• Being Christian and Transsexual: Life on Planet Mercury
    • Key Bible Verses
    • Links

ts4jc

~ Being Christian and Transsexual

ts4jc

Tag Archives: stock broker

Potential for an Individual Voter to Influence the Presidential Election

03 Tuesday Nov 2020

Posted by ts4jc in About Me, General Transsexual issues

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2016 Election, 2020 Election, absentee ballot, alpha, At Large, beta, branches of government, California, Candidate, Checks and Balances, Civil War, Colorado, Congressional District, data points, Democratic Party, disenfranchisement, Donald Trump, Egalitarianism, Electoral College, Electoral Votes, exit polls, felons, Florida, formula, Hillary Clinton, House of Representatives, Joe Biden, larger states, Maine, Majority, Margin of Victory, minority, Mitt Romney, Nebraska, New York, non-citizens, past performance, Political Party, polls, Populism, prediction, Presidential Election, privilege, redistricting, Relative Influence, Republican Party, Senate, smaller states, South Carolina, stock broker, swing states, Texas, Third Party Candidate, Tipping Point, Transgender, U.S. Constitution, Union, United States, Urban Areas, US Presidents, Utah, volatility, Voter, Voting, voting rights, Winner Take All, Wyoming

Introduction

This should be used for academic purposes and discussion, not to discourage anyone from voting. I have left out party labels because they are not relevant to the discussion. This is not intended to encourage anyone to vote for any particular candidate.

I have been reading some discussions and have seen some charts discussing the Electoral College regarding its fairness and which states have the most power under the system.  Leading up to the 2016 election, it was generally accepted that the larger states with their large block of electoral votes had the advantage.  Since all states with the exception of smaller states Nebraska (5 electoral votes) and Maine (4 electoral votes) are winner take all in terms of the Electoral College, if a candidate in states like California (55 electoral votes), Texas (38 electoral votes), Florida or New York (29 electoral votes each) should win that state’s vote by just one vote, they would be awarded all of the electoral votes from that state.

See page for author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Because most large urban areas tend to vote for Democratic Party candidates and most of those large urban areas are in the states with the most electoral votes, the prevailing opinion going into the 2016 Presidential election was that Secretary Clinton had a built-in advantage going into the election. Of those top four states, California and New York had voted for the Democrats in the last four Presidential elections, Texas had voted Republican and Florida was a swing state. Assuming that trend continued, the best Mr. Trump could hope for was to trail 67-84, and the worst case would be a deficit of 38-113 to overcome with the rest of the country. Adding in the remaining two states with at least 20 electoral votes (Illinois and Pennsylvania: 20 apiece), both of those states had voted for the Democrats in the previous four elections.  This would increase Secretary Clinton’s advantage to a minimum of 57 electoral votes and a maximum of 115 electoral votes.  With 270 electoral votes needed to win the election, it was seen as a huge starting advantage for Secretary Clinton, especially since a significant number of small and medium-sized states also voted for the Democrats during the previous four elections.  Mr. Trump would have to hold Texas, swing Florida his way, and win a large number of small and mid-sized states to have a chance at winning.

But when Mr. Trump won the election, contrary to the polls conducted just before the election and even contrary to some of the exit polling, analysts and the Democratic Party leadership have been searching for answers. As a result, some of the attention has been focused on the Electoral College, whether it is fair and whether it should be replaced.  In particular, because of the way that electors are assigned to each state (one for each Congressional seat; i.e. every state gets two electors for their Senate seats and then additional electors in accordance with the number of seats they have in the House of Representatives; and the District of Columbia gets assigned 3 electors), it was claimed by some that smaller states have an unfair advantage because the electors corresponding to Senate seats give small states a disproportionate number of electors per resident. 

However, that claim assumes that the smaller states have a common interest to vote in a block against the larger states.  This is not so.  Just as there larger states are not unified, neither are the smaller states.  There is a diversity of interests that have some solidly Democrat, some solidly Republican and some in the swing state column. Of the ten states with the lowest population per electoral vote, five tend to vote Republican and five tend to vote Democrat.

Furthermore, the Electoral College was not made part of the Constitution solely for the purpose of fairness, although it would be wrong to claim that it is totally unfair.  One of the primary purposes of the Constitution was to create a system of checks and balances to minimize the possibility that one group could impose itself on the rest of the country and a majority could oppress the minority.  Thus those in charge of the three branches of government are selected by different means. 

Due to populist and egalitarian movements over the years, especially as the country expanded westward, has evolved to more of the democracy elements and less of the republic elements of this democratic republic.  Senators, previously elected by state legislatures, are now elected by popular vote.  The same is true for the electors in the Electoral College.  South Carolina was the last state to have their state legislature vote for the electors by vote of the state legislators rather than by popular vote.  They switched to popular vote when they were readmitted to the Union after the Civil War. By a fluke, Colorado was the last state to choose their electors for a Presidential election by state legislature vote. In 1876, they were admitted to the Union too close to the time of the general election to organize a popular vote for President.

So for me, it is intuitive that the larger states have the greater amount of influence on the election, even if they have a larger ratio of residents per electoral vote.  They have a much greater chance of being the tipping point in an election. 

But my interest is in the individual registered voter. Each person has to decide who to vote for or if they should even vote.  The focus of my study is the relative probability that any individual voter can influence the Presidential election.

Methodology

I chose to look back over the past five elections which would roughly equate to a generation worth of elections. There were no third party candidates nationwide in any of these elections who would have significantly skewed the results, although there were occasionally third party candidates who polled well in an individual state here and there.

I recorded the margin of victory in each election between the two major parties.  I assigned the margin to be a negative number if it was in favor of one of the parties and a positive number if it was in favor of the other party. Because my data source assigned a positive number to the winning party and a negative number to the losing party, and because the same party did not win all five elections, I made this assignment so that I would have to change the sign for the fewest number of elections. The sign has to be consistent throughout so it will accurately show the potential for an election to be close. 

For example let’s take two states. For state A, the party X wins all five elections by 10,000 votes each election. For state B, party X wins three elections by 10,000 votes and party Y wins two elections by 10,000 votes.  For state A, the average Δ is 10,000 votes per election. If I take the absolute value of the vote differential for state B, the average Δ would also be 10,000.  But obviously the chance for a close election is much greater in state B than it is in state A because the parties are alternating in winning the election. The average Δ for state B therefore would be 2,000: [((3*10,000)+(2*(-10,000)))/5].

Once I have an average over the 5 elections, then I take the absolute value because I only care about how close the elections are in those states. I don’t care which party is more likely to win. At this point, I take the inverse of this number.  My reasoning is that this shows me the likelihood that any one voter will change the outcome of the election.  If the average Δ for my state is 10,000, the odds that any voter will change the outcome are 1 in 10,000. At this point in the calculation, it does not matter if there are 200,000 total votes cast or 10,000,000 votes cast. What matters is the closeness of the election. (Later on, the total number of votes will matter indirectly. See below.)

Of course, this assumes that the vote is cast for one of the top two contenders for the election. I could calculate the odds for any third party that runs candidates with regularity each election cycle, but I would have to record the margin between that party’s candidate and the winning candidate in the state. If third parties are performing poorly, then the odds of a voting for a third party influencing the election decrease.

However, this does not take into account situations where the voter would have voted for one of the major party candidates if the third party candidate was not on the ballot. A more sophisticated model would be needed for that situation and far more detailed data would also be needed. Based on raw numbers, there is no way to know which candidate would have been voted for if the third party candidate was not on the ballot. It might have been one of the major party candidates, but it might not have; it might have been another third party candidate, it might have been a write-in or no candidate might have received a vote from that voter.

Earlier I mentioned Maine and Nebraska. These states have chosen to vote for two electors at large corresponding to the electors assigned based on their Senate seats and for their remaining electors to be chosen severally by congressional election district corresponding to their seats in the House of Representatives.  Therefore, in addition to taking the statewide totals, I had to take the data for each congressional district. But there is a problem with that. Based on the census taken every ten years, the House of Representatives is reapportioned, although in this case, the number of House seats allotted to Maine and Nebraska did not change. 

Even so, redistricting can occur, and if there was a change of the party in power between the 1990 and 2010 census, the more likely a significant change in redistricting would have occurred at least once. The districts in the 2000 election were based on the 1990 census; in the 2004 and 2008 elections based on the 2000 census; in the 2012 and 2016 census based on the 2010 census. Therefore, I took the statewide margins for all five elections for these states, but the congressional district margins for only the last two elections.

By United States Congress – https://www.romney.senate.gov/about-mitt, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76018780

Does this make the data much less reliable for those congressional districts or only marginally less reliable?  Based on my methodology, it would make it much less reliable since there are only two data points, not five. Some might propose I should have used weighted averages, giving higher weight to more recent elections and a valid argument could be used for that method. But that also might give undue weight to an anomaly (for example a much wider Republican margin in Utah in 2012 because of Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate).

Earlier I said that the total number of votes matter indirectly.  That’s because a state with 10,000,000 total votes (approximately the total in California which has 55 electoral votes) will have more electoral votes assigned to it than a state with 200,000 total votes (approximately the total in Wyoming which has 3 electoral votes). So to calculate the potential influence an individual voter has in the election, I multiplied the inverse of the absolute value of the average margin (i.e. the odds) times the number of electoral votes. Since this is a unitless number, I arbitrarily multiplied this result for each state (and congressional district where applicable) by one million. This was because the original result was a tiny fraction with a lot of leading zeroes. Most people would find it easier to compare numbers greater than zero, even if taken to two decimal places to the right of decimal point. I have labeled this result as “Relative Influence”.  

What matters most is the comparison of the numbers for different states to get a relative value, not the raw number.  For example, if state A has a relative influence of 100 and state B has a relative influence of 20, a voter in state A voting for a major party candidate has 5 times as much chance affecting the result of the national election as a voter in state B voting for a major party candidate. In reality, the amount of influence any one voter has during a national election is much smaller. Remember that we multiplied by one million to get a number that is easier to relate to.

Each voter in Maine and Nebraska affects 1 electoral vote in their congressional district and 2 electoral votes statewide.  So to calculate the Relative Influence of any major party voter in these states, their statewide Relative Influence based on 2 electoral votes was added to their district Relative Influence based on 1 electoral vote.

Chart: Probable potential influence of an individual voter by state, ranked from highest to lowest

JurisdictionEVRelative Influence
FL29789.47
VA13573.00
IA6351.87
OH18298.05
ME – CD 21291.91
CO9184.27
NH4177.41
NV6173.59
NM594.31
NE – CD 2188.43
PA2080.96
WI1080.36
NC1570.76
MN1068.91
AZ1168.57
GA1650.88
DE349.68
MI1648.62
MO1047.11
AK345.81
OR742.79
ME – CD 1142.39
SD341.30
MT340.09
ND339.59
SC938.30
RI437.36
VT337.30
WV535.12
IN1134.00
WA1232.41
AR632.38
MS632.31
HI431.55
TX3831.25
WY330.83
NE – CD 1129.89
TN1127.87
NJ1427.54
CT727.31
LA826.24
KS624.89
IL2023.08
KY821.40
CA5521.03
AL920.15
ID419.60
NE – CD 3118.17
MD1018.17
UT617.69
NY2916.40
OK716.20
MA1114.09
DC313.89
ME – At Large2 
NE – At Large2 
Total538
Note: Maine and Nebraska are ranked by Congressional District, not statewide.

Summary

As I stated in the introduction, this study is focused on the probable potential influence an individual voter can have on the presidential election, not how much influence one state has compared to another. This has been determined by two factors: the likelihood that one vote can swing the results of an election and the likelihood that one state (or in the case of Nebraska and Maine, one congressional district) can swing the results of an election. The former is based on how likely the election will be close within a state. This is more important than the number of voters per electoral vote. The latter is determined by the number of electoral votes. The more electoral votes a state has, the greater the chance that it could tip the election from one candidate to the other.

To highlight the importance of close elections on the potential influence a single voter can have, we can compare Florida and New York. Both have the same number of electoral votes this year, 29. But the average margin of victory in Florida in 36,733.4. In New York, the average is 1,768,022. According to my formula, the probable potential impact of a Florida voter is ~48 times greater than that of a New York voter.

Does this mean that the New York voter need not bother to vote? Absolutely not (I live in New York and I vote). Voting patterns change over time. Trends change over time. And if I used a weighted average of the margins, giving greater weight to the more recent elections, the 537 vote margin in the 2000 election in Florida would have had much less influence on the results. Also, if I do this analysis again for the 2024 election, the 2000 election results will be deleted and replaced by the 2020 election results. Also the electoral votes will be reallocated based on the 2020 census. 

When I was a stockbroker, one thing we had to tell clients (and the prospectus usually included this statement as well) is that past performance is no guarantee of future results.  (Of course elsewhere in the prospectus, the fund company shows you how much your $10,000 would be worth today if you had invested it ten years ago.) The same is true of margin of victory in presidential elections. Based on what has happened in prior elections, there is no way to predict what the margin will be in the next election.

If I had wanted to make my formula more sophisticated (which I might do in the future), I would have included a measure of volatility in the margin.  Let’s look at two hypothetical states.  For State A, the margins were 300, 100, 125, 75 and 400. For State B, the margins were 60,000, -20,000, 1,000, -80,000 and 40,000.  The average margin is the same for both states: 200.  But the volatility is much greater for State B than State A.  Therefore, the likelihood of a close election is much higher for State A. To continue the investing analogy, I have factored in the alpha component (or more accurately inverse alpha, since we want low numbers not high performance) but not the beta component.  But this is just a first draft to elicit comment and get it posted by the end of Election Day 2020. 

There are additional factors that should be remembered when deciding whether to vote. The first is that voting is a right that many people around the world do not have. Furthermore, it was a right denied to different groups of people and in most cases it took hard fought battles to win those groups the right to vote. Taking that right lightly could be looked upon as disrespectful of those who fought hard to win the right to vote and even of those who fought hard to win independence and the right to self-determination for this country.

There is also an element of privilege to voting as well as it being a right. People under a certain age do not have the right to vote. While it isn’t a perfect standard as some people gain these qualities faster than others, the idea is that a person should have a certain level of maturity and experience before being allowed to vote. Non-citizens do not have the right to vote in federal, state and most local elections. In most cases, a person must have lived in this country under a certain visa or work status for at least 5 years and also pass a citizenship test (which sadly I suspect that many native-born citizens could not pass). And some people who have lived here longer than 5 years simply do not choose to apply for citizenship, forgoing that right to vote.

There are some other categories where the right to vote varies from state to state. The right of felons to vote varies from total enfranchisement to total disenfranchisement (except for the right of petition to have the right restored), with various levels or conditions for reinstatement in between.

While there is no law expressly denying transgender individuals the right to vote, in some places, transgender individuals have been blocked from voting because their gender presentation does not match the gender marker on their ID.  This is why I voted by absentee ballot in 2012.  Because of my profession as a professional tax preparer, I had a relatively tight window between October 16 and mid-January of the following year to legally change my name, change it on my legal ID, change it with Social Security and the IRS, and change it with the State of New York Department of Taxation (which heavily regulates paid tax preparers compared to most other states).  There was no way that I could coordinate all that and also change my voter registration between October 16 and the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  So before the deadline passed, I requested my absentee ballot, checking the most applicable reason on the application. Since then, I have always voted in person, whether in general elections or primaries. And it has never been a problem where I live. But it has been a problem for other transgender people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States

Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: – Acts 6:3,5

Where are the Victims?

28 Sunday Feb 2016

Posted by ts4jc in About Me, General Christian issues, General Transsexual issues

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Adolf Hitler, anti-transgender laws, Arkansas, assault, biased studies, Brynn Tannehill, Charlize Veritas, Christianity, Deuteronomy 19, disfigurement, false accusations, Family Research Council, fringe of society, Huff Post, humor, in the closet, injustice, innocence, Jacie Leopold, James Dobson, lies, marginalized, Martin Niemöller, military officer, misreprentation, Nazism, parental support, Paul McHugh, pilot, research study, scientist, South Dakota, stock broker, stories, successful transition, tax preparer, Transgender, transgender children, U of Washington, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Navy, violence, vulnerable, Wall Street, writer

I am no longer a stock broker, but I am still part of the financial world as a professional tax preparer.  Since this is my busy season and the Lord has been blessing me with an unusually large group of new clients (with complicated tax situations) early in the season, I am relying on two guest contributors to flesh out my postings.  But I will still be the one who ties them together.

Having been a stock broker for 20 years, I heard many of the stories and sayings of Wall Street.  One of those stories is about a man who had recently attained considerable wealth.  He went to Wall Street to meet with the most prestigious financial planners to choose which one would manage his wealth.  At one of these meetings, held high above the city’s financial district, the planner brought the wealthy man to one of the large windows in the conference room overlooking the river.  Thinking it would impress his prospective client, he made a grand gesture towards certain boats on the water’s edge and said, “Those are the brokers’ yachts!”

The wealthy man had a different idea of what was important.  “Where are the investors’ yachts?” he wanted to know.

The two stories I am sharing look at two major ways that transgender people are attacked in the United States (and in many parts of the world).  The first talks about physical attacks of violence that injure, disfigure and sometimes murder the victim.  The hateful perpetrators of this violence use fists, blunt objects, knives, guns, and a variety of other methods to carry out their attacks.

The second story talks about legislative acts of violence that makes it easier for perpetrators of physical violence to target transgender people.  They might even encourage them.  These laws are proposed (and now passed in South Dakota) in the name of Christian morality and defense of straw man victims.  Sadly, this puts Christianity in a bad light, putting a selfish interest (prejudice) ahead of concern for the wellbeing of innocent people who are put into clear and present danger on a regular and ongoing basis.

Both stories from a lofty perspective point out some of the victims of violence against transgender people.  Like the prospective client in our Wall Street tale, we wonder, where are the victims of violence done by transgender people?  Indeed, where are victims of violence done by people pretending to be transgender?

JacieSummary of the first story: For Jacie Leopold, a trans woman in the latter stages of physical transition, the night of her company’s Christmas party in 2014 was the night that the lights went out in Arkansas. Since then, a phalanx of backwoods Southern judges, lawyers and police officers have denied her justice. She has no job and no car, but the medical bills don’t go away.

With thinly veiled irony, Charlize Veritas, a trans woman and the author of the following Huff Post piece, comments that Jacie is “very lucky”. This sort of thing still happens all too frequently, and sometimes it leads to the victim’s death. Even so, there is a loud chorus of voices blaming the victim.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlize-veritas/the-dangers-of-being-transgender—-the-attack-on-jacie-leopold_b_9173816.html

Summary of the second story:  Before I talk about the story, I will say a few words about the author.  Among Brynn Tannehill’s many accomplishments, she graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis with a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and then earned a master’s degree in operations research from the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology; served her country as a Naval Officer for nearly 17 years, much of that time as a pilot, flying over 450 combat missions and over 700 hours on non-combat missions; has continued to serve her country as a senior defense analyst and technical scientist for private firms; came out as a trans woman; writes brilliant articles highlighting transgender issues in our society of who we are and what we face.

The title of her article plays on Protestant Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous quote that succinctly describes how failure to defend others from unfair attack led to Adolf Hitler’s rise to absolute power in Nazi Germany where no German citizen could stand against him and be safe.  Brynn brings to light a systematic plan advanced by the Family Research Council that targets members of the transgender community to make us less than second class citizens.  As a backlash against the recent advances that help us to live as freely as any other citizen enjoys, it would eventually lead to such a hostile environment that would either force us into the dark underbelly of society or keep us cowering in the closet.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

(Brynn knows something about music, too.  Just as I alluded to Vicki Lawrence’s “The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia”, she quotes a phrase from Simon & Garfunkel’s “The Boxer”.)

Brynn also gives special attention to the targeting of transgender children at the forefront of this attack strategy.  If there is any group that highlights the innocence of transgender identity, it is these precious and courageous children who are daring to step out at a time of life when most of us feared to tread.  The FRC and others who support this plan know that these children are the most vulnerable part of the transgender community.  If they can effectively drive this generation of transgender children back underground, who knows how many generations it will be before the transgender community can once again emerge from the Dark Ages.

I need not rewrite Brynn’s article for her.  She does a magnificent job on her own:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/and-then-they-came-for-tr_b_9258678.html

As a Christian, I am deeply saddened by the central role played by the Family Research Council in attacking the transgender community.  I can remember many articles of sound advice from their organization, mostly from the pen of Dr. James Dobson.  (I make no claims as to whether it would be different if Dobson were still at the helm of this ministry.)  It’s almost like another close Christian friend turned against me, as some did when I came out.

But there is also good news tonight.  I have one more link to share.  But rather than a story (I said that there were only two), this is a report about a research study out of the University of Washington that was released Friday (2/26).  The study suggests that parental support is a major factor in the success of a child’s transition.  In other words, it is not the gender issue that leads to problems; it is the lack of support.

The researchers honestly admit that more studies are needed to test for other reasons for the findings.  But while their methodology was somewhat different, the study’s finding are consistent with an Ontario study of a few years ago with a much larger data base of trans youth age 16-24.  I referred to this study in my blog post of 1/6/16, “A Dream Deferred … or Worse”.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-02-transgender-children-identities-positive-mental.html

As these findings mount, they are poking huge holes in the failed arguments of doctors like Paul McHugh who base their beliefs on their own prejudices, biased studies of their own commission and disingenuous reporting of other studies which arrived at vastly different conclusions (while failing to acknowledge those conclusions).  Hopefully these accurate studies are coffin nails that can finally put these failed beliefs to rest and bury them where they belong.

Meanwhile, those Christians (and others who take their authority from scripture) who lie about transgender people would do well to consider the Old Testament penalty for falsely accusing someone.  It is the negative counterpart to the New Testament teaching that with the measure by which you forgive, so shall you be forgiven.

If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. – Deuteronomy 19:16-19

God bless,

Lois

Pages

  • Being Christian and Transsexual: Life on Planet Mercury
    • Key Bible Verses
    • Links

Recent Posts

  • The Next U.S. Civil War? – Part 2 January 5, 2021
  • The Next U.S. Civil War? – Part 1 January 5, 2021
  • Potential for an Individual Voter to Influence the Presidential Election November 3, 2020
  • Transgender and Pro-Life January 9, 2020
  • A Tale of Two Churches January 9, 2020
  • My Sermon on 10/20/2019 October 27, 2019
  • Salute to Misfile (and all my favorite comic strips) October 5, 2019
  • Death of a School – But Not Its Spirit – Part 3 September 13, 2019
  • Death of a School – But Not Its Spirit – Part 2 September 9, 2019
  • Death of a School – But Not Its Spirit (Part 1) September 7, 2019
  • Non-Christians, Baby Christians, Discipleship and Moderation July 27, 2019
  • Scapegoats May 28, 2018
  • And Now For Something Completely Different … – Part VIII February 17, 2018
  • And Now For Something Completely Different … – Part VII February 11, 2018
  • And Now For Something Completely Different … – Part VI January 3, 2018

Categories

  • About Me
  • General Christian issues
  • General Transsexual issues
  • Just for Fun
  • Living Female
  • The Bible on transsexualism
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • January 2020
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • July 2017
  • February 2017
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Recent Comments

ts4jc on The Next U.S. Civil War?…
Kelly on The Next U.S. Civil War?…
joannamjourney on Lois Simmons: Evangelical Tran…
ts4jc on Lois Simmons: Evangelical Tran…
joannamjourney on Lois Simmons: Evangelical Tran…

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy