Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are Liberals Anti-WASP? [Buchanan: 33% of US S.Ct. Seats Goes to Less than 2% Jews-Blacks Angry!]
HumanEvents ^ | May 14th 2010

Posted on 05/14/2010 6:53:11 PM PDT by Steelfish

Are Liberals Anti-WASP? by Patrick J. Buchanan 05/14/2010

"A chorus of black commentators and civic leaders has begun expressing frustration over (Elena) Kagan's hiring record as Harvard dean. From 2003 to 2009, 29 faculty members were hired: 28 were white and one was Asian American." CNN pundit Roland Martin slammed "Kagan's record on diversity as one that a 'white Republican U.S. president' would be criticized for." This is an excerpt from the Washington Post about the rising anger in a black community, which voted 24-1 for Obama, that one of their own was once again passed over for the Supreme Court.

Not since Thurgood Marshall, 43 years ago, has a Democratic president chosen an African-American. The lone sitting black justice is Clarence Thomas, nominated by George H. W. Bush. And Thomas was made to run a gauntlet by Senate liberals. Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity? But while leaders in the black community may be upset, the folks who look more like the real targets of liberal bias are white Protestants and Catholics, who still constitute well over half of the U.S. population.

(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: buchanan; kagan; mullahpat; patbuchanan; ussc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

1 posted on 05/14/2010 6:53:11 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Pat really hates the Jews, doesn’t he?


2 posted on 05/14/2010 6:54:40 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Yours is such an expected, safe reaction and a feable attempt at censorship. Pat is speaking the unspeakable that needs to be brought out for discussion. The fact is that Jews and blacks are currently way over represented at the highest levels of the government.


3 posted on 05/14/2010 7:11:29 PM PDT by balls
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: balls

feable should be feeble.


4 posted on 05/14/2010 7:14:39 PM PDT by balls
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

May Pat and conservatives of his ilk rot in hell.


5 posted on 05/14/2010 7:24:59 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balls

Sounds like you want representation based on population percentage and not competence (not that Kagan’s a shining example of it).


6 posted on 05/14/2010 7:27:33 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

How many SC Justices are Harvard Law graduates?


7 posted on 05/14/2010 7:39:03 PM PDT by bwc2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
Sounds like you want representation based on population percentage and not competence.....

It is obvious that competence and government are mutually exclusive. For government jobs, it is only fair to provide jobs based on representation.

8 posted on 05/14/2010 7:39:05 PM PDT by grand wazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

I don’t think the garbage of all stripes and colors in Congress today in any way represent the best of any breed. E.g: Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, Barbara Boxer.


9 posted on 05/14/2010 7:45:29 PM PDT by balls
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Pat really hates the Jews, doesn’t he?

He has personal wounds (that never healed) of a loved one that died in a concentration camp. ;-)
10 posted on 05/14/2010 7:48:21 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the occupation media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

The past four senators to hold a certain us senate seat have been Jewish


11 posted on 05/14/2010 7:49:53 PM PDT by MNDude (Simba is an African Lion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

It’s not impossible to have both. Of course, South Africa was pilloried for having so many minorities in charge of too many aspects of government and life in general.


12 posted on 05/14/2010 7:55:15 PM PDT by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I wonder how Kagan feels about white, male firefighters?


13 posted on 05/14/2010 7:56:36 PM PDT by grand wazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grand wazoo
I wonder how Kagan feels about white, male firefighters?

She always wanted to be one.
14 posted on 05/14/2010 8:02:26 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the occupation media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MNDude

CA’s two senators: Jewish: Unfortunately both are ultra-liberal.


15 posted on 05/14/2010 8:03:09 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Don’t have a count, but most of the justices are also from the Ivy League, and from the Northeast. Damned little geographical and academic diversity on the SCOTUS.


16 posted on 05/14/2010 8:59:29 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

No.

He is speaking out for us UNREPRESENTED PROTESTANTS.

The liberals like to establish quotas.

Well kick them back on this one.

We need a PROTESTANT on the court.


17 posted on 05/14/2010 10:05:27 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

If Kagan is confirmed there will a SCOTUS consisting of 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jews, with 5 of the nine from NY, four from NYC, and all from Harvard or Yale.

No Protestants in an overwhelmingly Protestant country, no Westerners, no Southerners, except for Clarence Thomas.

Pat really doesn’t seem to like Jews, but that is hardly the point.


18 posted on 05/14/2010 10:15:19 PM PDT by Cincinna (TIME TO REBUILD * ? * RYAN * 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Pat doesn’t like us, but I agree with him here. There should be a Protestant on the court.


19 posted on 05/14/2010 11:26:22 PM PDT by rmlew (There is no such thing as a Blue Dog Democrat; just liberals who lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

So you’re saying that there is an underrepresentative of Protestants in government? Really?


20 posted on 05/15/2010 9:42:06 AM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
CA’s two senators: Jewish: Unfortunately both are ultra-liberal

Are there any other kind?

Sen. Lautenberg throws a hissy about Buchanan's article

21 posted on 05/15/2010 12:55:06 PM PDT by grand wazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: grand wazoo

Eric Cantor.Norm Coleman wasn’t very ;iberal either.
I guess most Jews who go into politics are liberal as hell.
I’m Jewish and definitely not lberal.Not neo-con either.Buchanan has a hangup with Jews.Too bad,because he has some good points on immigration and liberals in general.
I really resent his insinuations that Jews avoid military service.I am a disabled Vietnam veteran-two of my cousins served there too,and eveyone in the family served in WW2(well,a whole bunch anyway),even had one in WW1.
Buchanan got a 4F or something.
I can’t stand the idea of upper west side NY Kagan on SCOTUS.
Last I looked Reid,Pelosi,Whitehouse,Gore weren’t Jews.It’s liberals.
I do have to say a lot of Jewish liberals make great efforts to be noticed for their idiotic beliefs.I don’t know what to make of it.It’s not like I’m welcome in such circles.
I think Buchanan is a turd for generalizing like he does.


22 posted on 05/15/2010 7:05:42 PM PDT by steamroller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

On the Supreme Court, we will have no representation for the first time in history.

The last protestant is retiring.


23 posted on 05/15/2010 8:47:24 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy; Steelfish

Pat is both right and wrong here. His point that the left is anti-WASP is quite true. The Democrats have since the 1880s been a collection of those with grievances against the majority. The preacher, who cost Republican James Blaine (himself half-Catholic with a nun for a sister) the election in 1884 with the line that the Democrats were the party of Rum (urban poor, many of whom were alcoholics), Romanism (a derisive term for Catholics) and Rebellion (Southerners), was quite correct if impolitic. The FDR coalition of Southerners, white ethnics (Catholics and Jews), labor, and Northern Blacks was an extention of this. And it has re-invented itself with every generation. The only difference today is that the Scotch Irish (ironically the first group reached out to in this manner) are now lumped in with WASPs.
A majority of Americans are Protestants and it is wrong that no member of the founding population of the US is on the court. Of course, while Jews certainly are over-represented, but 2/3 of this court is now Catholic. I don’t see the German-Irish Catholic Buchanan complaining about this now or back when President Bush nominated Alito. Buchanan reaffirms himself as a antisemitic hypocrite. But don’t think that the issue of the US Supreme Court being Protestant-less is irrelevant.
Kagan is a communist and Obama would like nothing more than useful idiots to make this a Jewish issue so that the man protecting Iran’s nuclear program from Israel can scream “antisemitism”.


24 posted on 05/16/2010 1:36:23 AM PDT by rmlew (There is no such thing as a Blue Dog Democrat; just liberals who lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

No, Buchanan is not. He did not complain when the Court became 2/3 Catholic with Alito.


25 posted on 05/16/2010 1:37:25 AM PDT by rmlew (There is no such thing as a Blue Dog Democrat; just liberals who lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
So now the mere mention of fact is anti-semitism? Maybe Catholics should start complaining that Pat is being anti-Catholic for pointing out that the court is now 2/3 Catholic.

Pat doesn't point the finger at Jews. He points the finger at Democrats who have not nominated a white, Christian to the court in nearly 50 years. 50 years! Not so for Republicans, who have nominated protestants to the court, the most recent being Harriet Miers (who would have been a disaster), David Souter, Robert Bork, Rehnquist, and O'Connor. The Republican presidents chose protestants to fill 5 out of the last 8 vacancies with two being rejected in favor of Catholic candidates (one only after the failed nomination of a Jew, Douglas Ginsburg).

Last point. Out of the Catholics on the court (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Alito) who would you rather not have?

Out of the Jews on the court (Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan she'll be confirmed, we all know it) who would you rather not have?

Pat is Scotch-Irish. Not Irish. Most Scotch-Irish are Presbyterian, not Catholic (Buchanan is an exception to the rule). Anyone who claims to have supported Buchanan at one time surely should know this.

26 posted on 05/16/2010 7:44:14 AM PDT by grand wazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: grand wazoo

Maybe Senators... but are you going to argue that Eric Cantor is really an ultra-liberal?


27 posted on 05/16/2010 7:47:31 AM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Article VI US Consitution.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

28 posted on 05/16/2010 7:49:47 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The problem with Socialism is eventually you run our of other peoples money. Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
Did I say otherwise?

Are you going to argue that Eric Cantor is typical of Jewish Senators or Representatives? I don't think he is. Most are ultra-leftists. He's probably the black sheep of his family.

List of Jewish-American Politicians

Pat's article correctly points the finger at Democrats and tries to sow the seeds of dissension among ethnic and blue-collar Democrats (Reagan Democrats, remember?). Howard Dean wanted to keep them in the party and tried to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. These people are generally more socially conservative than the rest of their party. They can't stand East coast liberals/socialists with degrees from Harvard and Yale. Pointing out that Democrats have not nominated one of their kind in almost 50 years is a perfect way to show how they are being taken for granted.

Instead we get the idiots who change the headline in order to attack solid conservatives like Pat. Then the cabal of morons pops up to constantly malign and slander the guy and his family. Sleazebags all of you.

29 posted on 05/16/2010 10:15:53 AM PDT by grand wazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
So you would argue that being a Muslim should not be considered during the nomination process?

Sure you would.

30 posted on 05/16/2010 10:21:36 AM PDT by grand wazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: grand wazoo
The US Constitution is not a selectively enforced document.

We on the Right routinely condemn the Progressive Fascists because they want to pick and choose which parts of the US Constitution to obey and which parts to ignore.

We on the Right are not exempt from living up to that same standard

31 posted on 05/16/2010 11:17:22 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The problem with Socialism is eventually you run our of other peoples money. Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
So you would not object to a "qualified" Muslim being seated on the Supreme Court?

Answer the question please.

32 posted on 05/16/2010 11:27:46 AM PDT by grand wazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: grand wazoo
So now the mere mention of fact is anti-semitism? Maybe Catholics should start complaining that Pat is being anti-Catholic for pointing out that the court is now 2/3 Catholic.
Buchanan is only complaining now not when Catholics became a majority. Given his persistant desire to name Jewish neoconservatives (and ignore Catholic ones)and his animosity to the Jewish State, it is hard not to draw an inference.

Pat doesn't point the finger at Jews.
Pat considers the Democrats dominated by Jews. QED.

Last point. Out of the Catholics on the court (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Alito) who would you rather not have?
Kennedy and Sotomayor.

Out of the Jews on the court (Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan she'll be confirmed, we all know it) who would you rather not have?
All of them. Lox loving leftists mean nothing to me. (Except when I'm standing in line at Zabars.)

Pat is Scotch-Irish. Not Irish. Most Scotch-Irish are Presbyterian, not Catholic (Buchanan is an exception to the rule). Anyone who claims to have supported Buchanan at one time surely should know this.
It was an assumptions given the rarity of Catholic Scots-Irish. 99 out of 100 times, I'd be correct.

33 posted on 05/16/2010 11:39:09 AM PDT by rmlew (There is no such thing as a Blue Dog Democrat; just liberals who lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Well Pat has missed his “stopped clock” moment on this one.

I don’t care what the race, religion or ethnicity of SCOTUS members are, provided that they interpret the law in accordance with the US Constitution, rather than make it up.

The fact that Kagan won’t do this is the only reason to oppose her.


34 posted on 05/16/2010 11:51:00 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

No. There should only be people who will interpret the law according to Constitution. Race, ethnicity, religion and state are irrelevant.

Of course the SCOTUS doesn’t do too well in that category either. We have four that interpret the law, four that will make it up, and one that’s iffy.


35 posted on 05/16/2010 11:55:13 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Buchanan is only complaining now not when Catholics became a majority.

Buchanan complained when the "wise Latina" (a Catholic) was nominated. His criticism is aimed at liberals, not just Jewish liberals. Why do you attack Buchanan, when you should be attacking Kagan? I wonder? Is this just another opportunity to smear a good man and an attempt to intimidate others who might have similar views into keeping silent about their concerns?

Given his persistant desire to name Jewish neoconservatives (and ignore Catholic ones)and his animosity to the Jewish State, it is hard not to draw an inference.

Blah, blah, blah. It is ironic that if you criticize those that are pushing an agenda which is harmful to this country's interests and if those pushing it happen to be majority Jewish, you will be labeled an anti-semite by the professional race/religion pimps. You are no better than Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or Abe Foxman. Catholic neoconservatives like "Dollar" Bill Bennett where also a frequent target of his ire.

Out of the Catholics on the court (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Alito) who would you rather not have?

Kennedy and Sotomayor.

Kennedy is a Supreme Court justice that votes with the conservatives a majority of the time. He is acceptable although not perfect. Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan are all totally unacceptable. All the Catholic justices were chosen by Republican presidents. All of the Jewish justices were chosen by Democrats. Criticism of the Democratic appointments is still acceptable here on Free Republic, regardless of their religious affiliation.

It was an assumptions given the rarity of Catholic Scots-Irish. 99 out of 100 times, I'd be correct.

You claimed to have supported Buchanan in the past and actually worked for his campaign. Pat has made mention of his heritage on several occasions and I would expect that someone working to get him elected would know this.

36 posted on 05/16/2010 12:23:52 PM PDT by grand wazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

37 posted on 05/16/2010 1:46:48 PM PDT by SJackson (Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided, Barack Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

Yes, he is.

The court is now going to become 0% Protestant.

That is a problem.


38 posted on 05/16/2010 8:38:19 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: balls

“The fact is that Jews and blacks are currently way over represented at the highest levels of the government.”

Yeah, Jews especially need to be held back. They’re clever and greedy.

I mean, look at how they have about 1/2 of the hard science Noble prizes.

And invented all those nasty things like the Salk vaccine to end polio.

We HAVE to keep the dirty Jews in check. Too many of them. Tooo successful.

Maybe special neighborhoods. Let’s call ‘em “ghettos.”


39 posted on 05/17/2010 7:29:03 AM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

And if Obama selected Thomas Sowell for the Supreme Court would black leaders be happy or would they denigrate the man?


40 posted on 05/17/2010 7:31:23 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

I’m reading “What in the world is going on”,
and one of the points made was how the people of God
have always had a disproportionate impact on world history
(including inventions, Nobel prizes, etc)
compared to their population size.


41 posted on 05/17/2010 7:37:10 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MrB

It has zero to do with Jewish people personally, and everything to do with G-d.

We’re NOTHING SPECIAL, but end up doing amazing things.

With so much by done by the least of the peoples, it’s proof of G-d.

My rabbi always told me that G-d scoured the world to find the most pathetic people to be His people, to prove a point.


42 posted on 05/17/2010 8:02:42 AM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

Kind of like the Gideon story -

you have too many men, and when they win, they think it will be because they did it, not God.

Dr Jeremaiah made the same point that you did.
Small number of people, nothing special besides being chosen out by God - a “stiff necked people” at that.


43 posted on 05/17/2010 8:07:18 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

I have the best neurologist and the best eye surgeon in the world, and both are Jewish, of course. In my line of work, I get to work with the smartest lawyers in the country. They are also Jewish. In short, the smartest and best are usually Jewish. But we don’t need smart politicians, average will do as long as they are honest and patriotic.


44 posted on 05/17/2010 12:28:44 PM PDT by balls
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: balls

“But we don’t need smart politicians, average will do as long as they are honest and patriotic.”

And the assumption is that Jewish people will be smart, but not necessarily be honest and patriotic?

Come on.

Look, the problem with Kagan is she is a secularist elite from the Northeast snob section of the USA. No different than Episopalian Souter or Roman Catholic Stevens.

For Pat to blame this on Jewishness is absurd and racist.

If people want “divirsity,” hire someone who was a spectacular corporate attorney in Houston or Atlanta with a CPA that actually made businesses money and graduated at the top of his or her class at a state school somewhere.


45 posted on 05/18/2010 7:23:16 AM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: balls
Could you grovel anymore?

Yet still Jewbacca attacks you.

46 posted on 05/18/2010 2:39:26 PM PDT by grand wazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: grand wazoo; Jewbacca

Jewbacca attacks because he thinks he can always win by pulling the racist/antisemite card. I consider myself immune to such attacks because I own my mind completely and don’t care whether Jews, blacks, the Pope, or anyone else doesn’t like what I think.

To follow up on the original line of thought, Jews are over-represented in Congress and that’s not good because most Jews are too liberal (I know, not all Jews are liberals, just as all Muslims are not terrorists).


47 posted on 05/19/2010 5:12:33 PM PDT by balls
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: balls

So WASPS need affirmative action now?

You know, because Jewish people are “over-represented” in the halls of power?

Maybe each WASP vote can count 1.25 more than others.

Please. The fact you can’t see you are a mirror of Jessie Jackson is almost funny.


48 posted on 05/20/2010 1:23:39 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca
So WASPS need affirmative action now?

Absolutely, we bitter clingers huddled in our small towns, clutching our guns and Bibles, damn isn't the Old Testament Jewish? Your invited in as an honorary WASP provided you cling to those things that we cling to, I can even find four to make up a prayer circle.

49 posted on 05/20/2010 1:41:53 PM PDT by Little Bill (Harry Browne is a poofter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: PA Engineer
He has personal wounds (that never healed) of a loved one that died in a concentration camp. ;-)

You mean his unlce that fell out of the guard tower?

50 posted on 05/20/2010 1:46:11 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (we now live in a post-Obamapacolyptic world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson