Piers Morgan on the Gay and Anti-Christian Network: Dishonest Hypocrite

Questions Piers Morgan, dishonest hypocrite, will never ask of Barak Obama, and which willl not be asked by CNN or anyone else in the mainstream media:


1. Do you believe homosexuality is a sin? If the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, do you disagree with the Bible? If God says homosexual conduct is a sin, do you disagree with God?


2. Why do you think that homosexual marriage has never been recognized, for all of the thousands of years of human histtory before essentailly this century, even though polygamy and incest have been recognized as acceptable marriages in many times and places? (Editor's note: Cleopatra married her brother, as was customary for Egyptian royalty, and others).


3. How can you call yourself a Chirstian and still support legal abortion on demand up to th emoment of birth?


4. Do you understand that a ninth month fetus is SCIENTIFICALLY a "higher" form of life than an 8th month premature baby? Why do you think that cutting the umbilical cord creates a soul that did not previously exist? Isn't that absurd? If a Christian does not KNOW when a soul is created in a human body, with no reason to believe that a doctor injects the soul when he cuts the umbilical cord, how can you be a Christian and support abortion on demand. Are you telling me that you DON'T KNOW whehter you are approving the killing of a crature with a soul, but that yoiu are willing to risk the wrath of God because abortioin on demand is so important to you? How can you b e a Christian and take that attitude?


5. Do you favor legal infanticide in cases of rape and incest?


6. Do you favor legal abortion for the reason that the fetus is a GIRL? So there are SOME reasons you think are wrong for abortioin, but not--for example--the desire to be free to go out and party like Casey Anthony?


7. Do you really believe that the Theory of Evolultion FULLY explains how life on Earth was created from inanimate chemicals, and then devleoped into intelligent human beings (and other higher animals) by means of totally RANDOM mutation? Since most random mutations are harmful, are there not some problmes with this (even over a LONG period of time)?


8. Do you believe in premarital sex?


9. Is your Christianity the source of your public policy positions? Do you understand that the Christian religion presupposes that your religioni determines what kind of person you are, and gudes you in all things?


10. Do you believe that people wo do not accept Jesus Christ will go to Hell? Do you understand that to be one of the core beliefs of almost all Christian religions?


11. Do you believe Muslims will go to Hel if they do not accept Christ?


12. Do you understand why Bill Maher has said you are not really a Christian, but a secular humanist?


Enouh. I can keep this up FOREVER, and never run out of fquestions that Barack Obama will NOT be asked, because the members of the mainstream media are DISHONEST HYPOCRITES. No, they are not dishonest hypocrites because they think these questions are inappropriate for Barack Obama. They are dishoenst hypocrites because they think that these questons are APPROPRIATE for Republicans. Thus, CNNN believes it is "appropriate" to ask Mike Huckabee if he believes that the Bible is the literal Word of God. Does Barack Obama--who SAYS he is a Christian, even though Bill Maher and I do not believe it--believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God? We will never know, will we? "60 Minutes" actually asked Mitt Romney (in the 2008 campaign, as ws the Huckabee question) whether he had engaged in premarital sex with his wife (refacing the question with the idea that Mormons really MEAN it when they say premarital sex is wrong, while Crhistians have generally got over that weird idea that God may mean what He said--even if our modern society believes that God was wrong). Message to CBS and "60 Minutes": You are EVIL people spreading EVIL (that "problem of evil again, as to how God can allow evil like this to exist).


Yes. I am getting to Piers Morgan, and the weird, compulsive obsession that CNN has with "gay issues" as the most important issues facing this country today. Dishonest Jack Cafferty actually said on CNN that no reasonable person could vote for a Republican so long as Republicans maintain their present positions on social issues, even if it would save the country. Isn't it great how CNN would SELL OUT the country becuase it believes that homosexual "rights" are mroe improtant than whether you have a job? Than whether HOMOSEXXUALS have jobs? Dishonest Jack forever EARNED his name by saying it was REPUBICANS who were putting too much emphasis on "social issues", when it is CNN which regards homosexual "issues" as the MOST IMPORTANT issues facing this country (more imporatnt than jobs, the economy, terrorism, or anything else).


Yetp. This is where Piers Morgan comes in. The partisan political hack, and dishonest hypocrite, interviewe Rick Santorum on his CNN program. What was the most extensive part of the interview? Jobs? Don't be silly. This is PIERS MORGAN, partisan, political, CNN hack The economy? Ditto. Terrorism? Ditto. the debt? Ditto. The deficit? Ditto. Piers Morgan gave Santorum queston after queston abut his positon on homosexual conduct, and "rights" of homosexuals. That is what Piers Morgan and CNN--The Gay and anti-Christian Network--perceive as the MOST IMPORTANT issues in the country. Merely asking these questions of course, as CNN did during that debate where Dishonest Jack Cafferty did not like the answers, represents an ATTACK on a Republican. The idea of merely ASKING these questions (the answer not mattering) is to suggest that Repubican candidates are "religious nuts". Ask yourself how long President Obama would survive if he were constantly asked: "How can you say your are a Christian if............?" Or even: Are you really a Christian?


The questons are INSULTING. Piers Morgan is INSULTING to the human race. He is a SMARMY,m partisan hack who should not have a public access program in Mt. Ida, Arkansas. But that is true of EVERYONE on CNN (althoung not all of them--aside from the ultra-smarmy Anderson Cooper--are a slimy and smarmy as Piers Morgan). Nope. Piers Morgan is an EVIL man spreading EVIL--laong with the rest of the people on CNN.


No, these constant questons on RELIGON ar EVIL things. They are just aas evil for Repubicans as for Barack Obama. However, you can COUNT on me to fight evil with evil. As long as the mianstream media keeps up this evil injection of religion into politics, AS RELIGION, then I am going to keep up my own qukestioning of whether Barack Obama is a Christian. I do not turn the other cheek. Bill Maher and I agree that Obama is NOT a Christian, and you are going to hear that from me up until at least November of 2102--so long as the mainstream media keeps up its own obsession with Rebpulicans and religion (a sure thing--meaning tht both you and I can COUNT on this blog continuing to point out that Obama is not a Christian through at least the November election).


Oh. Piers Morgan. I have not even gotten to the punch line--the PROOF. Piers Morgan spent a substantial lpart of the interview with Santorum attacking Snatorum on his UNIMPORTANT views on homosexual "issues". Morgan-SMARMY as he is--wanted to make clear he did not like the answers. So what did the slimy Limey do? You should know this one. I told you in yesterday's article. Morgan asked Santorum, with a smirk: "Let us get back to basics. Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin?" I could never make this stuff up. That is an EVIL question. It is a direct, obviuos injection of religious DOCTRINE into politics. And NO, Republkcans do NOT ordinarily do that. That is reserved for the EVIL people of the mainstream media. Do you really believe, along with the SLIMYU LIMEY, that it is a RELEVANTR ISSUE in the Presidential campiagn whether Rick Santorum believes that "homosexuality is a sin"" Forget that the very questin is nonsense, since the "issue" (in religoin--not politics) is whether homosexual CONDUCT is a "sin". There is just no excuse for this kind of question. Yet, it is what Morgan, and the others at CNN, DO. They are partisan hacks who think the very ASKING of this kind of question HURTS a Repubican.


You want to know Santorum's answer? I think he would have ADVANCED his Presidential campaign had he WALKED OUT on Morgan. That is what he should have done, like Christine O'Donnell. The slimy Limey deserved no less. It was one of the worst questions ever asked on television, and one of the most insullting. I actually like Rick Santorum, and would like him to be ding better in the Presidential race. I think he needs to take opportunities like this to ATTACK THE QUESTIONI--THE EVIL QUESTION. Instead, Sanroum gave the vanilla, if correct, answer. Yes, Santorum said that the question was a THEOLOGICAL one, and outside of the scope of Presidential politics--outside of his expertise or pay grade as a Presidentitial candidate. That is all absolutely corrct. But Santorum, and other Republicans, will get the question again. You can EXPECT similar questons at the Wednesday Repubican debate. Repubicans really do need to start ATTACKING these questons, and CONTINUING to attack them after the evil media peoiple "defend" the question. DO NOT ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, or let them passs.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

Dishonest Jack Cafferty: Evil Anti-Christian, Anti-Mormon Bigot Shows His True Colors (Part 1 of article on latgest CNN religious bigotry)

What did I tell you about this obviously orchestrated campaign of BEIGOTRY against Mitt Romney, in my article noting that the campaign had become so extensive that it hd spilled over to Fox News, and even Cabuto? I told yo that the mainstream media obviously thought this campaign of vicious anti-Mormon bigotry applied to Mitt Romney, and not to Jon Huntsman, because the leftist hypocrites of the mainstream media believed that Romney actually BELIEVES in his religion (which the mainstream media does not like), while Hunsman (a sort of lefitst) does not. I bet you thought there was no way that this blog could be PROVEN right on that assertion. You are a fool, aren't you, or you have not watched this blog in actioin. It took a day or so for CNN to PROVE me right (anti-Christian and anti-Mormon bigots that they are).


Yes, I saw Dishonest Jack Cafferty on Wolf Blitzer's CNN show on Wednesday afternoon, and it was one of the worst displays of religious BIGOTRY I have ever seen. Yes, Cafferty and Blitzer both proved themselves EVIL anti-Christian, anti-Mormon bigots spewing evil bigotry with almost every word. In the process, Cafferty porved the point I had made only a day or so before.


Yes, it may suprise you that Cafferty would be so OBVIOUS about his evil, bigoted mind, but he was. The only explanation for this is that CNN--as Wolf Blitzer's nodding approval indicates---is to bigoted that they all reinforce each other to the point of not even realizing what they are saying. I could never make this up. Even I was stunned as Dishonest Jack started COMPARING what he understood to be the religious beliefs of both Romney and Huntsman, as if lthat were a perfectly reasonable "issue" in the Presidential campaign. Thus, Cafferty actually said what I had said-in foresight--a mere day or so earlier. Dishonest Jack actually said that Hunsman did not appear very religious, and had said something like that "he looked to various religions for guidance". Do you seee why I say--besides Bill Maher--that CNN is anti-Christian. Dhshonest Jack as much as said that it was okay to be bigoted against CHRISTIANS and MORMONS who actually are "religious"--while Blitzer stood there nodding. Then Dishonest Jack made his point crystal clear as to his anti-Mormon bigotry, saying that Romney--in contrast to Huntsman--seems to take his religion seriously--even holding some sort of leadership position (a "lay" position) in Romney's Mormon temple in Massachusetts. There was no doubt that Dishonest Jack was asserting that it was okay to hold the Mormon religion against Romney, but not against Huntsman (the very position I told you was behind the mainstream media attack on the Mormon church--but not on Harry Reid or Jon Huntsman. There is no doubt that Cafferty was saying that the Mormon religion, and the dETAILS of that religion, are fair game in this Presidential campaing.


Bigotry just does not get any more EVIL than that? Why is this so evil and not just the usual partisan politics from the leftist political hacks of CNN? Look at what Cafferty was doing!!! He ws ANALYZING the estent to which two Presidential candidates believe in their religion. CNN did the very same thing with Sarah Palin, and her previous connection with the Pentecostal Christian reiligion. Remember, CNN is the very same network that has made a CRUSADE out of the supposed "intolerant" way this country treats MUSLIMS. Message to Dishonest Jack Cafferty and Wolf Blitzer--to ALL of CNN: AMERICANS (not to mention Christians) have much MORE reason to regard the Muslim religion as suspect than the Mormon religion. I would go so far as to say evangelical Christians hwve MORE reason to hold MAINLINE PROTESTANT churches suspect, because they don't seem to believe in their own Christian religion anymore (I was raised Presbyterian, but in the 1950s in a small Arkansas town--Mt. Ida--where this liberal nonsense had not taken hold). From all accounts, Mormons LIVE their religion, while the mainstream media, leftists, and people like Huntsman do not believe in their religion at all.


You disagree with me on whether a number of mainline churches, and establishment people-, regard religion as some kind of HICK thing that no one takes really seriously? Fine. As an agnostic who has not been in chruch to worship for at least 50 years--the lat time I remember being at the age of 12 in Mt. Ida, I don't claim to be an expert on the various religions out there. However, I AM an EXPERT on what makes an agnostic, and in observing when a person really believes in his or her religion. But that is my point. What Cafferty is really saying--this is EVIL-- is that this argument is FINE i a Presidential campaign. Yes, I KNOW that Dishonest Jack, Wolf and the rest are HYPOCRITES, and would suddenly reverse their position if Fox News (for example) started to support the--correct--idea that President Obama is not a real Christian. If we are gong to start going into the religious DOCTRINES of each Presidential candidates church, AND into the extent to which each candidate believes in those doctrines, then it is not only Dishonest Jack Cafferty, Wolf Blitzer and CNN who wil become EVIL. Our entire politics will become an evil, visious arena for arguing RELIGION--the very opposite of what CNN pretends to believe in. Nope. Dishonest Jack Cafferty and Wolf Blitzer are EVIL people spreading EVIL. To even talk about the Mormon religioin as a legitmate "issue" in teh Presidential campaign is to embrace evil with both arms. And CNN went way beyond Fox News in doing ss (see the previoius article on the bigotry of Fox News). Stay tuned for part II of this article, on this LONG, evil, bigoted segment on CNN.


Yes. This blog has told you repeatedly: I am not a Christian. That is one reason I do not turn the other cheeek. That means I WILL fight evil with evil. If you have not already realized it, it is this ANTI-CRHISTIAN and ANTI-MORMON BIGOTRY on the part of the mainstream media that has caused me to repreatedly state what is true: Bill Maher and I agree that Barack Obama is not a Christian. Yes, Dhishonest Jack did a CNN "poll" as to whether viewers believe a Mormon should ever be President. What about this poll: Do you believe a NON-CHRISTIAN should be President? would you vote for such a person? Thre are assertions that Barack Obama is not a believing Christian. Will you vote for such a person for President?


No, I don't care whether Barack Obama is a hypocrite on his religion, which I am totally convinced he is. What bothers me are the EVIL HYPOCCCRITES of the mainstream media, like Dishonest Jack Cafferty and Wold Blitzer. Nope. I am not the same kind of hypocrite. I think religion has no place in a political campaigns (withink reason, disregarding religions that favor human sacrifice). Unlike that hypocrite, Dishonest Jack, hoever, I mean this literallyu. That is, I don't think we should be looking into a candidates actual religious beliefs. It is, however, another evil thing to say that people cannot ACT on their religioins beliefs in formulating their politcal positions (on abortion, or whatever). Note that Dishoenst Jack, Blitzer, and CNN are WRONG both ways. They are willing to look at a person's actual RELIGION, and treat that as a legitimate political issue (unless it is a religion, like Islam, that they are promoting this year). But they will say that Caholics (for example) are prohibited from fighting a SECULAR ISSUE ( on secular grounds) based on the moral/factual position their religioin tells them is correct. Dishonest Jac, Wolf Blitzer and CNN are EVIL both ways. It is an EVIL thinng to say that people cannot bring their religioous beliefs to bear on secular issues, so long as people do not say that the secualar positon should be adopted BECAUSE it is a religious doctrine. And it is reallyEVIL to say that we should argue ACTUAL RELIGION i politics, instead of the issues themselves. For example, it is an EVIL thing to vote against a Catholic because he or she is Catholic. It is fine to vote against a Caholic because that Caholic wants to make abortion illegal. The EVIS here are both aruing religion, as religion, in politics, AND sayihng that people are not allowed to express their religious beliefs through politics. Remember, if you are truly a Christian, ALL of your "good" beliefs originate with God. The initial war against SLAVER was maijnly based on RELIGION.


"But Skip, you still have not explained how you can--correctly--say that CNN people are evil, and still keep asserting--crorrectly again--that Barack Obama is not a Christian (because, like Huntsman, he does not believe in any religion at all). " You stil don't get it, do you. I am AGREEING that my continued assertion that President Obama is not a Christian is an EVIL thing for our politics, if that is the kind of regular debate we end up with in every political race. From my point of view, however, I am fighting evil with evil.. I refuse to cede the field to people in the mainstream media who think thaey can have a CLER FIELD. Nope. I will continue to call them anti-Christian, anti-Mormon BIGOTS (which they are), and I will continue to fight fire with fire by using the same standards to "evaluatge" Barack Obama.


Do You fquestion the "anti-Christian", by the way? Don't. Do you realize lthat Cafferty, Blitzer andd the ret of the mainstream media keeep saying that it is EVANGELICALS who won't vote for Romney. I am sure that there are some--maybe 5 or 10--evangelicals who feel that way in the country. Otherwise, however, this is hogwash. It is an anti-Christian statement. It is really the mainstream media, and people who think like them, who DESISE religions which might actually expect people to live up to the CONDUCT beliefs of the religoin. Yes, evangelical Christians and Mormons should look upon each other as ALLIES. People of both don't like abortion, homosexual marriage, premarital sex, and any number of traditional virtues. This is why the mainstream meida HATES them, and is willing to make their religion an ISSUE (whhen we are not even allowed to TALK about the flaws in the Muslimm relgin--much less hold it against a candidate). The enmey of my enemy is my friend. That is how Mormons and evnagelical Christians should think, and I believe mostly do think. I reject the idea that evangelical Chrisitans are bigots. But I have no qquestin that the people of the mainstream media are BIGOTS.


P.S. Yes, you will have noticed that I--an agnostic--am perfectly willing to give advice to Mormons and evangelical Christians. And you should follow it. The point is the same: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And I am the ENEMY of your enemies. Plus, I respect you more than all leftists, mainstream media types, and establishment Republican types (excluding only tose FEW who really believe in a religion that puts the Word of God ahead of their personal beliefs). No proofreading or spell checking of this article, as usual (bad eyesight). Stay tuned for part 2, gong into more detail about the efil of Dishonest Jack Cafferty and Wold Blitzer. They are jointly in the lead for the next award of The Weiner, which would be the second consecutive award for Dishonest Jack (really on the same issue: the CONTEMPT Dhishonest Jack has for both genuinely religious people and ro people who don't believe as he does no "social issues", which explains the way he looks at Mormons. Want to bet that Mitt Romney--whatever his faults--has led a cleaner life than Dishonest Jack? I am willing to give odds.

Unions and CNN: The Liar Network Lies, Lies and Lies Again

Yes, CNN continues to be the master of the Orwellian Big Lir. Ihave expanded my Sodom and Gomorrah search for an "honets journalist" from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" to "CNN, the Evil, Anti-American Network" a/k/a The Liar Network, a/k/a The Hypocritical Network. You will remember that, for 7 years, I hae been serarching for a single employee of the desicable AP who is an honorable individual, without success. I have been unable to find a single employee of the aP who is an honest individual, despite a more exhaustive (oh, the SACRIFICEWS I have made for you) than anyone else alive. I have now--because of my new concentation on AUDIO sources because of failing eyesight--to include CNN. As yet, I have not found a single "honest journalist"--indeed, a sinngle honest human being--employed by CNN. Saturday's story on "unions" on CNN illustrates my point, and why I expect to report to God that I have been unable to find any evidence that CNN is worth "saving" (less of a threat than you might sppose, in contrast to the Massachusetts Democrat who has advocated that members of public employee unions need to bring "bloody" protest to the streets, since I am an agnostic). If you start to see CNN and AP offices vaporize, don't look. There is a substantil chance you will turn into a pillar of salt.

What was wrong with the CNN program? Simply put, it DELIBERATELY (tese are deliberate liars) confused public employee unions and private unions. In thie guise of looking at Scott Walker's attempt to reign in public employee unions, and similar problems of other states with PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS, CNN misrepresented history. CNN gave this history of how the unions improved the plight of the working man after wWorld War II. Now you could argue this point as to how good unionis have actually been for the working man. The publicn verdct seems to be against unions, since only 7% or so of PRIVATE workters now belong to a union. However, that is not the LIE (albeit the big battles between unon organizers and company thugs probably took place in the 1930s, and not after World War II, but a case could be made that union members did benefit from their "right" to organize after they secured that "right" mainly in the 1930s). The LIE is that this "history lesson" (George Orwell's Big Broter would be proud of the distortion of hisotry--the Big Lie) has anything to do with PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS.

You would not know it from watching CNN, but there is NO RIGHT for public employees to organize and collectively bargain. Public employees are EXCLUDED from the Federal laws requiring recognition of the right of workers to organize. Indeed, MANY states exclue public emplyees from any significant collective bargaining "rights". The kicker, however, is that FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (civil service) employees do NOT have the right to "collectively bargain") on wages or genefits. In other words, Scott Walker, in Wisconsin, is asking for LESS restriction on collective bargaining than than is now true of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (without potest by Obama or achnowlegement by the dishonest people at CNN).

Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed pubic employee unions as entirely different from private unions, and the entire history of modern union "rights" (in the private sector, as there are none for public employees, except as may be recognized under individual STATE law) dates to FDR. Given this history, it is absurd to suggest that public employee unions have some sort of "fudnamental right" to collectively bargain. What has happened is that pbulic employee STATE unions--which FDR did not even think should exis, and he was right) have become of prime importance to labor unions. That is because, as stated above, labor unions have DECLINED in the private sector to the point of extinction. The only "growth" for labor unions has been in the public sector--the area where it is most questionable.

Contrary to the CNN Big Lie, it was NOT public employee unions which liberated workers from oppression by explottive employoers. That was--to the extgent accurate, and there is some truth to it--PRIVATE UNIONS (ans especially the laws making it POSSIBLE for unions to organize, meaning that it was always a threat keeping employers from being too aggressive in exploiting employees). Public emplyees have ALWAYS had--since World War II--something like civil service protection. Indeed, the Federal Courts have guaranteed public employees "due process of law"--the problem being that this has often meant that a public employee CANNOT BE FIRED (as a practical matter) for lack of job performance. This is why the teachers' unions are so DISHONEST when they say that their objections to quality control and discharge of teachers for cause relate to "need to balance due process fairness and the need for effective teachers". In practice, teachers' unions use this to make sure that their members CNNOT BE FIRED. Further, they have no intention of changing that, and I will say it to the fact of any of them. You will notice that the real problem is that "due process" is a problem for firing public employees even beyond any union. Indeed, it is clear that the teachers' unions want to make it MORE DIFFICULT to fire teachers than even the Federal Courts would make it.

Okay. CNN lies. Public emplyee unons and private unions represent entirely different issues. Pubic employee unionns get their money directly from TAXPAYERS, who are reallly their "employers". See my next article.

Thus, the question of whether public employee unions have "helped" their members get better wages and benefits is an even more tricky questio than whether private unions have helped their members. Every single extra dollar that public employee unons may get for their members--and their JOB is to get more money for their members rather than to be "fair" to the taxpayers) has to come out of the pocket of TAXPAYERS. The money does NOT come from politicians who might be "netotiating" with unions, and whose main interest is in VOTES (rather than protecting the taxpayer). The wages and benefits of public employees are a matter of PUBLIC POLICY, and it is rally absurd to suggest that unions should be able to "negotiate" away the "rights' of the taxpayers with sweetheart deals with the very politicians the unions often got elected in the first place.

Wheter you agree with all of this analysis, it is an objective FACT that the issues as to public employee unions are NOT the same as with private unions. Left wing unions might think that they are needed to "protect" public workers from "right wing thugs" just as bad as company goons. But that is absurd. Why should UNIONS be able to determine public policy on their own wages and benefits. Even if you think they should be able to do that--fool that you are--it is an entirely different ISSUE than the issue of private bargaining between private workers and private employers.

Q.E.D. CNN is The Liar Network. At the very least, CNN needs to at least acknowlege that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not allow collective bargaining on wages and benefits. If you don't acknowlege that, then you have no case for saying you are not a LIAR> Of course you are (as President Obama lied when he said that Scott Walker in Wisconsin was conduction an "assault on unions", even as Walker was trying to adopt the same rules as the Federal Government--ONLY ALLOWING MORE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALLOWS).

Now you may have noticed that Repubicans ans, and even conservatives, conspire in this mainstream media Big Lie (that the issues on private unions and public employee unions are the same). Republicans do this by also talking about "unions", as if there is no difference between public employee unnions and unions in the private sector. WHY do Republicans make this error? I think it is because Repubicans fall into the trap that ALL unions are the "enemy", and therefore it is easy for them to fall into the trap of considering all unions as being equally bad. Over the last 40 or 50 years, you can make the case that unions have HURT workers--including private sector unions (a case CNN did not really make, showing it is PARTISAN as well as composed only of liars). But you still can't fall into the error of accepting the FALSE lpremis that public and private sector unions have the same issues. Legally, this is clearly false. And the issues involved are different in several fundamental ways.