TELL DICK CHENEY TO SHUT THE HELL UP.

TELL DICK CHENEY TO SHUT THE HELL UP.
IF YOU FACEBOOK, JOIN NOW!!
Thank you, actor Barry Stoltze, for the link:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Telling-Dick-Cheney-to-shut-the-hell-up/88683275177

I'm soooooo tired of hearing Mr. Cheney run his mouth about how "safe" we were when he was part of the former Administration. I'm certain he's decided he has a lot to say, now that he's readying his book for release(as usual, for Cheney, it's all about the $$ he can make--whether it's contracts he benefited from, through an illegal war he helped create and promote, or a tell-all (lies) book !)
President Obama has been incredibly(as usual) patient, and almost too forgiving of the wrongs of the previous Administration.
So, join this cause:
TELL DICK CHENEY TO SHUT THE HELL UP, at Facebook, and have your say!
Peace, kids.

Joy Still Raining Down My Face.

It's taken me over 24 hours to try to digest yesterday's many moments in history.
I woke up before 6:00 A.M., just so I could see all the "before-Inauguration" stuff. I began tearing-up as then-President-Elect Obama and wife Michelle stepped out of The Blair House to head to St. John's (the "Presidents' Church", so dubbed as every President has visited, or become a weekly member of the Episcopal church located one block from The White House). I burst into tears as I witnessed the often-forgotten Peacemaker of the South, Jimmy Carter, step out with wife Rosalynn, to enter the area where the oaths of office would be taken. I sat on my bed, remembering what Carter has spoken about so wisely, and so well--the segregationist southern Georgia that he grew up in. How he never understood why some people did not "approve" of his best friend, a young black man he met in his youth, and maintained a friendship with, all their lives. I found myself wondering what Jimmy Carter was thinking as he walked the long hallway, remembering his youth, his strict Baptist neighbors, his fellow-farmers. Carter's most recent book (about Peace) was released yesterday, and I feel certain he planned it that way.
After a few more moments, I was able to contain myself until the new President Barack Obama(how I adore saying this:"President Obama"!!)spoke of how his own father, less than 60 years ago, could not have eaten in the restaurants that dot D.C. ...When President Obama spoke directly to Muslim nations(the word "Muslim" has never been spoken in any Inaugural address, in the history of the United States), offering mutual respect, and offering a new day....and then later, in speaking to anyone who would wish harm on us, about the United States' willingness to "Lend a hand, if you will unclench your fist...", I cried again. Here is a man willing to actually WALK THE WALK, OF PEACE. OF NEGOTIATION. OF DIPLOMACY.
How incredibly fortunate we are to have a THINKER--a man who actually considers the consequences of every action, indeed, of his words--before speaking, or acting.
I am guessing anything I might have to say about this beautiful, incredible day that was yesterday--January 20th, 2009--has already been said. With that in mind, I'm headed to all my fav blogs, and to Salon.com, and "Open Salon", a feature there(look for a blog I write over there!), to see if anyone has any new perspectives on The Inauguration, and President Barack Obama.
The joy is still streaming down my face. I think I'm feeling a bit corny, a bit romantic in my feelings for this country--and even for the government. I'll be putting my American flag out again(I put it away just before we invaded Iraq, as it felt "wrong" to have a flag out--it made me feel like a bully----wearing the gang's colors). The American flag is going to hang outside my house, and from now on, I 'll probably cry when I look at it. But not for the reasons it made me cry, the past several years.
Peace, kids.

If you haven't been here in a while...Please read the two previous entries here at Lisa Allender Writes, for:
*updates on AQLF(Atlanta Queer Literature Fest) and
*the letter from an older white man with a son in the Marines. He is a life-long Republican who helped found the Christian-Right...and he's voting for Obama! His letter was originally published at The Huffington Post.
For today, get a quick glimpse, via this AP report, of W... the Oliver Stone film about you-know-who. I'll definitely go see this, and I'm thrilled it will be released before this Presidential election.

_________________________________________

Stone shows surprising restraint with Bush pic `W'
By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer
Oliver Stone thinks George W. Bush was unqualified to be president. However, the filmmaker found him an irresistible figure for drama.
After months of speculation over whether Stone's film biography would be a hatchet job on Bush, "W." arrives as a surprisingly empathetic — though hardly sympathetic — portrait of the president.
Stone, the historical revisionist behind the presidential sagas "JFK" and "Nixon," this time plays the provocateur by not doing what's expected of him, namely, putting Bush on a pillory.
"W." does present Bush as a man unfit to lead. And while Stone cannot resist injecting that theme with moments of sharp satire, he generally casts the president as a deeply tragic figure in far over his head, whose personal demons hold consequences for everyone else on the planet.
"I don't know who George Bush is, really. But I can tell you, it feels like him from everything we read, and we did a lot of reading," Stone said in an interview. "The guy has good, bad and ugly qualities like everyone else, but I can understand that things can get out of balance if you have the power. Certain people, if they have the say-so, can really exert their uglier side, and that is what came out, I think."
Played by Josh Brolin, Bush is presented as the black sheep of a political dynasty who surprised his own family by becoming the prodigal son that made good.
"W.," in theaters Friday, follows Bush from his boozy frat-boy days at Yale through a string of failed jobs and business enterprises and an early unsuccessful stab at politics. Perpetually in the shadow of his disapproving father, the first President Bush (James Cromwell), he eventually finds two anchors, wife Laura (Elizabeth Banks) and his born-again Christian faith.
Bush gives up drinking, though not his taste for beer. He's seen throughout his later years tipping back a bottle of nonalcoholic O'Doul's.
The film focuses on Bush's private life, a loving relationship with Laura, a competitive edge with brother Jeb, a contentious air with his father and mother (Ellen Burstyn).
Stone also crafts prolonged sequences recreating meetings at which Bush and his advisers shaped their war-on-terror policies after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Bush and company bat about language to come up with their "axis of evil" trademark for terrorist states. They backpedal to justify the invasion of Iraq after intelligence on weapons of mass destruction proves false. Vice President Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) delivers a chilling monologue about the aims of American imperialism.
The key actors on "W." share Stone's liberal leanings and came to the film already convinced Bush was a bad president. They came away from it not necessarily thinking he was a bad man.
"Everybody will be surprised in one way or another, no matter how differently you see it. It's a very human depiction of this guy's life," Brolin said. "It's an interesting, very behaviorally intense, somewhat funny, somewhat satirical, somewhat sardonic story about how this flailing guy became the president of the United States. Twice. ...
"I strangely found a lot of respect for the guy in his ability to tackle his demons. The opposite side of that is him feeling maybe that his demons were exorcised, when indeed they just came out in a different form through his presidency. The opportunities he saw that may have manifested through those, war being one of them."
While Bush talks of being called by God to run for president in "W.," Stone speaks of the movie as destined to be made.
He and screenwriter Stanley Weiser had been developing a Bush film biography throughout 2007, but Stone was planning to start production on "Pinkville," a drama about the My Lai massacre that would have been the Vietnam veteran's fourth movie about that war.
"Pinkville" fell through late last year, and Stone saw an opportunity to rush "W." into production and have it out while Bush was still in office.
"I think if we don't tell it now, no one cares for the next 20 years," co-star Banks said. "Then maybe in 20 or 30 years we care again, when we're still sort of feeling the repercussions of this administration."
Contractually, Stone could have delivered the finished film in time for the inauguration in January, but he wanted it in theaters before the election. He is cynical about its potential impact, however.
"I have no hopes. I cannot affect the dialogue. I did three Vietnam movies. Believe me, I'm humbled," Stone said. "They did nothing to prevent the country from doing the same thing in the '90s in several incidents. And then above all, the `march to Iraq 2' was devastating to the psyche of responsible American veterans. Devastating. It really hurt us, hurt our soul."
Stone later added that he hoped the film would prompt some reflection among Americans before they vote.
"Perhaps we can think about what we elected, who we elected these last eight years," Stone said. "If they see the movie, they may think about who they voted for the last time and not forget it very conveniently. If they do that at least, that's pretty good. There's at least some thinking going on.
"Unless we excite the human brain, excite the human spirit, evolution will not occur. We'll become simpler and stupider, and we may revert to Stone Age behavior before long."
Stone doesn't hold back on unflattering dramatic moments, showing a drunken Bush dancing on a bar or crashing a car into his parents' trash cans and nearly coming to blows with his father in the living room.
Such scenes are balanced with tender private times between Bush and his wife and moments of humility early in Bush's born-again conversion.
"Oliver Stone is ferociously intelligent. He is never going to give a one-sided look," said Thandie Newton, who plays Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser who later became secretary of state. "It's not going for the jugular. Absolutely not, because that would be so easy. That would be lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy. This is about finding the person, and then leaving it open for an audience to judge."
Many potential viewers may skip "W." because they already have passed judgment on Bush, Dreyfuss said.
"Those few brave band of brothers who are still for Bush won't see it, and those many who are now against Bush don't have to see it," Dreyfuss said. "I do believe that this film will be a knocked-out-of-the-ballpark winner overseas. I think every country on Earth wants to see this film, because every country on Earth has been wanting to hear Americans critique George Bush."
Co-star Scott Glenn, who plays Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, marveled that such a film could even get made, no matter whether or not viewers agree with it.
"Even though we've fallen very far, it says I think some wonderful, central thing about this country," Glenn said. "Where else could this have been done? In France? I don't think so, where they have a national board that reviews films. In Russia? Give me a break. How about Iran? A film about (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad made by Iranians and released while he's still there? China? Do you really think so?
"I mean, where else could this happen? The fact that it's happened, regardless of whether you're on the right, the left or in between, just the fact it's happened I think is a cause for celebration."
__________________________________
___________________
Peace, kids.

WHO'S MORE DANGEROUS? THAT MASS-MURDERER IN WASHINGTON STATE WHO SHOT AND KILLED SIX PEOPLE WHO CLAIMED GOD TOLD HIM TO "I listen to God" he said "God told me to.", OR THESE TWO PEOPLE? READ ON.
Bold italics in story are mine.

___________________________________________________
Palin: God tasked us with Iraq war
from Press TV

Sarah Palin, the surprise vice presidential pick by Republican candidate John McCain, has said the war in Iraq was 'a task from God'. Like US President George W. Bush, Governor Palin attempted to justify her policies by claiming they were divinely-ordered during a speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God church in June. "Pray for our military. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right for this country - that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," the Alaska governor said in her address posted on the website of the Wasilla Assembly of God. Earlier in 2005, President Bush claimed he was on a mission from God when he started the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. "I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." The US president told a Palestinian delegation in Sharm el-Sheikh. Palin, prior to her 'there is a plan and that it is God's plan' comment on the Iraq war, asked the audience to pray for a $30 billion national gas pipeline project because it was 'God's will to get that gas line built' as well. Earlier in March 2007, Palin had said, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." The report comes as one of the first on Palin's positions on foreign policy issues, as the Republican camp has not yet allowed her to hold a press conference.
__________________________________
____________________
I'll answer my own question: George W. has been the dangerous one the past eight years, and God help us if Sarah Palin gets in, it'll be even more of the same.


I consider myself a deeply spiritual person. I pray every day, and even read my Bible. I often attend church. And I know this: if people claim to hear God proclaiming divine messages for them, and them alone, those folks are either severely Bipolar and hallucinating in a "manic" episode, or they are paranoid schizophrenic. Because God doesn't tell us to hurt others. Some folks will always use religion as an excuse to commit atrocities. But it's a helluva lot more scary, when they have the power to not just run outside in a rampage and take several innocent lives (which is horrifying enough!), but the power--and the desire--to put the guns into the hands of our young people, and commit them to an unnecessary and brutal war.Funny how this country works. If you're a guy with a history of mental disorders, alcoholism, and ego-issues, you can simply snap, and go "mad" and kill people, and claim--and perhaps even believe-- that you "listen to God.". The fellow from Washington State is looking at life in prison. You can be another guy, with all those same issues, and get two terms--as President of the United States of America.
Sarah Palin thinking it's a divine mission? I heard she only recently got a passport. Perhaps she's not gotten out much, and so she believes the Assembly of God Church in Wasilla, where she recently made these claims, is the be-all, know-all of spiritual development. I wish I could tell her to rethink what she's said. To meditate. To be still. To pray on it. But I won't.

TELL ME AGAIN WHY WE CAN'T HAVE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS?
And you thought it couldn't get any crazier! Read on....
__________________________________________________
____
Book says White House ordered forgery
Mike Allen
A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.
Suskind writes in “The Way of the World,” to be published Tuesday, that the alleged forgery – adamantly denied by the White House – was designed to portray a false link between Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war.
The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”
The letter’s existence has been reported before, and it had been written about as if it were genuine. It was passed in Baghdad to a reporter for The (London) Sunday Telegraph who wrote about it on the front page of Dec. 14, 2003, under the headline, “Terrorist behind September 11 strike ‘was trained by Saddam.’”
The Telegraph story by Con Coughlin (which, coincidentally, ran the day Hussein was captured in his “spider hole”) was touted in the U.S. media by supporters of the war, and he was interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"Over the next few days, the Habbush letter continued to be featured prominently in the United States and across the globe," Suskind writes. "Fox's Bill O'Reilly trumpeted the story Sunday night on 'The O'Reilly Factor,' talking breathlessly about details of the story and exhorting, 'Now, if this is true, that blows the lid off al Qaeda—Saddam.'"
According to Suskind, the administration had been in contact with the director of the Iraqi intelligence service in the last years of Hussein’s regime, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti.
“The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001,” Suskind writes. “It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq – thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President’s Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link.”
The White House flatly denied Suskind’s account. Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary, told Politico: “The allegation that the White House directed anyone to forge a document from Habbush to Saddam is just absurd.”
The White House plans to push back hard. Fratto added: "Ron Suskind makes a living from gutter journalism. He is about selling books and making wild allegations that no one can verify, including the numerous bipartisan commissions that have reported on pre-war intelligence."
Before “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism,” Suskind wrote two New York Times bestsellers critical of the Bush administration – “The Price of Loyalty” (2004), which featured extensive comments by former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, and “The One Percent Doctrine” (2006).
Suskind writes in his new book that the order to create the letter was written on “creamy White House stationery.” The book suggests that the letter was subsequently created by the CIA and delivered to Iraq, but does not say how.
The author claims that such an operation, part of “false pretenses” for war, would apparently constitute illegal White House use of the CIA to influence a domestic audience, an arguably impeachable offense.
Suskind writes that the White House had “ignored the Iraq intelligence chief’s accurate disclosure that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.
“They secretly resettled him in Jordan, paid him $5 million – which one could argue was hush money – and then used his captive status to help deceive the world about one of the era’s most crushing truths: that America had gone to war under false pretenses,” the book says.
Suskind writes that the forgery “operation created by the White House and passed to the CIA seems inconsistent with” a statute saying the CIA may not conduct covert operations “intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media.”
“It is not the sort of offense, such as assault or burglary, that carries specific penalties, for example, a fine or jail time,” Suskind writes. “It is much broader than that. It pertains to the White House’s knowingly misusing an arm of government, the sort of thing generally taken up in impeachment proceedings.”
Habbush is still listed as wanted on a State Department website designed to help combat international terrorism, with the notation: “Up to $1 Million Reward.”
Suskind is scheduled to discuss the book’s findings – and his assertion that the country has “diminished moral authority” -- in a pair of interviews by NBC’s Meredith Vieira on the “Today” show at 7:10 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday and Wednesday.
“[B]y placing so much on its secret ledger,” Suskind writes in his final chapter, “the administration profoundly altered basic democratic ideals of accountability and informed consent.”
The book (HarperCollins, $27.95) was not supposed to be publicly available until Tuesday, but Politico purchased a copy Monday night at a Washington bookstore.
Suskind, an engaging and confident Washingtonian, writes that the book was “one tough project.” He won the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing as a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, where he worked from 1993 to 2000.
The White House said Suskind received no formal cooperation. He writes in the acknowledgments section at the end of the book: “It should be noted that the intelligence sources who are quoted in this book in no way disclosed any classified information. None crossed the line.”
Among the 415-page book’s other highlights:
--John Maguire, one of two men who oversaw the CIA’s Iraq Operations Group, was frustrated by what Suskind describes as the “tendency of the White House to ignore advice it didn’t want to hear – advice that contradicted its willed certainty, political judgments, or rigid message strategies.”
And Suskind writes that the administration “did not want to hear the word insurgency.”
--In the first days of his presidency, Bush rejected advice from the CIA to wiretap Russian President Vladimir Putin in February 2001 in Vienna, where he was staying in a hotel where the CIA had a listening device planted in the wall of the presidential suite, in need only of a battery change. The CIA said that if the surveillance were discovered, Putin’s respect for Bush would be heightened.
But Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, advised that it was “too risky, it might be discovered,” Suskind writes. Bush decided against if as “a gut decision” based on what he thought was a friendship based on several conversations, including during the presidential campaign. The CIA had warned him that Putin “was a trained KGB agent … [who] wants you to think he’s your friend.”
--Suskind reports that Bush initially told Cheney he had to "‘step back’ in large meetings when they were together, like those at the NSC [National Security Council], because people were addressing and deferring to Cheney. Cheney said he understood, that he’d mostly just take notes at the big tables and then he and Bush would meet privately, frequently, to discuss options and action.”
--Suskind contends Cheney established “deniability” for Bush as part of the vice president’s “complex strategies, developed over decades, for how to protect a president.”
“After the searing experience of being in the Nixon White House, Cheney developed a view that the failure of Watergate was not the break-in, or even the cover-up, but the way the president had, in essence, been over-briefed. There were certain things a president shouldn’t know – things that could be illegal, disruptive to key foreign relationships, or humiliating to the executive.
“They key was a signaling system, where the president made his wishes broadly known to a sufficiently powerful deputy who could take it from there. If an investigation ensued, or a foreign leader cried foul, the president could shrug. This was never something he'd authorized. The whole point of Cheney’s model is to make a president less accountable for his action. Cheney’s view is that accountability – a bedrock feature of representative democracy – is not, in every case, a virtue.”
--Suskind is acidly derisive of Bush, saying that he initially lost his “nerve” on 9/11, regaining it when he grabbed the Ground Zero bullhorn. Suskind says Bush’s 9 p.m. Oval Office address on the fifth anniversary was “well along in petulance, seasoned by a touch of self-defensiveness.”
“Moving on its own natural arc, the country is in the process of leaving Bush – his bullying impulse fused, permanently, with satisfying vengeance – in the scattering ashes of 9/11,” Suskind writes. “The high purpose his angry words carried after the attacks, and in two elections since, is dissolving with each passing minute.”
--Suskind writes in the acknowledgments that his research assistant, Greg Jackson, “was sent to New York on a project for the book” in September 2007 and was “detained by federal agents in Manhattan. He was interrogated and his notes were confiscated, violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights.” The author provides no further detail.
_________________________________________________
_____
Lots to consider, here. I don't know about you, but as far as discerning the truth, I'll put my money on Pulitzer-Prize winning feature writer, and investigative journalist, Ron Suskind, over this Administration, anytime!
Peace, kids.

I TEND TO AGREE THAT WEALTHY COUNTRIES ARE UTILIZING THE RESOURCES OF THIRD-WORLD NATIONS, AND AT TIMES, LYING TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.
So call me crazy, but I think the remarks, detailed in the article below, are NOT that outrageous. The fellow who made them obviously used the example to illustrate how horrifying the decption can be. I feel certain that no disrespect was meant towards anyone who has suffered as a result of the Nazi era. Again, this fellow was comparing the current lies and misrepresentations to yet another dark chapter in history, that's all. Tell me what you think....Attention: In the reprint below, I put in bold italics what I feel is important to note--the actual quote from Brazil's Foreign Minister Celso Amorim.
_____________________________________________________
Brazil official's Nazi reference rocks WTO talks
By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER, Associated Press Writer
Some pre-negotiation jabbing turned into a potentially damaging diplomatic incident Saturday when Brazil's foreign minister said rich countries' deception in trade talks reminded him of tactics used by Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.
His comments drew a sharp rebuke from the United States, whose chief trade negotiator, Susan Schwab, is the daughter of Jewish Holocaust survivors. Her spokesman described the reference to Goebbels as "incredibly wrong."
The controversy threatens to overshadow next week's last-ditch effort to save seven years of frustrating talks on a new global trade pact toward alleviating poverty around the world.
The so-called Doha trade round is already teetering on the brink of collapse. President Bush has made a Doha deal a key part of his trade agenda.
Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said the U.S., Europe and other wealthy economies have so frequently misrepresented the talks launched in Qatar's capital in 2001 that public perception has become totally warped.
"Goebbels used to say if you repeat a lie several times it becomes a truth," Amorim told reporters at the World Trade Organization, where top negotiators from over two dozen countries are expected Monday for the official start of the talks.
Poorer countries have demanded cuts in the farm tariffs and subsidies used by wealthy countries, saying they hinder Third World development. In exchange, rich countries have insisted on better market access in developing countries for their manufacturers and service providers.
Amorim implied that rich countries were employing Goebbels' lying tactics in describing the agricultural concessions they claim they are willing to make, while criticizing poorer countries for refusing to liberalize their industrial markets.
"I am reminded of Goebbels," said Amorim, whose country has co-led with India a broad coalition of developing countries at the WTO talks.
Later, his spokesman qualified the remarks and apologized to Schwab.
Sean Spicer, spokesman for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said he was horrified by the "personal venom" of Amorim's words.
"We came here to Geneva to negotiate on substance," Spicer told The Associated Press. "For him to make remarks like this is so incredibly wrong. They are insulting."
Spicer noted that Schwab visited Amorim to soothe tensions immediately after negotiations collapsed in acrimony in 2006.
In an interview with the AP, Amorim's spokesman Ricardo Neiva Tavares said the minister "regrets if Susan Schwab or anyone else was upset by his comments on a historical fact. He certainly did not intend to hurt anyone's feelings, which he deeply respects."
___
Associated Press writer Eliane Engeler contributed to this report.
_
______________________________________________________
Gee, "Repeat a lie enough times, and it becomes the (widely-accepted, largely unchallenged) truth". I think anyone who reads this blog knows what I'm talking about(this Administration), and the list of lies repeated, and quickly swallowed as truth, are unfortunately, legion.
(See also: the slandering of/"swiftboating" of, at least one true American hero(Senator John Kerry, who after serving three tours in Vietnam, and losing five best friends over there, and becoming a multi-decorated officer, had the courage to say before Congress, over 30 years ago, "How do you ask a man, to be the last man, to die--for a mistake?"; the "reason(s)" for invading Iraq; WMD's; Valerie Plame's outing as a special agent; no images of coffins of dead soldiers allowed to be shown; illegal wire-tapping; the demise of Habaeus Corpus; the rewriting of/complete ignorance of, the U.S. Constitution; failure to rescue our own people from natural disasters, and the subsequent "help" in the form of toxic trailers; torture of prisoners condoned & encouraged, then euphemistically called "advanced interrogation techniques"; the hypocritical, irrational fear of LGBT persons, as evidenced by proposed "Marriage Amendments"; I could go on & on, but you get the idea....all of these tactics are meant to rewrite history. Something Goebbels and the Nazis tried to do, too.