and all those stupid church members will come to their senses.
Dave Rywall on April 19, 2009 at 3:38 PM
There are probably a lot of everyday people who aren’t part of the ruling inner circle, but who just came because the preaching and programs filled a need for them and their family.
I doubt Rich can get a big enough verdict to bankrupt them (I see a possible settlement once the suit is filed). The County is the one party that may get hit big, too, for violation of civil rights by the sheriff’s office.
Rich and his family found another church home. That some of the members may give up on churchgoing altogether is the real tragedy.
Wethal on April 19, 2009 at 3:44 PM
It’s a result of the new scientific method that’s so popular these days.
Global cooling is proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Dissent (from the left) is the highest form of patriotism.
Dissent (from the right) is grounds for DHS listing.
And on and on.
So, why not belief in a religion opposed to Christianity as evidence that one is a good Christian?
Loxodonta on April 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM
If you want to talk seriously about this issue, perhaps it would be best to do so on a related thread, like the Obamateurism of the Week. I’d be happy to join you and see if we can get a serious discussion going there. You have many valid concerns, and this issue needs further exploration.
Loxodonta on April 19, 2009 at 3:52 PM
That sounds like an accurate take on this. It was an abuse of power.
INC on April 19, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Why are we seeing more and more of this? Lefists, (ACORN members) hacking political chatrooms (Yahoo Politics Lobby 4 and 7); Reporters outside of the leftists MSM attacked and handcuffed; A fraudulent report by the DHS. Folks, it’s JUST starting.
nelsonknows on April 19, 2009 at 4:53 PM
This is not a matter of scripture. That concerns how the church and the parishioners should have handled the matter internally. This is a “Joe the Plumber” type of issue. It is a question of whether the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office acted in accordance with the rights of everybody involved. I think there is clear evidence that they did not.
This entire situation would be analogous to a witch hunt. It appears that the accusations made in the blog are a matter of professional misconduct by the pastor, and are not a matter of criminal activity. Since that is the case, the JSO has no cause to investigate. It is clear that the investigation was a canard in order to discover who was making the accusation. That is not a legal or ethical function of our police forces unless there is a crime being committed.
Hawthorne on April 19, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Such tactics are commonplace when an amoral person is attempting to justify their actions to a moral populace. It is also why such things are considered heresy in most churches. Obama will not win over anybody that takes their religion seriously with such actions. But it may prove to be effective for those that have a very shallow understanding of their religion.
Personally I think Obama is attempting to legitimize Muslim theology in the face of Christianity.
Hawthorne on April 19, 2009 at 5:15 PM
I wonder if you read the first line of my earlier comment, which stated clearly that the incident should be investigated by the civil authority?
In disputes between Christians, scripture is essential. When it is deemed nonessential, as is apparently is the case here, then we can anticipate the results, which include gossip, slander, abuse of authority, lawsuits, etc.
I agree. And if there has been professional misconduct by the pastor, the pastor ought to have been confronted with it in accordance with scriptures. Because neither Mr. Rich nor Mr. Brunson did so, we now have the situation we have. And if I had to guess, based on the pattern of behavior in this case, I would say that future lawsuits are likely, rather than repentance and forgiveness.
whatnext on April 19, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Unfortunately, the health and prosperity gospel has really done a number on the “church.” When church is run on the principles of the world (i.e. a business) you run the risk of corruption. It’s really sad…
Mommypundit on April 19, 2009 at 6:55 PM
Well, I’m sure glad no tithes or offerings of mine or my family go to that church!
A pastor who makes $300 grand a year makes me wonder if he was asleep on theology class when they were discussing how much easier it is for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. Or when the Apostle Paul’s requirements for bishops (pastors) and deacons were discussed in 1 Timothy, none of which mentioned the heaping of a salary fit for a head of state (on my last reading, the President makes about $300 to $400 grand) to be given to a pastor.
Some kind of relative poverty for a servant of God is usually implied, to keep them humble, precisely because people would come who would heap riches for themselves from the congregation and treat their churches as the own little fiefdoms. I know that’s a common problem because that happened to my home church years ago. The pastor at my church, a newcomer, saw how much it was growing on members and buildings, and began to think of it as his own kingly lair. It took a nasty confrontation by members of the church to unmask him as the false teacher he truly was. He left, but not without taking a huge number of (deceived) people with him.
Did this pastor forget that Paul was a tent-maker of trade? Or that all the other Apostles’ trades were, more or less, middle-class? Or did he forget that it is the church members’ responsibility to act when an injustice worthy of correction is due in a congregation? Even the Apostle Paul had to scold Peter publicly and tell it like it is when the latter was acting very hypocritically before members of a church.
In the religious sense, the (former) member was on the right. All he can do now is to move on with his family to another congregation, and let God work the punishment this false pastor and his deceived congregation truly deserve.
newton on April 19, 2009 at 7:28 PM
I realize capitalists are an endangered species, even on HA, but here goes:
There are some churches that are large enough enterprises that their senior manager earns this kind of compensation. Factor in many years of below market compensation to reach this position, combined with the communication skills to be selected for the position, and $300,000 is not an impossible amount to justify.
Whether a single church should be this large is a valid question, but the state does not regulate this (yet). Members are attracted to the extensive resources, large peer groups of their age & gender, etc.
Although the police and the church seem to have some liability in a law suit, the anonymous blogger probably said some things that are not true and would be therefore open to liability for slander. The police would argue that the blogger was a malicious person spreading lies, arguing this justifies letting the church know his identify. The blogger would probably have to prove he was telling the truth and fairly representing those he criticized to win a law suit.
Also, how many members of the church would be in the jury?
The trolls may now whine that life is sometimes not fair to anonymous slanderers, make appeals to pity, weigh the relative merits of various imperfect/seriously flawed people in this story.
Right_of_Attila on April 19, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Curious why God would allow false prophets to peddle their influence on his flock in the first place. Of course the Bible and history is rife with examples. Unfortunate indeed.
Socmodfiscon on April 19, 2009 at 7:57 PM
This seems to be the problem. If this was any ordinary business, in the business of making money, this kind of salary for a leader would not be out of line. However, a church is not an ordinary business, and their funds are raised for expenses (wages, insurance, utilities, etc) and missions.
A pastor is not equivalent to a CEO. A pastor is a spiritual leader and the president of the congregation is the CEO. But I don’t know of any leadership in a church (and the paid people like secretaries, accountants, etc are not considered leadership) is voluntary as part of their service to their Lord and their church.
Sin unfortunately is just as prevalent in a church as it is in the world. This has been true forever. Just read Acts.
gobblemom on April 19, 2009 at 8:11 PM
But I don’t know of any leadership in a church (and the paid people like secretaries, accountants, etc are not considered leadership) who are paid $300K; their efforts are voluntary as part of their service to their Lord and their church.
Sorry I forgot part of the message. Oops.
gobblemom on April 19, 2009 at 8:13 PM
I’ve read the blog and have seen no threats made, or any criminal activity. Agreeing with another poster, this is exactly the attitude that is driving people away. As a matter of fact, that is what drove me away from all those Organized Religions. It’s all about money and power to most of them.
Hick on April 19, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Indeed. It was, in fact, “the substitution of gossip for the gospel” that drove me out of church. I worship alone now, always looking for some place that hasn’t turned into The Church of the Holy Congregation so that I can find new fellowship.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on April 19, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Hey, this sort of thing was fine for President Obama’s pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, so what’s the big deal?
You shoulda moved along Mr. Rich, there was nothing to see here.
Buy Danish on April 19, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Ed, I’m sorry, but I don’t see how you can legitimately make that assertion. Wasn’t Ted Kaczynski in essence “blogging” before the age of blogs and did he not wreak havoc on his victims? I know that could be dismissed as an exaggeration, but my point is, you seem to dismiss the idea that a blogger, any blogger, is by nature of being a blogger not a threat. But you cannot speak to state of mind in this case or others without better knowing how important the cause was to the person concerned. Someone could start a blog tomorrow decrying those little advertising stickers that appear on the top right hand corner of the Sunday paper and obsess about it to the point that they then threaten to blow up the newspaper’s advertising offices. You just can’t know that they won’t.
Captain Scarlet on April 19, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Rather than worry about what a blogger “could” or “might” do or not do, why not focus on what this one DID?
`
I see nothing which would justify a subpoena of Google for the blogger’s ID or commenters’. That would entail some evidence of a crime to justify an investigation in the first place, and a demonstration of probable cause that the private citizens who posted on the blog had some evidence necessary to the investigation.
`
None of that was present. It seems clear on the face of it (absent some undisclosed information which later surfaces) that the LE officer misused his authority to help his second-job boss track down the source some unwelcome publicity. He should be fired, if not prosecuted.
`
As to the preacher, that’s a matter for the congregation to decide. No one forces them to attend or contribute.
`
Adjoran on April 19, 2009 at 11:15 PM
In the majority of Churches I had been to, no they are not forced. They are guilted into it. Sorry if that ticks off anyone, but that’s the way it was.
Hick on April 19, 2009 at 11:30 PM
What law did the blogger break? Unless the Detective/Sheriff had evidence of a crime,or needed to prevent a crime, they had no right to ‘out’ the blogger.
Both law enforcement and judge should be investigated, then sued!
TN Mom on April 20, 2009 at 1:58 AM
If you believe, based on evidence, that your pastor is of the world and not of the word, you have a duty to your church to do something about it. If you have used all proper means to correct the offender or remove him/her and it hasn’t worked, what choice do you have but to shake the dust of that church from your sandals and walk away. Even if you can’t find another church in your community I don’t believe God will judge you harshly for turning your back on any church that, by it’s actions, has turned it’s back on God. Far too many people are taken in by grand oratory and powerful sermons while they turn a blind eye toward the habits and actions of the speaker. If the messenger doesn’t live his message, he’s just a snake oil salesman and should be avoided because he is closer to the demon tempter of Christ than to Christ Himself.
SKYFOX on April 20, 2009 at 7:57 AM
Good try…but that applies to practicing Christians, not bullies that are using the pulpit and the bible to attack their enemies.
It shows what happens to a dissenting voice, he was thrown out of “church”.
This is what happens when you don’t have a governing body to oversee a “pastor”. They are men, and as men are sinful, and the sin can manifest itself in, power, greed, ego, I think the bible pretty much explains what happens with men in positions of “spirtitual” power…Jesus on the cross pretty much defines what happens with unbridled power.
The theologians in Christ’s time were pretty convinced they were doing right also.
This guy attacked, while trying to keep his family out of harms way, his pastor retaliated in a way only a heathen could appreciate…Baptists should either be proud of this pastor, or ashamed…How do you think Jesus would have felt about the actions of this pastor.
And it is funny that you left the most important verses regarding pastors…
And:
In fact you can bet this pastor probably never gave a sermon on the book of James…and if he ever did, it wasn’t about him.
right2bright on April 20, 2009 at 8:59 AM
That doesn’t “tick me off” if just shows you have a bumper sticker mentality.
This is what you have been taught to say, and like a good monkey you have learned to repeat it well and probably often.
Here are the tip offs to a phony and ill conceived statement:
“The majority of churches”, so you go around and join churches what every few months…often people will say “all the churches”, or the “churches are set up to”.
Then the old trotted out “guilt” statement…pointing out someones sin is not “guilt”, you accept the “guilt”.
I have been to a dozen churches in my 60 years, and none of them have “guilted” people, but people have felt guilty.
Wise up, when you “feel guilty”, think, are you sure there isn’t some other action going on besides “feeling”?
And please, if you attack the church, which is fine, be original, this little ditty of “making you feel guilty” is so over used, it makes you look like the monkey at the end of the organ grinders chain, dance and you will noticed.
right2bright on April 20, 2009 at 9:06 AM
corona on April 20, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Hopefully this pastors actions, and the actions of the police, will open a flood gate of the wrongs committed here. If this pastor has nothing to hide, then he’d confront his congregation on all levels of scrutiny, that were applied on the blog.
By his actions now, he’s created more questions, than answers…but seeing how so many are willing to follow without question, or scrutiny of those they follow….this will fall on deaf ears.
I pray that truth will prevail on all levels of misconduct by those who committ them, against others…for no good reason.
capejasmine on April 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Our Sheriff is a good man and he has done his best for years, but he is clearly in the wrong on this one.
The SAO was also complicit by failing to exercise due dilligence in this case by asking the proper questions.
Squid Shark on April 20, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Oh my gosh. Is this really okay with the congregation? Priestcraft if ever there was any.
petunia on April 20, 2009 at 10:46 AM
As Mr. Barnum noted, there’s one born every minute. Witness the wealth of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Jim Baker, etc…etc…etc.
And we wonder how an Obama gets elected…
quikstrike98 on April 21, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2