Jack Kemp (not the politician)

It's Too Easy Being Green

Byron York, in writing about Obama's inability to get Congress to pass some of his favorite programs, noted his "New Energy Era."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-surrenders-his-agenda-41797652.html#comments

_{The president's biggest surrender was on energy.  Powerful Senate Democrats, led by Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad, have essentially vetoed Obama's cap-and-trade proposal as unrealistic in this year of economic crisis.  At the White House Tuesday night, Obama in effect conceded that his plan, if enacted, could cause "huge spikes in electricity prices."  Tacitly admitting that his proposal has little or no chance on Capitol Hill, he said, "When it comes to cap-and-trade, the broader principle is that we've got to move to a new energy era.  And that means moving away from polluting energy sources towards cleaner energy sources."  Obama made no demands about how that might be done, signaling that his cap-and-trade proposal is very likely dead.}

_{END OF QUOTE}

When I was a sophomore in high school, I ordered large Fresnel lens from an Edmund Scientific catalog and some bimetallic wires in an attempt to concentrate sunlight while creating a solar electric device which would require no oil. After that, I designing an adjustable frame for the lens, complete with a ceramic base dish to hold the wires and a meter. But I was not able to create a demonstrable science project "New Energy Era" alternative electricity generator. The meter stayed at zero and I had to abandon the project until such time as I learned more and could develop a better device.

One thing I understood, at age 15, better than the Obama administration, was that I could not go around saying that I had come up with an alternative to the local Con Edison electric utility until such time as I could actually demonstrate that my device could create a great amount of electricity. I did not go around, as some sophomore "geniuses" with dreams of glory do, and call for the governmental to revoke oil drilling rights either onshore or offshore and the removal of the (then existing) Oil Depletion Allowance from the tax records, a government program which helped finance the oil industry.

Even with my adolescent enthusiasm, I knew I had no solution to energy shortages, only an impractical idea, so I kept my discussion to a minimum and made no outlandish claims, even among my friends and family.

Would that President Obama require a competitively low cost and scientifically efficient alternative energy "green machine" to be demonstrated before he calls for a changeover to total green energy. But the President has found a respect for low cost energy efficiency, namely in the form of probable utility bill increases that would, in turn, lose him and other Democrats many votes and thus many elections. In short, Obama's "green electricity meter" is really a Likely Voters poll chart. Well, at least he and the other Democrats can read that.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:07 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 494 words, total size 3 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

I found this on CCNET:

Breakthrough Institute, 30 March 2009
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/03/are_greens_tipping_the_debate.shtml 

Michael Shellenberger

Andy Revkin did an incisive piece on the claims around climate tipping points in the Times on Sunday. It was nice to have the antidote to Tom Friedman's apocalyptic column on tipping points just pages away.

In 2006 a retired software executive insisted to me that we had only 10 years to do something dramatic about climate change (because that's what James Hansen had told him). When I gently suggested that 10 years was not a scientific number but rather an arbitrarily political one, the executive accused me of being anti-science. But the funny thing is that in January of this year Hansen told the Guardian that we have only four years left for the U.S. to act -- coincidentally, the same length of time in Obama's first term in office.

The assumption behind all of it is that throwing out these numbers -- four years, 10 years, 350 ppm, etc. -- will provide the public and policy makers with a sense of urgency that global warming as an issue currently lacks. But there's no evidence to back up that assumptions. If any correlation were to be drawn, it would likely be the opposite, that the increasingly apocalyptic tone of those seeking action on climate change has resulted in an increasing number of voters (according to Gallup) who believe that the threat of global warming is being exaggerated.

While the tipping point discourse might make Hansen, Friedman, Gore, Romm et al. feel powerful and moral, it has done nothing to change the fundamental political economy of their preferred policy agenda, pollution pricing. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) isn't against cap and trade because he's a right-wing, market fundamentalist ideologue; the truth is that he's an outspoken, anti-globalization liberal. He's against cap and trade because of the impact it would have on his constituents, who depend on coal for 85 percent of their electricity, and who are trying to hang on to the last of their manufacturing facilities by a thread. That's not something that any amount of scary stories about tipping points or inspiring ads about the need to repower America will change.

The only thing that will interrupt that dynamic is a fundamentally different climate policy agenda. Unfortunately, that's not something the big green groups and their allies in Washington have so far shown much interest in. A green group climate lobbyist in Washington who is sympathetic to a larger energy investment agenda recently told me that earlier this year Waxman (with the help of Green allies) killed technology-neutral loan guarantees in the stimulus by saying they all would have gone to nuclear, and to coal-to-liquid (which was clearly not the case) and that Waxman and green groups will now try to kill clean energy investments outside of any climate bill. This is what Ted and I helped do in 2003 (to our own Apollo energy legislation no less) when we were still being good green soldiers.

So much for urgent action to prevent tipping points.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:34 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

I recently received this appeal from the Conservative print magazine Human Events:

_{``Dear Friend of HUMAN EVENTS:}

_{It pains me terribly to write a letter like this, but a crisis that threatens the very existence of HUMAN EVENTS forces me to ask for your help.}

_{Let me explain...}

_{You may recall that, just over a year ago, the federal government's taxpayer-subsidized mail-delivery monopoly -- aka the United States Postal Service -- hit us with a whopping 20 percent rate increase that drove up our annual delivery costs by more than $120,000.}

_{Well, believe it or not, they've just done it again.}

_{That's right: the USPS is hitting us with yet another postal increase that will jack up our annual delivery costs by an additional $51,568.}

_{Together, this one-two punch of rate hikes amounts to more than $170,000 in increased annual delivery costs -- a staggering sum that we simply can't afford.}

_{Now, it's outrageous enough that the USPS can continually jack up our rates without fearing any loss of our business to more cost-efficient competitors -- something it can do ONLY because federal law effectively protects it from private competition.}

_{But what really burns me up is that these increases are part of a new rate system that was designed in part by lobbyists for liberal media giant Time Warner and other large publishers to benefit themselves at the expense of smaller competitors such as HUMAN EVENTS.}

_{So instead of Time Warner's mailing costs ratcheting up like ours, the cost of delivering liberal Time magazine and other Big Media publications will increase at about half the rate hike forced on HUMAN EVENTS (and that's after some of those publications actually had a decrease in postage costs last year!).}

_{Economists call the kind of behavior that Time Warner and the Big Media conglomerates are engaged in "rent seeking" -- using government to gain advantage over competitors.}

_{And that economic advantage obviously can translate into political advantage, as well. By "gaming the system" in their favor, these liberal media conglomerates have taken a big step toward silencing their conservative opposition.}

_{This means there's much more at stake here than the survival of HUMAN EVENTS. Free speech, and the right of conservatives to get their message out on the same terms as liberals, is also at stake.}

_{And if the liberal media giants such as Time Warner get away with this ploy, the consequences for the future of our country -- at a time when the Obama administration is trying to turn us into a European-style socialist state -- could be catastrophic.``}

End excerpt

This brings to mind a certain minor spat between our own Jack Kemp (not the politician) and myself with commentors from Eric Alterman`s blog, commentors who were in all likelihood Alterman himself and Paul Starr.

Back in May of last year Jack attended the Future of News conference at Princeton, and he wrote a post about it. Here is part of what Jack had to say:

_{``Big liberal writer Eric Alterman stood facing a small group of listeners (me included), just before he joined an afternoon panel, and complained that The Nation doesn't get the same low postal rates as the big media publications get, such as Murdock's. I guess that's why he reads The Nation. He doesn't want to acknowledge that if few people want to read a publication (in this case a hard leftist rag), then they can't buy postage or anything else at bulk rates. Does Eric also complain that he has to pay more for a band-aid than the Health & Hospitals Corporation of New York? Put some ice on it, Eric.}

_{The "highlight" - for me - yesterday was after the Princeton prof. main speaker (Prof. Starr, I believe) a self-stated liberal, said that we should see more informed voters now that we have much more people going to college. I raised my hand and informed him and the whole conference that my tour guide at Mt. Vernon asks high school kids, "Who won the American Revolution?," and the reply that the British did. Also told him about Jay Leno's show pictures of ex-presidents to graduating seniors, they didn't recognize Eisenhower and thought the famous profile picture of FDR with a cigarette holder was "the Penguin" from Batman! This impressed him because he incorporated these facts into his tone as his talk continued.``}

Well...

Alterman took offense, as did Paul Starr, and they repeated a diatribe against the USPS for not giving The Nation bulk rates while charging exorbitantly for delivery. This touched off an argument over how the post office works, and the Great Professors Alterman (aka Gabby Hayes) and Starr were aghast at my suggestion that we privatize the whole thing and be done. (One of Alterman`s readers actually claimed we DID privatize it, since the Postmaster General is no longer a cabinet post and the USPS collects it`s own funds through stamps!)

So, what`s the point? The point is, liberal policies are at the heart of this huge increase in costs for Human Events deliveries, and by law nobody can offer a private alternative unless HE wants to pay Fedex to deliver a package.  It is illegal to deliver mail otherwise.

Furthermore, Alterman and Starr complained about nudie magazines, wrestling, and monster car tabloids being given the bulk rate, yet the question becomes why is that? Liberals have dumbed down education in this country, and this helps keeps the proletariat poor and stupid. Alterman has been caught in his own trap, with the very thing that makes Liberalism prosper hurting his livelihood.

My question is, has The Nation been exempted by the new Obama rules? Obviously, these changes have come as a result of lobbying, and who is it that pushed them through? Democrats in Congress, that`s who. The USPS is governed by Congress, which is owned lock-stock-and barrel by the Dems. Republican control of Congress prior was always very tenuous, and George Bush wasn`t willing to rock the boat. This is just one more power grab-one largely overlooked by those of us in the opposition. Now those ignorant prols can read Time along with their Hustlers and World of Wrestling rags!

And yet liberals like Alterman advocate more government 24/7. Government is the source of this problem, yet The Nation continues to advocate socialized medicine and universal education run by the central authority.

As I stated in my post Blaming Others for their Messes; Liberal Class Warfare

_{``So what is the answer of liberals like Alterman?  Do away with the private nature of this industry entirely, and place it directly under government control. That this has been a failure in other countries, where a simple proceedure requires waits lasting months to years and where many people from Canada cross the border so they can pay for treatment in the United States does not dissuade them.  The example of the USPS, which Alterman decries for expensive service, should have taught them something, but liberals never admit that their vision may be wrong.  Always, it`s just a matter of the proper approach run by the right people!}

_{Higher Education, too, is yet another example of such; the government got into funding education, which drove the price of college out of reach of many.  The lament that ``everyone deserves a chance at college`` meant more government money, which inflated prices further.  Now, only the very rich can go to college without help from Uncle Sam, who then has yet another hold over people.``}

Maybe Alterman should sign up with one of the tabloids; I hear that Motocross Today is looking for a political commentator.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:16 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1276 words, total size 8 kb.

Dana Mathewson

It's happening!  Now that "The Real Experts" (read: THE GOVERNMENT) is running the automobile industry, they are Calling the Shots.

They have demanded that the CEO of General Motors resign -- and he has done it. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gm_wagoner

D**n!  I'm going to have to pour another drink before I go to bed!  Folks, I'm not a Big Industry expert, nor am I a management expert.  For that reason, I have not "rung in" on whether Rick Wagoner should be sacked.  I haven't scrutinized the job he's been doing, and (more to the point) I haven't schmoozed with the Board of Directors -- the people to whom he reports and the bunch he must satisfy -- as to how they think he's doing.

In other words, I don't think I'm qualified to say he should resign.  Come up with some new ideas, perhaps.  Resign?  That's "above my pay grade!"

And, by gosh, I don't think that the clowns in Washington, DC, are qualified, either.  Most of those buffoons can't even DRIVE a car anymore.  I wouldn't trust a single one of them to put gasoline, oil, antifreeze, windshield washer fluid, and (especially) windshield wipers in or on a late-model car or truck.  Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi changing a tire.  Could any of 'em change a spark plug?  Even RECOGNIZE a spark plug?

And yet they can decide who should, or shouldn't, run the company!

Where are we going, people?  Will you please tell me what I'm missing here?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:57 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Holy Ozone, Batman! It appears that the ozone hole isn`t all our faults after all!

Climate Research News has an interesting piece on the correlation between cosmic rays and ozone depletion. As everyone may remember, the old 1970`s environmental scare was ozone depletion, and the infamous ``hole`` over Antarctica. At the time this was blamed on manmade chlorofluorocarbons (CFS`s) which were then used in hairspray cans and other aerosol sprays, and so their use was banned worldwide.

Well, it appears that, yet again, the human factor was overemphasized:

This from Physical Review Letters:

Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion

_{Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 118501 (2009)}

_{Q.-B. Lu
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
Received 7 August 2008; published 19 March 2009}

_{This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980-2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019-2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.}

End abstract.

Be sure to read the comments section; Dr. Biggs, CRS host, expands on this theme with quotes from Nature and CCNET articles.

It seems we aren`t as mighty as we thought!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:59 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Jack Kemp (not the politician)

Kyle Smith, in a NY Post article called "What's wrong with wanting more? Nothing." speaks for me in a wording I can feel but did not articulate. If you go to an Ivy League college, you "don't have" greed. If you're Joe the Plumber, you have a vulgar lust for filthy lucre.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/whats_wrong_with_wanting_more__nothing_161764.htm

The literal and figurative "money quotes:"

Greed, meaning an unseemly or immoral desire for more, does not exist because there is nothing wrong with want. No one except Scrooge McDuck wants money for its own sake. We want it for what it'll buy.

Consider how silly it is to apply the concept of greed to the things money gets. If I want fresh fruits and vegetables instead of Spaghetti-Os, am I guilty of nutritional greed? If I want first-class instead of steerage, am I guilty of leg-room greed? If I want to drive my kid around in a Range Rover/Escalade/M1 Abrams Tank instead of a tiny, tinny death trap am I guilty of safety greed? Wanting things to be better is human. Is it immoral to be human?

SECTION OMITTED

"Greed" is an imaginary concept promoted by two low-paid groups of people (politicians and journalists) who are convinced, against all evidence to the contrary, that they are smarter than the rich, whom they seek to discredit and surpass in status. They confuse "greed" with selfishness.

"Greed" has nothing to do with being selfish, with serving me ahead of you, because wealth is not like a single pizza from which I "greedily" grab six pieces so there's nothing left for you.

My wealth doesn't cost you, because there's no limit to wealth. I can have more, you can have more. Even if next year I eat 90 percent of the world's pizzas, you can still have more than you did this year if enough additional pizzas are being made.

"For the better part of three decades," the administration wrote in its economics manifesto, "a disproportionate share of the nation's wealth has been accumulated by the very wealthy." Obama has never run so much as a hot-dog stand, and in this statement, it shows. No businessman would say his wealth was "accumulated," as if he happened to be standing there when it fell into his pockets. The pizza guy doesn't "accumulate" pizzas; he creates them. The act is as moral for the billionth pizza he sells as it is for the first.

President Obama continues to use the crash to try to inject his idea of morality where it doesn't belong. On March 18 he denounced an "outrageous culture" of "excess greed." He seeks political profit from one of humanity's base instincts, a trait that is shameful, destructive and poisonous: Not greed but jealousy.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:47 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Roger Pielke Sr. links to a paper by Craig Loehle published in Energy and Environment.

The abstract reads:

_{``Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R**2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 10**22 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.``}

So, the oceans are showing cooling!

Dr. Pielke himself argues for caution in his 2008 Physics Today paper because he thinks there are too many uncertainties to conclusively state there is cooling. Still, both papers make a powerful argument for a failure of AGW theory because all models demand ocean warming-something clearly not happening.

Just one more nail in the Anthropogenic Global Warming coffin.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:22 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Could have been written yesterday:

Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun."  The Roman empire was declining in the days of Saul of Tarshish as the American Republic is declining today -- and for the very same reasons: Permissiveness in society, immorality, the Welfare State, endless wars, confiscatory taxation, the brutal destruction of the middle-class, cynical disregard of the established human virtues and principles and ethics, the pursuit of materialistic wealth, the abandonment of religion, venal politicians who cater to the masses for votes, inflation, deterioration of the monetary system, bribes, criminality, riots, incendiarisms, street demonstrations, the release of criminals on the public in order to create chaos and terror, leading to a dictatorship "in the name of emergency," the loss of masculine sturdiness and the feminization of the people, scandals in public office, plundering of the treasury, debt, the attitude that "anything goes," the toleration of injustice and exploitation, bureaucracies and bureaucrats issuing evil "regulations" almost every week, the centralization of government, the public contempt for good and honorable men, and, above all, the philosophy that "God is dead," and that man is supreme.

-- Taylor Caldwell, "Great Lion of God," 1970

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Kemp (not the politician)

First they came for the fetuses...
 
Miguel Guanipa has a great article today in American Thinker ("Spare Parts") about a British doctor who wants to use aborted fetuses for medical experimentation. It also has a reference to Dr. Jack Kevorkian advocacy of using body parts from freshly executed prison inmates. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/spare_parts.html
 
I posted a comment that expands an aspect or two of what he wrote, tying it together with some opinions/emotions expressed by two leading figures in the Obama administration.
 
Here is the comment:
 
A great article with profound insights into the amoral and immoral, Mr. Guanipa.
 
One wonders if Dr. Kevorkian (or Dr. Gardner copying his suggestion from America) would apply the same involuntary use of dead prison inmates' body parts if the specific prisoners were Muslims and rioting or worse would be a reaction to such a policy.
 
In July 2008, I wrote an article at American Thinker about a speech given by  Nancy Pelosi in NY.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/nancy_pelosi_outplatitudes_oba.html

In that article, Ms. Pelosi's view of science's omniscient power was stated as:
 
_{"Ms. Pelosi stated her belief in alternative programs, something that was not advocated in the original HillaryCare program, by stating "Think diet, not diabetes" and another slogan of "science, science, science." '}
END OF QUOTE
 
Speaker Pelosi repeated the term "science, science, science" with great emphasis, as if it were a mantra or religous slogan and not merely a political one. It was a statement of her faith. And it is not much of a stretch to believe that Ms. Pelosi's mantra implied that merely invoking the name of "science" meant there was a magic cure in place today. This might lead to lessening of concern for treating (or budgeting for) already born citizens with diabetes in the Brave New World of the Obama Healthcare Plan. After all, President Obama is already laughing at people in the Special Olympics on national television - and thus giving license for others to do the same. 
 
Ms. Pelosi's dismissal of the diabetics current problems as curable by better nutrition (it may be in some cases, but not anywhere near a 100 percent rate) is entirely consistant with the gross disregard human life endorsed by Dr. Gardner. One could easily imagine "Dr. Pelosi" writing into law a Health Plan that would give diabetics a shopping list to take to the nearest Whole Foods store, such as the ones in trendy Marin County, in lieu of medical treatment because "science, science, science" has already "cured" diabetes with nutrition.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

My brother Brian forwards this report from Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation on policy recommendations of the Russian and Eurasian Policy Project to help guide the Obama Administration in future dealings with the Bear. Readers of this website will recognize many of the themes that I, your humble host of the Birdblog, have been harping on for some time now.

Essentially, this report calls for providing an alternative to Russian oil and gas, guaranteeing the border integrity of the former Soviet Republics, deploying missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, applying economic pressure on Russia for stirring the Mideast pot, and trying to engage the Russians where and when we can, etc. These are all themes I have written about over the last year, all codified into one nice bundle.

Russia cannot be ignored; this is the largest nation on Earth in area, and possesses the best, most deadly nuclear arsenal as well as one of the most productive energy resources on Earth. Russia is naturally xenophobic and paranoid, and the Russian leadership dreams of the glory of the Tsars, or at least the Old Soviets. The challenges in the Middle East and elsewhere cannot be solved without taking Russia into account; the Russians have been thwarting our policies for decades, and it isn`t going to change unless we make it change. The nuclear clock is ticking-in Iran, in Syria, in North Korea, in Pakistan. Russia has a new nuclear arsenal almost as large as our old decrepit stockpile, and those weapons aren`t pointed at the Congo. We have to foster change, or we may face disaster on a scale never imagined.

We have ignored Russia for too long.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

My brother Brian forwarded this Newsmax article</link> about Newt Gingrich making the switch from Baptist to Catholic. The question is, what does this mean?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

Jack Kemp (not the politician) sends this our way:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGQ1MzM0N2IyZDc3YjBmMzIxNTM5Mzg3NjYwYTE5ODY=
 
March 26, 2009 4:00 AM

Don’t Know Nothing
A frontal attack on the Catholic Church aims at religious liberty in general.

By Father Thomas Berg & Michael Augros

‘Catholics and Catholicism are at the receiving end of a great deal of startling vituperation in contemporary America, although generally those responsible never think of themselves as bigots.`

With these words, the historian Philip Jenkins opened his 2003 study entitled The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. Mr. Jenkins might well consider it time to produce an updated edition. In it, he might ponder whether the recent renewal of anti-Catholic politicking is only an opening salvo in an unprecedented campaign to curb religious liberties in the United States. In which case, all of us - not just Catholics - stand to lose big.

Consider.

On the national level, the Obama administration has not dallied in launching an assault on the pro-life convictions of millions of Americans. President Obama’s 60-day spree of Culture of Death accomplishments, as the Bioethics Defense Fund puts it, has been truly breathtaking. Nor has he shied away from what Catholic institutions must perceive as a direct assault on their exercise of religious freedom: the threat to rescind the ``conscience clause`` regulations instituted last December by the Department of Health and Human Services, which protect a health-care professional’s right to abstain from participation in what he or she would deem to be morally objectionable medical practices.

But beyond this animosity toward religious freedom on the federal level, a renewed barrage of jaw-dropping anti-Catholic mischief has been at work around the country.

In the spring of 2007, the Connecticut General Assembly passed a law forcing all hospitals to administer emergency contraception (``Plan B``) as part of their rape protocols. No exception was made for Catholic hospitals, whose standing protocols required the administration of an ovulation test (in addition to a pregnancy test) prior to making the oral contraceptive available. Rather than respecting legitimate differences of prudential judgment over whether both tests were necessary, the Connecticut legislature settled the matter with a law that forbids health-care professionals from using the results of an ovulation test in treating a rape victim.

In California, the Catholic Church is the target of venomous scorn for publicly supporting Proposition 8 (the measure that supports a traditional definition of marriage, as between a man and a woman), which was passed by California voters last November. In a recent instance, a Catholic church in San Francisco was vandalized with swastika symbols next to the names of the pope and the San Francisco archbishop.

In New York State, a proposed new law would lift the statute of limitations in cases of sexual abuse, allowing individuals to sue institutions for abuses alleged to have taken place decades ago. But there’s a catch: only if the alleged abuse occurred in a private institution. For abuse in government-run institutions, such as public schools, the current law gives victims only 90 days to file their claim (or, if the victim was a minor, 90 days after reaching the age of 18), and the proposed law would not change that. Never mind that accusations of sexual misconduct against New York City public-school employees are at an all-time high: 595 allegations were made last year alone, of which 105 have been substantiated, as reported by the New York Post. (It appears the New York Times did not deem that news ``fit to print.``)

Even more over-the-top was the anti-Catholic bigotry on display in Hartford (again) three weeks ago in the form of proposed legislation that would remove control of church assets from bishops and pastors in the state of Connecticut.

On March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly, co-chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill (SB 1098) that would force a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of Catholic parishes. Titled ``An Act Modifying Corporate Laws Relating to Certain Religious Corporations,`` the bill sought nothing less than to restructure the Catholic Church in Connecticut. According to the proposed legislation, each parish would be run by a lay board elected by the members of the parish, with the pastor and the bishop effectively excluded.

Read the rest of the article here[/link">http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGQ1MzM0N2IyZDc3YjBmMzIxNTM5Mzg3NjYwYTE5ODY=]here[/link].
 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 726 words, total size 5 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Obama's Americorps (translation: Hitler Youth Updated) seems to be supported by the loons in Congress, who don't seem to even understand the implications.  Here's a conservative paper in San Francisco (yes, such a thing does exist) sounding the alarm:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Expanded-Americorps-has-stench-of-authoritarianism-41869152.html

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

When running for President, Barack Obama promised to ``go through the Federal budget, line by line`` to find wasteful spending he could cut. It seems that George Bush and the Republicans had been spending too much money, and Our Guy wanted to do better. Unfortunately, his idea of doing better was to increase defecit spending by 3 Trillion dollars-that`s 3,000,000,000,000 of those little green slips of paper that will be worth exactly what little white slips of paper are worth at present once time comes to pay for all that doh! (apologies to Homer Simpson, who doubtlessly would be more frugal), er, dough. (The New Messiah may not be able to multiply loaves, but he sure can multiply the dough.) Yet the One has cut spending, oh lordie yes, since he isn`t going to spend a plugged nickel on the military, unilaterally ending the War on Terror (I thought unilateral action was bad?) by simply ordering it renamed Our Global Contingency Operation and Quilt Social. (Gee, why didn`t anybody think of that before?) 

So, did Barry Barry quite Contrary actually mean what he said when he promised spending cuts? Was it just that the domestic crisis overwhelmed his plans?

Please give me a moment; I have injured myself by falling off my chair.

Here is a piece from LifeNews that should answer that question:

_{``Obama Administration Announces $50 Million for Pro-Forced
Abortion UNFPA}

_{Washington, DC -- The check may have already been in the mail,
but the Obama administration announced Tuesday that it is sending
$50 million to the UNFPA. That's the UN population agency that
has been criticized for promoting abortion and working closely
with Chinese population control officials.}

_{In China, the enforcement of the coercive one-child rule has
resulted in forced abortions, involuntary sterilizations and
other human rights abuses.}

_{Research from the United States and British governments, along
with the group Population Research International, has shown UNFPA
officials working side-by-side their Chinese colleagues and going
as far as sharing the same offices.}

_{But that hasn't stopped the Obama administration from sending the
$50 million Congress authorized to the UNFPA.``}

Full story: http://www.LifeNews.com/int1138.html

So, the man who never met a baby he didn`t want to abort is now going to spend American money to fund forced abortions in China. I thought that he was going to go through the budget ``line by line`` to cut spending!  What interest does America have in aborting Chinese babies?

At the very least, Barry should prefer sending Jesse Jackson over to China; his method may remove a couple of things, but doesn`t kill any babies. (Perhaps his ambition to remove the then-candidate Obama`s danglies was hyperbole?)

It is one thing to argue the ``right to choose`` and it is another to fund forced abortions. This illustrates the total, complete hypocrisy of Mr. Obama, in that he has always claimed that his support for ``abortion rights`` was predicated on freedom, yet now he supports simple mass murder. I have said it before and I`ll say it again; Mr. O is-at least on practical terms-the moral equivalent of Jeffrey Dahmer. He is, in fact, worse because he isn`t satisfied with killing the few people he can kidnapped but rather prefers to slaughter on an international scale. The argument that it is for the good of the pregnant women has just gone out the window with this moral outrage. The man may be well spoken and mild mannered, but he is still a butcher. His belief in the absolute right of humanity to take life is unprecedented in America history.

Yet he seeks to end the War on Terror, which also takes lives albeit the lives of murdering terrorists in an effort to prevent the deaths of innocents. I suppose Barry prefers taking innocent life rather than guilty.  He is supposed to PROTECT the innocent, being the chief law enforcement officer and Commander-in-Chief of the military, yet he is more comfortable killing the unborn and protecting those who kill our people.

And he is forcing you, the American Taxpayer, to pay for his love affair with death. 

Let me see now, how many of God`s Commandments have been broken with this little program? Man`s judgement has been placed over God`s, so the First for sure. Honor thy Father and Mother is in jeapordy, too. Thou Shalt not Kill, surely. Thou Shalt not Steal, too, is gone because this money is being stolen from the American taxpayers. Thou shalt no bear false witness? Clearly this is breaking a promise. It could also be said to break the ``thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife or household`` in that controlling reproduction could be viewed as a covetous act. So, at least 6 of the Ten Commandments have been violated here. It also violates a whole host of Old Testament laws such as not passing your children through the fires of Moloch.

But President Max Headroom Obama, he of the teleprompter and little else, is busy in the ``work of remaking America`` in his own empty image. That image enthrones Man at the Godhead, granting humanity the absolute power over life and death, and by all that is holy Obama will make America pay for this vision. That vision is the triumph of materialism, the dethronement of God Almighty in favor of Man Alpuny. There is no god but Man and Obama is his prophet!

False gods generally demand blood sacrifices; the deified Man is no exception-and Barack Obama is happy to give them to him. 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 922 words, total size 6 kb.

Dana Mathewson

The Obama administration is not scrapping the Armed Pilots program -- quite the opposite.  It is preparing to expand it.

Whew!  http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/24/gun-program-for-pilots-set-for-expansion-officials/

Problem is, the way things are going in the White House, you never know these days!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Kemp (not the politician)

Gee, you think he would have been fired - or even remarked - if a Muslim woman employee wore a head covering? But a swanky New York hotel manager cursed out an employee ashes on his forehead. The manager has been fired. Maybe he thought he was at an ACORN meeting or something.
 
Jack

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/03/25/2009-03-25_new_york_palace_hotel_boss_niklaus_leuen.html

New York Palace Hotel boss Niklaus Leuenberger gets the door after Ash Wednesday slur
BY Kerry Burke AND Oren Yaniv
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Wednesday, March 25th 2009, 2:20 AM

The manager of one of the city's most luxurious hotels was given the boot after ordering a Catholic employee to clean up his forehead on Ash Wednesday.
"Wipe that f-----g s--t off your face," managing director Niklaus Leuenberger told a bell captain at the New York Palace Hotel on Feb. 25, sources said.

The unholy ultimatum ended up costing Leuenberger his job at the Palace, a swanky 55-story tower on Madison Ave. across the street from St. Patrick's Cathedral.

"As of Monday, March 23, Leuenberger is no longer employed by the New York Palace," hotel spokeswoman Teresa Delaney told the Daily News Tuesday.

The incident was deemed so severe, Christopher Cowdray, head of the London-based Dorchester Collection, which owns the Palace, flew here to hand Leuenberger the pink slip.

"We take the well-being of our employees extremely seriously and that is why our CEO, Mr. Cowdray, went to New York in person to deal with this matter," the company said.

The object of the manager's insult, bell captain Mike Murray, said the cross of dark ashes was liberally applied to his forehead at his Long Island church.

"My priest did a real number on me," he said with a chuckle.

Catholics receive the ashes as a reminder of their own mortality on Ash Wednesday, which marks the beginning of Lent, a 40-day period of penance that ends on Easter.

"The [general manager] wanted it off, and he knows he was wrong," added the observant Irish Catholic employee. "I've never been approached on a religious issue [before]."

The 893-room five-star hotel, where a posh suite with city views fetches well over $1,000 a night, combines Renaissance-style architecture with modern design and amenities.

The hotel leases its land from the Catholic Church.

It was the place where Leona Helmsley earned the title "Queen of Mean" in the 1980s when the hotel was called the Helmsley Palace.

Leuenberger was tapped as director in May 2007 after many years at the Peninsula Hotel.

When his appointment was announced, he was touted as "a 35-year veteran of the luxury hospitality industry" who was inducted into the "Hotelier's Hall of Achievement" by Leaders Magazine in 2005.

Reached at his Warren, N.J., home, Leuenberger declined to comment, saying, "I don't know what it's about."

Murray said he does not plan to sue.

"I've been working here for 25 years and I wouldn't want to endanger that," he said.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 4 kb.

Dana Mathewson

There is a campaign underway to bankrupt Sarah Palin and her family, by vicious, frivilous lawsuits which have not a bit of merit.  This is the way liberals fight -- and we had better not forget it!  Even if you don't agree with somebody's politics, there is, or should be, a limit to what you'll do.

If there are any Democrats out there with ANY sense of honor, they would speak up against this.

Jack Kemp (not the politician) forwards this from National Review Online about the matter:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDFlYWQ4MDQzODFkNTA4NDI5MzUzOTQ3ZjRmNDg1ZjE=

Lefty Foes Attempt to Bankrupt Palin Family

Since Alaska governor Sarah Palin was named John McCain's running mate, her foes and various Alaskan liberals have begun a new exercise, attempting to bankrupt the Palin family through legal fees, by filing endless ethics complaints against her.

In her term, ten ethics complaints and 150 FOIA requests have been filed. (One of the complaints, about improperly firing her state public-safety commissioner, predates her national prominence.)

While holding elected officials accountable is laudable, most of the matters are beyond trivial. One of the complaints against her was for talking to reporters about the presidential campaign while she was in the governor's office. Another objected to her office press secretary offering a statement to clarify a statement put out by her political action committee. The latest complaint is that Palin wore snow-machine gear advertising her husband Todd's sponsor, Arctic Cat Inc, while "in her official duties as governor" when she served as the "official starter" of the race.

Palin owes $500,000 in legal fees, almost four times her annual salary. She says she may be forced to create a legal defense fund.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

Jack Kemp (not the politician)

 
I think the Obama administration is right in criticizing and ordering a return of bonus money from unprofitable businesses, so I would ask the Obama administration to do the following.
 
In 2007, the St. Louis Cardinals had a record of 78-84. The players of every losing team and/or money losing team should have to give back their bonuses.
 
Every Hollywood movie that flops, such as a George Clooney movie that bashes the Iraq War, should require its actors to give back bonus pay (anything over $250,000 - Obama's magic number) to the taxpayers.
 
The famous original Batman movie of 1989, according to Hollywood accountants, lost money. That despite the widespread knowledge that it was a blockbuster that sold a huge amount of tickets and VHS tapes. Billy Crystal, hosting the Academy Awards later on, joked about the movie "losing money." That means that every actor and executive involved with the movie "Batman" should give back any bonus money they made - and also salaries over $250,000. I'm sure the Democratic Party's donations division would "agree" - once they got off the floor from fainting and having a panic attack.
 
The New York Times is losing money. It shares were at $24 two years ago and are now at $4.57. Pinch Sulzberger should be forced to give back his bonuses.
 
Say, this is getting better than I thought. Only one problem. None of the liberal constituencies mentioned above will be required to give back their bonus money, mainly because a lot of it has been spent on the Obama campaign and other Democratic Party donations.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:07 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

7lb Dave forwards this piece from the Politico:

Obama seeks filter-free news
Jonathan Martin Jonathan Martin Tue Mar 24, 4:24 am ET 

At a time when his Washington honeymoon is turning into a hazing, President Barack Obama and his team are launched on a strategy to sail above the traditional White House press corps by reaching out to liberal commentators, local reporters and ethnic media.
The highest-profile moments in the new approach have been well-noted, such as the president giving an interview to progressive radio host Ed Schultz and Obama calling on a reporter from the liberal-leaning Huffington Post at his first news conference.

But those moves are only part of a much larger strategy aimed at communicating directly with audiences the White House believes are more sympathetic to the president’s agenda - and one in which much of the work is being done by Obama’s top advisers.
On the day Obama released his ambitious spending plan, the administration put White House budget director Peter Orszag on a conference call with liberal-leaning writers. Senior administration aides have followed up by promoting the budget to local radio talk shows during morning drive time.

Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden’s economic adviser and a favorite of the labor-liberal wing of the Democratic Party, also held a conference call with friendly reporters.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has done conference calls with black and Hispanic media outlets.

Obama himself plans to meet soon with liberal bloggers, according to an administration official. With little fanfare, he’s already sat for interviews with Black Enterprise magazine, Telemundo and Los Angeles-based Hispanic radio host Eddie ``Piolin`` Sotelo.
In many ways, Obama’s effort is simply the latest expression of a familiar phenomenon. It is the perennial hope of presidents - especially early in their administrations - that they can escape the filter of an often-skeptical Washington press corps and communicate directly with a target audience.

But Obama now has advantages not enjoyed by some of his predecessors, from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who were most scornful of the motives of Washington reporters.
Obama can exploit the fact that the traditional newspapers and networks are weakened by competition from cable and the Web, and by a faltering business model. What’s more, the proliferation of outlets has been embraced in recent years by a newly energized liberal base - eager to match the decades-old success of conservatives in building media channels to circumvent what they see as a biased or trivia-minded Washington press corps.

Obama has a special stake in encouraging this movement. The campaign that vaulted him to power began mostly outside his party’s Washington establishment and was based heavily on the strength of his personality and promises to change the capital’s culture.
At his first news conference, for instance, his aides seated Schultz in the front row and called on reporter Sam Stein from The Huffington Post.

Unlike some of his predecessors, however, Obama and his aides tend not to boast about their media strategy or publicly exalt in how they are confronting or marginalizing the traditional news media.
To the contrary, Obama has continued to engage aggressively with the establishment outlets. The New York Times recently had an interview, and CBS News’ ``60 Minutes`` has conducted two long interviews with Obama since Election Day.

These sessions reflect Obama’s belief, according to aides, that in a fragmented media universe, presidents must communicate nearly constantly across an array of platforms, both traditional and new.
``You’ve got lots of people that aren’t cable junkies or news junkies,`` White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, explaining the thinking behind the tailored media strategy. ``This gives us the opportunity to reach a little bit different of a segment.``
Another top aide used a sports analogy for the comprehensive strategy: ``Flood the zone.``

Other presidents have been more defiant toward the Washington media. Nixon went to war with the establishment press and dispatched Vice President Spiro Agnew to issue flamboyant denunciations of the ``nattering nabobs of negativism`` and to sneer at ``a small band of network commentators and self-appointed analysts`` who dared to interpret White House news.

Clinton, appearing before a Washington media banquet in the first months of his presidency in 1993, explained why he could ``stiff`` the White House press corps.

``Because Larry King liberated me by giving me to the American people directly,`` Clinton said in a lead-balloon moment that failed as humor, since it seemed obvious that he was not really joking.
Bush’s team did little to disguise its skepticism of the establishment media, which it regarded as hostile and out of touch. Aides set the White House TV sets to Fox News, dispatched Vice President Dick Cheney to do regular interviews with radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham and brought in niche outlets such as Runner’s World and Field & Stream for sit-downs with the president.
Obama has recognized that the potential of niche media goes far beyond political channels. Last week, he brought ESPN to the White House Map Room to show off an oversized bracket with the president’s picks for the NCAA basketball tournament.

Yet it’s the ideologically oriented outlets that offer some of the best opportunities for pinpoint rifle shots.
The Schultz program, heard on more than 100 stations, is a good example.

Gibbs would only say that Obama was doing shows like Schultz’s because he’s ``a good audience for us.``

But another source in the White House said that doing such a program allows the administration to stroke a friendly audience that doesn’t now hear from the president on a regular basis.
Further, in a sign of how much a White House can now target its message, it’s also not lost on Obama officials that the prairie populist Schultz has a major following in North Dakota - home state of Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a Democrat who may need a push to get behind the president’s budget.
Dan Bartlett, Bush’s White House communications director, said that he and his counterparts in the Obama administration were simply following the path of their audience.

``The lagging role of the mainstream media has prompted people to seek information from a wide variety of outlets that are often now aligned with their personal interests,`` he said.
That can mean hoops fanatics or duck hunters, but it also often now means political partisans.

``The president has to be careful to tend to his base,`` said Dee Dee Myers, press secretary in Clinton’s first term. ``A lot of what he’s doing, like giving trillions to corporations, is not that popular on the left flank of the Democratic base. So going to places like Ed Schultz or engaging the Huffington Post or MoveOn is a way to say, ‘Look, we get it; we’re talking to a lot of the people who brung us.’`
Just as Obama acknowledged on Schultz’s show that people are ``rightly concerned`` with the amount of money being sent to Wall Street, Bush and his top advisers would often take their case to sympathetic outlets, including twice inviting conservative talk show hosts to broadcast from under tents on the White House lawn.

``If you’re trying to pass a piece of legislation like No Child Left Behind, you want conservatives to support it,`` said former Bush White House press secretary Dana Perino.
Going on opinion shows ``allows you to more discreetly mobilize people for certain causes,`` said Bartlett.

``It’s like mainlining into a vein - you’re getting the drugs where they need to go,`` he said.

Adds Perino: ``If they saw you on Rachel Maddow, maybe they’ll pick up the phone the next day and call their member of Congress and urge them to get behind health care, for example.``
 
The around-the-filter strategy began under Nixon, notes Martha Joynt Kumar, a Towson University political science professor and expert on presidential communications.

``Nixon created the Office of Communications, and they would send out copies of the president’s speeches directly to various groups,`` Kumar said, referring to what is now the media affairs office.

The idea then, as now, was to reach certain groups directly and without the interpretation of an at times cynical Washington press corps.
The difference is that 40 years after Nixon, there are far more avenues to avoid the capital’s often insular media.

But Kumar, who has been attending White House events since 1975 for her research, said presidents still can’t avoid the reporters who cover him day in and day out.

Clinton may have boasted at the start of his term about the irrelevance of the capital’s media, but he eventually found out the power they still enjoyed.

``It was the Washington press corps that nailed him on Lewinsky,`` noted Kumar.

End Article

A Note from Tim:

Here`s the problem the Democrats have in general; you can only fool people so long. Obama`s prime base of support IS the mainstream media, and he is in danger of alienating them.

Amazingly, Obama thinks he is being mistreated by the press! This guy wouldn`t have made it past Iowa had he been covered like everybody else.

In fact, Obama has benefitted from glowing press coverage, unlike any in history. The current ``filter`` he`s experiencing is the press trying to recoup a crumb of their discarded objectivity-and they are doing this as much to protect Obama in the long run as for themselves. If Obama truly gets his message out the American People will rise in rebellion-and the mainstream media (much like Mr. Martin himself) know that; the One desperately needs a filter lest he self-destruct. 

How long will they carry this guy`s water? He seems to make water on them on a regular basis.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1620 words, total size 10 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

I don`t know why we bother to have a President.

The President used to be the person who presided over the Executive Branch of government, and as such was important, but no more so than Congress or the Judiciary; he happened to be the guy who executed the laws Congress made.  We haven`t had that at least since Lincoln, and we no longer have the office being bigger than any one man.  The Presidency has become a position of celebrity, a seat of glory rather than an administrator.

Such is the cult of big government; the man is now more important than the office. The President has outgrown his natural boundaries.

That was on display last night with Barack ``Teleprompter`` Obama; the current occupant of the oval office laid an egg in front of millions of his Fellow Americans, a victim of his inability to do anything unscripted. Obama is not an actual President in that he spends all of his time portraying one on television rather than actually working at his job. The Presidency has become a starring role rather than a sober position in government, and Obama loves every minute of it!  And, like any good actor, he reads from a script-even if he has had to memorize it in advance; the questions from the reporters last night were carefully vetted and Obama called each reporter from a list so as not to fumble too badly without his beloved prompter.

The man may as well be in Hollywood.

I would like to make a couple of proposals. Back in the 1980`s there was a short-lived cable television series called the Max Talking-Headroom Show. Max Headroom was a computer-generated man who hosted a music show, and was quite the rage for his time (the technology to do that sort of thing had just come in).  Given that the President has become just one more celebrity anyway, I would suggest we scrap the physical Presidency altogether and replace it with a virtual one; the man who wishes to be King could simply generate an avatar (like those used in Second Life) and this ``nominee`` could then articulate the positions held by the physical president.

Think about it; Obama is little more than President Barack Headroom anyway, being unable to speak without massive amounts of preparation-why not take this burden off him by creating an image which can go on the publicity tour while the actual man (or rather men-and women) do some real work.  The Presidency has become little more a symbol, perhaps it is time to actually substitute a symbol.  The Presidential elections have become mere popularity contests, with the appearance of the candidates being more important than the substance, so why not give America what she craves; an electronic mirage that moves and speaks marvelous things, while actually saying little. This would free up those in power so they could do some real work.

The parties wouldn`t have to worry about gaffes or the great expense of moving their guy around; he wouldn`t eat, or sleep, or grow weary. He wouldn`t have pillow hair in the morning, or coffee breath, or earwax. He would be the perfect candidate everyday, in all ways!

Barack Obama is doing little more than that anyway; his staff is running the Presidency while he basks in the limelight.

If a computer generated President is going too far, perhaps we can use the Hitchhiker`s Guide to the Galaxy solution; actually use people who are already celebrities.  They couldn`t be any more empty-headed than the current crop of Democrats, and at least they would look good. We could replace Nancy Pelosi`s skull-like visage with, say, Katie Holmes, and America would be spared the horror of Grannie Nan. I doubt Kat would do a WORSE job than the San Francisco Bleat, after all. If we are going to have actors and models run our government, why not put the professionals in charge? Hollywood believes they should be running things anyway...

Oh, and one more thing; I never say this person or that person is MY President; he is the president, the guy elected to act as administrator, not king. He is my servant, a guy I hired to do a particular job for me, and I expect him to act accordingly. The President should not be our Leader, the Anointed One to whom we look for all guidance. There is an unfortunate tendency in America to look to the President to care for us; we should look instead to ourselves, and the President should be the guy hired by a self-sufficient people to run the daily affairs of government. We have turned a civilian President into a King and Lord. As a result, the President spends all his time play-acting. This needs to stop.

If we are going to have a cartoon character running our lives, at least we should have one who is more whimsicle. Since Fred Flintstone is a union man, and Scooby-Do has an has to be supervised by the ASPCA, we can at least settle for Max Headroom.

Barack Obama isn`t far removed.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 856 words, total size 5 kb.