Freedom Rider: Michael Eric Dyson and Barack Obama
By Black Agenda Report editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley
The presidential election cycle is underway, which means that Michael Erick Dyson is pledging his undying love for Barack Obama. Apparently, the president’s handlers have favored Dyson with “access” – a quality that is worth far more to some folks than truth and self-respect. “What it all comes down to in Dyson’s world, is rubbing elbows with the president and bragging about it.”
“Why does the only response to Obama have to be slavish devotion and a political stand down?”
Not only is there no longer a black press [4] which represents the interests of black people, but the presence of black people in corporate media is also of dubious value. Take the case of “public intellectual” Michael Erick Dyson. Dyson has recently been a substitute host on MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Show, and he has displayed his unique gifts for spouting nonsense and/or boldly displaying opportunism when speaking on the subject of Barack Obama.
Dyson can’t seem to make up his mind about Obama. In January 2008 Dyson debated Black Agenda Report Executive Editor Glen Ford on the subject of black support for Obama on Democracy Now [5]. Dyson made it clear that he was a wholehearted Obama supporter who advocated suspending any and all criticism or questioning of the candidate in order to reach the holy grail of seeing him elected president.
That debate took place shortly after the Iowa caucus victory proved that Obama could get votes from white people. At that time Dyson proudly proclaimed his unwavering support of Obama, gave him a pass on speaking up for black people, and directly stated the phony mantra of the Obama sycophant in 2008, that they would “hold his feet to the fire” after he won.
The Dyson/Obama love fest didn’t last for very long, however. Just a few months after Obama’s 2009 inauguration, Dyson was interviewed by Davey D [6] and had rather scathing words of criticism for the man whom just a year earlier he said should be treated as if infallible.“He is willing to sacrifice the interests of African Americans in deference to a conception of universalism because it won’t offend white people.”
“We are so grateful for having a black person in the office we don’t demand anything of him.”
“I expect the president of the United States to address issues of race.”
“He’s fallen short and we must hold him accountable.”
These words, while truthful, didn’t last long either. Now Dyson is not only an Obama lover again, but appears to be in part because he now has up close and personal access to POTUS. Dyson can now preface his statements with words like this, “A couple of years ago when he and I were in the Oval Office talking…”
On the July 25th broadcast [7] of the Ed Show, one of Dyson’s guests rather obliquely mentioned that there is some criticism of Obama because he delivers on issues of importance to the gay and latino communities while doing nothing of the sort for black Americans.
“What is wrong with questioning or criticizing Obama?”
According to Dyson, this mild observation unleashed the wrath of Obama worshippers in social media, and on the July 26th show [8] Dyson let everyone know that he is still an Obama guy and the president is a Dyson guy too. “I ain`t one of them [haters]. How do I know? He [Obama] told me so at the Olympic warm up game the other day in D.C. when he hugged me and thanked me for my love and support. When you get at that level, holler back at me.” Yes, that is what it all comes down to in Dyson’s world, rubbing elbows with the president and bragging about it.
He went further. “Make no mistake, I`m riding hard on the Obama bandwagon. I`ve been on that journey a lot longer than the Black Willy come latelies who voted overwhelmingly against Obama when he ran for Congress and who initially spurned him when he asked for their votes for the presidency because they were beholden to Hillary and Bill Clinton.”
Dyson is an academic, a writer and a minister, but as guest host on The Ed Show, he should act as a journalist. The response to his critics should have been that as such, he has a duty to present a wide variety of viewpoints, even as they relate to dear leader Obama.Dyson had a unique opportunity to ask questions which are still fraught in the black community. What is wrong with questioning or criticizing Obama? Why does the only response to Obama have to be slavish devotion and a political stand down?
Of course, it may be unfair to expect professional ethics from Dyson when the rest of the journalistic profession is no better. There are huge incentives to being a court scribe instead of a journalist. Scribes get plum assignments, access to movers and shakers, prestigious prizes, and big paychecks because they represent the interests of the people they cover when they should be asking them hard questions.
Dyson’s routine makes it easy to make fun of him. His gift of gab borders on buffoonery, but it has made him a hot commodity. He could put his glibness to good use and spark a conversation about Obama, but that is not to be. Now we get “black Willy come latelies” and man crush hugs.
The hard truth is that Black Agenda Report and its allies are unique in their determination to continue advocating for self-determination and movement based leftist politics, and not just idol worship of the black face in the high place. Dyson is not alone in changing his mind about Obama depending upon whether or not he has access to the Oval Office. There are not many principled people in the world of political commentary, but anyone reading these words doesn’t have to be concerned about that. No one at Black Agenda Report is in danger of mincing words about Obama, or the rest of American political leadership. We also aren’t in danger of getting any hugs.
Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. [9] Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley@BlackAgendaReport.com.
[10]
Michael Eric Dyson Obamarama
Source URL: http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-michael-eric-dyson-and-barack-obamaLet’s keep this award-winning site going!
Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year. Use PayPal via the button below.
![]()
THANK YOU.
The Next Stage in the Destruction of Syria
By Shamus Cooke, Workers’ Action
The Western media lies continue and a whole nation is again immersed in chaos and bloodshed. Haven’t we seen this before?
![syriaLattakia_20_june_2010](https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/syriaLattakia_20_june_2010.jpg)
The systematic dismantling of Syria has more to do with western media lies and geo-politics than “revolution;” and the more that the U.S. media cheers on this bloodletting, the more politicians feel enabled to spill it.
The rebel attacks on the cities of Damascus and Aleppo were, in actuality, meant to convince the western media that the rebels are near victory, with the hopes of attracting more direct military support from abroad. In reality, however, the attacks in Damascus were instantly crushed by the Syrian government, but the U.S. media predicted “victory just around the corner” for the rebels.
Suddenly Syria is becoming a U.S. presidential topic of debate. Republicans have accused Obama of “outsourcing” the Syrian conflict, refusing to be involved when the rebels deserve extra support (guns mainly). But Obama is the principal cause of this humanitarian catastrophe. Middle East expert Robert Fisk explains:
“While Qatar and Saudi Arabia arm and fund the rebels of Syria…Washington mutters not a word of criticism against them. President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, say they want a democracy in Syria. But Qatar is an autocracy and Saudi Arabia is among the most pernicious of caliphate-kingly-dictatorships in the Arab world.”
Fisk fails to mention that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are virtual puppets of U.S. foreign policy; they would never act independently to overthrow a regional neighbor; they do so on command.
Syria is conveniently surrounded by close allies of the U.S., and it is through these allies that guns and foreign fighters have poured into Syria to cause massive destruction. The rebel-held areas of Syria exist only on the rural borders of Turkey, Jordan, and Northern Lebanon, areas in alignment with U.S. foreign policy.
Revolutions are city affairs, but the Syrian revolution has been a rural undertaking ever since foreign powers decided to destroy the country. It is fortunate for the rebels that Syria’s two largest cities are close to these border countries: the rebels made a quick foray into the cities for some high profile attacks, and then drifted back to the border areas to seek protection from their friends.
Although it is true that the so-called Free Syrian Army includes defectors from the Syrian military, it is possible that these defectors are simply betting that, in the long term, the U.S. will spare no expense in overthrowing the Syrian government.
The commonsense question that the U.S. media never explores is whether Syrians want their country destroyed, the inevitable result of this conflict. In fact, there are numerous indications to the contrary. After constant cheerleading of the Syrian rebels, The New York Times has been forced to admit on several occasions that massive pro-government rallies have been held in Syria’s only two large cities:
“The turnout [at least tens of thousands] in Sabaa Bahrat Square in Damascus, the [Syrian] capital, once again underlined the degree of backing that Mr. Assad and his leadership still enjoy among many Syrians… That support is especially pronounced in cities like Damascus and Aleppo, the country’s two largest.”
This was further confirmed by a poll funded by the anti-Syrian Qatar Foundation, performed by the Doha Debates:
“According to the latest opinion poll commissioned by The Doha Debates, Syrians are more supportive of their president with 55% not wanting him to resign.” (January 2, 2012).
This should be of zero surprise. Syrians have seen Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya destroyed by U.S.-style “liberation.” Americans should know better too — and many do — regardless of their media’s blatantly criminal behavior.
The United States is using a strategy in Syria that has been perfected over the years, starting with Afghanistan (in the 1980’s) Yugoslavia, and most recently in Libya: arming small paramilitary groups loyal to U.S. interests that attack the targeted government — including terrorist bombings — and when the attacked government defends itself, the U.S. cries “genocide” or “mass murder,” while calling for foreign military intervention.
In each instance the targeted society is dismembered, mass murder and ethnic/religious violence is consciously used to gain military advantage that inevitably spirals out of control; refugee crises are also natural consequences, which inevitably lead to cross border destabilization and wider regional conflicts. Millions of lives are completely ruined in each instance, if not ended.
There is every indication that the Syrian conflict has the potential — as the Iraq war before it — to cause incredible ethnic and religious violence on a multi-nation scale. Neighboring Lebanon has already experienced armed conflict as a direct result of Syria and is a powder keg of ethnic and religious tension that needs only a spark to explode, and Syria promises to spew flames.
The U.S. population has largely been spared images of the incredible suffering and social destruction caused by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Syria’s crisis is thus happening in an already-destabilized region, having the potential to completely tear the social fabric of the larger Middle East.
These war crimes benefit nobody except the very rich who take over the helm of governments and use these positions to privatize the invaded country’s economy, though especially the oil. The people in Syria, however, are being used as cannon fodder for an additional reason: so that the U.S. can have a steppingstone towards destroying Iran (Syria is Iran’s close ally). But Russia and China are acting more boldly against this genocidal behavior, and may act with more vigor in defending their allies, a dynamic that could easily lead to a regional or even world war.
Thus, the hell that has become the Middle East is being poked and prodded by U.S. foreign policy with absolutely no regard for the global implications. Both U.S. major presidential candidates are cheerleading the flood of blood to different degrees, ensuring that the next election will provide fresh “legitimacy” to an equally barbarous U.S. foreign policy.
••••
Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org) He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/29-1
http://www.thedohadebates.com/news/item/index.asp?n=14312
Let’s keep this award-winning site going!
Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts. |
---|
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year. |
Use PayPal via the button below.
![](https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/pixel94.gif)
THANK YOU.
Hit us when we’re down.
By Rowan Wolf, Editor, Cyrano’s Journal Today
![ronald_reagan_gerald_ford_14_jef_111230_wmain](https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ronald_reagan_gerald_ford_14_jef_111230_wmain.jpg)
Ronald Reagan, one of the biggest phonies and international bullies in American history. Mean-spirited, too. Remains the great saintly icon of the right, whom all ambitious reactionary politicians must invoke to polish their own credentials.
There are headlines that I just hate to see because what follows is just formulaic. “Investigations” into public employee benefits, pay, or retirement funds are a sure fire bet that big pressure to cut all of the above are coming. Instead, they should be asking, “How to we improve all worker’s wages and benefits?” Likewise, I cringed when I saw the headline “Ballooning food stamps likely to face deep cuts” – part of a larger article Big jump in food-stamp enrollment drives farm bill debate (Oregonian, 7/22/2012).
I remember, as likely do many of you, when the Gingrich Congress “Contract on (sorry, with) America”, decided that we needed a war on the poor. Bill Clinton negotiated in and we ended up with Welfare “Reform.” Or back to the (supposedly) great Ronald Reagan, who came up with the distinction between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor.
Reagan changed the way the Consumer Price Index was calculated (mainly through adjusting both housing and fuel costs if I recall correctly). (He also started the “Drug War,” but that’s another (though related) story). The aim of both Reagan’s, and then Gingrich’s efforts were to reduce the number of people receiving “Welfare.” However, they did nothing to reduce poverty nor the need for the programs.
What did happen was that those receiving aid today are in much worse straits than those receiving assistance before the changes in policy and program.
Now we are still struggling in the mire of the great bank escapade, where the big investment houses bet all our houses (and everything in them) on long odds that ultimately had to collapse. The depression/recession is not over for most of the population (here or in Europe). This has left many depending on Food Stamps and Food Banks to get them and their families through the week.
Of course, one might have guessed that we were heading in a stingier direction when Food Stamps were renamed “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program” (SNAP) in the 2008 Farm Bill (wikipedia). In other words, food stamps were not supposed to feed you anymore. They were just there to “supplement” ….what, water? The names of things are so very important. So now we have an ongoing (and I think likely permanent) high unemployment and lack of living wages. More people are qualifying for even the highly restrictive poverty level guidelines.
So once again, instead of asking “How do we support our population and get them opportunity for a better quality of life?”, the issue becomes decreasing the amount of funds available for assistance. That means either cutting the amount of assistance being received across the board; or changing eligibility guidelines to require people to be in even more dire situations before they are eligible.
As stated by Akiba Solomon (The Indypendent, July 27,2012):
The Senate version of this year’s Farm Bill cuts about $4.5 billion from SNAP. In real life, this means 500,000 households would lose $90 a month in benefits, according to the Food and Research Action Center. Meanwhile, the House Agriculture Committee’s version, passed early this month, includes a staggering $16.5 billion in SNAP cuts. Per Feeding America, this would result in 3 million people losing all of their benefits, 300,000 children going without school lunch, and 500,000 households losing $90 in monthly grocery money.
More “compassionate conservatism” – which I believe is a fancy way of saying “F**k you,” or “Go away and quietly die”. In other words, “compassionate conservatism” is about as 1984 double-speak as you can get.
The reality is that we (and the rest of the world) are in an economic muck that is not going to just clear up. This boondoggle has left millions of people struggling. Instead of addressing the issue and strengthening the safety net, our corporate sponsors say “get rid of the damn safety net – and all those social programs ( like schools) as well. The whole thing is not just wrong headed, it is cruel. Of course they may rename food stamps again to ease their consciences.
Perhaps they can call it SNAK (Small Nosh And Kibble), or NAP (No Assistance Program). It would then be clear to everyone how little people actually need food stamps, or more specifically, our need makes no difference.
Thanks to Kelly Mitchell for acronym ideas
Rowan Wolf is Cyrano’s Journal Today‘s editor in chief. Cyrano’s Journal is part of the Cyrano’s Journal/Greanville Post group of publications.
Let’s keep this award-winning site going!
Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts. |
---|
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year. |
Use PayPal via the button below.
![](https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/pixel93.gif)
THANK YOU.
Obama backs natural gas fracking
As tersely reported in the Canadian business press—
A long anticipated development
By Michael McCullough | CanadianBusiness.com
(Originally: March 19, 2012)
![obama-backGasFracking](https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/obama-backGasFracking.jpg)
U.S. President Barack Obama has made clear that when it comes to “fracking,” he is siding with the oil and gas industry. (Photo by Owen Sweeney / Rex Features)
Environmentalists heartened by Barack Obama’s refusal to issue a permit for the Keystone XL oil pipeline didn’t have long to bask in their victory. Just days later, the U.S. president made clear in his State of the Union address that when it came to the other big eco-controversy in America—hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” to access natural gas reserves—he was siding with the oil and gas industry.
“We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy,” Obama proclaimed. His remarks were a clear indication that, while environmental groups, celebrity protesters and a handful of jurisdictions including Quebec and New York state continue to resist, the mainstream is prepared to ramp up gas production—and abide with the environmental risks involved.
Obama later spelled out that his administration’s support of the natural gas economy would entail a requirement that gas producers disclose the chemicals they pump under public lands to crack gas-bearing rock. But he also revealed plans to promote consumption by converting federal fleets to natural gas, offering tax incentives to transport companies for converting their vehicles, and creating five highway corridors, each with a string of natural gas fuel stations.
For Canada, America’s commitment to gas is a mixed bag. On the plus side, it promises to boost demand for gas producers hit by the lowest prices in 14 years. Right now, prices are so low leading producers such as ConocoPhillips and Chesapeake Energy are not only slashing budgets for new drilling but shutting inactive wells. As EnCana Corp. CEO Randy Eresman noted in the Calgary-based company’s 2011 year-end results: “For the industry as a whole, near-term natural gas prices are at levels below what it costs to add most new production, and in some places, may even be below what it costs to produce from existing wells.” In many cases, it’s only use-it-or-lose-it land leases, pipeline contracts and forward hedging that keeps the gas flowing.
Obama’s gas stimulus will likely make the U.S. more self-sufficient, which could accelerate the slide in Canada’s market share. The value of Canadian gas exports last year fell to $13.1 billion, from a peak of $35.6 billion in 2005, and analysts project the U.S. will become a net gas exporter within a decade.
Hope for exporting Canada’s surplus production, especially from the mammoth shale fields in northeastern B.C., now rests on the construction of terminals on the B.C. coast to liquefy the gas and ship it to Asia, where prices are currently six times higher than they are here. But though the N a t i o n a l Energy Board has granted permits for two such terminals, neither project has yet broken ground, and the window for taking advantage of high prices in Asia could soon close a North American production techniques spread to shale-rich China.
U.S. presidents since Richard Nixon have talked about weaning America off imported oil, but Obama is the only one who can claim to have succeeded in any great measure. Much of that is due to the drop in demand during the recession, combined with the growth in domestic oil production from states such as North Dakota. Natural gas is poised to further displace oil imports, especially in the commercial transportation sector.
That is no comfort to fracking opponents such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, who fear for everything from surface and groundwater contamination to the unintentional release of greenhouse gases.
“We don’t know anything about this. There’s been no credible study,” actor Mark Ruffalo says in a video on the NRDC’s website. Such complaints gained credence last December when a preliminary Environmental Protection Agency study found fracking by EnCana had sullied groundwater in Wyoming.
But when weighed against the need for energy security, all that now looks like a tolerable risk to Democrats and Republicans alike. America, desperate for a break on fuel, may well settle for a fracture.
Let’s keep this award-winning site going!
Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts. |
---|
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year. |
Use PayPal via the button below.
![](https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/pixel88.gif)
THANK YOU.
Should We Really Re-Elect This Fracking President?
By Black Agenda Report managing editor Bruce A. Dixon
Fracking is about as ethical and responsible as the brain deciding to mine the liver and sell its contents…But the US is run by capitalists, and for them fracking makes good sense. Capitalism after all, is based upon externalizing, offloading your cost onto someone less powerful, or onto nature itself.
Fracking is the energy industry’s answer to peak oil, catastrophically offloading the increased cost of oil and gas extraction onto farmers, ranchers, humans who drink water, and the environment itself. It’s about as ethical and responsible as the brain deciding to mine the liver and sell the contents. And it’s national energy policy under the Obama administration.
Any time someone mentions corporate American technological innovation, you should think of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Fracking is how enormous amounts of oil and gas that used to be beyond the reach of energy companies is now being extracted across much of the United States. Barack Obama is the Fracking President. In his 2012 State of the Union he repeated the oil industry’s absurd and irresponsible claim that fracking would create 600,000 jobs.
“…the U.S. president made clear in his State of the Union address that when it came to the other big eco-controversy in America—hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” to access natural gas reserves—he was siding with the oil and gas industry.
“’We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy,’ Obama proclaimed. His remarks were a clear indication that, while environmental groups, celebrity protesters and a handful of jurisdictions including Quebec and New York state continue to resist, the mainstream is prepared to ramp up gas production—and abide with the environmental risks involved.”
But the risks are beyond rational calculation.
Fracking is the explosive injection of huge volumes of water combined with secret mixes of toxic chemicals, heated hundreds of degrees past the boiling point of water and at hundreds of atmospheric pressures into deep underground rock formations where the amounts of gas or oil used to be too small to be worth going after. Some of that poisoned water seeps off to pollute finite underground water reserves. The rest is pulled back to the surface mixed with the oil, gas or whatever is being sought. When those things are removed, vast amounts of what used to be water, now irretrievably poisoned, are pumped deep into the earth.
That “water” eventually returns to us. It comes back in springs which are the sources of streams and rivers, and in wells used for irrigation and drinking water. People in areas where fracking has gone on for some time can often set afire whatever issues from their household plumbing. Fracking and disposal of large quantities of waste water may even be implicated in some seismic activity; earthquakes.
Fracking is the energy industry’s answer to peak oil. It keeps oil companies profitable by catastrophically offloading the cost of oil and gas extraction onto farmers, ranchers, humans who drink water, and the environment itself. And it’s national energy policy [3] under the Obama administration.
Let’s be clear. Fracking is about as ethical and responsible as the brain deciding to mine the liver and sell its contents.
But the US is run by capitalists, and for them fracking makes good sense. Capitalism after all, is based upon externalizing, offloading your cost onto someone less powerful, or onto nature itself. Thus capitalists make workers pay their costs by keeping wages and safety standards low. They make the public at large pay their costs by getting public subsidies and tax breaks, also by keeping safety standards lax or nonexistent, or sometimes through privatization, the handing over of public assets to private operators.
Nobody offloads costs onto the public and the environment like energy companies. Think about the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which everybody is paying for except BP. Fracking allows energy companies to use million-year old underground water reserves (that’s why they are called “fossil waters”) their private toxic sewers.
In 2008 Obama supporters projected their environmentalist beliefs on him, pretending that he stood for “green jobs” and conservation. Since Obama announced himself, at the 2008 Democratic convention as the candidate of “clean coal and safe nuclear power” this was quite a stretch. They will have to stretch even further in 2012. The Obama administration is bullish on fracking [4].
There’s an enormous amount of local organizing across the country, from Ohio and New York to Colorado and California, opposing hydraulic fracking. But such efforts get little news coverage locally, and are invisible in national corporate media news. Thus environmentalists who want to support Obama can, if they try really hard, console themselves with administration fairy tales of “safe fracking,” or be content with regulations that might require companies to tell us what toxic chemicals are used in the process.
Fracking is reckless, irresponsible and downright evil. But the unwillingness of environmentalists to oppose energy policies from the Obama White House that they would never have tolerated from Republicans makes Barack Obama, as Glen Ford frequently puts it, “the more effective” not the “lesser” evil. Of course Mitt Romney is evil as well, and one of them will be president until the end of 2016.
What with choices limited to greater and lesser evils, or more and less effective evils, it might be time to ask ourselves, how is this politics of choosing evil working out for us? Can we, and why should we hold our tongues and noses to re-elect this fracking president?
Bruce A. Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report, and a member of the state committee of the Georgia Green Party. Contact him through this site’s contact page, or at bruce.dixon@blackagendareport.com.
Source URL: http://blackagendareport.com/content/should-we-really-re-elect-fracking-president
Let’s keep this award-winning site going!
Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts. |
---|
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year. |
Use PayPal via the button below.
![](https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/pixel86.gif)
THANK YOU.