Iraq

Robert Bales As Victim

|

The title of David Brooks' column about Robert Bales—the Army sergeant who slaughtered three Afghan women, nine Afghan children, and four Afghan men; then burned several of their bodies—is "When the Good Do Bad." Without claiming to know anything the rest of us don't, Brooks blames the rosey worldview of secular humanism and argues that "in centuries past"

most people would have been less shocked by the homicidal eruptions of formerly good men. That's because people in those centuries grew up with a worldview that put sinfulness at the center of the human personality.

According to this older worldview, Robert Bales, like all of us, is a mixture of virtue and depravity. His job is to struggle daily to strengthen the good and resist the evil, policing small transgressions to prevent larger ones. If he didn't do that, and if he was swept up in a whirlwind, then even a formerly good man is capable of monstrous acts that shock the soul and sear the brain.

Was this the same "whirlwind" that swept up Maj. Nidal M. Hasan in 2009, and led him to kill 13 Americans at Ft. Hood? Not according to Brooks, who wrote at the time:

Major Hasan was portrayed as a disturbed individual who was under a lot of stress. We learned about pre-traumatic stress syndrome, and secondary stress disorder, which one gets from hearing about other people's stress. We heard the theory (unlikely in retrospect) that Hasan was so traumatized by the thought of going into a combat zone that he decided to take a gun and create one of his own.

There was a national rush to therapy. Hasan was a loner who had trouble finding a wife and socializing with his neighbors.

[This] absolved Hasan — before the real evidence was in — of his responsibility. He didn't have the choice to be lonely or unhappy. But he did have a choice over what story to build out of those circumstances. And evidence is now mounting to suggest he chose the extremist War on Islam narrative that so often leads to murderous results.

To recap: The white man who killed brown people after seeing brown people kill white people "was swept up in a whirlwind"; the brown man who killed white people after hearing about white people killing brown people "chose the extremist War on Islam narrative that so often leads to murderous results." 

Meanwhile, the headline of the Times four-page profile of Bales is "At Home, Asking How 'Our Bobby' Became War Crime Suspect." (Clearly, Bales' family members are not regular Brooks readers.) The first sentence of that piece goes like this: "He was not the star, just a well-regarded young man who seemed to try to do the right thing." Not until the eighth paragraph does the Times tell us that Bales was once arrested for assaulting a woman; nowhere do they tell us that at the time of enlisting, Bales was under investigation for defrauding an elderly Ohio couple of their live savings. 

Neither Brooks nor the 10 reporters who the Times tasked with redeeming Bales names the victims of the "massacre." That burden is take up by Al Jazeera, who somehow managed to carve out enough Internet real estate to remind readers that Afghans have names, relationships, &c:

Many mainstream media outlets channelled a significant amount of energy into uncovering the slightest detail about the accused soldier – now identified as Staff Sergeant Robert Bales. We even know where his wife wanted to go for vacation, or what she said on her personal blog.

But the victims became a footnote, an anonymous footnote. Just the number 16. No one bothered to ask their ages, their hobbies, their aspirations. Worst of all, no one bothered to ask their names.

In honoring their memory, I write their names below, and the little we know about them: that nine of them were children, three were women.

The dead:

Mohamed Dawood son of Abdullah
Khudaydad son of Mohamed Juma
Nazar Mohamed
Payendo
Robeena
Shatarina daughter of Sultan Mohamed
Zahra daughter of Abdul Hamid
Nazia daughter of Dost Mohamed
Masooma daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Farida daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Palwasha daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Nabia daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Esmatullah daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Faizullah son of Mohamed Wazir
Essa Mohamed son of Mohamed Hussain
Akhtar Mohamed son of Murrad Ali

The wounded:

Haji Mohamed Naim son of Haji Sakhawat
Mohamed Sediq son of Mohamed Naim
Parween
Rafiullah
Zardana
Zulheja

NEXT: A Re-elected Obama Wouldn't Be the End of Liberty

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. Thanks for this, Mike.

    1. Im sorry to bother u all, but I have to say every one should be equal. Im bisexual, feeling helpless, luckily my friend jessica told me a nice place to date bisexual {{{d a t e b i.c/ o /m}}}, there are a lot of bisexual singles and couples looking to explore their bisexuality.I come home now!!!!So I’d like to share my experience with the like minded people, If u r not bi, please just ignore it! Honestly wish all bisexual could come home!! We bi also need your respect then!!!
      thanks!!!!!

      1. Officer, am I free to gambol about the bisexual forest?

  2. After reading David Brooks column..”

    Well, there’s your problem. Dude is a clown. After his fetish for the crease in Obamas pants I thought this was clear, but apparently he still gets paid to write this drivel.

    Oh well.

    1. I thought it was clear after he wrote the heart-wrenching story of someone who was just scraping by on $180,000/year.

      1. Can you link me to that? It sounds like a hoot.

  3. Well, now you know, if an American sees his buddies killed, it’s understandable if he freaks out and kills a bunch of people.

    But if someone from another country sees his family die in a bombing, and he freaks out and kills a bunch of Americans, that means we “can know that evil exists in the world”, as Santorum might say.

    1. Incorrect logic & does not compare correctly between Americans who kill & Islamics who kill. Study your logic here & be enlightened please:

      {But if someone from another country sees his family die in a bombing, and he freaks out and kills a bunch of Americans, that means we “can know that evil exists in the world”, as Santorum might say.}

      1. Study your English and then maybe you can enlighten the rest of us with what valid (or more likely invalid) thoughts are lurking in that obviously muddled cranium of yours.

        And if that was an attempt at sarcasm, then epic fail. It wasn’t funny or ironic. That’s why I just assumed you are a nitwit.

        1. I would say Rob is ESL, and he completely missed Fluffy’s sarcasm.

    2. What other country was Hasan from? Virginia?

  4. nice job

  5. Our foreign policy is predicated on a bizarre combination of the white man’s burden and the idea that the people over there aren’t really human.

    So we’ll try to civilize them, but if that fails, fuck it, blow ’em up.

    1. I thought it was “blow’em up first, then try and civilize the surviors.”

  6. …Robert Bales, like all of us, is a mixture of virtue and depravity…

    Uh, no. I’m not like him at all, I promise.

    1. I’m depraved as hell, and have few virtues but Robert Bale is still unfit to eat my shit.

      1. This ^^^^

        Homophobes, bigots, and patriots like that fucknuts David Brooks identify with serious degeneracy and moral turpitude (not depravity which I, too, heartily embrace) and struggle with it daily. They are not sane like some of us and project their demons on society because they imagine we are all experiencing the same mental delusions and horrific impulses that they are.

        1. I sometimes say the wrong thing, sleep with the wrong women (though I use protection), and eat too much, but the last time I raised my hands in violence against anyone was when I was about 9 years old. And I merely pushed someone in the back. No Brooksy, we’re not all capable of the same level of depravity.

          1. Absolutely not, but…..if you believe your not capable of violence no matter the circumstance, you’re either deluded or correct and evolutionarily unfit.

            1. Didn’t say I was incapable of violence. Just that I’ve had it under control past the age of 9. Whatever my faults, I won’t be going on a mass killing spree.

          2. #$%^! Two you’res, please.

  7. He kills 16 Muslims and he’s the victim?
    Meanwhile Bradley Manning gets solitary confinement for telling the truth.
    Stupid.

    1. I’m just surprised they didn’t sweep this whole thing under the rug, a la Lt. Calley at My Lai.

    2. Actually, Manning got thrown into prison for violating a contract he signed with his employer by giving classified information to a foreign entity. I don’t have a problem with his useless ass being charged with espionage.

      Or that fucktard Bales being charged with premeditated murder.

  8. Good post, Riggs. I have to wonder whether the Times would be so interested in redeeming Bales if their TEAM wasn’t in the chief’s position, too.

    “How can you shoot women or children?”

    “Easy! You just don’t lead ’em so much! Ain’t war hell?”

    1. That movie’s been on HBO the last couple of weeks. Always stop and watch 15 or 20 minutes when I flip past it.

  9. Man, I can’t imagine how upset/crushed/angry/suicidal poor Mohamed Wazir is right now. Geeeeeeez…..

  10. In honoring their memory, I write their names below, and the little we know about them: that nine of them were children, three were women.

    I might have an interest in their names after the entire population of Kabul is gathered in a public square and read the names of all of the 9/11 victims.

    Indeed, how much do Joe and Jane Afghan know about the “ages…hobbies… [and] aspirations” of those who were murdered by an organization they granted succor to within their borders?

    Or do Riggs, et al. think that only 1st Worlders can feel empathy?

    1. News outlets were pretty vocal in telling the personal stories of the victims just after 9/11. Shouldn’t the Afghans have the right to do the same?

      1. Absolutely.

        However, there are two points I’d like to make. First, those stories were mostly for domestic consumption. I doubt many in Afghanistan really know what happened, except that the ‘Emir’ scored a great victory over the infidel.

        Second, we should know about the lives of the villagers who were murdered, but there is no need to engage in moralistic mau-mauing.

        Just we, in the States, know more about Sgt. Bales, I’m sure the rioters in Kabul know more about the villagers. That’s just a side effect of ‘all news being local’.
        (cont)

        1. (cont)

          Knowing about the lives of these villagers is important to understand why we should no longer be in Afghanistan; perhaps if more people in Afghanistan knew more about the lives cut short on 9/11, they would have been more helpful in helping us finish our job there more quickly. Instead, many of them only have a dim awareness as to why we are there, and, as such, resent our presence.

          1. Knowing about the lives of these villagers is important to understand why we should no longer be in Afghanistan; perhaps if more people in Afghanistan knew more about the lives cut short on 9/11, they would have been more helpful in helping us finish our job there more quickly.

            Two excellent points.

        2. I doubt many in Afghanistan really know what happened, except that the ‘Emir’ scored a great victory over the infidel.

          How many Americans “really know” what happened in Abu Ghraib or any of the other atrocity locales?

    2. Indeed, how much do Joe and Jane Afghan know about the “ages…hobbies… [and] aspirations” of those who were murdered by an organization they granted succor to within their borders?

      Were those women and kids that Bales killed known supporters of al Qaeda? If you have any information that they were, you need to forward that to the State Department like right now, because that might put a different spin on this whole thing. You can’t sit on something like this!

      1. Don’t be an ass.

        1. Don’t be an ass.

          This, coming from the guy who thinks we should hold our outrage in check just because the victims here look like the guys who pulled off 9/11.

          1. This, coming from the guy who thinks we should hold our outrage in check just because the victims here look like the guys who pulled off 9/11.

            Um, no. You might want to try comprehending what other people write and responding to that, instead of responding to what you “think” they wrote.

            1. Um, no. You might want to try comprehending what other people write and responding to that, instead of responding to what you “think” they wrote.

              Sorry sport, you were pretty clear. Maybe you meant to write something else, or you perhaps wish you’d written something else, but I can only go by what you did write.

              1. Thus the issue with your reading comprehension.

              2. I agree, Hungus, I was pretty clear when I wrote “their names“. Again, I don’t need a journalist to report their names to know that their murder was horrible thing.

                Do you know, off hand, all the names of the victims of My Lai? Do you know how many people were killed in Southern Thailand today? Did you even know that the 2nd largest Islamic insurgency, outside of Iraqi and Afghanistan is in Southern Thailand? Can you name even one village in Pattani province? And if not, does that make you a terrible person?

    3. “Indeed, how much do Joe and Jane Afghan know about the “ages…hobbies… [and] aspirations” of those who were murdered by an organization they granted succor to within their borders?”

      Wow HM, you’ve never struck me as the type to apply collective guilt. Joe and Jane Afghan didn’t ‘grant succor’ to any organization within their border. Specific leaders of the Taliban did. Also, truth be told, very few Afghans even know what 9/11 was or is.

      http://www.google.com/search?q…..ent=safari

      1. Also, truth be told, very few Afghans even know what 9/11 was or is.

        See my comment above.

    4. And the Afghanis might have an interest in the names of 9/11 victims after all of America is read the names of all the civilians killed by unmanned drone attacks.

      Hey, collective guilt is fun!

      1. The point is Applederry, that one could play these games all day back to when the first Australopithecus africanus threw a stone at Australopithecus boisei.

        We’re more interested in Bales, because he’s the one whose motives are not known. He’s the one who is coming back here for trial. We already know the villagers were innocent.

        I’m not going to feel guilty for not having a huge interest in their daily lives. I don’t need to know their names to know that they were people. People who were innocent and slaughtered for no reason at all. Seeing the pain and anguish in the faces of their relatives was enough for me to impart that.

        *shrugs* Maybe that’s just me. If you can’t empathize with them until you know their names, more power to you. Study the list until your eyes bleed. Just don’t pretend that your interest makes you morally superior.

        1. The point is Applederry, that one could play these games all day back to when the first Australopithecus africanus threw a stone at Australopithecus boisei.

          Yes, that is the point I was making in response to your dismissive comment. So glad you caught it.

          If you don’t feel the need to feel guilty over these people fine, I’m pretty sure no one here was saying you had to or were less of a person for not feeling guilty, but what you did was suggest these people were not worthy of sympathy because of some collective guilt that you attributed to them.

          P.S. – Your tactic of implying I need names to care about someone or am claiming a moral superiority in regards to feeling guilty just to deflect attention from your own self-righteousness? Very clever. I give it an A+.

          1. If you don’t feel the need to feel guilty over these people fine, I’m pretty sure no one here was saying you had to or were less of a person for not feeling guilty, but what you did was suggest these people were not worthy of sympathy because of some collective guilt that you attributed to them.

            Stop your willful misreading of what I wrote. I didn’t state that ‘I don’t feel the need to feel guilty over the [murder] of these people,’ I stated that I have a problem with the maudlin manner in which the al-Jazeera article implied that by not knowing the names, hobbies, measurements, turn-ons, and turn-offs of each and every one of the villagers, one is nothing more than a blood-thirsty neo-con Crusader.

            1. If that was what you had actually stated, I would have no problem with it, but that is so obviously not what your original comment was saying, and as I’m sure you noticed, I wasn’t the only one who read it that way.

              Quit being a baby and just recognize that your original comment was poorly thought out and didn’t reflect your actual point (which is a perfectly good point) and we can all move on.

              1. I apologize if my comment wasn’t clearly stated.

            2. The problem with this backpeddling is that you did attach moral significance to people in Kabul knowing the names of 9/11 victims. And if they did so, then you would have an interest in the names of dead Afghans.

              I might have an interest in their names after the entire population of Kabul is gathered in a public square and read the names of all of the 9/11 victims.

              All of this quite explicitly suggests that you will only acknowledge dead Afghans if they first acknowledge dead Americans, not that sharing victims’ names is a meaningless exercise altogether.

              1. The problem with this backpeddling is that you did attach moral significance to people in Kabul knowing the names of 9/11 victims. And if they did so, then you would have an interest in the names of dead Afghans.

                I don’t see where I’m backpeddling, I still hold that view. That is, I might agree with Riggs’ moralistic brow-beating if he applied the same standard to, say, the populace of Kabul.

        2. *This*, HM. The panegyric to Masooma, et.al. was a bit much.

          1. The panegyric to Masooma, et.al. was a bit much.
            Wow. That’s fascinating, in a train-wreck is fascinating kind of way.

            1. My agreeing with him, or what??

              1. Correct.
                Characterizing the printing of the name of a dead Afghan woman, killed in a massacre, as a “panegyric” that is “a bit much” is fascinating.

                1. But remember, I’m an admitted dick, so don’t sweat it. Instead of horribly fascinating, perhaps it’s just horribly banal. Your mileage may vary.

                2. Notwithstanding your nitpick, glad to be of fascination.

                3. Well, I guess it wasn’t exactly JFK’s eulogy but it was “In honoring their memory.” Anyway, notwithstanding your nitpick, glad to be of fascination.

                  1. Kill squirrels.

    5. Two problems with that:

      1) The camps were in Afghanistan to keep them at arms length from their sponsors, definitely Pakistan intelligence, likely Saudis as well. The camps being there was not in the Taliban’s power to decide whether they disapproved or not.
      Two, collective guilt is bullshit.

      I say that as someone who has no respect for Islam and very little for all other creeds outside of Taoism.

      1. Two, collective guilt is bullshit.

        I agree. That’s why I’m not so quick to don the hair shirt for not knowing the names of the murdered villagers.

        1. You got a good point. There was an irritating heart on the sleeve quality to what Riggs did there.

          1. There was an irritating heart on the sleeve quality to what Riggs did there.

            The names were listed by Al Jazeera. It seems pretty appropriate to me.

  11. PTSD treatment for Veterans found ineffective.
    Eli Lilly Zyprexa can cause diabetes.
    I took Zyprexa Olanzapine a powerful Lilly schizophrenic drug for 4 years it was prescribed to me off-label for post traumatic stress disorder was ineffective costly and gave me diabetes.
    *FIVE at FIVE*
    The Zyprexa antipsychotic drug,whose side effects can include weight gain and diabetes, was sold for “children in foster care, people who have trouble sleeping, elderly in nursing homes.
    *Five at Five* was the Zyprexa sales rep slogan, meaning *5mg dispensed at 5pm would keep patients quiet*.
    — Daniel Haszard Zyprexa victim activist

    1. As someone who takes Zyprexa, I’d like to chime in and say that it’s done wonders for me. The weight gain was a benefit, since I’ve long had a nigh-skeletal physique. It also made sleeping easier, more restful, and more consistent.

      Of course, I don’t take it for PTSD, so YMMV

    2. MDMA was being tested as a PTSD treatment, with good results. So much for that.

      1. MDMA was being tested as a PTSD treatment

        I believe X could be very effective at treating sometihng like PTSD. It doesn’t matter how I know this, just take my word for it.

      2. And because of that, when the powers-that-be decided that X was a terrible thing that must be kept from the public at all costs, the recommendation to the FDA was that it be placed in Schedule III because of its potential for PTSD treatment. The FDA, for political reasons, placed it in Schedule I.

        1. The FDA, for political reasons, placed it in Schedule I.

          “Because Fuck Veterans, that’s why.”
          -FDA Official Response to Scheduling Recomendation

  12. Al Jazeera making a point of translating the “bin”s or “al”s or whatever the native term was into “son of” and “daughter of” is a classy, thoughtful touch.

  13. Does Brooks and the rest of the scum at the NYT wear their pointy white hoods when they type these stories? Or do they save them for their orgies?

    1. Nah, their type prefer black uniform coats with lightning bolts on the collar.

      1. that would go great with my monocle and tophat.

  14. This is a horrfying article by Brooks. His attempt at psychology is laughable.

  15. Either trained mental health professionals will decide that this guy is not sane, based on far more information than anyone on this blog has – or, he will stand trial for his life.

    1. That’s not really the point, sir.

      Brooksie is asking us to feel sympathy for Bales.

      Riggs is just pointing out – and I agree – that Brooks would never make similar excuses for a non-American.

      1. I don’t feel sympathy for him. I didn’t want to be deployed again either. While I briefly considered going on a killing spree, instead I decided NOT TO REENLIST.

        1. Killing sprees are better served when at home anyway.

  16. Something needs to be corrected.

    Al Jazeera says 9 children and 3 women. Riggs says 9 women and 3 children. Which is it?

  17. Here’s the 2009 column.

  18. Nice misreading of Brooks’ column. You should just stick to writing “murrrrrrrderrrrrrrr drones” over and over since that’s about all you’re good for.

    And by the way, and I realize this may be hard for your deficient intellect to grasp, there’s a difference between going on a rampage because you may be deployed and going on a rampage after being deployed for the 4th time. Not that either situation is an excuse for said murder spree.

    1. Where’s Alexander the Great when you need him?

    2. Then what does Brooks’ column really mean, genius?

      1. I preferred my phrasing. But I’m a dick.

  19. “in centuries past”

    What Bales is accused of doing would either have been ignored by his CO or he would have been hanged (if he was lucky) the next day.

  20. One has to wonder if Brooks would expect us to feel sympathy if someone he didn’t like occupied the Oval Office.

  21. To recap: The white man who killed brown people after seeing brown people kill white people “was swept up in a whirlwind”; the brown man who killed white people after hearing about white people killing brown people “chose the extremist War on Islam narrative that so often leads to murderous results.”

    While it is a scientific fact that David Brooks is a miserable piece of excrement; I think it’s disingenuous to contrast Bales and Hasan that way. While we don’t yet know, and may never truly know, why Bales did what he did, we do know that he had experienced the stress of combat for a very long time.

    1. Hasan, on the other hand, had yet to be deployed. We do know that Hasan had a long history of associating himself with militant Islamist ideas and organizations. (Al-Awlaki was his iman for crying out loud!)

      1. (cont)
        Hasan did have a choice. He could have gotten his Other-than-Honorable discharge and left the service.

        For Bales, who spent plenty of time ‘outside-the-wire,’ it was too late to make that particular choice. Not that this absolves him of what he did.

    2. Plus the worry associated with getting caught cheating old people out of their retirement income. That sounds as if it would be really stressful.

    3. Fine, then let’s not make it Hasan.

      Let’s make it any run-of-the-mill member of Hamas, living in Gaza and firing rockets at Israel.

      They’ve probably seen any number of Israeli military interventions march down their own street.

      So according to Brooks, this means that when they fire rockets at Israel, they’re “the good doing bad”. Right?

      1. So according to Brooks, this means that when they fire rockets at Israel, they’re “the good doing bad”. Right?

        Wow, fluffy. You’re more of a man than I am because you try to analyze Brooks’ gobbledygook. But here’s some advice: just walk away. Trying to understand a Brooks column is like trying to understand a retard doing quantum geophysics. Neither one are gonna get you anywhere.

      2. So according to Brooks, this means that when they fire rockets at Israel, they’re “the good doing bad”. Right?

        I don’t know about Brooks, but I would agree with that.

        1. So according to Brooks, this means that when they fire rockets at Israel, they’re “the good doing bad”.

          The stupid doing what they’re told, would be more like it.

          If we want to parse fine distinctions:

          (1) Bales: seems to be somebody who genuinely cracked, had some kind of breakdown.

          (2) Hassan: seems to be somebody acting out a wacko fundamentalist ideology.

          (3) Pali rocketeers: seem to be people in the grips of a mass, murderous delusional psychosis.

          All bad, just in different ways.

          1. You must be one hell of a proficient psychiatrist, RC, to be able to make those diagnoses from afar with very little data!

    4. Please explain what type of stress is an excuse for killing and burning 16 innocent people.

      And you better be ready to apply that to mass murderers here in the US as well or you’re a hypocritical nationalist shithead.

  22. “quantum geophysics”

    Schrodinger’s continent?

    1. In a state of stuporposition.

  23. I’m afraid that it’s unlikely that any of us will ever really know what happened. Oh, the U.S. government will have a story, I’m sure. I’m sure it will be mostly lies.

    Whatever the truth is, the folks on the right are going to have to let go of their “but our intentions are soooo good!” hangups and realise that Afghanistan just ain’t gonna become the 51st state of the union.

  24. Whatever happened to just plain crazy?

  25. The dead:

    Like the crime is more meaningful by publishing foreign names that nobody will read.

  26. The comparison between Maj. Hassan and SSgt. Bales is odious.

    Bales was on his fourth combat tour- bearing the burden of direct responsibility for men under fire, enduring something like 1100 days in the line, and seeing casualties up close. On top of that there were family pressures and the heartbreak of losing his house to foreclosure.

    Hassan never did anything more strenuous than therapy and office routine. In fact it appears that he never did a days physical work in his life, let alone get shot at. And he had no family responsibilities that I’m aware of. What great traumas scarred his life, so as to drive him over the edge?

    1. If this were a black guy who shot up 16 white people on the subway, conservatives would be up in arms if anyone tried psychologizing away his guilt. Regardless of what had occurred in his life.

    2. Actually, Hassan was a therapist who worked with others who had suffered extraordinary trauma – and who had INFLICTED extraordinary trauma.

      It’s pretty well documented that therapists who do that kind of work are running a risk of going cuckoo themselves.

  27. Brooks is a one trick pony. It’s just gimme that old time religion blather. And if you don’t come from the old time religion culture, or don’t subscribe to it, you must be saaaaaatan!

  28. It is typical of a liberal hack to try and turn this into a racial issue.

    “To recap: The white man who killed brown people after seeing brown people kill white people “was swept up in a whirlwind”; the brown man who killed white people after hearing about white people killing brown people “chose the extremist War on Islam narrative that so often leads to murderous results.””

    1. Maj. Hassan was as white as can be.
    2. He didn’t shoot white people. He shot service members of various creeds and ethnicities. Among his victims was a Hispanic woman who was pregnant.

    Liberals are race-obsessed cretins who often try to portray minorities as victims. I’m a minority and I’d never support a liberal.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.