There are going to be a few links to other articles in this particular posting, but I'll try to tie it all together in the end.
First link: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/23/hey-lady-your-800000-house-is-not-my-problem/
The title should be self-evident. :) It details what happened to a bus driver who purchased an $800,000 home. Yes, you read that correctly. She admits that she and her husband bought more house than they could afford. Yet they're saying the lender made it all too easy and is demanding that the Obamessiah stop all foreclosures.
Let me get this straight: As I've already said, I had the chance to purchase a wonderful home back when I was earning $36,000 a year. I didn't, because I knew I couldn't afford it. My mind was busy with "what if" scenarios such as "what if you get laid off?" or "what happens if I get injured and am unable to work?" I did the right thing and said "no" to all those people throwing offers at me. And now the Obamessiah, the Usurper is punishing me for having done the right thing. Since when do you punish people for making the right decisions and reward those who make poor decisions? These people admitted they bought more house than they could afford. A bus driver? In an $800,000 home? Am I the only one thinking how wrong that is??
Link #2: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/23/document-drop-the-truth-about-acorns-foreclosure-poster-child/
Again, the title should be self-evident. And the only reason I'm cross-posting again is because this article ties directly into the first. There is a lot of information at Ms Malkin's site about this particular link (#2). You'll want to read the entire thing, because those "unbiased" reporters have only touched the very tip of the iceberg. I'm going to quote from bits of the article (only a few bits) because you need to go there yourself and read the entire disgusting document. Donna Hanks, a "victim?" Not in this universe.
"In September 2006, the bankruptcy court ordered Hanks’ employer to deduct $340/month from her salary as a bartender to pay down the debt (total net monthly take home pay of $1,228): " (there was a document under it)
"Hanks did not comply with the plan. In December 2007, the servicer issued a notice of default on nearly $7,000 past due." (emphasis mine)
"In February 2008, Baltimore City Circuit Court records show a second foreclosure action was filed.
"She had two years to pay what she owed. She failed to comply." (emphasis mine)
"While she was reneging on her mortgage IOUS, she managed to collect rent on her basement (for which she was taken to court) and rack up a criminal record on charges of theft and second degree assault:"
Yet she's protrayed as a victim. ::snort::
And now for the next-to-last link: http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE51K0A920090221?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&rpc=23&sp=true
The title of the article? "Soros sees no bottom for world financial collapse." That should scare the crap out of you.
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Renowned investor George Soros said on Friday the world financial system has effectively disintegrated, adding that there is yet no prospect of a near-term resolution to the crisis.
"Soros said the turbulence is actually more severe than during the Great Depression, comparing the current situation to the demise of the Soviet Union."
That should remind you of something I wrote about earlier. Here's THAT link: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2009/01/bernanke-two-step.html
"Dick Morris: HERE COMES SOCIALISM..."
Only this time, I'm not saying it. But I WILL say this: Gerald Celente called 2007-2008 "The Panic of '08." He's said it will be followed by "The Collapse of '09."
This comes back to what some prominent economists, including Nobel laureates, are now saying. They're not using the "R" word anymore. "R" as in "recession."
They're using the "D" word. "D" as in "depression." And we've got those money-hungry politicians, their fat lobbyists and the fatter wall street ilk to thank for it.
Mr Celente was called quite a few things because of his prediction. And yes, they weren't nice things. But now Mr Soros is saying the same thing.
Makes you wanna spit, doesn't it?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Article: "Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor"
The link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY
"Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said."
You could call that a rather noticeable discrepancy. Having said that, such things do happen.
"The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site." (Link is not mine, but has been left intact.)
Well, there's a lot there, so let's talk about this for a moment. First, due to sensor drift, the extent of the ice sheet was underestimated. In other words, they were saying it was smaller than it actually was. As I pointed out, this does happen. You could go further and call it entropy at work in that any mechanical device is going to have problems from time to time. Now that's very important to understand - any mechanical device is going to have problems from time to time. You just can't get around that one.
Having said that, this problem simply highlights another problem I wrote about earlier - the celebrities and their cause du jour. Some people, and I'm not only pointing at celebrities here, took these numbers, got on their soapboxes and screamed about the problem being far far worse than anybody thought.
That was when some of us "...puzzled readers..." told them that according to their own numbers, there was a problem somewhere. But this brings us right back to people who have an agenda or a cause du jour. They won't know enough about the entire situation to take a step back, look at the data, and say "Woah. That can't be right. These numbers can't be right."
To be fair, it was statistically possible for those numbers to have been accurate. But the odds of that being the case are roughly the same odds of a dump truck falling out of a cargo plane and crushing you. Frankly, I really don't think about that too much. I'm guessing you don't either. I'm much more worried about some of the idiots I've seen lately driving their cars. I'm much more worried about some idiot tailgating me on an icy road and him/her losing control and striking my vehicle. Or driving as if the roads were clear when they were snow-covered and treacherous. (This happened to me during our latest snowfall. He didn't strike the car, but he didn't miss it by much. But his car turned sideways and I thought he was going to hit us. That's what happens when you don't obey the rules of winter driving. Here's that link again: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2009/01/brrrrr.html )
So to recap, the numbers were wrong due to sensor drift. It does happen from time to time. But when people with an agenda or a cause du jour - who don't have in depth knowledge of what's going on - jump up and down and scream that the sky's falling, that's a problem. It's great that they're interested in the topic and are worried about it. Frankly, people should be concerned about this. It simply highlights what can go wrong when people know only enough to be dangerous about such things.
"Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said."
You could call that a rather noticeable discrepancy. Having said that, such things do happen.
"The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site." (Link is not mine, but has been left intact.)
Well, there's a lot there, so let's talk about this for a moment. First, due to sensor drift, the extent of the ice sheet was underestimated. In other words, they were saying it was smaller than it actually was. As I pointed out, this does happen. You could go further and call it entropy at work in that any mechanical device is going to have problems from time to time. Now that's very important to understand - any mechanical device is going to have problems from time to time. You just can't get around that one.
Having said that, this problem simply highlights another problem I wrote about earlier - the celebrities and their cause du jour. Some people, and I'm not only pointing at celebrities here, took these numbers, got on their soapboxes and screamed about the problem being far far worse than anybody thought.
That was when some of us "...puzzled readers..." told them that according to their own numbers, there was a problem somewhere. But this brings us right back to people who have an agenda or a cause du jour. They won't know enough about the entire situation to take a step back, look at the data, and say "Woah. That can't be right. These numbers can't be right."
To be fair, it was statistically possible for those numbers to have been accurate. But the odds of that being the case are roughly the same odds of a dump truck falling out of a cargo plane and crushing you. Frankly, I really don't think about that too much. I'm guessing you don't either. I'm much more worried about some of the idiots I've seen lately driving their cars. I'm much more worried about some idiot tailgating me on an icy road and him/her losing control and striking my vehicle. Or driving as if the roads were clear when they were snow-covered and treacherous. (This happened to me during our latest snowfall. He didn't strike the car, but he didn't miss it by much. But his car turned sideways and I thought he was going to hit us. That's what happens when you don't obey the rules of winter driving. Here's that link again: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2009/01/brrrrr.html )
So to recap, the numbers were wrong due to sensor drift. It does happen from time to time. But when people with an agenda or a cause du jour - who don't have in depth knowledge of what's going on - jump up and down and scream that the sky's falling, that's a problem. It's great that they're interested in the topic and are worried about it. Frankly, people should be concerned about this. It simply highlights what can go wrong when people know only enough to be dangerous about such things.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Cross-link to Michelle Malkin: "Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows"
The link: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/21/tea-party-usa-the-movement-grows/
Not quite 'nuff said:
IMPEACH THAT SON OF A BITCH BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
Now 'nuff said.
Not quite 'nuff said:
IMPEACH THAT SON OF A BITCH BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
Now 'nuff said.
Bob Brinker Sez More Today
Bob Brinker, one of the more trusted financial people, mentioned a book on his Money Talk programme today. The name of the book is "Chain of Blame." *1
It's a wonderful book, one that the mainstream media, the politicians, their fat lobbyists, and their fatter wall street friends loathe. It's one that I believe you need to borrow and read in its entirety.
Why? Because it's right on the money. Literally.
Here's part of the Wikipedia article about it: "The authors find that, while blame can be laid at every link of the mortgage production chain (borrowers, brokers, wholesale lenders) the ultimate culprits are Wall Street firms that carelessly securitized mortgage loan pools without appropriate diligence and attention to the quality of the underlying loans." *2 (Links left intact and are Wikipedia's.)
Let's distill that down: First, according to the authors, blame can be laid at every link in the ... chain. They didn't say almost every link, or nearly every link, they said "...at every link..." Unless you're a liberal that doesn't understand this, that means at every step in the process ... including the people who took out loans without reading or understanding the fine print. Granted, they do say that the ultimate culprits are Wall Street firms, but they say "...at every link..." and by definition that includes the people that signed on the dotted line.
But let's continue on: "...that carelessly securitized mortgage loan pools without appropriate dilligence and attention to the quality of the underlying loans."
Or as Mr Brinker put it today (to paraphrase) : "No job, no income, no security? ::bangs hand on table:: APPROVED!" For the liberals, that would be the quality of the underlying loans. In plain English, you wouldn't loan money to people you knew or had reason to believe couldn't pay you back, would you?
These firms did. Why? Ever hear of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act? *3 Well....
"The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] " (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact.)
I'm going to distill that down to "The CRA is a federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and saving associations to meet the needs of borrowers ... including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods." (I left the entire quote above to avoid being accused of taking things out of context yet again.)
But why did those institutions make these loans? I know the law was written to allow it with proper regulation, but that doesn't answer it. Why did they make those loans? Who helped write the law, or helped it be written?
"The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists who supported the Carter administration and were often rewarded for their support with government grants and programs like the CRA that they benefited from. These included various "neighborhood organizations," as they like to call themselves, such as "ACORN" (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). These organizations claim that over $1 trillion in CRA loans have been made, although no one seems to know the magnitude with much certainty. A U.S. Senate Banking Committee staffer told me about ten years ago that at least $100 billion in such loans had been made in the first twenty years of the Act.
So-called "community groups" like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion." *4
Again, let's distill this down. The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists. They supported the Carter administration and were often rewarded for their support with government grants and programs like the CRA that they benefited from. The article names ACORN by name as one of these "...hardcore leftists..." groups. And, it claims that ACORN itself benefits from this law "...through a process that sounds like legalized extortion."
You don't say. Why does that matter now?
"It [ACORN] was a major contributor to the subprime meltdown by pushing lenders to make home loans on easy terms, conducting "strikes" against banks so they'd lower credit standards. But the organization's real genius is getting American taxpayers to foot the bill. According to a 2006 report from the Employment Policies Institute (EPI), Acorn has been on the federal take since 1977." (emphasis added) *5
STRIKES?!?!? "ACORN’s Hypocritical House of Cards: How One “Community” Group Helped the Housing Crisis Harm Taxpayers." *6, *7
But it goes further: "Which brings us to Mr. Obama, who got his start as a Chicago "community organizer" at Acorn's side. In 1992 he led voter registration efforts as the director of Project Vote, which included Acorn. This past November, he lauded Acorn's leaders for being "smack dab in the middle" of that effort. Mr. Obama also served as a lawyer for Acorn in 1995, in a case against Illinois to increase access to the polls. *5 (emphasis added)
The only reason I quoted that last it because the Obamessiah, the "saviour" in the "saviour-based economy" was one of the people who helped create this problem.
And now he thinks he can fix it? By doing what Mr Obamessiah? Screwing other people over?
*1 - Chain of Blame at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Chain-Blame-Street-Caused-Mortgage/dp/0470292776
*2 - Chain of Blame on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_Blame
*3 - Community Reinvestment Act of 1977: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
*4 - The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html
*5 - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394051071230749.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
*6 - http://www.consumersrightsleague.org/UploadedFiles/ACORN_AHC_Report.pdf
*7 - http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/27/consumer-rights-league-obama-acorn-and-the-subprime-mortgage/
It's a wonderful book, one that the mainstream media, the politicians, their fat lobbyists, and their fatter wall street friends loathe. It's one that I believe you need to borrow and read in its entirety.
Why? Because it's right on the money. Literally.
Here's part of the Wikipedia article about it: "The authors find that, while blame can be laid at every link of the mortgage production chain (borrowers, brokers, wholesale lenders) the ultimate culprits are Wall Street firms that carelessly securitized mortgage loan pools without appropriate diligence and attention to the quality of the underlying loans." *2 (Links left intact and are Wikipedia's.)
Let's distill that down: First, according to the authors, blame can be laid at every link in the ... chain. They didn't say almost every link, or nearly every link, they said "...at every link..." Unless you're a liberal that doesn't understand this, that means at every step in the process ... including the people who took out loans without reading or understanding the fine print. Granted, they do say that the ultimate culprits are Wall Street firms, but they say "...at every link..." and by definition that includes the people that signed on the dotted line.
But let's continue on: "...that carelessly securitized mortgage loan pools without appropriate dilligence and attention to the quality of the underlying loans."
Or as Mr Brinker put it today (to paraphrase) : "No job, no income, no security? ::bangs hand on table:: APPROVED!" For the liberals, that would be the quality of the underlying loans. In plain English, you wouldn't loan money to people you knew or had reason to believe couldn't pay you back, would you?
These firms did. Why? Ever hear of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act? *3 Well....
"The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] " (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact.)
I'm going to distill that down to "The CRA is a federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and saving associations to meet the needs of borrowers ... including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods." (I left the entire quote above to avoid being accused of taking things out of context yet again.)
But why did those institutions make these loans? I know the law was written to allow it with proper regulation, but that doesn't answer it. Why did they make those loans? Who helped write the law, or helped it be written?
"The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists who supported the Carter administration and were often rewarded for their support with government grants and programs like the CRA that they benefited from. These included various "neighborhood organizations," as they like to call themselves, such as "ACORN" (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). These organizations claim that over $1 trillion in CRA loans have been made, although no one seems to know the magnitude with much certainty. A U.S. Senate Banking Committee staffer told me about ten years ago that at least $100 billion in such loans had been made in the first twenty years of the Act.
So-called "community groups" like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion." *4
Again, let's distill this down. The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists. They supported the Carter administration and were often rewarded for their support with government grants and programs like the CRA that they benefited from. The article names ACORN by name as one of these "...hardcore leftists..." groups. And, it claims that ACORN itself benefits from this law "...through a process that sounds like legalized extortion."
You don't say. Why does that matter now?
"It [ACORN] was a major contributor to the subprime meltdown by pushing lenders to make home loans on easy terms, conducting "strikes" against banks so they'd lower credit standards. But the organization's real genius is getting American taxpayers to foot the bill. According to a 2006 report from the Employment Policies Institute (EPI), Acorn has been on the federal take since 1977." (emphasis added) *5
STRIKES?!?!? "ACORN’s Hypocritical House of Cards: How One “Community” Group Helped the Housing Crisis Harm Taxpayers." *6, *7
But it goes further: "Which brings us to Mr. Obama, who got his start as a Chicago "community organizer" at Acorn's side. In 1992 he led voter registration efforts as the director of Project Vote, which included Acorn. This past November, he lauded Acorn's leaders for being "smack dab in the middle" of that effort. Mr. Obama also served as a lawyer for Acorn in 1995, in a case against Illinois to increase access to the polls. *5 (emphasis added)
The only reason I quoted that last it because the Obamessiah, the "saviour" in the "saviour-based economy" was one of the people who helped create this problem.
And now he thinks he can fix it? By doing what Mr Obamessiah? Screwing other people over?
*1 - Chain of Blame at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Chain-Blame-Street-Caused-Mortgage/dp/0470292776
*2 - Chain of Blame on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_Blame
*3 - Community Reinvestment Act of 1977: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
*4 - The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html
*5 - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394051071230749.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
*6 - http://www.consumersrightsleague.org/UploadedFiles/ACORN_AHC_Report.pdf
*7 - http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/27/consumer-rights-league-obama-acorn-and-the-subprime-mortgage/
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Join AngryRenters.com!
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/19/angry-renters-unite/
Ms Malkin is right. If we don't stand up for ourselves ... nobody will.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/19/angry-renters-unite/
Ms Malkin is right. If we don't stand up for ourselves ... nobody will.
JOIN THE RICK SANTELLI "CHICAGO TEA PARTY"
And tell the morally corrupt, deficient, and bankrupt politicians that you're FURIOUS. The politicians, their fat lobbyists, and their fat wall street friends and their lobbyists got us into this disaster.
And now, we've had TARP (Crap Sandwich v1) for $700 Billion to bailout wall street, Crap Sandwich v2.0 to the tune of another $790 Billion. But it gets worse. Glenn Beck yesterday was talking about a possible THIRD Crap Sandwich of ... you guessed it ... $700 Billion.
Twice, you see, just isn't enough. They got their money for themselves and their fat friends.
Now comes Rick Santelli who is protesting the mortgage bailouts. When I was making $36k a year, I could have easily gotten a mortgage on a beautiful home. I didn't do it, because I knew I couldn't afford it.
And now, the Obamessiah is telling me that I have to pay for people who did get in over their heads, using my money to pay for their bad decisions. Some of them are saying that they didn't "understand" what they were signing. Yet they still signed. Do you sign something without reading and understanding it?
Where's my bailout? What do I get (besides screwed) for doing the right thing?
TAKE A LOOK AT THE CNBC POLL, Mr Obamessiah. (Screenshot) http://www.cnbc.com/id/29283701
And now, we've had TARP (Crap Sandwich v1) for $700 Billion to bailout wall street, Crap Sandwich v2.0 to the tune of another $790 Billion. But it gets worse. Glenn Beck yesterday was talking about a possible THIRD Crap Sandwich of ... you guessed it ... $700 Billion.
Twice, you see, just isn't enough. They got their money for themselves and their fat friends.
Now comes Rick Santelli who is protesting the mortgage bailouts. When I was making $36k a year, I could have easily gotten a mortgage on a beautiful home. I didn't do it, because I knew I couldn't afford it.
And now, the Obamessiah is telling me that I have to pay for people who did get in over their heads, using my money to pay for their bad decisions. Some of them are saying that they didn't "understand" what they were signing. Yet they still signed. Do you sign something without reading and understanding it?
Where's my bailout? What do I get (besides screwed) for doing the right thing?
TAKE A LOOK AT THE CNBC POLL, Mr Obamessiah. (Screenshot) http://www.cnbc.com/id/29283701
The question: "Would you join Rick Santelli's "Chicago Tea Party" ?"
71,531 replies.
91% say YES
7.2% say NO
1.8% say NOT SURE
Remember that, according to my now ex-wife I'm none too bright, but ... my goodness. That's better than 9 to 1 WHO ARE AGAINST BAILING OUT PEOPLE WHO GOT IN OVER THEIR HEADS AND MADE A BAD DECISION.
For people like me who knew they couldn't afford it and didn't do it ... we're now getting screwed. Are you listening, Mr Obamessiah?
You're gonna screw me for doing the right thing? Ok....
IMPEACH THAT SON OF A BITCH, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, the Usurper.
Article: "Analysis: Democrats self-destructing over ethics"
The link: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j44ku9zUM9IEdkkoWbIYStDVE6SwD96EH4JO0
This is just too good to pass up. "WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration and the new Congress are quickly handing over to Republicans the same "culture of corruption" issue that Democrats used so effectively against the GOP before coming to power. "
And to us Independants, too. Don't forget about us. From where I stand, they're all corrupt.
" The political mess for the Democratic Party, however, isn't Burris' conduct alone; it's the pattern that has developed so quickly over the past few months."
The pattern. The "...pattern that has developed so quickly over the past few months."
You don't say. I wish I could say I was shocked, but I'm not. I wish I could say I was surprised, but again, I'm not. It's just more of the Theftocrats (Democrats) "Do as I say, not as I do." pattern. It's just more of their "The rules apply to thee, but not to me."
Here's that link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
"The term hypocrisy is often used in a religious context to refer to someone who gives a false appearance of virtue or religion, or does not "practice what he or she preaches".[1] (Links are Wikipedia's and have been left intact.)
HEY, POLITICIANS: PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!
Or does that make too much sense?
This is just too good to pass up. "WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration and the new Congress are quickly handing over to Republicans the same "culture of corruption" issue that Democrats used so effectively against the GOP before coming to power. "
And to us Independants, too. Don't forget about us. From where I stand, they're all corrupt.
" The political mess for the Democratic Party, however, isn't Burris' conduct alone; it's the pattern that has developed so quickly over the past few months."
The pattern. The "...pattern that has developed so quickly over the past few months."
You don't say. I wish I could say I was shocked, but I'm not. I wish I could say I was surprised, but again, I'm not. It's just more of the Theftocrats (Democrats) "Do as I say, not as I do." pattern. It's just more of their "The rules apply to thee, but not to me."
Here's that link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
"The term hypocrisy is often used in a religious context to refer to someone who gives a false appearance of virtue or religion, or does not "practice what he or she preaches".[1] (Links are Wikipedia's and have been left intact.)
HEY, POLITICIANS: PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!
Or does that make too much sense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
