Teen pregnancy in the Palin family
The liberal blogosphere is agog with the news that Sarah Palin’s unmarried teenage daughter is pregnant. Predictably, they are chalking it up as an example of conservative hypocrisy (a cherished narrative on the left) and gleefully anticipating that the news will suppress the energizing effect that Palin has had among social conservatives.
Barring further revelations, the latter will not occur. Byron York reports that RNC delegates are sympathetic to the Palin family’s situation. I expect that reactions are similar among social conservatives generally, and evangelicals in particular. Most understand that as much as parents instruct their children and instill in them good moral values, some children will make mistakes.
It goes without saying, then, that the insinuation of hypocrisy has no merit. Had the Palins arranged for a secret abortion for their daughter which was later uncovered, that would be hypocrisy. A person who makes a mistake, who fails in their struggle against moral wrong, is not a hypocrite–they are human. And certainly such a mistake does not reflect on the person’s parents. It appears that the Palin family is handling this situation admirably. They are in need of our prayers, as this would be a difficult time for any family even without the harsh glare of national media attention.
33 Responses to “Teen pregnancy in the Palin family”
The liberal blogosphere is agog with the news that Sarah Palin’s unmarried teenage daughter is pregnant. Predictably, they are chalking it up as an example of conservative hypocrisy (a cherished narrative on the left) and gleefully anticipating that the news will suppress the energizing effect that Palin has had among social conservatives.
As someone who’s familiar with the liberal blogosphere, I’d say yes, that it’s agog at the news, but mainly for the reason that it appears Palin didn’t get a proper vetting. The rest of the paragraph appears to be mostly projection on your part. And about social conservatives: please go ahead, just try to make ‘08 about abortion.
Jerry, why would Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy be an indication to liberals that Palin wasn’t properly vetted unless they believed that the revelation was damaging somehow? (On the contrary, all reliable sources seem to indicate that the McCain camp *was* aware of the pregnancy when they picked Palin.)
And please explain how this has any effect on abortion as an issue in 2008. I think that Palin’s daughter’s case is a rather good example for the pro-life cause. She’s walking the walk, as they say.
For the most part, Palin’s pregnancy is irrelevant. Most of the liberal blogosphere is agog at, in no particular order:
#Palin’s membership/support of the Alaskan Independence Party
#Palin’s historical ignorance in thinking the Founding Fathers injected “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance.
#Her use of her office to settle personal scores and shifting stories on the subject.
#Her support of book banning.
#Her belief that abortion should be outlawed in cases of rape, incest, and risk of serious harm (but not death) of the mother.
#Her belief that Intelligent Design ought to be taught as science.
#Her belief that human activity isn’t a significant cause of global warming.
#Her various ties to Ted Stevens.
So, the status of her daughter’s pregnancy is relatively insignificant, though it would be interesting to know if she’s reconsidered her position against teaching kids something other than “abstinence only” sex education which studies have indicated is ineffective.
It goes without saying, then, that the insinuation of hypocrisy has no merit.
Mostly you’re right, but one thing does strike me as hypocritical about this (very minor) scandal: We all know how things would play if Barack Obama had had a teenage daughter in the same situation. It would be taken as proof of the Democrats’ moral laxity.
Republicans, however, get a pass on these things. THEIR family life is private, and off limits to everyone. (And those of us on the sidelines with scorecards have given up even trying to keep count. Good lord, why is it that every politician and their family seems to have a sex life ten times more exciting than my own?)
Personally, though, I’m more troubled by the stuff about the Alaskan Independence Party. If it turns out to be true, advocating secession would really make me doubt Palin’s commitment to the United States, and her fitness for office.
Eric,
The daughter wasn’t the only news. There was an avalanche of news: “it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.”
Ms Palin is extremely popular with the base, and Byron York explains nicely why in his piece, “Why the Palin Baby Story Matters.” The social conservatives are now energized which is good for the GOP. But if that translates into a big anti-abortion push this election, I think McCain have a problem. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think the the state of the economy, healthcare, and the War in Iraq looms large with voters. Also, that could bring up the current makeup of the Supreme Court (56 % of Americans support for Roe v. Wade). Just my opinion.
Jerry,
If I’m understanding you correctly, you think abortion isn’t a winning issue in this election, but not because of Palin. Fine–but that’s irrelevant to this post. (And by the way, social conservatives care about more than just abortion.)
Also, you haven’t backed up your assertion that the liberal excitement about the baby story was mainly about the vetting of Palin.
Jason wrote:
We all know how things would play if Barack Obama had had a teenage daughter in the same situation. It would be taken as proof of the Democrats’ moral laxity.
I don’t believe that’s true. If that had happened and the Obamas had taken their daughter to have an abortion, it might go that way. But if the daughter decided to keep the child and the young couple planned to marry, I think folks would react pretty much the same way. As I said, such things can happen in even the most upright families.
Vice Presidential candidates of the Democrat persuasion like John Edwards can rest easy at night knowing that no attention will be paid to his much more serious moral transgressions for the reason that morality is not a Democrat virtue. Common morality only applies to R’s. So, did Mr. Edwards father a child by a lady not his wife ala Jesse Jackson? I haven’t heard the first word about John Edwards and the typical Democrat manner in which he has treated his wife.
I haven’t heard the first word about John Edwards…
Leon, what rock were you under a few weeks ago? Edwards affair got considerable media play on many levels for about a week and Edwards had whatever spot he was going to get at the DNC convention pulled.
So, did Mr. Edwards father a child by a lady not his wife ala Jesse Jackson? I haven’t heard the first word about John Edwards and the typical Democrat manner in which he has treated his wife.
Most Democrats who I have met do not treat their wives like that (I don’t see it or hear about it, if they do), so I wouldn’t call it “typical.” Also, though I am a little surprised that Edwards didn’t receive more attention than he did, I’m sure that people would have talked more about it if he were the Democrats’ nominee for Vice President again this year.
I have to admit that I sorta agree with Jason that if Barack had kids that had become pregnant while in high school I would have thought less of him for it and thought it was due to lower Democratic morals. I do not feel the same way towards Palin. Interesting. I will have to reflect more on this.
However, I don’t think that Republicans “get a pass”. There are too many incidents of Republicans resigning because of extra-family life. (Paging Senator Craig, your plane is ready).
Can someone please tell me what “involvement” Sarah Palin had with the Alaskan Independence Party? I know she attended a rally in 1994 (14 years ago). Also, her husband was a member from 1995-1998. Is that it?
Also, you haven’t backed up your assertion that the liberal excitement about the baby story was mainly about the vetting of Palin.
I am fairly certain that there are some idiots somewhere who may be gloating over the misfortunes of a teenaged girl, but I honestly don’t know where you’ve witnessed the “excitement” of the sort you assert that liberals are having over the baby story, Eric. I did see one site, TalkLeft where the blogger had to issue a warning to commenters not to get personal about the matter, and scrubbed a number of comments. Otherwise, my daily reads (Michael Tomasky’s blog, Kevin Drum’s, Matt Yglesias’s, Pat Lang’s, Washington Monthly, TPM, and Washington Note) contained nothing at all like what you’re describing. Maybe I should ask you to back up YOUR assertion that the “liberal blogosphere is agog with the news that Sarah Palin’s unmarried teenage daughter is pregnant. Predictably, they are chalking it up as an example of conservative hypocrisy.”
How about Founding Fathers putting “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance? That has a certain “Germans bombing Pearl Harbor” quality to it. Creationism as science? Humans have nothing to do with global warming?
Strikes me as nutty, anti-science ignorance. Anyone else?
Not to press my case too hard, but I recall that Chelsea Clinton got an awful lot of grief for doing nothing notable at all. The Palin kids deserve to have their own lives, and so did she, and so do the children of all famous people. Will they get them? Not a chance, I’d say. From either party.
I don’t think the “predictability” has to do with liberals, but the “do what it takes to win” attitude that has existed for years on both sides. In 1972, many conservatives used the earlier arrest of one of George McGovern’s children on a possession of marijuana charge. The arrest was put forth as evidence that McGovern would bring moral decay to the nation. And I can’t even count the number of times conservative friends reminded me of the arrest of various Kennedy minor children on drug or mischief charges. It is unfortunate that matters that relate to human nature are ascribed to a particular political viewpoint.
Quite a number of my Republican friends have sent me the scandalous e-mails about Obama without even checking on the truth.
One allegation that I do see as relevant is whether or not Palin was involved in Pat Buchanan’s 1996 campaign. It seems pretty settled now that the 2000 connection to Buchanan was weak, as Palin signed on with Forbes. The campaign button of 1999 isn’t a big deal. If I were mayor of a town and Eric Seymour was running for national office, I might put on a “Seymour” button for an hour or so, just as an act of hospitality.
Jerry wrote:
I am fairly certain that there are some idiots somewhere who may be gloating over the misfortunes of a teenaged girl, but…my daily reads (Michael Tomasky’s blog, Kevin Drum’s, Matt Yglesias’s, Pat Lang’s, Washington Monthly, TPM, and Washington Note) contained nothing at all like what you’re describing.
Of course, the prominent lefty bloggers have been careful not to openly gloat about it, although several have still made unfounded assumptions about what she was taught about sex, in order to make political points:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/1/13540/20367/584/582167
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_08_31_archive.html#4687390224935613201
And here a blogger at The American Prospect uses the news to…call conservatives hypocrites:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=palin_and_the_meaning_of_choic
Besides this, all manner of lesser bloggers and commenters have been carrying on as I described, provoking responses from the liberal hilzoy and the moderate Megan McArdle.
As Megan points out, there’s no reason that this is news at all, other than the sort of unseemly political point-making I mentioned in my post.
I don’t think the “predictability” has to do with liberals, but the “do what it takes to win” attitude that has existed for years on both sides.
I agree with you there, Joel. Conservatives as a group can be very predictable in their own right. I hope that–most of the time anyway–readers can see that we at ITA don’t indulge in such bottom-feeding.
Hypocrisy or Irony? Don’t you find it ironic that the party which has questioned its opponent’s patriotism over wearing (or not wearing) a flag pin then nominates a candidate who has connections with a party advocating secession? The candidate who opposes funding for sex education has a pregnant teenage daughter? The candidate who is now lauding HRC for her run in the democratic primaries was calling her a whiner just two months ago? The candidate who says she opposed the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ ran a campaign championing it, or that the candidate who opposes ‘earmarks’ names a running mate who has requested significant amounts of money in the form of earmarks?
Do I think these are issues that will determine how I vote? No. I would much rather to be discussing more substantive issues. They are only ‘newsworthy’ because the republican party has made ‘patriotism’, ‘leadership’, etc. , and not ISSUES, the central tenants of this campaign. Rick Davis said just yesterday that “This election is not about issues.” The hypocrisy is not in the individual circumstances for Mrs. Palin or her family, but in the message of what republicans are banking on in this election.
Eric,
So now you’ve gone from “liberal blogosphere is agog with the news that Sarah Palin’s unmarried teenage daughter is pregnant. Predictably, they are chalking it up as an example of conservative hypocrisy” to “prominent lefty bloggers have been careful not to openly gloat about it,” as if you have access to the private rooms or wherever that this supposed “gloating” is surreptitiously going on. Based on your links above, you should have written “Predictably, Ann Friedman at Tapped is chalking it up as an example of conservative hypocrisy,” because the overwhelming majority haven’t, although they could have.
Also, the Hilzoy post is not a reprimand or a response, but rather a personal declaration that the daughter is “not fair game.”
Finally, if the Kos post (making assumptions about the daughter’s sex-ed) is about as damning a post as you can find, then in my opinion, the left blogosphere has generally handled this issue pretty responsibly.
Don’t you find it ironic that the party which has questioned its opponent’s patriotism over wearing (or not wearing) a flag pin then nominates a candidate who has connections with a party advocating secession?
There is quite a range of meaning to your phrase, “has connections.” She does not completely lack contact with it, but there is no evidence that she was ever even sympathetic to the idea that Alaska should secede.
The candidate who opposes funding for sex education has a pregnant teenage daughter?
This is a good example of why irony does not have the same kind of significance as hypocrisy. It would be just as meaningful to point to a Republican candidate with a daughter who is a Democrat and ask, “Isn’t it ironic that this Republican candidate has a Democrat for a daughter?” So what?
The hypocrisy is not in the individual circumstances for Mrs. Palin or her family, but in the message of what republicans are banking on in this election.
Even if your characterization of this campaign were accurate, where is the hypocrisy in this?
Hypocrisy defined:
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
Not to be rude, but if you cannot see the hypocrisy, then my attempts at making the point more clear will probably not get us anywhere. For the party to say that experience matters, only to appoint Palin, that is hypocrisy. For members of the party to question Obama’s (and his wife’s) patriotism, only to name a candidate who’s husband was a member of a political party calling for secession, that is hypocrisy. And the hypocrisy is in the nature of the attacks. Some conservatives attempted to ’smear’ Obama in a guilt by association argument with William Ayers or Rev. Wright, with Obama and his supporters saying ‘this is not relevant.’ So when the tables are turned, and the left points to the Alaska Independence Party, or the Palin family’s church’s sermons, or whatever, and conservatives say ‘this is not relevant’, I hope you see the hypocrisy.
My point is not that two wrongs make one right, or that candidates with ‘unpopular’ beliefs should be precluded from running for office, but that the republican campaign is being hoisted on its own petard.
We have discussed the experience issue in other posts (not with you, but the refutation of the idea that Palin is inexperienced or has no more experience than Obama is out there — we can discuss it if you would like), and because Palin is not inexperienced, at least in the same way that Obama is (and because she is not running for the same office as he is), it is not hypocrisy to nominate her.
As for the Michelle Obama question, you did not mention that above, so I was not responding to that, but let’s look at it anyway. She has been criticized for her remark, and many jokes have been made about it, and those probably would tend to hurt Obama, if they have any effect at all. The people who make those jokes doubtlessly even want them to affect the outcome of the election. I have not heard the claim that Barack Obama actually agrees with what Mrs. Obama said. However, the idea that Palin favors Alaskan independence has been taken seriously, without any direct evidence, because her husband is a former member and Palin herself has had (very limited) contact with it.
Also, there is no parallel between questions about Obama’s connections with Wright and Palin’s connection with her husband. What Wright is known to have said on several occasions is worse than the worst that we can fairly assume Mr. Palin to have done as a former member of the Alaskan Independence Party, and I think it is far more reasonable to think that Obama should have left Wright’s church over what Wright preached than that Palin should be held similarly responsible for her continued association with her husband.
conversations with my grandparents about the mostly poor students i give councilling to often center around how irresponsible they are for getting pregnant and how its a sign of the decline of america
conversations with my grandparents about palin’s daughter’s pregnancy have centered around how giving birth is a beautiful thing and her family is so supportive and it makes them like her even more
needless to say they’re republican, though i wonder more and more if the strong bonds of that overcomes the weak bonds to a sense of conservatism
CJ
The Daily Show did a bit on that last night, comparing (for example), Bill O’Reilly’s comments on the beauty of a family being so supportive ala Palin, and his comments on the teen pregnancy of Britany Spears’ younger sister- blaming the parents for the actions of the child.
“Also, there is no parallel between questions about Obama’s connections with Wright and Palin’s connection with her husband. What Wright is known to have said on several occasions is worse than the worst that we can fairly assume Mr. Palin to have done as a former member of the Alaskan Independence Party, and I think it is far more reasonable to think that Obama should have left Wright’s church over what Wright preached than that Palin should be held similarly responsible for her continued association with her husband.”
We’ve just crossed over into la-la-land here. Obama has never expressed any support whatsoever for the Weather Underground’s actions, and has indeed explicitly denied their dangerous radicalism. So there’s not even a prima facie affinity between him & them, and he’s made explicit denials. Pailin has expressed ideological friendliness to an organization that is both secessionist and Christian Domionist. So there is a prima facie affinity there, and she has not made explicit denials (that I’m aware of — this claim should be an easy thing to prove wrong, if it is wrong.)
you’re just smearing her with your use of elitist logic and snobbishly coastal words like prima facie, have you no decency
We’ve just crossed over into la-la-land here. Obama has never expressed any support whatsoever for the Weather Underground’s actions, and has indeed explicitly denied their dangerous radicalism. So there’s not even a prima facie affinity between him & them, and he’s made explicit denials. Pailin has expressed ideological friendliness to an organization that is both secessionist and Christian Domionist. So there is a prima facie affinity there, and she has not made explicit denials (that I’m aware of — this claim should be an easy thing to prove wrong, if it is wrong.)
As you can see in the quote of mine that appears in your latest comment, I was writing about Obama being connected with Wright, not with the Weather Underground. I ignored the mention of Ayers because I do not think it can seriously be said that those accusations can be attributed to “conservatives” collectively or the conservative movement. Even r.johnson only said that “Some conservatives” attempt to connect Obama with the Weathermen, but then called it hypocrisy when conservatives more generally took the opposite position with respect to the accusations against Palin. Of course, it is not hypocrisy when some conservatives say one thing while other conservatives say something else.
“As you can see in the quote of mine that appears in your latest comment, I was writing about Obama being connected with Wright, not with the Weather Underground.”
Eep, my bad. Serves me right for trying to comment during a boring business meeting!
But this: “I ignored the mention of Ayers because I do not think it can seriously be said that those accusations can be attributed to “conservatives” collectively or the conservative movement.” is rather mistaken, as I pointed out on the other thread. Numerous recognizably-GOP folks, including McCain himself, have tried to make some sort of hay out of an alleged Ayers-Obama connection.
I know that McCain said something about it the Sunday after Obama and Clinton discussed it at a Democratic debate in April, and it looks as though the RNC operates something called “BarackBook” (of which I had not even heard, until today) on which Ayers is one of Obama’s 19 “friends,” and a group that supports McCain introduced a new ad about the whole thing, but it still can’t be said that it is “conservatives” who are promoting this in the same sense that it is “conservatives” who have disagreed that Palin’s minimal contact with the Alaskan Independence Party has any significance. Some conservatives criticize Obama for having been willing to associate with Ayers.
Semantics. Conservatives did x does not include all people who declare themselves to be conservatives to have participated in x, it merely states that the actors themselves were x. It’s the opposite of how idiots like Michael Moore and Coulter use the English language, but you shouldn’t expect that everyone uses a noun to be inclusive of all elements that share in part of its meaning in the same manner that they do.
Karl,
Since you have used my “some conservatives” in a way it was never intended, let me clarify. I used “some” to modify conservatives because a) I have not been commenting at this site long enough to know whether any of the people involved in the discussion used the Obama/Ayers or Wright ‘guilt by association’ argument, and b) I wanted to avoid having someone raise my use of “conservatives” (unmodified) with a silly argument that one must prove 100% agreement of thought by conservatives before the charge that ‘conservatives used a guilt by association argument’ could be made. Imagine my disgust when you make a variation of the argument, attempting to dodge criticism by arguing that the ’some’ conservatives means the charge cannot be made against conservatives, since no one has shown that the people making the Obama criticism are the same people making the defense of Palin.
I shake my head in disbelief. Contrary to your argument, the vast majority, including the ‘conservative establishment’ adopted the Obama/Ayers smear. Is the republican party’s nominee/the McCain campaign representative of the official ‘conservative’ position? The NRO? http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2EzY2Y5YzVmOGJhNTZhMTdlZjYzYjIxNzU1NmE1ODg=
How about the ad that supposedly ran at the republican national convention? http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/new-republican-ad-obama-ayers/
And lets not forget the way politics is played these days, with a 527 group issuing ads that the candidate refuses to denounce. It gets a little ’sticky’ when the 527 has ties to the official campaign. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-21-obama-radical_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
If you want to use my description in a way it was never intended, then I would prefer that my description be moidified to read “conservatives.” The Ayers attack most certainly did not originate from ‘liberals’, Nader supporters, or members of the Green Party. If you want to insist upon a showing that the very people who raised the Obama Ayers slur are the very same people defending the Palin/AIP connection, be my guest, but you are demonstrating your unabashed bias and an unwillingness to see fault in anything that the individuals or the party you support does. If John McCain and the republican party are the voice of conservatives in this election, then I can say with certainty that conservatives made the Obama Ayers slur.
Imagine my disgust when you make a variation of the argument, attempting to dodge criticism by arguing that the ’some’ conservatives means the charge cannot be made against conservatives, since no one has shown that the people making the Obama criticism are the same people making the defense of Palin.
The definition of hypocrisy requires them to be the same people. People do not contradict themselves when they behave differently from other people, even when they generally agree with those people. This does not mean that all of the people who talked about Ayers have to have defended Palin or that all of the people who defend Palin had to have tried to link Obama to the Weathermen, but only those who contradict themselves can be hypocrites.
Is the republican party’s nominee/the McCain campaign representative of the official ‘conservative’ position?
Are you kidding? Besides, even if McCain were the representative of conservatives, how often has he talked about Ayers? He said something about it a few days after it was discussed at a Democratic debate and Barack Obama used a defense that McCain thought was distasteful, but that was also five months ago. Because of this (and stray mentions of this issue by others, and larger projects by crackpots), you think that “conservatives” should collectively be credited with an attempt to associate Obama with the Weathermen?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2EzY2Y5YzVmOGJhNTZhMTdlZjYzYjIxNzU1NmE1ODg=
Potentially, but certainly not when the post is only quoting a McCain campaign advisor reacting to an Obama ad, and probably not when it’s just a post from the Corner.
If you want to insist upon a showing that the very people who raised the Obama Ayers slur are the very same people defending the Palin/AIP connection, be my guest, but you are demonstrating your unabashed bias and an unwillingness to see fault in anything that the individuals or the party you support does.
I hope it doesn’t require bias to treat the definition of hypocrisy as something more than an all-purpose buttress for flimsy accusations. If people can be accused of inconsistency simply because they are doing something dissimilar to what their ideological fellow-travelers allegedly collectively did in the past, then how could someone fail to be a hypocrite? The best that can be said for this kind of thinking is that it is easy. Instead of trying to accuse a large group of independent but similarly-minded people of collective hypocrisy, why not just accuse individuals of hypocrisy when the facts support the accusation — and when it would actually mean something?
Also, since I overlooked this earlier, let’s talk about it now — what exactly are you saying when you talk about “conservatives” smearing Obama by connecting him with William Ayers? You said, “Some conservatives attempted to ’smear’ Obama in a guilt by association argument with William Ayers or Rev. Wright, with Obama and his supporters saying ‘this is not relevant.’ So when the tables are turned, and the left points to the Alaska Independence Party, or the Palin family’s church’s sermons, or whatever, and conservatives say ‘this is not relevant’, I hope you see the hypocrisy.” What kind of guilt do you believe that “conservatives” are trying to smear on Barack Obama? When people try to connect Palin with the Alaskan Independence Party, they presumably believe that it suggests that she actually agrees with their most unusual and extreme position, and not just that this party is so extreme and repugnant that no one should be willing to have even a casual connection with it. It would be surprising if they were accusing that party of being quite that repugnant, particularly since the vote on Alaska’s status is not even a part of its platform, and is merely a distant goal. When some people have talked about Obama’s connection with Ayers, however, are they accusing Obama of agreeing either with Ayers’ views or actions or are they questioning what kind of person wouldn’t see Ayers as being essentially radioactive? If this issue is about Obama’s potential lack of judgment or his potential comfort with radicals, then that is a different accusation than that Obama agrees with either Ayers’ goals or methods.
The payday loan industry has been the main target for corrupt politicians from all sides. They are searching an increase in voter support disregarding what’s best for their citizens. Several states including Georgia, North Carolina, and Oregon has successfully wiped out the payday loan industry. For example, in Georgia, foreclosures, bankruptcy filing and bounced checks has raise tremendously after the cash advance product was done away with. Despite this unfortunate fact, several governors continue to try and follow this suit. Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama and many other politicians with high positions have joined the march to wipe the industry completely off the map. If this action takes place, the true possibilities of increased unemployment rates, debts and foreclosure will also take its place.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/