Presidential History

Q. What 2008/2012 Candidate Was Plagued by Association With a Racist, Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theorist?

|

How come only white men have walked on the moon, even though a black man invented moonwalking?

A. Barack Obama, of course, as Charles C. Johnson recalls with this wistful look back at Rev. Jeremiah Wright in the American Spectator

In sermon after sermon, Wright's radical black nationalist ideas were clearly and emphatically stated. They were not an aberration, but the focal point of Pastor Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Obama was an active member for 20 years.

Nor has Wright renounced any of his anti-Americanism. In a sermon last September 16 marking the 10th anniversary of 9/11 entitled, "The Day of Jerusalem's Fall," Wright seemed to celebrate white America's comeuppance. "We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon–and we never batted an eye!" Wright preached. "We supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black south Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards." He closed, invoking Malcolm X's statement about the assassination of J.F.K, "America's chickens! Coming home! To roost!" White America, he was saying, had gotten its just deserts.

Candidate Obama tried to distance himself from Wright's more damning comments. But, crucially, he didn't disown the pastor himself. In fact, in his rise to political fame, he had made Wright's sermons his own, drawing on Wright's "Audacity to Hope" sermon and appropriating its theme for his political coming-out speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004. He even borrowed the sermon's title for his second autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, in a bid to get Wright and other black churches to support his candidacy.

The question is why Barack Obama, raised without any faith at all, chose one of the most incendiary preachers in Black America to preach the word of God to him. 

Johnson does not mention the resurrected umbrage over the Ron Paul Freedom Report, so it's not clear why the time is ripe to revisit the Wright issue. My memories of this episode have all faded except two: The first was a Conan O'Brien greenscreen interview bit of which the picture at right, from a busted Hulu link, is all that survives. The second, which I recall even less clearly, was Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech, which received wide praise (yes, that was Charles Murray calling it "flat out brilliant–rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America") and which Johnson accurately describes as "much celebrated and quickly forgotten."

Johnson uses the Wright association to revive the case that Obama is more radical than his speeches (and more important, his three-year tenure as president) might indicate. I never believed Obama was the bomb-throwing radical his detractors claim. His time in office has if anything demonstrated Thaddeus Russell's thesis that Obama is an earnest establishmentarian, a strong supporter of the heavily regulated yet lawless empire that Republicans and Democrats both seem comfortable with. 

I'd doubt Jeremiah Wright will get much attention in the 2012 campaign, for the same reason I don't expect the Ron Paul newsletter issue to have much traction beyond the chattering classes. Both matters were thoroughly hashed out in 2008, and scandals tend not to get fresher over 48 months. Just ask anybody except Dan Rather how much juice George W. Bush's military record had when the Kerry campaign tried to make an issue of it in 2004 – ignoring the fact that voters had heard it all four years earlier but had nevertheless handed Bush a large popular minority and an electoral majority. 

It would be commonplace to say people with unsavory racialist ideas and associations have been elected president since the founding of the republic. It would be novel to say we were still electing such people as recently as 2008, but Johnson's follow-up shows that it is true. For me the most disturbing thing about the newsletter affair is that a man with a habit of signing documents he hasn't read is trying to win a job where your most important (constitutionally valid) power is signing and vetoing legislation.

That of course is not what's at issue in the current newsletter shaming. But Obama's quickly forgotten speech did raise one point worth remembering: If we want to live free of racist friends and bigoted loved ones in these United States, most of us will have to start expelling members of our own families. 

Advertisement

NEXT: More Hazy Details From Obama's Drone Wars

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Where’s the evening links.

    You gotta include this dumb ass shit:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..l?mid=5647

    1. “Many liberals, myself included,”

      That’s when I stopped reading.

      1. No one who calls himself a liberal could possibly have anything important to say. All the best thinkers have been libertarians, after all.

        1. Tony|12.28.11 @ 7:08PM|#
          “No one who calls himself a liberal could possibly have anything important to say.”

          Shithead, that’s probably the closest you’ve ever come to an honest post.

          1. Ah, sevo beat me to it. Except I would not have called tony a shithead.

              1. Why associate shitheads with Tony. Haven’t they suffered enough?

    2. The commentators railed him. Though most had few if any “fans” so I suppose it may have been an influx of Paulalians rather than the normal long-time Huffers.

      Still, though they didn’t show up to argue the other side so maybe they found the article stupid as well.

    3. It’s not RP’s goal to lavish the financial sector and large corporations, that’s just what will happen if he had his way. That’s why the GOP likes libertarian economic ideas so much. RP believing it “freedom” just means he’s an idiot.

      What you intend in your heart is truly irrelevant.

      1. Tony|12.28.11 @ 7:13PM|#
        “It’s not RP’s goal to lavish the financial sector and large corporations, that’s just what will happen if he had his way. ”
        Flat out lie, shithead.

        “What you intend in your heart is truly irrelevant.”{
        Tell us, oh shithead, of liberalism’s great successes.
        Like, oh, S/S. Or maybe Medicare. Or how about the War on Poverty.
        Shithead, it is quite obvious that no liberal ever gave a shit about results.

        1. Can someone get this thing off my leg.

          1. Tony|12.28.11 @ 7:29PM|#
            “Can someone get this thing off my leg.”

            Sure, shithead; easy!
            Quit posting lies and bullshit and maybe your shit won’t end up sticking to you, shithead.

        2. Hmmm. Liberalism’s “great successes.” How about equal rights for blacks. Equal rights for women. Equal rights for homosexuals.

          Also, I don’t know why you don’t think that Social Security was a success. It contributed greatly to the large drop in poverty among the elderly in the past 80 years.

          1. Citations for those claims, please?

            For the last one, are you including the decimation of the pension market that social security exacerbated?

          2. “How about equal rights for blacks. Equal rights for women. Equal rights for homosexuals.”

            What about them? Not a single one of those things were accomplished by liberals. In fact, progressives opposed all those things. It was Republicans who freed the slaves and gave women the vote. Meanwhile it was Southern Democrats who passed Jim Crow.

            1. Seriously, that totally reminds me of that time a couple of years ago that I got waaay too drunk and shit my pants at this party.

              1. Um, you know I luv ya baby, but what the FUCK are you talking about?

            2. Exactly. Here is another interesting tidbit that gets glossed over in the popular public school narrative that left your mind far astray, Johnny:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..ct_of_1960

              The Civil Rights Act of 1960 was a United States federal law that established federal inspection of local voter registration rolls and introduced penalties for anyone who obstructed someone’s attempt to register to vote or to vote. It was designed to deal with discriminatory laws and practices in the segregated South, by which blacks had been effectively disfranchised since the late nineteenth and turn of the twentieth century. It extended the life of the Civil Rights Commission, previously limited to two years, to oversee registration and voting practices.

              The Senate’s debate over the passage of this bill started on February 29, 1960. A group of 18 Southern Democrats divided into three teams of six in order to be able to create a continuous filibuster, wherein each member would only have to speak for four hours every three days. The Southern Democrats had long acted as a voting block to resist or reject legislation to enforce constitutional rights in the South. This system resulted in the longest filibuster in history, lasting over 43 hours from February 29 to March 2. On the morning of March 2, only a fifteen-minute break was allowed before the Senate sat for another 82 hours. By the time the 24-hour sessions were called off by the majority leader Lyndon Johnson, the Senate had sat for 125 hours and 31 minutes, with one 15-minute break.

              The act was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on May 6, 1960.

              1. Right, Eisenhower enforced federal civil rights legislation, then LBJ refused to do so.

                JFK is debatable.

              2. Since when were Southern Democrats in 1960 “liberals”? There’s a reason they are now called Republicans.

                1. No they are not. Most are dead, and most did not leave the party while living.

                  1. What was the southern faction of the Democratic party was absorbed into the Republican party post-civil rights. Southern conservatives were that pissed off about equal rights for minorities.

                    The regional composition of the two parties has shifted significantly in the last couple centuries.

                    One thing has remained constant: liberals have championed equal rights, and southern conservatives have championed white male supremacy.

                    Both of you could stand a rudimentary lesson on political history, but to confuse the names of the parties with political movements? Liberals by definition were responsible for civil rights. That’s what being a liberal is about.

                    1. You are really too ignorant for words.

                      Here is the electoral map for 1960:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..ge1960.svg

                      and here it is 1976:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..ge1976.svg

                      Carter did better in the South than Kennedy.

                      Democratic Southern senators remained entrenched for a generation after the civil rights laws passed.

                      Blue Dogs is the word you are looking for, but you are using it wrong.

                    2. So why should liberals have to answer for southern democrats or blue dogs? Do you have to answer for republicans?

                    3. Coincidence that KKKByrd was selected by two democrat states?

                      I think not.

                    4. “Liberals by definition were responsible for civil rights. That’s what being a liberal is about.”

                      No, collectivism is the polar opposite of civil rights. That’s liberalism is all about.

                2. You really need to read up on history because you have little understanding of its dynamic. The Southern democrats like George Wallace were progressives to the bone.

                  1. You cannot be at the white supremacy end of civil rights and call yourself a progressive. It’s a contradiction.

                    I think you’ve been attending classes at Beck U.

                    1. You cannot be at the white supremacy end of civil rights and call yourself a progressive.

                      Congrats, Tony-spoof, you exploded my trolldar with that one.

                    2. Tony|12.28.11 @ 7:54PM|#
                      “You cannot be at the white supremacy end of civil rights and call yourself a progressive.”

                      Maybe not, shithead, but you have to be at the “anti-civil-rights” end of the spectrum to call yourself a “progressive”.

                  2. If that’s your opinion, there’s not much I can do to change it. The fact is that until the 1960s or so there were conservative Democrats (generally Southerners) and Republicans (generally Westerners), and liberals from both parties (the Northeastern Republicans were generally liberal).

                    I’d be interested in what views of the Southern Democrats you think can be described as “liberal”?

                    1. You can’t change my opinion because I’m better informed than you. You soaked up the conventional narrative and took it as fact. I would spend days in the library testing what I was being taught. you are probably so ignorant from your educational experiences you think Hoover was laissez-faire too.

                3. Since Democrats, southerners included, were the ones supporting progressive economic and social policies — increased spending, higher taxes, foreign intervention, gun control, expanding federal powers, collectivism, “environmentalism”, etc. — everything modern liberals still support.

                  1. Also, it was progressives, in both Europe and the U.S. who supported eugenics. You can’t get more racially supremacist that that.

                    1. Since you share economic views with Republicans, does that mean you favor all their other views?

                      You’re just saying words Glenn Beck taught you. You can’t be racist (and certainly can’t support eugenics) and call yourself a liberal or progressive. It’s rather basic.

                    2. Except you’re a racist and you call yourself a liberal. Collectivism is the very cause of racism, because you can’t be racist without putting people into groups. It’s rather basic.

                    3. Never met the man. Would not recognize him in a debate. I was reading Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, Buchanan (the economist, sweet stuff), Becker, Friedman, Hazlitt, Schumpeter, Menger, Bastiat, Marx, Ricardo and too many to mention twenty years before Beck picked up The Road to Serfdom. Stay away from cable news. It will rot your mind.

                    4. What a depressingly insular group. Try Rawls.

                    5. Monadic ethical theory is useless.

                      MNG, huh?
                      Spoofing Tony?

                    6. Tony|12.28.11 @ 8:27PM|#
                      “What a depressingly insular group.”

                      Gee, shithead, maybe if you didn’t post lies and bullshit you wouldn’t find it so bad.

                    7. Tony|12.28.11 @ 8:10PM|#
                      “You’re just saying words Glenn Beck taught you.”

                      Yes, shithead, and you’re spouting words Marx taught you, shithead.

                    8. Do not forget the eugenicist roots of abortion which was and is fervently promoted by progressives and liberals.

                    9. You mean how Margret Sanger — founder of Planned Parenthood — was a regular speaker at KKK events and wanted to “exterminate the negro population”? Apparently, that “can’t be racist”.

                    10. She wouldn’t be allowed to be a racist if she were alive today and wanted to call herself a liberal. There was a time when everyone was racist. That’s the whole point, society has had to evolve. It was liberals who helped it along, by definition.

                    11. Tony|12.28.11 @ 8:28PM|#
                      “She wouldn’t be allowed to be a racist if she were alive today and wanted to call herself a liberal.”

                      Right, shithead. We’ll take your word for that.

                    12. To be fair, Sevo…no, wait, Tony’s statement is just complete bullshit. There’s no hedging required.

                    13. Society evolved because liberals wanted sterilization programs and laws that only applied to black people? Got it.

                    14. “There was a time when everyone was racist.”

                      No, there was a time when liberals and progressives accused Republican conservatives of not being racist enough. In 1872, the *Liberal* Republicans nominated Horace Greeley to run against Grant; one of Greeley’s positions was to end Reconstruction – the Democrats endorsed Greeley for some reason. Of course, there were valid complaints against Reconstruction, but do you think it’s the valid complaints which led the Democrats to endorse the *Liberal* Republican candidate?

                      And if everyone was equally racist during Sanger’s era, why did Sanger feel she had to advocate for changes in the racial status quo – that is, reduce the number of children in the black community?

                      And if you say that Sanger would be repudiated today, why does Planned Parenthood still celebrate her and give out awards in her name?

          3. Also, I don’t know why you don’t think that Social Security was a success. It contributed greatly to the large drop in poverty among the elderly in the past 80 years.

            The drop in poverty was due to the enormous increase in wealth. There are many ways that the increase in wealth could have been used to lift the elderly out of poverty. Social Security is one way. Another way would have been to not steal the elderly’s money from them in the first place when they were younger.

            Sadly, there are few people who see how the world might have been. People, for the most part, see only the way events unfolded and believe that the way that things happened is the only way that those things could have happened.

            If there is one thing that the early days of the American experiment definitively proved, it is that people are capable of solving their own problems if the government will just leave them alone. People see that a problem exists and they self-organize to fix the problem. No State actors needed.

            The elderly, their families and private charities could have done a better job of alleviating hardship due to poverty amongst the elderly. There was never a good reason for the government to get involved. It is now apparent just how bad an idea it was for the government to get involved. The ponzi scheme is collapsing.

            1. The only thing keeping the elderly out of poverty now is social security. Otherwise how do you think a non-working relatively poor group would be doing in today’s economy?

              There is no free market means to ensure the elderly stay out of poverty, unless the free market is so magical that it evolved to account for increased life expectancy in the 20th century. The generational transfer of SS is one of the simplest ways to accomplish the goal of keeping the elderly out of poverty imaginable. It doesn’t take from the young, it provides them a measure of security for when they age, and it frees them from going bankrupt themselves caring for their elders.

              1. It doesn’t take from the young

                To quote Michael Fisher, “I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts involved.”

                1. It takes, but it gives back, arguably something of greater value than the investment.

                  1. The elderly, their families and private charities could have done a better job of alleviating hardship due to poverty amongst the elderly.

                    Don’t forget Santa Claus, jackass

      2. It would benefit the very institutions who drew up the legislation that created the Fed the most to undue their handiwork? The mind boggles.

      3. Re: Tony the Economics Ignoramus,

        It’s not RP’s goal to lavish the financial sector and large corporations, that’s just what will happen if he had his way.

        By ending the Fed? Yeah, right, the financial sector and large corporations have clamored for such since 1913.

        Idiot.

        1. Well they’re not stupid.

        2. Well they’re not stupid.

          1. Re: Tony the Nitwit,

            Well they’re not stupid.

            What kind of reply is that? If you don’t have an argument, just say so instead of showcasing your stoopidity, sockpuppet. You would be doing yourself a favor.

            1. Says the guy who can barely bother to squeeze an argument into his endless toddleresque insults?

              “Ending the fed” would cause vast and unpredictable harm to the economy, corporations know that.

              The argument is that tightening monetary policy would favor the financial sector and large corporations but not anyone else. Ending the fed is just kook talk.

              1. You utter, blithering nincompoop: the banks were the ones who wrote the fucking Federal Reserve act in order to get the same bailouts the feds were giving the railroads!

                The 1% wanted the fed because it allowed them to rip off the 99% using inflation!

                1. Cantillon Effect turned into actual policy.

                2. I’ll pretend that’s relevant. Yes the banks influenced the creation of the Federal Reserve. By the time it was created, the progressives were pleased and the business sector wasn’t, for what it’s worth. But what motivated its creation in the first place was people tired of the recurring panics that came with an economy without a central bank. The free market created the fed, by sucking.

                  1. Congrats for putting a succinct argument together. Pity there isn’t a word of truth to back it up.

                  2. Instead of recurring panics, they had prolonged depression. Yay, Fed. At least it provided a new source of temporary revenue for war.

                  3. The banking panics, you ignoramus, were the product of the federal banking laws that prevented banks from diversifying into multiple regions.

                    Canada, which didn’t have those laws, had none of the panics which bedevilled the U.S.

                    You are so poorly educated and ignorant of history that reading your comments is painful.

                    Please tell me you attended government schools… It would be a pity if your parents threw their hard earned money away by paying for your “education”.

                    1. Not believing your fringe alterna-histories isn’t the same thing as being uneducated.

    4. I can’t stand this “if you make your currency worthless, you can export” garbage any more.

      Why? A more expensive dollar would harm America’s export-oriented manufacturing sector: when the value of the dollar increases, so too does the cost of American exports, since their value is denominated in dollars.

      Ignoring the fact trading partners consider devaluation an act of trade war, you can’t get richer by making everybody’s savings worth less. How are you going to import anything to make all those beloved exports?

    5. That guy got absolutely hammered in the comments, so much so that he has promised a face-saving follow-up blog post. I’m sure he will dig himself further into a hole.

  2. This is the first I’m hearing of this Jeremiah Wright character.

  3. Jeremiah was a bullfrog
    Was a good friend of mine
    I never disagreed with a word he said
    Like I told the New York Times
    If I were the king of the world
    Tell you what I’d do
    I’d throw away the constitution and the Bill of Rights and
    Shit all over you

  4. Thank gawd we have patriotic reporters like Tim here to put the light of day on these stories.

    Of course, the left-wing liburell/commie media will totally bury this Wright story.

    Forward this story to all of your friends and family; let them know the [REAL] story behind this Barrack [HUSSEIN] Obama!

  5. But he’s in rough neighborhoods doing God’s work

  6. Well, you guys have to praise me (although you won’t).

    I have consistently rejected both the Ron Paul “alleged racism” and the Obama CT bullshit.

    1. Over at highclearing.com, I’m told that in order to be taken seriously, I must read Derailing for Dummies.

      Have you ever read Derailing for dummies?

      The author’s thesis is that white people are privileged and that black people are marginalized and that white people just do not have a clue when it comes to matters of race.

      1. Why would you go to an obscure “Obamatarian” site like highclearing?

        1. What the hell is “highclearing”? There must be some meaning ascribed to it.

          1. SIV-

            Epi or Warty linked to it back in the early part of the fall one day as some of the posters there had been giving joe a hard time.

            Yesterday I was scrolling through my favs and history and decided to click.

            There was a piece, dated Dec. 25, 2011, penned by Jim hente regarding the newsletters. Mr. Hente claimed to be a libertarian at one time.

            There is a guy there named Thoreau who has told me that I am not welcome there. Didn’t he used to post here?

            1. Scrolling through your history? Do you not have a wife, do you use a different browser for porn and batin’ than you do for regular browsing, or were you just searching for some obscure one-off porn starlet that you recalled from months past and fondly wished to bate to?

              Inquiring minds must know, and have links provided if the latter.

            2. Yes he did.That’s his place. I wouldn’t expect a lot of “tolerance” over there There was somewhat of an exodus from H&R after Bush was out of office. Much of the market-friendly TEAM BLUE scattered elsewhere.

            3. He used to. He was good at making high-minded pronouncements, but when he finally got challenged on them the only responses he could muster were, “But I’m a scientist, dammit!” and “Racist!”.

              After having their assed handed to them enough times, he and his little clique removed themselves to locales where they could tell each other how much smarter than the hoi polloi they are, and not have to worry about things like opposing viewpoints they can’t answer.

              1. Well, that bit of history makes Winston Churchill dead-wrong

      2. What’s incorrect about that thesis?

        1. It’s a generalization. It’s as untrue as believing all blacks are shifty and lazy.

  7. “But Obama’s quickly forgotten speech did raise one point worth remembering: If we want to live free of racist friends and bigoted loved ones in these United States, most of us will have to start expelling members of our own families.”

    Including Obama himself. Didn’t he call his grandmother (whom, IIRC, was dying at the time) a “typical white person” because she was upset that a black pan-handler accosted her? He’s a class act that Barry.

    1. Whining about racism against whites is the modern way to be racist. It’s like you people are on another planet.

      1. Tony|12.28.11 @ 7:10PM|#
        “Whining about racism against whites is the modern way to be racist.”

        Shithead, UP /= DOWN no matter how many times you claim it to be so, shithead.

        1. Perhaps we all should read Derailing for Dummies.

      2. Is your point that racism against whites is non-existent? Or impossible?

        1. Racism against nonwhites has always included an element of white victimhood. If they’re not coming after your daughters, they’re being parasites on your tax money.

          Racism against whites is something of academic interest perhaps–complaining about it suggests you care disproportionately about it over the types of racism that have actually caused people harm.

          1. racism that have actually caused people harm.

            In case you’ve been on Mars for a few decades, nearly all interracial violence is black on white.

            1. Is it motivated by racism? Or is it motivated by the fact that the whites have all the money and the blacks don’t?

            2. But don’t you see, black people are utterly helpless. Without the gentle, loving hand of government they will devour each other because that’s just the way they are.

              Only a racist thinks that government policy such as drug laws and government housing are the actual cause of inner-city crime and violence.

              1. Is it motivated by racism?

                Of course not. Only white people can be racist.

              2. I agree wholeheartedly that drug laws are racist and causing minorities harm. Government housing? Because you think we should sell more houses to poor minorities? Or should they just go on the street? Not sure where you get that.

                If you’re truly concerned about the racial privilege gap in this country, great, I will entertain all ideas. I think you’re just, at best, using minorities as pawns in a political argument, and couldn’t give a shit if they all died.

                1. That wasn’t me that spoofed you.

                  And no, I’m not at all concerned about “the racial privilege gap in this country.” It’d be rather pathetic to bitch about Jews and Asians using “racial privilege” to keep the white man down.

                  1. It matters when one race is in poverty and lacks access to the political apparatus in hugely disproportionate numbers. It’s pretty much racism to pretend it doesn’t matter. It’s most certainly racism to say whites are the victims in the arrangement.

                    1. Okay, but Asians started out in this country poorer than blacks and without the benefit of knowing the language and culture. And they faced just as much discrimination and racism as blacks.

                      So why are Asians so sucessful? If the game is rigged against blacks because of inequal access to political power and wealth, than ALL minorities and immigrants should be equally poor. Maybe there really is something to hard work rather than just bitching about how unfair life is.

                      And by the way I’m Hispanic, so don’t patronize me by saying I can’t understand what it’s like.

                    2. And they faced just as much discrimination and racism as blacks.

                      Cite?

                      This is a complicated issue no doubt, but I think the different success rates of native racial minorities vs. overseas immigrants has something to do with selection bias.

                    3. Asian Americans do about the same academically as Asians in Asia. Have you ever researched any of your half-baked ideas?

                    4. Oh really, so billions of Asians all do better academically than American blacks?

                      I’m curious about just what your thesis here is.

                    5. It’s most certainly racism to say whites are the victims in the arrangement.

                      You finally admitted that Occupy is racist. Congrats.

                    6. “[black people] lack[] access to the political apparatus in hugely disproportionate numbers”

                      Yeah, honkies like me keep getting elected and the black man doesn’t stand a chance.

      3. What if I whine about racism against Asians?

    2. What’s wrong with calling a white relative a “typical white person”?

      1. I suspect you could find something wrong if I described his absent father as a “typical black man.”

        1. Couldn’t you express that in a more “crypto” manner. It’s so ugly otherwise.

  8. For me the most disturbing thing about the newsletter affair is that a man with a habit of signing documents he hasn’t read is trying to win a job where your most important (constitutionally valid) power is signing and vetoing legislation

    I find it more disturbing that we elected a president with no real record who simply voted ‘present’ 124 times while in Senate rather than what could have possibly been a laziness or too much trust in a selected staffer, all of which I am sure disappeared becaue of that incident. And if he did write them? Well there is what someone says, and there is what someone does.

  9. A member of Atheists/Agnostics for Ron Paul in what can be described as the YouTube equivalent of a bitch slap. Pretty funny stuff.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..ture=share

  10. Great alt text, Tim!

  11. Wasn’t he also backed by the New Black Panther Party?

  12. “I never believed Obama was the bomb-throwing radical his detractors claim. His time in office has if anything demonstrated Thaddeus Russell’s thesis that Obama is an earnest establishmentarian”

    Nope. All it has demonstrated is that the Establishment is radical, but the lobster’s (population’s) been slow-boiled for so long that it no longer realizes where it is, or even collectively comprehends a different way of doing things.

    In short, the New Dealers and then New Left won decades ago.

  13. But at least you voted for a black guy, so your sins are healed.

  14. Fuck you, Cavanaugh, you sleazy apologist. Ten fucking years of racist, homophobic, antisemitic shit published under Ron Paul’s fucking name–nothing Obama has done compares, and you know it, you stinking right-wing cock sucker.

    1. Poor Max. He can’t find anyone to listen to his screeds except H&R posters.

      I miss the real trolls, like Chad. It was at least a fair fight.

      1. Agreed, it’s even lame by troll standards.

      2. Chad was a fair fight? He had the most exploitable, puffed up ego to slice through than any troll in the history of trolling.

        1. In an earlier post you linked to a photo of Romney for Cytotoxic’s benefit.

          IIRC, the photo was taken upon the signing of Romneycare. Two of those pictured were Ted Kenedy and the former Massachusetts Speaker of the House.

          One, as you know, killed a woman in 1969; the other is now serving time in club fed.

          Ah, I’d rather have friends like Lew and Murray, thank you.

          1. Me too. Lew’s a pretty nice guy. I’ve met him twice. Pains me I never got to meet Rothbard.

    2. Max|12.28.11 @ 7:29PM|#
      “…you stinking right-wing cock sucker.”

      Max, ol’ buddy, you seem to have this ‘fixation’, NTTAWWT.
      Posting here isn’t going to help, and I’d bet that talking to your Mom won’t either (if you get my point).
      Prolly some professional help is in order.

  15. False equivalence is a tool of propagandists.

    When you know you’ve lost, declare a tie. Two wrongs make a right is better than nothing.

    1. Who’s lost? Last I checked, Paul was leading in the polls.

      Obama’s numbers are in the dumpster.

      1. You must be using two different standards. Obama averages +7.7% against Paul.

        1. Which just proves that Democrats are hypocritical pieces of shit with zero principles or intellectual honesty.

          1. I thought we were talking about winning an election.

            1. So ending mindless wars, restoring out Bill of Rights, and bringing some fiscal sanity to government is less important than your team winning?

              Because I would think that the same people who wanted Bush crucified would demand the same of Obama, who is continuing Bush’s disastrous policies on just about every fraking level.

              Unless, as I said above, these liberals are hypocritical pieces of shit with no integrity and are more concerned with not appearing racist than promoting the candidate that can save us from two centuries of Team Red/Team Blue bullshit.

              1. B-b-but Obama repealed DNDT so that means he’s a dedicated champion of liberty. And he’ll make health care cheaper in 2016 or something.

              2. It is an insulting lie to say Obama is continuing all of Bush’s policies. I’ll call them equal the day Obama starts a pointless war based on lies and reinstates torture as official policy, not a day before. You want me to stroke your ego, the thing that tells you you’re above politics because you feeling good about yourself is more important than accomplishing something.

                RP won’t win, and if he does he wouldn’t be able to do all those things you want. It’s easy to criticize people for being loyal in the face of compromise when you never win anything.

                1. Re: Tony the Obviator,

                  It is an insulting lie to say Obama is continuing all of Bush’s policies.

                  Gitmo is still open.
                  Afghanistan contains now more troops than before Obama.
                  Predator drones are killing people indiscriminately – under Obama’s orders.
                  American citizens were MURDERED under executive order – no trial, no jury, just judgment.

                  So who’s the lying bitch, bitch?

                  1. Gitmo is open because Congress forced it to stay open.

                    Obama was always pro-Afghanistan war. Drones are not lollipops and ice cream but they are still better than full scale war in the pursuit of invisible WMD.

                    Obama has to be perfect or else he’s equal to Bush.

                2. It’s an insulting lie to pretend Obama isn going to stop the state of global warfare (see Iran or Pakistan right now, for example), end the suspension of habeus corpus, close Guantanamo Bay, stop giving money away to the banks that ruined our economy, stop giving money to foreign banks, stop assassinating U.S. citizens without a trial, or stop drone attacks that kill children.

                  But, by golly, he did advocate to lower payroll taxes 2% for two whole months. Advocating for Obama because he’s accomplished a thing or two is like advocating for Nixon because he got us out of Vietnam.

                  1. Still better than Bush was or Romney will be. At the very least he’s not tied to a political faction hellbent on ruining the country out of pure stupidity.

                    Worship RP or whoever if you want, I prefer not to think of any politicians as saviors, and should your guy ever get any real power, you’ll probably start to agree.

                    1. Team Blue is as hellbent on ruining the country based on ideology (central planning solution to everything, rich people = bad) as Team Red.

                    2. “I prefer not to think of any politicians as saviors”

                      I don’t like it when Obama supporters say this. Sticks in my craw.

                  2. That’s not fair to Nixon.

                3. Tony|12.28.11 @ 8:19PM|#
                  “It is an insulting lie to say Obama is continuing all of Bush’s policies.”

                  Shithead, it’s not surprising you’re ‘insulted’ by facts. In fact, you seem commonly ‘insulted’ by them or totally ignorant of them.

            2. I thought we were talking about winning an election.

              So the way to win an election is to be an unprincipled hypocrite and intellectually dishonest, Tony? Good to know.

        2. Ron Paul is leading in the IA polls, whereas Obama’s ratings overall as a president are poor.

          Paul has not been running a campaign against Obama yet. I am surprised 40% of polled voters even know who Paul is.

    2. Re: Tony the Shifty,

      False equivalence is a tool of propagandists.

      It’s not a “false equivalency.” You don’t even know what “false equivalency” means.

      Look at this:

      “Imagine a candidate who, more than 15 years ago, fundraised and attempted to garner financial and political support from a group of people based on a letter taking a political position offensive to many U.S. voters. That letter was sent from ‘Friends of’ the candidate, contained the candidate’s name and signature, and misstated a position that offends many U.S. voters today, 15 years later.

      Over a decade later, that formerly obscure candidate starts to matter in politics. And in an attempt to deflect attention from that letter, the candidate’s communications director suggests that the document from the 1990s was a fake, ‘filled out by someone else,’ not the candidate.

      Ron Paul?

      Hardly.

      The candidate from 15 years ago is now President Barack Obama.

      Specifically, the letter, dated Feb. 15, 1996, addressed by ‘Friends of Barack Obama,’ signed by ‘Barack Obama, Candidate for State Senate, 13th District,’ supported equal marriage rights for lesbian and gay couples.

      But as recently as June 17, 2011, President Obama’s communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, stated, “If you actually go back and look, that questionnaire was actually filled out by someone else, not the president.”

      Regarding Rep. Paul, a number of people are implying that Ron Paul may be racist for what was written years ago under Paul’s name.”

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..r=Politics

      Where’s the false equivalency? What the author above is showing is the clear hypocrisy of the Media pundits and talking heads when pointing out something that Paul has disavowed while at the same time given Obama total benefit of the doubt or even more. Same with showing the treatment received by Obama from the press compared to Paul, despite an even more damming relationship for Obama.

      1. The equivalence is false because whereas equality for gay Americans is the correct position, ugly ignorant racism is not. WTF?

        1. So it’s better to hold the correct position and then recant it?

          Whereas an old newsletter with a bad position which is disavowed 20 years later is worse?

          1. I honestly don’t give a fuck about RP’s past racism. That’s the least of this country’s worries should he ever get power.

            Obama has always been pro-gay marriage. Everyone knows it. He’s playing a game he feels he has to. That, to me, is more forgivable than steadfastly believing in ugly racist bullshit, even if it was in the past. It’s not evidence of a developed mind, and I’m sure we can find someone who didn’t have to bother converting from being a racist.

            1. Re: Tony The Forgetful,

              Obama has always been pro-gay marriage.

              Except when he wasn’t.

              He’s playing a game he feels he has to.

              Very likely. I am glad you think such expediency makes the guy virtuous in your eyes. I, instead, abhor hypocrites.

              1. Then you abhor all politicians. I guess that could drive one to anarchism. On the other hand it could drive one to lower one’s standards a bit. You try appealing to a governing majority and see if you don’t have to compromise a principle or two.

                1. Tony|12.28.11 @ 8:49PM|#
                  “Then you abhor all politicians…”

                  Oh, look! Shithead moved the goalposts! How surprising! Shithead most usually lies or offers strawmen!

            2. Tony|12.28.11 @ 8:35PM|#
              “Obama has always been pro-gay marriage. Everyone knows it….”

              What a STUPID statement, even given it comes from shithead!
              Sure, he is. You bet! Why he’s said so at least, well, a couple of times, right?
              Hey, his (stated) intent is every bit as good as doing something about it, since he’s a “liberal” and results don’t matter in that case.
              Shithead, a new low for you.

              1. Obama’s done more for gay equality than any president who came before. What do I have to complain about? Pres. Romney or Paul will certainly not make progress go any faster.

                1. Tony|12.28.11 @ 8:50PM|#
                  “Obama’s done more for gay equality than any president who came before.”

                  Yes, shithead. Only took him three years to gather the courage to end DADT! What a wonderful guy!
                  To shithead bleevers.

            3. Obama was for gay marriage, even when he publicly proclaimed he was not. See, he’s just a super smart guy.

              Kind of like how Ron Paul published newsletters with racist things in them, even though he’s not actually racist. See, Ron Paul is super smart too.

              Aren’t you a bit… concerned about someone who is willing to throw gay people under the bus when it’s politically expedient for him to do so?

              1. His support for civil unions over marriage has been accompanied by such a huge wink I don’t see how you could miss it. When it comes to gay rights, Obama is not the problem. I will bet you $10,000 he is in favor of full equality after the election, if not before.

                1. Tony|12.28.11 @ 8:53PM|#
                  “His support for civil unions over marriage has been accompanied by such a huge wink I don’t see how you could miss it”

                  Simple, shithead. Only shitheads saw the ‘wink’; everyone else saw it was a lie.
                  A LIE, shithead, just like most of your posts.

                2. And somehow Paul outright supporting gay marriage makes him -less- trustworthy on the subject?

                  1. “And somehow Paul outright supporting gay marriage makes him -less- trustworthy on the subject?”

                    Absolutely! Shithead would never believe anyone who might be other than a liberal (liar).

                    1. I agree somewhat with lots of what RP says, and on many issues he’s better than Obama. But he’s still a crazy old crank whose ideas would destroy the country.

                    2. Destroy the country? Who won the last election on a promise to fundamentally “change” the country? How do you change anything fundamentally without essentially destroying it?

                    3. He would destroy the country and not in a good way.

        2. Re: Tony the Clueless,

          The equivalence is false because whereas equality for gay Americans is the correct position, ugly ignorant racism is not.

          What the hell are you talking about? Again, you don’t understand the meaning of the term.

          Besides this, you cannot prove – and I mean honestly prove – that Ron Paul has uttered words that can be considered racist or made any racist remarks. The equivalency – which is correct – resides on the fact that you have two candidates with apparent skeletons in their respective closets, except that only one receives the level of scrutiny that the other should have.

          Besides, it is in BOTH cases where the candidates are being accused of having a relationship with people of questionable character. Where’s the false equivalency?

          1. I hope you’re right. Nothing would please me more than RP winning the Republican nomination. Except Michelle Bachmann winning it.

            1. Tony|12.28.11 @ 8:37PM|#
              “I hope you’re right. Nothing would please me more than RP winning the Republican nomination. Except Michelle Bachmann winning it.”

              Yes, shithead, there’s no doubt.

      2. Old Mexican.
        It is a false equivalency because the scale of the claims are not equivalent.

        One letter does not equal many newsletters…the claim that they are equivalent is false. The claim against Ron Paul is about years of activity, not a single instance…the equivalence is false.

        Do YOU know what the term means?

        Do you realize how bad your “help” harms Ron Paul’s campaign?

    3. Tony|12.28.11 @ 7:31PM|#
      “False equivalence is a tool of propagandists.”

      Shithead posts THIS?!
      Ho, ho, ho, what irony!

  16. OT: When in Grenada, don’t mistake a cop for your friend.

  17. OT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQkRf3xMKzQ

    just do from 23 to 29 minutes, pretty funny

    1. Scratch that — 23 to 32

    2. Highlights from the comments there: How can anyone mistake a police officer for a friend?, and from the article: One police officer told Grenada Broadcast that Mr. Bartholomew may have been resisting arrest.

  18. “Where’s the evening links”

    This.

    1. I know I’ve been low key about it, but I’ve quietly been saying for weeks that P.M. Links was a fad whose time was quickly coming to an end.

      I can assure you I take no delight, no pleasure right now in being proven correct. This boner is for entirely different reasons.

      1. Is it because you finally kidnapped Mike Riggs and you find bondage erotic?

      2. You said that last night and got pwned once again. You sure you want to add another one to the pile, Ensign Crusher?

        1. It’s 8:30 already. Unless it’s now Midnight Links.

          1. Yesterday they were posted quite late by Mr. Night Owl himself, Cavanaugh.

            We shall see.

            1. I keep hitting the reload. It feels like waiting in line at a popular club.

              1. Keep hitting reload? Quit clogging the pipes, man

              2. And Epi and Robo ain’t showing enough T&A to get you in.

                1. Yeah, what’s with the modesty these days? You got gams, use ’em!

                2. I’m not a slut! Wait, yes I am. A huge one.

                  1. The door just opened, let’s high tail!

    1. Handguns are legal in Canada, they just require a lot of permits and the peasants can forget about getting a carry permit.

      It is the UK where handguns are completely banned except for the police and military.

      1. Good point; I guess I think of handguns being carried in a car (as per the article) as effectively illegal, kind of like the situation in Canada.

        1. Wanna wreck someone’s day in Canada? Call the cops and tell them you saw someone with a gun walk into their home.
          Neighborhood lockdown.

          1. Full gambol lockdown? Makes me wish Sodesky lived in Canada.

            1. my inlaws traveled through canada with a gun … in their RV

              i was surprised at how easy it was to do it legally.

              since the RV (home portion, not driver’s portion) counts as a “home”, not a vehicle, it was doable with some simple paperwork.

              1. “since the RV (home portion, not driver’s portion) counts as a “home”, not a vehicle, it was doable with some simple paperwork.”

                Not sure this is a ‘positive’.

  19. Bill Clinton executed a functionally retarded guy.

    ’cause he wanted people to think he was tough on crime.

    1. Is that worse than the newsletters?

      I don’t know.

      I know I wouldn’t support either one of them.

    2. He told his guards he was saving his desert for later, and he wasn’t joking. Had no concept of what was going to happen to him. That still sickens me to this very day.

      1. Actually, if you’re gonna kill someone, it would be merciful if they didn’t understand they were about to die.

        Not that I think government should be allowed to execute anyone at all, but which is more horrifying — someone about to die who knows damn good and well it is about to happen and is rightly terrified, or someone who is calm and clueless?

        1. It’s more horrible to kill some one with moral agency than it is someone without. That is why there is no death penalty for children.

          1. Crap, I switched how I framed my argument but not all the parts. Let me try that again.

            It’s more horrible to kill some one without moral agency than it is someone with it. That is why there is no death penalty for children.

            1. It isn’t about the guy who was executed for me; it’s about the man who executed him.

              I wouldn’t execute a retarded guy under any circumstances I can imagine. But Bill Clinton would.

              …if it meant there was less of a chance of Bush Sr. running ads against Clinton–like the ads Bush Sr. ran against Dukakis about Willie Horton?

              Then sure. Bill Clinton would execute a retarded guy–without even batting an eye.

    3. More support that liberals like eugenics?

      I’ll use it.

  20. for the same reason I don’t expect the Ron Paul newsletter issue to have much traction beyond the chattering classes.

    Tim, Tim, you naive fellow. If Paul is the nominee the Democrats and their allies in the media will blanket the airwaves with this issue. You won’t be able to turn on a TV without seeing his name and face and highlighted newsletter excerpts. They will pound it into the ground.

    1. This assumes any Americans still pay attention to the media this election cycle.

      1. It doesn’t matter. It APPEARS that people do pay attention to the media chatter. That’s all that matters. The votes can be rigged and the media narrative is the cover.

        1. That’s a pretty good point. There were some real ‘huh?’ moments in the ’08 primary races involving Obama’s people that got white washed.

          This would provide the narrative to justify the supposed outcome and meet the expectations of enough people to not create a shit storm. Something to think about.

  21. Jonny Scrum-half|12.28.11 @ 7:30PM|#
    “Also, I don’t know why you don’t think that Social Security was a success.”

    Uh, because it’s bankrupting the country? You call that a success? What’s failure?

    1. It’s going to get bankrupt a lot faster now that workers are contributing 32% less than they should be.

      Next comes means-testing benefits, lifting the social security taxable earnings cap, and then gradually bumping up the retirement age until nobody qualifies for benefits anymore.

      1. Secret Muslim, no. Never cared for its esoterica much even when I was growing up in the culture. Secret socialist. I can see why you may think that, but I am actually a secret an cap! The best way to destroy the government is to do exactly what I’m doing. Four years to my sweet vision of Libertopia, bitches!

      2. “Next comes means-testing benefits, lifting the social security taxable earnings cap, and then gradually bumping up the retirement age until nobody qualifies for benefits anymore.”

        And to a liberal, that’s a SUCCESS!
        Hey, they wished it was a good idea! Doesn’t that count? To shithead, at least….

        1. It’s a subtle way to impose a 15.3% increase in the income tax whilst simultaneously destroying retirement for millions of Americans.

          1. So it is a liberal SUCCESS! Shithead loves it!

  22. Will his ‘Paulbots’ torpedo Ron Paul in Iowa?

    The illustrious sources for this article include someone researching… Reddit.

  23. For me the most disturbing thing about the newsletter affair is that a man with a habit of signing documents he hasn’t read is trying to win a job where your most important (constitutionally valid) power is signing and vetoing legislation.

    Let’s fix that:

    For me the most disturbing thing about the newsletter affair politics is that a man people with a habit of signing documents he hasn’t read is they haven’t read are trying to win a job where your most important (constitutionally valid) power is signing and vetoing legislation.

    1. Are you serious?

  24. The question is why Barack Obama, raised without any faith at all, chose one of the most incendiary preachers in Black America to preach the word of God to him.

    His time in office has … demonstrated … that Obama is … a strong supporter of the heavily regulated yet lawless empire

    Add to that Obama’s advocacy of preposterous spending on “stimulus” packages that have been used to buy and reinforce a political army, his ongoing effort to strangle domestic energy production and even the acquisition of energy from secure sources such as Canada, his subversion of contract law, his support, now that he is in office, of expanded executive powers to detain U.S. citizens and the declaration of his desire to fundamentally transform America. Take those things and connect the dots.

    I can understand how a professional pundit may be reluctant to state openly that a sitting President is trying to deliberately destroy the economy, but it is difficult to not reach that conclusion when looking at Obama’s actions. No other explanation makes sense. Everything Obama is doing is wrong for the economy.

    1. No other explanation makes sense to you but it will be interesting to see if others return him to office

    2. I can understand how a professional pundit may be reluctant to state openly that a sitting President is trying to deliberately destroy the economy, but it is difficult to not reach that conclusion when looking at Obama’s actions. No other explanation makes sense.

      Never attribute to malice in politics that which can be adequately explained by incompetence or ignorance.

      The Ignoramus-in-Chief doesn’t understand economics. Or constitutional law. Or …

  25. I am now dumber for reading Tony’s inane arguments.

    1. I use incif on all ‘anon’ comments; perhaps you can try it?

      1. sevo, do you need the link?

        1. Fuck you, rather. You’re a sleazy blog pimp, and nothing more.

  26. So now we know the answer to the question, “You know who else was plagued by racist and anti-semitic associations….”

    1. Max Mosley?

  27. Well, fuck. I am about to give up on PM links.

  28. Fuck, I am about to give up on PM links.

  29. Well, fuck. I am about to give up on evening links.

  30. Well, fuck. I am about to give up on PM links.

  31. Well, fuck. I am about to give up on PM links.

    1. Ton, the pastor is a bible-belty type; he likely means ‘fucked to death’. Hey, it’s a step-up from immolation 😉

    2. Wow, that’s a stretch. Did you actually read the source, or just take the article headline and run with it?

    3. Oh, gee, shithead!
      Enough innuendo there to convince shitheads that, well, maybe, perhaps, kinda, something….
      I’d expect nothing more from you, shithead.

      1. Actually, Sevo, what the liberals have done is take the pastors words -entirely- out of context. Here’s the preface to the section they’re mindlessly repeating in their echo chamber:

        Objection 1 ? “If we accept the Old Testament penalty
        for murder, then we need to accept the death penalty
        for adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, blasphemy and
        all the rest.”
        The implication is, no one would agree to the death penalty for
        those infractions, therefore we can’t accept it for any crime. I hope
        you can recognize that as the logical fallacy of emotional appeal.

        Fucking owned.

        1. Also, regarding new testament reproving old testament statements about executing gays:
          Second, these laws were intended for criminals, not for the
          righteous. “Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous
          person, but for the lawless and insubordinate…etc.” The fact that
          believers were not in view strengthens my thesis that Paul is talking
          about the justice side of the law, sometimes called the civil law.
          Romans 7:12 shows three sides to the moral law: “Therefore the law
          is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”

          I don’t agree with the pastor on just about any of his bullshit, but seriously. Why attack someone with false claims?

          1. Got it.
            Not only is it innuendo, the innuendo is based on lies to begin with.
            So, like most of shithead’s posts, it’s multiple logical failures rather than a single one.

    4. FTFA: While he said he and Paul disagree on gay rights…

      And there’s the end of that stupidfest.

  32. PM links, PM links, where did you go boy?

  33. Well Fuck, I am about to give up on PM links.

    1. The PM links task me. They task me and I shall have them! I’ll chase them ’round the moons of Nibia and ’round the Antares maelstrom and ’round Perdition’s flames before I give them up!

  34. “For me the most disturbing thing about the newsletter affair is that a man with a habit of signing documents he hasn’t read is trying to win a job where your most important (constitutionally valid) power is signing and vetoing legislation.”

    Totally valid point. Because monitoring every word of a hard money newsletter is completely analogous to using a presidential veto wisely.

    Because Barack Obama and any other President, reads every word of the legislation they sign into law, right?

    The quality of dialogue when the topic shifts to Ron Paul gets unbelievably low here at Reason.

  35. lol, that dude jsut looks corrupt as the day is long lmao!

    http://www.privacy-works.tk

  36. The illustrious sources for this article include someone researching… Reddit.

    It’s not a bad place to see what the weed/JOOS Paul fans are yelling about.

    (“YAY WEED BOO JOOS” is what they’re yelling.)

    (But they’re students, and they’re on the internet, and they’re high yo, so they’re totally libertarians.)

  37. Tony|12.28.11 @ 8:12PM|#
    “So why should liberals have to answer for southern democrats or blue dogs?”

    Because, shithead, “liberals” have always been allies of racists. How do you think they got their “liberal” programs passed?

    1. “Because, shithead, “liberals” have always been allies of racists. How do you think they got their “liberal” programs passed?”

      To be even more accurate. Noone in American politics today is more obsessed with race than the average ‘liberal’ and their race-baiting allies.

      And a pre-emptive STFU Tony – you’re a hypocrite, liar, and moral pygmy.

    2. Racists helped liberals pass civil rights laws?

  38. Tony|12.28.11 @ 8:33PM|#
    “…I prefer not to think of any politicians as saviors,…”

    That’s truly funny, shithead, given your kneeling at the throne of Obama.
    But it’s *not* surprising given your constant lies and hypocrisy.

    1. I’d kneel at any throne that sat in the way of those who would threaten to destroy the country, if not the human species, through sheer stupidity and greed. You’re not better than me because you are of the stupid.

      1. i’m feeling kinda drowsy,

        don’t do drugs without me

  39. if you need a place for friendship, love, romance, marriage and even more, we are a honored to provide you with a choice__seekinguniform.com _. It is tailored to personnel in uniform such as armed forces, police, navy, security, medical, ambulance, prison, air crew and fire fighters.

  40. Don’t tell me You gits would vote for Newt oer Mitt?

    1. Only if a Koch tells them to.

  41. Knock knock.

    Who’s there?

    The Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

    The Rev. Jeremiah Wright who?

    Oh come on Barrack, you know who I am!

  42. Let’s not forget Jesse Jackson reference to New York City as “Hymie Town” in the 80s or Al Shapton’s call for a boycott of Jewish-owned businesses a decade later.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.