Ted Cruz

Sen Mike Lee Endorses Ted Cruz; Best "Liberty Republicans" Can Do?

|

In the wake of fellow Tea Party rebel with "liberty" leanings Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) yesterday becoming the first of his Senate colleagues to endorse Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz for presidentPolitico reports that bad blood—mostly over perceived firebrand lack of collegiality on Cruz's part toward both leadership and even his own fellow Texas Sen. John Cornyn, and Cruz's own hostility toward many of them for being insufficiently tough on matters like stopping Obamacare and defunding Planned Parenthood—is still widespread toward Cruz.

Still, their reporters found that the fear of Trump might lead to a wave of Senate endorsements next week if Cruz is clearly the last non-Trump standing.

Cruz already has 24 House endorsements and two gubernatorial ones, Dallas News reports, and quotes a rather anodyne Lee endorsement, after Lee stopped fence-straddling between Cruz and his other friend and colleague Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida:

"There is a big difference between slogans and substance, Ted is that difference. Don't settle for a slogan on a bumper sticker," Lee said. "It is time to expect more. it is time to expect more. it is time to elect Ted Cruz president of the United States."

Lee even says he'd advise Rubio to just give up now.

The New York Times story on Lee's endorsement makes it more about stopping Trump than loving Cruz, and reminds readers that Lee and Cruz clashed over Cruz abandoning some sensible criminal justice reform issues for fear of seeming weak on keeping criminals behind bars.

Cruz's willingness to alienate his fellow Party members over what he sees as conservative principle could, and seemingly should, help him appeal to at least some Trump people open to persuasion.

Before Lee stepped up, The New York Times wrote a sad profile of Cruz and his colleagues in which after a dozen interviews the Times found no one openly on Cruz's side, though Rubio had at least a dozen backers in the Senate.

For whatever it might be worth, the already fervently anti-Trump conservative intellectual movement flagship mag of olden times, National Review, officially said yes to Ted today.

From their reasoning: He's really for the Constitution, with no specific relevant examples given. He believes in free markets, even free trade, "notwithstanding the usual rhetorical hedges" (such hedges about lost jobs and being "killed in international trade" were definitely apparent in last night's debate.)

He's "realistic" in an unexplained way about immigration (I think that means he advocates impossible and damaging expedients to "solve" the non-problem that obsesses NR). "He favors a foreign policy based on a hard-headed assessment of American interests, one that seeks to strengthen our power but is mindful of its limits."

NatRev likes the Ted tone that his colleagues hate:

Conservatism should not be merely combative; but especially in our political culture, it must be willing to be controversial. Too many Republicans shrink from this implication of our creed. Not Cruz. And this virtue is connected to others that primary voters should keep in mind. Conservatives need not worry that Cruz will be tripped up by an interview question, or answer it with mindless conventional wisdom when a better answer is available.

Congratulations for not once making the endorsement just about "And it can't be Trump." National Review tried to make a case for their man, and it might even have been one that a non-libertarian conservative could feel OK about.

Glenn Garvin's 2015 Reason cover feature on Cruz presents a guy more about winning arguments then votes, one with positions on spending, regulation, and cronyism a libertarian should be able to get behind (and he's been strong on such issues, like ethanol subsidies, even when it was politically difficult); but foreign policy, social tolerance, and immigration commitments, far less so.

Scott Shackford reported on House liberty stalwart Justin Amash (R-Mich.) endorsing Cruz last month, and sums up well all the reasons a libertarian might both see Cruz as a best-likely-choice and want to excoriate him:

The problem may be that Cruz appears to be compromising some of the more libertarian-leaning elements of his platform in order to try to dig into Donald Trump's populist authoritarian appeal. Just in the past 30 days Cruz appears to have backtracked and turned against much-needed federal sentencing reform to reduce mandatory minimums, said Apple needed to comply with the FBI's demand that they provide access to San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook's iPhone, despite the potential privacy repercussions for the rest of us, and just last night declared that he, like Trump, would attempt to deport 12 million illegal aliens, an utterly impossible (and unpopular) goal. And let's not forget he recently called Edward Snowden a "traitor."

NEXT: Trump's H-1B Visa Zero-Sum Thinking Will Make American Workers Poorer

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He just sold himself to TEAM BUSH. Nothing else really need be said.

      1. Cruz, he’s in a plural marriage with Goldman Sachs, the Council on Foreign Relations, Heidi, Jeb! and Neil Bush.

  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOTEbEEwoJg

    Riot breaks out at trump rally. Rioters are clashing with police.

    1. Congratulations protestors. Yo just boosted Trump’s poll numbers by 2% in the last hour.

      Dumbasses.

      1. yep. cnn kept calling trump a demagogue which he is. it does irk me that sanders isnt also called a demagogue but for obviously different reasons

        1. Personally . . . they’re all demagogues. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Clinton, Sanders.

          Obama, McCain, Bush, on and on.

          Some of them are more obvious about it and some of them are better at it. But they’re all just saying whatever they think will rile up the base and attract enough voters to get elected.

          That’s why Cruz has backed away from CJR, why Walker walked back his pro-private sector rhetoric.

      2. And proved John right. Do we really want to live in that America?

        1. He reeks havoc.

          1. Wrecks havoc… sheesh, what happened to literisy.

            1. Nothing good comes out of a Trump rally. The next town (or two) will try to top to this protest, cops overreact, the Secret Service overreacts, and people will get hurt.

              1. You know who else’s political rise was accompanied by escalating violence?

                1. Trump’s hero, Abraham Lincoln?

            2. He meent wot he sed.

        2. The last section of the story further proves how John was right, when it comes to this aspect of a Trump rally: http://bigstory.ap.org/article…..gop-debate

          1. I am playing ketchup. What is John right about?

            What I see are anti-Trumps attempting to provoke violence to discredit the candidate as violent and racist which comes as no surprise.

            1. not sure what john says but am thinking it has to do with something like this helping trump

      3. boosted Trump’s poll numbers by 2% in the last hour.

        I’d say that’s conservative.

        1. More populist, really.

    2. I saw that in the break room. Looks ugly.

    3. Just tell me when the Kristallnacht is.

      1. Rappers told me a Cristal night was a good thing.

        1. Not anymore, they decided it was racist.

          1. Wait, I thought it was a stripper?

    4. progs clearly dont realize they go too far and it hinders what they want. it makes people go in the opposite direction.

      i think this helps trump and kind of makes me want to vote for him

      same with guns. i support the 2a but i personally dont care for guns as in i dont have one. but kind of want to get one now. im thinking shotguns

      1. Every person needs a Remington 870.

        1. ill check that out

          1. I got to him first mossberg 500 fans. Suck it.

            1. They’re pretty much the same.

              1. You’re doing brand loyalty wrong. Seriously, I just loves gun in general. I’m not a snob.

            2. *mumbles under breath*

              …or you could just get both…

      2. You can’t go wrong with a Remington 870 or Mossberg 500.
        All around great shotguns.

        Best part is they are easy to find used and often for a great price.

        1. my mom and dad never have had guns. they dont care for them. now they want conceal carry licenses

          1. If you didn’t grow up with guns, I highly suggest taking some basic firearm safety courses first and buying a 22 rifle before you get into shotguns. Marlin model 60 or ruger 10/22 are 2 good ones. I also like the Marlin XT 22 if you want to start with a bolt action rifle.

            1. oh for sure. they were planning on taking a course and i would as well

          2. Awesome! Welcome to the dark side!

      3. If you are only going to have one gun, or if you’re just buying your first, a shotgun is a very good choice. I recommend a 12 gauge, chambered for at least the 3/4″ shell. You can get so many different kinds of shells: Birdshot to buck, slugs, bolo rounds, even flame thrower rounds.
        Perfect for home defense, don’t really need to aim and the shot won’t keep traveling.
        Great for bird hunting, and the only gun to shoot deer with if you’re not out west.

        1. thanks

    5. I see that some white racists decided to grace the comments with their presence.

      A YouTube chat room…making YouTube comments look like PhD dissertations by comparison.

      1. (I’m referring to the white racists in the YouTube chat room, not H&R)

        1. Yeah, I haven’t even commented yet!

    6. Ugh. And just like the Trump supporters justifying violence by Trump fans, I now get to see lots of progs justifying shutting down Trump’s free speech on the grounds that it’s ‘hate speech’ and therefore ‘not protected.’

      (This is an argument I’ve already heard tonight, unfortunately).

      1. I’m especially loving the dumbass protesters who are cheering but don’t realize they just gave Trump a bigger platform.

        “Yeah! Now instead of having a rally, Donald Trump gets broadcast on every news channel nationwide! We totally showed him!”

        1. yet these same people were angry when blm shut down bernie

      2. yet they are all about love tolerance and inclusion. they just want peace!!!!

        sarc

        they are all for other opinions as long as it conforms to theirs

      1. We did this already, it was called Barbarosa and was ++ungood.

        1. I’m glad my house is built out of concrete.

  3. Sidestepping Apple dispute, Obama makes case for access to device data

    How I loathe this cocksucker (no offense to cocksuckers intended). Amazingly, I keep thinking back to a few days ago when The HIll had the nerve to run a story on how the FBI director was responsible for the Apple case. He went off the reservation. This piece of garbage has gotten a mostly free pass on civil rights despite escalating Bush era polices.

    1. Whatever you do… don’t vote Trump. He’ll extend the Bush era policies.

      1. sorry i assume this is sarcasm right? since obama has already done that. im not great at sarcasm

        1. im not great at sarcasm

          You’re not going to survive here long.

          1. i can get it sometimes.

          2. i can get it sometimes.

            1. Squirllz come with that.

      2. Will Bush’s reign of terror never cease?

        1. I don’t know. I’m still waiting for FDR’s reign of terror to end.

        2. Shrike | 7.23.27 @ 9:37AM | #

          BOOOOOOSH!!!!!!

    2. “”What mechanisms do we have available to even do simple things like tax enforcement because if in fact you can’t crack that at all, government can’t get in, then everybody is walking around with a Swiss bank account in their pocket.”

      Looks to me like the sack of shit is making the case against govt access to data devices.

      1. Yeah, that sure sounds like a plus not a minus.

      2. How soon before he trots out the

        “This democracy we set up, it did not exist on the Silk Road,” she said. “You were captain of the ship. It wasn’t a world of ‘freedom’?it was a place with a lot of rules. It was a world of your laws.”

        argument for banning encryption.

  4. There is no question Cruz supports the same typical conservative position on foreign policy, but half of that is the problem of the libertian movement too which seems to endorse the socialist view of open borders where illegal immigration is apparently ok.

    The libertarian movement just seemed to have forgotten that public property is not public for anyone anywhere – which is what open borders requires. In other words illegal immigrations is a form of trespassing – rejecting that is socialist as far as I am concerned.

    1. I’m getting tired of this argument.

      I am in no way a socialist, but support open borders. I realize that the reality is that this means that we have to fix the damned give-away programs (see, I told you I ‘m not a socialist), but let’s fix that problem, rather than create a new one.

      Migration is a natural act of all animals including humans. Criminalizing it is like making sex between 15 year olds illegal; you can call it a crime, but all you’re doing is stigmatizing a natural activity. And making it a crime won’t stop it, it is what 15 year olds do. Just like moving from a place with poor jobs to a place with a chance to make a better living is what we do.

      1. LOL, it also means you have to reject property rights if you really think that public property is public for anyone anywhere. Otherwise it is private in SOME manner which makes illegal immigration a form of trespassing;

        I have no problems with legal immigration.

        I do have a problem with people who think they can simply move somewhere like onto my property and think it is a right

      2. Migration is a natural act of all animals including humans

        Sure. And there’s nothing about opposing “open borders” that is “anti-migration”.

        The thing about the “open borders” idea is its presumption of some idealized “hands-off” policy re: the borders and zero actual controls of immigration.

        that’s an absurd reality that simply isn’t going to happen.

        I in fact believe that the country needs MORE immigration than we currently have. That the ’12 million illegals’ are in fact ‘not enough’, and that we need to encourage more people to come.

        This still doesn’t mean i advocate any “open borders” policy where the best idea is to simply pretend there are no borders or citizenship and just hope everything sorts itself out from the ensuring mess.

        Libertarians will always prefer an ideological position to any practical-policy one. This is fine when talking with other libertarians. Its suicide when you talk to any non-ideological voters.

      3. wow, what a fucking moron

    2. What we really need to do is to take Rigid, Ideological, One-Dimensional Stances on Immigration and National Security.

      That way, everyone will dismiss libertarians from the start rather than actually take the time to hear the broader case about why economic prosperity and liberty are joined at the hip, and why good public policy ideas flow from that basic formula.

      Because libertarianism is best when it remains an obscure, cultish clique, advocated by Transgender Militia-members and primitivist-anarchist performance artists. We can’t let the squares near our game.

      1. Fuck you, Gilmore. You have the right idea but we need to go even further: we need to make libertarianism an perfectionist ideology such that is literally impossible to implement, so that we can bitch about no one implementing it without actually having to do so ourselves.

        Also, no one’s version of libertarianism is right except my own.

        1. Bullshit. My version is so much righter than yours that it makes yours look like Gilmore’s!

      2. Another fault of the libertarian movement by defining government and the state as the same thing. The state is a coercive monopoly form of government and I leave the concept of government still there to explain my libertarian view of how society should be manged.

        Those who have define government as the evil have left no stand for themselves other than anarchist of some sort. THEIR MISTAKE !

      3. “What we really need to do is to take Rigid, Ideological, One-Dimensional Stances on Immigration and National Security.”

        I am with you Gilmore.

        1. I rather preferred the

          an obscure, cultish clique, advocated by Transgender Militia-members and primitivist-anarchist performance artists. We can’t let the squares near our game.

          *flips scarf haughtily*

      4. Can we just define libertarianism to mean whatever is antithetical to cytotoxic’s beliefs?

        1. Libertarian: One who supports our social right to freedom of association over state-mandated association … which is the basis of fascism. 🙂

        2. Wait, so libertarians don’t want to bomb all the brown people outside of America and Canada?

          1. Wait, I thought we hated Canada.
            They gave us both Rush and Bieber. Aren’t those war crimes?

    3. the problem of the libertian movement too which seems to endorse the socialist view of open borders where illegal immigration is apparently ok.

      You’re the one defending the social management of public property, hombre.

      1. I’m not sure public property should be treated any differently than any other shared property. If I own a property with 1 other person, or even 50 then wouldn’t we collectively decide how to use it? Maybe even vote on it?

        Obviously public property is a little different in that ownership is somewhat more difficult to establish but I have difficulty seeing how it wouldn’t be American property either through hereditarily being passed down, or through taxes.

        1. Well that is a pretty important nit, don’t you think? But I want to keep it simple:

          hpearce thinks that management of the property should be socialized, its operation and rules determined by the Glorious Will of the People, presumably through democrat choice. While libertarians think (or at least, I think) that, if the government (or anyone) is going to interfere with a person’s liberty, they need to provide a compelling reason for the intrusion. “Well our citizens say so” is not sufficient. “You’ll take someone’s jerb” is not sufficient.

          I don’t see how the former is not socialistic (though you might argue it’s the only practical solution), or how the former is not obviously libertarian.

          1. Err, or how the latter is not obviously libertarian. Doi

            1. “The citizens say so” is sufficient for all other property rights. I’m assuming you would agree that if I owned something with 50 other people, the use of that something would be completely up to the people owning it. Would it be unlibertarian to not allow people to use it?

              I’m not saying someone should or should not use it, I’m saying its up to the owners who would be the public.

              I’ll admit I’m not completely sold on this because it means the public could say no guns in public, or speech (though the public obviously does that in certain buildings, or places). But if compelling interest could override property rights then it’s a whole other can of worms too.
              So if you have a reason why public property is not owned by the public enough to restrict for any reason it wants, but is owned enough to restrict for some reasons I’d love to hear it, because I can’t think of a logical divide.

              1. I’m assuming you would agree that if I owned something with 50 other people, the use of that something would be completely up to the people owning it.

                If you owned something with 50 other people, presumably all of you didn’t steal money to buy that something. The government runs itself by stealing people’s money, as well as buys and maintains land with the stolen money. It’s quite different than a bunch of people coming together to buy something and having some sort of agreement about what to do with it.

                So if you have a reason why public property is not owned by the public enough to restrict for any reason it wants

                Well, legally speaking, the government has to enforce these restrictions in the end, but its power is (supposed to be) limited by the constitution. So, not all restrictions are going to be valid.

                I still say that public property shouldn’t exist. The question of whether or not the government currently has the legal authority to do X is separate from whether the government should do X.

                but is owned enough to restrict for some reasons

                Who says we have to agree with these other restrictions? Some of them are unconstitutional and/or illegal, while others are unethical.

  5. I wish I still believed that Cruz had any constitutionalist or libertarian principles. But he has consistently moved away from those positions every time he takes a specific policy stance.

  6. He won’t make America great though.

  7. Before Lee stepped up, The New York Times wrote a sad profile of Cruz and his colleagues in which after a dozen interviews the Times found no one openly on Cruz’s side, though Rubio had at least a dozen backers in the Senate.

    Not being a team red player is bad I guess.

  8. Remember, only human beings, not wish lists of principles and attributes, can run for office.

  9. The senate needs to think outside the box. A Cruz presidency gets Cruz out of the senate.

  10. Glenn Garvin’s 2015 Reason cover feature on Cruz presents a guy more about winning arguments then votes, one with positions on spending, regulation, and cronyism a libertarian should be able to get behind (and he’s been strong on such issues, like ethanol subsidies, even when it was politically difficult); but foreign policy, social tolerance, and immigration commitments, far less so

    So what, outside of mushily favorable noises in the direction of gays and other “marginalized” groups, is social tolerance referring to exactly and how is Ted Cruz poor on that issue? Is there any candidate who is better, including Gary Johnson — and how so?

    On foreign policy, who currently running is better than Ted Cruz (including Gary Johnson) and why?

    Assuming both questions can be answered favorably, this leaves us with immigration which, fair enough, Nick Gillespie seems to think is enough to damn anyone regardless of how libertarian they are otherwise. Should the rest of us be so enamored of Reason’s opinion of open borders that they reject any candidate who doesn’t tow the lion?

    1. Since Trump is going to win irregardless, all this hand ringing is awl for knot.

      1. True, but we’re on a libertarian forum for fuck’s sake. No one’s here because they think it’ll actually do anything, and if they were they should be very disappointed by now.

        1. Wait, what? I thought that every time someone said “Hitler” another libertarian earned his wings.

          1. Slaver! Slaver! This man is a slaver, much like a German I could name.

            1. See? You just missed a perfect opportunity to mint a new libertarian.
              Also, I think if you say “Trump” thirteen times in a row he’ll appear in your mirror.

              1. Only a cuckertarian would be afraid of the comforting presence of Donald Trump in your bathroom mirror, watching your naked form as you shower.

                1. It would be UUUUUUGE!

                2. I might let his wife or daughters in. He is staying out of my house.

                  1. Wife and daughters. Sheesh

              2. That would actually be kind of interesting. Especially if he didn’t want to appear in people’s mirrors.

    2. So what, outside of mushily favorable noises in the direction of gays and other “marginalized” groups, is social tolerance referring to exactly and how is Ted Cruz poor on that issue?

      Once pandered to people who favor capital death penalty for homosexuality (but do not follow a quaintly exotic religion…so OMG and stuff)

      1. *-capital

        That makes me think of a cheesy British character “capital death penalty, old chap!”

    3. For Libertarians — Social Tolerance = Ending Prohibition

  11. That’s the best you can do? That’s liberty? And we live in a libertarian moment?

    What a joke.

    1. Were you not able to make this comment while taking a shit?

      Boom, libertarian moment.

      *drops microphone*

      1. Classy. But it fits. Congrats, prof.

    2. What we really need is a progressive-statist fuckwit to accuse Libertarians of being ideologically impure and daring to consider a more-incremental approach…. which is exactly why a progressive-statist fuckwit currently resides in the White House.

      1. And that’s a libertarian moment? Settling? So much for moments.

        1. You will note that the idea of “Libertarian moment” is one that many readers here think as a running joke. Your strawman was already a bag of wet hay before you showed up with your rhetorical wiffle-bat.

          1. I can’t join in the joke? You might take note that I addressed my comment to a columnist at Reason, not the commenters.

            But far be it from you to pay attention.

          2. It’s not a running joke… it’s just premature ejaculate.

          3. Just once, Gilmore, try paying attention.

            1. if you ever said anything worthwhile, i’ve missed it. feel free to repost your finest work if you think some great wit and insight has been overlooked.

              1. Hey Gilmore, I’ll tell you what I have told others here, including Paul. Don’t like what I say? Don’t read. But you always do. Enjoy your evening.

                1. Don’t like what I say? Don’t read

                  lol

                  First its “Pay Attention”, then its “Ignore Me”.

                  Don’t worry joe, i generally have you blocked.

                  1. Outside of the improvement, I’ll never know the difference.

                    But I’m sure you’ll be back. Maybe just below.

        2. hey jack still waiting for back up on the climate change claims you made

          1. Speaking of another who can’t get enough of me…

            1. Vermin get attention. Let ’em loose and they stink up the place

          2. You are wasting your time Tornado.

            Lefties like Jackass make arguments based on false premises and lies. When you challenge them on it they blow you off. Tomorrow they show up again and pretend it never happened. If you push it they hand waive you away and say you should get over it, its time to move on.

            You can save a lot of pixels by just ignoring them. Make your arguments for posterity and lurkers and then go fix yourself a drink. Or, like me, you could do that in reverse order.

            1. Tornado always wastes his time. He should listen to you.

              1. Expecting you to support your lies is pretty much a waste.

              2. perhaps put up. would help me see yout point of view.

                1. above is statement to jack to put up

        3. Jackand Ace|3.11.16 @ 8:53PM| block | mute | #

          And that’s a libertarian moment? Settling? So much for moments.

          What i think is sort of amusing about this is that lefties will routinely cite “Bill Clinton” as the greatest president of their lives.

          When he was exactly the kind of triangulating, “settling” candidate who lefties despised in 1992.

          He took republican ideas and sold them to the left as “new democrat” policies. Just as Trump is taking ideas from the old Left and selling them to GOP voters as modern populism.

          Just as people like you or Tony will mock other people’s lack of ideological integrity, and then will turn on a dime and shill for whatever piece of shit policy Team Blue crapped onto the public in the last decade.

  12. I sit and wonder what Trump could do with a commerce clause?

    1. Just sit.

    2. Who needs a commerce clause when you’ve got a Corinthians 2?

      1. You need at least two corinthians or you ain’t supporting entablatures.

        1. Ironic?
          Or Doric?

          1. Problematic. Greek = equals rapey fraternity

  13. Of the two leading Republican candidates, it’s the WASP, not the Latino, who is running a caudillo-style populist campaign.

    1. So Vanilla Republic?

      1. Apropos of nothing but does anyone else find it odd that one of the most exotic and expensive spices on earth has become synonymous with drab bland ordinariness.

        1. Infuriatingly.

  14. Trump!

    Because you KNOW he is lying

  15. OT musings: The European invasion of the Americas killed untold millions. Bringing back tobacco from the New World killed how many Europeans (and Asians, etc.)

    1. I wonder if you could really total up the years of life lost due to colonialism (disease, war, etc.), and compare it to years of life gained due to colonialism (improved medicine, increased food supply etc.) what the answer would look like. I am certain it would be a net gain figured world wide, but I wonder how the numbers would compare between various affected ethnic groups.

      To be clear I am a staunch believer that oppression is suffered by individuals not groups; so it would not change the morality of various acts, but it would be interesting.

    2. DenverJ|3.11.16 @ 9:56PM|#
      “OT musings: The European invasion of the Americas killed untold millions.”

      Dunno where to look right now, but I’m pretty sure that’s been debunked. The New World population was nowhere close to the presumptions made by those who claimed ‘untold millions’.
      The ‘debunkers’ looked at the available food supplies and harvesting methods and said ‘not on your LIFE!’.

  16. My favorite argument against Cruz is that he has no friends in Congress. That’s right – no friends in an organization with an 11% approval rating, and that is supposed to persuade me not to like him.

  17. Informaitve

  18. I think that dude jsut like to hear himself speak!

    http://www.Anon-Net.tk

  19. Ted Cruz admits–even brags–that he considers himself “a Christian first and an American second”. The President needs to be an American first. How do we know Cruz would govern according to the Constitution and the law rather than according to the dictates of his scripture? How do we know Cruz would support the USA in a conflict or war with a foreign country, if he felt that the people of hte foreign country were more religiously correct than the American people? Russia is more Christian than USA. A greater percentage of Russians are Christian, and Russian Christians are more serious about their religion than American Christians.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.