Why the Christian Right Loves Sarah Palin - Member Submitted Editorial

[Dazzler]

[Ed. note:  This article was submitted by IPT member Rev. George W. Brooks.   Opposing opinions are welcome.]



Why the Christian Right Loves Sarah Palin 
 


September 5, 2008

“A genuine reformer. A deeply committed Christian. If I went into the
polling booth today, I would pull the lever for John McCain.” —James
Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, on Gov. Sarah Palin being named
the Republican vice-presidential candidate

The Christian Right, despondent at the prospect of losing access to the
White House when George W. Bush exits in January 2009, seems to have
found itself a new savior in the form of Sarah Palin, the Republican
vice-presidential candidate.

But why is the Christian Right so excited about a woman whose name, a
few weeks ago, most would have been hard pressed to recognize?  Sure,
she’s pro-life, pro-war and pro-gun (whatever all that means).  Most of
all, however, she is a fundamentalist Christian who most likely has
been influenced by a strident, apocalyptic form of Pentecostalism.  In
fact, according to the Associated Press, Palin was baptized in a
Pentecostal Assemblies of God church as a teen and attended that church
until 2002. There’s no way a person could spend more than 20 years in a
church and not be impacted by its theology. And that's where legitimate
questions arise.

Those who subscribe to an apocalyptic vision basically long for the end
of the world and all the violence and bloodshed that comes with it so
that Jesus will come back. This could prove to be a dangerous tendency
in someone with the power to make war.

This isn’t to suggest that voters should write Palin off simply because
of her religious affiliation. It does mean that we need to know more
about her views, and it's up to the media to ask the hard questions.
That's their job, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for them to
do it.

Although many leaders of the Christian Right embrace apocalyptic views,
thats not why they're throwing their total support behind her. The
fact is that Palin is the only hope the Christian Right has of maintaining a presence in the White House -something George W. Bush was all too eager to accommodate.

Their total support, however, shows the inherent manipulation and,
thus, danger of politics. And James Dobson is a perfect case in point.
Dobson, the Christian Right’s single most influential figure, had
declared that he could not—and would not—support John McCain's
nomination. However, with Palin as the Republican nominee, McCain is
now assured of the support of the movement that once opposed his
candidacy.

The electoral might of the Christian Right cannot be underestimated.
Religion has often shown itself to be the best predictor of how people
will vote. At stake are approximately 18 million evangelical adults.
Moreover, 19% of registered Republicans identify themselves as
evangelical Christians.

Determined to use politics to advance their agendas, the leaders of the
Christian Right have no qualms about turning churches across the
country into political headquarters. But what good has it done? After
nearly eight years of the Bush presidency, not only is the country
devastated both morally and economically, the leaders of the Christian
Right are left groveling for a few last-minute scraps thrown from John
McCain's table.

As Frank Schaeffer, one of the founders of the
Christian Right who has now renounced it, writes, “In 2000, we elected
a president who claimed he believed God created the earth and who, as
president, put car manufacturers and oil companies interests ahead of
caring for that creation. We elected a pro-life Republican Congress
that did nothing to actually care for pregnant women and babies. And
they took their sincere evangelical followers for granted, and played
them for suckers.”

Like moths flickering about a hot flame, the leaders of the Christian
Right are eager to get close to political power. But as anyone who has
played the game knows, politics is corrupt and manipulative. And the
Christian Right was manipulated by the Bush Administration.

One such person who should know this is David Kuo, who served as
Special Assistant to President Bush from 2001-2003. In his book
Tempting Faith, Kuo describes the way in which the Bush Administration
manipulated Christians: "Rove's Public Liaison office had a religious
outreach team in constant contact with evangelical and social
conservative groups about every facet of the president’s policy and
political agenda. As part of their outreach they held weekly or more
often, as necessary—conference calls to update that community on events
and announcements while simultaneously soliciting their feedback.”

Kuo continues, “This network of people covered virtually every area of
evangelical Christianity. The calls began with an overview of what the
president would be talking about in the coming week. If necessary,
participants were asked to talk to their people about whatever issue
was pending. Talking points were distributed and advice was solicited.
That advice rarely went much further than the conference call. There
wasn't any malice or negligence behind this. It was just that the true
purpose of these calls was to keep prominent social conservatives and
their groups or audiences happy. In most ways it wasn't a tough sell.”

In fact, Kuo says, it wasn't difficult to convince Christians that
President Bush was on the right side of virtually any tactic. “It
should have been a whole lot harder because Christians should have
demanded a whole lot more. But all too often, when put before power,
Christian leaders wilt.” In McCain's case, the Christian Right has
already wilted.

Thus, to get to the heart of the problem. Genuine religion has never
attempted to merge with politics. If it attempts to influence politics
at all, it's by speaking truth to power and acting as a moral compass
for society. In fact, the Christian Right does Christianity a
disservice. It greatly misrepresents its founder, Jesus Christ, who
rejected politics as the solution for what ails us. Read the Sermon on
the Mount (Matthew 5) for a clear sense of his priorities. To Jesus,
religion was all about helping the poor, showing mercy (even to your
enemies) and being a peacemaker, not a warmaker. He did not bless the powerful.

Rather, Jesus said, “'Blessed are the meek'.”

Neither did Jesus seek political favors or power. He was apolitical and
anti-politics. In fact, Jesus had a tendency to attack and undermine
political power. He had no qualms about getting in politicians’ faces,
so to speak. Even with his back ripped open and bleeding, Jesus stood
before Pilate, the man who had the power of life and death over him,
and spoke truth to power: “'You could have no power over me if it were
not given you from above'.”

Jesus understood that the legitimate use of power does not include
using it to impose one’s will upon others. From the Christian
standpoint, the proper use of power is to seek justice for all.

The Christian Right leaders have sacrificed their principles to the
false idol of politics. In the process, they have sold their souls for
a bowl of political porridge. As C. S. Lewis once wrote, “'He who
surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a
nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of
all things, most emphatically belongs to God: himself'.”

submitted ~ George W. Brooks J.D.

[downtownchicago]

The fact is that Palin is the only hope the Christian Right has of maintaining a presence in the White House

You know, everyone assumes that Palin was chosen because she's female.  I don't doubt that it's one reason, but clearly there are other reasons, and this article does a good job of explaining one of those other reasons.

[wifey]

 Bible stories and verses must be examined in context.  The misconception of Jesus being only a peacemaker shows the lack of understanding of this author.  God certainly showed His wrath on individuals, generations of families, and entire nations....not my definition of "peacemaking"! 



 

[Dazzler]

I'm not sure I want to question REVERAND Brooks and suggest he doesn't understand the Bible...

[coppersparkle]

Great article!

 

[myrrh]

The Religious Right is SO wrong! It isn't very Christ-like, in my opinion (as a former Christian Fundamentalist). This article was very interesting and informative. Thank you Reverend.

[JDsMom]

"There’s no way a person could spend more than 20 years in a
church and not be impacted by its theology. And that's where legitimate
questions arise"

This is EXACTLY my question concerning Obama, and his membership in Rev. Wrights church, how can anyone not be impacted by his "mentor" for so long, and then to dismiss him in the blink of an eye because the Rev. Wright was "caught on tape" spewing is racist views, his anti American views.....? Anyone want to comment on this ?? And pleaseeeee leave politics out of it, I want to know how his association with Rev Wright for the past 20 + years has no impact on him

[irish45mj]

I can't speak about the church, or a given Pastor, but I've been my father's daughter for 44 years, and his racist, bigoted views aren't mine.  I disagree with them vehemently, but I still love my father, just not his way of thinking.  I have been impacted greatly by his thinking, but to the extent that I have learned never to be so narrow-minded as to completely reject anyone based on color, sexual preference, or Political party affiliation, etc.... 

I don't believe (anyone with firsthand knowledge please correct me, if I'm wrong) that any other minister within Trinity (Obama's) church has been accused of sharing the same views as Rev. Wright.  I have attended Catholic Churches for most of my life, and I can honestly say that there are many things I hear within the confines of those walls that I absolutely disagree with, but it's the only faith I know.  I choose which messages to take to heart, and which not to.

The Reverand that wrote the editorial states:

"This isn’t to suggest that voters should write Palin off simply because
of her religious affiliation. It does mean that we need to know more
about her views, and it's up to the media to ask the hard questions.
That's their job, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for them to
do it. "

In order to make a good choice, you need to look at many things before coming to a decision on which hole to punch.

[griz bear]

  that article consisely states exactly why church and state should be separate............you can't legislate morality, nor should you try...morality is something that should be taught at home or in sunday school or pray groups.........ethics should be exercised in the workplace and the government offices...if honesty was the policy in politics none of this back and forth between parties would be necessary.........voting for someone is a personal decision and I personally don't trust McCain or Palin..........there were so many more qualified choices for McCain than Palin........there were congressmen/women who would be much better suited for the job and even if I liked McCain I would be hard pressed to vote a 72yr old man into office knowing if he kicked the bucket..(not too unusual for 70 somethings to do) that a very young inexperienced politician would be at the helm.........griz

[babybabybaby]

Bible stories and verses must be examined in context.  The misconception of Jesus being only a peacemaker shows the lack of understanding of this author.  God certainly showed His wrath on individuals, generations of families, and entire nations....not my definition of "peacemaking"! 



All Old testament stuff wifey. You are correct when you say 'God' showed His wrath.  Not Jesus. King David was not allowed to build the Temple. Why? Because he was a warring King and this fact did not please God. In an alter at a synagog there are not any nails used. Why? Metal is a tool of war.Again this does not please God so even in the Old Testament God was trying to teach us His children a more excellent way. 

[whitecastleman]

that article consisely states exactly why church and state should be separate............you can't legislate morality, nor should you try...morality is something that should be taught at home or in sunday school or pray groups.........ethics should be exercised in the workplace and the government offices...if honesty was the policy in politics none of this back and forth between parties would be necessary.........voting for someone is a personal decision and I personally don't trust McCain or Palin..........there were so many more qualified choices for McCain than Palin........there were congressmen/women who would be much better suited for the job and even if I liked McCain I would be hard pressed to vote a 72yr old man into office knowing if he kicked the bucket..(not too unusual for 70 somethings to do) that a very young inexperienced politician would be at the helm.........griz

Wow, I thread about religion during the political season.  I imagine that the posts will go on for quite some time on this one!

You know, I have heard the "you can't legislate morality" montra for quite some time and don't agree at all.  I do understand that you cannot make a law and expect people to inwardly accept it.  That's a given.  It might be obeyed, but it may not be internalized.  But I've only seen the "you cannot legislate morality" phrase used by those who argue against any law that might have some relation to a religious prinicple.  This is where I believe that the "you cannot legislate morality" crowd is just plain wrong. 

Take a couple of the ten commandments, for example- "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not kill" [according to my friends who are Hebrew scholars, by the way, the word used here in the original text for "kill" is really "murder" - as in "thou shalt not murder"].  So, we have two very religious teachings (don't steal and don't murder).  Most societies, including ours, also have laws against these very two things.  Hmm, is this a subliminal attempt by those on the "far right" (what a silly expression by the way) to legislate Old Testament values on all of America?  Of course, not.  Are there any IPT-ers who believe that it is acceptable to steal or to murder?  I hope not!  But what about the religious roots of these two laws?  Should we abolish these laws because of their religious roots?  See what I mean?

Griz.  You even mentioned "honesty" in your post.  I'm glad that you did since there is a commandment about telling the truth ("thou shalt not bear false witness").  I wonder if this is the foundation of our laws against perjury?

Quick now, before those of you on the "far left" (to use an equally silly expression) acuse me of promoting the establishment of a theocracy in our land, I will state that I do not believe that every single law in America has a direct Scriptural verse for background support.  On the other hand, many do, and the impact of having laws in our country that are, at least in part, based on "morality" cannot be denied. 

I suppose that the bottom line is whose view of morality will be used when laws are made.  That, my friends, is what written constitutions and elections are all about.  For me, I appreciate the fact that we have some laws in this country that ARE rooted in religious (and specifically Christian) tradition.

whitecastleman

[downtownchicago]

But I've only seen the "you cannot legislate morality" phrase used by those who argue against any law that might have some relation to a religious prinicple.  This is where I believe that the "you cannot legislate morality" crowd is just plain wrong.

We need to legislate "morality" because even the so-called moral people won't behave without these laws.

I've always found it interesting that Christians, Jews, and Muslims need laws of man to make them behave decently when they have the laws of their gods to follow.  I'd think they'd be far more fearful of the punishment doled out by their gods than then punishment doled out by man, but apparently they aren't.

I'm an atheist, btw.  I can tell you that if I thought a god existed and was watching my every move and controlled my destiny, I would be on my absolute *best* behavior at all times, and I would follow every single one of that god's rules with utmost diligence !

[babybabybaby]

OK what's up with the deregulating of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?? We saw just how evil persons will behave when there are no regulations.    Oh! AIG those boys needed something, to guide them on appropriate behavior. It is not appropriate to cry broke and then go on a spending spree after receiving a dole from the goverment. tsk tsk.
Most of the time laws and regulations are to keep good men honest.  oh well jmo.

Why not legislate morality? 

[Dazzler]

Just whose idea of morality would you like to legislate babybaby?  Name me a few...

[downtownchicago]

It doesn't have to be any particular group's morality.  For most behaviors there's pretty much widespread agreement which ones are unacceptable in a civilized society ... murder, rape, robbery, child abuse, etc.

For the less obvious, many of them can be decided by excluding religion-only justifications, i.e., if the only reason to ban this behavior is religious, then don't ban it.

Just a start.

[Dazzler]

You mean like abortion...or do you consider that murder too?

[downtownchicago]

I don't consider abortion to be murder, but apparently some people do.  The fetus isn't an individual human being, but I'm not sure how the issue can be logically decided.

But that doesn't even seem to be the focus of the anti-abortion crowd.  They tend to focus on their religious objection.  I've noticed that more recently they've attempted to concoct scientific justifications, like that nonsensical abortion-breast cancer link.  Abortions aren't entirely risk-free, but most women don't die or even seriously harmed by the complications.

[wifey]

We all know that anyone can claim to be a reverend without any formal training....non-denom churches have done it for years and will be the first to admit it....even ordained ministers and priests may misquote or misunderstand scripture.

[Dazzler]

I know Rev. Brooks, he's a member here...and his church is an ardent supporter of inmate issues in Illinois...he's supported every IPT initiative we've proposed for prison reform, appears at prison reform functions and has been a friend of inmates for a long time. 

In the case of abortion, it's never mentioned in the Bible....the Bible says life begins at birth...when the first breath is drawn....

[downtownchicago]

Wifey, that's one of my biggest complaints !  It's not like doctors or attorneys or other professionals who have to go through a certain amount of schooling/training and then get a license to practice.  A person can slap on a collar or a funky hat or whatever, claim to be an official spokesperson for god, and then "teach" whatever the heck they feel like putting into other peoples' heads.  And collect money, too !  It's really insane.

Dazzler, that's my understanding.  The Bible says nothing about abortion being wrong.  And yet so many Christians believe that it does.  I know that the Catholic church in particular has taught that abortion is wrong, now this gets back to wifey's comment.  They just teach whatever they want, I guess nobody fact checks them.

[BTT_Sky]

I realize this thread is quite old and everyone has obviously moved on but I just joined yesterday wanted to add my two cents. :)

Quote:
"Those who subscribe to an apocalyptic vision basically long for the end
of the world and all the violence and bloodshed that comes with it so
that Jesus will come back. This could prove to be a dangerous tendency
in someone with the power to make war."

Wow, those "far right" fundamentalist Christians sure do sound scary, huh?  They long for the end of the world and all the violence and bloodshed that comes with it???!!!  I have to wonder if the Reverend has ever actually interacted with these "strange creatures" who attend churches like the Assemblies of God where Gov. Palin attended.  It is my personal experience that the majority of these people are fine examples of what Christianity is all about.  They are not blood-thirsty or violent or wish harm on anyone.  They do not spend their lives in anticipation of a violent end of the world!  They are, in fact, more apt to be the compassionate souls their bible teaches them to be.  I believe their "mission" is to lead people to Christ, which is the Great Commision set forth by none other than Jesus Christ himself. 

My late father in law was a retired Assemblies of God pastor.  If there was ever a man who "walked the walk," it was he.  Highly educated, a student of world history and theology and he would have given you the shirt off his back.  He spent his life in service to others and was well-respected for it by his congregation and the community.  I am deeply offended that Reverend Brooks would attempt to besmirch the denomination he served.  It is unfair and cruel in my opinion.

Non-believers are always quick to assert that separation of church and state is important and I agree whole-heartedly, but in my personal experience, people who attend the Assemblies of God churches (like Sarah Palin's church) are not even politically active for the most part.  On the other hand, if you want to hear a "political sermon," steeped in bitterness and divisiveness instead of love, compassion and redemption, I suggest a visit to Rev. Wright's church. . .and while you're there, shake hands with a man who apparently became a member for no other reason but to expand his "political" network.  Of course he's long gone by now - once the "light" was shed on the hatefulness eminating from the place, it was no longer profitable for him to remain affiliated. 

In short, I find it sad and ironic that Reverend Brooks 1) seems overly concerned with one candidates' religious beliefs and chooses to ignore the other's and 2) degrades and completely misrepresents a group of people he obviously doesn't know.   
 
As with every other religion, Christianity has it's fanatics and/or loony tunes but as someone else so aptly pointed out, like it or not, many of our laws do coincide with biblical morals.  I understand & appreciate the hard-line stance taken concerning separation of church and state.  It is not only important, it is vital to the integrity of our nation - but this does not justify discriminating against a candidate for her religious beliefs or belittling and making wild, untrue accusations against Christian people who have the same rights as every other American: free speech and the right to promote their value system with their vote.

   

[scotirish]

Reverend Brooks gave us a lot of thought to think about, but I have a question?  Was he dissing the Assemblies of God theology?  My good friend Lloyd and his wife Nita just concluded 39 years of visiting the U. S. Medical Center for Prisoners in Springfield, MO.  Lloyd and Nita are in their mid 80's.  They and a contingent of volunteers have sought to bring the messages of God's Salvation to prisoners for nearly 4 decades.  One third of this prison is a psychiatric nut house, another 1/3 is for patients (many of them dying on dialysis) with medical problems and the other 1/3 for maintenance of the institution.  Students from local colleges, married couples from local churches visit these prisoners in many settings aside from religious functions.  A hospice program, one of few in this country exists as a result of their influence with the prisoners.  I spent 5 years in this joint concluding a 12 yr. sentence for robbery.  I, at that time, had spent 1/2 my life in prisons and it didn't look like things were going to get any better, but a prison school teacher told me that God could change my life.  I seriously doubted it, but if what she said was true, that He could change my life, what did I have to lose.  Well, she was right, He did, and now I have been out of prison for 31 years, me and the former prison school teacher have been married 29 years, raised three children and are enjoying our first grandson.  The preponderance of these volunteers, including Lloyd and Nita are Assembly of God people.  Any writer who openly denounces any group without knowing all that goes on in the name of Jesus and the lives that are saved and turned around is pure ignorant.  My question to all anti-religious groups is what do you have to offer?
In 17 1/2 years in over a dozen penitentiaries I haven't seen it. 

[BTT_Sky]

I know Rev. Brooks, he's a member here...and his church is an ardent supporter of inmate issues in Illinois...he's supported every IPT initiative we've proposed for prison reform, appears at prison reform functions and has been a friend of inmates for a long time. 

In the case of abortion, it's never mentioned in the Bible....the Bible says life begins at birth...when the first breath is drawn....

Dazzler - this is just a couple of instances where the bible speaks about our creation.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeramiah 1:5

Listen to Me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me.  Isaiah 49:1

I appreciated the comment made by downtown though.  I think it's important to not write laws based on religious beliefs alone.  I have no desire to force other Americans to practice my chosen religion but as others have pointed out, many of our laws are characteristic of  religious morality.

The abortion argument all hinges on whether or not one believes that life begins at conception.  Biologically, it would seem logical to me that "life" is created when the egg is fertilized but there are too many people who refuse to accept such a basic concept.  I am of the opinion that corrupt politicians on both sides have spent years debating and exploiting this issue for no other reason than to garner votes and thereby power.

Personally, I don't think abortion should have ever been legalized in the first place but I'm not naive enough to think that Roe vs Wade will ever be overturned.  Our society has been conditioned to believe that anyone who opposes abortion is some kind of religious nut who wants to force their beliefs on everyone else.  If every scientist in the nation announced that life really does begin at conception, it wouldn't matter because we've been conditioned to accept the practice of terminating life in the womb for too many years now.  Our society has been led slowly down the path of devaluing human life.  For all our knowledge, education and technological advancements, we seem to be a nation that throws "people" away.  We throw away the unwanted children, the mentally ill, the criminals (innocent or guilty).  Human life gets "cheaper" by the decade.

Personally (as you can tell, I'm sure), I think abortion is indeed murder.  I have had loved ones and close friends who have had abortions.  I did not agree with their decisions and did my best to talk them out of it but in the end, they made their own decision and I never turned my back on them.  I've held their hands, cried with them and prayed for them.  To me, the saddest part of the abortion issue is these precious women who have suffered through the experience when knowing in their heart of hearts, it didn't feel "right,". . .but they were able to go through with it because so many people told them it was the only thing they could do.

As Americans we are all free to vote our consciences.  If we feel strongly about an issue, we vote accordingly.  Rev. Brooks speaks of Jesus' contempt for politics - I share that contempt and in addition, I agree that church is no place to hear a political speech, but I also feel that I have a responsibility to let my voice be heard.  If my congressman or senator or president's values and/or political views do not reflect my own, I will not vote for him or her. 

Reverend Brooks is concerned that voting "Christian Fundamentalists" are being exploited by religious leaders who involve themselves too much in politics.  In my opinion, both parties operate this way.  But from the tone of his article, I'm gonna go out on a limb and surmise that he votes democrat.  I just wonder, as a reverend and a supposed biblical scholar, isn't he concerned that his vote promotes the destruction of human life by voting for a politician who supports abortion?  I'm not judging him, that's not my place - I'm just trying to understand the logic in that.  He doesn't promote politics in church (neither do I), but does that mean he leaves his conscience and convictions outside the voting booth?   

[whitecastleman]

Hi BTT_Sky

Your comments are well put.  I couldn't agree more!  Thanks for adding a well thought out post

I expect, though, that Daz & com. will invite you to take your religious views and go away- or perhaps to go to an obscure corner of the website.  There has not been too much tolerance shown here at IPT for views based on religion.  That's sad.

whitecastleman

[Dazzler]

How kind of you WCM...I've been tolerating you for quite some time now...you might want to add that IPT isn't really a religious network...it's an inmate support site.  Many of us here are believers...we just believe that we shouldn't force our opinions down anyone else's throats....and I've noticed the religious forum is the least visited board we have...even you don't visit it....

[BTT_Sky]

Thanks for your comments, WCM!  It's always nice to know that you aren't completely alone in your views.

I hope Dazz doesn't send me to the obscure corner of the website.   I think a little lee-way(sp?) was allowed since the article posted involved religion in politics.  I will check out the religious forum - I didn't realize one existed.  If it's as desolate as Dazz has indicated, maybe we can work on that? 

I have strong opinions about some things but I will always try to demonstrate respect for those with differing opinions.  Discussing and debating issues keeps one's mind well-greased and can be pretty invigorating but it's important to remember that the person with a differing opinion is not an enemy to be insulted or destroyed.  It's an exchange of ideas and there's no reason why we can't do that with respect.  Internet squabbles are futile and not worth the time or energy required to fight them.  !  This website was a real Godsend for me and I hope that I can communicate my views without anyone feeling like I am attacking them personally.

[Jims]

What exactly is your connection to Illinois prisons, BTT? It sure seems as if you jumped into the controversial/political/religious discussions willy-nilly. Most newbies take awhile before they're even comfortable navigating the site. Hmmm.... you and WCM wouldn't be "buddies" now would you???

[BTT_Sky]

Unfortunately, my son was recently sentenced to 120 days of bootcamp.  Like any other mother in my situation, I was anxious to find out anything I could about what he would be facing.  Actually, my son found this website a couple of nights before he had to report to county.

It's been an extremely stressful year in my family.  My son got arrested the same day my father took ill and was rushed to the hospital in February of last year.  I spent months caring for my dying father while trying to snatch my youngest son from the path of destruction he was on and working two jobs as well.  My father passed away in July and my son was sentenced to bootcamp in December.  I was glad to see 2008 go and will be just as relieved to see 2009 pass as well. 

I am new to this website but well-seasoned in conversing on others - mainly our local paper's website.  I am drawn to political discourse and noticed that your posts indicate the same.  I have no earthly idea who WCM is but I suppose I can understand your suspision.   He and I are definitely in the minority here in some of our views.