Whorled View

December 29, 2008

Americans to Blame for GM’s Demise?

Filed under: Blogroll,Politics,Sociology — lullabyman @ 11:24 pm

I saw Barney Frank on TV last night … yeah, it was a channel-surfing accident where I carelessly paused on MSNBC thinking that the mindless hate-fest going on there was a comedy central skit one channel over (note to self: channel surfing is hazardous to your intelligence). He was ranting on about how GM’s demise was largely the public’s fault because the public kept buying GM’s gas-guzzlers until the oil spiked, leaving GM with a glut of undesirable cars and no desirable manufacturing lines.

Barney Frank
Yeah. Apparently their downfall had nothing to do with their lack of planning (despite years of obvious warning signs), nor did it have anything to do with their relatively atrocious corporate structure (compared to the competition) and higher than average wages.  While their competitors were building more efficient cars and trucks he somehow feels it was the public’s fault that GM executives focused only on the present and didn’t prepare for the future despite the warning signs.

So America, it’s your fault that GM executives are complete idiots.  Shame on you.  You can only redeem yourself by bailing out GM with flimsy contingencies they can easily bypass, allowing them to maintain what got them into this mess.  Otherwise a bankruptcy would force the restructuring and wages they need to become viable and competitive, and we don’t want that because that’s not the Barney way.

However Barney’s take should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with his part in the sub-prime disaster that he also blamed on private enterprise and a lack of socialist oversight.  Never mind that the bulk of GM’s problems came from their socialist-ingrained anti-competitive corporate infrastructure that stinks remarkably like a federal government entity.  No wonder Barney doesn’t want that to change – GM is his kind of company.

It takes a special kind of person to think like Barney thinks. A special piece of work that only Massachusetts could put into congress …. again … and again … and again … and again.

Advertisements

December 1, 2008

The Dalai Lama: At odds with marriage & family

I read somethings today that the Dalai Lama said that really highlighted what a clueless mindset comes from living like a hermit-king.  I’m not quite sure why the Dalai Lama is regarded as a great sage of wisdom but I wonder if another reason the media worships him (while disparaging the original pacifist, Jesus Christ) is because of his anti-marriage and anti-family message.

The only people I know who honestly think [celibacy] is “better” than marriage because marriage involves sex, are embittered losers who have a purely self-gratifying interpretation of human sexuality.

Similarly, only self-absorbed people who are clueless about human intimacy would think that “[attachment] towards your children, towards your partner,” is “one of the obstacle or hindrance of peace of mind”.

The Dalai Lama said both of these things though … and nonetheless it seems he gets more respect and reverence today than any other religious leader dead or alive.

Now, I’ll admit when you have kids that seem to be doing everything you’ve taught them not to do, including screaming and crying over practically nothing while in your face is anything but peaceful, but “peaceful surroundings” is entirely different than “peace of mind”.

For example, the times I had the least peace of mind were times when I was most detached from commitments and relationships around me like when I was nearly 30, still single, and trying to figure out where I fit in the world.  What’s more, I’ve never felt more peace of mind than when in a committed interdependent relationship with whom I could share everything, despite the fact that I was overwhelmed with far more commitments than I’d ever had.  Peaceful surroundings is not peace of mind.

At first glance, this wouldn’t seem like an issue worth tackling: the fact that the Dalai Lama says marriages and family attachments prevent peace of mind, as I’m happy to leave people to believe anything so long as it leads them to do good (Matt 7:16), but I’m convinced this idea forwarded by the Dalai Lama is one of the most destructive ideas ever.

The mere idea that the family unit is bad, or at least the idea that it has some harmful effects for society, especially with regard to peace is ludicrous and should be loudly repudiated.

What’s even more disturbing to me is that this idea seems to be one of the fastest growing doctrines of men today.  It’s growing quickly and becoming wildly popular to deride the traditional family unit and family oriented policies.

Calling family commitments the enemy to peace of mind and contributing elements to murder and suicide (both assertions of the Dalai Lama) is remarkably clueless.  It’s akin to calling religion the root of all the atrocities of mankind.

You’ve heard that, we all have, that religion is bad because terrorists kill in the name of God, or that the “Holy Wars” were done in the name of Christianity.  The argument is so absurd as to mock reason, and yet seemingly intelligent people make it, completely disregarding the fact that murder and violence is almost unanimously condemned in all mainstream religions, and that hypocrisy is a reflection on the soul of the hypocrite, not the religion which is corrupted in the process, and that people will justify the same atrocities by any vehicle they can find be it a tradition, political philosophy, or just plain old prejudice.

Now we see those same kinds of irrational arguments being promoted by the media to disparage traditional families and traditional marriage, with the Dalai Lama as thier prophet.

November 12, 2008

Sorry Democrats, Justice was served.

Filed under: Blogroll,Corruption,democracy,media bias,partisan politics,Politics — lullabyman @ 6:36 am

This is a bit of a belated followup to a post I did over a year ago: Congress’ Creative Corruption.

Well it’s taken a year to set things straight and it seems they (the Democrats) didn’t get away with the travesty.  Crime never pays.  See below:

November 8, 2008

Christians owe Obama a Debt of Gratitude?

At least in this one thing … the jury’s still out for what he may do in the future.

Thanks for my awesome cousin for nailing this one on the head … I just had to agree with her:  There were far more powerful forces at work in defending traditional marriage in California than the simple 2% of the population comprised by Mormons.  It seems we should be thanking the 70% of African Americans who voted this time for Prop 8 , 40% more than voted in 2004.

If you believe in the sanctity of marriage … that it’s far more than a social tool, but a sacred institution … and that it’s the only sacred institution that is and should continue to be promoted by the government of our nation, then you owe Obama a debt of gratitude.

Ironically, you can thank Slate (liberal rag) for originally pointing this out.

While violent same-sex proponents target LDS people and LDS buildings for hate speech and vandalism, LDS people only make up 2% of California, while 70% of all African Americans voted for the proposition.  Slate does a bad job of showing just how much a difference Obama made so let me make it more clear:  The black community swung the Prop 8 vote by 7% (10% of the vote was African American * 70% voted yes), 40% of that swing came from additional black voters over 2004 numbers as they were energized by Obama.  That means Obama personally swung the vote by at least 2.8% (7% * 40%), or by 5.6 points (2.8% *2).

In other words, if Obama had not run for president and if he had not stood against same-sex marriage conservative estimates are that Prop 8 would have lost by a 1.6 point margin (4-5.6=1.6) if not more.  Why do I say “if not more”?  Because we don’t know how many of the other 60% of black voters were influenced by Barrack making a stand against same-sex marriage.  The above number assumes that his position had no effect on the African Americans who voted in 2004, but it’s likely that it did.  Say if only 30% were influenced by his anti-same-sex position that would have swung the vote by at least another 2 points (0.3*5.6/0.4).

And yet gay activists disparage and vandalize the property of LDS people and the LDS church who only make up 2% of the entirely California population.  What’s more, there were quite a few LDS people against Prop 8 (our home-teacher, who used to be a bishop and is still a prominent authority in the church is one of them).  In otherwords, all the LDS who voted for it would not have sufficiently swung the election.

I don’t know if it has anything to do with the fact that the Gay community seems to focus more on liberal arts than in math and science, but it seems these criminals can’t do math when they decide whom they’ll attack to show their disatisfaction with democracy.

November 4, 2008

I’d Celebrate More, Were It Not For Mob-Rule

Along with McCain I think our Founding Fathers also would agree that Obama is a good man and a good father, and as another human being we need not fear the man (even though I’m less than thrilled with much of his platform and his voting record – that’s beside the point).  Having an African American as president is an hallmark for equality that should be celebrated … and I’d have a much easier time doing that were it not for some elements of what Thomas Jefferson called mob-rule.

Before I go much further, I want to say that I believe it’s entirely possible that Obama would have been elected without the following elements in play and I fully support him like any president as if he would have been.  My point is, that these elements were in play, and that’s a shame.

If our founding fathers were raised in the same cultural climate as all of us they’d be thrilled with an African American winning the election, assuming democracy worked like it was supposed to.  That said, I think they’d be rolling in their graves if they saw the 3 powerful dynamics that have adversely affected the vote this year:

1) Two phrases I find disturbing are: “they [insert special interest group here] deserve it”, and “it’s about time”.

I can only hope for the sake of democracy that these phrases only are uttered in appreciation for the man that Obama is, not the office that he now holds as if he was entitled to it by virtue of his race.  I hope that every vote cast for Obama was done with complete disregard to the body he was born into.  Entitlement and preferential treatment based on someone’s color or sex in the election process seem at odds with the kind of democracy that our founding fathers envisioned.

In modern times most people seem unfazed, and even embrace entitlement as a viable reason to vote for someone based on whether they be female, a racial minority, ethnic minority, religious minority, physically handicapped, sexually-different or from any other historically disadvantaged group of people.  It almost seems that if you do not embrace entitlement as a viable reason to vote for someone then you might be called a bigot.

It wasn’t always that way.  Were our founding fathers bigots because they did not think that the body someone was born into entitled them to hold public office?  They were trying to get away from just such a thing after dealing with the British monarchy.

2) I just can not envision our founding fathers targeting transient individuals who are usually just too lazy and/or too disinterested to get registered and go to vote.  Tt seems our Founding Fathers were far more pragmatic and republican in nature than they were idealist and democratic.  The government they formed was not a pure democracy but a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. Thomas Jefferson himself, along with most others of his day, called democracy “mob-rule” because he understood common man has neither the time, patience, or desire to really understand the dynamics of facilitating a free and thriving society.  They understood that the nature of politics was very complex and thereby formed a government run entirely by representation of those who have the time, patience and diligence to study and understand the issues.  I’m sure they’d expect voters to do the same and would never wholesale promote uneducated voting.

Tell me, when you vote and there are two names up there for school district administrator and you have no clue … do you guess?  Or do you leave it blank?  The more democratic thing to do is to leave it blank, yes?  Then why would you encourage someone to vote who hasn’t studied nor has any intention to study about the characters and platforms of any of the candidates but simply wants to go with the flow?  You might as well guess on those items and politicians you know nothing about … it’s the same thing.

3) Complete unmitigated and unabashed bias throughout the so-called “free” press.  If you don’t have extended cable (basic cable only gives you the major networks), you are only served by the big 3: ABC, NBC, and CBS.  According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs 10 times more people (composed equally of republicans and democrats) feel those networks have been biased toward Obama than those who feel it’s been biased toward McCain.  In addition late night pundit and comedian jokes have been favoring Obama’s ticket by a factor of 7:1.

Item #3 would not be such a big issue were it not combined with item #2.  It seems Thomas Jefferson was right … and those who’ve historically pretended to champion the causes of Thomas Jefferson may have been the very same who’ve fulfilled his prediction: that all democracy at one point or another will turn into mob-rule.

Having an African American for a president is cause for celebration for the hallmark of equality it represents, but I only wish it would have happened without these dynamics.  I think it sure would have been possible, but then we’ll never know now will we?

November 3, 2008

Go ahead & insult me: Tell me to vote.

Do you go around telling your friend to take a leak or they might wet their pants?  Do you go around telling people to remember to breathe in case they might accidentally suffocate?

You don’t?  Well then please don’t tell me to vote.

Just because you auctioned off your grey matter doesn’t give them the right to sequester your vote.

As for me, and those of us who don’t have to be told to vote … we’ll make an educated decision.

I know it’s well intended, and honestly, I’ve been told to vote by some of the most wonderful, intelligent, and savvy people I know. In fact I know of no stupid people who are reminding me to vote. I also know I should take their encouragement as a compliment … obviously they think I’m going to make a wise choice or they would not want me to vote.

But I just can’t help but think that if you need to be told to vote then you don’t have a clue enough to make a wise decision who should run your government.  It’s just simple math.  Person needs convincing = can’t think for themselves = bad votes = bad results.

We might as well choose our officials with a random number generator.  That’s not democracy.  In fact, letting the most impressionable intellectual-push-overs determine election outcomes results in a huge bias toward the opinions of popular media.

So here’s my advice: stay home if you sup entirely from the boob tube and decided to vote because an actor or actress will insult you if you don’t.  If that’s the kool-aid that you drink then chances are I know who you’re voting for, and believe me … you don’t want to throw your vote away on someone of whom you really know very little.  If you’re letting someone do the thinking for you stay home.  Just because you auctioned off your grey matter doesn’t give them the right to sequester your vote.  Give them what they deserve: nothing.  Stay home.

As for me, and those of us who don’t have to be told to vote … we’ll make an educated decision.

Or, you can stop drinking the Koolaid and make an intelligent choice, but if you have to be told to vote I’m guessing there’s not enough time for you to do that.  It’s not too late though.  Start here: http://www.google.com/search?q=msm+kool+aid

October 30, 2008

Proposition 8 … LGBT forced the hand.

I was nearly 30 when I first married, and it was not for lack of trying or lack of desire.  I had in fact been engaged previously to someone else 7 years earlier but I’m convinced now that the earlier endeavor would have resulted in a difficult marriage.   I had forced the engagement thinking that marriage would make me happy, make her happy, make us happy, and generally make everything peachy-keen.  But I would have been wrong.  Getting married that time would have been a needy response to  a long distance relationship that was generally a bad idea from the start.

Marriage never fixes anything on it’s own.  If you’re not already happy being together even when times are tough and when your differences (everyone has differences) are painfully obvious then getting married isn’t going to help at all.  In fact it may make things worse.

Marriage is, above all, a sacrament, introduced by God and ordained of God, no matter what your religion is, or regardless of who you call God … It is in so many ways the most symbolic representation of our relationship with our Creator.

So fortunately I spent another 7 years finding the right kind of person and to have done it at the right time of my life.  I now see in retrospect that it had to be that way, and I’m grateful that I met Melissa when I did … no earlier, no later.

One other thing had to happen too though … I had to know that God wanted it.  At the time I didn’t know how important that was, and neither was I seeking for “His” approval but in retrospect it was necessary in my case.

Seven years later, the second time I was engaged … this time, the right time … things were completely different.  I felt different.  I was different.  The girl was different.  The relationship was dramatically different.  Instead of a needy dependency for nurturing there was a calm assurance of deep respect and mutual appreciation.

as Americans … we believe in marriage … precisely because it is a religious institution.

In fact, it will probably surprise you that despite getting engaged on our 3rd encounter it was not love at first sight … nor was there great passion right away, neither did we even deeply love each other when we got engaged on our second date.  What’s more, I’d venture to say that both of us had preexisting relationships that were still at the time very heartfelt, but very quickly we learned something that made all that moot which I suspect few people probably learn when they make that choice:

God wanted it.

Thomas Jefferson’s “separation of Church and State” was never intended to mean a separation for God and State. Historically you’ll find that our founders believed our country had everything to do with “Divine Providence”.

Far be it from me to tell you what the spirit feels like.  I think that, like most people, throughout my life I’ve largely been guided by instincts, wisdom, and my heart (love, peace, joy, charity, hope, faith, etc).  Those things are wonderful and essential to a happy fulfilling life but for me feeling the spirit itself is an entirely different experience than all those things, and I can no more describe to you my spiritual experiences than describe the taste of salt to someone who’s never had anything salty.  Only a few times have I deeply felt it, and then only briefly for only a moment or two.  One experience stands out though.  The day after our 2nd encounter … it lasted for nearly 8 hours non-stop.  I remember going home for lunch that day wondering how much longer I could take it as it was so intense and constant.

While the experience was sweet … like honey is sweet (if you could taste the spirit it would be sweet exactly like honey), I was simultaneously overjoyed and a little upset and anxious.  I was upset and anxious because I knew what God was telling me and yet I had no idea whether Melissa was having any kind of the same experience.  What was I to say to her … “I know you don’t know me … and being nearly 30 I probably sound desperate enough to come up with something crazy like this … but God told me we’re supposed to get married.”

That would have gone over like a lead balloon, or so I’d supposed.  I was wrong, and we were engaged on our next date.

Truth be told, I did not say that … but I didn’t have to either.  We were married 3 months later and have been insanely happy with each other with a love that can only grow so quickly and immensely when two people are … well, to get real sappy … meant for each other.

the LGBT community is intent on removing all sacredness and turning it into a social tool to command respect in a way that would trample religious ideals.

Now this sounds like a really long winded way to get around to what this post was intended to discuss: Proposition 8, and why the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transexual) community forced the hand that put that proposition into motion, but everything I mentioned has everything to do with that topic.

Marriage is, above all, a sacrament, introduced by God and ordained of God, no matter what your religion is, or regardless of who you call God.  It is in so many ways the most symbolic representation of our relationship with our Creator.  There are sacraments in marriage, throughout marriage, and throughout each day in one’s marriage, that are all symbolic of our relationship with God.

Admittedly, I don’t think everyone should expect to have the courtship Melissa and I did, nor do I think it makes us or our marriage any “better”, but I do think there’s a synergy that exists when marriage is intertwined with the divine and I’m grateful ours started out that way.  Similarly marriage has demanded a greater reliance on God from me, and it seems obvious to me that my spiritual growth is and will continue to be accelerated through close association with my wife (even if I sometimes fail to take advantage of doing so).

[Government sanctioned traditional marriage] IS proof that we do not have a Godless state

Overwhelmingly we, the Americans, are a God-fearing people.  Unusually so, and surprisingly so since we are just a melting pot, an amalgamation of the refugees from all the other countries.  But with good reason are we so God-fearing.  Our country was largely founded by those who were deeply religious, and even today many of the refugees who come here do so so they can practice their beliefs in a free country.

In short, believing in God is part of our identity as Americans.  We believe in marriage, not because it’s a social institution, but precisely because it is a religious institution.

Similarly, nowhere in the constitution or any of the amending articles, is God excluded, and certainly not with respect to marriage either.  While respecting no particular religion, our leaders have always been God fearing people.

Cry foul if you want, Bill Maher, but those are the historical facts, and they are as true today as they were then.  You don’t like it, then move to Russia or China where the mention of God is still taboo.

Each member of [the LGBT] community needs to be loved and appreciated the same way [as are] straight people

Nowhere is the respect and reverence for God more evident in our federal documents and laws where the right to marry not only exists but is encouraged.  The reverence for God has nothing to do with “Church” lest others complain I’m promoting a theocracy or the favoring of one religion over another.  Thomas Jefferson’s “separation of Church and State” was never intended to mean a separation for God and State.  Historically you’ll find that our founders believed our country had everything to do with “Divine Providence”.  Our constitution was founded upon the idea that our inalienable rights exist only because God gave them to us.

We are only created equal because God is no respecter of persons (not because we can marry whomever we find cute or sexually stimulating).

Now the LGBT community wants to take that sacrament: marriage, and turn it into a self-serving political tool to forward their agenda.  Marriage is NOT a tool.  It IS a sacrament.  It IS proof that we do not have a Godless state like Russia, or China, or the Scandinavian countries who’ve seemed happy to rid themselves of the “outdated” institution of marriage.

[Proposition 8] does NOT mean people in the LGBT are any less equal, nor does it mean we think any less of them

Marriage will never be a purely social or political tool, although it’s often used for social and/or political reasons.  I’ve read many treatments on this topic and they’re all wrong, incorrectly stating that historically it was designed to be a tool to be used for social reasons so we should use it now to include the LGBT community.  It was not created for that purpose.  Rather marriage has historically been a religious institution first, often manipulated for social or political purposes.

That said, I want to be clear in my opinion that people in the LGBT community are no different than straight people with regards to their value to society – you may disagree with me, and that’s okay.  I think gays and lesbians have been poorly treated although it seems that they do tend to play the martyr (even now they’d claim I’m being condescending when I’m really sincere).  Each member of that community needs to be loved and appreciated the same way that straight people are, but unfortunately no amount of love will prevent their community from operating with a selfish mob-mentality insistent on destroying the sacred nature of marriage.

marriage must be government sanctioned, and must be the only sacrament sanctioned by a government

That is why Proposition 8 is necessary.  It does NOT mean people in the LGBT are any less equal, nor does it mean we think any less of them.  It’s only because marriage is the most universally sacred institution throughout all the world … it is the great common sacrament among all civilizations and religions … and the LGBT community is intent on removing all sacredness and turning it into a social tool to command respect and trample religious ideals.  Marriage is intrinsically a sacrament in nearly every sense of the word, and it is and always must be the only sacrament sanctioned by a government that was originally founded on Godly principles entirely by God-fearing men who never wanted our government to become an atheist entity.

October 15, 2008

Too much rescue too soon can be bad in some places

Filed under: economics,economy,Politics — lullabyman @ 2:02 pm

I read this this morning:

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/search/distributed+energy/SIG=124a73k46/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081015/pl_nm/us_autos_loans_obama_3

In short, it details one example how politicians are fast tracking debt relief for some companies in order to prevent job loss.  This, of course, comes at a time when politicians need Michigan which is concerned far more about job loss than in producing a competitive car for our times.  Some job loss however is a necessary and extremely difficult and unpleasant necessity for a healthy and promising future, and I think this is one of those scenarios.

“… make the brutal and painful adjustments now in all their unprofitable product lines, and the gov’t should be focused on relocating those employees to industries that need growth: like the energy industry which needs $300 billion of investment in the next 8 years just to stay afloat.”

There are emerging markets, take wind and solar manufacturing plants for example, and those industries need people. Our auto industry has long been over-run and controlled by Unions, making them less efficient and less competitive, with auto quality and efficiency taking a backseat to job count, employee wages, and employee benefits. Sometimes the only way to clean the clock is to clean the clock. As Neiche said, “What doesn’t kill me will make me stronger”.

Well, we need to get stronger.  For too long we’ve been making gas guzzlers simply because radically shifting our production line would result in job loss regardless of the state of the economy.

Somehow theres this belief that it’s not okay to rescue the banks that have practiced predatory lending, and people think the banks should be left to suffer the consequences, but doesn’t anyone realize that the US auto manufacture deserve all the blame for not already have converted all their cars to fuel efficient cars?  It’s not like they didn’t see this coming.  Peak oil has been an established fact for nearly a decade now, and all the models have pointed to today as being the point where oil starts going through the roof.

“… the auto-industry saw this coming a long time ago and did nothing about it. Why are we rewarding that foolishness with free grants when a loan should suffice?”

GM has said they have enough reserves in this market to make it until 2010.  Doing so will require some massive layoffs, and a complete retooling of all their lines but they can do it.  It’s likely however that by then once their lines are retooled to create a more competitive car for our times they’ll be bankrupt at that point.  That’s when this $25 billion will be put to best use – after the patient has been purged of the oil addiction he’s been suffering for so long.  If they give this money to the auto industry today it will be used to keep gas guzzling production lines and associated jobs afloat instead of being invested in the production of lighter cars, LiFePO4 batteries, and electric drive trains.

In the late 1980’s the US DRAM (computer memory) market was strangled by unfair trade practices by Japan.  In 6 short months nearly all stateside manufacturers went belly up or got out of the market entirely.  Only 1 survived: Micron.  They survived by swiftly laying off 80% of it’s workforce when their analysis foresaw that any other action, or failure to act, would result in bankruptcy.  The remaining 20% spent all it’s time in development for 2 years to design a manufacturing process that was so superior that Japanese companies couldn’t compete with even with their illegal and unfair subsidized trade practices.  Within 4 years Micron their superior process and product made them the price point leader, exploding with exponential growth.  It’s stock went up 20X over the next 8 years.  A lot of Micron stock-owning potato farmers in Micron’s Idaho became very rich.

That’s what the US automakers need to do … and be quick and decisive and make the brutal and painful adjustments now in all their unprofitable product lines, and the gov’t should be focused on relocating those employees to industries that need growth: like the energy industry which needs $300 billion of investment in the next 8 years just to stay afloat.

“It’s time to step back, think about the consequences and then act prudently and decisively.”

In the meantime a few billion should probably be given to be disbursed toward R & D only, and toward the tooling of product lines better suited for today’s economic and environmental climate.  If certain R & D metrics are not met that funding should be put away.

The gov’t should also underwrite and insure loans to the auto-industry.  Like I said, the auto-industry saw this coming a long time ago and did nothing about it.  Why are we rewarding that foolishness with free grants when a loan should suffice?  It’s time to step back, think about the consequences and then act prudently and decisively.

October 5, 2008

Biden’s 7 debate gaffes within 60 seconds -overtime

Filed under: media bias,Politics — lullabyman @ 4:42 pm
Tags:

Just added this to YouTube. Fox News All Star Panel points out Biden’s “incredible number of gaffes” … “7 gaffes within 60 seconds” …

More stuff you’ll never hear from the MSM.

October 4, 2008

Thompson: Biden lied all through the debate

Filed under: media bias,Politics — lullabyman @ 5:31 am
Tags:

Just added this to YouTube:

… yet another thing you’ll never hear the mainstream media talk about.  If Palin had made such gross misrepresentations they’d be spewing it with all the force they could muster.

Here’s another one – details 14 lies:

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.