[The Urban Sombrero]

Yep, the very same, but whew! Didn't take long to flush you out with that post did it? Liberals love to sit the high ground and decide what is moral and what is immoral.

Philemon 1:9-11 (KJV)
9 Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.
10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:

The backstory: Brother in Christ to Paul the Apostle and author of this passage, was a man named Philemon to whom this letter was addressed. Onesimus was the slave of Philemon, a devote Christian and a man who loved the Church and lived a very good and Godly life.

Onesimus had managed to run away from Philemon and was lurking about in the shadows of the town in which Paul found him. Onesimus winds up getting saved and goes back to Philemon, (carrying this letter) who restores him to an honored place in his home. Slavery has been with us for time immemorial and was and is not always a bad thing. So, you say the heck with the Constitution because of slavery huh?

Hold on: are you equating the indentured servitude of Onesimus to the slave trade that existed in this country? Please. This nation was not founded by angelic beings upon heavenly grounds. That is Christian Reconstructionist myth.

From the Preamble to its final word, the Constitution should be interpreted at its highest common denominators. Freedom of conscience and the dignity of the individual, sans skin color or gender or ethnicity.

"I listen to Lou Dobbs. I am informed. I dispense wisdom to all the great unwashed masses who would dare vote for a non Republican." Sir, you are just as prone to the selective blindness of the partisan as the next person. Are we to take seriously the "morally superior" premise to prefer Trump over Clinton? That he is more trustworthy? These are court jester propositions.