Quotes of the day
posted at 10:40 pm on March 5, 2010 by Allahpundit
“But the Tea Partiers are closer to the New Left. They don’t seek to form a counter-establishment because they don’t believe in establishments or in authority structures. They believe in the spontaneous uprising of participatory democracy. They believe in mass action and the politics of barricades, not in structure and organization. As one activist put it recently on a Tea Party blog: ‘We reject the idea that the Tea Party Movement is ‘led’ by anyone other than the millions of average citizens who make it up.’
“For this reason, both the New Left and the Tea Party movement are radically anticonservative. Conservatism is built on the idea of original sin — on the assumption of human fallibility and uncertainty. To remedy our fallen condition, conservatives believe in civilization — in social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities, which embody the accumulated wisdom of the ages and structure individual longings.
“That idea was rejected in the 1960s by people who put their faith in unrestrained passion and zealotry. The New Left then, like the Tea Partiers now, had a legitimate point about the failure of the ruling class. But they ruined it through their own imprudence, self-righteousness and naïve radicalism. The Tea Partiers will not take over the G.O.P., but it seems as though the ’60s political style will always be with us — first on the left, now the right.”
***
“What [Gray] means with that — and what he takes an entire book to explain — is that we in the West have become enamored of the idea of a Utopia achievable by politics. Last summer in a Templeton-Cambridge seminar, Gray, who is himself a religious skeptic, made a case that the so-called New Atheists are actually secular utopians, and as such, religious-minded. In ‘Black Mass,’ Gray traces the utopian impulse — the idea that we can create a kind of heaven on earth — throughout Western intellectual history. He argues that the obvious forms of secular utopias — the Nazi racialist version, and the various communist versions — may have been the most deadly, but that the belief in human perfection pervades Western political thought. For Gray, this is primarily a religious impulse, because it is based on faith about human nature that cannot be squared with the known facts…
“This is why I’m so alienated from politics these days. It’s fine and indeed necessary to be visionary, and to have an agenda for effective, positive reform. But that’s not the same thing as utopianism, which by definition is a philosophy built on an impossible dream. I got into a heated e-mail discussion yesterday with a Tea Party sympathizing friend who said that the government is ‘evil.’ Wrong. The government is no more evil than are big corporations, Wall Street bankers, university professors, media barons, Pentagon generals or anybody else. I am sick of the way our government leaders and our financial titans behave, and I think they do not have the best interest of the country at heart. But to declare them as an entire class ‘evil’ is not only to be unserious about the challenges facing us, but it’s also to run the risk of a kind of utopian thinking that can destroy lives and whole societies.”
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
You may check both. Mega twit.
katy the mean old lady on March 6, 2010 at 12:44 AM
But he lived with the benefits of it. That would be like a Rockefeller rejecting oil ,.. er … never mind.
But seriously, I am not proposing a Christian state (I’m a Jew, to begin with) or that the Founders did, only that many of the Founders were going on the assumption that the society was going to be privately immersed in Christianity, or some sort of ethical structure that was in sync with that larger Christian society, and that that was the source of a good deal of the stability and cohesion that could be assumed. Adams was specific in stating that, if the population moved too far from such a strong ethical framework, then our nation would certainly fall.
neurosculptor on March 6, 2010 at 12:44 AM
I don’t think Brooks understands the Tea Party movement or the New Left.
The New Left was organized in the early sixties by, among others, David Horowitz. In the 50s Khrushchev’s denounced Stalin’s atrocities. This was disillusioning to many Americans who had been members of the Communist Party (among them David’s parents). Horowitz and others thought they would be the ones to get it right. Horowitz now spends his times tearing the Left apart. Michael Medved was also in the New Left. Check out some of Horowitz’ books from your library.
I wasn’t surprised to find that one of the bloggers at Horowitz’ NewsReal Blog disagrees with Brooks. Jacob Laksin writes in The New Left and the New Right:
INC on March 6, 2010 at 12:46 AM
As to the subject of the Founders religious beliefs, M.E. Bradford in his book Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution has an excellent chapter titled, “Religion and the Framers: The Biographical Evidence”.
On Bradford’s credentials, Russell Kirk (that’s the Russell Kirk) said this in his foreword to another book of Bradford’s Founding Fathers: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution:
Kirk also writes that he and Bradford were frequent correspondents and met at least once a year. From the foreword it is quite evident that he had the highest esteem for Bradford.
INC on March 6, 2010 at 12:48 AM
Bradford writes in Original Intentions:
INC on March 6, 2010 at 12:49 AM
Lincoln seemed to have thought along not dissimilar lines.
While it may be fairly said that Mr. Lincoln entertained many Christian sentiments, it cannot be said that he was himself a Christian in faith or practice. He was no disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. He did not believe in his divinity and was not a member of his Church.
“He was at first a writing Infidel of the school of Paine and Volney, and afterwards a talking Infidel of the school of Parker and Channing….
“If the Churches had grown cold, if the Christians had taken a stand aloof, that instant the Union would have perished.” Mr. Lincoln regulated his religious manifestations accordingly. He declared frequently that he would do anything to save the Union, and among the many things he did was the partial concealment of his individual religious opinions. Is this a blot upon his fame? Or shall we all agree that it was a conscientious and patriotic sacrifice?
- The New York World (about 1875), quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 138-39)
MB4 on March 6, 2010 at 12:59 AM
Two different things as I stated.
They rejected a state denomination, not Christianity.
And no, they did not establish a Theocracy. You can tell because they called it a Republic. I don’t think there has ever been a Christian Theocracy, not even in late medieval Spain.
1777 The Congress wanted to have a bible printed…
“That, your committee are of opinion, considerable difficulties will attend the procuring the types and paper; that, afterwards, the risque of importing them will considerably enhance the cost, and that the calculations are subject to such uncertainty in the present state of affairs, that Congress cannot much rely on them: that the use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great, that your committee refer the above to the consideration of Congress, and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation of types and paper, your committee recommend that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the states in the Union:”
Sounds kinda Christian to me!
“Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity and universal philanthropy, and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country; of instructing them in the art of self-government, without which they can never act as a wise part of the government of societies, great or small in short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” Samuel Adams
“We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.” Samuel Adams
John Rodgers’s May 30, 1783 letter to George Washington suggested that Congress present each soldier with a Bible, as a gift of appreciation for their service in the Revolutionary War.
George Washington replied June 11, 1783, saying:
“Dear Sir: I accept, with much pleasure your kind Congratulations on the happy Event of Peace, with the Establishment of our Liberties and Independence.
Glorious indeed has been our Contest: glorious, if we consider the Prize for which we have contended, and glorious in its Issue; but in the midst of our Joys, I hope we shall not forget that, to divine Providence is to be ascribed the Glory and the Praise.
Your proposition respecting Mr Aikins Bibles would have been particularly noticed by me, had it been suggested in Season; but the late Resolution of Congress for discharging Part of the Army, takg off near two thirds of our Numbers, it is now too late to make the Attempt. It would have pleased me, if Congress should have made such an important present, to the brave fellows, who have done so much for the Security of their Country’s Rights and Establishment.”
Congress asked President George Washington:
“To recommend to the People of the United States, a Day of public Thanksgiving and Prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful Hearts the many and signal Favors of Almighty GOD, especially by affording them an Opportunity peaceably to establish a Form of Government for their Safety and Happiness.”
The first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said:
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” – U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 1:04 AM
No, though some Libertarian do in fact reject Christianity.
Sorry for the late reply, had a problem with my password.
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 1:06 AM
Sorry–I know it’s hard to read long blocks and I forgot to bold some pertinent parts above.
I agree with neurosculptor. The Founders were not intending to force a theocracy on American. I liked the way neuro phrased it: many of the Founders were going on the assumption that the society was going to be privately immersed in Christianity.
Bradford cites various primary source documents: writings and activities of (this is not an exhaustive list) Patrick Henry, John Jay, George Mason, General William Livingston, Edmund Pendleton, Elias Boudinot, Roger Sherman, Richard Bassett, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Abraham Baldwin, Luther Martin, John Dickinson, Alexander Hamilton, David Brearly, William Samuel Johnson, John Witherspoon and William Few.
INC on March 6, 2010 at 1:11 AM
Oh, OK… I thought I was inferring something that you weren’t implying.
MeatHeadinCA on March 6, 2010 at 1:12 AM
I had never heard of that quote. Very interesting. Another bit of Lincoln to digest.
neurosculptor on March 6, 2010 at 1:12 AM
In 1790 Moses Seixas of the Touro Synagogue wrote to President George Washington:
George Washington’s reply picks up some phrases as he clearly indicates that there will be “liberty of conscience”.
INC on March 6, 2010 at 1:16 AM
Utopia has edged into 21.6 unemployment rate!!
http://www.shadowstats.com/
canopfor on March 6, 2010 at 1:17 AM
Brooks is in his proper role as a columnist for the biggest joke of a newspaper in the history of journalism.
“All of the news that’s fit to slant.”
Brooks talking about conservatism is about like me talking about Euclidean geometry in Yiddish.
hillbillyjim on March 6, 2010 at 1:18 AM
Thats not actually Lincoln. It is what someone else said about him after he was dead.
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 1:18 AM
I care not much for a man’s religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.
- Abraham Lincoln
MB4 on March 6, 2010 at 1:20 AM
The quote comes from this newspaper…
The New York World…
In 1864, the World was shut down for three days after it published forged documents from Abraham Lincoln.
So maybe not the best source!
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 1:25 AM
Some would say you could go as far back to the rise of the Progressive Movement in the 1880s.
sarahpalinfan99 on March 6, 2010 at 1:29 AM
Excuse me, but does it really matter what Religion the Founding Father’s were or what their Religious beliefs were?
What bearing does it have on any Policy with regard to Religion in America?
Holger on March 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM
Robert S. Harper described the New York World as the “recognized leader of the radical opposition to Lincoln.”
The World was edited by Manton Marble and directed by the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, August Belmont.
“The alliance he made at this time with some of the leading Democrats of New York would seem, then, to have been motivated by simple expediency. Many of his friends deprecated the move, and several staff members resigned in protest. On the other hand, the determination of the editor of The World to enter the arena of partisan politics was applauded by many among whom was one who was delighted that New York had, at last, ‘an acknowledged organ of the party and a leader of the Democratic press in the State to give it tone and direction.”
Indeed, Belmont tended to use the World as his personal political printing press. After Belmont founded the Society for the Diffusion of Political Knowledge in February 1863, wrote historians Edward G. Burrows and Mike Wallace, Belmont put his newspaper to work for the committee. “Pamphleteers attacked the rising war debt, the government’s military strategy, and the Republican Party’s centralizing project and agitated for a negotiated peace and a revocation of emancipation. Belmont also promoted these ideas in the New York World,” wrote Burrows and Wallace.
On May 18, 1864, the World was published a fraudulent presidential proclamation which called for an additional draft of 400,000 soldiers — driving up the price of gold.
Source.
There were other forgeries as well from the same newspaper.
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 1:38 AM
There are many differences between the New Left and the Tea Partiers. One was on the left, the other is on the right. One was bohemian, the other is bourgeois. One was motivated by war, and the other is motivated by runaway federal spending. One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart. -David Brooks
================================
There might be a few LINO’s(Liberal in name only),and I don’t think there was hippies from WoodStock,after all
this wasn’t a love in,but a roll back of HopeyMania’s
Remake of America in Obama’s Image!!
canopfor on March 6, 2010 at 1:38 AM
Well, leftists and radical atheists are attempting to suggest that the US was never a Christian nation and that Christianity has no place around government. That was never the view of the founders.
Their intention being to remove school prayer, the Ten Commandments from buildings, etc.
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 1:42 AM
Isn’t there a nice happy medium there or is it either Atheist Nationalism or Christian Nationalism?
Holger on March 6, 2010 at 1:49 AM
The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.
– Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis in “Lincoln the Freethinker”
Oh, that [his Thanksgiving Message] is some of Seward’s nonsense, and it pleases the fools.
– Abraham Lincoln, to Judge James M Nelson, in response to a question from Nelson: “I once asked him about his fervent Thanksgiving Message and twitted him with being an unbeliever in what was published.” Quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 138
In making up my mind as to what Mr. Lincoln really believed, I do not take into consideration the evidence of unnamed persons or the contents of anonymous letters; I take the testimony of those who knew and loved him, of those to whom he opened his heart and to whom he spoke in the freedom of perfect confidence.”
– Robert Green Ingersoll, who fought in the Union Army, “The Religious Belief of Abraham Lincoln,” (May 28, 1896)
When Dr. Holland asked Mr. Herndon about his partner’s religious convictions, Mr. Herndon replied that he had none, and the less he said on that subject the better. ‘Oh well,’ replied Dr. Holland, ‘I’ll fix that.’”
– Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 112, on Dr. Josiah G Holland, later editor of Scribner’s Monthly, having spent only two weeks interviewing Lincoln’s friends before preparing his Biography, in which Holland fabricated accounts of Lincoln’s piety
No one of Lincoln’s old acquaintances in this city ever heard of his conversion to Christianity by Dr. Smith or anyone else. It was never suggested nor thought of here until after his death…. I never saw him read a second of time in Dr. Smith’s book on Infidelity. He threw at down upon our table — spit upon it as it were — and never opened it to my knowledge.”
– William Herndon, quoted in Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 124
In religion, Mr. Lincoln was about of the same opinion as Bob Ingersoll, and there is no account of his ever having changed. He went to church a few times with his family while he was President, but so far as I have been able to find out, he remained an unbeliever. Mr. Lincoln in his younger days wrote a book, in which he endeavored to prove the fallacy of the plan of salvation and the divinity of Christ.”
– Judge James M Nelson, who had an intimate acquaintance with Lincoln in Washington, in the Louisville Times, in 1887, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 137
MB4 on March 6, 2010 at 1:52 AM
Well things were happy before the atheist heathens decided to erode all signs and symbols of America’s Christian character. They declared war, so we are fighting back: with facts to counter their lies.
atheling on March 6, 2010 at 1:54 AM
Militant Atheists are not exactly the live and let live types. The guillotine, the Gas Chamber and the Gulag are testimony to that.
Christians will live and let live even if they think you are going to be cast into the lake of fire!
There is a happy medium and it was what the founders built.
The problem is that when you have unwed mothers, a corrupt black subculture spreading out into the white and hispanic community as well as other such problems you have a dependent population that requires big government.
It is not co-incidental that left-wing policies create dependent populations. They rely on those groups for support. When private virtue vanishes, it tends to require government to step in as a replacement.
When old people are no longer cared for at home it means the community needs government programs to step in.
Christianity has been weakened to the point that it often just a formal statement rather than a public virtue.
I don’t know that there are any easy answers.
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 2:06 AM
Riiiiight. 2.1 billion strong, and it’s weakened?! Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Don’t legislate morality. Paul wouldn’t. God is a choice, not a compulsion.
John the Libertarian on March 6, 2010 at 2:17 AM
I am speaking about the US. I fail to see what the state of Christianity in Nigeria has to do with things, but if you can see a connection then don’t be shy about telling us.
How are the laws forbidding rape, murder, and theft NOT legislating morality?
I have heard this a number of times and it has never made the slightest bit of sense. It sounds like an empty slogan. If the rich are taxed more than the poor that is a moral statement about what is fair and just.
Most basic law is about nothing else but legislating morality!
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 2:28 AM
And you think Christianity is the only Cure to what ails the Republic? That only Christianity is capable of Virtue or capable of saving the Republic?
The Romans had Virtue and when they lost their Virtue they lost their Republic. But they still had their Religion.
The Christian religion doesn’t say anything about civic virtue. Heaven doesn’t have Civic Virtue as a requirement to gain admittance. You can be Redeemed and be as big a disgrace to the Republic as you want. You can be redeemed and collect as much Welfare as you want or eat as much as you want or be as lazy as you want. Just believe and you get a nice slice of that pizza pie in the sky.
There is a reason why American Progies/Socialists/Liberals are able to sell their Social agenda. And when Social Conservatives understand what they did, they will continue to win.
Holger on March 6, 2010 at 2:34 AM
You will have to explain what you mean by this part as it is not clear to me.
I never said Christianity is the only cure. I said its fading is a problem. Your point about Roman loss of virtue is making my point about formalistic Christianity not being enough.
That’s just silly, and time and time again the founders said EXACTLY the opposite of what you are claiming.
Try living in a Muslim country with your wife or girlfriend, and then get back to me about the virtues of Christianity.
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 2:46 AM
Try living in a Muslim country with your wife or girlfriend, and then get back to me about the virtues of secularism.
CrusaderRabbit on March 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM
Brooks sure can talk out of his ass, can’t he? He’s in the NY Times because they can claim he’s an enlightened conservative.
He was born in Toronto. Is he an American citizen? Or a divided loyalties guy (dual citizenship)?
JimC on March 6, 2010 at 3:14 AM
Doctor Utopia
Kini on March 6, 2010 at 3:19 AM
I think a large number of people would love to do so… unfortunately they are dead! Dead in the tens of millions, murdered by secular governments in Soviet Russia, the Reign of Terror in France, Cambodia, China, Vietnam, and elsewhere.
Maybe you should start with Alexander Solzhenitsyn, maybe the film The Killing Fields dealing with Dith Pran’s experience with secular virtue.
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 3:23 AM
Is it really so wrong to want to purify our government? Is that really a negative agenda as Brooks calls it?
Calls for smaller government with local government being the most responsive has always always been part of the conservative movement.
And what is this original sin bit? (My religion doesn’t even believe in original sin and I dare you to find a more consistently conservative group than we are. I personally find the doctrine appalling.)
The biggest problem with that part of Brooks’s theory is that he assumes that somehow conservatism means the government enforces morality. That is not conservative. That is big government leftist thought.
But the government undermines religion now and that is a problem because there is no common understanding of morality anymore. Morality should be taught at home and at church. Not by the government, who really can’t teach only demand compliance.
I think David Brooks is turned off by the spectacle of middle aged conservatives marching in the street. And he can’t see past that.
The tea parties goals are not the goals that motivated the marches of the sixties…. but the tactics of the sixties radicals worked.
Our goal is not “social justice”. It is for the government to get out of our lives. To spend less on social programs to turn power back to local governments and stop trying to make the outcomes of natural normal living the same for everyone.
We want freedom. That means accepting the fact that we may fail. That we may never get ahead. But what ever we do it will be by our own choice and not government mandate.
Tea Partiers want the opposite of utopia. We want the kill or be killed life of freedom.
As Americans always have we accept the shortcomings of capitalism and social INjustice! Because that is the cost of personal freedom!
petunia on March 6, 2010 at 3:27 AM
In case you are unaware, the United States of America is a secular country. Maybe you might like a religious one like Saudi Arabia.
CrusaderRabbit on March 6, 2010 at 3:54 AM
Geert Wilders at the House of Lords
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in another policy, it is time for change. We must make haste. We can’t wait any longer. Time is running out. If I may quote one of my favourite American presidents: Ronald Reagan once said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures, I only mention a few, in order to preserve our freedom:
First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment.
Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don’t be affraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better.
Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.
Fourth, we will have to expel criminal immigrants and, following denaturalisation, we will have to expel criminals with a dual nationality. And there are many of them in my country.
Fifth, we will have to forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe. Especially since Christians in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia are mistreated, there should be a mosque building-stop in the West.
CrusaderRabbit on March 6, 2010 at 3:55 AM
David Brooks, along with others at the NYT, as well as the folks at MSNBC, are clear examples that certain people get into certain positions with no real, actual, tangible talent, and certain positions do not require talent, they re “projected” upon the subject, as the Emperor’s New Clothes were “projected” upon the Emperor. It’s all fantasy, projection, and mind games.
The Tea Party demonstrators and those who sympathize with their cause are not like the Leftists. The Tea Parties love the USA, love the Constitution, Love Freedom, Liberty, Prosperity, etc. The Leftists HATE freedom, except for themselves. They love anarchy, yet they love to force their beliefs on others.
The Leftists have a clear history of violence, hatred, racism, etc., the Tea Party movement is pure, patriotic, loving, wise, caring. Yet, it is the Tea Partiers who the leftist media paint as racist violent thugs, even though they are not. In the 9/12 demonstration in Washington, DC and Tea Party events in Washington, DC and throughout the nation, there was no violence, save from leftists who came and attacked Conservatives and Tea Party participants. They even attacked Blacks, yet it was the Tea Party who was falsely accused of a racist, violent attack, a false claim, for it was leftists who attacked a Black tea party, small government citizens.
I am tired of the hatred, the misrepresentation, the lies of the likes of Books and others.
Now, due to their predictable, malicious, prejudiced, rude behavior, the only awareness I have of some of their statements is through media and web media outlets, such as this thread.
William2006 on March 6, 2010 at 3:55 AM
Out of an otherwise nonchalant day, the first paragraph in the post made me smile.
disillusioned on March 6, 2010 at 4:09 AM
The United States is nothing of the sort!
Geert Wilders wants…
Replacement of the present Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law, by a clause stating the cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions.
That doesn’t sound very secular to me.
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 4:14 AM
In the fine spirit of twisted logic, as expressed in the NYT piece above,
This April 5, I call for a nationwide celebration of
our President’s Charge Towards Utopia:
!Cinco de Quatro!
Lockstein13 on March 6, 2010 at 4:25 AM
Are you stark raving mad? Do yo think the U.S. Constitution is the third testament of the bible or what? That would be more like the koran.
CrusaderRabbit on March 6, 2010 at 4:32 AM
Try reading up on the founders of the Republic, or take a look at what has already been posted. Books can be your friend!
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 4:39 AM
Take a gander at the U.S. Constitution sometime. It is clearly a secular document, not a religious document.
CrusaderRabbit on March 6, 2010 at 4:44 AM
And the guys who actually wrote it were the ones who were confused about the whole thing, rather than you?
Glad you cleared that up for us!
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 4:52 AM
David Brooks has obviously never traveled beyond the furthest stations on the DC Metro line or this international carrier.
Or if he has, his head is tucked up so far he is deaf, dumb, and blind.
How does an ignoramus get his job???
I have attended several Tea Party events, and the serious discussions among the crowd and the attendees’ knowledge of the constitution, law, and politics would embarrass most talking heads, Brooks included.
fred5678 on March 6, 2010 at 5:39 AM
Why is it that the concept of fallen man and original sin coupled with utopian sillyness can be applied to the tea party protesters -but not to those in goverment who epitomize original sin glorified and utopian manipulation of the masses by accumilating power and wealth?
Such one-sided wisdom can only be treated as said by the late, great, C.S.Lewis -a pint of poison(deceit and lies) in a clear lake(truth) Stir or spin and serve in humble persona (It’s for the children) and you soon have a poisoned society.
Don L on March 6, 2010 at 6:45 AM
@fred5678
You have to remember that people like David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan etc have a rather exaggerated view of their own self importance – they consider themselves part of “teh establishment”. So he realizes that some of the criticism is directed against people like him as well.
After all people like him are enablers of those who are in power. David Brooks can get an appointment with the White House if he wanted to. He himself has boasted about that in interviews with TNR. But there is something intuitively perverse about this – since when did people like Brooks have special privileges to meet with POTUS/WH staff than say the average Joe?
When Tea Partiers are complaining about the Government, they are also complaining about the media which does not hold them accountable.Worse,it schmoozes with them.
The entire premise of a free press in a democratic country or a Republic like the US is to hold Government accountable and keep it on its toes all the time.A newspaper like the NYT has utterly and thoroughly failed in its job to keep Government accountable. But this is not a bug, this is more or less a feature.
People like David Brooks now have to resort to rank dishonesty – is any one surprised by this ? As a commenter at BeliefNet pointed out Brooks has dishonestly characterized Tea Partiers frustrations with people who are running institutions at the federal level with the institutions themselves.
Furthermore he makes no attempt to even argue why ALL of these insitutions are needed at the federal level. Where is his “conservatism” that tells him that even these institutions have limits to their powers – as to what they can and cannot do in the name of society, common good blah..
Btw, Brooks dishonesty is not at all shocking and it only confirms what i already think of this man.
nagee76 on March 6, 2010 at 7:04 AM
My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.
Abraham Lincoln, to Judge J S Wakefield, after his son’s death
Mr. Lincoln had no hope, and no faith, in the usual acceptation of those words.”
– Mary Todd Lincoln, to Colonel Ward H Lamon
historian on March 6, 2010 at 7:06 AM
Why is it that the concept of fallen man and original sin coupled with utopian sillyness can be applied to the tea party protesters -but not to those in goverment who epitomize original sin glorified and utopian manipulation of the masses by accumilating power and wealth?
Heh.Good Question… Answer.. because… they were all ELECTED by the Dead Democrats of Chicago… Thats why, they are allowed to do anything.
nagee76 on March 6, 2010 at 7:07 AM
When Beliefs Are Challenged
Ignore it.
Reject it.
Exclude it.
Hold it in abeyance.
Reinterpret it.
Make a peripheral change.
Make a central change. (Chinn & Brewer, 1993)
How many of these do you think Brooksie is using in trying to defend his own “conservatism” against the Tea Party Movement?
Randy
williars on March 6, 2010 at 7:27 AM
Two can Tango this one,
About 40 years ago, a social movement arose to destroy the establishment.
==============
Yes,that is an accurate truth,they are called,”Liberals”,
do-gooder superior bleeding hearts,and they are now in
their second year of Destruction of America!
Today, another social movement has arisen.
==========================================
Bingo,they are the RIGHT,Patriotism,Morality,and Love
of country,and abideing by the Founding Fathers Principles!
One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart.
=============
False,and a smear.There was no anarchy,fighting,or police
arrests,and that only happens at moderate and MoonBat Lefty
meetings,protests,and organized community intimidation acts!
But the similarities are more striking than the differences. To start with, the Tea Partiers have adopted the tactics of the New Left.
==================================
Absolutely not,Tea Party Patriots,are concerned foremost,
their country first,and at the opposite end,Leftys are on a
one way Kamikaze Mission to Destroy America!!
Because of this assumption, members of both movements go in big for conspiracy theories. The ’60s left developed elaborate theories of how world history was being manipulated by shadowy corporatist/imperialist networks — theories that live on in the works of Noam Chomsky. In its short life, the Tea Party movement has developed a dizzying array of conspiracy theories involving the Fed, the F.B.I., the big banks and corporations and black helicopters.
=====================================================
This is unconscionable,I haven’t seen,one news piece any
where,that talked about Space Cadets,Black Helicopters,
or the FBI with any connection to the Tea Party!
And Brooks claims he was a Liberal at one time,and from
Toronto to boot!!
canopfor on March 6, 2010 at 7:45 AM
Some of the most loyal Americans I know were not born in this country. Brooks is an ass, but not because he wasn’t born on American soil.
angryed on March 6, 2010 at 7:50 AM
Brooks can sometimes be a good observer, he does write well, and does seem able to define/describe trends in society. But he never seems to draw the proper conclusions. Ultimately, he just says something that’s within the orbit of acceptable liberal thinking–if occasionally in an outer orbit.
I also question his utility. Too many pundits rose to fame in the pre-internet days, but have only as much to contribute as the average blog commenter. The era of listening to one man’s opinion day-after-day, year-after-year when we have thousands of voices available at any time is over. Even here, you could read the headline, and then the comments only, and come away with the necessary info. to form your opinion.
JiangxiDad on March 6, 2010 at 8:26 AM
The fact that David Brooks still has a job proves two things, the “Peter Principle” and that face that the Wall Street Journal apparently has no standards for journalism.
flytier on March 6, 2010 at 8:29 AM
The fact that David Brooks still has a job proves two things, the “Peter Principle” and that
facefact that the Wall Street Journal apparently has no standards for journalism.It’s early!
flytier on March 6, 2010 at 8:29 AM
flytier on March 6, 2010 at 8:30 AM
I’m sure President Zero will take any measure to have “In Barrack We Trust” printed on all our currency. With the respect the currency is getting from other nations, what difference would that make?
Part of his legacy is going to be a nation of welfare recipients equalled by no other nation.
Having such an under accomplished, ignorant, gullible, individual as Commander in Chief, enables the covert (?) communists (Rahm, Axelrod, Pelosi, Reid, etc.) to force through their agendas and policies.
Without the support and guidance of these “closet communists”, he would be completely disoriented, and foundering like a loose dinghy in a hurricane.
Cybergeezer on March 6, 2010 at 8:45 AM
Brooks, and other opinion writers keep searching for ways to validate themselves as the chosen ones. The intelligent elites that will save the ignorant masses from themselves.
Epic fail. When ones succumbs to arrogance, greed and pride whatever intelligence there was switches off and the writer begins to produce pieces aimed at bolstering their own self image.
For Brooks to write favorably of the Tea Party, he would have to admit he’s wrong. He’s too invested in himself to ever write objectively, or rationally again.
darwin on March 6, 2010 at 8:47 AM
Required reading: Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties
modifiedcontent on March 6, 2010 at 8:54 AM
How do you expect any high level journalist to command attention from their readers if they don’t whet their appetite with visceral sensationalism?
“If it bleeds, it leads” is functioning very well, today, as I’m sure you are well aware.
Objective and rational “news” can’t sell. That’s why there is an acute lack of clowns for birthday parties; They’re all being employed by the state run media.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to expand on one of your phrases.
Cybergeezer on March 6, 2010 at 9:01 AM
No wonder the libs want to rewrite the history textbooks and leave out the first 100 years or so. Can’t have the kiddies learn about Christianity in school. They will be missing out on some of the most well documented insights into the live of the framers and how our country was conceived. Pity.
Kissmygrits on March 6, 2010 at 9:08 AM
I’m not sure what makes up the tea party movement or the new left, what I do know is the main themes of the people are the same, don’t spend my grandchildren’s money.
The election of Obama scared a lot of people, for various reasons. One reason, and the one that has people scared, was his obvious lack of experience. I’m sure there were a lot of people that just knew the press would never allow anyone, with such a lack of experience, to get elected. After the election, and the beginning of the governing stage, people began to realize they’d been hoodwinked by the press. So, to me at least, the tea party movement is about sorting out our beliefs.
It’s obvious that many of us do not believe in the left-wing radical agenda being proposed by the Democrats. They feel, and with some justification, the public elected them to do this. One way was to keep their most radical proposals under the radar so, when they came out and people realized what they would do to them, they knew then that they couldn’t just sit around and wait for the next election.
As Americans, it makes little difference if you’re new left or old right, the radical Muslims hate us all and Obama is spending the money of all our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It tends to become a uniting factor. If you then watch the Democrats not allow “your” representative a seat at the table, during the legislative process, you become aware of what a banana republic operates.
bflat879 on March 6, 2010 at 9:16 AM
You hit the nail on the head. That’s precisely the cause of the note that rings false in his writing. It’s painful to watch people clinging to the rails of a sinking boat.
JiangxiDad on March 6, 2010 at 9:19 AM
From May 6, 2009; U.S. Senate:
Our founding Fathers beliefs in Christianity: A rebuke to Obama’s assertions that we are not a christian nation.
Cybergeezer on March 6, 2010 at 9:33 AM
We’re sure to be regaled with endless Brooks(Buckley, etc) here, so I think I’ll save your comment and paste it in the future.
JiangxiDad on March 6, 2010 at 9:34 AM
OK, I always wonder what’s the driving force behind these people, especially the supposed “conservatives”.
darwin on March 6, 2010 at 9:36 AM
“Publish or Perish”?
Count to 10 on March 6, 2010 at 9:38 AM
JimC on March 6, 2010 at 3:14 AM
BetseyRoss on March 6, 2010 at 9:40 AM
Leave it to lame pundits to over-analyze the basics. We TEA partiers want the government to become fiscally responsible, abide by the constitution, and get the hell out of our lives.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
They just can’t deal with basics. It has to be shades of grey and nuanced or they’re just not happy. Too damn bad. We know what this country needs to right itself from the Left Lurch and going to make it happen come November, 2010.
And then in 2012.
shades_of_gasden on March 6, 2010 at 9:48 AM
I think we’re beginning to see a tipping point. It’s becoming possible to present and analyze the “news” without reference to the mainstream media. This is something new, and explains why Brooks et. al. are still so prominent here, but, frankly, less and less relevant and necessary. Looks like alternative media is really coming into its own.
I’ve already listed before the various things Obama-the-Destroyer has destroyed (Dem party, race relations, civil rights mvm’t, Acorn, traditional alliances, even the notion of liberalism itself as some sort of benign, soft power.) But Obama may have hammered the final couple of nails into the MSM’s coffin. You do realize it’s only a matter of time before the networks and the Times fail completely.
Obamism is like chemo, it destroys the good with the bad. But it’s still unclear to me if the patient will live.
JiangxiDad on March 6, 2010 at 9:52 AM
“They don’t seek to form a counter-establishment because they don’t believe in establishments or in authority structures.” – the Tea Party people are the establishment. They are the authority. They run the businesses and pay the bills for all the entitlements and bailouts. And they are going to take control.
khacha on March 6, 2010 at 9:54 AM
What’s up?
Cybergeezer on March 6, 2010 at 9:57 AM
Trying to post link to Paul Ryan profile here: Tried three times and it went into the ether:
Paul Ryan has a profile at Hot Air Headlines by Fortune that applies here.
Cybergeezer on March 6, 2010 at 10:00 AM
You left out an very important segment:
“They” are “We The People”
Cybergeezer on March 6, 2010 at 10:06 AM
Brooks, I recognize your fantasy rantings before I click on the link. You’re idiocy is soooooo predictable.
Get a real job.
Saltysam on March 6, 2010 at 10:10 AM
I think you’ve hit on one huge part of the problem, a congenital condition in people like Brooks. Such a movement could never that simple for people like Brooks because the simplicity renders them meaningless. It also deeply frightens them. It devalues their purpose in life, as well as their conditioned post-modern liberal belief (yes, in this sense Brooks is a total liberal) that everything political — especially anything that threatens their conceits of elitism — must have a sinister motive or a pathetic lack of self-awareness that can only lead to a bad end.
Brooks is also baffled and terrified by the “anger” behind the tea party movement. People like Brooks cannot grasp or cope with anger. With all their self-claimed appreciation for “nuance” and their proud academic bent toward the psychodynamic analyses of human and political life, they cannot see the vitality, uses and even joys of anger. Of course, they are filled with their own anger for which they have lost all natural understanding and express partly through passive-aggressive convolutions and incredibly obtuse misinterpretations of the tea party movement. Nothing could be more predictable.
Brooks is truly lost, and only wades deeper into his lostness. He despises the tea party movement and tea party people, and their free, simple and righteous anger. They are dirty and crude and so is their anger — not at all a recollection of American roots and the morality of individuality but a kind of scary pornography revolting to his elitist prudery. They are a social danger! The only difference with Brooks is that he will use confused analogies to leftist boogeymen, while actual leftists will use analogies to neo-Nazis. But they’re all of a piece.
People like Brooks are the true idiots of our time. And look for their idiocy to deepen; there is no way out for them. But also look to them as a kind of guide to the truth. As the movement widens and takes greater hold, every article or essay the David Brooks of the world write “examining” the tea party movement as a singular threat to society should be taken as encouragement.
rrpjr on March 6, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Yesterday, at the Ohio Right to Life event in Columbus, I gave Sarah a paperback copy of Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind” as a gift on behalf of the contributors, editors and commenters at Conservatives4Palin.com. The essence of true conservatism is not a purist ideology and Kirk warned of the extremes of ideology, along with the whole ‘heaven on earth’ thought. It does not mean you don’t live and govern to the right of center, but persuade and educate people on the prudence in your personal, political and economic choices and life you lead.
True American Conservatism is not about ideology, but about ordered liberty, the only system in human history that has truly led to the most happiness, a happiness that is not the goal, but simply the effect of living a good life and selfless life.
The VAST TPM people are fiscal conservatives and government reformists, are educated more than the average American, love and respect our Constitution, and are, when you get down to it (outside of a few purists and 911 truthers), common-sense people who want a smaller, limited government, that keeps to its duties per the Constitution and as Sarah has said, “works for the people” not against us.
The TPM is nothing like the New Left. It is not violent at all like the New Left. It does not seek perfection but prudent conservative governance as our Founding Fathers strived for and prayed would protect the Constitution and our liberty.
While in Columbus, I asked Piper Palin if her and Trig liked the yellow flag I gave them back in Nashville. At first her face betrayed not remembering. Then I told her it was the one that has the snake on it and says “Don’t Tread on Me”. Then her eyes lit up and she smiled and nodded yes.
That flag says “Don’t Tread on Me”. But to all you foolish purists out there, those two little ones are probably treadin quite a bit on that flag.
And I’ll bet they are having fun too.
Sapwolf on March 6, 2010 at 10:33 AM
Nice post.
Sapwolf on March 6, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Great post. You summed it up. He is wrong, but simply can’t admit that he is so educated, and yet, so WRONG. It is like watching a child stick their finger in a power outlet, getting shocked and rather than learning, they do it again. Reminds me of Lisa Simpson’s experiments with the hamster and her brother Bart. When Bart reached for the cupcake with the electricity and got shocked, he did it again and again and didn’t learn.
Brooks’ problem is that he simply is educated, but sheltered and not grounded well in conservatism and what it really is.
The other reason he writes like he does is that he is very uncomfortable with people who are not in his very narrow socio-economic niche. He is so out on Pluto so to speak, he almost has lost touch with the human race.
Sapwolf on March 6, 2010 at 10:47 AM
To me, the Tea Party platform actually reaffirms the institutions and systems that were created 200 years ago, not to toss them away. We are not trying to reinvent society at all, only return to our roots, which is the definition of conservatism–unless you, like elite columnists, believe conservatism is about knuckle dragging bigots or something.
Yes, we have not one, but many leaders. Just like our Framers.
PattyJ on March 6, 2010 at 11:57 AM
As I have already pointed out, the guy (Franklin Steiner) you are quoting used known forgeries in his book, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents.
The New York World (about 1875), quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 138-39)
Quoting different passages from the same book isn’t terribly convincing. He co-founded the Chicago American Rationalist Association so is not exactly an impartial source.
This quote…
Also shows up in his 1936 book Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents.
The Jefferson Library finds it to be false.
We are asked about this one on a fairly regular basis. As with many spurious Jefferson quotes, it is frequently seen on various Internet sites. Many sites do not cite a source, but a good number of those that do attribute this quote to a letter from TJ to a “Dr. Wood.” As far as we know, TJ never wrote to an individual calling him/herself Dr. Wood. Another suspicious element is the statement that he does not find in Christianity “one redeeming feature.” One presumes that Jefferson did, in fact, find some redeeming features in Christianity, otherwise he would not have taken the time to paste together his own versions of the Bible.
Even the site Separation of Church and State which advocates for what you believe, finds it not credible.
This quote has been presented in two different ways–one that it is a letter from Jefferson to a mysterious Dr. Wood, and other is that it is a letter from Jefferson to Peter Carr, but no dates or other source identification in either case. There are also two versions of the same quote–the version that appears above and a second version that includes a portion of some of Jefferson’s actual writings from his “Notes on Virginia. So far, nobody has been able to trace this quotation back to any actual primary source material. The trail of evidence begins and ends with Remsburg’s book. No other reference to this “Letter to Dr. Woods” can presently be located.
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 12:15 PM
Letter to Judge J. A. Wakefield, after the death of Lincoln’s son Willie in 1862, as cited in Abraham Lincoln: was he a Christian? (1893), p. 292, by John Eleazer Remsburg. Historian Merrill Daniel Peterson states in Lincoln in American Memory (1994), p. 227, that the letter has never actually been produced to verify the statement and that there’s no correspondence with Wakefield noted in the Collected Works.
Ward Lamon in his book the Life of Lincoln claimed that Mary Lincoln said this to William Herndon.
Mary Lincoln utterly denied these quotes, insisting that Herndon had “put those words in her mouth.” She wrote,
With very great sorrow & natural indignation have I read of Mr Herndon, placing words in my mouth–never once uttered. I remember the call he made on me for a few minutes at the [St. Nicholas] hotel as he mentions, your welcome entrance a quarter of an hour afterward, naturally prevented a further interview with him. Mr Herndon, had always been an utter stranger to me, he was not considered an habitué, at our house.
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Bravo. I know what you wrote wouldn’t make Mr. Brooks feel well. Nobody likes to be dissected like that. But your comments and others are like free psychoanalysis for him, and he should appreciate it and be flattered by the att’n.
What he’ll think is that a bunch of rubes saying stuff means nothing, and that if he wants analysis, he’ll see a harvard educated analyst. But this is the kind of good advice his grandmother would give him. I hope he reads it and stops being such a dope.
JiangxiDad on March 6, 2010 at 1:49 PM
I hope HA keeps the comments here for the next Brooks piece. It will save time later. No matter what he writes about, the comments are always about him, and people like him.
JiangxiDad on March 6, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Agreed. And while we’re at it, there’s many others even worse thank Brooks at this. Frank Rich and his ilk, namely.
btw, is “unserious” even a word, Brooks?
shades_of_gasden on March 6, 2010 at 4:11 PM
Obama’s portrait and “In Barrack We Trust” are soon to adorn the latest addition to our currency: The Zero Dollar Bill.
Worth less than the paper it’s printed on. Backed up by 10 Trillion in debt.
shades_of_gasden on March 6, 2010 at 4:19 PM
In making up my mind as to what Mr. Lincoln really believed, I do not take into consideration the evidence of unnamed persons or the contents of anonymous letters; I take the testimony of those who knew and loved him, of those to whom he opened his heart and to whom he spoke in the freedom of perfect confidence.”
– Robert Green Ingersoll, who fought in the Union Army, “The Religious Belief of Abraham Lincoln,” (May 28, 1896)
In religion, Mr. Lincoln was about of the same opinion as Bob Ingersoll, and there is no account of his ever having changed. He went to church a few times with his family while he was President, but so far as I have been able to find out, he remained an unbeliever. Mr. Lincoln in his younger days wrote a book, in which he endeavored to prove the fallacy of the plan of salvation and the divinity of Christ.”
– Judge James M Nelson, who had an intimate acquaintance with Lincoln in Washington, in the Louisville Times, in 1887, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 137
Lincoln was clearly an atheist. Yes, you can find some statements attributed to him that are in dispute, but the overwhelming body of evidence is that he was an atheist.
As to Jefferson, you can also find some statements, or portions of statements, attributed to him that are in dispute, but the overwhelming body of evidence is that he was at the very least an agnostic.
This should all be quite clear to anyone who has examined the matter and is not keeping the eyes of his mind shut by force.
MB4 on March 6, 2010 at 4:21 PM
S.S.D.D.
You are getting those quotes from a guy who, as I have shown used forged documents multiple times.
Franklin Steiner is full of crap! He just made things up.
Show me where any of these documents and letters show up in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln? I looked and they ain’t there. Why not? Why wouldn’t the Louisville Times article be there?
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 4:45 PM
I wonder how your square Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli with your belief that this is supposed to be a Christian Nation.
Holger on March 6, 2010 at 6:54 PM
How do you square the treaty that ended the American Revolution?
In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain.
The war with the Barbary pirates was seen on their part as a religious duty to make war against Christians. The treaty was attempting to end that war that was doing such damage to shipping. There were trying to assure the Muslims that the American Republic was unlike the European powers in the way they dealt with Christianity.
Article 11 of the 1797 “Treaty of Tripoli” reads:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Further how do you square the fact that in the following treaty of 1805 that passage in strangely absent?
If what you contend is true then why would that language have been dropped from the 1805 version?
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 7:28 PM
Further note regarding the 1797 treaty. There is no article 11 in the original treaty in Arabic. It appears that the translator slipped it in there with his own motivation.
As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.
Furthermore there is NO SUCH ARTICLE in the previous treaties, or subsequent treaties with other Barbary powers.
Treaty with Morocco 1786
Treaty with Algeria 1795
Treaty with Tunis 1797
Treaty with Tripoli 1805
Treaty with Algieria 1815
sharrukin on March 6, 2010 at 8:05 PM
Brooks is a retard and Dreher is a pseudo-conservative, faus-religious drama queen. Next.
SKYFOX on March 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM
faus = faux
Geez!
SKYFOX on March 7, 2010 at 8:28 AM
Maybe Brooks should stick to stealing ideas from Cracked about a Norwegian war hero to write about? Unless Brooks’ piece of last Monday really was inspired by the Norwegians’ Olympic medal count and, undoubtedly, the pants of the Norwegian men’s curling team and not a visit to Cracked.
andycanuck on March 8, 2010 at 12:05 AM
Any entity that has the authority to use force to bend others to its will, is inherently evil.
MarkTheGreat on March 8, 2010 at 8:54 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2