Posts
The Best And Worst Coverage of Bill Ayers
By Josh Strawn / October 16, 2008
Poring over the current commentary on William Ayers is a bit like looking at every picture from a Barack Obama rally at one sitting. Sure, you’d see hundreds, maybe thousands of snapshots of the same scene and the same people. But the multiplicity of different compositions, angles, and vantage points makes choosing the most fair representation a daunting task. Since there’s hardly an objective inquiry to be found in the still growing "literature" on the subject, one is forced to confront the great clash of opinions and interests if one hopes to make any sense of the muddled yet constantly audible Ayers buzz. While the matter of Obama’s association with Ayers is officially at stake, what’s most fascinating is whether the speaker shows more interest in delivering a verdict on Ayers or Obama, on the weight of history or the passage of time. This has become in some ways what the McCain campaign wants it to be–a retread of the 1960′s. Ayers and the Weathermen are and were real people, but today they are also totems–symbols of a culture of youth gone wild and treasonous with pinko radical chic "passion." For some those totems have a built-in panic button, for others they couldn’t be more innocuous or five-minutes-ago. Separating the real people from their symbolic status is as problematic as conflating them with their cultural-political totem. So let’s go over the configurations. Sol Stern, writing in City Journal, makes one of the more compelling criticisms of Bill Ayers by focusing less on the the past, or cultural symbolism even if he relies on it indirectly to color the proceedings as he drops a quip about Stalin here, and a dig at anti-captialists there. Stern’s concern is over what Ayers means by school reform:
Ayers’s school reform agenda focuses almost exclusively on the idea of teaching for "social justice" in the classroom. This has nothing to do with the social-justice ideals of the Sermon on the Mount or Martin Luther King’s "I Have a Dream" speech. Rather, Ayers and his education school comrades are explicit about the need to indoctrinate public school children with the belief that America is a racist, militarist country and that the capitalist system is inherently unfair and oppressive.
This goes to the heart of who Ayers is today and why Obama’s association with him might be problematic. However, it also conveniently neglects to broach the subject that guilt by association would also implicate figures like the Annenbergs: prominent Republican philanthropists whose pocketbook Ayers’ grant proposal helped dip into. No detractor of Ayers has yet to apply any similar standard of guilt to the Annenbergs, who gave 42.9 million dollars to this former domestic terrorist. Stern wants Obama to be asked what he thinks about Ayers’ view of school reform–but why not ask the same of Leonore Annenberg who, after having bankrolled a project bearing Ayers’ name and his ideas must certainly be as responsible for supporting this kind of radicalism as Obama?
Paul Berman strikes at Ayers as well–but Berman uses the Ayers of today and yesterday as a means to take aim at the foul tendencies of left. Berman, a liberal intellectual who bucked orthodoxy after 9/11 by contributing one of the most significant studies of the linkage between European fascism and Islamic radicalism, doesn’t seem to care about Obama or Ayers so much as "left-wing politics of a lunatic variety." Berman’s a history guy and can’t quite shake the Ayers of yesteryear off as easily as the 3,000 who have signed a statement in support of "the stupidest man in America, politically speaking." Berman manages to call Obama naive, but doesn’t care to chain him to Ayers. He’d rather explain what an ass Ayers is and was, and how foolish the left of today is for helping make Obama look bad:
Obama is saddled with Ayers also because of a culture of mendacity on the far left in America—the mendacity that allows Ayers to go on proclaiming his own nobility and ideals, quite as if his own principles were those of any liberal-minded person, which they are not[...]Barack Obama’s prospects appear right now to be good. But if he loses? Dear 3,247 signatories, and dear Bill: if Obama loses, one of the reasons will be your moronic and dishonest refusal to draw a distinction between the democratic ideals of the left, and terrorist notions of totalitarian communism.
David Tanenhaus and Richard Stern, however, would have us have nothing to do with history. Content to separate the Ayers of old from the the Ayers of today, their apologetics are not even reasonable engagements with the actions of the Weathermen. No far left sympathy for Ayers’ "principles," only rosy portraits of the here and now, of dinner parties and misguided do-gooders made good. At Slate, Tanenhaus paints a holiday card:
I sometimes find it hard to believe that the Bill and Bernardine that Barack and I met in Hyde Park in the 1990s are the same people that my students are learning about in class. I know them better as the couple that invited me into their home in 2000 to meet their extended family, make gingerbread-cookie houses, and share Christmas dinner. Our conversation that night, as it almost always did, focused on the future, not the past.
At the New Republic, Richard Stern hasn’t much else to offer:
At dinner, thirty-eight years later [...] I didn’t hold their fiery and criminally violent behavior against them. As in Chekhov’s wonderful story "Old Age," time had planed down the sharp edges and brought one-time antagonists into each others’ arms.
Arguing that these individuals have been reformed is something quite apart from painting disingenuous idyllic pictures that disengage from the past. Tanenhaus briefly tries to contextualize Ayers’ behavior in light of the political heat of the 1960s. But nowhere is there a serious discussion about the qualitative differences and similarities between Ayers’ actions and what we now associate with the term terrorism. Sol Stern should certainly not expect us to believe that the Weathermen attacking, with warning, the U.S. military-industrial complex in the midst of an inhumane war is the same as those who attack, without warning, innocents in New York and Baghdad. But nor should Richard Stern rattle on about the "adolescent fizzle" in Ayers’ "sexagenarian bones" without some serious confrontation with the moral questions presented by Ayers’ past actions. This might be an excellent time to have a serious conversation about domestic demons symbolic and real, about the weight of history or the passage of time. But it has so far been a chance missed.
POST A COMMENT
Tellner, why are you so difficult? Obama did not write the book since he was unable to complete a memoir to conform to the demands of the deal he negoiated. Literate? Sure, he is literate. He did not write that book because its style does not resemble his writiing style under analysis. Neocons? Blaming others for Obama’s shortcomings might be satisfying but it hardly addresses the issues.
As eveyone keeps pointing out–Obama and Ayers have an eleaborate relationship and goes well beyond what he has admitted and this bit of lying, in addition to all his other lies–impeaches his character and brings up important questions about how he will govern. No one can vote for a man who lies so chronically. If he is not candid about Ayers, he will not be candid about his dealings with the Arabs. He wants a whole lot of things kept quiet, he has thin skin and lacks credibility. When challenged–he gives no explanations. This is why I preferred: "Ask me anything" Mitt Romney. Instead, we have a don’t ask me anything President. This is a con man–he is lying, he is dangerous.
Everyone must vote for someone else.
I understand part of being a knee jerk liberal is the part about being reflexive, but you’re taking to a whole new level. Ronald Reagan is not "my hero", and Obama and Ayers certainly had a professional relationship that – had it belonged to McCain and Paul Hill – would have prevented the nomination of the likes of John McCain to begin with (and indeed, would have torpedoed the political future of nearly anyone you care to mention). As my post said, the entire Ayers affair is more a commentary on the inability of the American left to come to grips with its history of engaging in and advocating political violence in the 1960′s and 1970′s than anything specific about Barack Obama.
[space reserved for frothing, outraged reply from Tellner]
Wait a minute.
Weren’t Obama and Ayers both on the board of at least one organization?
Everybody knows Obama started his political career in Ayers’s living-room. THAT is never disputed by anybody.
Here is an excerpt from an editorial in the newspaper Investor’s Business Daily. Yes, they are terrible right-wingers. Well, these seem to be facts, interpret them any way you want:
" …In a recent interview on Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," Obama upgraded Ayers’ status from "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" to "somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know."
Actually, Obama knew him quite well, having worked together on a school "reform" project called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
In the 1990s, Ayers was instrumental in starting the Annenberg Challenge, securing a $50 million grant to reform the Chicago Public Schools, part of a national initiative funded by the late Ambassador Walter Annenberg.
Obama was given the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office. He ran the fiscal arm that distributed grants to schools and raised matching funds.
Ayers participated in a second entity known as the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, the operational arm that worked with grant recipients.
During Obama’s tenure as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers’ own education projects received substantial funding. …"
This editorial opines that Ayers might be Secretary of Education under a President Obama. This is the link to the whole piece:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?status=article&id=308271974461547&secid=1501
So, it’s not like they are vaguely acquainted. You could say they have been in business together. Actually, it sounds like Obama was the employee, and Ayers the man with the power, the man who controlled the money. How close are they today? Ayers is quite wealthy. They go back a long time. You make up your own mind.
it is with great amusement that i watch you blow their moronic agitprop out of the water..
Puh-leaze. Let’s consider the "relationship" Ayers and Obama had. I’m only repeating myself once because I’ve said it before, and you’re incapable of doing anything but repeating RNC talking points.
Barrack Obama and Richard Ayers were both appointed to a task force on education. They were appointed by a personal friend of Ronald Reagan. There. I’ve invoked your Patron Saint, Ronald the Blessed Saviour. They aren’t friends. They never hung out together. That was the extent of their relationship.
This has been debunked so many times that your refusal to acknowledge simple facts leads to only two possible conclusions. You’re either a slanderous liar, or you’re too stupid to read declarative English sentences. Out of compassion and charity I’m willing to assume the second.
Ayers has endorsed a book called "Queering Elementary Education". Charming. Sexualization of children. Here is the link to the back cover of the book, at Amazon, showing his blurb endorsement. Yes, he is a major source of Obama’s thinking, today. He calls himself a Communist. Actually he is more of a guilt-obsessed man, from very wealthy family, than a Communist.
The gazebo in Obama’s Chicago, pretty but useless, standing alone and unused in the middle of a field of weeds, which was supposed to be a park, but the money went missing, is a good emblem of Communism. Pretty, but illogical and useless.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0847693694/ref=sib_dp_ptu#reader-link
Consider the title of this book: QUEERING ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. Small children. No choice about it. But – he’s supposedly "anti-imperialist". But THIS is cultural imperialism. Forced belief change. The Taliban, US style. It is religion in the public schools! We are against that. We LIKE freedom of thought, and we know everybody doesn’t think alike, and never will. Or maybe they will, when he’s finished.
McCain may not be George Washington, and Sarah Palin may be only a governor for two years, but seriously. You just can’t vote for Obama. Take your chances with the Republicans. I have seen worse than them get in, believe me, and it worked out, sort of. Life went on. At least we weren’t being steamrollered by people who want your children’s minds impaled on a stick, unrecognizable, bug-eyed with nonsense, and zombied to a turn. No, little Rachel is not going to "grow up to marry a princess". She might sometimes, but we can keep it to sometimes. Not most of the time.
IF THIS STUFF WERE REALLY SO GREAT, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO WORK SO HARD, AND YELL SO LOUD, TO CONVINCE EVERYBODY OF HOW GREAT IT IS.
So, you can’t be a boy. You can’t be a girl. You have to be a gender-mushy, fungible, faceless and harmelss unit of labor. More efficient that way. Some advocate of the worker! The worker’s personality must bow to labor requirements! Neutered worker bee!
Consider for a moment what a field day the press would have if John McCain had associated, at any point in his political career, with the likes Paul Jennings Hill. Hill, like Bill Ayers, was another American citizen who, again like Ayers, engaged in acts of political homicide during a "turbulent time" and had "complicated motives". The biggest difference between Ayers and Hill, beyond their respective positions on the left-right political axis, is that Bill Ayers got tenure, while Hill got the gurney – something that probably says more about the sorry state of American academia than anything else about Senator Obama.
That said, the numerous attempts to gloss over Ayers criminal record as some sort of youthful indiscretion or noble reaction to some sort of infathomably complex state of American domestic affairs is horseshit. Senator Obama’s association with the man, while knowing his record and non-apology stance on his own acts of domestic terrorism, is certainly fair game for scrutiny and criticism. The good Senator had the political savvy to throw Pastor Wright under the bus when it looked as if he were going to become a pair of political cement shoes, but even more cynically, didn’t bother to address the Ayers issue in any meaningful way whatsoever after it had become clear that he was going to win anyway.
Neocons believe that the guy who edited the Harvard Law Review isn’t literate enough to write his own memoir.
Pull ye the other one. It hath gotte belles onn.
http://thepostliberal.com/2008/10/obama-in-plain-sight-intro-to-dreams.html
Bruce Heiden also believes Obama could not have written "Dreams"–his memoir.
The evidence is overwhelming here, Rachiel–he did not write this book–or at least, had someone re-write it very significantly.
When one man came forward with the theory that Joe Klein was the "anonymous" author of a fiction book that was about the Clinton White House–it was a "theory" and "mere innuendo" until Klein came forward to admit the fact. Obama has not said he wrote it himself and Ayers has not denied he helped. The reason Klein was pegged as the author is that the words conformed to his writing style. Obama, at this time in his life–wrote very little but what we know about his writing abilities suggests he could not have written this work and the words do not resemble his known writing. There is a thesis written at Harvard and the text is kept carefully under wraps. It is hidden with a ton of other data about this mystery man who wants to be President but wants his voters to know very little about his past. As far as I know, not one person has even asked Ayers the question.
Ayers had a profound influence on Obama and so did Alinsky. When Obama says he has no link to Ayers this is a very significant lie and serves a red-flag about his plans to be our President. He can go ahead and falsify all kinds of things–some things are rather trivial. He cannot deny his ties to this man since they are simply too significant and obvious. His reckless decision to lie about this is a wake up call for the electorate since it tells us that he thinks Ayers is toxic and it is a good clue about how he will govern as President when he is forming controversial alliances.
of at least entertainment value from my reply to the post.
Was my response of more or less merit and commentary value than the post itself? I would love to get your read on the neo-con propaganda the original post itself consists of…
Sincerely, "Vile Nutter"
I think I now see the light. Obama is black. He couldn’t possibly have written the
book. No other author has had trouble with a first draft. I must admit that
Ayers’s writing certainly improves in Dreams. Fugitive Days is just not that
well-written. No doubt you’re right.
The only thing we have is completely unsupported innuendo. Chase down the references and it’s all professional right-wing slanderers (like you) quoting each other. There’s nothing even resembling evidence. The only connection between them is that a friend of Ronald Reagan invited both to serve on the same panel.
It’s like every bit of the McCain campaign – racism, red-baiting, fear, hatred and lies. There’s nothing positive, no appeal to reason, not even an attempt to address issues. It’s entirely "Obama might be a terrorist, a Muslim, a commie, a druggie, a faggot". Or "he might be associated with a terrorist, a Muslim, a commie, a druggie or a faggot". Oh, yeah, he’s a Neeee-groooo. Watch out. Only John McCain can save us from the Scary Black Man.
This has got to be the most pathetic excuse for a Presidential campaign I’ve ever seen. And you can’t do anything but pass out the Kool Aid.
The fact remains that Ayers and Obama were connected in a serious way and the style and substance of Obama is what one would expect from an Allinsky/Ayers student.
The fact remains that Obama, sensing a problem, has lied about the facts of their involvement.
There is a strong case that Ayers co-wrote "Dreams"–it makes sense. Cashill’s evidence is very persuasive. Things are so bad for Obama and his lying that this hardly matters since he has not actually stated, for the record, he wrote the book. This is the problem America has when it chronically selects lawyers as public officials and why someone like Sarah Palin is so refreshing. The people want someone who means what they say and says what they mean. When Obama says that he barely knows the guy–he says he is a victim for reminding him of some obscure association–we have every need to believe what he says. When we now know that their involvement was significant–that is enough to impeach the witness. The revelation that Ayers co-wrote his first book and further revelations that Ayers may have been involved much earlier when Obama was in Columbia is even more disturbing.
Wanting proof certain of greater and greater involvement simply is not necessary to see the liar as a liar. Stop closing your eyes and be candid enough to admit that no matter what the evidence–you still want the con man as your President–don’t you? If Ayers was asked and he admitted it–that would not change a thing, right? It better not since the Obama administration will witness a record amount of lying and Obama fans will not go down easily. They stood behind Clinton and now lying is back in style.
As for McCain and radio talk show host G. Gordon Liddy–Liddy has met with almost everyone since his jail time due to his role in Watergate and there is no special relationship–of course nothing that bears any similarity to Obama and Ayers. Stop changing the subject.
O.K. I read Jack Cashill’s article. His case for Ayers as ghost-writer is all
innuendo. He himself says he can’t prove anything. Obama’s speeches are
proof enough that he can link words intelligently. Meanwhile, tell me where
the media has discussed McCain’s ties to G. Gordon Liddy, would-be
murderer and bomber. Or McCain’s membership in WACL (World Anti-
Communist League), an anti-semitic organization packed with aging Nazis.
"Ayers wrote Obama’s book? In what fevered neo-com wetdream did you conjure up that nonsense…"
OK, the person who propounded the idea mentioned a site which makes the case. I’m not saying that you should find the arguments persuasive (frankly, I don’t), but your response is nothing but snide invective. This makes you look like an idiot who, rather than "shooting sparks" is simply frothing at the mouth.
"Is this a notion that whore Laura Ingraham has been floating or something?"
Actually, if you’d bothered to follow the link (or even read the post), you’d see that it came from Jack Cashill. And why do you call Laura Ingraham a "whore?" Because she doesn’t agree with you? Don’t you think that’s a bit sexist? Or do you simply have sexual issues?
"This is what Zionist political thought looks like… sick shit."
That one was really from out in left field. Obama either wrote the book, or he didn’t. Ayers either helped or he didn’t. I’m not sure what this has to do with the notion of a Jewish state in the Middle East. But, if your fevered mind can make the connection, perhaps you’d elaborate?
Ayers wrote Obama’s book? In what fevered neo-com wetdream did you conjure up that nonsense…
Is this a notion that whore Laura Ingraham has been floating or something?
This is what Zionist political thought looks like… sick shit.
Rachiel, the case is very compelling. Obama could not write the book, despite an advance of $125,000 from Poseidon and Obama is not a writer. In fact, this topic is very old, Hillary Clinton claimed she wrote her book and kept the real author off the cover and even off the acknowledgment page. Biden is the infamous plagiarizer. Why do so many Dems have a problem giving credit to people who help them?
As I posted previously, author Jack Cashill has nailed this story down very well. You will read about it no where since it is negative news against the messiah and the media suppresses all negative news. When Republicans reveal the truth–it is seen as a "negative personal attack." See one of the very best websites on the internet and one that is substantially Jewish: americanthinker.com see October 17, 2008 for the link.
Again, Obama is impeached not because he had a ghostwriter–this is common. It is because that writer is Ayers and the relationship with this committed communist is substantial and hidden and Obama has lied about it.
He is stuck with his association with Tony Rezko since it is all over the papers and deals with real estate deals, cash donations, etc–that is–"hard" facts. To his credit, Obama has at least acknowledged the relationship but only in the face of the revelation of those hard facts and only part of the relationship. Ayer’s influence is "soft" in part but also as hard as it can get since Ayers put him on the board and selected him personally to dole out the Annenberg cash.That experience–is ALL the experience Obama can cite before he pushed out competitors for the Ill State Senate with his dirty techniques coached by his host of slimy friends. Will anyone ask Ayers if he helped with the book? Nope–no one cares. Will Obama ever be asked anything? Nope–he is too busy measuring the drapes and encouraging Michelle to eat lobsters, Iranian caviar and champagne for lunch at the Waldorf for a $447 lunch. Why not? No sweat–the fix is in–Obama is the "one" and no one is going to break the spell until after the election.
This man is corrupt and refuses–even with a big lead in the polls–to disclose how he was admitted to Harvard Law school, his medical records, his thesis at Harvard, evidence that he paid back student college loans and along list of disclosures that would go a long way towards putting critics in their place but it is evident that Obama has a lot of skeletons he wants hidden. No one is demanding anything of this guy so he will not disclose things, as any lawyer knows, that will hurt himself. Our officials normally release everything since their record becomes part of the public domain as they seek our electoral support. Not King Obama who is so loaded with cash–the thin skinned Obama with his arrogance and deep secrets is going to be a real problem as President.
We desperately want to see in this man so many positive things that make his Presidency "transformational" as Colin Powell has said. We are being conned and the con of "hope" and "change" is the oldest one in the book. Carter and Clinton said the same thing. We don’t want a President, we want to be transformed, rescued and elevated! This is supposed to be the purpose of our religion and Obama has emerged to be the man Michelle claimed that will fix the "hole in our souls." This is such a crock–how do you people fall for such garbage? Obama needs to not only lose but he needs to be booed off the stage.
The Who said "we won’t be fooled again." It seems we are fooled about every 8-10 years.
David N. Friedman states that Bill Ayers wrote or co-wrote Obama’s book
Dreams of My Father. What evidence is Mr. Friedman willing to produce that
this is indeed the case?
I suppose we can be grateful that Jewcy even acknowledges the issue–I suppose that is what we are allowed when the "messiah" is up 10 points in the polls.
Now, can we look at why this whole connection matters. It matters for several reasons. First, when asked about the nature and scope of the relationship, Obama said that he is simply "someone he knew in the neighborhood." Obama plays victim over the accusation of guilt by association since after all, he knows so many people. This lie, one of many significant lies perpetrated by this arrogant and dangerous man, is quite astounding. We know that Ayers is a very significant figure in Obama’s career and he intentionally deceived us when he said there is little to the relationship. Ayers, in fact gifted Obama charge of that Annenberg grant and it is significant to explore and discuss what he did with the money since Obama himself brought forward as relevant, his experience as community activist. Ayers chose Obama to run with the money–we get to judge what Obama did with the money and his entire relationship with Ayers.
Ayers wrote Obama’s book "Dreams of My Father"–or at least co-wrote it to say the least. That memoir put Obama on the map and it can be safely said that Obama produced and directed Obama’s entire political career. People so foolishly loved to say that Karl Rove was "Bush’s brain"–sadly, Bush has his own brain and it is not as good as Rove’s but Ayers produced and directed Obama in a very significant way. The fact that Obama jokes off the association and has shamelessly lied about their ties disqualifies him from being President. It is the kind of public perjury that is simply inexcusable.
Further, it might matter only a bit if he fibbed about someone else writing his memoir for him. It matters so much more that it is anti-American and communist Bill Ayers who has such profound influence on our empty suit of a future President. This is why we see in Obama the anti-American and socialist ideology that is right below the surface of his sometimes pleasant public utterances. He makes nice noises but hides his true feelings and they are hidden because he cannot be elected with those statements out in the open. This is that nature of all liberal politicians and it really is a farce. When Obama says that he is for normative marriage–that is obviously not the case. When he says he is not out to promote late-term abortions and even born alive babies, that is a lie. When he says he will cut our taxes, that is a gross lie. When he says he is pro-Israel, this is obviously a lie.
Obama *is* William Ayers to a very significant extent and this is why Ayers has worked so hard to mold Obama. As Jack Cashill has argued, Ayers has zero chance of being little more than a local punk so his larger ambitions need to be placed elsewhere. Ayers and Dorn as old-time bombers are not the issue although it is grotesque that a politician close to the Presidency would pal-around (as Sarah P put it so softly) with people who hate America so profoundly. Please consider the election theft, socialism and financial ruin Ayers wants to bring to America today.
We are being conned by Obama. He lied to us about Ayers. Obama must be defeated.
1) Ayers was a terrorist who tried to kill people in the ’60s. The fact that he was less successful at blowing up the Pentagon than the folks who attacked on 9/11 goes to his competence as a terrorist, not his status as a terrorist.
2) Yes, Obama was 8 at the time. However, on 9/11/01, the NY Times quoted Ayers as thoroughly unrepentant about his violent anti-US activity, and as wishing he had done more. Obama was not 8 then, nor was he 8 when Ayers posed for his picture standing on an American flag. It is perfectly fair to judge Obama by the company he keeps. As an aside, I’d say it’s also fair to judge him by the company he lies about. Ayers, in whose home Obama launched his meteoric political career, was hardly just ’a guy in the neighborhood’ as Obama tried to claim.
As to the comment "Sol Stern should certainly not expect us to believe that the Weathermen attacking, with warning, the U.S. military-industrial complex in the midst of an inhumane war is the same as those who attack, without warning, innocents in New York and Baghdad," I respectfully disagree. People who attacked innocents in New York were terrorists; Ayers’ actions made him guilty of both terrorism and treason. Absent the prosecutorial misconduct that set Ayers free, as far as I’m concerned, he should have been executed.
I was going to delete your comment in accordance with our new "No Vile Nutters" rule, but you actually managed to unearth a new ornament of political anti-Semitism I hadn’t seen before. I’ll have to add that to my collection.
All my progressive friends should keep the above image in mind when you hear people talk about neo-cons.
To Obama’s crowd, neo-con means conservative Jews and their gentile supporters.
If you say, I’m not a "conservative" Jew, leave me out of it; then that’s how the whole ghastly circus starts. Obama seems like s decent guy but he will surround himself with people who are not and he does not have the will to stand up to them.
Seig Heil.
Julius Streicher would have been proud.
with rabid neo-con zionists as sources… and this iis the look we should be taking?
Your naked propaganda cloud piece is sad indeed,,,,
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!