Scumbags With Blogs
By Mitch Berg
I try to be civil. Yes, indeed, I do.
But sometimes, it’s totally wasted.
To wit: Every time I try to figure out what are the most irredeemably stupid leftyblogs, I get to a short list; “Mercury Rising”, “Jesus General”, Atrios, “Clotting Stool” all hold places of honor…
…but at the top of the list is always “Shakespeare’s Sister”, a collection of the most vacuous, whiniest bloggers this side of Ken “Ned Luddington” Weiner.
And among the whole pack of defectives, “Space Cowboy” has to be…what’s the word?
The dumbest. The dumbest of the lot.
I know I’ve read things dumber than Space Cowboy’s drive-by of the President’s visit to Yad Vashem, but for the sake of my outlook on humanity, I don’t like to dwell on them.
It was only just yesterday when Olmert Pile thought that Bush is a wise man full of Yale and Harvard infused wisdom. Here’s a closer look at that wisdom, as exhibited by our man of the hour during a tour of Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial:
At one point, Bush viewed aerial photos of the Auschwitz camp taken during the war by U.S. forces and called Rice over to discuss why the American government had decided against bombing the site, Shalev said. […]
Between 1.1 million and 1.5 million people were killed at the camp.
“We should have bombed it,” Bush said, according to Shalev.
[At this point, I guess I should take small solace that Mr. Cowboy hasn’t accused the President of bombing Auschwitz instead of finding Bin Laden. Oh, don’t worry – historical myopia almost as stupid follows. I digress].
“I was most impressed that people in the face of horror and evil would not forsake their God. In the face of unspeakable crimes against humanity, brave souls — young and old — stood strong for what they believe,” Bush said.
I really don’t know what to make of this. I’m not sure that Bush realizes that had the US bombed the camp, the people of whose adhesion to religion he’s so enamored [why does Mr. Cowboy have a problem with that? – Ed.] would be stone dead. Bush doesn’t seem to be aware that there were survivors at Auschwitz; is he really saying to the survivors that they should’ve been killed for the greater good of “disrupting service” at the camp?
One wonders only briefly if Mr. Cowboy has read anything on the subject at all. Briefly, I say – lefties that have read history are rarer than All Star Wrestling fans who can recite James Joyce.
While nearly everyone that was in the camps ended up “stone cold dead”, as Mr. Sensitive Cowboy puts it, anyway, there were survivors. And, nearly to a person, they said (after the war) that they hoped we’d bomb not just the railhead, but the “showers” and crematoria, right amid the camps. In those days before GPS and laser-guided bombs, a bombing raid leveled everything within miles of a target in a rolling cascade of destruction. And yet in account after account – Elie Wiesel’s is the most famous (“we didn’t fear death – at least, not that death”); other resports come to us from the Black Book of Nazi atrocities, from British Sergeant John Coward, an escaped POW who infiltrated Auschwitz and brought out intelligence and served as a witness at Nuremberg; from accounts related at the Holocaust Museum – a shocking number of inmates reported that they’d have preferred a death from an Allied bomb, if the same raid took out the gas chambers and crematoria, to what they knew probably awaited them.
And it’s completely irrelevant, because it’s not what Bush was talking about. At our remove from the events – 62 years after Auschwitz was liberated – it should be fairly obvious to the thinking sentient person that Bush was talking about the larger concept of Roosevelt bombing the Auschwitz/Birkenau complex, as opposed to weighing operational options in preparation for setting up an Air Targeting Order.
Bush wasn’t sending targets to the Air Force; he was apologizing in effect for President Roosevelt’s inaction on the camps.
Speaking of “thinking people”, Mr. Cowboy tries to put a “thinking guy” costume on…
A true thinking man, the kind that really has wisdom, might have opined that the bombing of the roads and supply lines surrounding the camp would’ve been a great way to start.
Which was, indeed, what the President was saying.
Would it have stopped the killing? Definitely not. And neither would have Bush’s vision of bombing the whole thing.
Which is, of course, a scabrous lie… .
But the former could’ve netted more survivors. Sure, it’s speculation..
…the sort of ghoulish monday-morning quarterbacking that would get a guy kicked out of Source Games on Warhammer night for being “too weird”.
Also, ignorant as hell. At the Holocaust Museum, and in the many books written about Franklin Roosevelt’s policies on the extermination camps, you can see letters from Jewish leaders fairly begging FDR to bomb the camps, regardless of the loss of life among the inmates, to prevent further, future industrial murders.
Ghoulish, horrible stuff, the stuff of Sophie’s Choice come to real life, the notion of sacrificing hundreds or thousands of ones’ fellows and coreligionists to save hundreds of thousands more.
But speculation requires a reflective thought process and reasoning. All you have to do is watch any Bush presser footage to know, unequivocally, that he does not possess skill one.
Well, let’s be fair, Mr. Cowboy; you had your mind made up about that a long time ago, didn’t you?
President Bush had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of Israel’s Holocaust memorial Friday
Let me know when the press orgy begins about Bush showing weak emotion.
“Weak emotion?”
Mr. Cowboy. You greasy little f*ckstick and wannabe Vulcan. I dare you to visit the Holocaust Museum, or Yad Vashem, and not come away emotionally wracked. I’m as dour and Scandinavian as they come, and by the time I got to the third floor of the Holocaust Memorial, I was biting my lip bloody. Many people – many in yarmulkes, many not – wept openly at the horror of what they saw. Some – my stepson was one – had to drop out of the tour. It’s just too much.
And any of them, from the President on down to the every visitor that takes the horror related at the Museum or Yad Vashem in, is a better person than you.
And I’ll tell you in person.
January 11th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
I imagine that if German POW camps were designed & managed with the specific goal of slaughtering Allied prisoners on an industrial scale we would have bombed them into slag.
Space cowboy seems to lack a reflective thought process and reasoning.
January 11th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Words fail me, other than: thanks, Mitch. I’m not sure I could have been so fucking restrained.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
At first this seemed like another “Flea vs. Slightly Smaller Flea” post, wherein you go ballisitic on someone nobody’s heard of (not unlike your braggadocio over the Patriot’s slightly less miniscule ratings over AM950). Unfortunately this is a moral scold, which is a laugh considering some of the rather morally challenged
items you’ve penned, not to mention the dubious asshats you’ve defended and the bogus charges of deceit to defend your own childish behavior. The icing on the cake is the ominous, not-so-veiled threat you end on, once again negating any moral high ground you were claiming.
January 11th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Unfortunately this is a moral scold
“Unfortunately?”
That’s right, Tim. If someone’s a lefty, you must defend him, no matter how thuddingly moronic or reprehensible.
Not that I expected better.
As to the “examples” you linked – wow. What a rich and full life you must lead. I mean that.
Criminy.
January 11th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Oh, yeah, and
Timslapnuts? That wasn’t a threat. That was a challenge to say what he said, outside his Mom’s basement.I know. Drama is more fun, innit?
January 11th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
The icing on the cake is the ominous, not-so-veiled threat you end on, once again negating any moral high ground you were claiming.
Yet again, a die-hard leftist is mortally wounded (at least emotionally) when a conservative doesn’t simply sit back and take the vitriolic hateful bullshit the left now only spews out, but holds the lifetime achievement award for, and intellectual patent on.
It would be comedy gold if it weren’t so incredibly pathetic.
“…morally challenged…”
From the “morally challenged” post:
Pro-Hussein demonstrators will gather in (if memory serves) Loring Park and near the Capitol to express their regret for the end of juvenile prisons, institutional gang-rape, and thousands of bodies dumped into mass graves.
The pro-rape, pro-genocide demonstrations will be taking place during the Northern Alliance broadcast this weekend. We’ll have team coverage on the scene. If you can’t be there and involved with one of the counterprotests (assuming you’re so inclined, and I know that not all of my readers are), tune in and join us.
The truth hurts, especially when you are unable to admit just how heinous you are.
Slapnuts…you’re being generous, Mitch.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
s/now/not
January 12th, 2008 at 2:17 am
One of the left’s many problems is that they’ve so demeaned words like ‘oppression’ ‘fascism’ and ‘nazi’.
Once upon a time there was a fellow named Fritz Gerlich. He was born about the same time Hitler was, but in Pomerania rather than Austria. Like Hitler Gerlich was raised a catholic in a lower-class ethnic German family.
Gerlich went to university in Munich and became a journalist. Afterwards he witnissed the attempted nazi putsch of 1923 and became an anti-nazi crusader, writing and publishing anti-Hitler articles.
Five weeks after Hitler became chancellor Gerlich’s office was raided by Stormtroopers. His papers were confiscated. Gerlich was arrested and thrown into Dachau. A year later the nazi’s mailed his widow his broken and bloody eyeglasses in lieu of a death notice.
This is what real nazi’s were like.
Too many on the left think that nazi’s were like TSA workers.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:57 am
I say – lefties that have read history are rarer than All Star Wrestling fans who can recite James Joyce.
Before deploying Zyklon B the Nazis were shooting their victims. The would often stand them up chest-to-back so they could kill two with one bullet. As the war ground on, Hitler declared every bullet a “national treasure”, and the switch to the showers was made.
If the Allies had bombed every single death factory, it would have forced the Germans to use more primitive means, and to do so out in the open. They would have been deprived of the fantasy of labor camps and “Work will make you free”. The civilian population would have been forced to witness the daily carnage without the insulation of the camps which helped them pretend they didn’t know what was really going on.
I agree with Bush. FDR should have bombed every damned one of those camps. Now tell me my argument is devoid of a reflective thought process and reasoning. Really.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
If you want to pick on FDR on the issue you should beat him up for failing to dramatically increase the number of Jews allowed to emigrate to the U.S. This policy would have been more effective than bombing.
January 12th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
So increased immigration would have closed the death camps? Now there’s some reasoned thinking.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
FDR did have a certain fondness for
concentrationrelocation camps, didn’t he?January 12th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
If you want to pick on FDR on the issue you should beat him up for failing to dramatically increase the number of Jews allowed to emigrate to the U.S. This policy would have been more effective than bombing.
Rick – you’re comparing apples and anchors.
Before December 11, 1941, FDR held the wrong line on immigration – and, given that we were not at war yet, bombing was sorta a non-issue (and the extermination camps didn’t exist yet at any rate).
Once the US and Germany went to war, immigration was sort of a non-issue vis a vis Jews on the continent (as opposed to Jews that had escaped Nazi territory but were stranded in Portugal, Sweden, Shanghai, Iran or other places).
January 12th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I’m not really a Roosevelt fan….using 2007 standards, I’d rate him him as one of the worst and most immoral presidents ever.
But you have to put everything in context. He may have been racist, but that was the societal norms at the time. He may be been a fucking idiot when it came to economic matters, but that was because he had to appease some of the socialists to prevent a full communist take over of the country. He may have appeased facist in 1935-41, but he would have been impeached due to the stong peace movement (aka pro-facist) that ruled the country. etc
January 13th, 2008 at 4:57 am
Mitch wrote:
“Once the US and Germany went to war, immigration was sort of a non-issue vis a vis Jews on the continent (as opposed to Jews that had escaped Nazi territory but were stranded in Portugal, Sweden, Shanghai, Iran or other places)”
This is why I love SITD. You bland refusal to ever inquire into facts that just might contradict your own views. After Pearl Harbor, large numbers of Jews resided in Vicy France, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Italian controlled sections of the Balkans. These regimes were often willing, esp. if the price was right, to let Jews emigrate. Even Jews in German controlled areas could find ways to get into friendlier territory. The problem was to get other countries to accept them. It was hard to get countries to accept them when the British would not let large numbers into Palestine and the U.S. enforced a strict quota. Put bluntly, neutral countries were worried that ‘rescue’ would work and they would be stuck with large numbers of Jews. They wanted some assurance that the U.S. would help share the load. If the U.S. had abandoned its quota after Pearl Harbor, large numbers of Jews would have been able to make their way out of Axis controlled Europe.
If you want more info:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/peopleevents/index.html
has nice short articles on the Bermuda Conference and the War Refugee Board. They show that emigration was more than a “non-issue”.
For a more blistering perspective, see the “Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder of the Jews” a memo written by senior State Dept. aides.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/treasrep.html
January 13th, 2008 at 5:20 am
So, RickDFL, we’re agreed. Bush would have done more to stop the holocaust than FDR did.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Actually, Rick, you are right once and wrong twice.
There was, indeed, the chance to take jews from some German-allied, rather than German-occupied territory. I’d neglected territories. However, even the total number that escaped to the occupied countries represented a tiny number of Jews – mostly German and western-European – compared to the vast masses deported to the camps later in the war.
But for you to present this as an either/or choice is ignorant at best, ignorant to a point that I’m about to christen “RickDFLish” at worst.
Remember – or, given that you are the irredeemably smug RickDFL, who knows only what his party tells him, learn for the first time – that the vast majority of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were the ones that didn’t, and couldn’t, emigrate – the dirt-poor Jews of the Baltic states, Ukraine, occupied Russia, and the rest of Eastern Europe, especially Poland. There is no rational reason to believe that any of those countries would have packed millions of Jews onto ships and sent them to the US before Treblinka opened, even had Roosevelt been enough of a non-douchebag to have opened the doors to the idea.
And once the Endllösung was in full swing, there is no evidence that Hitler had any interest in accommodating any humane solutions; he built the Vernichtungslagern to kill; he demonstrated his commitment to the mission by devoting resources to hauling Jews that, militarily, should have gone to carrying supplies to the Eastern front.
And you’re wrong, of course, about the whole “inquiring into facts” bit. I don’t claim to be infallible; if someone does show I’m wrong (as you *partially* did, albeit re a sideshow to the larger topic) above, I’ll cop to it.
Of course, then I get to go back to exhume all the crap you wrote about the surge, and the inevitability of its failure, and how we’d be engulfed in a full-scale civil war, and how Harry Reid was right all along and yadda yadda. And given the unsupportable smugness and condescension you brought to that (as every) discussion, it’ll be a pleasure!
But let’s try to get back on subject, here. Do you agree with “Space Cowboy” in monday-morning-quarterbacking Bush’s appearance at Israel’s holocaust memorial? Or, since I’ll presume that in real life you have a sense of actual humanity, do you join Bush in apologizing to the Jews for FDR’s racist and inhumane intransigence on immigration, and his refusal to take military action when that avenue was exhausted and the camps were in full, irreversible operation?
Answer that question before you leave ANY other comment.
January 13th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Mitch:
1. I think Space Cowboy, like Bush, and most people vastly overrate the effectiveness of Allied Air Power in WWII. I am willing to be convinced, but bombing Auschwitz either the camp or the railhead was probably pretty far down the list of effective military steps the Allies could have taken to stop/slow the the Holocaust. Allied air power could not stop the supply for German forces at Monte Casino, Anzio, or Normandy, so I find it hard to believe air power could have stopped the Holocaust. Throwing a few sorties at the railhead would not have done much. Diverting larger numbers, might have slowed the ground advance and extended the war.
While understandable given the media’s obsession with HRC’s emotional moment in New Hampshire, the crack about Bush crying, was inappropriate, though I should add hardly more inappropriate then a few comments in this post let alone your archives.
2. The Jews in Germany allied territories wer not “tiny”. For example, (from wikipedia) “by the end of the war, Hungary’s Jewish community, perhaps the second-largest in Europe, had lost over 400,000, out of an initial population of over 800,000.” Romania had a similarly large number.
3. Of course, a more liberal emigration policy would not have saved all or even most Jews. But, no Allied policy could. A more liberal refugee policy was widely seen then and now as the most effective way to save the largest number of Jews. That is why, at the time, while a few “Jewish leaders [were] fairly begging FDR to bomb the camps” (although I am taking your word for that), the vast bulk of lobbying was directed at the refugee and emigration policy, because it was seen as the most effective step.
4. This gets at the essential smallness of Bush’s response. The clear tragedy of America’s response to the Holocaust was not our unwillingness to bomb, but our unwillingness to live with Jews.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:56 am
1. I think Space Cowboy, like Bush, and most people vastly overrate the effectiveness of Allied Air Power in WWII. I am willing to be convinced, but bombing Auschwitz either the camp or the railhead was probably pretty far down the list of effective military steps the Allies could have taken to stop/slow the the Holocaust.
That was, in fact, one of the adminsitration’s justifications.
Allied air power could not stop the supply for German forces at Monte Casino, Anzio, or Normandy, so I find it hard to believe air power could have stopped the Holocaust.
Of course not. The Holocaust didn’t have a single choke point, the railhead at Oswiecim. There were six big extermination camps (allied intelligence didn’t even know about some of them until they were liberated), hundreds of concentration camps big and small, and labor camps all over the place.
So a raid on Auschwitz might have been as much symbolic as practical. But it might have been an important symbol as far as it went.
2. The Jews in Germany allied territories wer not “tiny”. For example, (from wikipedia) “by the end of the war, Hungary’s Jewish community, perhaps the second-largest in Europe, had lost over 400,000, out of an initial population of over 800,000.” Romania had a similarly large number.
You have the numbers right, but the governments wrong. The Hungarian and Romanian governments were still independent earlier in the war, when there was a chance of getting emigrants out. Later in the war, the Nazis solidified their control over Hungary – contemporaneous with the completion of the death camp system – and it left Hungary’s Jews suddenly liable to being shipped off.
3. Of course, a more liberal emigration policy would not have saved all or even most Jews. But, no Allied policy could. A more liberal refugee policy was widely seen then and now as the most effective way to save the largest number of Jews. That is why, at the time, while a few “Jewish leaders [were] fairly begging FDR to bomb the camps” (although I am taking your word for that), the vast bulk of lobbying was directed at the refugee and emigration policy, because it was seen as the most effective step.
Of course.
4. This gets at the essential smallness of Bush’s response. The clear tragedy of America’s response to the Holocaust was not our unwillingness to bomb, but our unwillingness to live with Jews.
Bush was looking at an aerial photo of Auschwitz-Birkenau, taken during the height of the Holocaust. To have commented on immigration policy would have made little sense in context.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Maybe I’m wrong, but I think Bush’s emotional response to his visit to the holocaust memorial and his statement that we should have bombed the camps was his reaction to an abomination. Bombing the camps, even if the bombs did nothing to save lives, would still be a proper moral course of action to take when we knew they existed.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Chuck upchucked: “I’m not really a Roosevelt fan….using 2007 standards, I’d rate him him as one of the worst and most immoral presidents ever.”
Good lord you wingnuts are delusional.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Bush puts foreigners in a prison camp in Cuba and he’s Hitler. Roosevelt puts Americans in concentration camps on American soil and he’s the clown’s hero.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:02 am
I don’t remember Japanese getting waterboarded, Terry. And FDR did win a war. Bush not so much.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Bush: waterboards terrorists
FDR: Throws innocent Americans into concentration camps
That magic ‘waterboarding’ word doesn’t always work, AC.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I don’t remember Japanese getting waterboarded, Terry.
True.
Shot out of hand, firebombed as part of a considered strategy, approved at the highest levels and insinuated into the entire plan for the Pacific War, of killing or burning the Japanese civilian population out of their homes, and finally nuked? Yep, but no waterboarding!
And FDR did win a war. Bush not so much.
1943: “And Wilson won a war! FDR, not so much!”
I mean, by your logic, Clown, FDR didn’t win the war, either. Truman did.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Say, doesn’t clown drone on about the terrible vengeance he’d like to see wreaked on Osama? We haven’t got Osama – yet – but we did get Khalid Sheik Mohammed, maser mind behind 9/11, murderer of Daniel Pearl — and clown’s delicate sensibilities won’t countenance the Sheik getting waterboarded to find out who is next on his list.
Angry Clown! Avenger of the Innocent! As long as it doesn’t involve wet paper towels or barky dogs!
January 14th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Mitch:
“So a raid on Auschwitz might have been as much symbolic as practical. But it might have been an important symbol as far as it went.”
Interesting point. For press reports that is not what Bush was talking about. I am not sure what to think of bombing as a symbolic expression of moral condemnation, but that is probably an issue for another day. But futile symbolic acts have there place mostly where there are no other viable effective alternatives. My original point was that there were such options available.
“To have commented on immigration policy would have made little sense in context.” Agreed. But it would have made more sense that what Bush actually said.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Terry:
“Bush puts foreigners in a prison camp in Cuba and he’s Hitler. Roosevelt puts Americans in concentration camps on American soil and he’s the clown’s hero”
You need to brush up on the difference between ‘because of’ and ‘in spite of’. Outside of Michelle Malkin, I do not know anyone who thinks of FDR as a “hero” because he interned Japanese-Americans.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Interesting point. For press reports that is not what Bush was talking about.
Bush was fairly clearly apologizing for FDR’s inactions (whatever their reasons) and saying some sort of action to disrupt the smooth functioning of the camps would have been appropriate.
I am not sure what to think of bombing as a symbolic expression of moral condemnation, but that is probably an issue for another day.
The symbol would have been of support for the inmates. We had other means of expressing moral condemnation of the Nazis; they involved a few years of bombing followed by 11 months of ground combat.
But futile symbolic acts have there place mostly where there are no other viable effective alternatives. My original point was that there were such options available.
While you are correct, to a point – there were other options, although by 1944 none of them would have benefitted the people en route to Oswiecim.
On the one hand, railroads (in 1943-45) were rather difficult targets; tracks were pretty simple to repair, and the Nazis excelled at it (especially when there was ample slave labor available). On the other hand, the Allies “Transportation Plan” air offensive against the rail network in Europe did manage to paralyze German traffic in the months before D-Day. On the other hand, bombing in Poland back then (where the death camps were) was very difficult; Reaching Auschwitz/Monowitz was just on the very edge of possible for the longest-ranged Allied bombers carrying the lightest possible bomb loads, with only the lightest fighter escort, if any.
“To have commented on immigration policy would have made little sense in context.” Agreed. But it would have made more sense that what Bush actually said.
Bush’s statement, in context, made perfect sense. He wasn’t giving an extensive commentary on Allied air strategy, or FDR’s rationales, or geeking out over what strategic bombers could or couldn’t do. It was a simple “we should have tried to stop them”. The baggage his critics have added to the statement is merely obtuse jamming-of-words into other peoples’ mouths.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Mitch:
As to what Bush thought or meant, I just have the press story you cited.
“The United States should have bombed Auschwitz during World War II to prevent the mass murder of Jews, US President George W. Bush said on Friday.”
“Prevent” means, not a symbolic strike, but an effective policy. Maybe the reporter got the context wrong, but I have never known the Bush White House not to push back hard in such a case.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
RickDFL you’re making my argument for me.
It isn’t about waterboarding at all. If AC supported Bush’s politics the way he supports FDR’s, clown would excuse Bush’s waterboarding just as he excuses FDR’s lapses into fascism — and the way he excuses Ted Kennedy’s harsh method of breaking up with a girlfriend.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
“Prevent” means, not a symbolic strike, but an effective policy
Or to prevent a set of peopple, called “Jews”, meaning either an entire race or some plural subset of them, from being murdered.
You and the leftybloggers are inserting any intent to end the Holocaust with a bombing strike.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Mitch:
We will have to leave this one to the readers. I think “mass” counts for more than just “some plural subset”.
Terry:
If I supported the other things Bush did in office, they would help mitigate the waterboarding. Be I don’t support them, so they don’t mitigate anything. If you want to argue that Bush is a great President in spite of the waterboarding, feel free. I don’t agree, but would be happy to start from the premise that waterboarding is a terrible crime that must be mitigated by other good works.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:48 am
OK, leave it to the readers.
But if one says “Jews were at Adath Israel for prayers this morning”, that means every single Jew living in the world today was packed into that building on Edgecumbe?
September 24th, 2015 at 12:01 pm
[…] this blog, there was a liberal blogger who fancied himself a transit advocate – indeed, was alleged to have taken money from light rail interests to attack, using his various sock-puppet blogs, not only opponents of […]